Agenda packet — Santa Cruz City Council, April 19, 2022

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

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Special Meeting – April 19, 2022
3:30 p.m. GENERAL BUSINESS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS, 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, April 19th.
4/19/2022 3:30:00 PM City Council Special Meeting 2
PLEASE NOTE:
 Requests for extra speaking time must be made by 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, April 17th by emailing the Mayor and the City Clerk. Approval will be confirmed via email. [email protected] [email protected]
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 CalRelay 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
3:30 P.M.

Call to Order
Roll Call
General Business

1. 2022 Legislative Program Manual and Platform (CM)
Motion to approve the 2022 Legislative Program and Platform.

Public Hearings

2. Second Public Hearing to Receive Input from the Community Regarding the Selection of a Six-District Map and Election Sequence (CN) Motion to:
1) Receive a presentation from the City’s demographic consultant, National Demographics Corporation, regarding revised draft six-district maps and election sequencing; and
2) Conduct a public hearing to receive public input on the draft maps and election sequencing; and
3) Select a six-district map and determine election sequencing. 4/19/2022 3:30:00 PM City Council Special Meeting 3
Public Hearings (continued)

3. Second Public Hearing to Receive Input from the Community Regarding the Selection of a Seven-District Map and Election Sequence (CN) Motion to:
1) Receive a presentation from the City’s demographic consultant, National Demographics Corporation, regarding revised draft sevendistrict maps and election sequencing; and 2) Conduct a public hearing to receive public input on the draft maps and election sequencing; and
3) Select a seven-district map and determine election sequencing; and 4) Introduce for publication an ordinance adopting a final sevendistrict map and establishing a sequence of elections to establish district-based Council member elections commencing in November 2022.

Adjournment
City Council Special Meeting

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/07/2022
AGENDA OF: 04/19/2022
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: 2022 Legislative Program Manual and Platform (CM) RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the 2022 Legislative Program and Platform.

BACKGROUND: The Legislative Program (Program) establishes the principles that will guide the City’s policy and legislative advocacy efforts at the regional, state, and federal level. The program focuses on the key areas that will enable the City of Santa Cruz to deliver projects and programs that meet the needs of our community. Adopted annually, the City’s Legislative Platform serves as a reference to guide the development of positions on legislative proposals and provides guidance for the City Council and staff throughout the year.

Within the Program, the Legislative Platform (Platform) streamlines the position-taking process by providing staff and our contracted government relations representatives with clear direction to advocate on these matters. The Platform helps ensure the City's timely response to support, oppose, or take neutral positions on legislation that could impact the City's ability to operate effectively. The Platform also conveys to legislators, policymakers, and the public where the City stands on important policy issues and legislative discussions. Additionally, staff may recommend platform amendments during the year to add, remove or modify language if unanticipated legislative issues arise.

In 2021, the focus of the Legislative Program and the accompanying advocacy efforts of Councilmembers, staff, and our contracted lobbyists proved extremely effective for the City during the 2021 calendar year. This work brought more than $50 million to the City for the critical areas of pandemic relief, homelessness, affordable housing, and workforce development, among others.

Key successes include:
• Encouraging our congressional delegation to pursue pandemic relief funding to be delivered directly to local governments, which helped bring $14 million in flexible American Rescue Plan Act funds directly to the City, as well as an additional $1.4 million for homeless assistance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). • Securing $1 million U.S. Environmental Protection Agency earmark for the water meter replacement program which, in addition to funding the program, also created 11 jobs in the City. • Advocating with the California Department of Housing and Community Development to reconsider grant points given to the City regarding state infill infrastructure grant. An additional

1.1 review was allowed that resulting in changes to the points, and, ultimately, Santa Cruz was granted $20.9 million for the Pacific Station project.
• Working with State Senator John Laird and Assemblymember Mark Stone to secure $14 million for the City to improve and expand the city’s response to house and provide services to those experiencing homelessness.

DISCUSSION: Now more than ever, securing federal and state political, policy and financial support will be critical for our near- and long-term success. The City Council’s recent adoption of the first comprehensive Homelessness Response Action Plan and its declaration of a fiscal emergency are key factors driving this year’s legislative agenda. The 2022 Legislative Platform focuses on four core areas for advocacy: addressing homelessness, sustainability and resiliency, infrastructure, and economic vitality.

Through the Addressing Homelessness priority we will seek support to prevent housed Santa Cruzans from becoming homeless while addressing the individual needs of vulnerable individuals in our community. At the same time, we will seek solutions that mitigate impacts of encampments in the community and advocate for appropriate funding to address the reality of homelessness in the City. A primary strategy for achieving this objective will be leading the formation of a statewide coastal coalition. Through this work, we will join forces with large and small coastal communities to develop a shared advocacy strategy to secure new state and federal funding, new state funding formulas, and push for expanded investments at all levels of government in mental health and substance abuse service and programs that help people secure and successfully stay in permanent and supportive housing. The City will seek to take advantage of the unprecedented investment in housing and homelessness by Governor Newsom and through HUD’s HOME Investment Partnerships and Homelessness Assistance Grants programs.

The Sustainability and Resiliency advocacy goal will focus on supporting the City’s ability to rapidly enact climate solutions that support and enhance an equitable Santa Cruz community. We will work to ensure the effective performance of essential services, such as water and wastewater utilities, in the face of climate change effects that are already being experienced. And we will work to grow the local green economy through investments in workforce development.

The federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 gives a unique opportunity to maximize engage both state and federal partners in support of our local Infrastructure. We will work to secure funding to address the significant backlog of funded and unfunded Capital Investment Program (CIP) projects to build resiliency and restore the City’s aging public infrastructure, ensure the availability and affordability of essential community services, and maintain and enhance our community’s quality of life.

While much of the slowdown from the COVID-19 pandemic has subsided, the City and many local businesses are still in recovery mode. The Economic Vitality goal aims to diversify revenue generation through actively pursuing new and varied sources. We will also work to support local economic recovery and regeneration of tourism dollars by seeking supports for local businesses and workers.

The accompanying Legislative Program outlines in greater detail the advocacy strategies, legislative platform, and process by which the City will engage with the state and federal legislative sessions, including the roles of City staff, elected officials, and contracted lobbying firms. The Platform was developed through meetings with City staff, the Mayor and Vice Mayor,

1.2 our lobbyists, and benchmarking similar cities’ and the California League of Cities’ legislative platforms.

FISCAL IMPACT: None.

Prepared By:

Elizabeth Smith
Communications Manager
Submitted By:

Laura Schmidt
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. 2022 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM.PDF

1.3 1.4
2 Contents
Purpose 3
Guiding Principles 3
Engagement Strategies 4
Legislative Priorities 5
Legislative Action Program Manual 9
California State Legislative Timeline 2022 16
Purpose
The Legislative Program establishes the principles that will guide the City’s policy and legislative advocacy efforts at the regional, state, and federal level. The program focuses on the key areas that will enable the City of Santa Cruz to deliver projects and programs that meet the needs of our community. Adopted annually, the City’s Legislative Platform serves as a reference to guide the development of positions on legislative proposals and provides guidance for the City Council and staff throughout the year.

Guiding Principles
Maintain and Enhance Funding Opportunities
Support measures that allow the City to receive or compete for its fair share of regional, state and federal funding, including competitive grants and other funding programs.

Support initiatives that promote dedicated funding streams to cities with critical service needs, such as coastal cities and county seats, and that enable Santa Cruz to maintain equitable access to essential services for its residents and businesses.

Promote Economic Development
Support legislative efforts designed to provide local governments with the tools necessary to bolster economic development. Support legislation and regulatory streamlining initiatives to enhance the City’s ability to attract and retain businesses and encourage business expansion and job retention.

Promote Healthy, Equitable, and Sustainable Communities Support measures that advance community health and well-being, equity, and sustainability, including aging and youth services, affordable housing and homelessness prevention, urban parks and open space, environmental and climate protection, resource conservation, vibrant libraries, arts and culture.

1.5 3
Collaborate with Regional Partners
Support opportunities to work collaboratively with local and regional partners on areas of mutual interest. Maintain strong relationships with other municipalities, local transportation agencies, special districts, regional government agencies, local elected officials, school districts, community benefit organizations, philanthropic organizations and college boards.

Engagement Strategies
Staff and the City’s government relations consultants will employ a variety of public engagement strategies to support the 2022 Legislative Program, including:

Direct Engagement
Engage policymakers directly and sponsor legislation, submit correspondence and provide public testimony that communicates and advances the City’s legislative priorities and positions.

Building Coalitions
Engage local, regional, and statewide stakeholders to advocate on specific issues and participate in local, regional, statewide, and national coalitions organized to advance positions that are consistent with the 2022 Legislative Program. Lead a statewide coalition of coastal cities to advocate for policy and funding reform around the issue of homelessness.

Agency Connections
Foster and build state and federal agency relationships to advance state and federal funding competitiveness for the priorities identified in the 2022 Legislative program.

Legislative Priorities
Addressing Homelessness
Prevent housed Santa Cruzans from becoming homeless, address the individual needs of vulnerable individuals, mitigate impacts in the community, and advocate for appropriate funding to address the reality of homelessness in the City.

Homelessness
Advocate for, sponsor or support legislation that would:
 Provide homelessness prevention and services funding directly to cities that are proportionate to the rate of homelessness and the accompanying local impacts in that City.
 Increase local and state investment in direct homeless services, homelessness prevention, and rapid rehousing/supportive housing.
 Remove barriers to and expand the availability of mental health and substance use disorder treatment.
 Increase funding for transitional housing units and permanent supportive housing units to house homeless households.

1.6 4
 Expand and maintain support for basic food, hygiene, and safety needs, especially for highly vulnerable populations, including persons living with a mental health diagnosis, persons with a substance use disorder, veterans, older adults, and persons with disabilities.
 Take a balanced approach that addresses the need for services for people experiencing homelessness while upholding the health, safety, and welfare of all people in Santa Cruz.
 Provide funding for the legal removal and storage of homeless belongings and cleaning of areas used by the homeless.
 Advance regional initiatives involving county, state, and federal governments to reduce chronic homelessness.
 Facilitate the expedited linkage of homeless individuals to housing and supportive services.
 Establish workforce development programs aimed at individuals transitioning out of homelessness.
 Expand Street Outreach Teams in collaboration with law enforcement, first responders, and the County’s Health and Mental Health Departments for those affected by homelessness and mental health issues.

Affordable and Permanent Supportive Housing
Advocate for, sponsor or support legislation that would:
 Fund the creation and preservation of affordable and supportive housing in the City, emphasizing low- and very-low-income households and workforce housing.  Support the construction of affordable housing and permanent supportive housing programs.
 Exempt from CEQA the construction of emergency shelters, supportive housing, and affordable housing, including motel and hotel conversions to transitional or supportive housing.
 Increase Section 8 or other rental subsidies to accommodate areas with the highest market-rate rents or lowest ratio of incomes to housing costs in the state.  Amend both Federal and State Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Programs to support and deem competitive a mix of units in an affordable housing project.

Sustainability and Resiliency
Rapidly enact climate solutions that support and enhance an equitable community that is sustainable and resilient and that ensures effective performance of essential services, such as water and wastewater utilities, in the face of climate change effects that are already being experienced. Grow the green economy through workforce development.

Sustainability
Advocate for, sponsor or support state and federal legislation that would:
 Increase the adoption of electric vehicles and charging infrastructure.  Reduce emissions from transportation by increasing walking and biking and access to public transportation, including future rail transit.  Support telework policy and infrastructure.

1.7 5
 Eliminate natural gas use.
 Equitably electrify buildings and bolster building stock resiliency through energy efficiency, local solar installations, and microgrids.
 Provide stable and fair electricity rates, fees, and solar generation credit.  Increase the efficiency of water and wastewater transportation and treatment.  Reduce organic and inorganic from entering the landfill in the City through producer responsibility initiatives, recyclable pre-processed material incentives, and the reduction of single-use products.
 Advance local government’s ability to set local policies relating to environmental “sustainability,” including but not limited to building standards and land use planning.
 Encourage innovation in carbon sequestration and carbon capture technology.  Provide capacity and resources to scale up municipal efforts and regional coordination to rapidly draw down carbon.

Resiliency
Advocate for, sponsor or support state and federal legislation that would:
 Fund and implement projects and programs for upgrading existing water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities and services to ensure effective functioning in the face of changing climate conditions, including increasing incidents of extreme weather.
 Promote prevention and mitigation of wildfires by mandating responsible power management, funding fuel reduction activities and community engagement.  Fund coastal resilience and citywide climate adaptation studies, planning, monitoring and implementation.
 Promote training and development initiatives that support the collaboration between community partners and fund training and development for youth, veterans, and underemployed individuals in green jobs supporting the City’s sustainability and resiliency priorities.
 Fund capacity and resources for equitable engagement of frontline communities on resilience issues.

Infrastructure
Address the significant backlog of funded and unfunded Capital Investment Program (CIP) projects to build resiliency and restore the City’s aging public infrastructure. Ensure the availability and affordability of essential community services and maintain and enhance our community’s quality of life. Engage with both state and federal partners to maximize opportunities for the City through the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021.

Advocate for, sponsor or support state and federal legislation that would:
 Allocate funding for the upgrading, replacement, and construction of needed infrastructure at the local level.

1.8 6
 Create transportation policies that fund long-term maintenance and development of infrastructure projects.
 Fund cost-effective water ecosystem projects and ensure direct beneficiaries and cost causers fund their fair share of projects that provide long-term benefits to the state and its inhabitants.
 Fund projects and programs to increase water system resiliency to drought by supporting increased storage of available surface water through aquifer storage and recovery and further development of alternative supplies, such as advanced purified recycled water.
 Maintain and strengthen local control of water use and encourage water recycling and the many benefits of sustainability to Santa Cruz’s water supply.  Seek opportunities to bolster the effectiveness of the San Lorenzo Flood Control Project as changes in hydrology arise due to climate change.  Fund park development, infrastructure, and maintenance.

Economic Vitality
Diversify revenue generation through actively pursuing new and varied sources. Support local economic recovery and regeneration of tourism dollars by seeking supports for local businesses and workers.

Advocate for, sponsor or support state and federal legislation that would:
 Fund recovery specifically for cities and businesses in majority tourism-based economies, such as Santa Cruz.
 Preserve and enhance federal assistance to local governments and oppose federal preemption of local authority.
 Prevent the state from borrowing, raiding, or otherwise redirecting local government funds (e.g., local taxes, sales tax, property taxes, etc.).  Ensure increased flexibility for the use of municipally generated revenues, such as the Public Education and Government fee, Utility Users Tax, and Development Impact Fees.
 Retain and promote the success of local businesses.
 Replace redevelopment funding mechanisms within the City and state.  Preserve funding mechanisms to promote continued economic development, including initiatives to provide financing for infrastructure and affordable housing.
 Fund opportunities for small business assistance, loan programs for business improvements and tax credits for businesses.
 Provide tangible and productive tools and incentives to support job creation and retention.
 Creates a funding mechanism to accelerate innovation and entrepreneurship in the region.

1.9 7
 Fund programs and projects that maintain the affordability of essential services provided by the City’s water and wastewater systems and other critical infrastructure, which serve as the foundation for economic vitality.  Maintain cities’ abilities to require only commercial and industrial uses on potential development sites.

1.10 8
Legislative Action Manual
Internal Coordination of the Legislative Program 9
The Role of the City Council 10
The Role of the City Manager’s Office 10
The Role of the Departments 11
Guidelines for Evaluating Legislation 11
Legislative Advocacy 12
Guidelines for Letter Writing 14
Procedure for City Council Meetings with Other Elected Representatives 14 Internal Coordination of the Legislative Program

1. Track
Legislation is tracked by the City Manager’s Office or brought to the City’s attention by residents, agencies, departments, organizations, public servants, and others. In addition, departments are urged to take the initiative to identify legislation of importance to the City.

2. Review
The City Manager’s Office reviews the proposed legislation and, if warranted, requests assistance from one or more departments. The City Manager or the appropriate departments evaluate the bill for its impact on the City of Santa Cruz, recommend a position and potential action, and, as appropriate, draft a statement or letter for use by the City Manager’s Office.

3. Determine Course of Action
One of two actions can be taken:
a. If the City Council has adopted a policy directly relevant to the legislation of concern, the City Manager’s Office may proceed to prepare a letter for the Mayor’s signature;
b. If City Council policy does not exist, if the issue is politically controversial, or if there is significant local interest in the issue(s) posed by the legislation, the proposed legislation is referred to the City Council.

4. Referral to Council
The City Council will consider the information provided in a staff report, determine its position on the legislation and provide appropriate direction to staff.

5. Advocacy

1.11 9
The City Council, staff delegate or government relations consultant will connect with appropriate legislative bodies throughout the legislative year.

The Role of the City Council
The City Council has ultimate responsibility for determining the position the City will take on legislative issues. City Council positions applicable to legislation accumulate over the years and require periodic reevaluation to assure they are still relevant to the City’s needs and interests. The Council generally takes positions only on those issues that are of relevance to the City of Santa Cruz.

Some of the City Council’s responsibilities include:
 Conduct an annual review and update legislative priorities at both the State and Federal levels, taking the Council’s own strategic priorities into account.  Consider legislative issues brought to the Council’s attention by staff, residents, organizations and others and determine what, if any, position the City should take.  Determine Council positions on resolutions proposed for adoption by the League of California Cities and the National League of Cities.  Suggest areas for staff action concerning legislation.  Assume an active advocacy role with legislators on behalf of the City. This may include travel, which will be consistent with current City policies/procedures on travel.

The Role of the City Manager’s Office
The City Manager’s Office is the central coordinator of the City’s legislative program.

Some of the City Manger’s Office responsibilities include:
 Ensure the consistency of legislative policy throughout the City.  Serve as a clearinghouse and record keeper for all legislative activity occurring within the City.
 Coordinate contacts and communications with legislators and staff.  Coordinate the evaluation of proposed legislation that may affect the City.  Disseminate information on legislation of interest to departments and divisions within the City.
 Encourage suggestions from other departments concerning subjects for legislative action.
 Provide feedback to departments on the progress of legislation of interest.  Keep Council informed on the status of the City’s legislative program.  Recommend priorities for legislative action to ensure the effectiveness of the City’s lobbying activities.
 Plan, coordinate, and facilitate lobbying activities by Councilmembers and staff.  Maintain legislative files (bill texts, correspondence, records of lobbying activity, background information, Council policies).
 Serve as liaison to the League of California Cities, National League of Cities, and

1.12 10
other organizations and jurisdictions concerning legislative activities.  Coordinate the annual review of legislative positions and prepare the City’s legislative platform.

The Role of Departments
The participation of the City’s various departments is essential to the success of the Legislative Program. The program requires departments to take responsibility for identifying, evaluating and monitoring legislation related to their functional areas.  Inform the Manager’s Office of legislative issues of importance to the City.  Designate a key contact within the department or division who will be responsible for coordinating the evaluation of legislation and monitoring those legislative issues of direct significance to the department. Continue to monitor bills as they progress through the Legislature or Congress.
 Establish a system within the department for assuring that requests for legislation evaluation are addressed promptly.
 Draft letters and provide analysis of legislation as requested by City Manager’s Office.
 Maintain a legislative file with the department to ensure consistency of policy recommendations.
 Establish mechanisms within the department for accessing direct information on legislation.
 Network with other cities, agencies, professional organizations, etc., to gain background information and a broader perspective on legislative issues.  Suggest organizations, individuals, publications, and other legislators who may be allies in lobbying the City’s position on certain legislation.  Understand and adhere to the City’s Legislative Advocacy Policy. Consult the Manager’s Office if there are questions.
 Annually, provide to the City Manager’s Office the department’s recommendations for the ensuing year’s legislative platform including, a review of existing positions, statements of underlying policies and principles, and priorities related to specific legislative issues.

Guidelines for Evaluating Legislation
Bills are frequently amended during their introduction and approval processes. Due to this, analyses and letters expressing the City’s position should be based on the most upto-date version of the bill.

1.Citywide Perspective
a. Bills often impact multiple departments in different ways. Therefore, it is essential that these different impacts are taken into consideration to form a more fair citywide position. It is the responsibility of the City Manager’s office to work with departments to reconcile differences.

1.13 11

2.Stating the City’s Position
a. If the department recommendation is to support, oppose, or amend a bill, it is important to draft the body of a letter that the City Manager’s Office can use in writing to the legislators. The City Manager’s Office will put the letter in final form and send it to the appropriate committees, legislators, etc. A copy of the finalized letter will be routed to the evaluating department for its records.

Legislative Advocacy
The City Council holds the final authority for determining the position that will be taken by the City on legislation. The process outlined below would likely be followed only for key and controversial topics. In many instances, due to timing or the nature of the issue, the Mayor may sign a letter supporting or opposing legislation on behalf of the City. This position would need to be consistent with the City’s overall guiding legislative principles or the annually adopted priorities.

Process
Signatures
 Letters and other communications expressing the City’s position on legislation will customarily bear the signature of the Mayor, particularly when the legislation relates to areas of General Plan policies and programs, other Council adopted policies, issues of Council interest, and fiscal matters.  Letters and other communications expressing the City’s position on legislation not related to areas of General Plan policies and programs, other Council adopted policies, issues of Council interest, and fiscal matters require Council direction for the Mayor’s signature.
 If the legislation’s principal impact is on the City’s operating procedures, the City Manager may sign the communication.
 Copies of the letters will be distributed in the Council agenda packet to keep the Council and others informed of all City communications on legislation.

Independent Lobbying by City Personnel
City employees are not to lobby in the name of the City of Santa Cruz unless the department head has approved the activity and the City Manager has been informed in advance of the activity.

City Advisory Commissions and Committees
City employees who are staff or liaisons to Council-appointed advisory commissions and committees should encourage the bodies to aler the Council to legislation on which they recommend taking a position. Should legislative analysis and advocacy be a required

1.14 12
function of the advisory commission or committee, those bodies shall ensure that function is carried out according to its bylaws.

Lobbying Methods
Listed here are a number of ways to inform and persuade legislators and others of the City’s position on proposed legislation. Departmental participation in the planning and implementation of these activities is critical to the City’s success. Departments should let the City Manager’s Office know of its interest and suggestions for lobbying bills they have evaluated.

Letters to
 The authors of proposed legislation
 The City’s elected representatives in the State Legislature and Congress  The Chair and members of legislative committees
 The Governor or President
If the letter is being sent within three working days of the scheduled committee hearing of the floor vote, the letter will be e-mailed. All records of faxes, mail, and e-mail, will be maintained by the City Manager’s Office.

Telephone calls
 Phone calls are useful for discussing with legislative staff the content and implications of a bill and for suggesting amendments or language clarification. However, many committees’ rules prevent them from counting phone calls as a legitimate expression of a City’s position on a bill. Pro and con positions are recorded if they are received in writing.

Meeting with elected representatives either in the district or in Sacramento and Washington
 It is Council’s practice to invite legislators representing Santa Cruz to an annual meeting to discuss all issues of importance to the City during that legislative session.
 Councilmembers are encouraged to attend legislative days set by the National League of Cities or League of California Cities.

Resolutions
 The Council is sometimes asked to adopt a resolution expressing its position on a bill. Resolutions are frequently sought by organizations as an indication of widespread support for a position, but they are less effective than letters when communicating directly with a legislator.

Testimony
 Testifying in person at a legislative committee hearing provides an

1.15 13
opportunity to present the City’s position and respond to questions. The City Manager, the Mayor, a Councilmember, or the staff person with particular expertise in the subject assumes the responsibility.

Editorial support from newspapers serving the Santa Cruz community  Staff members must seek approval from the City Manager’s Office before submitting editorials in newspapers.

Press Conferences
 Press conferences are called by the Mayor and Councilmembers and are staged in a location relevant to the issues being lobbied. Any press conference should be coordinated with the City Manager’s Office.

Coalitions with other jurisdictions
 These alliances are not limited to governmental bodies, but extend to all segments of the broader community that can similarly be affected by the legislation, e.g. business, nonprofit organization, environmental group, etc.

Guidelines for Letter Writing
 Concentrate on the letter content, rather than format. The City Manager’s Office will produce the final letter, addressing it to the proper legislators or committees and securing the appropriate signature. At the very start of the letter, indicate the bill number or title that is the subject of the letter.  A short concise letter is generally more effective than a lengthy treatise.  Provide specific examples of the impact of the legislation on the City of Santa Cruz.  When it is appropriate, discuss the effects of the proposed legislation on the legislator’s constituents.

Procedure for City Council Meetings with Other Elected
Representatives
Typically, the City Council meets annually with its County, State and Federal representatives. These meetings are an important component of building legislative relationships and to share issues of importance to the City of Santa Cruz. These meetings should be scheduled at the appropriate times during the respective legislative calendars.
 At direction of City Council, the other Elected Representative, or the City Manager, staff will schedule a meeting with the representative.
 The City Manager will seek agenda items from the Mayor and Council.  Staff from the City Manager’s Office will obtain agenda items from Departments and staff in the representative’s office.

1.16 14
2022 California State Legislative Timeline
Jan. 1 Statutes take effect.

Jan. 3 Legislature reconvenes.

Jan. 10 Budget must be submitted by Governor.

Jan. 21 Last day to submit bill requests to the Office of Legislative Counsel.

Feb. 18 Last day for bills to be introduced.

April 7 Spring Recess begins upon adjournment.

April 18 Legislature reconvenes from Spring Recess.

April 29 Last day for policy committees to hear and report to fiscal committees fiscal bills introduced in their house.

May 6 Last day for policy committees to hear and report to the floor non-fiscal bills introduced in their house.

May 13 Last day for policy committees to meet prior to May 31.

May 20 Last day for fiscal committees to hear and report to the floor bills introduced in their house. Last day for fiscal committees to meet prior to June 7.

May 23-27 Floor session only. No committee may meet for any purpose.

May 27 Last bills to be passed out of the house of origin.

May 31 Committee meetings may resume.

June 15 Budget Bill must be passed by midnight.

July 1 Last day for policy committees to hear and report bills.

July 1 Summer Recess begins on adjournment, provided Budget Bill has been passed.

Aug. 12 Legislature reconvenes from Summer Recess.

Aug. 27 Last day for fiscal committees to meet and report bills to the Floor.

Aug. 15-31 Floor session only. No committee may meet for any purpose.

Aug. 25 Last day to amend on the Floor.

Aug. 31 Last day for each house to pass bills. Interim Study Recess begins upon adjournment.

Sept. 30 Last day for Governor to sign or veto bills passed by the Legislature on or before Sept. 1 and in the Governor’s possession after Sept. 1.

1.17 2022 Legislative
Program
City Council Presentation | April 19, 2022

1.18 Background

1.19 Why a Program & Platform?
• Establishes guiding principles for policy
and legislative advocacy efforts
• A guide to develop positions and
facilitate timely response
• Focuses on meeting the needs of our
community
• Conveys the City’s priorities

1.20 2021 Outcomes
Federal
• $14M in American Rescue Plan Act funds
• $1.4M for homeless assistance from HUD
• $1M EPA earmark for the water meter
replacement program, creating 11 jobs
State
• $20.9 million for the Pacific Station project
• $14 million for housing and services for the
City’s unhoused

1.21 2022 Platform &
Advocacy

1.22 Guiding Principles
• Maintain and Enhance Funding
Opportunities
• Promote Economic Development
• Promote Healthy, Equitable, and
Sustainable Communities
• Collaborate with Regional Partners

1.23 Legislative Priorities
• Addressing Homelessness
• Prevention
• Increase funding for services
• Mental health and substance abuse treatment
• Permanent supportive and affordable housing
• Sustainability & Resiliency
• Electrification
• Carbon and waste reduction
• Upgrade to mitigate impacts of climate change
• Green jobs

1.24 Legislative Priorities
• Infrastructure
• Funding for local projects
• Water system resiliency
• Parks development & infrastructure
• Economic Vitality
• Recovery of tourism-based economies
• Support local businesses
• Economic development funding
mechanisms

1.25 Engagement Strategies
• Direct Engagement with Lawmakers
• Letters from the Council
• Testimony
• Sponsor legislation
• Building Coalitions
• Local stakeholders
• Statewide
• State and Federal Agency Connections
• Relationship building
• Direct advocacy

1.26 Community Funding Requests
• 2022 Requests
• Pac Station North
• Library Mixed Use Project
• Regional Workforce Development
• Homelessness Response
• Wildfire Prevention
• Future availability for earmarks could
depend on Nov. 2022 elections

1.27 Coastal Communities Coalition
• Identify and convene a statewide coalition
on homelessness issues
• Increase federal and state recognition of
specific impacts on coastal cities
• Develop a shared advocacy platform
• Focus on systemic change
• Direct funding for cities
• New funding formulas
• State responsibilities
• Local response mechanisms 1.28
Key Legislation
Federal Infrastructure and Jobs Act of 2021
SB 886 CEQA exemption for universities
SB
1290
More local regulation for sidewalk vending
SB 989 Grant funding for resiliency and career
pathways
SB
1416/S
B 965
Expands definitions/actions for “gravely
disabled”

1.29 Key Legislation - Homelessness
ACA 14 5% of general fund to homelessness
and housing
AB 2211/AB
2630/AB 2755
Mandated shelter crisis threshold,
more reporting requirements
AB 2633 Protection of parklands: removal of
illegal campers/campsites
AB 1685 Parking fine forgiveness
AB 2485 CEQA exemption for shelters
SB 1006 Grant program for homeless outreach
teams in PD
AB 2631 Liability to another agency for policies

1.30 Key Legislation - Housing
SB 1466 Funds for state-approved affordable housing
projects
SB 897 ADU objective standards, 25 ft. height
SB 1369 Adaptive reuse by right
AB 500 Streamlined permitting in the Coastal Zone–
ADUs, affordable housing, shelters
AB 2063 Prohibits affordable housing impact fees
AB 2186 Grant program for waived/deferred affordable
housing impact fees

1.31 Key California Deadlines
• May 6: Policy committees
• May 20: Fiscal committees
• May 27: Bills out of house of origin
• June 15: Budget bill by midnight
• Aug. 31: Houses to pass bills
• Sept. 30: Governor to sign or veto

1.32 Recommended Action

1.33 Recommended Action
Motion to approve the
2022 Legislative
Program and Platform.

1.34 City Council Special Meeting

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/12/2022
AGENDA OF: 04/19/2022
DEPARTMENT: City Council
SUBJECT: Second Public Hearing to Receive Input from the Community Regarding the Selection of a Six-District Map and Election Sequence (CN) RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Receive a presentation from the City’s demographic consultant, National Demographics Corporation, regarding revised draft six-district maps and election sequencing; and 2) Conduct a public hearing to receive public input on the draft maps and election sequencing; and
3) Select a six-district map and determine 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.

DISCUSSION: The City Council held the first of two required public hearings to receive public input on draft six-district maps on March 29. Following a presentation by the City’s demographer, National Demographic Corporation (NDC) and Council discussion and public input, the Council provided guidance to NDC on potential map revisions.

NDC has revised the proposed draft maps in accordance with City Council direction and submitted two draft maps for Council consideration and public input. The maps have been published for at least seven days prior to Council consideration.

2.1 Requirements for Districts
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.”
Recommendation
NDC has revised the initial draft maps in response to feedback received at the public hearing on March 29. Staff recommends that the Council select Map 604b, as it most effectively incorporate the majority of the feedback received.

Next Steps
If the City Council seeks further revisions of the draft map proposals, the City must publish the draft maps at least seven days before City Council consideration.

Once the City Council finalizes its selection of a district map and election sequencing, the Council must pass an ordinance adopting the district maps and election sequencing. A proposed draft ordinance is attached for City Council consideration and adoption.

Voters will determine on the June 7 ballot whether the transition to district elections in November will be to six districts and an at-large, directly elected Mayor or seven districts. Initial districts will hold their first by-district elections in November 2022, and the remaining districts will hold their first elections in November of 2024.

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. Once the City Council adopts an ordinance to transition to a district-based electoral system, the plaintiff may seek reimbursement for its attorney’s fees and costs up to $30,000; the City, however, will not be exposed to the potential much higher legal fees involved in defense of a lawsuit brought under the California Voting Rights Act.

2.2 Prepared By:

Casey Hemard
Principal Management
Analyst
Submitted By:

Laura Schmidt
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. DRAFT MAP 601 (ORIGINAL PROPOSAL).PDF

2. DRAFT MAP 602 (ORIGINAL PROPOSAL).PDF

3. DRAFT MAP 603 (ORIGINAL PROPOSAL).PDF

4. DRAFT MAP 604 (NEW PROPOSAL).PDF

5. DRAFT MAP 604B (NEW PROPOSAL).PDF
The above attachments can be viewed online at www.cityofsantacruz.com/districtelections

2.3 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 (Cummings), 5 (vacant) + Mayor2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (Brown) and6 (Kalantari-Johnson, Golder & Meyers)Alternate Election Sequence:2022: 4 (Cummings), 6 (Kalantari-Johnson,Golder & Meyers) + Mayor2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (Brown) and 5 (vacant) �2021 CALIPER

2.4 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

2.5 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 (Cummings), 6 (Golder )+ Mayor2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (Kalantari-Johnson& Meyers) and 5 (Brown) �2021 CALIPER

2.6 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

2.7 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 (Cummings), 3 (vacant) + Mayor2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 5 (Brown) and6 (Kalantari-Johnson, Golder & Meyers)Alternate Election Sequence:2022: 4 (Cummings), 6 (Kalantari-Johnson,Golder & Meyers) + Mayor2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (vacant) and5 (Brown) �2021 CALIPER

2.8 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

2.9 4
2 5
6 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
Broadway
Highland Ave
Coral St Meadow Rd
Western 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
Windham St
Soquel Ave
Proposed Election Sequence:2022: 4 (Cummings) and 6 (Golder,Kalantari-Johnson & Meyers) + Mayor2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (Brown) and 5 (vacant)Alternate Election Sequence (other combinations are possible):2022: 4 (Cummings) and 5 (vacant) + Mayor2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (Brown) and 5 (Golder,Kalantari-Johnson & Meyers) �2021 CALIPER

2.10 Map 604
District 1
Total Pop 10,632
Deviation from ideal 116
% Deviation 1.10%
% Hisp 22.0%
% NH White 64%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian-American 7%
Total 7,998
% Hisp 12%
% NH White 76%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 8%
Total 7,766
% Latino est. 13%
% Spanish-Surnamed 12%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 82%
% NH Black 1%
Total 6,813
% Latino est. 12%
% Spanish-Surnamed 11%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 83%
% NH Black 1%
Total 5,577
% Latino est. 9%
% Spanish-Surnamed 9%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 86%
% NH Black est. 1%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 10,776
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.

3.69%
15%
67%
3%
11%
9,305
14%
75%
1%
8%
8,358
10%
10%
4%
1%
84%
1%
6,935
9%
9%
4%
1%
85%
1%
5,570
9%
8%
4%
1%
85%
1%
11,451
20%
60%
20%
13%
49%
82%
8%
5%
5%
3%
23%
29%
37%
21%
62%
18%
12%
10%
42%
18%
73%
27%
39%
61%
4 10,871
355

3.38%
35%
48%
2%
10%
7,129
18%
66%
5%
8%
5,641
20%
19%
4%
1%
72%
4%
4,443
18%
17%
4%
1%
73%
4%
3,511
17%
16%
4%
1%
75%
4%
10,409
17%
70%
13%
19%
23%
68%
22%
6%
4%
12%
38%
23%
20%
16%
74%
35%
22%
13%
22%
7%
38%
62%
79%
21%
5 10,262
-254
-2.42%
37%
31%
8%
22%
10,006
28%
40%
4%
27%
2,405
18%
16%
9%
1%
68%
3%
1,675
14%
13%
8%
1%
73%
3%
2,305
22%
20%
8%
1%
64%
3%
12,036
54%
42%
4%
17%
28%
55%
20%
18%
8%
5%
23%
27%
38%
24%
44%
27%
12%
11%
31%
20%
59%
41%
55%
45%
6 10,189
-327
-3.11%
15%
70%
2%
8%
8,098
12%
79%
2%
5%
7,431
10%
9%
3%
1%
85%
2%
6,498
9%
9%
3%
1%
86%
2%
5,493
9%
8%
2%
1%
87%
2%
10,155
19%
56%
25%
11%
58%
81%
11%
2%
5%
5%
28%
35%
25%
23%
63%
17%
14%
10%
38%
21%
86%
14%
43%
57%
Total
63,093
715

6.80%
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%
04/06/2022 13:27 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

2.11 4
2 3
5 6
1 Univ of
California Santa
Cruz
Santa Cruz Main
Jail
Coast Rd
Mission St
Shaffer Rd
Modesto Ave
Swift St
Delaware Ave
Fair Ave
Alta Ave
Almar Ave
Woodrow Ave
Younglove
Ave
Columbia 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
Meder St
Hagar Dr Glenn Coolidge Dr
Heller Dr
Mclaughlin Dr
Bay
St Laurent St
Walnut Ave
Chestnut 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
Windham St
Soquel Ave
Proposed Election Sequence:2022: 4 (Cummings) and 6 (Golder,Kalantari-Johnson & Meyers) + Mayor2024: 1 (Brown & Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (vacant) and 5 (vacant)Alternate Election Sequence (other combinations are possible):2022: 4 (Cummings) and 5 (vacant) + Mayor2024: 1 (Brown & Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (vacant) and6 (Golder, Kalantari-Johnson & Meyers) �2021 CALIPER

2.12 Map 604b
District 1
Total Pop 10,919
Deviation from ideal 403
% Deviation 3.83%
% Hisp 21.2%
% NH White 64%
% NH Black 3%
% Asian-American 7%
Total 8,111
% Hisp 13%
% NH White 75%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 8%
Total 7,808
% Latino est. 13%
% Spanish-Surnamed 12%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 82%
% NH Black 2%
Total 6,501
% Latino est. 11%
% Spanish-Surnamed 11%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 83%
% NH Black 2%
Total 5,307
% Latino est. 9%
% Spanish-Surnamed 9%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 85%
% NH Black est. 2%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 10,724
age0-19 20%
age20-60 58%
age60plus 22%
immigrants 13%
naturalized 42%
english 79%
spanish 12%
asian-lang 6%
other lang 3%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 7%
hs-grad 34%
bachelor 30%
graduatedegree 21%
Child in Household child-under18 25%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 62%
income 0-25k 19%
income 25-50k 11%
income 50-75k 9%
income 75-200k 39%
income 200k-plus 22%
single family 75%
multi-family 25%
rented 37%
owned 63%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

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

2.13%
18%
63%
2%
13%
9,248
14%
73%
2%
10%
7,700
12%
11%
4%
1%
82%
1%
6,587
11%
10%
4%
1%
83%
1%
5,130
10%
10%
4%
1%
84%
1%
11,263
16%
64%
20%
16%
37%
82%
8%
6%
4%
4%
28%
26%
36%
17%
64%
22%
14%
10%
38%
15%
68%
32%
47%
53%
4 10,548
32 0.30%
35%
49%
3%
8%
6,908
19%
68%
4%
5%
5,854
19%
18%
4%
1%
70%
3%
4,626
17%
16%
4%
1%
72%
3%
3,462
15%
14%
4%
1%
77%
3%
10,197
18%
70%
12%
17%
27%
66%
24%
4%
5%
12%
35%
24%
22%
17%
75%
34%
22%
15%
22%
7%
35%
65%
80%
20%
5 10,262
-254
-2.42%
37%
31%
8%
22%
10,006
28%
40%
4%
27%
2,405
18%
16%
9%
1%
68%
3%
1,675
14%
13%
8%
1%
73%
3%
2,305
22%
20%
8%
1%
64%
3%
12,036
54%
42%
4%
17%
28%
55%
20%
18%
8%
5%
23%
27%
38%
24%
44%
27%
12%
11%
31%
20%
59%
41%
55%
45%
6 10,189
-327
-3.11%
15%
70%
2%
8%
8,098
12%
79%
2%
5%
7,431
10%
9%
3%
1%
85%
2%
6,498
9%
9%
3%
1%
86%
2%
5,493
9%
8%
2%
1%
87%
2%
10,155
19%
56%
25%
11%
58%
81%
11%
2%
5%
5%
28%
35%
25%
23%
63%
17%
14%
10%
38%
21%
86%
14%
43%
57%
Total
63,093
730

6.94%
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%
04/06/2022 13:33 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

2.13 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Garrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 3:29 PM
To: City Council
Subject: 4.19.22 Agenda Item 3 (and 2)

4.19.22 Agenda Item 3 (and 2)
Dear Council,
I prefer the proposed election sequences as described (not the alternates or other) in both agenda Items 2 and 3.

The maps themselves are fine as chosen (as far as I know, can't say I really gave it a really good go over).

How voters will vote is a mystery.

Most voters would probably prefer voting for more than for one person every four years and possibly will then support the At-large Mayor idea for that reason, but 4 years is a long time to be stuck with a bad one, so there is that.

I don't see why the public can't also have a preference vote for Mayor and Vice Mayor also along with 7 districts among both those running and incumbents that stay on and award those positions to those with the highest votes who are elected and will accept and stick with 7 districts.

Somehow no one ever proposed that.. TOO LATE NOW?
Garrett Philipp - Westside

2.14 Transition to District
Elections/Transición a
elecciones de distrito - Six
district option/opción de
seis distritos - new
options/ nuevas opciones
Survey Results

INTERIM
04/18/2022

2.15 What do you like about Draft Map #604? ¿Qué te gusta del borrador del mapa #604?
It includes a correct grouping of my neighborhood in relation to Santa Cruz.

I think D3 makes more sense in this version with River St being the dividing line with D1. I also think D2 better captures the east side commercial area. Having water street at the divider between D1 & D2 makes a lot of sense to me, as D1 is now a primarily residential district.
generally makes sense, grouped in neighborhoods that feel cohesive UCSC isn't its own power. They should not have a significant say in our local/permanent city matters. I like that some west side neighborhoods are also included in that section.

My biggest concern is creating a viable Latinx district. Map 604 seems to do the best job of this.
nothing
What do you dislike about Draft Map #604? ¿Qué es lo que no te gusta del borrador del mapa #604?
I don't like that D6 extends to the other side of mission street - doesn't make sense to me. I also don't like non-university neighborhoods being included in D5 - those residents will be somewhat disenfranchised with a UCSC focused candidate. tine inclusion of portions of downtown with district #2 feels wrong- these are not similar neighborhoods
Zone 2 is odd. The extended portion to the left, in the upper Ocean area is a different community from Midtown/Seabright. Zone 3 is also in the same boat: a large mix of people. It could lead to unfair representation in both zones.

I wish it also included the north end of Pacific and Front, but I don't see how to cut back elsewhere to keep the total population proportional.

The historic district should be part of down town.

What do you like about Draft Map #604b? ¿Qué te gusta del borrador del mapa #604b?
Same as previous map. I like this grouping.

I like that North Pacific is included in the "downtown" district 4. this one is better,
I like this map a lot. I think it is a fair representation of each zone in town.

It includes the north end of downtown.
nothing

2.16 What do you dislike about Draft Map #604b? ¿Qué es lo que no te gusta del borrador del mapa #604b?
I don't like that D6 extends to the other side of mission street - doesn't make sense to me. I also don't like non-university neighborhoods being included in D5 - those residents will be somewhat disenfranchised with a UCSC focused candidate. In D1, it doesn't make sense to my to include the Harvey West commercial area with the Prospect height residential area - their needs seem very different to me. including Harvey West with distrcit 1 feels odd
In all maps, UCSC should have less of a say in city matters that lead to permanent or significant change to our community. The majority of staff and students don't live here for long. Many people in other zones are fighting to live in a town we grew up in. We have long been squeezed out by students (UCSC taking on even more each year without addressing housing issues!) And tourists getting summer rentals (houses that remain empty for most of the year).

It doesn't include the area south of Laurel and north of Neary Lagoon.

The historic district is not part of down town.

Which map is your first choice? ¿Qué mapa es tu primera opción? Draft Map #604/Borrador del mapa #604 50% (2)
Draft Map #604b/Borrador del mapa #604b 50% (2)
Which maps could you support? ¿Qué mapas podría apoyar? Question
Could
support/Podría
apoyar
Would Not Support/
No apoyaría
Draft Map #604/Borrador del mapa #604 60% 40%
Draft Map #604b/Borrador del mapa #604b80% 20%
Expand all / Collapse all
Could support/Podría apoyar Would Not Support/ No apoyaría

2.17 Draft Map #604/Borrador del mapa #604
Draft Map #604b/Borrador del mapa #604b
What Neighborhood Do You Live In? ¿En qué vecindario vive? Downtown/Centro de la ciudad 33% (2)
Eastside/Lado Este 17% (1)
Upper Eastside/Lado Este Superior 0% (0)
Westside/Lado Oeste 33% (2)
Upper Westside/Lado Oeste Superior 17% (1)
Outside of the City of Santa Cruz/Fuera de la Ciudad de Santa Cruz 0% (0) 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 0% (0) Black/African American/Negro/ Afroamericano 0% (0)
Latino/ Hispano 0% (0)
White/Caucasian/Blanco/Caucásico 100% (6)
Multiple Races/Razas Múltiples 0% (0)
60% 40%
80% 20%

2.18 Other/Otra 0% (0)
In what category is your age? ¿En que categoría esta su edad? Under 20/Menos de 20 0% (0)
20-34 50% (3)
35-54 17% (1)
55-64 17% (1)
65 or older/65 años o más 17% (1)
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 33% (2)
$50,000 - $74,999 0% (0)
$75,000 - $99,999 0% (0)
$100,000 - $149,999 33% (2)
$150,000 - $199,999 0% (0)
$200,000 or more/$200,000 o más. 33% (2)

2.19 Do you rent or own your home? ¿Usted alquila o es dueño de su propia casa?
Rent/Alquiler 50% (3)
Own/Propia 50% (3)

2.20 Gary A. Patton
131 Dake Avenue, Santa Cruz, CA 950602
Telephone: 831-423-2984♦ Email:
[email protected]
April 18, 2022
Mayor And Council Members
City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz City Hall
809 Center Street
Santa Cru, CA 95060
RE: Agenda Items #2 - #3 – Special Council Meeting on April 19, 2022 [Sent By Email - [email protected]]
Dear Mayor Brunner and Council Members:

I am writing to object, in the strongest terms possible, to the actions proposed by City staff in Agenda Items #2 and #3 on your agenda tomorrow. I urge you to allow City voters to decide, themselves, whether or not they want to eliminate the current at-large election system in the City of Santa Cruz. As your staff has structured these two agenda items, that decision has been taken away from the voters. If you move ahead with the proposals before you tomorrow, YOU are arrogating to yourselves the right to make this fundamental choice.

A MORE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC PROPOSAL COULD HARDLY BE IMAGINED! The “big” change involved in these two agenda items – a change to our City Charter that the City staff seem to think that the Council can modify without the benefit of a vote by the citizens you all represent – is to move from an at-large election system to a District election system. In our current at-large system, EVERY voter gets to vote for EVERY elected member of the Council. In a District election system, each voter will be able to vote for only ONE elected official (or for TWO elected officials, if the proposal is adopted that there should be six districts plus an independently elected mayor).

Our current at-large election system, which is specified in the City Charter, in Article VI, Section 601, gives EVERY voter the right to vote for all SEVEN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES who will make decisions on City issues. Those elected representatives must take ALL voters in the City seriously, since every Council Member is directly responsible to every voter. This at-large voting system maximizes the power of the citizens and residents of the City vis a vis Members of the City Council. To replace this system (which maximizes the voting power of every citizen in the City), you are being asked to inaugurate a system in which each voter will only have voting power over ONE, or maybe TWO, of their elected officials.

2.21 A change of this magnitude should be specifically presented to the voters of the City, for debate and decision.

That, however, is not what is being proposed by the City staff. What is proposed is that the voters will get to choose only between SIX Districts or SEVEN Districts. This choice ignores the more fundamental and important choice – whether to eliminate the at-large system we currently have and move to a system of District elections.

Moving to a “District” system for election RADICALLY REDUCES every voter’s ability to cast a vote for the people who will make critical decisions affecting their lives. The current system is enshrined in our City Charter – our local “Constitution,” if you will. TRYING TO CHANGE THIS FUNDAMENTAL REALITY

OF OUR CITY GOVERNMENT SHOULD ONLY BE UNDERTAKEN WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE VOTERS.
oooOOOooo
I believe that what is proposed is illegal and opens the City to a successful legal challenge. The people have the right, and should have the ability, to decide whether they want district elections in the City of Santa Cruz. Unfortunately, what is before you on your Special Meeting Agenda tomorrow is attempting to deny the people this right.

As you know, your Council, on a five to two vote, placed a charter amendment on the June 7th ballot which, if adopted by a majority of the voters, would convert the City’s current process of electing council members at-large to a system of six council districts and an independently elected mayor.

The proposed ballot language clearly is limited to this option and voters are simply asked to voter “Yes” or “No” to the following statement:

In order to comply with the California Voting Rights Act and promote more diversity and provide greater accountability of elected officials to residents in all City neighborhoods, while maintaining City leadership focused on the interests of the whole community, shall the Santa Cruz City Charter be amended to provide for a directly elected at-large Mayor, six council districts, updated rules on term limits, and runoff elections?
If this measure receives a majority vote in June, it is clear that city council members will be elected by district, and we’ll have an independently elected mayor.

But what happens if the measure fails? Based on the ballot language itself, the only result is that there won’t be six districts and an independently elected mayor.

However, the City’s website and the so-called Impartial Analysis of the ballot measure claim that the voters actually will be approving district elections with

2.22 seven districts if the measure fails. This is blatantly false and completely misleading.

1. The Impartial Analysis contains the following statement:

At its February 22, 2022, meeting, the City Council decided to ask voters to weigh in on a proposed charter amendment to establish six districts, with an at-large directly elected mayor, while moving forward with the district elections process, holding hearings on draft maps and council election sequencing, and adopting an ordinance that selects one six district map and one seven district map, as alternatives.” The six district map would prevail if the charter amendment passes, and the seven district map would apply if it does not pass.

In fact, the City Council has not adopted an ordinance “that selects one six district map and one seven district map, as alternatives.” In fact, the Council has never adopted any ordinance on district elections.

In addition, there is no legal basis for the statement that “seven district map would apply” if Measure E fails, as is clear from reading the language in the ballot measure.

The City’s Transition to District Elections website contains the following:

On February 22nd, the City Council passed a resolution placing a proposed charter amendment establishing six districts and a directly elected, at-large Mayor on the June 7, 2022 ballot. Functionally, if the ballot measure passes, the City will have six districts and an at-large Mayor. If the ballot measure does not pass, the City will have seven districts. Because of the two possibilities, the Council will have to adopt two district maps, one with six districts and one with seven districts. We need the community's input on the selection of both models.

The website then provides details of the “Six District Model,” if the measure passes, and the “Seven District Model,” if the measure fails. Three possible district maps are provided for each alternative.

Again, the City falsely claims, with no evidence or documentation, that a sevendistrict outcome will result if Measure E fails.

What are the facts!! If Measure E fails, a seven-district election system is NOT a foregone conclusion. The City Council and/or the people could approve this outcome, or they could reject it. What happens would be decided after the June election.

In reality, voters in June may vote with three separate motives. Voters could:

1. Vote “Yes” because they want to elect council members from six districts with an independently elected mayor.

2.23 2. Vote “No” because they want to elect council members from seven districts.

3. Vote “No” because they oppose district elections as a way to elect council members.

It is this last option that the City’s website information and the Impartial Analysis is obfuscating. Why is this happening?
The California Voting Rights Act was passed with the purpose of making it easier for minority groups in California to prove that their votes are being diluted in "at-large" elections. It has been used by certain law firms essentially to blackmail cities to adopt a district election system in order to avoid a lawsuit.

In our case, no evidence has been presented to the public in Santa Cruz that our at-large system dilutes minority voting rights. In fact, there is a good of evidence to the contrary. However, the law makes it difficult and expensive to uphold an at-large system and a number of communities have agreed to adopt district elections in order to avoid an expensive lawsuit and, also, pay off the law firm threatening to sue to make them go away. That’s essentially what’s been happening in Santa Cruz.

How has your Council responded?

1. When the City was threatened with a lawsuit under the California Voting Act, your Council in April of 2020, during the worst of the Covid pandemic and with no public input, in closed session, approved a non-binding agreement with the law firm to move forward with district elections. The Council then, on May 26. 2020, again with almost no public input, adopted Resolution NS-29,657, not an ordinance, that contained the following language:

SECTION 2. Before the November 2022 regular election, the City Council will consider adoption of an ordinance to institute a district-based election system, as authorized by Government Code Section 34886.”

2. The matter was next before your Council on May 21, 2021, where general direction was given to pursue district elections.

3. On August 31, 2021, your Council held a public hearing on district elections and a motion was unanimously approved requesting additional information. In addition, the motion contained the following language:
“Express the intention of the City Council to consider rescinding the district elections resolution at the end of the public process if merited based on evidence received during this process.”

2.24 Clearly, the Council recognized that the resolution calling for the institution of district elections was not legally binding and could be rescinded.

4. Then, on November 23, 2021, your Council established a Council subcommittee to consider a district election system with an independently elected mayor and provide related information.

5. Finally, on February 22, 2022, the Council subcommittee returned with the recommendation to approve a resolution placing a Charter Amendment on the June 7th ballot to create six districts and an at-large, directly elected Mayor.

At no time has your Council considered or adopted an ordinance establishing district elections or approving a seven-district system. The agreement with the law firm was not approved by a court and is not legally binding. The resolution agreeing to consider an ordinance to institute district elections, as indicated by the Council unanimous vote last November, is not binding and can be rescinded.

In conclusion, please do not adopt the proposed actions before you. Either take no action at all, or continue the matter for further discussion, or (if you want to put something on the June ballot) direct that a question be proposed to the voters, asking if they would like to modify the current at-large system and institute a system of District elections, in which there would be two options – seven districts, or six districts and an independently-elected mayor.

Thank you for taking seriously my very grave concerns about what is being proposed for your meeting tomorrow.

Yours truly,
Gary A. Patton

2.25 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Ron Pomerantz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:48 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Sandy Brown; Justin Cummings; Sonja Brunner; Martine Watkins; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Donna Meyers; Renee Golder Subject: Special Council Meeting 4-19-2022 Item #2: Second Public Hearing to Receive Input from the Community Regarding the Selection of a Six-District Map and Election Sequence (CN)
Re. Special Council Meeting 4-19-2022 Items #2 &3: Second Public Hearing to Receive Input from the Community Regarding the Selection of a Six-District Map and Election Sequence (CN) Good Day Councilmembers and Mayor.

With today’s Special Meeting the Council has given the public 4 1/2 days notice to read and digest how the City proposes to divide up the city into Districts for voting and representation purposes. Don’t you see how absurd this is? How can a thoughtful person get up to speed as well as make a reasoned decision of such importance in 4 1/2 days as well as deciding if we should even go to district Elections?! Where was an open and transparent public process? This process sure feels like we are in Texas or Florida, certainly not California where election rights have been unquestionably a sacred right.

I can guarantee the City will attempt to say the June 2022 election with Measure E gave voters the right and ability to determine what form of governance the City should function under. Measure E underhandedly changes the City Charter, the City’s Constitution, to lock-in District Elections. This is absolutely deceptive and disingenuous. The June 2022 election’s Measure E gives no such ability for voters to truthfully and sincerely determine their future governance. Measure E only permits the voters to say YES or NO to directly electing a mayor and council members from 6 districts. Period. That’s it! According to Ballotpedia "A "no" vote opposes amending the Santa Cruz City Charter to directly elect the mayor and elect city council members from six districts, thereby leaving the charter unchanged and resulting in city council members elected from seven council districts and the mayor selected from among council members." How was the Council, through an Ordinance, able to change the City Charter to District Elections with 7 districts in the first place without the State Constitutionally required vote of the people? Because the Council allowed the City Attorney to say it could be done. The Council accepted the City Attorney’s advice without questioning the ethics or legality. This is not settled law, nor should it be.

Given the current state of affairs why didn’t the Council genuinely give voters honest choices to comply with the Voters Rights Act? If that were done, the June 2022 ballot would allow voters to vote YES or NO on different Measures in order to accurately reflect how those governing are elected and with what functions:
 One Measure would ask if voters want District Elections.  A second Measure would ask if there should be 6 districts or 7 districts.  A third Measure would ask voters if they want a mayor elected at-large, including what powers a directly elected mayor should have.
 A forth Measure would ask the voters if they want to implement Rank Choice Voting or a comparable system.

2.26 2
Now that’s what democracy looks like. Certainly not the deceptive and deceitful way the Council has rigged the June ballot Measure E. As Bernie Sanders has said "the system isn’t broken, it’s fixed.” The Council certainly has worked feverishly to prove this adage. What the public says tonight really doesn’t matter because the fix is already in. You should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing our voting and election rights to be undermined. Hopefully the Council hasn’t bamboozled the electorate.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful attention.

Ron Pomerantz

2.27
5RVHPDU\%DOVOH\
)URP
HULFJURGEHUJHULFJURGEHUJ#\DKRRFRP!
6HQW
7XHVGD\$SULO

$0
7R
&LW\&RXQFLO
6XEMHFW
'LVWULFW(OHFWLRQV,WHPVDQG$SULO
6SHFLDO0HHWLQJ
'HDU0D\RU%UXQQHUDQG&RXQFLO
,VXSSRUW0DSVDQG
,EHOLHYHWKH\GRWKHEHVWRYHUDOOMRERINHHSLQJQHLJKERUKRRGVDQGFRPPXQLWLHVRILQWHUHVWWRJHWKHU 5HJDUGV
(ULF

2.28 City of Santa Cruz
6-District Draft Maps
April 19, 2022 Dr. Douglas Johnson

2.29 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.

2.30 April 19, 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).

2.31 April 19, 2022
4 Number of Districts Question
 Currently the City has 7 Councilmembers and a rotating Mayor  Council voted to place a measure on the June ballot to move to 6 Councilmembers plus a citywide-elected Mayor
 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.

2.32 April 19, 2022
5 Equal Population
Federal Voting Rights Act
No Racial Gerrymandering
Respect voters’ choices /
continuity in office
Future population growth

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

2.33 April 19, 2022
6 Latinos are more concentrated
in the Beach Flats area.

Latino CVAP
April 19, 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. 2.34
7 Other Socio-Economic
Demographics
April 19, 2022
This is just one example of the socioeconomic data that can be mapped.

2.35 8
Initial six-district maps
April 19, 2022
Interactive review map

2.36 9
New Maps
April 19, 2022
Goals: Unite Beach Flats with Lower Ocean St corridor and unite Seabright (Oceanview is D2/D4 border).

Minimize westside / UCSC mixing in one district.

Differences: Lagoon and surrounding neighborhood in D4 or D3 drives a rotation among D3, D4, D2 and D1.

2.37 10
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

2.38 April 19, 2022
11 Public Hearing & Discussion
 Which of the six-district plan(s) do you prefer?
 Which election sequence do you prefer?

2.39 April 19, 2022
City Council Special Meeting

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/12/2022
AGENDA OF: 04/19/2022
DEPARTMENT: City Council
SUBJECT: Second Public Hearing to Receive Input from the Community Regarding the Selection of a Seven-District Map and Election Sequence (CN) RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Receive a presentation from the City’s demographic consultant, National Demographics Corporation, regarding revised draft seven-district maps and election sequencing; and 2) Conduct a public hearing to receive public input on the draft maps and election sequencing; and
3) Select a seven-district map and determine election sequencing; and 4) Introduce for publication an ordinance adopting a final seven-district map and establishing a sequence of elections to establish district-based Council member elections commencing in November 2022.

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.

DISCUSSION: The City Council held the first of two required public hearings to receive public input on draft seven-district maps on March 29. Following a presentation by the City’s demographer, National Demographic Corporation (NDC) and Council discussion and public input, the Council provided guidance to NDC on potential map revisions.

3.1 NDC has revised the proposed draft maps in accordance with City Council direction and submitted three draft maps for Council consideration and public input. The maps have been published for at least seven days prior to Council consideration.

Requirements for Districts
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.”
Recommendation
At the public hearing on March 29 and in the City’s Polco survey, the community and City Council indicated Map 101 was the preferred model, with a few modifications. Staff recommends that the Council select Map 101d, as it most effectively incorporate the majority of the feedback received.

Next Steps
If the City Council seeks further revisions of the draft map proposals, the City must publish the draft maps at least seven days before City Council consideration.

3.2 however, will not be exposed to the potential much higher legal fees involved in defense of a lawsuit brought under the California Voting Rights Act.

Prepared By:

Casey Hemard
Principal Management
Analyst
Submitted By:

Laura Schmidt
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. ORDINANCE CONVERTING TO DISTRICTS.DOCX

2. EXHIBIT A.PDF

3. EXHIBIT B.PDF

4. DRAFT MAP 101 (ORIGINAL PROPOSAL).PDF

5. DRAFT MAP 102 (ORIGINAL PROPOSAL).PDF

6. DRAFT MAP 103 (ORIGINAL PROPOSAL).PDF

7. DRAFT MAP 101B (NEW PROPOSAL).PDF

8. DRAFT MAP 101C (NEW PROPOSAL).PDF

9. DRAFT MAP 101D (NEW PROPOSAL).PDF
Attachments 4 - 9 can be viewed online at www.cityofsantacruz.com/districtelections

3.3 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

TRANSITIONING TO DISTRICT-BASED ELECTIONS
WHEREAS, members of the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz ("City") are currently elected in "at-large" elections, in which each City Councilmember is elected by the registered voters of the entire City; and
WHEREAS, the City received a certified letter dated February 13, 2020 ("Notice") from Attorney Robert Goodman, on behalf of Gabriela Joseph (“Prospective Plaintiff”), asserting that the City's at-large Councilmember electoral system violates the California Voting Rights Act ("CVRA") and threatening litigation if the City declined to voluntarily change to a district-based election system, in which Councilmembers are elected by the voters in the district in which the candidate resides; and
WHEREAS, under Elections Code Section 14028(a), a CVRA violation is established if it is shown that racially polarized voting occurs in elections. "Racially polarized voting" means voting in which there is a difference in the choice of candidates or other electoral choices that are preferred by voters in a protected class, and in the choice of candidates and electoral choices that are preferred by voters in the rest of the electorate (Elections Code Section 14026(e)); and WHEREAS, in response to the Notice, and in consideration of the evidence and arguments provided in the Notice, the City entered into a settlement agreement with Prospective Plaintiff, and the Council passed Resolution No. NS-29,657, which declared the Council’s intention to transition from at-large to district-based elections by November 2022; and WHEREAS, over the last several months, the City has held public meetings and has been engaging with the public on the upcoming change to district-based elections; and WHEREAS, on February 22, 2022, the Council passed Resolution No. NS-29,932, in which the Council directed that a proposed charter amendment, contemplating a directly elected at-large mayor, appear on the June 7, 2022 ballot (“Measure E”); and WHEREAS, as stated in Resolution No. NS-29,932, the City Council desires this ordinance to be written in a contingent way, such that if Measure E passes, then the City would convert to a 6-district system, with an at-large, directly elected mayor. But, if Measure E fails, then the City would convert to a 7-district system, without an at-large mayor; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 34886 permits the legislative body of a city to adopt an ordinance to change its method of election from an "at-large" system to a "district-based" system; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this ordinance is to transition to district elections, and this change in the method of electing members of the legislative body is being made in furtherance of

3.4 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
2 the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 14025) of Division 14 of the Elections Code); and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz as follows:

Section 1.

The above recitals are true and correct.

Section 2. Conversion to By-District Elections.

In furtherance of the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001, the Council hereby requires that, going forward, Councilmembers shall be elected by-district or by-district with an elective mayor, as further specified herein.

Section 3. Six Districts Plus At-Large Mayor if Measure E Passes on or Before July 6, 2022.
(a) If, on or before July 6, 2022, Measure E has passed and that result has been certified by the Santa Cruz County Elections Department, or if the City Elections Official, in consultation with the County Elections Department and the City Attorney, has determined that Measure E is likely to pass with reasonable certainty, then:
(1) the City shall be divided into six Council districts, and the district map to be implemented is District Map 604b (also attached as Exhibit A to this Ordinance); (2) an at-large mayor and Councilmembers shall be elected by-district in City Council Districts Nos. 4 and 5 in the General Municipal Election in November 2022, and every four years thereafter. Councilmembers shall be elected in City Council Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 in the General Municipal Election in November 2024, and every four years thereafter; and
(3) Section 7 of this Ordinance shall become operative for the November 2022 election and thereafter.
(b) The City Clerk is directed to timely provide District Map 604b (Exhibit A) and the above-stated election-sequence to the Santa Cruz County Elections Department, to be used in the November 2022 election, should the scenario described in Section 3(a) occur.

Section 4. Seven Districts if, as of July 6, 2022, Measure E Fails. (a) If, by July 6, 2022, Measure E has either failed or it is not likely to pass with reasonable certainty (as determined by the City Elections Official, in consultation with the County Elections Department and the City Attorney), then:

3.5 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
3 (1) the City shall be divided into seven Council districts and the district map to be implemented is District Map 101d (also attached as Exhibit B to this Ordinance); (2) Councilmembers shall be elected by-district in City Council Districts Nos. 4, 6 and 7 in the General Municipal Election in November 2022, and every four years thereafter.

Councilmembers shall be elected in City Council Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 at the General Municipal Election in November 2024, and every four years thereafter; and (3) Section 6 of this Ordinance shall become operative. (b) The City Clerk is directed to timely provide District Map 101d (Exhibit B) and the above-stated election-sequence to the Santa Cruz County Elections Department, to be used in the November 2022 election, should the scenario described in Section 4(a) occur.

Section 5. Uncertain Election Results as of July 6, 2022 Followed By Measure E Passing Later.

If the Measure E election results are uncertain as of as of July 6, 2022, but then the County Elections Department later certifies that Measure E has indeed passed, then:
(a) Section 6 of this Ordinance shall be operative for the November 2022 election only and shall thereafter become inoperative, and Section 7 shall become operative after the November 2022 election and in in time to conduct a first round of elections at the same time as the 2024 statewide primary elections.
(b) For the November 2022 Municipal Election Councilmembers shall be elected by-district in City Council Districts Nos. 4, 6 and 7 as shown on Map 101d. (c) An at-large mayor and Councilmembers shall be elected by-district in City Council District Nos. 1, 2 and 6 (of Map 604b) for the 2024 City Council election cycle, and every four years thereafter, and Councilmembers shall be elected in City Council District Nos. 3, 4 and 5 commencing with the 2026 election cycle, and every four years thereafter.
(d) A vacancy in the office of a councilmember elected in November 2022 in Districts 4, 6 or 7 (as shown on Map 101d), shall be filled by an appointee or candidate who lives in and is a registered voter in Districts 3, 4 or 5, respectively (as shown on Map 604b).

Section 6. Amendment of Code if Measure E Does Not Pass.

If Measure E does not pass, then Section 7 of this Ordinance shall be inoperative, the text below shall be added into Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 2.34, and seven city council districts referenced below shall be established in accordance with Map 101d as set forth Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
“2.34.040. District Elections.

3.6 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
4 (a) In furtherance of the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001, Councilmembers shall be elected by-district. No existing term of any City Councilmember, elected at-large prior to November 2022, shall be affected by the conversion to by-district elections. One Councilmember shall be elected from each City Council district. Election shall be by the registered voters of that District alone. The candidate who receives the most votes within the District shall earn a four year term on the Council.
(b) A candidate for City Council must live in, and be a registered voter in, the City Council District in which the candidate seeks election at the time nomination papers are issued. A Councilmember elected to represent a City Council District must continue to reside in that District and be a registered voter in that District.

Should a Councilmember terminate residency within the Councilmember’s District and fail to re-establish such residency within thirty (30) days thereafter, or such other time as the Council, by five affirmative votes, finds reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances, the Councilmember shall be deemed to have surrendered their seat on the Council, thereby creating an immediate vacancy for that City Council District.

2.34.050. District Boundaries, Election Schedule, and Council Vacancies.

Seven City Council districts shall be established, as shown and numbered on the map entitled City of Santa Cruz District Map 101d, a copy of which shall be maintained on file in the office of the City Clerk.

2.34.060. Council Vacancies.

Should any vacancies occur on the City Council outside of this election schedule, such vacancies shall be filled in accordance with City Charter Section 605 provided, however, that a vacancy in the office of a Councilmember elected by district shall be filled by an appointee or candidate who lives in and is a registered voter of the district in which the vacancy has occurred.

2.34.070. Adjustment of District Boundaries.

The City Council shall adjust district boundaries when required by law, and the City Council may adjust district boundaries when permitted by law. All adjustments to boundaries shall be adopted in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

2.34.080. Interpretation of Sections 2.34.040-2.34.070
To the extent the terms and provisions of Sections 2.34.040-2.34.070 may be inconsistent or in conflict with the terms or conditions of any prior City law, ordinance, motion, resolution, rule, or regulation governing the same subject, the

3.7 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
5 terms of Sections 2.34.040-2.34.070 shall prevail with respect to the subject matter thereof.”
Section 7. Amendment of Code if Charter Amendment Proposal Passes on or Prior to July 6, 2022.

If Measure E passes on or prior to July 6, 2022, or the City Elections Official, in consultation with the County Elections Department and the City Attorney, determines that it is likely to pass with reasonable certainty, then Section 6 of this Ordinance shall be inoperative, the text below shall be added into Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 2.34, and six City Council districts shall be established in accordance with Map 604b as set forth Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
“2.34.040. District Elections.
(a) In furtherance of the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 and consistent with the City Charter, six Councilmembers shall be elected by-district, and there shall be one at-large, directly elected mayor.
(b) Six City Council districts are hereby established, as shown and numbered on the map entitled City of Santa Cruz District Map 604b, a copy of which shall be maintained on file in the office of the City Clerk.”
Section 8. Implementation and Technical Adjustments.

The City Clerk, City Manager, City Attorney, and their designees, are authorized and directed to take all reasonable and necessary action to facilitate the implementation of this Ordinance. If necessary to facilitate the implementation of this Ordinance, the City Clerk is authorized to make technical adjustments to the City Council District boundaries that do not substantively affect the populations in the Districts, the eligibility of candidates, or the residence of elected officials within any District. The City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and City Attorney concerning any technical adjustments deemed necessary and shall advise the City Council of any such adjustments required in the implementation of the Districts.

Section 9. Environmental Determination.

The Council finds that the adoption and implementation of this ordinance are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, in that the Council finds there is no possibility that the implementation of this ordinance may have significant effects on the environment.

3.8 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
6 Section 10. Interpretation of Ordinance
(a) If any subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this chapter is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this section, and each and every subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase thereof not declared invalid or unconstitutional, without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. (b) Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted or applied so as to create any requirement, power, or duty in conflict with any federal or state law. (c) In enacting and implementing this chapter, the city is assuming an undertaking to promote the general welfare. It is not assuming, nor is it imposing on its officers and employees, an obligation for breach of which it is liable in money damages to any person who claims that such breach proximately caused injury.

Section 11. Effective Date.

This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, in accordance with Charter section 611(a) and Government Code section 36937(a).

PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 19th day of April, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

3.9 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
7 PASSED FOR FINAL ADOPTION this _____ day of _______, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
This is to certify that the above and
foregoing document is the original
of Ordinance No. 2022-xx and that
it has been published or posted in
accordance with the Charter of the
City of Santa Cruz.
________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

3.10 4
2 3
5 6
1 Univ of
California Santa
Cruz
Santa Cruz Main
Jail
Coast Rd
Mission St
Shaffer Rd
Modesto Ave
Swift St
Delaware Ave
Fair Ave
Alta Ave
Almar Ave
Woodrow Ave
Younglove
Ave
Columbia 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
Meder St
Hagar Dr Glenn Coolidge Dr
Heller Dr
Mclaughlin Dr
Bay
St Laurent St
Walnut Ave
Chestnut 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
Windham St
Soquel Ave
Proposed Election Sequence:2022: 4 (Cummings) and 6 (Golder,Kalantari-Johnson & Meyers) + Mayor2024: 1 (Brown & Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (vacant) and 5 (vacant)Alternate Election Sequence (other combinations are possible):2022: 4 (Cummings) and 5 (vacant) + Mayor2024: 1 (Brown & Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (vacant) and6 (Golder, Kalantari-Johnson & Meyers) �2021 CALIPER

3.11 Map 604b
District 1
Total Pop 10,919
Deviation from ideal 403
% Deviation 3.83%
% Hisp 21.2%
% NH White 64%
% NH Black 3%
% Asian-American 7%
Total 8,111
% Hisp 13%
% NH White 75%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 8%
Total 7,808
% Latino est. 13%
% Spanish-Surnamed 12%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 82%
% NH Black 2%
Total 6,501
% Latino est. 11%
% Spanish-Surnamed 11%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 83%
% NH Black 2%
Total 5,307
% Latino est. 9%
% Spanish-Surnamed 9%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 85%
% NH Black est. 2%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 10,724
age0-19 20%
age20-60 58%
age60plus 22%
immigrants 13%
naturalized 42%
english 79%
spanish 12%
asian-lang 6%
other lang 3%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 7%
hs-grad 34%
bachelor 30%
graduatedegree 21%
Child in Household child-under18 25%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 62%
income 0-25k 19%
income 25-50k 11%
income 50-75k 9%
income 75-200k 39%
income 200k-plus 22%
single family 75%
multi-family 25%
rented 37%
owned 63%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

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

3.12 4
2 7
5 6
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
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 Pacific Ave
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
Windham St
Soquel Ave
Proposed Election Sequence:2022: 4 (Cummings), 5 (Golder,Kalantari-Johnson & Meyers), and 7 (vacant)2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (Brown) and 6 (vacant)Alternate Election Sequence (other combinations are possible):2022: 4 (Cummings), 6 (vacant) and 7 (vacant)2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (Brown) and 5 (Golder,Kalantari-Johnson & Meyers) �2021 CALIPER

3.13 Map 101d
District 1
Total Pop 9,062
Deviation from ideal 49
% Deviation 0.54%
% Hisp 22.5%
% NH White 63%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian-American 7%
Total 6,881
% Hisp 13%
% NH White 75%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 9%
Total 6,459
% Latino est. 13%
% Spanish-Surnamed 12%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 81%
% NH Black 2%
Total 5,648
% Latino est. 12%
% Spanish-Surnamed 11%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 83%
% NH Black 2%
Total 4,599
% Latino est. 9%
% Spanish-Surnamed 8%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 86%
% NH Black est. 2%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 9,306
age0-19 18%
age20-60 59%
age60plus 22%
immigrants 14%
naturalized 36%
english 78%
spanish 14%
asian-lang 5%
other lang 2%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 9%
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 22%
single family 79%
multi-family 21%
rented 37%
owned 63%
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 9,009
-4
-0.04%
18%
70%
2%
5%
7,249
10%
82%
1%
4%
7,009
10%
10%
2%
1%
87%
0%
6,165
10%
9%
2%
1%
87%
0%
5,131
8%
8%
2%
1%
89%
0%
8,724
15%
62%
24%
14%
44%
84%
10%
2%
5%
4%
40%
25%
22%
18%
73%
19%
13%
11%
45%
12%
69%
31%
55%
45%
3 8,755
-258
-2.86%
20%
63%
3%
10%
6,503
11%
76%
3%
9%
5,843
12%
11%
3%
1%
82%
2%
4,685
11%
11%
3%
1%
83%
2%
3,875
11%
10%
4%
1%
83%
2%
7,921
19%
58%
23%
15%
38%
83%
7%
5%
5%
3%
32%
31%
26%
17%
64%
23%
14%
14%
34%
15%
65%
35%
46%
54%
4 9,423
410

4.55%
37%
47%
3%
8%
6,137
21%
66%
5%
5%
4,937
20%
19%
4%
1%
68%
4%
3,861
19%
18%
4%
1%
69%
3%
2,866
16%
15%
4%
1%
75%
4%
9,259
18%
70%
11%
17%
27%
65%
26%
4%
4%
12%
35%
23%
22%
17%
76%
35%
22%
15%
22%
6%
34%
66%
81%
19%
5 9,181
168

1.86%
15%
70%
2%
8%
7,225
11%
81%
2%
5%
6,641
10%
9%
3%
1%
85%
2%
5,797
9%
9%
2%
1%
85%
2%
4,934
9%
8%
2%
1%
86%
2%
8,918
18%
55%
27%
11%
58%
82%
10%
3%
6%
4%
25%
36%
25%
21%
61%
18%
13%
9%
39%
21%
85%
15%
43%
57%
6 8,842
-171
-1.90%
15%
63%
2%
15%
7,969
15%
71%
1%
10%
7,042
10%
10%
5%
1%
83%
1%
6,076
10%
9%
4%
1%
84%
1%
4,605
9%
9%
4%
1%
85%
1%
10,001
17%
65%
17%
14%
43%
79%
9%
6%
5%
5%
26%
25%
39%
21%
64%
18%
15%
9%
39%
19%
71%
29%
44%
56%
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
668

7.41%
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%
04/06/2022 13:39 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

3.14 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

3.15 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

3.16 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

3.17 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.

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

3.18 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

3.19 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

3.20 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
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
Windham St
Soquel Ave
Proposed Election Sequence:2022: 4 (Cummings), 5 (Golder,Kalantari-Johnson & Meyers), and 7 (vacant)2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (Brown) and 6 (vacant)Alternate Election Sequence (other combinations are possible):2022: 4 (Cummings), 6 (vacant) and 7 (vacant)2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (Brown) and 5 (Golder,Kalantari-Johnson & Meyers) �2021 CALIPER

3.21 Map 101b
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.

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 8,910
-103
-1.14%
19%
68%
2%
5%
7,191
12%
80%
1%
4%
6,617
11%
10%
2%
1%
84%
1%
5,754
10%
10%
2%
1%
85%
1%
4,572
8%
8%
2%
1%
88%
1%
8,590
14%
64%
22%
13%
45%
80%
12%
2%
5%
4%
39%
26%
23%
16%
75%
21%
13%
12%
43%
11%
62%
38%
63%
37%
3 8,978
-35
-0.39%
19%
65%
3%
9%
6,828
12%
75%
3%
8%
6,677
11%
10%
3%
1%
83%
2%
5,498
10%
9%
3%
1%
84%
2%
4,432
9%
9%
4%
0%
84%
2%
8,715
22%
56%
22%
13%
51%
82%
8%
5%
5%
4%
27%
34%
27%
24%
63%
18%
9%
11%
41%
21%
77%
23%
36%
64%
4 9,103
90 1.00%
36%
48%
3%
9%
5,857
19%
68%
5%
5%
4,972
19%
18%
4%
1%
71%
4%
3,900
17%
16%
4%
1%
73%
4%
3,065
15%
15%
4%
1%
76%
3%
8,887
18%
71%
11%
17%
26%
66%
25%
5%
4%
13%
35%
23%
22%
17%
75%
35%
23%
14%
22%
7%
34%
66%
80%
20%
5 9,192
179

1.99%
19%
65%
2%
9%
7,246
13%
75%
3%
7%
6,386
12%
11%
3%
1%
82%
3%
5,478
11%
11%
2%
1%
83%
3%
4,530
11%
10%
2%
1%
84%
2%
8,999
18%
57%
24%
14%
41%
82%
10%
3%
5%
4%
30%
32%
25%
20%
64%
22%
12%
11%
37%
18%
77%
23%
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
371

4.12%
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%
04/06/2022 13:35 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

3.22 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
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 Pacific Ave
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
Windham St
Soquel Ave
Proposed Election Sequence:2022: 4 (Cummings), 5 (Golder,Kalantari-Johnson & Meyers), and 7 (vacant)2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (Brown) and 6 (vacant)Alternate Election Sequence (other combinations are possible):2022: 4 (Cummings), 6 (vacant) and 7 (vacant)2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (Brown) and 5 (Golder,Kalantari-Johnson & Meyers) �2021 CALIPER

3.23 Map 101c
District 1
Total Pop 9,062
Deviation from ideal 49
% Deviation 0.54%
% Hisp 22.5%
% NH White 63%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian-American 7%
Total 6,881
% Hisp 13%
% NH White 75%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 9%
Total 6,459
% Latino est. 13%
% Spanish-Surnamed 12%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 81%
% NH Black 2%
Total 5,648
% Latino est. 12%
% Spanish-Surnamed 11%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 83%
% NH Black 2%
Total 4,599
% Latino est. 9%
% Spanish-Surnamed 8%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 86%
% NH Black est. 2%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 9,306
age0-19 18%
age20-60 59%
age60plus 22%
immigrants 14%
naturalized 36%
english 78%
spanish 14%
asian-lang 5%
other lang 2%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 9%
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 22%
single family 79%
multi-family 21%
rented 37%
owned 63%
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 9,009
-4
-0.04%
18%
70%
2%
5%
7,249
10%
82%
1%
4%
7,009
10%
10%
2%
1%
87%
0%
6,165
10%
9%
2%
1%
87%
0%
5,131
8%
8%
2%
1%
89%
0%
8,724
15%
62%
24%
14%
44%
84%
10%
2%
5%
4%
40%
25%
22%
18%
73%
19%
13%
11%
45%
12%
69%
31%
55%
45%
3 8,605
-408
-4.53%
16%
67%
3%
9%
6,480
10%
79%
2%
7%
6,763
10%
9%
4%
1%
84%
2%
5,549
9%
8%
3%
1%
85%
1%
4,391
8%
8%
4%
1%
86%
1%
8,063
21%
55%
23%
12%
52%
83%
7%
4%
5%
2%
25%
34%
30%
22%
64%
18%
11%
13%
39%
20%
73%
27%
37%
63%
4 8,826
-187
-2.07%
37%
47%
3%
8%
5,741
22%
65%
5%
5%
4,416
21%
20%
4%
1%
67%
4%
3,430
19%
18%
4%
1%
69%
4%
2,656
16%
15%
4%
1%
75%
4%
8,749
19%
71%
11%
17%
27%
64%
28%
4%
4%
13%
35%
23%
22%
17%
77%
35%
22%
15%
22%
6%
34%
66%
82%
18%
5 9,387
374

4.15%
18%
65%
2%
9%
7,280
12%
77%
4%
7%
6,684
12%
11%
3%
1%
82%
3%
5,744
11%
10%
2%
1%
83%
3%
4,681
10%
10%
2%
1%
84%
3%
8,957
17%
57%
25%
15%
39%
82%
9%
4%
5%
4%
30%
32%
25%
19%
63%
22%
12%
10%
37%
19%
77%
23%
50%
50%
6 9,383
370

4.11%
16%
64%
2%
14%
8,331
15%
72%
1%
10%
6,600
11%
10%
5%
1%
83%
1%
5,696
10%
10%
4%
1%
84%
0%
4,552
9%
9%
4%
1%
85%
0%
10,329
16%
66%
18%
13%
47%
79%
10%
6%
5%
5%
29%
27%
35%
19%
63%
18%
19%
11%
35%
17%
71%
29%
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
782

8.68%
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%
04/06/2022 13:36 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

3.24 4
2 7
5 6
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
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 Pacific Ave
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
Windham St
Soquel Ave
Proposed Election Sequence:2022: 4 (Cummings), 5 (Golder,Kalantari-Johnson & Meyers), and 7 (vacant)2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (Brown) and 6 (vacant)Alternate Election Sequence (other combinations are possible):2022: 4 (Cummings), 6 (vacant) and 7 (vacant)2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (Brown) and 5 (Golder,Kalantari-Johnson & Meyers) �2021 CALIPER

3.25 Map 101d
District 1
Total Pop 9,062
Deviation from ideal 49
% Deviation 0.54%
% Hisp 22.5%
% NH White 63%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian-American 7%
Total 6,881
% Hisp 13%
% NH White 75%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 9%
Total 6,459
% Latino est. 13%
% Spanish-Surnamed 12%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 81%
% NH Black 2%
Total 5,648
% Latino est. 12%
% Spanish-Surnamed 11%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 83%
% NH Black 2%
Total 4,599
% Latino est. 9%
% Spanish-Surnamed 8%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 86%
% NH Black est. 2%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 9,306
age0-19 18%
age20-60 59%
age60plus 22%
immigrants 14%
naturalized 36%
english 78%
spanish 14%
asian-lang 5%
other lang 2%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 9%
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 22%
single family 79%
multi-family 21%
rented 37%
owned 63%
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 9,009
-4
-0.04%
18%
70%
2%
5%
7,249
10%
82%
1%
4%
7,009
10%
10%
2%
1%
87%
0%
6,165
10%
9%
2%
1%
87%
0%
5,131
8%
8%
2%
1%
89%
0%
8,724
15%
62%
24%
14%
44%
84%
10%
2%
5%
4%
40%
25%
22%
18%
73%
19%
13%
11%
45%
12%
69%
31%
55%
45%
3 8,755
-258
-2.86%
20%
63%
3%
10%
6,503
11%
76%
3%
9%
5,843
12%
11%
3%
1%
82%
2%
4,685
11%
11%
3%
1%
83%
2%
3,875
11%
10%
4%
1%
83%
2%
7,921
19%
58%
23%
15%
38%
83%
7%
5%
5%
3%
32%
31%
26%
17%
64%
23%
14%
14%
34%
15%
65%
35%
46%
54%
4 9,423
410

3.26 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Garrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 3:29 PM
To: City Council
Subject: 4.19.22 Agenda Item 3 (and 2)

4.19.22 Agenda Item 3 (and 2)
Dear Council,
I prefer the proposed election sequences as described (not the alternates or other) in both agenda Items 2 and 3.

The maps themselves are fine as chosen (as far as I know, can't say I really gave it a really good go over).

How voters will vote is a mystery.

Somehow no one ever proposed that.. TOO LATE NOW?
Garrett Philipp - Westside

3.27 Transition to District
Elections/Transición a
elecciones de distrito -
Seven district
option/opción de siete
distritos - new options/
nuevas opciones
Survey Results

INTERIM
04/18/2022

3.28 What do you like about Draft Map #101b? ¿Qué te gusta del borrador del mapa #101b?
i like that it includes upper WS with Harvey West
I don't like this map. Zones 2, 4, 6 and 7 are out of proportion UCSC campus has its own district
It includes Beach Flats, Lower Ocean, and Downtown, hopefully creating a healthy Latinx voting district.

What do you dislike about Draft Map #101b? ¿Qué es lo que no te gusta del borrador del mapa #101b?
district 2 including downtown feels off
Everything. UCSC will get too much say in our town. They are mostly not permanent residents. Zone 4 should have more representation.

Lower westside split between districts 5 and 6
It doesn't include the area south of Laurel and north of Neary Lagoon which I believe also has many Latinx residents.

What do you like about Draft Map #101c? ¿Qué te gusta del borrador del mapa #101c?
I like zone 4 better in this map. It includes more of upper ocean and market.

UCSC campus has its own district
It keeps much of Ocean St in the same district as Beach Flats, Lower Ocean, and Downtown and puts the upscale houses around Mission Plaza in another district.

What do you dislike about Draft Map #101c? ¿Qué es lo que no te gusta del borrador del mapa #101c?
1/2 feels off
Zone 7 should include more upper west side.

Lower westside split between districts 5 and 6
It doesn't include the area south of Laurel and north of Neary Lagoon which I believe also has many Latinx residents.

3.29 What do you like about Draft Map #101d? ¿Qué te gusta del borrador del mapa #101d?
4 5 6 feel right
East side zones are ok.

Lower westside is one district - 5
Potentially also creates a viable Latinx voting block.

What do you dislike about Draft Map #101d? ¿Qué es lo que no te gusta del borrador del mapa #101d?
3 is weird
Zone 3 makes no sense at all.

Nothing
It doesn't include the "Blackburn" area
Which map is your first choice? ¿Qué mapa es tu primera opción? Draft Map #101b/Borrador del mapa #101b 0% (0)
Draft Map #101c/Borrador del mapa #101c 75% (3)
Draft Map #101d/Borrador del mapa #101d 25% (1)
Which maps could you support? ¿Qué mapas podría apoyar? Question
Could
support/Podría
apoyar
Would Not Support/
No apoyaría
Draft Map #101b/Borrador del mapa #101b 0% 100%
Draft Map #101c/Borrador del mapa #101c 75% 25%
Draft Map #101d/Borrador del mapa #101d 75% 25%

3.30 Expand all / Collapse all
Could support/Podría apoyar Would Not Support/ No apoyaría Draft Map #101b/Borrador del mapa #101b
Draft Map #101c/Borrador del mapa #101c
Draft Map #101d/Borrador del mapa #101d
What Neighborhood Do You Live In? ¿En qué vecindario vive? Downtown/Centro de la ciudad 25% (1)
Eastside/Lado Este 25% (1)
Upper Eastside/Lado Este Superior 0% (0)
Westside/Lado Oeste 50% (2)
Upper Westside/Lado Oeste Superior 0% (0)
Outside of the City of Santa Cruz/Fuera de la Ciudad de Santa Cruz 0% (0) 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 0% (0) 100%
75% 25%
75% 25%

3.31 Black/African American/Negro/ Afroamericano 0% (0) Latino/ Hispano 0% (0)
White/Caucasian/Blanco/Caucásico 100% (4)
Multiple Races/Razas Múltiples 0% (0)
Other/Otra 0% (0)
In what category is your age? ¿En que categoría esta su edad? Under 20/Menos de 20 0% (0)
20-34 50% (2)
35-54 0% (0)
55-64 50% (2)
65 or older/65 años o más 0% (0)
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 25% (1)
$50,000 - $74,999 0% (0)
$75,000 - $99,999 0% (0)

3.32 $100,000 - $149,999 25% (1)
$150,000 - $199,999 0% (0)
$200,000 or more/$200,000 o más. 50% (2)
Do you rent or own your home? ¿Usted alquila o es dueño de su propia casa?
Rent/Alquiler 50% (2)
Own/Propia 50% (2)

3.33 Gary A. Patton
131 Dake Avenue, Santa Cruz, CA 950602
Telephone: 831-423-2984♦ Email:
[email protected]
April 18, 2022
Mayor And Council Members
City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz City Hall
809 Center Street
Santa Cru, CA 95060
RE: Agenda Items #2 - #3 – Special Council Meeting on April 19, 2022 [Sent By Email - [email protected]]
Dear Mayor Brunner and Council Members:

3.34 A change of this magnitude should be specifically presented to the voters of the City, for debate and decision.

The proposed ballot language clearly is limited to this option and voters are simply asked to voter “Yes” or “No” to the following statement:

But what happens if the measure fails? Based on the ballot language itself, the only result is that there won’t be six districts and an independently elected mayor.

However, the City’s website and the so-called Impartial Analysis of the ballot measure claim that the voters actually will be approving district elections with

3.35 seven districts if the measure fails. This is blatantly false and completely misleading.

1. The Impartial Analysis contains the following statement:

In addition, there is no legal basis for the statement that “seven district map would apply” if Measure E fails, as is clear from reading the language in the ballot measure.

The City’s Transition to District Elections website contains the following:

Again, the City falsely claims, with no evidence or documentation, that a sevendistrict outcome will result if Measure E fails.

In reality, voters in June may vote with three separate motives. Voters could:

1. Vote “Yes” because they want to elect council members from six districts with an independently elected mayor.

3.36 2. Vote “No” because they want to elect council members from seven districts.

3. Vote “No” because they oppose district elections as a way to elect council members.

How has your Council responded?

2. The matter was next before your Council on May 21, 2021, where general direction was given to pursue district elections.

3.37 Clearly, the Council recognized that the resolution calling for the institution of district elections was not legally binding and could be rescinded.

4. Then, on November 23, 2021, your Council established a Council subcommittee to consider a district election system with an independently elected mayor and provide related information.

Thank you for taking seriously my very grave concerns about what is being proposed for your meeting tomorrow.

Yours truly,
Gary A. Patton

3.38 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Ron Pomerantz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:48 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Sandy Brown; Justin Cummings; Sonja Brunner; Martine Watkins; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Donna Meyers; Renee Golder Subject: Special Council Meeting 4-19-2022 Item #2: Second Public Hearing to Receive Input from the Community Regarding the Selection of a Six-District Map and Election Sequence (CN)
Re. Special Council Meeting 4-19-2022 Items #2 &3: Second Public Hearing to Receive Input from the Community Regarding the Selection of a Six-District Map and Election Sequence (CN) Good Day Councilmembers and Mayor.

3.39 2
Now that’s what democracy looks like. Certainly not the deceptive and deceitful way the Council has rigged the June ballot Measure E. As Bernie Sanders has said "the system isn’t broken, it’s fixed.” The Council certainly has worked feverishly to prove this adage. What the public says tonight really doesn’t matter because the fix is already in. You should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing our voting and election rights to be undermined. Hopefully the Council hasn’t bamboozled the electorate.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful attention.

Ron Pomerantz

3.40
5RVHPDU\%DOVOH\
)URP
HULFJURGEHUJHULFJURGEHUJ#\DKRRFRP!
6HQW
7XHVGD\$SULO

$0
7R
&LW\&RXQFLO
6XEMHFW
'LVWULFW(OHFWLRQV,WHPVDQG$SULO
6SHFLDO0HHWLQJ
'HDU0D\RU%UXQQHUDQG&RXQFLO
,VXSSRUW0DSVDQG
,EHOLHYHWKH\GRWKHEHVWRYHUDOOMRERINHHSLQJQHLJKERUKRRGVDQGFRPPXQLWLHVRILQWHUHVWWRJHWKHU 5HJDUGV
(ULF

3.41 City of Santa Cruz
7-District Draft Maps
April 19, 2022 Dr. Douglas Johnson

3.42 National Demographics Corporation
2 Equal Population
Federal Voting Rights Act
No Racial Gerrymandering
Respect voters’ choices /
continuity in office
Future population growth

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

3.43 April 19, 2022
3 Original 7-District Maps
April 19, 2022
Interactive review map
Initial feedback:
• Unite Seabright.
• Unite Beach Flats and
lower Ocean St
corridor.
• Map 102 is good for
the west side.

3.44 4
Public Map Submission

3.45 April 19, 2022
5 New Map: 101b

3.46 April 19, 2022
6 New Map: 101c

3.47 April 19, 2022
7 New Map: 101d

3.48 April 19, 2022
8 Public Hearing & Discussion
 Which of the seven-district plan(s) do you prefer?
 Which election sequence do you prefer?

3.49 April 19, 2022

Santa Cruz City CouncilApril 19, 2022

Santa Cruz City Council
April 19, 2022