Laserfiche WebLink
added, due to the census data, the area between downtown and the City's southern border is <br />challenging to split. <br />Mr. Wagaman presented the Tor 2 map. He reported it goes beyond the accepted deviations which <br />would require District 4 to be enlarged. He noted the Tor 2 map is unlike any of the others for keeping <br />the entire area west of lnterstate 680 together from the City's northern border to its southern border. <br />ln response to Councilmember Balch, Tom \Mllis of Olson Remcho LLP, clarified the CVRA does not <br />require the petitioners for these districts to show there can be a majority-minority district in the City. He <br />explatned this is why the legal threshold for the City being forced to convert to districts is so low. He <br />clarified all the petitioners must show is racially polarized voting and it is simple to show that people of <br />different classes or races vote differently. He clarified the nuance where the Federal Voting Rights Act <br />focuses on whether race should be considered in drawing districts as opposed to the CVRA saying <br />race should be considered in whether to go to districts. He confirmed for the Federal Voting Rights Act <br />to enter into the equation, a protected class has to show it can form a majority-minority district. He <br />advised no protected class meets this threshold in Pleasanton so race should not be a predominant <br />factor when drawing the lines. He confirmed going fonruard with districting remains the best course of <br />action. <br />Mayor Brown opened the public hearing <br />Jan Batcheller reported few feel the need to divide downtown but admitted it is the prudent action. She <br />noted all of the other maps are more confusing than the consultant's Green map which she feels is the <br />fairest and most unbiased option. She endorsed the first map but suggested moving the dividing line <br />from Main Street to First Street so the business district is in a single district, and moving the dividing <br />line from Las Positas Boulevard to the parallelArroyo Macho to keep housing intact. <br />Sandy reported the map she submitted was not included. She advised she liked the Hall map and <br />requested having it shown. She expressed confusion over which maps were being shown at which <br />times while viewing the presentation. <br />ln response to Sandy, Mr. Wagaman reported not seeing her map and recommended she resubmit it. <br />He clarified at the February 24 meeting all maps will remain under consideration but the list will be <br />expanded based on tonight's refined direction. <br />ln response to Mayor Brown, Mr. Wagaman explained he typically would ask the City Council at this <br />third meeting to declare maps or parts of maps they like for direction. <br />Jarod Buna noted it is a tough position to be in. He advised the state and federal courts will provide <br />clear guidance on how to handle the unique situation of representatives picking their voters. He <br />commended the guidance being provided to the City Council. He urged against odd shapes to <br />accommodate communities of interest and endorsed the Green and Purple maps. <br />Jill Buck repofted several resident-produced maps break up her Del Prado neighborhood. She <br />commended Mr. Wagaman's maps, particularly the Green and Purple maps, for using arterial roads for <br />boundaries. She noted the Green map's simplicity. She advised the Combs and Katz maps use <br />residential streets for district borders and noted it can be confusing and split neighborhoods like hers. <br />She noted Del Prado is a community of interest. She encouraged the City Council to stick to Mr. <br />Wagaman's maps, particularly the Green followed by the Purple. <br />Mayor Brown closed the public hearing. <br />City Council Minutes Page 3 of 9 February 3.2022