►
From YouTube: Burbank City Council Special Meeting - August 23, 2023
Description
Burbank City Council Special Meeting - August 23, 2023
B
B
C
C
E
C
C
C
This
is
the
time
and
place
for
the
hearing
for
public
input
regarding
the
content
of
draft
maps
and
sequencing
of
Elections
to
propose
a
districting
plan
for
the
city's
potential
transition
to
district-based
city
council
elections.
Before
we
begin,
are
there
any
disclosures
related
to
this
hearing
from
Council?
C
C
G
Good
evening
mayor
vice
mayor
and
council
members
on
January
24th,
2023
you'll
recall
that
the
council
unanimously
approved
a
resolution
of
intent
to
transition
from
our
current
at-large
system
of
electing
council
members
to
a
by-district
system.
This
will
be
the
council's
third
public
hearing,
considering
the
many
Maps
submissions
and
neighborhood
submissions
and
and
sequencing
of
Elections
I
did
want
to
note
that
the
council
will
need
a
final
public
hearing
to
adopt
any
ordinance
that
it
that
it
introduces
tonight.
G
But
meanwhile,
I
would
like
to
introduce
Doug
Johnson
from
National
demographics
Corporation,
it's
nice
to
see
Doug
again.
He
is
a
bipartisan,
the
president
of
a
bipartisan
organization
that
has
helped
many
many
many
jurisdictions
throughout
the
process
to
explore
districting
and
redistricting,
and
he
is
here
to
provide
an
overview
of
the
council's
process
thus
far
as
well
as
options
for
the
council
to
consider
tonight.
G
H
H
H
Okay,
so
just
as
a
reminder,
we're
in
this
three-phase
process
where
Step
One
is
picking
a
map
that
would
have
five
districts,
the
current
Charter
language
calls
for
five
accounts,
a
members.
So
that's
the
phase
we're
in
now
once
this
is
is
resolved,
then
we'll
go
into
phase
two
of
looking
at
alternative
options
for
something
that
could
go
on
the
city
Charter
in
March.
H
So
if
you
folks
want
to
talk
about
six
districts
or
anything
like
that,
they
would
have
to
be
a
change
to
the
Charter
that'll
be
addressed
in
phase
two
after
we
get
through
this
choice
of
a
map.
The
other
piece,
obviously
ranked
Choice
voting,
there's
been
a
lot
of
talk
about.
That
was
originally
going
to
be
a
part
of
phase
two.
H
But
if
the
council
adopts
that
resolution
tonight,
that'll
kind
of
take
that
off
the
table
and
leave
it
as
an
expression
where
we
wait
for
the
county
to
make
that
a
logistically
possible
Solution,
that's
the
way.
To
put
it
just
as
a
quick
reminder,
the
slide
we
always
like
to
remind
folks
of
but
the
rules
for
how
maps
have
to
be
chosen
and
how
they're
evaluated
number
one.
H
We
have
federal
laws
which
are,
we
must
have
an
equal
population
in
each
district,
within
a
very
small
plus
or
minus
range
on
that
we
have
to
make
sure
that
each
map
complies
with
the
federal
Voting
Rights
Act
and
that
we
don't
have
any
racial
gearing
rendering.
So
race
can
be
a
consideration,
but
not
what
the
court
calls
the
predominant
consideration.
H
Then
we
have
the
state
fair,
Maps
act,
as
you
can
see
listed
here
in
priority
order.
They
are
in
priority
order
in
the
law,
which
is
be
contiguous,
minimize
the
divisions
of
neighborhoods
and
communities
of
Interest
as
much
as
possible,
follow
easily
identifiable
boundaries
and
then
try
to
be
compact.
Don't
bypass
one
group
of
people
to
get
another
group
of
people
again.
These
are
prioritized,
so
you
can
do
that
if
it's
to
achieve
a
higher
priority,
Criterion
and
then
the
state
law
also
prohibits
adopting
a
map
that
would
favor
or
discriminate
against
the
political
party.
H
So
those
are
our
requirements.
If
you
have
multiple
maps
that
equally
meet
all
those
requirements,
then
the
courts
have
approved
is
traditional
redistring
principles,
things
like
considering
future
population
growth
and
respecting
the
voters,
choices
so
choosing
the
map
they
would
at
least
pair
fewer
council
members
than
other
Maps
would
again
those
last
two
were
not
requirements
or
simply
things
the
courts
have
said
you
can
consider
if
you
wish
to
after
meeting
all
those
other
criteria.
So
that's
a
lot
of
review
of
things.
H
We've
covered
many
times
now,
just
as
a
refresher
kind
of
how
we
got
here
in
terms
of
maps,
Burbank
residents
really
turned
out.
We
got
really
good
input,
lots
of
creative
Maps,
so
we
started
with
27
Maps
drawn
and
submitted
in
the
first
round.
Then,
when
we
got
to
the
kind
of
the
focus
Maps
around,
we
had
13
new
maps
received
at
that
point,
so
we've
been
through
39
maps
to
get
to
the
point
where
we
are
tonight
and
at
the
last
Council
hearing
where
the
council
just
considered
this.
H
We
really
narrowed
down
to
map
130
with
a
couple
of
concerns
about
that,
and
so
the
maps
we'll
look
at
tonight
are
map
130,
which
is
certainly
still
on
the
table,
and
then
there
were
really
two
issues.
We
ran
into
that
that
I
wanted
to
present,
and
so
we
have
two
takes
on
each
of
those
issues.
So
the
goal
is
a
as
a
state
here
was
for
map
130,
but
the
kind
of
the
airport
District
extended
east
of
the
freeway.
H
H
If
you
look
at
this
map,
there
are,
there
are
too
many
people
east
of
the
freeway
in
in
District
Two,
the
light
blue
District
in
the
top
left.
So
if
I,
if
I
take,
if
we
just
drop
all
that
off
and
put
it
all
into
district
one
and
use
the
freeway
as
a
boundary,
then
we're
not
within
the
required
population
range.
H
So
there's
really
two
ways
of
addressing
that
they
came
back
with.
One
is
pull
it
all
the
way
back
to
the
freeway
as
as
was
the
goal,
but
then
make
up
the
population
by
pushing
District,
2
South
and
you
kind
of
rotate
around,
and
you
know,
and
I've
got
two
maps
that
do
that.
The
other
option
was
just
to
bring
District
2
as
close
to
the
freeway,
as
we
could
without
coming
all
the
way
across.
H
H
So
let
me
walk
through
those
and-
and
you
can
see
on
these
Maps
too,
that
we
we
now
do
have
all
those
the
individual
developments
with
how
many
units
are
planned
for
each
one,
thanks
to
the
the
city
staff
for
putting
that
together
on
a
very
short
notice
as
well.
So
we
we
have
all
that
information,
so
group
one.
These
are
the
two
maps
that
pull
district
one
I'm,
sorry
District,
Two
completely
west
of
the
freeway,
so
I-5
becomes
the
boundary
in
the
North.
H
So
the
southern
border
of
District
2
shifts
down
to
Chandler,
there's
a
little
bit
over
on
the
west
Edge,
where
it
doesn't
go
all
the
way
down,
Chandler
just
for
population
balancing,
but
that
pushes
two
South
into
into
four
and
into
five.
Four
four
in
this
map
goes
a
little
bit
farther
east
now,
because
it's
got
to
make
up
that
population
itself
and
then
five
goes
across
the
freeway.
You
can
see
here
where
essentially
we're
switching
where
we
cross
the
freeway
one
130c,
the
third
one
here
and
for
those
following
a
lettering.
H
130A
is
the
original
130.
anyone.
So
that's
why
they
start
with
ENC
it's
kind
of
a
lose-lose,
whichever
way
I
number
them,
but
that's
why
these
are
B
and
C,
so
B,
B
I,
just
mentioned
C
is
similar,
except
that
five,
instead
of
pushing
across
the
freeway
into
the
more
residential
area
down
on
the
southern
border.
H
Now,
in
this
case,
it's
a
little
bit
of
an
odd
shape,
but
five
is
really
pushing
into
downtown
the
southern
border,
where
five
and
and
the
green
three
would
meet
is
Magnolia,
so
we're
getting
essentially
everything
north
of
Magnolia
would
go
in
in
that
option.
So
really
two
different
ways
to
do
that.
Both
again
we,
the
population
numbers,
don't
work
out,
so
we
can't
use
I5
the
whole
way,
which
would
be
the
the
clearest
and
easiest
boundary.
H
H
in
map
130d.
It's
just
a
minimal
shift
where
we're
just
giving
up
as
much
as
we
can
within
that
allowed
population
deviation
dropping
two
down
to
be
a
very
real
at
the
low
end
of
the
population
range
because,
as
we
can
see
on
those
numbers,
it's
going
to
have
so
much
growth
map.
130E
is
similar.
It
moves
to
as
far
as
much
West
as
we
can,
but
it
shifts
it
instead
of
being
in
the
more
residential
area
a
little
bit
farther
up.
H
I-5
it
shifts
e
down
to
really
pick
up
the
downtown
area,
and
also
one
thing
to
note
in
130e
is
part
of
the
under
populated
District
in
this
map.
130
picks
up
the
development
right
on
I-5
they're
right
at
it's
at
Burbank
or
it
comes
across,
so
that
would
shift
from
five
into
District
Two
in
this
map.
I
do
want
to
note
that.
So
that's
why
I
get
a
little
bit
of
blue
on
the
west
side
of
the
freeway.
H
H
We
do
have
the
question
of
because
in
all
these
Maps,
the
the
sequence
works
out
the
same,
but
we
do
get
a
district
that
has
council
members
who
are
up
in
both
2024
and
2026,
which
is
why
there
are
both
alternative
election
sequences.
Where,
once
you
pick
a
map,
then
we
have
to
decide
which
one
but
the
which
ones
would
be
up
when
but
just
to
reinforce.
H
G
G
C
Okay,
thank
you
great.
Let's
move
forward
we'll
open
the
public
hearing
now
to
any
persons
from
the
public
who
wish
to
speak
on
this
matter.
Each
person
may
address
the
council
for
up
to
three
minutes
and
then
afterwards
we'll
go
to
the
phones
and
give
those
people
some
three
minutes.
I
only
got
two
cards
all
right.
First
up
I
have
Laura
Elliott,
followed
by
David
Donahue.
I
Adopting
district-based
voting
will
egregiously
disenfranchise
all
of
burbank's
Voters,
fractured
long-established
cohesive
neighborhoods
and
for
the
most
ironically,
further
diminish
minority
groups,
collectively
ability
to
elect
representatives
of
their
preference
to
the
council
to
the
entire
process
of
introducing
and
promoting
this
dramatic
change
in
electrical
protocol
to
the
people
at
Burbank
has
been
flawed,
inadequate
and
smacks
of
a
well-orchestrated
promotional
propaganda
campaign.
Despite
scheduling
several
public
hearings
on
how
to
adopt
preferred
districting
Maps,
the
majority
of
the
public
remains
uninformed
of
what
district-based
voting
entails
and
how
it
will
impact
them.
I
Taking
away
the
voting
rights
for
full
Council
representation
is
anathema
to
American
concepts
of
democracy.
There
have
been
no
public
hearing
opportunities
for
an
informed
public
to
weigh
in
or
whether
or
not
the
city
should
adopt.
District-Based
voting
or
join
other
municipalities
battling
this
threat
in
court.
You
have
been
putting
the
cart
before
the
horse.
I
You
will
be
all
accountable
for
the
future
for
this
community
that
we
call
Burbank,
that's
been
well
established
and
very
ethnic
oriented
and
has
helped
all
parts
of
the
people
in
this
community,
and
you,
sir,
you
sir,
need
to
really
reflect
upon
yourself
and
the
Integrity
of
what
you
have
been
doing
to
our
City
of
Burbank.
Thank
you
very
much.
J
The
word
out
on
districting
I
was
I,
want
to
thank
the
Mr
mcdougall's
office
for
making
his
staff
available
to
talk
to
me
via
Zoom,
as
well
as
the
demographer
I,
think
that
whenever
I
asked
a
question,
it
was
given
an
answer
when
I
pushed
back
to
say:
I,
don't
like
it
or
understand
it,
or
feel
that
it's
really
kind
of
addressing
the
core
of
what
I
was
questioning,
but
they
gave
me
more
time.
They
gave
me
more
context,
and
so
I
want
to
applaud
those
people
for
being
part
of
it.
J
I'm
not
100,
sold
on
the
idea
of
districting,
but
I
understand
it.
The
city
is
being
sued
and
the
City
attorney
has
made
it
very
clear
that
it
could
quite
possibly
cost
them
the
city,
millions
and
millions
of
dollars
to
litigate.
So
I
understand
you're
in
a
very
tough
situation,
watching
the
demographer's
presentation
on
the
the
various
alternative
maps
of
130..
Some
of
them
are
gerrymandered,
I
mean
it
was
very
interesting
to
see
the
airport
area
kind
of
squeeze
into
some
areas
of
the
downtown
and
then
squeeze
the
Rancho
into
the
downtown
area.
J
I
think
the
the
original
configuration
of
130
did
a
pretty
clean
job
of
it,
I
liked
it,
where
kind
of
where
it
takes
the
airport
area
and
kind
of
pulls
it
down
to
Chandler.
That's
an
interesting
sort
of
you
know,
change,
but
again
avoiding
those
gerrymandered
issues,
I
think
would
be
important
as
well.
J
I
think
is
a
concern
not
that
it
would
happen,
not
that
anybody
would
do
that,
but
I
would
say
and
I
believe
that
was
stated
that
there
would
be
a
term
that
a
council
member
would
have
to
be
residing
in
a
district
before
they
could
run
in
that
District
I
would
hope
that
that
is
put
into
any
sort
of
you
know
ordinance.
Thank
you
for
your
time
last
evening.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
The
week
before,
staying
until
1,
30.
I
do
appreciate
your
service
and
your
dedication
to
the
city.
A
Hi,
council
members,
Mullins
Takahashi
and
our
vice
mayor
Schultz
and
our
mayor,
Anthony
and
all
of
our
staff
sitting
here.
I
came
I,
have
a
question
so
once
we
do
the
map
and
we
if
we
go
to
districts,
my
concern
with
this
question
is
we're
doing
all
of
our
strategic
plans
has
been
presented
to
us
and
when
we
look
over
at
the
Golden
State
there's
a
plan
for
over
6
000
units
to
be
put
in.
A
So
what
is
going
to
happen,
then?
How
is
the
demographics
going
to
change
and
are
we
going
to
have
to
do
this
all
over
again
because
we
have
you
know
12
000
units
by
whatever
year,
I
think
it's
28
or
or
third
like
whatever
year.
That
is,
but
it's
a
real
concern.
If
we
are
already
scheduling
and
planning
6
000
units
by
the
airport,
that's
going
to
change
all
of
our
demographics
over
there.
So
I
guess.
My
question
is:
how
is
that
going
to
affect
our
maps?
A
Are
we
going
to
then
have
to
divide
up
another
district
and
redo
this
all
over
again
once
that
process
starts,
and
if
are
there
going
to
be
triggers
in
there
that
if
we
get
to
this
certain
amount,
then
we
have
to
redo
it
like?
What
can
we
do
in
the
ordinance
to
be
more
proactive
instead
of
reactive
when
this
happens?
So
those
are
my
questions.
Thank
you.
K
Hi,
my
name
is
Olga
Rodriguez
I
am
opposed
to
this
District
based
voting
and
I'm
a
little
confused,
because
the
gentleman
before
me
mentioned
that
we
were
being
sued.
It
is
my
understanding
that
that
we
are
that
that
is
not
a
valid
lawsuit
that
it
that
is
not
true.
It's
not
existing.
Are
we
being
sued
or
not.
C
K
Ask
all
your
questions
the
reasons
that
I'm
opposed
to
this
district-based
voting
can
lead
to
reduced
representation
for
residents
as
it
Narrows
the
pool
of
candidates.
Instead
of
considering
the
entire
city,
voters
are
now
limited
to
choosing
from
candidates
within
their
specific
districts.
This
could
potentially
exclude
well-qualified
candidates,
who
might
be
better
suited
to
address
the
city's
needs
as
a
whole.
K
There
is
a
risk
of
gerrymandering
where
District
boundaries
are
drawn
to
favor,
a
particular
political
party
or
group.
This
could
result
in
unfair
advantages
for
some
undermining
the
principle
of
equal
representation.
District-Based
voting
can
encourage
City
Council
Members
to
focus
primarily
on
their
District
concerns,
potentially
leading
to
fragmented
decision
making.
This
could
impede
the
city's
ability
to
address
border
issues
that
affect
all
residents
with
district-based
voting
council
members
May
prioritize
their
District's
interest
over
cities
as
a
whole
there.
This
could
lead
to
lack
of
attention
to
the
city-wide
initiatives
and
planning
administratively
complex
and
costly.
K
K
L
You
know,
first
of
all,
I
every
time
I've
spoken
to
this
issue,
I've
been
against
it,
I,
don't
like
it.
The
previous
speakers
brought
up
all
the
issues
that
I
would
have
argued.
I
I
could
see
which
the
from
the
very
first
meeting
I
saw,
which
way
this
train
was
running.
It
didn't
matter
how
perfectly
logical
you
may
have.
The
argument
may
have
been.
This
thing
was
going
in
One,
Direction
districts
and
there's
no
one
person
was
going
to
be
able
to
stop
this.
L
Once
you
have
a
mayor,
that's
been
elected
by
all
the
people.
You
now
have
a
a
mayor's
office,
a
scope
of
authority.
You
can't
have
someone
out
in
the
wilderness
just
hanging
out
and
these
two
positions
stay.
What's
going
to
happen,
is
these
two
positions
will
now
work
under
the
auspices
of
the
mayor's
office?
If
I'm
now
the
elected
mayor
they
work
for
me,
that's
the
way
it
worked
now.
That's
the
Austin
Austin
Texas
had
our
same
set
up
here.
That's
what
happened
we
ended.
L
They
ended
up
with
a
full-blown
executive
chief
executive
mayor
city
manager
was
appointed
by
the
mayor
by
the
way.
So,
therefore,
if
the
mayor
is
voted
in
with
agenda,
I
can't
have
someone
here,
that's
opposing
that
agenda.
So
these
two
positions
are
have
a
conflict
of
interest.
They
have
an
interest
in
the
outcome.
These
two
positions
they've
worked
hard,
their
entire
careers.
This
is
these
are
important
positions.
Well
now
they
work
for
me,
okay
and
they
work
on
behalf
of
the
mayor's
office.
I'm
saying
they
work
for
me.
L
If
I
was
the
mayor
so
and
the
rest
of
the
council,
you
can
get
some
advice
and
consent
for
these,
but
there
these
people
are
also
always
coming
from
the
mayor's
office.
You
need
to
get
a
constitutionalist
I.
Don't
think
a
properly
constituted
representative
government,
which
is
what
we
have?
We
don't
have
a
democracy.
It's
a
representative
government
you.
It
has
to
have
a
certain
Authority
they're
set
up
in
certain
specific
ways,
and
when
it
comes
to
the
mayor,
these
two
positions
need
to
recuse
themselves
because
they
have
an
interest
in
the
outcome.
L
They
want
to
keep
their
jobs.
They
don't
want
to
work
for
me
as
the
new
mayor.
So
this
is
really
critical
constitutional
attorney
in
here,
and
these
two
can't
be
a
part
of
the
conversation
at
all.
They
need
to
recuse
themselves.
It
would
be
completely
unfair
anyway,
wow
13
seconds
left.
We
need
to
find
emergency
Powers
too,
for
the
mayor.
So
when
that
comes
up
and
how
long
those
emergency
Powers
last,
maybe
they
last
for
30
days
after
that,
then
the
council
has
to
continue
with
those
emergency.
M
O
Thank
you,
mayor,
Anthony
I
just
wanted
to
call
on
here
to
give
my
opinion
on
districting
I,
I,
unders
I,
understand
some
of
the
city
council
members
we're
talking
about
how
five
districts
can't
really
have
a
minority
majority.
District
I
know
there's
a
lawsuit
going
on
in
Santa
Monica,
as
has
been
said
before
so
I.
O
So
if
you
guys
could
consider
that
I
believe
I
also
sent
an
email
to
the
city
clerk
and
you
got
the
council
members
with
my
math
and
my
staff
and
the
majority
for
that
minority
majority
District
would
be
a
the
Hispanic
population,
so
if
you
guys
would
consider
doing
a
charter
Amendment
to
have
seven
council
members
and
have
a
minority
majority
District
to
address
the
minority
concerned,
minority
voter
concerns
so
with
that.
Thank
you
very
much
and
I
will
yield
my
time.
M
Californians
for
electoral
reform
I
strongly
urge
you
to
adopt
the
resolution
concerning
ranked
Choice
voting.
That
is
an
attachment
to
to
this
agenda
item.
The
Los
Angeles
County
Registrar
recorder
has
made
it
clear
that,
without
a
formal
expression
of
Interest
by
the
City
of
Burbank,
he
will
make
no
attempt
to
implement
ranked
Choice
voting.
I
know
that
the
resolution
does
not
bind
the
City
of
Burbank
to
adopt
ranked
Choice
voting,
so
there
is
no
downside
in
passing
it.
If
and
when
the
registrar
implements
ranked
Choice
voting.
M
The
city
council
can
then
consider
whether
to
adopt
it,
but
without
such
a
formal
Declaration
of
interest,
you
will
never
be
able
to
have
that
discussion.
Of
course,
the
registrar
will
probably
come
back
and
ask
you
what
kind
of
ranked
Choice
voting
you
want
him
to
implement
or
with
some
other
reason,
to
delay
a
response.
If
that
happens,
my
organization
will
be
happy
to
help
you
craft
an
appropriate
response
that
will
leave
the
registrar
with
little
wiggle
room
in
responding
to
your
request.
I'll
send
you
my
contact
information
via
email.
Thank
you
very
much.
P
Hello
I
just
had
quick
questions
from
the
opening
remarks
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting
am
I
given
to
understand
that
the
city
of
Santa
Monica
is
in
fact
challenging
the
cbra
ruling
and
I
assume
there's
some
decision
expected
tomorrow.
So
if
the
decision
goes
for
Santa
Monica,
are
we
automatically
also
going
to
be
challenging?
That
and
my
other
question
and
it's
probably
been
addressed
and
I
apologize
if
I've
overlooked
it
in
the
event
that
no
one
chooses
to
run
in
a
district?
What
happens
then
quick
question
I'm?
Sorry,
this
is
happening.
P
Q
C
Q
Okay,
okay,
so
there's
no
one
in
your
audience
and
I'm
a
little
upset
when
I
was
doing
my
maps,
I
reached
out
to
Nikki
Perez
and
she
agreed
to
meet
with
me
and
then
never
never
reached
me
again
and
I
have
a
busy
life
myself.
I!
Don't
approve
of
this!
This
map
that
you
have
is
very
typical,
I,
actually
even
Drew
one
that
was
close
to
it.
Q
However,
my
concern
is
that
if
we
should
go
with
this
District
team,
each
of
these
count,
these
districts
Representatives,
need
to
be
handling
all
levels
of
the
economy
in
Burbank,
This
breaking
up
of
districts
starts
to
split
up
the
community,
see
it
in
Glendale.
You
see
it
in
the
neighboring
Community
Pasadena.
Q
It's
a
big
trouble
coming
and
I'm
disappointed
mayor
in
the
fact
that
you
are
not
focusing
on
Burbank
everything.
I
see
you
post
is
regarding
other
issues.
I
want
to
hear
about
housing,
I
wanna!
You
know
what
I
want
one
of
those
town
homes
that
they're
breaking
up
the
bowling
alley
for
make
sure
I
get
one.
E
C
R
Yes,
so
I'll
respond
to
miss
heliger.
First,
she
asked
about
the
population
growth
that
is
likely
to
happen
when
we
finish
our
specific
plan
efforts.
Her
question
was
specifically
about
the
Golden
State
area,
which
aligns
with
proposed
District
Two.
We
also
have
the
downtown
Burbank
Transit
oriented
development,
a
specific
plan
which
covers
the
Western
half
of
District
1
and
district
3..
R
So
there
are
there's
currently
a
pipeline
of
projects
which
have
already
been
approved
by
the
council,
some
of
which
are
under
development,
some
of
which
are
not
under
development.
Those
would
be
the
first
ones
that
would
affect
districts
and
the
first
time
that
that
population
growth
would
impact
the
districts
would
be
when
the
census
is
done
in
2030.,
so
in
2031
we'd
be
looking
at
those
numbers
and
there
would
be
a
redistricting
process
that
would
be
done
in
compliance
with
the
statute
and
so
each
10
years
as
the
population
changes.
R
All
of
these
districts
must
be
re-examined
by
law,
so
that
would
be
the
natural
process
to
account
for
population
growth,
whether
it
comes
from
areas
within
specific
plans
or
without
the
specific
plans.
So
there's
a
process.
The
next
speaker
asked
about
the
lawsuit,
a
lawsuit
a
draft
lawsuit
was
given
to
the
city
with
the
threat
of
litigation.
It
met
the
initial
statutory
threshold
for
a
claim
under
the
California
Voting
Rights
Act.
There's
one
party
that
met
the
requirements
for
the
initial
claim.
We
passed
all
of
the
timelines
to
complete
the
process.
R
They
have
a
right
to
challenge
us
under
the
cvra
now
and
they've
already.
Given
us
a
preview
of
what
that
lawsuit
looks
like
it's
actually
attached
as
an
exhibit
to
I.
Think
it's
the
March.
No
one's
going
to
know
off
the
top
of
their
head,
but
I
think
it's.
It
might
be
the
March
14th
Council
staff
report.
We
attach
those
materials
from
the
perspective
or
potential
plaintiff
that
actually
submitted
the
threat
to
sue
under
the
California
Voting
Rights
Act.
C
R
All
right,
thank
you.
I
appreciate,
Mr
altobelli's
theories
about
What
officials,
the
city
manager
and
City
attorney
would
be
accountable
to
he
shared
those
with
me
in
one
of
our
community
workshops.
However,
their
theories
because
the
charter
specifically
says
Charter
section
315
says
there
shall
be
a
city
manager
appointed
by
the
city,
council
and
Charter
Section
320
says
there
shall
be
a
city
of
attorney
appointed
by
the
city
council
and
nothing
in
this
districting
process
changes
those
provisions
of
the
charter.
R
Unless
the
council
chooses
to
change
those
provisions
of
the
charter
or
unless
there's
some
other
Charter
effort,
which
gains
enough
signatures
to
then
put
a
measure
on
the
charter
to
change
both
Charter
section,
315
or
Charter,
section
320.,
which
the
council
or
the
community
could
do.
But
as
it's
presently
worded,
the
charter
is
the
supreme
law
governing
the
city
except
we're
preempted
by
state
law,
and
so
that
is
the
effect
fact
nothing
about
crit.
Now,
an
at-large
mayor
can't
be
created
as
a
position
without
a
charter
Amendment,
so
that
certainly
could
all
be
examined.
R
C
R
The
powers
of
Mayor
would
change
because
our
Charter
specifies
that
one
of
you
shall
be
the
mayor
and
that
it's
a
ceremonial
role
it
specifies
other
duties
like
shall
preside
over
disasters
except
we're
delegated
in
the
code.
All
of
that
will
change
once
we
change
if
the
council
or
the
community
Through.
The
charter
separates
the
mayor
as
a
position
different
from
the
council.
If
the
council
were
to
take
action
to
introduce
an
ordinance
and
subsequently
adopt
that
ordinance,
this
ordinance
that's
before
you
or
something
similar
to
it.
R
The
mayor
would
be
selected
the
same
way.
So
a
charter
Amendment
would
have
to
happen
first
and
in
that
Charter
Amendment,
because
the
mayor
wouldn't
be
necessarily
part
of
the
sitting
Council.
That
would
be
an
issue
that
would
have
to
be
deliberated
and
specified
in
that
proposed.
Charter
Amendment.
R
We
no,
the
council
can
adopt
an
ordinance,
putting
a
measure
on
the
ballot
for
a
charter
Amendment.
It's
then
a
ballot
measure
which
requires
an
impartial
analysis
and
Arguments
for
and
against
the
measure,
and
we
have
to
meet
timelines
to
get
it
to
the
county
to
get
it
on
the
on
a
Statewide
election.
There
are
two
opportunities:
coming
March,
2024,
November,
2024
and,
and
so
okay.
H
Ahead,
Mr
Johnson
real
quick
to
add
one
thing
that
there's
probably
there
I
would
say
at
least
100
cities
in
the
state
that
have
a
Citywide
elected
mayor.
Less
than
10
of
them
are
the
strong
mayor.
They
were
talking
about
where
this
mayor
controls
everything.
So
there
are
lots
of
cities
that
have
a
council
member
who's,
essentially
just
another
member
of
the
council
and.
J
R
It
up
so
the
final
comment
was
the
call-in
speaker
asked
about
the
Santa
Monica
case
the,
as
was
noted
earlier
in
the
meeting
the
Supreme
Court
has
given
notice
that
that
opinion
is
to
be
released
tomorrow
morning
at
10
a.m.
We,
don't
know
what
it
says
once
we
know
what
it
says,
we
will
be
able
to
determine
what
impact
it
has
on
Burbank.
However,
the
caller
asked
whether
the
city
would
also
Challenge,
and
actually
the
Santa
Monica
case
would
resolve
questions.
Burbank
has
about
the
California
Voting
Rights
Act.
R
S
N
S
Could
you
speak
to
it
looks
to
me
like
they're,
pretty
spread
out
and
that
the
impact
would
be
PR,
not
even,
but
it
wouldn't
probably
expand
or
go
beyond
the
threshold
of
the
differences
between
the
districts
for
quite
a
while?
Is
that
the
impression
that
you
get
as
well
looking
at
the
numbers,
because
it
has
to
be
a
certain
percentage
of
difference
when
you
initially
make
the
districts
right
between
the
populations
and
I
think
what
what
our
speaker
was
talking
about
was?
S
A
C
H
People
move
into
each
unit
that
kind
of
thing,
and
the
key
thing
is
that
this
is
an
optional
thing
that
you
can
do.
If
you
think
it's
a
good
idea
is
under
populate,
there's
no
requirement
to
do
it.
Yeah
the
the
courts
recognize
that
populations
are
going
to
change.
You
know
we
do
I,
think
I've
mentioned
we
do
Surprise
Arizona
and
they
used
to
double
the
City's
population
every
five
years.
H
You
know,
and
the
courts
didn't
make
them
redraw
every
two
years
because
they
recognize
that
the
only
requirement
is
to
redraw
after
the
census,
regardless
of
the
different
rates.
So
when
we're
looking
at
these
numbers
and
we're
estimating
that's
just
because
we
think
it's
a
good
idea
to
try
to
do
it,
there's
no
like!
Oh
you
did
it
wrong.
We
have
to
redraw
right.
H
T
H
C
C
I
think
this
is
on
a
rush
timeline
and
we
didn't
get
enough
people
in
the
room
and
I
think
that
we're
being
forced
to
do
this
in
a
way
that
none
of
us
would
have
wanted
to
do
it
and
I
do
believe
that
it
does
fundamentally
shift
Burbank
politics
forever
permanently.
I
I
absolutely
agree
with
you.
There's
not
a
single
person
on
this
dice
right
now
and
I
know,
because
I
I
saw
all
their
campaign
literature,
nobody
canvassed
nobody
knocked
doors.
C
Nobody
campaigned
on
districts,
none
of
us,
yet
we're
being
forced
to
take
this
on
I,
don't
like
it.
I
would
not
have
chosen
this
to
spend
six
months
plus
on
this
issue.
It's
just
and
you're
right.
There's
money,
there's
money
involved
on
it's
a
problem:
it's
a
problem
and
we're
trying
to
do
the
best.
C
C
C
R
R
It's
a
separate
discussion
related
to
this,
but
we
really
didn't
think
we'd
have
enough
time
tonight
and
there
are
different
these
Concepts
and
the
code.
Amendment
is
not
needed
if
we
don't
have
votes
to
introduce
a
map.
So
if
the
map's
introduced
we'll
bring
an
ordinance-
and
our
plan
as
of
today
is
to
bring
an
ordinance
introducing
changes
to
the
municipal
code
regarding
election
procedures
and
residency
and
then
both
ordinances
provided
the
city's
obligations
remain
the
same.
C
H
H
U
H
U
U
I
do
not
one
District
districts
in
the
City
of
Burbank,
and
it's
not
something
I
look
forward
to
having
in
the
City
of
Burbank
and
I
pray
that
tomorrow,
Santa
Monica
actually
Prevail
and
win
their
lawsuits,
so
they
don't
have
to
go
to
District,
because
that
would
make
our
life
a
lot
easier.
Hopefully
after
the
City
attorney
gives
us
the
news
that
it
will
but
we're
here
today
we
have
to
continue
doing
the
work
with
the
Assumption,
maybe
that
we
are
going
to
go
to
districts
and
I
I
do
want
to
address.
U
Also
the
issue
over
that
we
didn't
have
enough.
Outreach
I
do
have
to
defend
staff
that
the
city
has
been
doing
a
lot
of
Outreach,
there's
yard
signs
everywhere.
If
you
drive
around
the
city,
they're,
very
small,
I
and
I,
get
it
and
and
I
know
it
could
be
a
lot
bigger.
There
is
a
lot
of
information
on
the
website.
There's
been
a
lot
of
information
sent
around.
Could
we
have
done
a
lot
more?
Yes,
the
issue
is
and
I
as
the
former
city
clerk
I
struggled
with
that.
U
Even
letting
people
know
there
is
an
election
and
you
need
to
go
out
and
vote
even
when
the
ballot
was
sent
to
their
house.
There's
still
ever
people's
lives
are
busy
they're,
not
focused
so
much
on.
What's
Happening
until
things
really
come
to,
you
know
close
up
that
we
need
to
make
a
decision.
I
wish
this
was
packed
like
it
was
last
night.
I
really
do,
but
it's
not
and
we
have
to
continue
with
our
business.
We
instructed
staff
to
go
out
and
do
specific
marketing
I
believe
they
did
the
best
they
can.
U
U
It's
something
that
we
need
to
seriously
take
a
look
at
if
this
is
what
we
want
for
our
city
and
I
am
not
going
to
make
that
decision
for
our
residents.
This
is
something
that
will
go
out
to
the
voters
and
they
need
to
have
a
say
on
what
happens.
I
cannot
make
that
decision,
nor
that
I'm
going
to
vote
on
it,
because
the
voters
needs
to
decide
how
many
districts
do
we
need
to
have,
and
if
you
want
to
have
an
elected
mayor
or
not,
this
is
it
will
change
our
city
forever.
U
We
think
districts
are
an
issue,
but
adding
more
council
members
adding
an
elected
mayor,
it's
even
you
know.
You
think
that
districts
are
bad.
That's
going
to
be
even
a
lot
more
to
worry
about
and
I
encourage.
All
of
you
to
start
talking
about
it
now.
So
I
hope
that
really
addressed
some
of
the
concerns.
I
know
the
City
attorney
answered
some
of
the
questions.
U
I
I,
some
of
the
callers,
oh
ranked
Choice
voting
I,
believe
we
talked
about
this
and
I'm
not
gonna,
make
an
assumption
that
the
County
of
Los
Angeles
is
actually
going
to
change
for
the
City
of
Burbank
until
I
see
an
official
letter
from
the
county
telling
us
they're
going
to
do
it.
I
know
it
keeps
on
coming
up
over
and
over
in
every
meeting.
It's
not
that
we
don't
want
to
the
County
of
Los,
Angeles
and
I've
dealt
with
this
for
years.
U
C
S
Better
I
would
love
to
hear
your
thoughts,
because
at
the
time
we
did
solicit
ideas
and
I
felt
like
the
Pio
was
very
responsive
to
doing
every
single
thing
that
the
community
asked
for.
So
if
we
did
a
Miss
I
think
that
that
wasn't,
because
a
lack
of
effort
or
lack
of
of
even
time,
I
think
because
I
think
considering
the
time
I
mean
it
was
whether
there
had
been
you
know
extra
year
or
not,
they
did
everything
they
could
maybe
lack
of
ideas,
but
for
the
future.
S
V
Hi
everybody
it's
nice
to
be
here
with
all
of
you
today
and
I'm,
so
sorry
to
the
public
and
my
colleagues
for
missing
the
first
part
of
the
meeting.
But,
as
you
all
are
well
aware,
I
do
work.
A
nine
to
five
job.
I
got
here
right
as
fast
as
I
could
after
work
is
traffic
allowed
from
Van
Nuys
and
you
know,
I
did
let
my
colleagues
and
staff
know
that
I'd
be
running
late
due
to
work.
V
I'm
really
grateful
for
all
the
thoughtful
comments
and
questions
I
got
to
hear
them
on
my
right
over
and
I
share
a
lot
of
your
concerns
and
a
lot
of
your
questions
actually
for
for
this
process,
it
is
not
something
I
was
familiar
with
before
we
started.
I
have
a
lot
of
thoughts
about
the
cvra,
and
you
know
it's
it's
intent
and
how
it's
working
and
I
I
concur
with
what
councilmember
Mullen
said.
I.
Oh
my
gosh,
you
shared
an
entire
monologue
of
what
it
has
been
running
through
my
head.
V
I
I
really
want
to
hear
from
from
all
my
colleagues
too,
though,
as
we
deliberate
on
this,
because
I
I'm
so
uncomfortable
with
it
and
I
do
think
one
thing's
important
because
we
are
talking
about
districts
and
and
I
just
want
to
let
the
public
know
no
matter
what
happens.
I
will
continue
to
represent
Burbank,
not
a
fraction
of
Burbank,
because
that's
what
I
ran
for.
U
And
council
member
Perez,
it's
a
good
point.
You
bring
because,
as
the
City
attorney
told
us
and
we
we
maybe
we
need
to
remind
everyone,
even
though
we
might
be
assigned
a
district,
but
we
still
represent
the
city
at
large
and
our
decision
on
the
dice
represent
the
city
at
large,
not
only
the
district
we
represent.
So
that's
a
good
point
that
you
brought
up
that
we
need
to
share
again
with
the
public.
V
That
we
represent
the
whole
city,
no
matter
what
happens
and
and
the
only
last
thing
I
want
to
say.
I
know
there
was
a
caller
quite
at
the
tail
and
I
was
running
in
when
she
called
Diana.
Thank
you
for
your
comment
and
your
input.
If
you
could
do
me
a
favor
and
please
send
me
an
email,
I'd
love
to
have
your
contact
information
and
set
up
that
meeting
and
I
appreciate
it.
Thank
you
for
your
concern.
I'd
love
to
connect.
F
Miss
mayor
yep
great,
thank
you
just
two
questions
tonight.
I
know
shocker
Mr,
Johnson
you're
in
the
hot
seat.
First,
the
Mr
City
attorney
I
got
one
for
you,
I
promise.
These
are
easy
questions,
so
Mr
Johnson.
You
have
been
at
work
on
this
for
over
six
months,
and
you
know
this
is
an
open-ended
question.
It
seems
to
me
that
there
are
many
iterations
of
five
district
maps
that
the
the
city
council
could
choose
from
in
your
professional
opinion.
F
H
Well,
there
are
always
more
maps
but
I
think
that
what
you've
had
is
a
a
very
wide-ranging
and
Broad
capturing
of
the
various
options.
I
mean
you
can
always
move
a
block
here,
block
there
and
have
a
different
map.
But,
yes,
I
think
if
you
had
a
very
good
overview,
thanks,
largely
the
work
of
your
residence
to
submit
at
least
every
Big
Picture
option
great.
F
R
R
It's
just
the
presumption
of
the
law,
and
then
we
go
through
the
factors
that
Mr
Johnson
has
gone
through
at
every
one
of
our
hearings,
where
we
have
to
look
at
basically
Geographic
criteria,
communities
of
Interest
boundaries
that
are
important
so
that
we
don't
divide
communities
of
Interest,
with
the
hope
that
you
are
remedying
the
dilution
of
voting
influence.
And
so
the
issue
is
how
how
much?
If
you
cannot
achieve
a
majority
for
a
protected
group.
R
F
Thank
you,
Miss
McDougall
and
I
misspoke
I
did
have
one
more
procedural
question,
though,
could
you
please
remind
me
in
in
the
public
procedurally,
when
we
introduce
an
ordinance,
there
is
a
limitation
on
your
ability
for
that
ordinance
to
change
from
introduction
to
adoption.
Could
you
just
remind
us
about
the
the
limitations
in
place
there?
The.
R
Council
has
very
broad
discretion
to
make
revisions
to
an
ordinance
that's
been
introduced.
It
needs
to
maintain
its
primary
purpose
and
scope.
The
words
may
be
slightly
different
in
the
charter,
because
I
didn't
have
it
up
in
front
of
me,
but
provided
the
the
primary
purpose
and
scope
remains
intact.
C
Yeah,
let's
do
this
public
comment
is
over,
so
I
will
close
the
public
comment
periods.
Let's
do
that
this
is
a
public
hearing,
so
we
need
to
ask
our
questions
first,
once
we're
done
asking
questions,
then
we'll
move
on
to
deliberation.
However,
my
son
is
ranking
up
in
Scouts
today,
so
I
actually
have
to
leave.
C
This
was
not
on
the
calendar
before
we
scheduled
this
meeting,
but
I
do
leave
you
in
the
capable
hands
of
our
vice
mayor,
so
I'm
going
to
pass
you
the
gavel
and
while
I
do
so,
I
will
ask
my
one
question
of
of
our
consultant
and
and
then
I'll
leave
you
to
it.
My
question
is
this:
map
130
keeps
District,
keeps
the
original
design
and
also
keeps
District
2
crossing
the
five
at
Winona
Cohasset,
Buena,
Vista
and
Empire
all
in
its
same
boundaries
there.
C
C
So
I'm
referring
to
map
one
third,
the
original
map,
130
that
we
started
with
having
four
Crossings
of
the
five
versus
any
other
iteration.
That
only
allows
two
Crossings
of
the
five
in
any
of
the
other
districts
would
map
the
original
130
or
130a,
as
we
call
it,
would
that
not
hit
the
top
priority
of
the
California
criteria
for
cities,
the
most
in
your
opinion,
having
the
most
Crossings
of
that
basically
wall
of
freeway?
H
So
in
terms
of
the
definition
of
contiguity,
it's
simply
do
they
touch,
and
so
they
touch
so
the
issue
of
accessing
is
many
of
you
have
discussed
before
you
know
the
the
ability
to
Precinct
walk
and
connect
the
voters
and
all
that
that's
a
policy
issue,
but
it
doesn't
tie
into
the
actual
legal
requirement.
I
got
you.
C
C
F
F
Colleagues
I
I
think
it's
usually
best
for
the
chair
to
wait,
but
I
did
have
a
comment
that
I
thought
could
be
beneficial
to
the
conversation.
So
if
you'll
indulge
me,
first
I
want
to
thank
all
of
the
commenters,
those
in
person.
Those
who
called
in
really
appreciate
your
perspective.
I
know:
Mr
attabelle,
just
left
the
room,
so
he'll
have
to
watch
it
back
later.
I
agree
with
all
the
comments
that
were
made,
except
for
one
I,
have
not
made
my
mind
up
in
this
decision.
F
F
We
have
a
critical
piece
of
information
that
will
not
be
available
to
the
council
until
tomorrow
morning,
that
could
have
a
significant
impact
on
our
community
and
I
believe
that
we
have
a
responsibility
to
exercise
due
diligence
and
to
take
into
account
all
of
that
information.
I
would
also
note
that
we're
not
presently
constituted
as
a
complete
Council
and
this
too
significant
of
a
decision
to
make
without
five
votes.
F
What
I
would
say,
though,
and
then
I
will
be
done,
because
I
really
want
to
turn
it
over
to
all
of
you
is
that
in
the
interest
of
Staff
resources
and
time
and
work,
I
feel
that
we
have
minus.
What
we
are
missing
is
a
piece
of
of
legal
precedence,
guiding
principle
from
the
California
Supreme
Court
I,
don't
know
that
there
is
significantly
more
work
that
staff
can
provide,
or
even
the
consultant
can
provide
in
different
combination
of
maps.
F
Therefore,
I
would
have
personally
no
objection
with
them
proceeding
and
beginning
the
work
of
stage
two
looking
at
other
iterations,
including
a
six
or
seven
district
map
and
exploring
those
topics,
I
believe
Jim.
We
need
save
one
critical
question,
and
that
is
exactly
what
the
City
attorney
put
on
the
record
tonight.
So
for
this
Council
member's
perspective,
I
am
not
comfortable.
Introducing
an
ordinance
and
I
think
that
we
should
exercise
due
diligence
with
that
colleagues.
I'll
recognize
whoever
would
like
to
speak
next.
S
Thank
you
for
setting
that
up
to
follow
up
that.
That
question
is
if
we
did
not
adopt
the
first
step
of
the
ordinance
tonight.
What
would
be
a
potential
and
in
notwithstanding
what
happens
tomorrow
morning,
but
just
like
what
would
be
our
potential
choices
for
moving
forward?
Would
we
have
to
continue
on
with
just
say
for
the
sake
of
argument
that
we
are
going
to
continue
through
the
process
of
of
districting,
and
we
did
not
do
the
ordinance
tonight?
What
would
be
the
next
steps.
R
Well,
we've
been
outside
the
Safe
Harbor
for
probably
four
months,
so
that's
the
most
significant
we
don't
know,
and
today
the
law
is
the
same
as
it
was
when
the
lawsuit
was
threatened.
Okay,
so
none
of
that
changes
that
doesn't
change
unless
and
until
either
the
Law
changes
or
Council
adopts
a
map.
So
the
advice
I've
given
you
before
is
the
same.
S
Follow-Up
to
that
is
it
possible
to
adopt
well
to
to
decide
which
is
our
final
map
tonight
to
say:
okay,
we're
done
slicing
and
dicing
the
maps
we've
selected
the
map,
but
not
introduced
the
ordinance
just
yet
just
to
say
this
is
the
map
we're
going
to
hang
our
hat
on
for
now
and
then
I'm
going
to
hold
off
on
the
ordinance?
Is
that
possible.
N
R
S
S
R
So
we
received
a
lawsuit,
challenging
the
city's
at-large
election
right
45
days
after
that
complaint
were
vulnerable
to
lawsuit
under
the
cvra.
So
that's
why
the
council
had
another.
So
by
adopting
the
resolution
initiating
the
process
to
consider
districts,
the
council
went
back
into
Safe
Harbor
right
for
90
days
that
Safe
Harbor
could
have
been
extended.
It
was
not,
but
we
initiated
the
process.
R
The
process
and
I'll
have
Mr
Johnson
go
into
more
specific
detail,
but
the
process
has
a
minimum
number
of
hearings
and
those
first,
two
hearings
must
be
without
maps
to
collect
information
about
what
is
important
to
the
community
and
drawing
maps,
and
then
the
remaining
three
hearings
were
about
the
maps.
So
the
question
was
taken
away
from
the
public
in
order
to
get
into
the
Safe
Harbor,
because
each
City,
who
has
been
sued,
whether
they
settled
that
lawsuit
or
not,
it
cost
them
at
minimum.
R
Several
hundred
thousand
dollars
and
cities
like
Santa,
Monica,
Santa
Monica,
is
the
one
with
the
highest
fees
we're
aware
of.
We
believe
their
fees
exceed
eight
million
dollars
to
date.
To
get
probably,
it
was
eight
million
dollars
before
they
argued
before.
The
Supreme
Court,
so
that
number
could
easily
be
nine
by
the
time
that
opinion
is
rolled
out
tomorrow
morning,
and
so
that
was
really
the
issue.
Most
agencies,
like
the
school
district,
just
went
to
districts,
they've
already
adopted
all
their
ordinances
and
at
least
five
other
communities.
R
H
We
just
said
that
it
was,
you
know
we
need
the
five
hearings.
The
other
piece
that
comes
with
all
this
of
staying
in
this
timeline
is
the
Council
on
the
residents
maintain
control
of
drawing
the
lines.
If,
if
you
don't
start
the
process
and
you
get
to
then
the
plaintiff
and
the
judge
then
play
a
role
in
controlling
the
lines.
Thank.
S
You
yes,
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
that
I
know.
We've
answered
that
question
many
times,
but
it's
confusing
and
so
I
wanted
to
just
clarify
for
the
public
and
it
does
look
like
we
put
the
cart
before
the
horse,
but
it's
the
way
that
the
process
works
and
we
have
to
do
it
in
this
order
in
order
to
comply
with
the
law.
S
So
I
just
want
to
make
that
clear,
and
then
one
person
asked
what
happens
if
let's
say
we
adopt
the
map
in
the
districts
and
what
happens
if
nobody
runs
in
that
District
there's
nobody
who
puts
their
name
in
the
Hat.
Have
you
experienced
that
before
in
any
of
those
cities
that
have
had
districts
and
what
happens
so.
R
T
H
Cities
we
haven't
really
seen
that
happen
where
we
haven't
people,
occasionally
some
small
ones
where
no
one
runs.
But
then
someone
applies
to
be
to
fill
the
vacancy.
It's
only
in
one
very
small
school
district,
we're
having
a
problem
of
no
one
even
wanted
to
be
appointed.
So
that's
a
big
deal,
but
but
yes
typically,
it's
it's.
Some
someone's
willing,
at
least
to
be
appointed.
S
Okay,
thank
you
for
clarifying
that
moving
on
to
the
ranked
Choice
voting
portion.
Those
are
by
the
way.
These
are
two
separate
decisions.
We're
making
tonight
correct.
One
is
the
ordinance
for
the
maps
and
we
could
potentially
pull
out
the
map
and
do
that
kind
of
sort
of
separately
and
then
the
second
thing
is
the
rank
choice.
So
we
could
have
two
separate
we're
going
to
have
two
separate
votes
on
that
correct.
Yes,.
R
And
we
brought
the
ranked
Choice
voting
resolution
because
the
county
indicated
it
could
initiate
a
process
right
and
might
do
so,
if
requested,
and
there
seemed
to
be
enough
interest
from
the
council
giving
the
city
clerk
direction
to
go.
Get
information
from
the
county
register
that
we
brought
that
for
your
consideration,
great
as
really
the
first
volley
in
making
that
option
available.
S
T
S
H
U
What's
that
going
to
mean
I
know,
it's
been
talked
about
here
in
the
meeting
and
some
speakers
came
up
and
I
know,
there's
special
interests
to
get
us
moving
into
that
direction.
So
that's
another
area
where
I
want
to
make
sure
that
before
we
send
anything
to
the
county,
what
is
that
going
to
mean
for
the
City
of
Burbank
and
how
is
that
going
to
change
our
voting
process
if
the
county
actually
decides
that
they
can
move
forward
with
the
City
of
Burbank
in
a
Consolidated
election
to
have
this
system?
Thank
you.
Thank.
F
S
If
we
did
adopt
this
resolution,
it
would
not
affect
this
whole
districting
process,
one
bit
it
would
actually
take
a
while
before
anything,
would
even
impact
our
city,
so
I
think
this
resolution
is
more
of
a
position
paper
and
more
of
a
indication
that
we're
interested
in
having
more
options
that
we
can
consider,
rather
than
an
actual
action
that
we're
acting
acting
on
in
our
city
right
now,
it's
more
of
a
position
paper.
Thank
you.
Thank.
F
U
I
know
the
city
clerk
provided
us
a
letter
from
the
county
saying
no,
we
currently
don't
have
it,
but
that
was
kind
of
a
request
versus
adopting
an
extra
resolution.
Once
you
take
an
action,
they
have
to
actually
take
it
to
the
county
supervisors.
They
have
to
take
it
to
the
to
Dean
Logan
and
ask
if
this
is
possible
or
not
so
I
don't
want
to
put
them
through
all
this
work
unless
we
have
full
understanding.
First,
what
does
that
mean
for
Burbank?
U
And
maybe
once
we
all
hear
it
and
we
hear
from
the
public,
maybe
this
is
not
something
we
want
here
in
Burbank
I
know,
I
haven't
seen
an
overwhelming
amount
of
emails
or
people
coming
up
to
the
podium
asking
for
this.
It
has
been
from
maybe
one
or
two
individuals
and
that's
why
it
concerns
me,
because
that
tells
me
two
things:
either
our
voters
don't
want
it
or
two:
they
don't
understand
what
it
means
and
only
special
individuals
that
really
have
interest
in
us
moving
into
that
direction.
U
S
Thank
you.
It's
a
valid
point,
I
think
it's
a
valid
point
again,
though,
I'd
like
to
just
reiterate
that
there's
no
action
that
would
be
taken
by
the
county.
If
we
did
write
this
letter
that
would
not
be
making
them
make
an
action,
they
could
choose
to
ignore
us
for
as
long
as
they
want
it's
more
of
just
letting
them
know.
If
we
choose
to
do
it,
it's
just
letting
them
know.
S
So
I
have
my
own
personal
opinion,
which
is
why
I've
been
involved
with
this,
but
I
also
also
know
from
the
Statewide
election
law
that
every
County
that
has
every
jurisdiction
that
has
elections
has
to
have
the
knowledge
of
whether
or
not
they
can
be
have
the
capacity
of
doing
ranked
Choice
voting,
and
so
the
fact
that
that
isn't
even
documented,
anywhere
I
think
it's
just
important.
If
we
know
and
to
move
forward
with
the
capacity.
S
That's
just
my
point
of
view:
I,
don't
if,
if
the
county
does
not
agree,
they
all
they
always
can
just
ignore
until
we
get
a
a
number
of
other
cities
who
agree
with
us,
but
I,
don't
think
that
we're
putting
at
this
point
I,
don't
think
the
letter
will
be
putting
any
undue
pressure
on
the
county.
It
just
be
more
letting
them
know
that
it's
an
area
that
we
can
begin
the
process
to
take
a
look
at
it.
S
V
To
councilman
mullins's
point,
you
brought
up
a
great
point
I.
This
is
on
a
report
and
we
didn't
really
receive
a
lot
of
information
on
on
ranked
Choice
voting
in
the
report
itself.
So
more
than
you
know,
making
a
point
of
a
question
to
staff
and
our
demographer
is
there
anything
they'd
like
to
share
about
how
it
would
specifically
affect
us
here
in
Burbank?
Is
there
anything
that
separates
us
from
other
cities,
Etc.
H
H
So
this
is
not
something
that's
going
to
happen
in
months
or
even
just
a
couple
years,
so
it'll
be
a
long
process,
but
I
think
this
resolution
is
helping
us
get
to
the
information
that
then
that
would
come
back
and
the
council
may
say
yeah
and
the
city
may
say:
okay,
what
the
County's
implemented
is
not
something
we're
interested
in,
so
that
I
think
that's
the
idea.
This
is
more
of
a
the
information
gathering
really
is
reliant
on
the
county.
Coming
back
to
us
with
information,
so.
R
F
M
R
V
I
mean
not
so
much
questions,
I
I
have
a
lot
of
answers
and
a
lot
of
non-answers,
because
I
agree
with
your
your
earlier
comments
that
I
would
like
to
see
other
iterations
I.
There
was
one
caller
who
who
called
in
and
asked
about
six
districts
and
said
this
might
get
you
to
more
equity
and
things
that
you
want
to
see.
I,
don't
know
what
he
meant.
I
haven't
seen
his
map,
yet
he
said
he
emailed
us.
V
But
I
think
you
know
I'd
love
to
take
time
with
that.
It's
very
difficult
to
think.
Oh
we're
adopting
this
map,
but
wait
there's
more
next
time
you
can
introduce
six
districts,
seven
districts,
12
districts
and
also
an
independent
mayor,
and
also
it
just
gets
very
convoluted,
and
it
feels
this
part
at
least
feels
like
a
cart
before
the
horror
situation
and
I.
Don't
know
that
we
have
to
do
this
in
particular,
right
I'd
like
to
know
our
other
options
just.
H
On
the
numbers,
the
resume
is
citing
the
resident,
reciting,
total
population
numbers
and
and
not
the
what
what's
the
important
part
for
the
veterans.
Act
is
the
citizen
voting
age
population
because
that's
your
eligible
voters.
So
it's
not
that
six
districts
will
get
you
a
majority
of
Latinos
eating
five!
Won't
it's
that
he's
just
looking
at
the
total
population
numbers
where
you
can
get
there,
even
with
six
districts,
you're
not
going
to
be
anywhere
close
to
50
percent
of
the
eligible
voters
are
Latino.
R
So,
and-
and
let
me
say
that
the
reason
why
you
have
a
five
district
map
in
front
of
you
is
not
because
you
all
preferred
a
five
district
map.
It's
because
of
five
district
map
is
the
only
map
that
could
be
adopted
without
a
full
chart
or
Amendment,
and
the
only
way
to
fall
within
Safe
Harbor
under
the
cvra
is
to
do
to
adopt
a
map
and
the
quickest
way
to
do.
That
is
Adopt
a
map
that
doesn't
require
a
charter
Amendment.
R
F
F
I
will
weigh
in
and
I
offer
this,
as
maybe
some
guidance
to
the
community
that
we
can
and
do
change
our
minds
coming
into
tonight.
I
actually
agreed
with
you,
council,
member
Takashi
I,
don't
see
any
issue
with
saying
we
have
an
interest
with
it.
With
all
due
respect,
however,
there
are
different
models
of
ranked
Choice
voting
and
I.
U
I
agree:
I
I
mean
look,
I,
I
and
I
appreciate
councilmember,
takaha,
she's,
looking
into
that
and
I'm
only
speaking
from
years
of
experience
and
then
also
conducting
13
elections
and
knowing
the
complex
of
running
an
election
and
I
I
think
we
just
have
too
much
right
now
on
the
table
again.
We
can
definitely
look
into
this
in
the
future
once
we're
done
with
what
we
have
before
us.
You
know
again.
Tomorrow
we
might
find
out
some
great
news.
U
So
I'm
not
ready
to
make
that
move,
to
ask
the
county
to
do
anything,
because
it's
just
going
to
be
more
complicated
for
us,
especially
that
we're
dealing
with
districts.
So
I
am
not
comfortable
making
a
decision
even
a
request
to
the
county
right
now.
I,
don't
want
to
add
one
more
thing
to
the
voters
to
worry
about
what
is
it
that
we're
doing
now
because,
as
it
is
they're
concerned
about
what
we're
doing,
even
though
we've
been
talking
about
it
for
six
months,
so
I'm
gonna
leave
it
at
that.
Thank
you.
Mr.
R
So
what
I
would
ask
is
if
the
council
can
give
specific
Direction
on
how
long
we
can
wait
so
because
I
need
Clarity
of
purpose.
We're
going
to
have
a
decision
tomorrow
and
the
council
is
going
to
give
us
Direction
at
you
know
in
September
when
we
come
back,
and
so
if
we
want
to
separate
the
ranked
Choice
voting
it
depending
upon
what
the
council's
direction
is.
It
would
be
great
for
clarity
of
purpose
to
push
off
further
consideration
following
the
March
2024,
because
I
could
foresee
this
issue
popping
up
in
September
October
November.
R
If
we're
looking
at
a
at
a
charter
Amendment
under
phase
two,
and
it
will
confuse
and
complicate
our
effort
to
bring
back
council's
direction
or
we
could
wait
until
after
whatever
it
is,
we
do
between
now
and
November
2024
that
we
could
then
resume
this
discussion.
But
given
that
there's
more
than
one
option,
I,
don't
know
if
there's
three
options
or
six
options
or
how
much
consideration
the
council
will
want.
R
But
in
order
for
us
to
focus
on
meaningful
analysis,
it
would
be
helpful
for
us
to
separate
by
time
after
our
March
2024
or
November
2024.
So
if
the
council
can
give
us
that
kind
of
Direction,
it
would
help
so
that
when
people
come
up
and
say
you
haven't
looked
at
ranked
Choice
voting,
we
at
least
have
the
intention
of
the
Council
on
when
they
want
to
consider
it
right.
S
Yeah,
okay,
so
I,
there's
a
yeah
I
agree
that
there
is
a
lot
to
consider
for
ranked
Choice
voting
and
that
that
can
kind
of
Muddy
the
water
and
being
confusing.
I.
Also
think
that
the
fact
that
there's
so
much
choice
in
ranked
Choice
voting
that
I,
don't
think
we
as
a
city
at
this
point
are
even
really
in
the
near
future,
would
be
equipped
to
even
consider
all
the
different
options
like
we
said
earlier.
S
I
really
think
the
county
is
the
one
who's
responsible
for
being
able
to
change
their
systems
or
not,
and
they
have
told
us
directly
that
they
will
not
even
consider
changing
their
systems
to
rank
Choice
until
they
get
a
request
from
the
city
that
they're
that
we're
interested
in
something.
And
so
we
can
put
a
lot
of
effort
into
looking
at
all
the
different
ways
of
ranked
Choice
voting.
But
if
the
county
says
that
we
can
only
do
these
two
kinds,
then
we've
basically
put
a
lot
of
effort
into
something.
That's
down
the
road.
S
It's
not
going
to
make
any
any
difference
in
our
city.
However,
if
we
say
hey
we're
interested
in
ranked
Choice,
what
can
you
do?
Then
they
start
the
process
of
the
county
and
they
come
back
with
these
two
different
options.
Then
we
can
then
look
at
those
options
in
depth
and
just
side
is
a
city
whether
we
would
like
to
do
those
options
and
the
process
itself
takes
a
really
long
time.
S
So,
if
we
make
a
request
now,
it
won't
be
until
probably
three
four
five
years
before
we
even
see
them
come
back
with
an
option
of
what
we
can
even
do
so
us
waiting
to
do
this.
Reso
is
actually
going
to
be
more
of
a
how
we
put
this
it.
We
could
even
create
more
work
for
ourselves,
because
what
we're
doing
is
we're
asking
for
us
to
do
the
research
into
ranked
Choice
first
rather
than
saying:
hey,
LA
County.
Please
do
the
research
on
what
we
can
do.
Other
Counties
have
done
ranked
choice
right.
S
S
H
H
S
S
We
are
not
telling
the
county
how
to
do
ranked
Choice
which
rank
choice
we
want,
because,
honestly,
we
I
think
that
we
don't
have
the
any
City
really
doesn't
have
the
capacity
to
have
that,
because
we're
not
running
our
own
elections,
but
the
county
needs
to
know
what
they
can
do
so
anyway,
I
see
this
more
as
a
an
ask
for
them
to
provide
bias
more
options,
not
necessarily
for
us
to
decide.
We
want
ranked
choice
now.
S
County
do
it
for
us
I
think
that
actually
would
be
a
much
bigger
ass,
but
I
see
where
you're
coming
from
about
making
things
challenging
and
difficult
and
I
am
willing
to
push
it
for
consideration
to
discuss
more.
But
I
am
not
a
supporter
of
looking
into
all
the
different
ways
to
do
ranked
choice
and
coming
up
with
their
own
version,
because
I
just
don't
think
we're
equipped
to
do
that
as
a
city.
To
understand
that
enough
to
be
able
to
know
what
the
county
is
capable
of
doing.
U
It's
just
natural
right,
completely
agreed
that
I
just
want
to
clarify
I
was
not
trying
to
say
which
model
we
want
to
use
because
heck
there's
so
many
models.
We
don't
even
know
if
what
one
of
the
models
what
I
wanted
to
do
is
at
some
point
in
the
future
and
I
agree
with
the
city
attorney
that
perhaps
what
we
do
is
like
okay.
Well,
let's
take
a
look
after
the
2024
election,
for
example,
and
let's
present
what
models
are
out
there.
U
U
What
you
know
what
we're
doing
and
then
in
2024,
if
everybody's
in
agreement
after
the
after
November,
then
we
say:
okay,
Mr
City
attorney
bring
us
some
information
who
knows
by
then
the
county
may
have
enough
pressure
from
other
cities
or
the
state
might
have
to
come
up
and
say:
that's
what
Cal
you
know.
La
county
is
doing.
V
U
And
this
is
the
exact
truth:
I've
had
maybe
two
people
in
the
10
years,
I
have
been
in
the
city
clerk's
office.
They
come
up
about
every
election.
They
question.
If
we
ever
looked
into
it
and
I
probably
can
dig
back
the
emails
that
I
sent
from
the
county
from
the
individuals
and
let
them
know
no.
This
is
not
happening
here
has
happened
up.
North
LA
county
is
not
ready,
especially
that
they
spent
millions
of
dollars
on
their
vsap
system.
U
D
F
So
Council,
it
would
seem
to
me
that
we
have
a
consensus
to
maybe
bring
this
item
back
for
more
discussion,
more
study
and
and
re
bringing
back
the
resolution
I
would
suggest
we
could
even
do
it
after
March
2024.
If
we're
going
to
put
a
charter
Amendment
on
that
would
be
in
March.
So
as
soon
as
April
of
next
year,
we
could
do
that
I,
think
that
gives
staff
a
little
time
to
work
with
it.
N
U
R
S
F
F
U
I
I
agree
with
you,
I
think
we
have
been
very
transparent
in
the
discussion
and
the
public
hearings
and
putting
Maps
together
so
I'm.
You
know
I
I'm
ready.
If
anybody
wants
to
challenge
our
process
because
we
have
been,
we
have
done
our
due
diligent.
We
have
been
sitting
here
talking
about
it
and
reaching
out
so
I
I
would
love
to
wait
and
hear
what
happens
tomorrow.
U
So
if
the
item
can
be
placed
on
the
agenda
in
September,
maybe
not
discuss
it
in
length
because
I,
we
probably
have
a
long
agenda
on
the
12th,
but
maybe
as
a
result
of
what
the
lawsuit
or
the
results
of
tomorrow's
outcome
to
hear
about
it
on
the
12th
and
that
kind
of
guides
us
to
The
Next
Step.
What
we
all
need
to
do
as
a
Next
Step.
Thank.
F
You
and
I'll
I'll
ask
the
I
will
give
the
floor
back
to
you,
but
to
the
City
attorney,
just
a
procedural
question.
If
the
council
is
not
asking
for
any
additional
mapping
or
work
up,
if
we're
just
essentially
asking
for
information
to
come
back,
the
result
of
the
Santa
Monica
case
could
that
be
put
on
the
September
12th
agenda
as
a
report
item
as
opposed
to
a
public
hearing?
Yes,.
R
H
I
would
just
add
to
that
the
challenge
in
terms
of
agenda
time
and
how
much
time
it'll
take
on
the
12th
is,
if
you
can,
if
you're
ready
to
choose
your
preferred
map
tonight,
that
would
greatly
limit
the
time
it'll
take
on
the
12th.
If
you
still
have
five
maps
on
the
table,
you'll
bring
people
in
to
debate
amongst
the
five
maps,
in
addition
to
the
bigger
issue.
So,
if
you're
ready
to
pick
a
map,
that'll
limit,
how
much
time
it
takes
on
the
12th
Mr.
S
Johnson
to
follow
up
with
that,
so
if
we,
if
we
choose
a
map
tonight
and
Mr
City
attorney,
if
we
choose
a
map
tonight,
if
we
get
to
one
on
the
September
12th
meeting,
if
we
have
that
map
with
that,
would
we
have
to
have
a
public
hearing
than
to
adopt
an
ordinance?
Is
the
map
itself?
What
we
need
the
public
hearing
for,
or
is
it
to
adopt
the
ordinance
that
we
need
a
public
hearing
for.
T
S
Okay,
so
Mr
vice
mayor,
if
we
I
think
it
would
be
good
to
focus
on
if
we
can
to
get
to
a
map
tonight.
But
although
we
are
missing
the
mayor,
so
I'm
not
100
comfortable
with
doing
that
without
him.
Here,
I
don't
know,
but
I
think
that
you
know
I
would
I
would
like
to
ask
that
the
City
attorney,
if
we
have
to
add
another
public
Hearing
in
order
to
adopt
an
ordinance,
is
that
going
to
be
I
mean?
What
is
your?
What
are
your
thoughts
on
that
process?.
R
T
F
S
I
agree
that
I
am
not
I'm
not
tonight,
making
any
decisions
on
this
ordinance
until
we
I
really
would
like
to
hear
the
results
of
the
case
as
well
and
Santa
Monica
case
as
well,
and
it's
it's
tomorrow,
it's
too
bad!
It
wasn't
this
morning,
it's
tomorrow
morning,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that,
if,
as
we're
pushing
it,
Forward
we're
not
putting
our
city
at
risk
or
we're
doing
undo,
making
ourselves
do
another
late
night
of
undue
work
or
what
we're
putting
ourselves
into
by
pushing
it
back.
S
R
We
would
have
we
would
have
sufficient
time
if,
if
the
next
meeting
had
to
be
a
hearing,
we
would
have
you
continue
this
hearing
to
that
date,
because
we
don't
have
time
to
actually
publish
a
hearing
with
our
notice
Provisions
by
that
date.
But
we
will
have
time
to
introduce
an
ordinance
and
then
meet
the
notice
requirements
for
later
adoption
of
that
ordinance
keeping
in
mind,
we
have
four
actions:
two
actions
on
two
different
ordinances
to
do
to
sew
this,
all
up
just
for
five
districts.
R
H
U
You
to
the
City
attorney
or
Mr
Jonathan
at
what
point,
if,
if
Council
wishes
to
give
directions
to
take
this
out
to
the
voters,
for
example,
on
the
March
24th
election
at
what
point
do
we
discuss
this,
and
would
it
be
in
a
separate
ordinance
to
be
introduced
instead
of
us
just
adopting
it
and
it's
becoming?
It
becomes
the
final
law
for
us
that
we
just
adopted
districts.
But
what,
if
we
want
to
maybe
discuss
taking
this
out
to
the
voters.
R
I
would
be
happy
if
the
council
gave
me
direction
to
bring
an
ordinance
to
put
a
map
130
on
the
ballot,
because
it
would
put
the
issue
but
I,
don't
know
if
you
want
a
phase,
two
we're
actually
running
out
of
time.
Mr
Johnson
wants
to
deliver
phase
two,
and
this
analysis
that
we're
doing
is
there's
only
so
much
time
between
now
and
mid-november,
when
we
have
to
have
all
the
work
sewn
up
for
the
council
to
do
its
final
action
on
December,
5th
or
8th
I
can't
remember,
I.
R
Yeah
yeah
there's
a
calendar
in
here
for
phase
two.
So
the
point
is
at
this
point:
if
the
council
were
introducing
an
ordinance-
and
we
knew
adoption
was
certain
in
September,
we
barely
have
six
weeks,
which
means
we're
not
going
to
have
time
for
the
council's
customary
preferred
community
outreach
for
a
charter
Amendment.
H
The
other
thing
to
keep
in
mind
with
putting
on
the
ballot
is
no
problem
with
putting
one
question
on
the
ballot.
What
we've
seen
in
other
cities
is,
if
you
put
do
you
want
five
districts
on
the
ballot
or
do
you
want
six
districts
on
the
ballot?
They
both
go
down,
because,
if
you
have
say
60
of
people
on
districts,
30
vote
Yes
on
one
and
no
on
the
other,
and
then
they
both
go
down.
U
U
I
want
part
of
my
thought
about
doing
this.
Is
this
really
again
would
be
more
of
an
educational
we
heard
from
the
public
earlier
about?
Well,
the
people
don't
know
what's
going
on,
so
my
thought
is
to
take
this
from
at
large
to
district
election
and
put
it
on
the
ballot
and
let
the
voters
decide,
because
that's
still
part
of
the
process
you
can
either
counsel
can
either
adopt
an
ordinance
and
just
call
it
it
and
we
are
having
districts
or
we
can
take
it
out
to
the
voters
to
have
him
Express.
R
At
this
point,
we're
speculating,
we
really
need
to
know
what
the
Supreme
Court's
decision
is
before
we
can
speculate
anymore
because,
as
of
right
now,
today,
we're
no
longer
in
a
safe
harbor
and
putting
the
question
on
the
March
ballot
does
not
give
us
any
Safe
Harbor.
So
that
question
could
change
tomorrow
morning,
and
we
simply
can't
answer
that
so
that
we're
we're
now
at
the
point
of
just
speculating.
R
So
should
the
council
direct
it
we'll
bring
this
item
back
on
the
12th,
with
an
understanding
of
our
obligations,
post-santa
Monica
decision
and
we'll
have
better
Direction
Our
intention,
as
of
tonight,
is
to
bring
this
ordinance
with
map
130
and
its
iterations
and
the
analysis
from
Santa
Monica.
So
that,
should
the
council
need
to
act,
the
council
will
be
able
to
act
and
then
we'll
know
what
the
follow-up
decisions
are
and.
F
Mr
City
attorney
not
to
put
to
find
a
point
on
it,
but
it
looks
like
correct
me
if
tell
me
if
you
disagree,
but
we
have
our
next
meeting
three
weeks
from
tonight
from
yesterday,
September
12th
and
provided
the
Council
made
some
determination
at
that
point,
are
we
going
to
do
a
phase
two
or
not?
For
example?
That
would
really
be
our
last
opportunity
to
make
that
determination
so
that
there's
sufficient
time
to
do
phase
two.
F
F
R
Reason
so
what
I
said
was
we
will
bring
this
item
back
to
as
a
report
to
Council
on
September
12th,
with
the
proposed
ordinance
and
the
same
maps
and
first
detail
what
happened,
what
the
Supreme
Court
said
and
then
let
you
know
whether
it
changed
whether
it
changed
anything
and
we'll
have
a
staff
recommendation.
I.