Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report DATE: August 9, 2017 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON TRANSITION TO DISTRICT BASED ELECTIONS Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing to receive public input regarding the composition of the districts and provide direction on the number of draft maps and parameters to be considered SUMMARY On August 1, 2017, the City Council held its first public hearing regarding the process of transitioning to district based elections. This action was in response to threatened litigation regarding alleged non-compliance with the California Voting Rights Act (“CVRA”), and in furtherance of the City Council’s adopted resolution of intention to transition from at-large to district-based elections. Under Assembly Bill (“AB”) 350, the City now has 90 days to complete the transition process, during which time the public will have at least five opportunities to comment on the proposal and the draft maps that are created for the potential voting districts. This is the second such opportunity. It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing to receive input regarding the composition of the potential voting districts, provide direction on the number of draft maps and parameters to be considered, and request staff set a public hearing at some point in early September 2017, to review draft district maps and obtain further input. BACKGROUND In 2003, the CVRA became law. The CVRA, in an attempt to prevent the disenfranchisement of protected classes of persons, establishes a low bar for attorneys seeking to force cities to convert from at-large to by-district elections. Numerous public agencies in California have been sued under the CVRA. Plaintiffs challenging at-large elections of legislative bodies such as city councils have typically prevailed in litigation (the City Attorney is unaware of any public entity prevailing). Public Hearing – Transition to By-District Elections August 9, 2017 Page 2 of 6 Several cities, school districts, and hospital districts have settled with challengers, either prior to or in the midst of litigation brought pursuant to the CVRA. Cities and other public entities have had a statutory obligation to reimburse successful challengers for their attorneys’ fees pursuant to the CVRA. For example, the City of Palmdale incurred $4.7 million in legal fees in unsuccessfully defending in court its at- large city council election system, and the Cities of Santa Barbara, Whittier, Anaheim, and Modesto incurred legal fees of between $600,000 and $3 million in settling such challenges after adopting by-district elections. At least 55 California cities have transitioned, or are in the process of transitioning, from at-large to by-district elections as a result of the CVRA. In addition, there are at least 146 school districts, 27 community college districts, and eight water or other special districts which have done or are doing so under the CVRA. Last year, the California legislature adopted AB 350 amending Elections Code Section 10010 to cap the attorneys’ fees a prospective plaintiff may recover if a public agency adopts a resolution of intention to change to a by-district system of elections within 45 days after the receipt of a letter from that prospective plaintiff alleging a CVRA violation. On June 6, 2017, the City received a letter from Kevin Shenkman, Esq., alleging that the City’s at-large City Council election system diluted the ability of certain protected classes of persons within the City to elect candidates of their choice and demanding the City notify him of its intent to change to a by-district election system by July 21, 2017, in accordance with AB 350. While the City Council did not in any way concede to Mr. Shenkman’s allegations, in an effort to avoid costly litigation, on July 21, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 7179, a resolution declaring the City’s intention to transition from at-large to district- based elections pursuant to Elections Code Section 10010. On August 1, 2017, the City held its first public hearing to obtain input on any proposed district boundaries. A summary of public comments provided is listed below. Richard McDonald – Chinese American Equalization Association: Mr. McDonald recommended that the City obtain a minimum of three maps from the City’s demographer. Mr. McDonald recommended that the City Attorney be involved in the drawing of the maps to ensure acceptable legal criteria are considered in the drafting of district boundaries. Mr. McDonald recommended two options of which three Asian majority districts would be created. The first includes one south of Duarte Road, a second south of the 210 freeway, and another east of Santa Anita Racetrack using El Monte Boulevard as a dividing line in the south, Baldwin Avenue as the dividing line in the north, and Huntington Boulevard as the primary southern boundary for the two 2 Public Hearing – Transition to By-District Elections August 9, 2017 Page 3 of 6 northern districts. The second option for consideration is to have five districts, one in the northeast, one in the northwest, one in the southeast, one in the southwest, and a horizontal central district connecting north and south. Paul Van Fleet: Mr. Van Fleet agreed with Council’s decision to avoid costly litigation by transitioning to district based elections. Mr. Van Fleet questioned how the district elections would be staggered under the upcoming election cycle. Mr Van Fleet recommended that in addition to ethnicity, resident’s socioeconomic status be taken into consideration when drafting districts. Finally, Mr. Van Fleet questioned how the rotation of the Mayor position would be determined under the new district model and suggested that each Mayor be appointed for 9 months instead of a year. Roger Nemrava: Mr. Nemrava was opposed to districting. Should the City move to district-based elections, Mr. Nemrava suggested that Santa Anita Boulevard be the dividing line between east and west Arcadia. Mr. Nemrava recommended that the Highlands Homeowners Association be one district as it represents a cohesive community of interest. Mr. Nemrava suggested that the Oaks and Upper and Lower Rancho Home Owners Associations be a separate district as they too represent separate communities of interest. Mr. Nemrava suggested that Camino Real be the dividing line between north and south Arcadia. Using Camino Real as the dividing line, the Village area should be combined with the area north of Camino Real and west of Santa Anita Boulevard. The fourth district would include east Arcadia with areas east of Santa Anita Boulevard and then south to Camino Real. All areas south of Camino Real would be the final district. Sheng Chang: Dr. Chang congratulated the City Council for changing the City’s voting system from at-large to district-based voting. Dr. Chang expressed his desire for straightforward, simple, and fair districts with emphasis placed on population and demographic considerations. Dr. Chang also requested that the City Council consider term limits as part of their deliberations. Burton Brink: Mr. Brink was opposed to districting and is supportive of the City’s current voting system. Nevertheless, Mr. Brink recommended that the homeowners associations in the City be considered during the drafting of district maps as a cohesive community of interest. Gary Kovacic: Mr. Kovacic stated reasons for opposing going to district elections. Mr. Kovacic recommended that City Council carefully draft the district boundaries and should take into consideration communities of common interest within each district, including homeowners associations and other traditional neighborhoods that exist throughout the City. Mr. Kovacic cautioned the City Council to avoid gerrymandering in order to preserve a current Council Member’s seat. Mr. Kovacic posed several questions to the City Council which include how will the district-based system be 3 Public Hearing – Transition to By-District Elections August 9, 2017 Page 4 of 6 implemented in the upcoming election? How will incumbency be factored in to the process? Mr. Kovacic recommended that an independent committee be created to study and recommend proposed district boundaries. Laurie Thompson: Ms. Thompson was not present but submitted an email to be included in the official record for the August 1, 2017, meeting. Ms. Thompson stated the Highlands is in a category by itself for many reasons. Also, the Village has had a different flavor and set of circumstances ever since its inception in 1937. The Village would be better represented in district with R-1 zoned homes. The Upper Rancho, Lower Rancho, and Oaks are zoned R-0. Overall, she stated her position of keeping the HOA’s intact and not clumping them into only one or two districts. DISCUSSION Procedure Under AB 350 Elections Code Section 10010 provides a specific process for the adoption of an ordinance to transition to district-based elections. The process includes a series of public hearings at which the public is invited to provide input regarding the composition of the districts. The maps for Council districts will be drawn by a professional demographer with extensive experience in the CVRA and drafting Council districts. Before drawing a draft map or maps, the City must hold at least two public hearings over a period of no more than 30 days, at which the public is invited to provide input regarding the composition of the districts. The first hearing was on August 1, 2017. This is the second hearing in accordance with the statute. After the draft maps are drawn, the City shall publish at least one draft map. The City shall also publish the potential sequence of elections, if the City Council Members will be elected at different times to provide for staggered terms of office. Then, the City shall hold at least two additional public hearings over a period of no more than 45 days, at which the public is invited to provide input regarding the content of the draft maps and the proposed sequence of elections. The preliminary proposed schedule for the transition is as follows: Aug. 1, 2017 Public Hearing No. 1 - Completed Aug. 9, 2017 Public Hearing No. 2 – this Agenda Item Aug. 28, 2017 Publication of Draft Map(s) Sep. 5, 2017 Public Hearing No. 3 (to be confirmed) 4 Public Hearing – Transition to By-District Elections August 9, 2017 Page 5 of 6 Sep. 19, 2017 Public Hearing No. 4 (to be confirmed) Oct. 3, 2017 Introduction of Ordinance Oct. 17, 2017 Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance Public comments on the transition and the proposed district maps are very important and all residents within the City are encouraged to participate in these hearings. Criteria for Establishing Districts The drawing of City Council districts is regulated by both state and federal law, including the CVRA and the Federal Voting Rights Act. For example, under federal law, council districts may not be drawn with race as the predominate factor. (Shaw v. Reno (1993) 509 U.S. 630.) The professional demographer retained by the City to draw Council districts will ensure the districts are compliant with these standards. Under Elections Code Section 21620, districts must be drawn as nearly equal in population as may be according to the latest federal decennial census. In establishing the boundaries, the City Council may give consideration to the following factors: (1) Topography; (2) Geography; (3) Cohesiveness, Contiguity, Integrity, and Compactness of Territory; and (4) Community of Interest of the Districts. Based on the public input received at the public hearing, the City Council may wish to identify additional criteria to guide the establishment of election districts. For example, among other criteria, the City Council may wish to respect the previous choices of City voters by avoiding the creation of head-to-head contests between Councilmembers previously elected by the voters of the City (insofar as this does not conflict with Federal or State Law). It is recommended that at least three (3) draft maps be created and presented to the City Council and the public at a City Council meeting to be held in early September 2017. In addition to the criteria listed above, the City Council may also recommended additional factors to be included for the demographer’s consideration. CEQA ANALYSIS The transition from at-large to district-based elections is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Resources Code, 5 Public Hearing – Transition to By-District Elections August 9, 2017 Page 6 of 6 § 21000 et seq.) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) Sections 15061(b)(3), 15320, and 15378(b)(3). The transition process is an organizational and administrative activity of the City, does not have the potential to result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and is therefore not a project for purposes of CEQA. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15061(b)(3); 15378(b)(5).) In the event the transition process does constitute a project, it is categorically exempt under the Class 20 (Changes in the Organization of Local Governments) categorical exemption. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15320.) None of the exceptions to the exemptions found in State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with the public hearing. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing to receive input regarding the composition of the potential voting districts, provide direction on the number of draft maps and parameters to be considered, and request staff set a public hearing at some point in early September 2017, to review draft district maps and obtain further input. 6