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