Read the October 30 meeting.

Let's salute our flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic of which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Councilman Benavides. By calling this meeting to order, it is currently 626. And Madam Clerk, do we have public comment? And yes, we do. And so members of the public may address the City Council on items, on closest session items, and then as well as we already went in and we're now out for open session. And we are now going to be doing public comments. And are these part of this? Okay. Fantastic. And the first person I'm going to call on is Karen Rodriguez, followed by Del Halvick, and then Ken Nguyen.

Karen.

Karen's not here. Okay. Okay, so we'll bring her back. Del?

Agenda items? Oh, I thought it was just general comments at this time.

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

Special meeting, so we are not doing general comments.

Okay.

Yes, those are the cards I think.

75-8.

Yeah, let me get my other stuff.

Yes, I will accept. Yes.

Good evening, City Council members. Two items that I wanted to bring up. One of them was on the distribution of or the designation of the ward numbering system. I sent you guys a letter on that, so I'm hoping you had a chance to take a look at it. It just gave you a couple more options for it. I think it's, to me, it was important that in 2020, the people that are being elected this coming Tuesday don't have to rerun for office in 2020.

Right now, the designation has it such that two out of the three sitting council members will extend their term to 2022. I've had conversations with a couple of council members since I sent out the letter. And there may be other caveats that are used to determine who's in what ward and how that's all played out, but essentially you have my input from that. And as far as ward boundaries go, I don't particularly have a real preference.

But one thing that did pique my curiosity was on the agenda staff report, it states that pursuant to the settlement agreement entered, da-da-da-da-da, and it goes on to say, in any special elections after November 3rd shall be by ward. shall be by ward. And so it brings up the question why we have Measure AA on the ballot if, according to the settlement agreement, any election after November 3rd will be by ward. So hopefully you guys address why that is

and why Measure AA is on the ballot. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Halvick. If I can please have, if she's back in the room, Karen Rodriguez.

Hello, good evening. My name is Karen Rodriguez. I'm a resident in Santana in Ward 6. I'm here today to ask for your support for the proposed map D2. I believe it's crucial for our residents in Santana to have representative voting power over their city. This means that residents of all ethnicities have their vote count. Specifically, the Asian American community has been disenfranchised with the current ward map and has been misrepresented. I urge the council to support MAPD2. This proposed MAPLAS for the Asian American community to exercise their collective voting power and allows them to elect a city council representative

that best understands their community as a whole. MAPD2 also ensures that the dense renter community of interest, currently in a heavily homeowner ward, is better represented and those who do not own homes have a voice in Santa Ana politics. Map C and C2 are detrimental to the Santa Ana communities because they cut into and divide long-standing communities who not only share history, but who are continuously living shared experiences with one another. Lastly, Map C2 has not been subjected to the same open community process as all other maps and therefore lack transparency and true community representation.

Again, please support a map for the people, Map D2. Thank you.

Thank you, Karen. If I could have Ken Nguyen, followed by Teresa Lee.

Good evening, City Councilmember. My name is Ken Nguyen. I'm the 39th-year-old resident of Santa Ana, and also as the active Vietnamese American community leader in Santa Ana. As you may be aware, most Vietnamese Americans live in both sides of the Santa Ana River on the western section of the city where many Vietnamese businesses, churches, temple, and community centers are located. Based on a more recent report by City Center, we currently have a population of 324,000 residents in that Asian American residents consist of 8% of the population,

or 24,374 residents considered a protected class in our city. After we have carefully reviewed the proposed maps A, B, C, C2, D, and D2, we found that maps C2 have the highest number of Asian Americans, nearly 13,000 or 52% of Asian American citizens of voting age population in Santa Ana. also map C2 consists of area a which have the highest number of Vietnamese

resident a community of interest or the protected class in our city I'm our city council member city council select map C2 it will protect the interest of Vietnamese American resident in city of Santa Ana and map C2 it definitely will be best for me American resident in Santa Ana thank you for your

consideration. Thank you, Ken. Teresa Lee, followed by Alejandra Capistron.

Good evening. My name is Teresa Lee. I support my D2 because it gives the residents of the northwest corner of Santana to vote with the major creative Vietnamese district.

Our community has been part of the Vietnamese community in Santana of several decades, but without a voice. Map D2 give my neighbor and me a voice in the city hall. Don't take away our voice again.

I respectfully request that you vote for Map D2. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Lee. Alejandra?

Good afternoon, my name is Alejandra Capistrán, leader of OCO and with the movement of the Imam in the Parroquia Inmaculado Corazón de María. I'm here to... Can I get the translator? Please. Okay.

Ah, perdón.

Hola, mi nombre es Alejandra Capistrán, líder de OCO y con movimiento y mama en la parroquia de Inmaculado Corazón de María. Y estoy aquí en apoyo al mapa de dos porque permite que la densa comunidad de inquilinos en Huarzi tenga voz. Estoy luchando con las rentas altas y necesito que me presenten en el ayuntamiento. Además, comprendo, quiero apoyar a nuestros hermanos asiáticos para que tengan mejor representación como votantes. le pido respetuosamente que vote por si por el mapa de dos. Gracias, Dios le bendiga.

Thank you.

My name is Alejandra Capistran. I'm an OCO leader in the IMACMA movement here in the parish of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and I'm here to support MAPD2 because it allows for the dense community of renters in Ward C to have a voice. I am fighting with and struggling with high rents and I need representation in City Hall. Also, I want to support our Asian brethren so they have a better representation as voters. And I respectfully request your yes vote on map D2. God bless you.

Great. Thank you. Kathy Lee followed by Teresa Lee. I think Teresa already spoke or was that someone else? Is there two Teresa Lees? Okay, great.

Centenar Regales, it is barrier. I respectfully request that you work the map, D2. Thank you.

Thank you. Rafael Bonga, or Bonga, followed by Alejandra. Oh, I think you guys put two cards in here. You already spoke. Okay. Yep.

Muy buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Rafael Borja, leader of OCOS and with movement and magma in the Parroquia Inmaculado Corazón de María and I'm here to say that in Santa Ana we are characterized by being a community and human community it's why I support the Plan D2 for being a map that really reflects the unity as voters in all the city and I also support the Asian community so that they have a fair representation as voters and as residents.

That's why I urge you to vote yes to the Plan 2. The community of Santa Ana and the city council work together. Santa Ana will be different in progress. Thank you.

my name is Rafael Borja I'm an OCO leader and with the MAGMA movement here in the parish of Immaculate Heart of Mary I'm here to say that Santa Ana is characterized for being a hospitable and humane community and that's why I support map D2 because it is a map that truly reflects our unity as as voters in the entire city I'm also here to support the Asian community so they have a just representation as voters and as residents. That's why I urge you to vote yes on map D2. The Santa Ana community and the Santa Ana City Council work together, then Santa Ana will have a much better progress, thank you.

Great, Alexis.

Good evening, Council. My name's Alexis Teodoro and I'm a resident ward for ward number two. and I'm here to support for the proposed D-2, also for the reasons that Karen who spoke earlier expressed and I hope that the council takes all the points into consideration. Thank you.

Great, thank you. We no longer have public comments so I'm going to open up the public hearing hold the hearing number four to amend the council ward boundaries and introduce ordinance to amend the same strategic plan. The legal notice was published in the Orange County Register on August 24th, 26th, La Opinion on August 28th and 31st, Viet on August 27th, 31st, Chinese Daily on August 29th and 31st, and the Korea Times on August 28th and on the 31st. We have some recommended actions, and so I'm going to open

up the hearing and bring this back, but we do have four recommendations that are here today and before I ask Paul if we have any questions for him is one is to open and close the public hearing to obtain input from the community on draft maps for consideration. Number two, select one of the maps being considered, map C, map C2, D or D2. Number three, confirm ward numberings as proposed by staff or adjust numbering as desired. Note ward one, three and five will hold elections on November 3rd, 2020 and wards two, four and six will hold elections on November 8, 2022.

And finally, number four is introduce the ordinance for the first reading and authorized publication of title requires five affirmative votes. And with that, does this council wish to hear a presentation from our consultant at this time, or would like any legal consideration from our attorney at this point? Yes, Councilman Solorio, and then followed by Councilman Benedetti. First, just a process, and I'll talk about

about the maps in a little bit.

I know clearly for a variety of reasons we're to select a map tonight. The issue of timing of what ward goes when. I know that the settlement agreement was very specific about us identifying

a seat that would empowered Vietnamese and Asian American voters for that seat to be essentially on the 2020 ballot. It was silent on everything else. I know until I received some of the materials in preparation for this meeting, I yet wasn't really preparing to make a decision on which race goes with what election cycle. I know we we did receive some input including Mr. Helwig. Can that piece possibly be deferred to later,

or in what ways is that so linked to the maps that they really have to be done at the same time?

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

And Mayor Potem and Councilmember Solorio, I would like to first mention that we do have our special legal counsel here this evening to answer specific questions, but as a matter of process, we do need to make, you will need to make a decision as to when the different wards, as you draw the new maps, will go forward with the elections. We knew that as of tonight, but what we really thought you might do tonight is do the heavy lifting and take public comment. If we get five votes to move forward with a specific map and a first reading, then we will work with our special counsel and our consultant

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

to bring you those issues in your second staff report for your second reading so that they will happen simultaneously and be ready to go. What we didn't want to do this evening was to bring all of that information forward. We really wanted to have an opportunity to concentrate on the maps and to give you input. Again, if you do first reading tonight, we're going to work with our special counsel and consultant to give you all the information you need to then decide which ward will go first.

So we can make the timing decision later, not that tonight we can't begin to talk about it, maybe even decide, but that's not a critical decision.

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

We were just simply trying to keep the work load doable and be able to give the public an opportunity to separate the issues.

Got it. Thank you so much.

Madam City Attorney, just a quick clarification. Just say if you were to vote on a map and you have consensus, but during the second hearing, if that could change, so then what happens?

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

Again, some process-related question.

When you say change, say that you have five votes here today for one map, and then at the second meeting, say you only have four.

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

We will need consistently to have the five votes for the first reading and the second reading. If there's a change during the second reading and you choose, five of you choose to support a different map, then we would consider that the first reading of that different decision.

Great. Just wanted to make sure that that was clarified. Great. I just want to mention Ms. Barlow is here this evening in case you have any specific questions about the settlement. Councilman Benavides, and then I'll move to Councilman Dinajero and then Councilman Sarmiento.

Thank you, Mayor Portem. I'll also process question for city attorney. We've been making mention of the need for five votes per charter to adopt new ward maps. This is a process that we're going through as a result of a settlement agreement. I think you may have touched on this last meeting. But just to clarify for both us as a council, for the members of the public, Like, if there were not five votes here tonight or at all to approve a map, a new boundaries,

what then are the implications to the city as a result of that if we were not able to come together?

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

So as a matter of process, I'd like to break this down into two steps. I want to remind the Council that we did enter into a settlement agreement, and in good faith we need to pursue implementation of that settlement agreement. I think we have a duty to do that. If we were not able to achieve five votes this evening, my recommendation would be that we continue this matter to your next meeting, November 20th, and that we continue to try to get those five votes of support for as long as we can and working with the plaintiffs to let them know that we are working on that process.

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

If we reach a point in time, I'm very hopeful that this does not happen, where it does not appear that we can do that, then we would need to have a discussion with our special counsel to have a discussion with the plaintiffs. But I think if we give this process a good amount of time and we look at it seriously, I'm hopeful that we can implement the settlement agreement that you all approved.

By way of the settlement agreement, that avoids us quite a bit of expense in litigation, right?

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

Yes, I mean, as you know, the settlement agreement is a public document. We did pay several hundred thousands of dollars to settle this matter. And to go and proceed with litigation, I would let our special counsel give you an estimate. but I've been told that's upwards of a million to two million dollars.

So hopefully we are able to come together to avoid that, even though this is not necessarily a perfect process, but it's one that we're trying to, one, take it seriously, hear from the community and be able to at least take a step toward going towards district elections and such and try to remedy an issue. I want to thank all the members of the public who came out and spoke, as well as those who sent their communication via via email and it appears that there is a a map in particular that is standing out which I'm again

appreciate the community's input and certainly interested personally in looking at that map for consideration but I'll heed to the chair to continue comments by my colleagues thanks councilman

I have a minute to this. Councilman Dana Heddle?

I just want, I appreciate the maps that were given to us. I think we've taken a look at them. Personally, I just want to go ahead and make a motion to support Plan D2. And if there's someone with a second, we can continue discussion.

We have a second.

I'll second the comment.

Great, yes, Councilman Sarmiasso.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. So I just want to get back to a little procedural housekeeping, Madam City Attorney. So I do agree with you in the sense that for a second reading, if we deviate to a different map, it re-triggers, or it triggers a first reading. Because I think on a second reading, all we can do is make minor, non-material adjustments to the original motion on first reading. So I just wanted to clear that up. And changing the time would be considered a material change. So that's one.

The second one is let's just assume that we are able to select a map, and on Tuesday the voters don't adopt the measure. So what does that, you know, in looking at the settlement terms, it looks like our point might be moot at this point, or our exercise to select a map may be moot, but maybe, Kim, you can enlighten us and give us some.

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

I'd like to have our special counsel address that as she negotiated and documented our settlement agreement for you.

Good evening, Madam Mayor Pro Tem and members of the council. Kimberly Hall Barlow, special counsel. If the voters do not approve the ballot measure to change the charter, to allow a different methodology essentially for selecting awards, then at that point the plaintiffs would be able to enter a stipulated judgment with the court and the court would be issuing an order requiring that you move forward with the change that essentially would be declaring that provision of the charter illegal

and it would require this council to move forward implementation of the revised boundary lines So your process of choosing a map will not be moot. It will simply be a map that would then be implemented by the court rather than through the normal just public hearing process.

So our exercise on selecting the map will survive whether or not voters adopt or they don't adopt the measure on Tuesday.

That's correct.

And we're not in breach of anything, of any of the terms of the stipulated settlement agreement, whether or not the voters decide one way or the other?

No, it was understood that the voters will make a choice. Obviously, the hope is that we wouldn't be forced into a situation where the stipulated judgment would have to be filed. But obviously, you can't be required to make your voters vote a certain way.

So conceivably, if we go before the court or the court now manages the decision on whether or not we're going to find our charter provision illegal, it could straddle, I guess, both this council and maybe the new council that's going to be impaneled, right? Is there any requirement in the settlement that requires that this council oversee that change?

What we provided for was that you would do the selection of the map and that that map would take effect either on certification of election results approving the measure or upon entry of the stipulated judgment. But that, of course, does require that you select the map prior to the seating of a new council.

Okay. Thanks.

can you repeat that last comment that this council the current council is authorized under the terms of the settlement agreement to select the map it has to be done before a new council is seated or we would technically be in breach of the agreement then we would probably have to go through additional public hearings with any new council members we would probably have to seek a modification of some kind if that was possible but this council is was committed in the settlement

agreement to implement the new district boundaries so just for clarification purposes whether the

voters decide to vote for this or not or we have a new council coming in it's really not up to the voters or this new council to really dictate what this what these wards or maps should be based on this lawsuit that is against this current council that is

correct you will have the option of selecting the boundaries for this ward and after the 2020 census new maps will probably be drawn so that was gonna be

my next question because I said so say this council chooses this map just for a hypothetical purposes D2 we choose this map and we have five votes here today and then we have a second and it goes through 2020 comes along we will have this potentially only this map ward for really two years and then there's a potential that there's gonna be this whole new wards if the new council decides that they don't want to go this route?

Typically, adjustments that are made to the boundary lines following something like this, either a settlement agreement or a judgment. First of all, the terms of the settlement agreement require that any future boundary maps comply with the CVRA, comply with federal and state law. So there wouldn't be an opportunity to draw lines in such a way as to then divide the Asian American community. So what happens when we do redistricting after census is typically minor adjustments in the lines. Sometimes there aren't adjustments needed.

But in a city of this size, you're likely to have enough of a variance in particular areas that there might need to be some movement of the lines. They're typically fairly small.

Okay. And I just wanted to clarify that. I think it's important for us to clarify that. because today I want to be honest with my colleagues. I wasn't planning on voting, but as I've taken a position early on that I wasn't favorable moving in this direction just for the mere fact that we were just taking one step versus doing a comprehensive approach in how we actually vote. It's plurality. And for me, I have a big problem with that in that winner takes all in a kind of district voting. Typically when it's district, it doesn't work well.

And so I have a big issue with that, and that's the main reason why I didn't want to participate, because I feel that we should have done our due diligence and been able to put in a new voting process of how these folks would be able to really have the ability to understand that, look, you have an opportunity to run for office, but at the same time, we're not going to have five or six Latinos in a district and just say mere purposes of a African American or white person and you know typically what happens and we've seen this in other wards

and districts where you kind of and even here at a large election that we face here when you have multiple candidates of the same and you know it's winner take all you know typically what happens is that we all split the vote, right? And now you're dealing with a smaller pool. And so, you know, I believe that at the end of the day that, you know, with old census, you know, numbers, things are changing drastically, and we're seeing it with our housing and what kind of housing we've brought to this city. And there's just a lot of changes happening in this city fairly quickly.

And I think, you know, in my personal opinion, we should have waited to see, because I really believe that a lot of these, in particular in the downtown and the core of this area, it's changing, and it's been changing for the past five-plus years, and you see it with the numbers. And so as I move forward, and I know today we need five votes to move forward,

I wanted to have clarity that this settlement or this lawsuit has nothing to do with the voters approving award elections. and nor does it have anything to do with a new council coming in, thinking that they can go ahead and make changes based on, you know, we don't approve this map, this council should have waited for this new council, and we don't understand why they took this vote. And I just wanted to bring that clarity because I think it's two separate issues that you all are talking about here today that I think the public, in many respects, is confused.

and I just wanted to make sure that we understood that this is actually a lawsuit that it's towards this council, not any future council, and or, again, for clarity purposes, whether the district elections award pass on November 6th. If it does, great, and if it doesn't, you know, we still have an obligation is what you all are telling us.

Correct.

Okay, so we have a first and a second. Is there any more discussion? Yes, Councilman Solorio.

Yeah, for me probably the most important thing is just that we come into compliance with the California Voting Rights Act. I said that all along, that once we saw the data, I mean the data is strong and compelling, that we have been disenfranchising Vietnamese and Asian American voters, and so we've got to do right by them and right by the law.

You know, in reflecting on, you know, what's the perfect map, and there never really is a perfect map, I did begin to see that, you know, the recent suggestions from OCO and some of the allies and residents organizing around that was very interested in protecting the Lacey neighborhood and the broader area because there's comparable renters, comparable residents, etc. And then we got a flurry of letters from two Vietnamese community sectors.

The most recent flurry, I think, was with messaging very consistent with what Mr. Ken Nguyen shared. And I wasn't ever intended on putting a map forward, but I I did realize that getting to five can be difficult. And I tried to then figure out, okay, well those are the main points of contention. How can we address both those types of interest in one map? And I saw that you could modify map C into version C2 to still keep Vietnamese on both sides of the river

because there are a significant number on both sides. And in fact, C2 now, based on the number of overall Vietnamese and Asian American residents, has the most of any of the maps and any of the other lettered sections. But then it also took into account that broader Lacey neighborhood. And I did speak personally maybe about a week or so ago with Miguel Hernandez from Oklahoma. to understand what the genesis of their interests were in creating map D2 and it had to do with

keeping that broader Lacey neighborhood area, larger area, intact. So the map that I put forward does and accomplishes those two things so that we can try to arrive at hopefully what will be of five votes up here. I know that Olco, again, even though I think their main interest is about the Lacey neighborhood, they suggested that that map C2 disenfranchise some Vietnamese American voters in the northwest section of the city. But I would argue that by the same logic,

C2 is stronger than D2 because east of the river there's many, many Vietnamese Americans. And when we think, too, about communities of interest, which is big, I know from personally having been here to most of these facilities and seeing the community interact, a big part of any community is the religious community. And so east of the river you have St. Barbara, which is a very prominent Catholic church that Vietnamese Americans and Asian Americans attend. Our Lady of Le Bang that actually this council renamed that church in fact and

rebuilt some of it in support of that Vietnamese community of which much of it is east of the river. You also have many Asian Americans that attend Christ our Savior and then you have several Buddhist temples, nice restaurants, so you know the Vietnamese community and Asian American community, they're really on both sides of the river, and I think C2 really has, and by numerical fact, the largest number of Vietnamese and Asian American residents of any of these maps.

Also, in C2, I heard often and clearly from my current constituents in War III that they'd like to have all of it north of 17th, and they did not want to be divided. And some of the other maps, including D2, does take out some areas that are north of 17th, as well as some of the areas north of 17th that are in D2 are more affluent than the rest of the ward that includes Lacey. And then for the reasons of not dividing communities and neighborhoods,

keeping you know north of 17th intact I think is good and helpful and I guess just as a closing point as well like I just wanted to re-emphasize that map C2 has about 13,000 Vietnamese and Asian Americans residents living there which as I understand is about half of all of them citywide. So it does take that into account. And again, I think it addresses the idea of having the broader legacy area all in one ward.

So I just wanted to share the reasons why I moved forward that plan to take those things into account and to try to see how we might be able to get

to five votes up here. Thank you. Great. Councilman Sarmiento and then followed by Councilman Dinajero. Were you next? No, no, it was you. Yeah, go ahead.

Got it. Thank you. So I, you know, I appreciate the councilman submitting a map that's helpful because that's what we wanted to encourage from everybody in the community to do and you know I think to Ken's point I think it's important to make sure that we are receptive and we understand what the Asian American population in the city supports and I think there is support probably for many of these this is a really imperfect science is is what I you know realized after speaking with Paul our consultant and going through the different iterations it is very very imperfect and if you look at the

standard deviations on all the maps they're very narrow there there's just very little flaw that you can find at least with the numbers and the quantifiable data in any of the maps. So at some point, any map will work, and any map will, I think, survive a challenge pursuant to the CVRA standards. So that's the good thing, is that we have maps, I think, that comply and that will provide the relief and will cure the problem that we have. But we also want to make sure that we don't do, as we're trying to address a concern with our Asian American voters,

we don't want to do it to the detriment of other folks who have certain interests that are important as well, because we're a community of residents that are considered a protected class. So, you know, I think the arguments about homeowners and renters is very compelling to me. I mean, we just, we have that dilemma, unfortunately, where we do have many, many tenants, many, many renters, and we want to make sure that, you know, they're not bifurcated and then their common interests are also lost in this discussion.

So, you know, I just, when I see maps, the only problem I had with C2, or one of the problems I had, And I go back to something that Paul Mitchell, who addressed us at the last meeting, and you can sit down, Kim, because I don't think we have any questions. Thank you. Because I want to speak to Paul. Well, you can look him in the eye. But I think what you were saying, Paul, when I saw map D before D2 was drafted up, the more, I guess I need to put it this way, the less tortured a map looks like, the better map it is. In other words, if you have things meandering and they sort of snake around and you have legs,

it looks like you're trying to gerrymander certain areas. And that's where I've seen maps look really ugly and you wonder how did they arrive at that, as opposed to having some very nicely drafted sort of quadrants or horizontal areas and keeping neighborhoods together. So I really did like D, but then realizing that D2 was just a slight departure from that to make sure that we kept some communities of interest together.

But on C2, I see that there's a leg here that I think it's District C that goes into District A as a sort of L shape on the west side of the river. That to me looks a little tortured. so you know it looks like we're trying to make up I guess you know on some votes and on some numbers but that's the kind of example that I think we're trying to move away from and we can find that in D2 as well we'll find like the triangle in and I think what the councilman was talking about in his ward but to the extent we can minimize that and make them smooth lines to the extent that we

can I think they're less subject to challenge I think they're you know They're more fairly drawn based upon just numbers and grids. But I think to Mayor Pro Temp's point, finally, is this map is probably not going to be with us very long. Or these districts, I think, eventually after the 2020 census, we're probably going to revisit this again and make some adjustments that probably will look very similar to something in between these two maps. So, you know, I just I'm very concerned about us kicking this down the road, and then we're all looking at each other on November 20th or December 4th,

and we're saying it's too late, we just breached the agreement. And now we're looking at a big-ticket item when it comes to litigation costs. So that's my concern. I don't think any of us are going to walk away saying this is the perfect map, and it solves all the problems.

But before we have an answer, just a quick point. I had looked at that L-shaped area, too, because a couple maps had that. That's the Santa Anita area. It's just an example of, for a reason of keeping communities of interest intact, that they went west of the river to keep the Santa Anita neighborhood, which is a historic Latino neighborhood, intact. And, you know, with a more Latino ward, and the opposite of that is that, you know, Map D2, you know, instead puts that very historic Latino neighborhood with the Asian American neighborhoods.

And so I looked at that and thought it made sense to, you know, keep those communities of interest with the right community and ignoring the fact that the river is there.

Did you have a particular question or would you just like for me to respond?

Thank you. Madam Mayor Pro Tem, I'd like to see if we can go ahead and take a vote.

I know we had a first and a second, so I'll go ahead and call the question. All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye. Aye.

Can we just do a roll call vote, please? Council Member Sarmiento? Aye. Council Member Tinojero? Aye. Mayor Pro Tem Martinez? Aye. Council Member Benavidez? Aye. Council Member Solorio?

You can do it, Council Member. You can do it.

Well, you know, I do feel that, as Councilmember Sarmiento says, that all of these maps, I think, are in compliance with the California Voting Rights Act. And I know that everyone was pushed on their comfort zone, including our Mayor Pro Tem. Yes, I'm voting here and I came here today. So that being the case, and the reality, too, that in the near future with the new census, there will be an opportunity to make other adjustments.

and whether the sales tax measure passes on election day one way or another. Like every large city, there's going to continue to be financial challenges, so I do have concerns with spending more money on attorneys and legal costs. Not that I don't like attorneys.

But boy, four votes already.

Not that I do not believe that. Maybe before I vote, to the extent that it's possible, which it probably is, I do not understand what

MAPD2 accomplishes for the communities that we've heard from that MAPC2 does not. For example, I did hear Council Member Sarmiento very clearly mention that little, what he called, leg west of the river, that that did look awkward and that that was a reason for some of his concern. But I think the response being that it was to protect the Santanita neighborhood and keeping it with like communities, that there was a strong logic there.

So, you know, I guess I'm open to going with some of my other colleagues here, but I'm just wanting to understand why.

Councilman Tinajero?

May I just, as I looked at the maps, one of the things that I noticed, as you know, I'm up on the ballot this year, so I actually went out to that west end and really canvassed it. And what I noticed on D2 was that the largest concentration of the Vietnamese population is on that side, west of the river. And so in C2, it actually cuts into the area over by Centennial Park, just on the other side of Edinger. Yeah. A does. It kind of comes down.

Right. So for me, that was... See, but again, I think there's, I don't want to call it outright misinformation, but I think you've got to really sift through and think about these things. So really, map C2 includes all that Asian American voter base west of the river. If anything, it adds to it, so there's no deconcentration of the Asian community in that map.

I agree. I agree. that there's not a D concentration. But what it does, it goes into, it absorbs another Latino, more Latino numbers down here. So I'm just telling you. Right, right, right. I'm not hard set. I'm just saying.

And again, yes and no, because then if you look at the actual final total number of Asian American residents in both, there's more in C2. So by definition, if you will, we actually added more Asian Americans by going east of the river and, again, are keeping Latino core communities like the Santanita neighborhood together in C2, whereas in D2 you're putting, you know, a historic Latino community that has felt disenfranchised for a long time,

you're putting them in an area where now they will be, many of them will likely feel more disenfranchised.

Counselor, you're concerned, Yim?

You know, so compelling arguments on both sides. We could probably debate this probably all night and still not come to some agreement, right, Paul? you've probably been to some of those conversations, some of those discussions. Can you tell us, I mean, as we were vested with this obligation to decide on a map, have we achieved that with the maps that we have before us? And is there any disadvantage with B2 versus C2 or anything? Because I think that there's good arguments to be made for both maps. And I even like D, so I just didn't want to throw it in there, because, look, then we get really messy, right?

To the extent we can just narrow it down to two, I think we've made some progress. So that was good that we're at least down to two maps.

So, you know, I mean, is there, you know, what's your take on this?

I think you're right to say that you're vested with this obligation, and the discussion now is on your side of the dais. I think your attorneys and your staff and the hearings that you had and the community engagement are all reflected in the plans that you have, in particular D2 and C2, which were revisions of the original plans based on input. So, and each argument that's being made is being made in terms that are completely valid within redistricting. When you talk about the shapes of the districts, that's in redistricting world termed as compactness. and when other people are talking about the communities of interest that are in

each district that's another in some cases you know a way to look at a particular set of lines as being justifiable so the conversation you're having is exactly the conversation that you would expect in this process in a transparent process and it is your obligation at this point to take what's been given to you and see if you can come to an agreement see and what I've

liked about both the maps, like you said, was that they've both been sort of, you know, versions of what we began with, and that was because there was public comment, that was, there was opinion, there was people that, there was folks that wanted to tweak it, and that's what we, I guess that's what you want out of these, you know, conversations. So, you know, at this point, I think, you know, we can beat it to death, and, you know, maybe even tweak it a little bit more, but we're still not going to get any further if we just keep on not coming to some agreement amongst five of us.

I know we have a vote on the table. We're waiting for Councilman Solorio, but I know Councilman Benavidez, you have a quick comment

based on... Let me make one last statement here. I do feel like, and this is not just me because it's based off input that I received from the community, like via map D of C2 a good faith effort was made to address the various concerns out there and I guess I've really yet to from the dais hear what's problematic with C2 so

you know for me they're not hearing much I mean I'm inclined just to vote no which would be unfortunate obviously but again I'm not hearing any compelling reason on what the problem is with C2 and again I did it largely in part to try to achieve consensus and include the comments from the various main communities that we have in the audiences and letters so I guess I'm just

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

struggled with that that idea for not and may i just only mentioned for for mayor pro tem as the chair of this meeting um if there's going to be further debate just as just to make sure that we're carrying this right that's what i'm trying to finalize probably run a motion to go ahead and extend our debate so we can continue to have the conversation since the call since the vote

i already called for the question i was just that's why i went back to councilman solorio um If you're very quickly, Councilman Benavides, and then we just, I know we've already taken a vote, so. Yeah, I just want to make sure I'm not trying to stop conversation. I just want to make sure that we're doing this in the right way.

Thank you. Thank you both. Just, I'll try to be brief here my comment, and I appreciate the comments and Councilman Solorio's comments. There isn't necessarily a perfect map, and this process isn't necessarily perfect. I definitely appreciate Councilman's efforts to address some of what he's heard and some of the additional, you know, just personal thoughts and trying to look at some of the numbers and such. And I know it's not an easy process to try to balance that out, so I'm sure it took you some time to do that.

There was some comment. Personally, I prefer MAPD. I think some of my colleagues do as well for the purpose of reaching consensus, recognizing that there isn't going to be a perfect map and that there will be within a couple of years an opportunity to revisit, yet we have now the opportunity to follow through with the settlement of this agreement, put that behind us and then start with a clean slate. I think for me that's where I'm willing and I think some of my colleagues as well to concede and settle on on D2 for the purpose of moving this process forward I think that

the consultant as well ended up coming drafting D2 as a result of some of the direct public comment public input right several you know multiple meetings and such so that so that's also one of the things that compels me and that there's been a variety of different meetings that that's been independent of any feedback or input by by council but rather that that resident feedback and input so even though I personally prefer D D2 seems to be what what addresses some of the community input and feedback so all that to say not a perfect process in a couple years we'll have an opportunity to to revisit and for those

sitting here anyway will so that the last comment with regard of that the C2 I don't think it's if there's a problem with it that's the only thing that I do see that's more of that natural boundary there the river you know that would allow I think there is a certain experience for those who live west of the river than those who live kind of a more central part of the city so having a council member ensuring that a council member lives in that part of town by way of having that award that has that that natural river boundary I think is is one of the strengths that I see of D2, if you will, for looking at the two.

So all that to say, you know, you can make an argument on both sides. I would just compel you and implore you, Councilman, to consider helping us to resolve and bring the settlement agreement to conclusions so we can.

You know, I think just as a courtesy, I will vote for it today, but I may not vote for it at the next meeting for the various reasons because again you know even councilman Benavides your statement about you know that the demographer did map D to the way he did based on input it was a really just a conversation around the larger keeping the larger Lacey area intact and C2 does that as well and I heard a couple of my colleagues say they're really favorite

is map D so if that's really the case why aren't you all supporting map D so that's why I'm just kind of confused on then what the motivations or interests are what the problems are with with with with map C2 I in the meantime I'll work with legal counsel to see okay on the second reading how much changes if any we could make including maybe going back and looking at at c2 uh at that point uh i know some of these things aren't crystal clear in terms of uh process uh and councilman just i'm gonna go

ahead and call the question um again if i could at least finish my statement we're very generous

with you and your time at many council members so just give me a couple more we're in violation

We are in violation now.

Mayor Pro Tem, I would like a couple more minutes as a courtesy the way we continue to give you meetings. Please. Thank you. So I would like to continue to work with our city attorney just on process and what the various options are at the meeting where we have the second reading. Because as has been mentioned before, you can make some changes, not many or significant. and this issue is obviously a very important one and to the extent that we're not dividing communities that would be a good thing thank you so much

madam city attorney just for clarification purposes to make sure that this vote is going to count I want to make sure that we're not in violation of any of the Robert rules of order right I would you can move forward you've Or would you like for me to have everyone restate the vote?

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

Well, I think there was a motion and a second, right? Yes, and we then voted.

I would ask you to do your roll call again. Roll call again. Great. Thank you. Madam Clerk, can we please do a roll call?

Council Member Sarmiento. Yes. Council Member Tina Harrell. Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Martinez. Council Member Benavidez. Aye. Council Member Solorio. Aye. We have five affirmative votes.

Thank you.

Yes. Yes. Now we're going to move towards Council comments. Any comments? Councilman Sarmiento?

For brevity purposes, I'm just going to say goodnight.

Councilman Tinajero?

Goodnight.

All right. Councilman Benavides? Any comments?

Shep Santana, vote next week and have a good night.

Councilman Solorio?

Just want to thank all the participants. It's been a long few months on this. and government isn't always a straight line, but we're getting there. Thank you so much. Well, vote.

Great. So at this moment in time, now this meeting is adjourned. Next meeting is scheduled for November 6th. Actually has been canceled, so the next meeting of the City Council will be held Tuesday on November 20th at 5 p.m. Thank you.

Thank you.

You