CITY OF PLEASANTON
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 24, 2022
This meeting was conducted in accordance with Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-29-20 and AB 361 COVID-19 pandemic protocols.
SPECIAL MEETING
Mayor Brown called the teleconferenced special meeting of the City Council from various remote locations to order at the hour of 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Narum, Testa, Mayor Brown
Absent: None
PUBLIC COMMENT
Brad Hirst urged the City Council to select a map easy for residents to understand using main arterial roads and other easy boundaries and encouraged the Council to keep neighborhoods intact. He noted it is a 10-year plan and a long-range decision. He endorsed the Lime Plan for its simplicity of having the four districts meet at a single point and having Districts 1 and 3 vote in 2022 and Districts 2 and 4 vote in 2024 for ease of understanding.
Larry Annis endorsed the Lime Plan, stating the other maps under consideration all look gerrymandered. He added the Lime Plan has simple boundaries which are easy to understand. He added the Lime Plan has the lowest population deviation between districts and noted each Lime Plan district has a geographic diversity of downtown, suburban, and outlying neighborhoods.
Steve Van Dorn, President of the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce, reported the Chamber analyzed each map and recommends the Lime Plan. He stated it is because the Lime Plan splits downtown along Main Street, follows major arterial streets, has the lowest population deviation at 1.8%, would be easily defensible if the City faces a lawsuit, is easy to understand, and features the simplest split of the Hacienda business park. He cited the Tangerine Map's awkward split of downtown and the use of residential streets for dividers as negatives. He stated, should the Chamber-supported Lime Plan be chosen, the Chamber also recommends having Districts 1 and 3 vote in 2022.
In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, Mr. Van Dorn stated he must have misunderstood how the Lime Plan splits Hacienda business park.
In response to Councilmember Testa's inquiry, Mayor Brown confirmed they have to wait until after public comment has concluded to discuss the comments.
Justin Brown, speaking as a citizen and not as a Planning Commissioner, endorsed the Lime Plan. He stated the most important criteria for him is having something easy to understand, a goal best met by the Lime Plan's simplicity. He stated the map is easily defensible and added it has the lowest deviations. He added he does not like the Tangerine Plan's boundary between Districts 3 and 4 and the difficulty of explaining which district many residents would live in.
Ken Morgan endorsed the Lime or Green Plans. He stated it is easy to understand visually for using major arterials, and has normal shapes, noting many cities in California and elsewhere have squiggly- lined districts. He stated there are some positives despite the City being coerced into this process, citing the opportunity for a Councilmember to gain an even better understanding of their district and be able to serve it better by more closely knowing its needs. He stated it would be best to split the city like a pie into four equal easy to understand pieces. He challenged the Council to declare for residents why any other plans would be a better option.
Herb Ritter expressed his hope that all future district-elected Councilmembers will make decisions for the good of the entire city. He encouraged the Council to choose the best map based on the lowest population deviation, having four easy quadrants, having easily identifiable boundaries, following arterial streets to not divide neighborhoods, and staying away from gerrymandering to support current Councilmembers. He endorsed the Lime Plan for best following these criteria. He added, in the Lime Plan District 2 should be saved for a 2024 vote due to having the highest African-American and Asian- Pacific Islander (API) population with Districts 1 and 4 voting in 2022 when their current Councilmembers either term out or are up for reelection.
Pamela Hardy Alpert endorsed the Lime Plan, echoing the comments of all of the previous speakers.
She cited its ease of identification for residents and how easy it would be to defend in court if that were needed. She endorsed having Districts 1 and 3 vote in 2022.
Mayor Brown stated she would let staff answer Ms. Aplert's inquiry about not including the Merritt property later in the meeting.
Sandy Yamaoda endorsed the Yellow Map. She reported she resides in The Meadows and added her district would be cohesive. She commended how the Yellow Map divides downtown along Main Street and noted the population deviations are pretty good.
Jill Buck did not endorse a single map and noted flaws in many of the maps under consideration. She noted the Yamaoda Map has the entire west side of the city standing as a single unwieldy district while the Blue and Purple Maps have the entire south side of the city in a single unwieldy district. She stated people naturally think about quadrants when they hear "four districts." She stated the Yellow Map uses too many residential streets as dividers providing jagged and confusing boundaries. She stated the Orange and Tangerine Plans lack the quadrant feel for their crisscrossing shapes and for having an excessive three districts representing downtown. She added the Tangerine and Orange Maps may have political allure for keeping all of the current Councilmembers separated but decried this as being a potential reason for adoption. She stated the Lime Plan makes sense to her.
Scott Miner endorsed the comments made by Mr. Hirst in support of the Lime Plan. He lauded its simplistic north-south, east-west element. He reported his initial vision for a perfect map would have split downtown into four quadrants in a similar manner and the Lime Plan comes closest. He suggested each district could receive equal quantities of the future growth stemming from the Housing Element to help spread it around the city and not concentrate growth in a single area. He added the Lime Plan would ensure two districts are impacted directly by matters related to Interstate 580, I-680, and the City of Livermore, instead of just a single directly concerned Councilmember. He encouraged whoever ends up with his Shadow Cliffs neighborhood should look into refurbishing that East Bay Regional Park site.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Receive input from the community regarding boundaries and composition of districts to be established for City Councilmember district-based elections pursuant to Elections Code Section 10010 and provide direction regarding final district boundaries and the proposed sequence of elections
Mayor Brown noted there was strong public support for the Lime and Green Plans.
City Attorney Dan Sodergren stated consultant Michael Wagaman, Principal of Wagaman Strategies, has a presentation to make before the City Council asks questions.
City Council Minutes Page 2 of 14 February 24, 2022
Mr. Wagaman stated the goal for the evening is to select a final plan. He added the Council can make minor changes to the proposed maps on the fly. He added the Council will also have to determine the sequencing for the four district elections, adding the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) will generally favor the district with the largest protected class to vote in the higher-turnout election, in this case meaning API population and 2024. He noted public feedback should also be considered for sequencing. He reviewed the State-mandated quick timeline for the process and the criteria to follow in ranked order of priority. He commended the public commenters for their knowledge of the criteria.
Mr. Wagaman reported the City Council has already discussed six color-coded maps and eight publicly submitted maps, noting the Yamaoda Map was unintentionally not included at the last public hearing but has since been reviewed by the public and Council. He reported there are four new revised plans for this meeting based upon three fundamental sets of architecture. He stated the Lime Plan is a variation of the Green Map, the Currant and Cherry Plans are derivatives of the Combs and Red Maps, and the Tangerine Plan is a derivative of the Orange Map.
Mr. Wagaman noted the two minor changes from the Green Map to the Lime Plan are to use Main Street to Bernal Avenue to border downtown based on Council direction, and to have District 4 follow Sycamore Road instead of Sunol Boulevard to help reduce a population deviation. He noted the four plans have an average deviation of 4%, down from 6.2% at the last meeting based upon Council direction to have more even maps. He reported the Lime Plan has the lowest deviation at 1.8% and commended the attention of public speakers for citing this figure.
Mr. Wagaman reported the largest concern over the Combs Map was splitting the Del Prado neighborhood. He explained the Currant Plan adds the rest of Del Prado to District 3 but caused a ripple leading District 2 to assume the area north of Valley Avenue and District 4 to add the area between Bernal Avenue and Sycamore Road. He advised this makes Districts 3 and 4 identical to how they would stand in the Lime Plan. He noted he attempted to follow City Council direction relative to using Stoneridge Drive as the entire northern boundary of District 2 but it pushed the deviations too far, so the bump has to remain. He added he also tried to include the Somerset neighborhood into District 2 per Council direction but reported the census blocks in this corner of the city would not allow for it due to its overiaps with Pleasanton Meadows.
Mr. Wagaman reported the Cherry Plan modifies the Red Map by shifting the western portion of downtown into District 3. He noted this caused a ripple effect moving the Muirwood neighborhood to District 1 and recreating the undesirable bump off of Stoneridge Drive including the Springhouse and Garden Homes neighborhoods.
Mr. Wagaman stated the Tangerine Plan derived from the Orange Map with the changes of using Santa Rita Road as the dividing line between Districts 1 and 2 near the City's northern border, better following the Downtown Specific Plan area for the boundary between Districts 2 and 3 by following the Arroyo Valle, and a substantial swap where District 2 gains the Pleasant Valley neighborhood and District 4 adds the Rosewood and Ironwood neighborhoods.
Mr. Wagaman stated these district lines will apply until the next census. He responded to Ms. Alpert's inquiry about the presumed annexation of the Merritt Property by stating the Council will have to assign annexed land to a district at the time of annexation.
In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, Mr. Wagaman confirmed the Willow West neighborhood does cross over Santa Rita Road but added the area east of Santa Rita Road is a business area and not residential. He confirmed the residential areas are all to the west of Santa Rita Road.
Mayor Brown agreed and confirmed this would not be considered splitting a neighborhood.
City Council Minutes Page 3 of 14 February 24, 2022
In response to Councilmember Arkin's inquiries, Mr. Wagaman confirmed all of the plans he presented are legally compliant. He added people can file a lawsuit for many reasons and he cannot theorize what a judge would rule. He stated he was always looking to ensure he did not present a plan out of compliance with State and federal laws. Olson Remcho LLP attorney Tom Willis added the City does not have the racial issues that generally bring challenging litigation. He added courts generally give great deference to a City Council on judgement issues. He agreed with Mr. Wagaman's comments about the legality of the maps.
In response to Councilmember Testa's inquiry, Mr. Wagaman clarified there are some specific prohibitions about gerrymandering relative to maps being drawn to favor a political party. He reported there was no direction from the Council to consider incumbency. He reported differences between some of the maps are simply based on competing directions from Council at public hearings. He reported he did not receive any direction from Council outside of the public hearings. He added some of the weirder lines on some maps are due to census geography in areas such as Bondi Ranch. He confirmed the issues leading to a gerrymandering determination were not part of this process.
Councilmember Testa expressed her appreciation to Mr. Wagaman for explaining how the Currant Plan derived from the Combs Map following a ripple effect of changes.
In response to Councilmember Balch's inquiries, Mr. Wagaman confirmed that on the Cherry Plan the boundary between Districts 2 and 3 follows Hopyard Road until it reaches the Arroyo Valle which it then follows until it reaches Main Street. He confirmed the intersection of Hopyard Road and Del Valle Parkway is where the boundary begins following the Arroyo Valle.
In response to Councilmember Balch's inquiry, Mr. Wagaman confirmed the Currant Plan uses , Sycamore Road to divide Districts 3 and 4, just like on the Lime Plan.
In response to Mayor Brown's inquiries, Mr. Wagaman clarified the Yellow Map extended District 4 through downtown to the Alameda County Fairgrounds using Pleasanton Avenue and Division Street as dividing lines. He confirmed on the Yellow Map each side of Division Street is in a different district but added this happens on any street used as a boundary.
In response to Mayor Brown's inquiries, Mr. Wagaman stated race and ethnicity is always the most confusing part of the districting process. He confirmed the City is being compelled to switch to districts under the CVRA because of race and ethnicity, speaking to whether or not to have districts. He added the CVRA does not speak to how districts are drawn for protected classes. He stated the federal Voting Rights Act will often favor drawing a district to keep a protected class whole. He reported Pleasanton's API community is relatively evenly distributed so the City does not meet the federal markers for drawing the entire community into a single district. He added State law does apply within the matter of sequencing to provide the protected class the best opportunity to elect a member of its protected class.
Mayor Brown noted the Lime Plan's District 2 is the one instance where there is a substantially higher AP! population district at 37%.
In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, Mr. Wagaman clarified he does not have a sequencing-specific presentation. He noted the Council has received public feedback. He added as plans are discussed he can encourage which districts should be set for 2024 based on demographics. He clarified that all races and ethnicities vote at a higher rate in a Presidential election year but added the gap between the API voting turnout and the non-API voting turnout is smaller in a Presidential election year. He confirmed this is a fact-based analysis.
In response to Mayor Brown's inquiries, Mr. Wagaman confirmed he is not aware of where the Councilmembers live. He clarified State law dictates if they were elected in 2020 a Councilmember would finish their term regardless of where the district lines are. He reported that in a different City Council Minutes Page 4 of 14 February 24, 2022
jurisdiction, two at-large incumbents were drawn into the same district but with different terms. He stated they ran against each other for the district seat and the person in the middle of their term won, creating a Council vacancy. He added had the victor lost, they would have still finished their term as an at-large. Mr. Willis clarified the Council needs to consider which members are termed out so there would still be two districts up for election every two years along with the Mayor. He clarified the City would lock in the districts up for reelection in the sequencing. He added if no Councilmember lives in a district being elected in 2022 it is considered an open seat. He stated if two Councilmembers live in the same district the situation Mr. Wagaman described applies depending on whether or not the one terming out in 2024 decides to run against the one terming out in 2022. He clarified the sequencing of the districts is not being aligned to specific people.
Mr. Wagaman noted this is a difficult concept. He clarified there will be three elections in both 2022 and 2024, one for Mayor and two for Councilmembers. He stated there is a possibility there could be three Councilmember vacancies in 2022 from his above scenario of two Councilmembers living in the same district but noted the extra vacancy would be for only a two-year term and there would still be the regular cycle of elections in 2024. He confirmed there could be four of the five seats turning over in 2022 depending on the districts, residences, sequences, and individual decisions, but the City would not be permanently locked into this situation.
In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, Mr. Wagaman confirmed the potential two-year vacancy would be considered at-large and not have to be appointed from the unrepresented district because the district would not exist for electoral purposes until 2024. cannot be 5% more than the others. He added all of his plans are within the 10% deviation. He confirmed there is no obligation to pick the plan with the lowest deviation. He noted it is the highest- ranked criterion, but added it needs to be balanced against the other criteria.
Mayor Brown reported Mr. Wagaman recommends asking the Councilmembers to list their top three maps.
Councilmember Arkin stated this process is not easy and added having even populations overall is different than having equal community of interest populations. She added there are also factors of compactness, growth potential, and other elements. She added school boundaries would have been nice but those proved to not be easy and added those boundaries are being changed as well. She added starting in 2022 the city will be divided between two State Assembly districts and two Alameda County Board of Supervisors districts. She stated the Tangerine Plan and Orange Map are her top two choices and she does not have a third favorite.
Councilmember Balch stated his top three choices are the Lime, Currant, and Cherry Plans. He stated no plan better equally divides the population than the Lime Plan and it is also the most easily identifiable to the public. He noted the public speakers commended having four quadrants radiating from a single point. He added the districts are contiguous following major arterial roads and the Arroyo Valle. He added the Lime Plan lends itself well to preventing manipulation by future Councils. He added the Lime Plan makes sense for having the lowest deviation at 1.8% plus the high 37% API population in District 2. He added for sequencing, it would be easy to inform residents which side of the city is up for election in any given year.
Councilmember Narum stated her preference is for the Lime, Cherry, and Currant Plans. She noted the Lime Plan has the smallest deviation with the next closest being the Tangerine Plan at more than double the Lime Plan's, adding this is the most important criterion. She added the Lime Plan is contiguous and could not be more easily understandable. She added the neighborhoods are intact in the Lime Plan. She stated the Tangerine Plan is odd in the Bondi Ranch area. Noting even the City Council Minutes Page 5 of 14 February 24, 2022
Councilmembers needed a detailed explanation at the last meeting about why the bump is necessary.
She decried the odd shape of District 2 in the Tangerine Plan, stating it is not very compact. She stated the Lime Plan is a clear winner, but she could live with either the Cherry or Currant Plans for their clarity in boundaries.
Councilmember Testa stated the City is not at legal risk with any of the maps. She reported the Yellow Map is a hybrid of school enrollment zones, original feedback from the Council about splitting downtown and the Hacienda business park and keeping District 1 along the I-680 corridor. She stated her first choice is the Tangerine Plan for being a nice evolution of different maps and Council feedback about following neighborhood boundaries. She stated the Orange Map is her second choice and the Yellow Map is her third choice. She stated the most important consideration for her was keeping neighborhoods together.
Mayor Brown stated she will work between two groups not having a lot in common. She commended the Lime Plan's simplicity but added the Birdland and Pleasanton Valley communities have a lot in common making Valley Avenue a poor dividing line. She added the Lime Plan does not use Hopyard Road at all and has an odd notch bisecting Hacienda business park. She added the imbalance of the API community in District 2 is noteworthy although not her primary consideration. She criticized the horizontal nature of Districts 1 and 2 in the Currant Plan for creating districts where residents have less in common. She commended the Yellow Map but stated she is uncomfortable with the way downtown is divided along Division Street as opposed to a more major thoroughfare. She stated her top choice is the Tangerine Plan.
In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, Mr. Wagaman clarified the reason for the changes in the Combs Map was not the point at the top of District 4 because it only has 28 residents but rather because the Combs Map split the Del Prado neighborhood.
Mayor Brown stated she is sticking to the Tangerine Plan as her favorite. She did not list a second favorite but added she is eliminating the Yellow Map and Lime Plan.
In response to Mayor Brown's inquiries, Mr. Wagaman reported three Councilmembers had the Tangerine Plan as their first choice and two Councilmembers had the Lime Plan as their first choice with a smattering of votes for second and third options. He recommended asking if there are any modifications to be made to the Tangerine and Lime Plans and then asking the Council if they are prepared to move forward with a pian.
In response to Councilmember Arkin's inquiries, Mr. Wagaman stated changes to the Combs Map could be done simply if they took the point out of the top of District 4 because it only has 28 residents.
He added moving the Del Prado neighborhood was a more substantial shift and required moving multiple district boundaries because Del Prado has over 5,000 residents. He clarified the Currant Plan follows the ripple effect needed to make the Combs Map compliant while keeping Del Prado whole.
Mayor Brown analyzed the Tangerine Plan and noted the Council agreed on having low deviations, balanced areas, contiguous districts, intact neighborhoods, and easily identifiable boundaries as goals.
She added it also achieves the goals of having Main Street split and relative geographic compactness.
She added political parties and racial discrimination were not considered.
Councilmember Narum stated her main objection to the Tangerine Plan is the awkward bump in the southeast corner created by an odd census block and using residential streets to divide neighborhoods.
She noted the Danbury Park neighborhood is in the wrong area. She stated the Tangerine Plan does not pass either the easily understandable test for her or keep all neighborhoods intact. She stated she cannot support the Tangerine Plan.
City Council Minutes Page 6 of 14 February 24, 2022
Mr. Wagaman confirmed the Tangerine Map splits the Lund Ranch neighborhood because the census geography does not respect neighborhoods in this portion of town creating what was referred to as a cauliflower ear at the last meeting.
In response to Mayor Brown's inquiries, Mr. Wagaman displayed on his mapping tool how keeping Lund Ranch whole would require moving a larger section of land to District 4, dividing other neighborhoods in the process. He displayed how moving Bondi Ranch into District 3 also creates an awkward divider. He added the unfortunate census geography makes this area of town a challenge. He reported moving the boundary to Bernal Avenue would impact about 1,300 residents. He clarified all of the maps use census blocks. He added in most of the city the census blocks do a good job of respecting neighborhoods, but they do not conform to neighborhood boundaries in this more rural and recently developed portion of the city.
Councilmember Balch stated he also has a problem with the cauliflower ear divider using residential streets. He noted Mayor Brown disliked using Valley Avenue as a divider in her comments about the Lime Plan but contrastingly stated Danbury Park and Ironwood neighborhoods look more like the Mohr Avenue area than the industrial park on the other side of the sound wall. He added Valley Avenue has sound walls and large intersections separating the two neighborhoods Mayor Brown stated were similar.
Bondi Ranch challenges could help. He added, similar to not wanting to separate Del Prado, the commended the Lime Plan's simplicity.
Councilmember Balch commended the Cherry Plan for using Hopyard Road and addressing the Danbury Park, Ironwood, and Bondi Ranch challenges. He questioned how the Tangerine Plan is superior to the Lime Plan when it cuts off three neighborhoods on residential streets while arguing sound walls do not divide neighborhoods. He stated he cannot support the Tangerine Plan.
In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, Councilmember Balch stated Danbury Park is not a gated neighborhood. He noted Ironwood being in District 4 requires crossing a major road and an industrial park. He added Danbury Park is more appropriate to go with Willow West to the north than going south across sound walls on Valley Avenue. He stated Ironwood should be with Jensen Tract.
Mayor Brown stated Ironwood is nothing like Jensen Tract.
In response to Councilmember Testa's inquiries, Mr. Wagaman clarified census blocks are the smallest level of geography used for census reports. He stated if he splits a census block in half, he can no longer confirm whether or not the districts are of equal size. He clarified they could tinker to get more of Bondi Ranch into a single district, but they cannot get all of Bondi Ranch into a single district through a simple means. He stated the districts have to be contiguous and added federal geography is not helpful in this portion of the city. He added that in 2026 residents will be able to suggest new blocks for the 2030 United States census which could make Pleasanton's 2031 redistricting process easier. He confirmed they could use Bernal Avenue as a boundary, but it would require ripple effect changes elsewhere on the map.
Councilmember Testa and Mayor Brown lamented the complexity of what should be a simple process to remove the cauliflower ear.
In response to Councilmember Arkin's inquiries, Mr. Wagaman stated if he moved Danbury Park and Ironwood to the Tangerine Plan's District 2, it would have an illegal deviation of +13%. He added if he City Council Minutes Page 7 of 14 February 24, 2022
moved the western end of downtown to District 4 for a balance, it would be a -4.86%, and District 3 would be at -6.9%, requiring additional residents.
In response to Councilmember Testa's inquiry, Mr. Wagaman clarified this live map-drawing process is attempting to address the Danbury Park area issue and not the Bondi Ranch area issue.
Mr. Wagaman added the Val Vista neighborhood to the Tangerine Plan's District 3 and reported the district was overpopulated by about 10%.
In response to Mr. Wagaman's inquiry, Councilmember Arkin stated splitting Val Vista is not an acceptable option for the next step because it is a community of interest. She stated adding Foothill Knolls to District 1 would be a better option.
Mr. Wagaman reported if they moved Foothill Knolls and Laguna Oaks into the Tangerine Plan's District 1, it would make District 3 +3.9% but District 1 would be at -12% so there would have to be a tradeoff between District 1 and District 2.
Councilmember Narum noted if they cut into the Hacienda business park they are back to the Green Map where there was an objection over not running down Santa Rita Road.
Councilmember Balch noted the map they are drawing is similar to the Cherry Plan.
Mr. Wagaman confirmed the map being drawn live is similar to the Cherry Plan and noted the difference is primarily between how Districts 3 and 4 incorporate downtown and the area north of Sycamore Road.
Councilmember Balch stated he will attempt to build support for the Cherry Plan based on where the live map drawing's direction is heading. He stated it was his third choice but is seeing if it could find consensus. He stated he has a chailenge with Bondi Ranch and Ironwood. He added he heard one of his peers call for alignment along Hopyard Road and this plan uses it. He added it does what Councilmember Arkin was attempting to do west of I-680 but does not dip down into Laguna Oaks. He stated he still thinks the Lime Plan is superior but added the Cherry Plan has some of the components Mayor Brown expressed appreciation for the attempt at collaboration and the complexity of Mr.
Wagaman's work.
In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, City Attorney Sodergren stated first they would need a motion and vote on a specific map followed by a discussion of sequencing so the matter can come back at the next meeting for the first reading of an ordinance.
Councilmember Balch moved to approve the Cherry Plan. Councilmember Narum seconded the motion.
MOTION: It was m/s by Balch/Narum to approve the Cherry Plan as recommended and as noted.
Motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Balch, Narum
Noes: Councilmembers Arkin, Testa, Mayor Brown
Absent: None
Councilmember Arkin stated she could be content with the Cherry Plan with some modifications.
City Council Minutes Page 8 of 14 February 24, 2022
In response to Councilmember Arkin's inquiry, Mayor Brown confirmed they have to choose a map at this meeting.
In response to Councilmember Balch's inquiries, Councilmember Arkin stated she would like to incorporate Pleasanton Meadows into District 2, shift District 4 further north, and shift District 3 further east. She added this may have to put Val Vista back into District 1. She doubted whether the many ripple effect changes could be performed successfully.
Councilmember Arkin moved to approve the Tangerine Plan. Councilmember Testa seconded the motion.
In response to Councilmember Narum's inquiries, Mr. Wagaman clarified Bondi Ranch is kept whole by the Tangerine Plan, but Lund Ranch is split. He added it also splits downtown and creates a small split of Val Vista but one which only incorporates the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) office and does not impact any population. He confirmed the Tangerine Plan does split a neighborhood.
Councilmember Balch stated he does not like the Tangerine Plan. He stated Heritage Park, Danbury Park, Rosepark are more akin to District 2 than District 4. He added he has a significant challenge separating Bondi Ranch and Lund Ranch from Mission Hills. He questioned how they can ever consider the Tangerine Plan when they are splitting districts down two-lane residential Independence Drive. He stated he cannot support the Tangerine Plan.
Councilmember Balch made a substitute motion to approve the Lime Plan. Councilmember Narum seconded the substitute motion.
MOTION: It was m/s by Balch/Narum to approve the Lime Plan as recommended and as noted.
Motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Balch, Narum
Noes: Councilmembers Arkin, Testa, Mayor Brown
Absent: None
Councilmember Arkin stated the Bondi Ranch situation in the Tangerine Plan does not bother her because of the census block.
In response to Councilmember Arkin's inquiry, Mr. Wagaman stated during the live drawing exercise they were close to having a full district rotation to include Danbury Park and its surrounding neighborhoods into the Tangerine Plan's District 2. He provided multiple possibilities adding they wouk have to further expiore if it were possible. He suggested possibly moving Parkside and Amberwood Meadows into District 1.
Mayor Brown stated Ironwood Village is an age-restricted gated community but the core of the Ironwood neighborhood off of Mohr Avenue features very large homes. She noted the other communities in the area are smaller bringing this section of town diversity and income variance.
In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, Councilmember Arkin stated by school boundaries, these neighborhoods fall into District 2.
Councilmember Balch suggested keeping Ironwood in District 4 and moving the others to District 2 expressing concerns about the sound walls. He added this could help reduce the shifting.
Mr. Wagaman stated the Tangerine Plan may not be the best vehicle for these changes. He suggested using the Cherry Plan, shifting downtown into District 4 and the area south of downtown into District 3 City Council Minutes Page 9 of 14 February 24, 2022
to see if it works. He suggested as another alternative resuming the shifting they were doing earlier on the Tangerine Plan.
In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, Mr. Wagaman confirmed the change along Division Street would start to create similarities with the Yellow Map but would reverse how the Ironwood area modifications are being requested. He added they would also have to change the boundary line through the Hacienda business park because it was done using school enrollment boundaries and rejected by Council.
In response to Councilmember Arkin's inquiries, Mr. Wagaman stated Danbury Park is about 500 people so it could be shifted without any additional swaps. He stated Heritage Valley and Danbury Park combine to be about 1,300 people and either could or could not be resolved without any additional changes.
In response to Mr. Wagaman's inquiry, Councilmember Arkin stated this should be looked at and she would be willing to alter her motion if it works.
In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, Mr. Wagaman stated Ironhorse Trail could be a suitable dividing line.
In response to Mr. Wagaman's inquiry, Mayor Brown confirmed this is still considered debate and discussion even though there is a motion on the table.
Mr. Wagaman confirmed moving Danbury Park to District 2 would keep the map within permissible deviations. He reported moving both Danbury Park and Heritage Valley to District 2 would put District 2 at +5.1% and District 4 at -4.7% creating an acceptable deviation of 9.8%.
Councilmember Arkin stated if they can confirm compliance, she would modify her motion to include Danbury Park and Heritage Valley into the Tangerine Plan's District 2.
Mr. Wagaman stated the modified Tangerine Plan has similarities to the Yellow Map in this section of the city.
In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, Councilmember Balch stated the revised map is more agreeable to him but he is challenged on whether it is enough of a change to earn his vote. He stated it is not a superior plan to ether the Cherry, Currant, or Lime Plans. He stated it does not communicate well to residents who will represent them but expressed appreciation for the change. He added he also still has a challenge with Bondi Ranch.
Councilmember Narum stated the change is positive but does not address dividing Lund Ranch and running the boundary down a residential street which goes against everything the Council has said about not splitting neighborhoods.
Mayor Brown expressed disappointment they cannot find a solution to the Bondi Ranch quandary.
In response to Councilmember Testa's inquiry, Mr. Wagaman stated there is no obvious solution to the Bondi Ranch dilemma because of the census blocks. He added the only solution is to move a much larger chunk of the population which triggers much larger changes elsewhere.
In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, Mr. Wagaman stated the two solutions he heard were either moving the Tangerine Plan's District 3 eastward or moving District 4 westward. He added either way it is a substantial piece of geography and a significant amount of people to move to keep the neighborhood whole. He added some of the other plans reflect the needed changes.
City Council Minutes Page 10 of 14 February 24, 2022
City Attorney Sodergren stated his understanding is the motion has been amended and the maker of the second has to express their support for the amendment.
Councilmember Testa expressed her support for the amendment to the original motion.
In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, Councilmember Arkin stated they attempted to rotate the map to eliminate the cauliflower ear around Bondi Ranch.
Mayor Brown clarified Councilmember Arkin was instead adjusting the Tangerine Plan between Districts 2 and 4 earlier. Mr. Wagaman confirmed Mayor Brown's recollection of the live map-drawing exercise, adding they did not address the Bondi Park area.
In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, Councilmember Arkin agreed to have another live map-drawing exercise performed.
In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, Councilmember Testa stated she would like to find a solution to the Lund Ranch issue.
Mr. Wagaman confirmed moving the oblong Bondi Ranch census block into District 3 would then split Vintage Hills.
In response to City Attorney Sodergren's inquiry, Mr. Wagaman displayed the amended Tangerine Plan, moving the Danbury Park and Heritage Valley neighborhoods to District 2.
In response to Mr. Wagaman's inquiry, Councilmember Arkin confirmed the map displayed matches her amended motion.
In response to Councilmember Arkin's inquiry, Mr. Wagaman confirmed the modified Tangerine Plan is within legally acceptable population deviations with a total deviation of 9.8%.
In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, Councilmember Testa confirmed her second of the amended motion to approve the modified Tangerine Plan.
Councilmember Balch expressed his appreciation for the attempt to move Danbury Park but added he cannot support the motion because of the high deviation. He stated if equal population and representation matter, they should stick to a plan with better balance.
Councilmember Narum expressed her disappointment the City would want a plan with almost a 10% deviation when plans exist coming in at under 2% and 4% without splitting neighborhoods and are more easily understandable. She stated this map goes against everything said in previous meetings and she does not understand its support.
In response to Councilmember Arkin's inquiry, Mr. Wagaman reported in the proposed modified Tangerine Plan, District 1 would have 19,721 people, District 2 would have 20,989, District 3 would have 20,146, and District 4 would have 19,038. He added the largest district would be at +1,015 and the smallest at -936, making the difference between the largest and smallest districts about 2,000 people.
Councilmember Arkin stated she would be amenable to reverting to the original Tangerine Plan for its smaller deviation if there is support. She added she could also go for just Danbury Park joining District 2 but stated it seems logical to have Heritage Park go with it and use the Ironhorse Trail as a divider.
Mayor Brown stated she would prefer reverting to the original Tangerine Plan with its population deviation of 3.7%. She stated it used main roads and keeps communities of interest whole.
City Council Minutes Page 11 of 14 February 24, 2022
In response to Councilmember Arkin's inquiry, Mr. Wagaman reported if only Danbury Park shifted to District 2, it would reduce the total deviation down to 2.3%.
Mayor Brown noted the map looked odd with just Danbury Park in District 2 and not Heritage Park.
In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, Councilmember Arkin stated her intention with the adjustments is to keep communities of interest together. She agreed the map looks odd with just Danbury Park in District 2 but noted it makes the population deviation high if Heritage Valley goes along with Danbury Park.
Mayor Brown noted the original Tangerine Plan was well-balanced. She expressed her appreciation for Councilmember Arkin attempting to work this out.
Councilmember Balch questioned why they are not talking more about Independence Drive and splitting Lund Ranch and Bondi Ranch. He asked why the Lund Ranch community is not the equivalent of Danbury Park. He added they cannot talk about this plan using arterial streets when it uses Independence Drive. He asked what he should teil Lund Ranch residents about why they are being split.
Mayor Brown reported Mr. Wagaman has repeatedly stated they have to split that area.
Councilmember Balch noted several plans split the area on arterial roads without leaving the cauliflower ear.
Mayor Brown noted Councilmember Balch has strongly made this point.
In response to Councilmember Balch's inquiry, Mayor Brown stated they have been through why Independence Drive is being used as a dividing line. She added they cannot split a census block.
Mayor Brown did not respond to Councilmember Balch's inquiry about why they cannot move the boundary to Sunol Boulevard like other plans.
in response to City Attorney Sodergren's inquiry, Councilmember Arkin clarified her current motion is to approve the Tangerine Plan with moving the Danbury Park and Heritage Valley neighborhoods to District 2. She stated only moving Danbury Park helps with the population deviation, but it also looks too odd on the map to earn her approval. She stated she can go with either the original Tangerine Plan's lower deviation or the modified plan's better connection between communities of interest. She reported Mr. Wagaman says they cannot avoid the Lund Ranch split because of the census blocks.
In response to Councilmember Testa's inquiry, Mayor Brown stated she cannot support the cutout for just Danbury Park along narrow neighborhood streets. She stated she would support the original Tangerine Plan. She added the Danbury Park cutout looks potentially gerrymandered and the original plan only had a deviation of 3.7%. She expressed disappointment at their inability to avoid splitting Lund Ranch. She added not following main corridors around Danbury Park is difficult to support.
In response to Councilmember Arkin's inquiry, Mayor Brown stated the version with both Danbury Park and Heritage Valley in District 2 is too far out of balance.
Councilmember Arkin withdrew the amendment to her motion. in response to City Attorney Sodergren's inquiry, Councilmember Arkin confirmed her motion is to approve the unmodified Tangerine Plan.
City Council Minutes Page 12 of 14 February 24, 2022
Councilmember Testa seconded the motion.
MOTION: It was m/s by Arkin/Testa to approve the Tangerine Plan. Motion passed by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Arkin, Testa, Mayor Brown
Noes: Councilmembers Balch, Narum
Absent: None
Mr. Wagaman stated the Tangerine Plan's District 1 has the highest API population, so it is favored for 2024 sequencing. He suggested taking the advisement from public comments and stated the Council must now assign two districts each for 2022 voting and 2024 voting.
Councilmember Balch stated the representative from District 1 is terming out this year and District 3 has a representative up for 2022 reelection. He moved to have Districts 1 and 3 vote in 2022 and Districts 2 and 4 vote in 2024.
In response to Councilmember Testa's inquiry, Mr. Wagaman stated the law generally trends towards having the district with the higher API population vote in 2024 but suggested legal counsel should weigh in. He added there was public testimony to have the voting be geographic and the northeast district going in 2024 but added it was specific to the Lime Plan.
Councilmember Testa agreed with Councilmember Balch's motion because, otherwise, they would have to have a two-year Councilmember to represent District 1.
Mr. Wagaman stated District 1 would have someone running for a four-year term if it was voted on in 2022.
Councilmember Testa asked to clarify Mr. Wagaman's recommendation is to have District 1 hold its election in 2024. She added it would be vacated in 2022 by a Councilmember terming out.
Mr. Wagaman stated the City will be filling two Council seats in 2022 with two at-large carryovers to 2024. He clarified a circumstance can occur where a Councilmember can be in their term but be out of sequence for not having a district to run in unless they ran early.
Mr. Willis stated Mr. Wagaman described the process well. He noted the law is not 100% clear, but the CVRA forces the Council to consider public testimony and also the underlying purpose of the CVRA to help protected class minorities elect the candidates of their choice. He added this means districts with higher protected class populations should be placed in a Presidential election year when the turnout rate is higher.
In response to Councilmember Testa's inquiry, Mr. Willis clarified the need to separate the people from the races. He stated the two Councilmembers elected through 2024 continue to represent the entire city. He noted the current Councilmember who resides in District 1 was never representing District 1 alone. He added there will always be four Councilmembers regardless of which districts vote in 2022.
In response to Councilmember Testa's inquiry, Councilmember Balch stated his belief she is still not understanding the process.
In response to City Attorney Sodergren's inquiry, Mr. Willis clarified the API element is one factor, but others can be considered in assigning the sequencing. He added the legal standard is not completely clear.
Mayor Brown noted the variance is small, ranging from 27.4% to 30.3%.
City Council Minutes Page 13 of 14 February 24, 2022
In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, Mr. Willis stated he also noticed the variance is small and confirmed the small variance can factor into the City's decision-making.
In response to Councilmember Arkin's inquiry, Mr. Willis noted they are applying a standard where there is no case law and a lack of clear direction, leading to some risk but also some deference. He added everyone struggles with this area of the CVRA due to its opaque language.
Mayor Brown confirmed Councilmember Balch made a motion. City Attorney Sodergren confirmed the motion did not get seconded
Councilmember Narum seconded the motion.
MOTION: It was m/s by Balch/Narum to sequence Districts 1 and 3 to hold an election in 2022 for its Councilmembers and Districts 2 and 4 to hold an election in 2024 for its Councilmembers.
Motion passed by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Narum, Testa, Mayor Brown Noes: None
Absent: None
City Attorney Sodergren stated the ordinance may be ready for first reading at the March 1, 2022, meeting if everything can be turned around in time and if not, it could be deferred to the March 15, 2022, meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Brown adjourned the regular meeting at 10:06 p.m.
Respecttully submitted,
City Council Minutes Page 14 of 14 February 24, 2022