|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The process to divide the city of Pleasanton into four districts for future elections is ending with the City Council divided over the final map set for adoption.
The council voted 3-2 on Tuesday night to formalize the same majority’s earlier endorsement of the Tangerine map, with those in favor lauding the boundaries as the best option on the table for representation locally and citywide, while the dissenting councilmembers lamented the fact some key lines were drawn along neighborhood streets and the Ventana Hills community was split.
“We’ve given a lot of time on this,” Vice Mayor Valerie Arkin said ahead of voting with the majority. “Every single map, to me, has some advantages and some disadvantages. But we had to pick one, and we had to pick one, again, that is legally compliant.”
“What I do like about it: I like that there are three districts that all share a core center of town, not just Main Street but sharing in the core of town,” Arkin continued in support of the Tangerine map, adding that when it comes to finding prospective candidates, “You incorporate more than just one corner of town, you incorporate more communities of interest.”
“I didn’t want to divide Ventana Hills and Mission Park; that’s the one thing I don’t like about it. And I worked really hard last time to not do that … and we could not do it, with the demographer helping us,” she said.
Mayor Karla Brown, in comments just before the final vote that was obviously split, said, “I’m hoping that this council can put it behind us. Our intention is to serve all of Pleasanton, all residents, all areas, all neighborhoods and all districts, so that will be the goal, just like it was when we were an at-large election.”
“All five have vowed to support the entire city of Pleasanton. Whether the maps are one fruit or another, we’re here for you, and that’s important,” the mayor added.
In dissent, Councilman Jack Balch said, “While the Tangerine map may be legally compliant with all the boxes, I still cannot see how it is a superior map to other options. And I don’t believe it fully complies with the spirit of the law.”
“How unfortunate and disheartening it is to me that our community and neighborhoods have been divided, not only by the district lines themselves but also by this council not being able to come up with a 5-0 map,” he added. “The fracturing of our community is already apparent.”
Councilwoman Kathy Narum, who also voted No, said she couldn’t support the Tangerine map “primarily because it divides a neighborhood community of interest using residential streets versus arterial streets.”
“I’d really ask my colleagues to encourage you to consider one more attempt at trying to find a map that doesn’t divide the neighborhoods and will build trust in our local government here,” Narum added.
The same council majority picked the Tangerine plan as their top option for final consideration after reviewing draft maps at a special meeting Feb. 24.
Once adopted following a second reading at the next council meeting, the election map will be in effect for the next 10 years, in line with the U.S. census schedule.
The city is transitioning from at-large elections for the four regular City Council seats to district-based balloting starting this November, with the council agreeing to voluntarily make the switch after being compelled — like several other Tri-Valley jurisdictions and many others across the state — by the threat of a costly and likely unwinnable lawsuit that alleged discrimination and dilution of minority representation due to the city’s current at-large election process.
“We’ve all acknowledged that it’s a process that we didn’t choose to happen. We all want to be able to have the entire city vote for a candidate,” Councilwoman Julie Testa said.
“But the factors that this process was designed to correct don’t exist in Pleasanton, and there are not disadvantaged neighborhoods that are going to be harmed,” she said.
All maps up for final review were within the legal parameters for population deviation and general contiguity, and incumbents’ residency was not a factor for the demographer in creating any of the maps, according to the city’s consultant. Still, the selection of the Tangerine didn’t pass the political smell test for some, especially in the Ventana Hills neighborhood.
The council heard positive feedback about the Tangerine map, as well as criticism from those favoring the alternative “Lime” map, during about 15 minutes worth of public comment Tuesday night. Brown said the council also received a wealth of emails on both sides in the past week.
The change will divide the four council seats into representative districts and will allow candidates to run for council election only for the district they live in. It also means residents will vote one time every four years for the lone council representative in their district, as opposed to voting for two open council seats every two years.
The mayoral position will remain at-large citywide every two years.
As they’ve considered public input, demography data and draft maps in the new year, with a key deadline to avoid litigation looming in the middle of this month, the councilmembers have faced two different but interconnected questions: where to draw the lines and how to sequence the elections.
The council majority answered the latter question on Tuesday, too.
Under the Tangerine map, District 1 in northwest Pleasanton (where Narum is termed out in November) and District 3 in the southwest (where fourth-year Testa is eligible for another term) would be up for election in November 2022. Districts 2 and 4 would be on the ballot in 2024, and Arkin and Balch, who live in those respective areas now, would technically serve out their existing first terms at-large for the next two years.
The Tangerine map has the characteristic that each current regular council member resides within a different district from all others. But that wasn’t the case with all of the final alternatives up for consideration at a special meeting Feb. 24, where Arkin, Brown and Testa ultimately favored Tangerine.
The alternative Lime map, preferred by Narum and Balch, would have placed Testa and Balch — seen by many as political opponents — in the same residential area, District 4, among other nuanced differences in the boundary lines.
Lime would also have resulted in no current councilmember living in District 3, but that position would have been effectively assigned to Balch’s at-large position, with the district representation to take effect after the 2024 election.
That could have created the scenario where Balch, who is in the middle of first four-year term as at-large, could decide to run against Testa at the end of her at-large term this November for Lime’s District 4. Balch would be running from a so-called “safe seat” because if he lost in 2022 he would still be serving through 2024, but then, based on his residency, he could not run for council until 2026 when District 4 would be up again.
That point was not explicitly talked about by the councilmembers at Tuesday’s hearing, nor at the special meeting on Feb. 24, though it did come up in recent email and verbal public comments to the council.
“Based on the position taken on redistricting the Tri-Valley cities (for state and federal legislators), I’m appalled that the three of you — Mayor Brown, Julie Testa and Valerie Arkin — think dividing a neighborhood is OK when there are options that don’t divide neighborhoods in front of you today in the Lime and ‘Green’ plans,” Vicki LaBarge said.
“How does dividing Ventana Hills along Independence (Drive) make any sense at all? It only makes sense if the political aim is to gerrymander because Julie Testa and Jack Balch would be in the same district if the neighborhood is not split up,” she added.
In support of the Tangerine map, resident John Bauer said, “Brown, Arkin and Testa have been accused of gerrymandering. What’s ironic is that tonight a number of speakers will in essence state, ‘I don’t like the Tangerine map.’ Who are really the ones trying to gerrymander the district maps?”
“The vote has already been taken. The Tangerine map won. I encourage all to vote Yes tonight to accept the democratic vote of last Thursday,” he added.
Kelly Cousins, president of the Pleasanton Voters citizen group, commended the council for a “fair and transparent process”. She added, “This map and this plan and election sequence makes the most logical and financial sense to me … I also trust the consultants when they confirm that the Tangerine plan was fully compliant with state and federal voting laws.”
“The Lime map is a much better match for Pleasanton,” resident Jocelyn Combs said. “It’s simpler. It’s cleaner. I think people would have a better idea whose district they’re in just by looking at it, and it checks all the boxes of the requirements.”
Brown did hint Tuesday at her previously having balked at the idea suggested under the Lime map discussion that the unrepresented District 3 go on the 2022 ballot before District 4, essentially booting Testa out of office after 2022 by council action rather than an election. That sequencing was not mandatory under the Lime proposal.
A similar issue arose more publicly during the city of Livermore’s districting debate ahead of the 2020 election, when second-year Councilwoman Trish Munro and outgoing councilman Bob Coomber resided in the same district.
In that example, the district was assigned to Coomber’s position — he did not seek re-election, and the spot was won by Councilwoman Brittni Kiick — and Munro would serve at-large through 2022 but could not run for re-election to the council unless she moved districts.
Pleasanton’s election map needs to be finalized through the approval of an ordinance, a required two-step process. The first reading passed 3-2 on Tuesday, and the second reading and final adoption is scheduled for the next regular council meeting, March 15 — which is the deadline date the city faces.
This “lime” map looks intriguingly familiar. I like it! And I see no negativity in the resulting happenstance of a 2022 election for that district seat.
I do, however, foresee many issues down the road with this method being “MANDATED” by the State legislature for cities of OUR size! It’s ludicrous. Oh. Did I just say that? Well, think about it. I’m sure you’ll come to that same conclusion. If not now, maybe in 2023, after we’ve experienced two elections.