04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Wagaman presented the Purple map which uses Hopyard Road as a major dividing line. He advised this map does not separate the Hacienda Business Park but does split downtown. He explained this map aligns Ruby Hill with the area to the west. Mr. Wagaman presented the Red map which uses Stoneridge Drive as a major dividing line. He explained this map splits both Hacienda Business Park and also downtown with it being the first instance of the downtown being split on a north-south basis instead of an east-west basis. Mr. Wagaman presented the Orange map which uses the concept of drawing the whole Hacienda Business Park to the west into District 1. He explained this map also splits downtown. Mr. Wagaman presented the Yellow map noting it is a less-rigid version of the quadrant-based Green map, incorporating school enrollment zones into how to split Hacienda Business Park, and noted it also splits downtown. He explained he can also discuss the public-submitted maps but cannot discuss the intent of the submitters and can only speak to their legality and practicality. In response to Councilmember Testa, Mr. Wagaman suggested polling the City Council about the need to view publicly submitted plans beyond her request for discussion of the Combs, Katz, and Tor 2 maps. In response to Councilmember Arkin, Mr. Wagaman clarified the CVRA directly addresses race but the federal law is vague. He reported Pleasanton does not hit a demographic factor where it can have a majority-minority district, agreeing with her assertion the API population is dispersed throughout the City. He advised the CVRA's protected class provisions will be relevant to this discussion again when they get to sequencing and which districts are picked to vote first in 2022 as opposed to 2024. Councilmember Arkin expressed interest in a discussion of the Combs map. Councilmember Balch agreed with the recommendation of presenting the Combs, Katz, and Tor 2 maps. In response to Councilmember Balch, Mr. Wagaman advised the deviation from the largest district to the smallest district needs to be less than 10% and, ideally, around 5%. He explained he can discuss elements of a certain plan as opposed to analyzing the entire map. He noted there may be legal concerns about some of the public maps taken in their entirety, but those maps may have an element the City Council likes. He confirmed the Waldron plan did not assign approximately 1,100 residents to a district. He advised if the intent was to add this area into District 4 it would fit within the permissible deviations. Councilmember Narum joined the meeting at 7:28 p.m. Mayor Brown advised she would like to see the Katz and Combs plans discussed. Councilmember Narum agreed to further discuss the Combs and Katz maps. Mr. Wagaman presented the Combs map. He noted it uses Stoneridge Drive as a divider like the Red map while Districts 3 and 4 are drawn similar to the Yellow map. He advised the shape of District 2 is unlike any in his maps. He noted the Combs map can be a great example of how the City Council may like half of one map but not the other half and potentially combine them. In response to Councilmember Balch, Mr. Wagaman confirmed the Combs plan would be legally compliant. Mr. Wagaman presented the Katz map and explained it is legally compliant. He advised the Hacienda Business Park is kept intact similar to the Purple map but noted the Katz map's District 3 goes much further east to include Birdland and Pleasant Valley. He noted District 2 also extends eastward and City Council Minutes Page 2 of 9 February 3, 2022