My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
01
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2022
>
090622
>
01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/1/2022 3:26:05 PM
Creation date
9/1/2022 3:21:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
In response to Councilmember Arkin's inquiries, Mr. Wagaman confirmed all of the plans he presented <br /> are legally compliant. He added people can file a lawsuit for many reasons and he cannot theorize what <br /> a judge would rule. He stated he was always looking to ensure he did not present a plan out of <br /> compliance with State and federal laws. Olson Remcho LLP attorney Tom Willis added the City does <br /> not have the racial issues that generally bring challenging litigation. He added courts generally give <br /> great deference to a City Council on judgement issues. He agreed with Mr. Wagaman's comments <br /> about the legality of the maps. <br /> In response to Councilmember Testa's inquiry, Mr. Wagaman clarified there are some specific <br /> prohibitions about gerrymandering relative to maps being drawn to favor a political party. He reported <br /> there was no direction from the Council to consider incumbency. He reported differences between <br /> some of the maps are simply based on competing directions from Council at public hearings. He <br /> reported he did not receive any direction from Council outside of the public hearings. He added some of <br /> the weirder lines on some maps are due to census geography in areas such as Bondi Ranch. He <br /> confirmed the issues leading to a gerrymandering determination were not part of this process. <br /> Councilmember Testa expressed her appreciation to Mr. Wagaman for explaining how the Currant Plan <br /> derived from the Combs Map following a ripple effect of changes. <br /> In response to Councilmember Balch's inquiries, Mr. Wagaman confirmed that on the Cherry Plan the <br /> boundary between Districts 2 and 3 follows Hopyard Road until it reaches the Arroyo Valle which it then <br /> follows until it reaches Main Street. He confirmed the intersection of Hopyard Road and Del Valle <br /> Parkway is where the boundary begins following the Arroyo Valle. <br /> In response to Councilmember Balch's inquiry, Mr. Wagaman confirmed the Currant Plan uses <br /> Sycamore Road to divide Districts 3 and 4, just like on the Lime Plan. <br /> In response to Mayor Brown's inquiries, Mr. Wagaman clarified the Yellow Map extended District 4 <br /> through downtown to the Alameda County Fairgrounds using Pleasanton Avenue and Division Street <br /> as dividing lines. He confirmed on the Yellow Map each side of Division Street is in a different district <br /> but added this happens on any street used as a boundary. <br /> In response to Mayor Brown's inquiries, Mr. Wagaman stated race and ethnicity is always the most <br /> confusing part of the districting process. He confirmed the City is being compelled to switch to districts <br /> under the CVRA because of race and ethnicity, speaking to whether or not to have districts. He added <br /> the CVRA does not speak to how districts are drawn for protected classes. He stated the federal Voting <br /> Rights Act will often favor drawing a district to keep a protected class whole. He reported Pleasanton's <br /> API community is relatively evenly distributed so the City does not meet the federal markers for drawing <br /> the entire community into a single district. He added State law does apply within the matter of <br /> sequencing to provide the protected class the best opportunity to elect a member of its protected class. <br /> Mayor Brown noted the Lime Plan's District 2 is the one instance where there is a substantially higher <br /> API population district at 37%. <br /> In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, Mr. Wagaman clarified he does not have a sequencing-specific <br /> presentation. He noted the Council has received public feedback. He added as plans are discussed he <br /> can encourage which districts should be set for 2024 based on demographics. He clarified that all races <br /> and ethnicities vote at a higher rate in a Presidential election year but added the gap between the API <br /> voting turnout and the non-API voting turnout is smaller in a Presidential election year. He confirmed <br /> this is a fact-based analysis. <br /> In response to Mayor Brown's inquiries, Mr. Wagaman confirmed he is not aware of where the <br /> Councilmembers live. He clarified State law dictates if they were elected in 2020 a Councilmember <br /> would finish their term regardless of where the district lines are. He reported that in a different <br /> City Council Minutes Page 4 of 14 February 24, 2022 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.