CCMIN 09212021 - Laserfiche WebLink

MOTION: It was m/s by Arkin/Testa to approve adoption of Resolution No. 21-1241 approving amendments to the Downtown Specific Plan and introduce an ordinance approving amendments to Chapters 18.08 and 18.81 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code, regarding the Active Ground Floor Use Overlay. The Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arkin, Testa, Mayor Brown Noes: Councilmembers Balch, Narum Absent: None 19. Adopt Resolution No. 21-1242 declaring the City of Pleasanton's intent to transition from an at - large election system to a district -based election system Tom Willis of Olson Remcho LLP, advised the City Council is deciding on whether to take the first step to change its election proceedings for future elections. The City received a demand to move to district elections from at -large elections under the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA). The CVRA includes a presumption by the legislature that jurisdictions should move to district elections for legislative bodies because minority groups are underrepresented in at -large elections. Protected classes must have the ability to elect candidates of their choice. The law does not require any evidence of intentional discrimination; there only has to be some evidence for exclusion from prior elections. Mr. Willis advised the City can either impose districts or a court can impose remedies. He noted the City of Santa Clara recently litigated several CVRA issues and ultimately lost, and paid a sum of $4.5 million plus $1.5 million in legal costs. The City of Santa Monica is appealing a $22 million judgment to the Supreme Court of California. In 2016, the legislature created a "safe harbor" permitting a City to convert to district elections with minimal liability. This clause allows a city 180 days after receiving a demand to pass an appropriate ordinance while also limiting its potential damage payout to a plaintiff to approximately $30,000. Since the City has received a letter with a demand to move to district elections, the options are to either do nothing and prepare for litigation or transition to district elections under the CVRA's "safe harbor' provision. If the City opts to go the "safe harbor' route, it needs to adopt a resolution expressing its intent to do so. There must be a minimum of four public hearings about the district maps, two before they are drafted and two after they are drafted. Ideal districts would have about 19,968 residents each based upon the City's 2020 population of 79,871. The next City Council election in November 2022 would be by -district while the Mayoral election could continue to be at -large. In response to Councilmember Narum, Mr. Willis confirmed the City is required to provide an online mapping tool for residents and an opportunity to testify in favor of communities of interest. The districts need to be based on equal population overall and not an equal distribution solely of registered voters. He confirmed one district could potentially have significantly more registered voters than another. City Attorney Sodergren confirmed he is unaware of any complaints of polarized voting in the City before receiving the letter. In response to Councilmember Testa, City Attorney Sodergren stated he does not believe districting would impact disqualification requirements for Councilmembers living too close to a proposed project. In response to Councilmember Balch, Mr. Willis confirmed moving to appropriately drawn districts would fix both the State and Federal issues. There is no minimum population threshold for a city under the CVRA. He stated there is some evidence a ranked -choice vote provides more opportunities for minority candidates, but the CVRA would still call for district elections. It is unclear the specific level of proof the City Council Minutes Page 8 of 14 September 21, 2021