HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-06-13; City Council; ; Public Hearing Regarding the Composition of the City's Voting Districts pursuant to Elections Code 10010(a)(1) (Second of Five Public Hearings)Page 557
~ CI TY CO UN C IL
~ Staff Report
Meeting Date:
To:
From:
Staff Contact:
June 13, 2017
Mayor and City Council 1/
Kevin Crawford, City Manage~
Celia Brewer, City Attorney
Celia .brewer@carlsbadca.gov
CA Review f.{:;l
Subject: Public Hearing Regarding the Composition of the City's Voting Districts
pursuant to Elections Code 10010(a)(1) (Second of Five Public Hearings)
Recommended Action
That the City Council hold a Public Hearing and receive public comment regarding the
composition and boundaries ofthe City's yet to be formed voting districts.
Executive Summary·
On April 11, 2017, the City received a letter from the law firm Shenkman & Hughes (Exhibit 1)
threatening to sue the city for alleged violations of the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) (Eiec.
Code§§ 14025-14032) unless the City voluntarily converts to elections by district.
The CVRA applies to jurisdictions, including charter cities, that utilize an "at-large" method of
election, where voters of the entire jurisdiction elect the members of the City Council. The
threshold to establish liability under the CVRA is extremely low, and prevailing CVRA plaintiffs are
guaranteed to recover their attorneys' fees and costs. Every government defendant in the history
of the CVRA that has challenged t he conversion to district elections has either lost in court or
settled, and has also been forced to pay at least some portion of the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
and costs, which has, in several cases, amounted to millions of dollars.
In order to avoid the potentially significant litigation expenses that are likely to occur if the City
retains its at-large election method of election, at the City Council's May 9, 2017 hearing, the
Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-083 (Exhibit 2) outlining its intention to transition from at-
large to district based elections.
Pursuant to Elections Code 10010(a)(1), the City must now hold two public hearings before the
drawing of any draft maps of proposed voting districts in order to receive public input regarding
the composition of the districts. The City Council held its first hearing for this purpose on May
30, 2017, and this June 13, 2017 hearing is the second.
Discussion
The CVRA was specifically enacted in 2002 to eliminate several key burden of proof requirements
that exist under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 ("FVRA") (52 U.S.C. § 10301 et seq.) after
several jurisdictions in California successfully defended themselves in litigation brought under
the FVRA. As a result, the CVRA is tilted heavily in favor of plaintiffs' attorneys. Indeed, over the
relatively short 15-year history of the CVRA, and only after an initial challenge to it was resolved
Page 558
in 2006, plaintiff public agencies have paid nearly $15 million to CVRA plaintiff attorneys (Exhibit
3). Due to the combination of the CVRA's low burden to trigger mandatory districting and its
mandatory attorneys' fees provision, all CVRA cases that have been filed have ended with the
defendant governmental agency implementing a district election system and paying some sort
of attorneys' fee payment.
In response to the substantial costs imposed upon cities and other public agencies in defending
CVRA suits, in 2016 the California l egislature amended the Elections Codes to simplify the process
of converting to by-district method of election and to provide a "safe harbor" process to protect
agencies from litigation. Because the City Council enacted Resolution No. 2017-083 declaring its
intent to convert to a by-district method of election within 45 days of receiving the Shenkman &
Hughes demand letter, a CVRA lawsuit cannot be filed before August 7, 2017 (90 days after the
Council's May 9 adoption of the Resolution). (Eiec. Code § 10010(e)(3).)
The first step in the process in the City's conversion from its current at-large method of election
to a by-district system is to hold a public hearing and receive public comment regarding the
composition of the yet to be formed voting districts. (Eiec. Code§ 10010(a).) The City will draw
proposed district maps for the Council and public's consideration and comment only after first
holding two public hearings regarding the district composition. (ld.) The City Council held the
first such hearing on May 30, 2017, and this June 13, 2017 hearing is the second. Further
background information relating to the districting process is available for the public on the City's
website at http://www.carlsbadca.gov/cityhall/clerk/district .asp.
The intention of these hearings is to identify the neighborhoods, other "communities of interest,"
and other local factors that should be considered or used as 'building blocks' when the drawing
of draft maps begins. The public is welcome to propose complete districting maps, but it is not
required. These hearings will also be the public launch of the City's online redistricting tool,
provided by our districting consultant (National Demographics Corporation, or NDC). The online
tool is now available on the City website at http://www.carlsbadca.gov/cityhall/clerk/maps.asp.
While all public input concerning the composition of the City's yet to be formed voting districts
should be considered, there are severa l mandatory criteria that the City will have to comply with
when the actual districts are created, as well as permissive criteria. These criteria were discussed
at the May 30, 2017 hearing, and are set forth in Resolution 2017-097 adopted by the City Council
at that hearing (Exhibit 4).
Fiscal Analysis
The costs of defending the city's district wide election system in court are projected to be
significant due to having to pay the plaintiffs' fees and costs. Awards in these cases have reached
upwards of $3,500,000. When sued, even the settlements reached by cities have included paying
the plaintiffs' attorneys fees. If the City Council chooses to maintain its at-large elections and
defend the threatened lawsuit, the costs and attorneys' fees would likely exceed $1,000,000.
The demographic consultant cost is anticipated to be approximately $35,000. Special counsel
fees required to voluntarily convert to district elections are estimated to be $30,000. Additional
legal costs will be incurred for additional analysis and public hearings. The city's good faith and
Page 559
considered approach to by-district elections may forestall further threats and demands for
attorneys' fees, but other jurisdictions have suffered such demands even after initiating such
efforts.
Next Steps
Three more public hearings will be held concerning the proposed district boundaries on June 29,
July 11 and July 18, 2017. Proposed map(s) will be drawn prior to the June 29, 2017 hearing so
that they can be considered and discussed by the Council and public, pursuant to Elections Code
section 10010{a)(2}. Any proposed map(s) will be publically released at least seven {7} days
before the June 29 hearing.
At the final public hearing on July 18, the City Council may introduce for first reading an ordinance
establishing the district boundaries and the by-district election method pursuant to Government
Code section 34886 and Elections Code 10010.
Environmental Evaluation (CEQA)
The requested action is not a project within the definition of the California Code of Regulations,
Title 14, Chapter 3, section 15378(a) since the action has no potential for resulting in either a
direct change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the
environment.
Public Notification
Prior to this hearing, the City conducted outreach in both English and Spanish to encourage public
participation in both the districting process in general, and this public hearing in particular. A
press release was issued and posted on the City's website on May 20, 2017. In addition, notice
of this Public Hearing was published in English and Spanish in the May 19 and June 2, 2017
editions of the San Diego Union Tribune. Staff also published the Spanish version of the legal
notice in the May 19 and June 2, 2017 editions ofthe La Prensa San Diego Newspaper.
Exhibits
1. Aprilll, 2017 Correspondence
2. Resolution No. 2017-083
3. Table of Results of CVRA Litigation
4. Resolution No. 2017-097
Page 560
Exhibit 1
~slistit~<M'"N sr HuGHes 28905 Wight Road
Malibu, California 90265
(31 0) 457-0970
h;;ll.enkrnauL~?.h£nl5.r.r.l<:~JJ.bJJKh;;:_$.,.Y.Qm
~J " ,,
;: ttOF!.Nli!YS -• MAt..I!il!.l. CAt..lf'ORNIA
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
April 5, 2017
Barbara Engleson
City Clerk -City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive ,
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Violation of California Voting Rights Act
RECEIVED
APR 11 2017
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
The City of Carlsbad ("Carlsbad") relies upon an at-large election system for
electing candidates to its City CounciL Moreover, voting within Carlsbad is
racially polarized, resulting in minority vote dilution, and therefore Carlsbad's at-
large elections violate the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 ("CVRA").
The CVRA disfavors the use of so-called "at-large" voting -an election method
that permits voters of an entire jurisdiction to elect candidates to each open seat.
See generally Sanchez v. City of Modesto (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 660, 667
("Sanchez"). For example, ifthe U.S. Congress were elected through a nationwide
at-large election, rather than through typical single-member districts, each voter
could cast up to 435 votes and vote for any candidate in the country, not just the
candidates in the voter's district, and the 435 candidates receiving the most
nationwide votes would be elected. At-large elections thus allow a bare majority
of voters to control every seat, not just the seats in a particular district or a
proportional majority of seats.
Voting rights advocates have targeted "at-large" election schemes for decades,
because they often result in "vote dilution," or the impairment of minority groups'
ability to elect their preferred candidates or influence the outcome of elections,
which occurs when the electorate votes in a racially polarized manner. See
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 46 (1986) ("Gingles"). The U.S. Supreme
Court "has long recognized that multi-member districts and at-large voting
schemes may operate to minimize or cancel out the voting strength" of minorities.
!d. at 47; see also id. at 48, fu. 14 (at-large elections may also cause elected
officials to "ignore [minority] interests without fear of political consequences"),
citing Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613, 623 (1982); White v. Register, 412 U.S. 755,
769 (1973). "[T]he majority, by virtue of its numerical superiority, will regularly
Page 561
AprilS, 2017
Page 2 of4
defeat the choices of minority voters." Gingles, at 47. When racially polarized
voting occurs, dividing the political unit into single-member districts, or some
other appropriate remedy, may facilitate a minority group's ability to elect its
preferred representatives. Rogers, at 616.
Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act ("FVRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1973, which
Congress enacted in 1965 and amended in 1982, targets, among other things, at-
large election schemes. Gingles at 37; see also Boyd & Markman, The 1982
Amendments to the Voting Rights Act: A Legislative History (1983) 40 Wash. &
Lee L. Rev. 1347, 1402. Although enforcement of the FVRA was successful in
many states, California was an exception. By enacting the CVRA, "[t]he
Legislature intended to expand protections against vote dilution over those
provided by the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965." Jauregui v. City of Palmdale
(2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 781, 808. Thus, while the CVRA is similar to the FVRA
in several respects, it is also different in several key respects, as the Legislature
sought to remedy what it considered "restrictive interpretations given to the
federal act." Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 976 (2001-2002
Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 9, 2002, p. 2.
The California Legislature dispensed with the. requirement in Gingles that a
rrTiinority group demonstrate that it is su.fficiently large and geographically compact
l19 constitute a "majority-minority district." Sanchez, at 669. Rather, the CVRA
requires only that a plaintiff show the existence of racially polarized voting to
establish that an at-large method of election violates the CVRA, not the
desirability of any particular remedy. See Cal. Elec. Code § 14028 ("A violation
of Section 14027 is established if it is shown that racially polarized voting occurs
... ")(emphasis added); also see Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill
No. 976 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 9, 2002, p. 3 ("Thus, this bill
puts the voting rights horse (the discrimination issue) back where it sensibly
belongs in front of the cart (what type of remedy is appropriate once racially
polarized voting has been shown).")
To establish a violation of the CVRA, a plaintiff must generally show that
"racially polarized voting occurs in elections for members of the governing body
of the political subdivision or in elections incorporating other electoral choices by
the voters of the political subdivision." Elec. Code § 14028(a). The CVRA
specifies the elections that are most probative: "elections in which at least one
candidate is a member of a protected class or elections involving,ballot measures,
or other electoral choices that affect the rights and privileges of members of a
protected class." Elec. Code § 14028(a). The CVRA also makes clear that
"[ e ]lections conducted prior to the filing of an action ... are more probative to
Page 562
April 5, 2017
Page 3 of 4
establish the existence of racially polarized voting than elections conducted after
the filing of the action." !d.
Factors other than "racially polarized voting" that are required to make out a claim
under the FVRA -under the "totality of the circumstances" test -"are probative,
but not necessary factors to establish a violation of' the CVRA. Elec. Code §
14028( e). These "other factors" include "the history of discrimination, the use of
electoral devices or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the
dilutive effects of at-large elections, denial of access to those processes
determining which groups of candidates will receive financial or other support in a
given election, the extent to which members of a protected class bear the effects of
past discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which
hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process, and the use of
overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns." Id.
Carlsbad's at-large system dilutes the ability of Latinos (a "protected class")-to
elect candidates of their choice or otherwise influence the outcome of Carlsbad's
council elections.
The elections of 2004 and 2006 are illustrative. In 2004, a Latino candidate-
Ofelia Escobedo -ran for city council and lost. In 2006, two Latino candidates -
Ron Alvarez and Roland Chicas-ran for city council and lost. Each of those
candidates received significant support from Latino voters, but fell short of
securing a seat in Carlsbad's at-large election due to the bloc voting of Carlsbad's
majority non-Latino electorate. In fact, as a result of this racially polarized voting,
Carlsbad appears to have had no Latino council members in its recent history.
According to recent data, Latinos comprise approximately 13 .3% of the population
of Carlsbad. The contrast between the significant Latino proportion ofthe
electorate and the absence ofLatinos to be elected to the City Council is telling.
As you may be aware, in 2012, we sued the City ofPalmdale for violating the
CVRA. After an eight-day trial, we prevailed. After spending millions of dollars,
a district-based remedy was ultimately imposed upon the Palmdale city council,
with districts that combine all incumbents into one of the four districts.
Given the lack of Latino representation on the city council in the context of
racially polarized elections, we urge Carlsbad to voluntarily change its at-large
system of electing council members. Otherwise, on behalf of residents within the
jurisdiction, we will be forced to seek judicial relief. Please advise us no later
than May 22, 2017 as to whether you would like to discuss a voluntary change to
Page 563
your current at-large system.
We look forward to· your response.
Very~s,
Kevin I. Shenkman
AprilS, 2017
Page 4 of 4
Page 564
,RESOLUTION NO. 2017-083
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, EXPRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL'S INTENTION, PURSUANT TO
ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 10010(e)(3)(A), TO INITIATE PROCEDURES FOR
ESTABLISHING AND IMPLEMENTING BY-DISTRICT ELECTIONS FOR CITY
COUNCIL MEMBERS
EXHIBIT 2
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, California (11City") is a charter city, duly organized under the
constitution and laws of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, four of the members of the Carlsbad City Council are currently elected in at-large
elections, in which each City Council member is elected by all registered voters of the entire City, with
the mayor being separately elected by all registered voters of the entire City, pursuant to California
Government Code sections 34871 and 34900 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, Section 34886 of the Government Code authorizes any city to change to a by-district
system or by-district system with an elective mayor without the need to put such a change to voters;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to move
from its current at-large electoral system to a by-district election for members of the City Council in
furtherance of the purposes of California Voting Rights Act; and
WHEREAS, the City moves to make this transition from an at-large system to a by-district system
in accordance with the new procedural rules outlined in Government Code Section 34886 and Elections
Code 10010; and
WHEREAS, the City received a letter threatening action under the California Voting Rights Act
on Aprilll, 2017, less than forty-five (45) days before the date of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City will begin by working with an experienced demographer to assist the City in
establishing maps for a by-district electoral system; and
WHEREAS, before drawing a draft map of the proposed boundaries ofthe districts, the City will
hold at least two (2) public hearings over no more than thirty (30) days, at which time the public is
invited to provide input regarding the composition of the districts; and
WHEREAS, the City will then publish and make available for release at least one (1) draft map
of the new electoral districts, including the potential sequence of elections shown; and
Page 565
WHEREAS, once the draft map has been publicized for at least seven (7) days, the City will hold
at least two (2) additional public hearings, over no more than forty-five (45) days, at which time the
public is invited to provide input regarding the content ofthe draft map and the proposed sequence of
elections prior to the public hearing at which the City Council adopts a map; and
WHEREAS, if a draft map is revised at or following a public hearing, the revised map will be
published and made available to the public at least seven (7) days before the City chooses to adopt it;
and
WHEREAS, in determining the final sequence of staggered district elections, the City Council will
give special consideration to the purposes of the CVRA, and will take in to accoul'lt the preferences
expressed by the members of the districts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now wishes to adopt criteria to guide the establishment of electoral
districts consistent with legal requirements including reasonable equal population and section 2 ofthe
federal Voting Rights Act, as well as other concerns and considerations important to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
2. The City Council hereby resolves, pursuant to Elections Code section 10010, to adopt a
by-district election system by ordinance as authorized by California Government Code
section 34886, for use in the City's General Municipal Election for City Council Members.
4. The City Council further resolves to retain a qualified demographer, hold at least five (5)
public hearings and publish at least one (1) draft map and staggering sequence.
5. The City's redistricting/demographic consulting firm, acting under the supervision of the
City Manager, is hereby authorized to direct and formulate one or more electoral district
scenarios for review by the public and City Council at two or more public hearings if
necessary, in accordance with the City's proposed timeline.
6. Working with the demographic consulting firm, staff is directed to publicize relevant
maps, information, notices, agendas and other materials regarding by-district elections
and to establish means of communication to answer questions from the public.
Page 567("(')
......
..a
..c X L.U Citv/Political Subdivision I
Defendant Settlement Conditions Attorneys' Fees Notes -----~--~-
I City lost trial on the merits, held an
election that plaintiffs argued was
Agreed to have voters choose illegal, and unsuccessfully challenged .
elected officials by districts, , an injunction stopping the City from
including two with Latino Jcertifying the results of that election;
City of}l_1]_lmdale
--
majorities 1 $4,500,000 settlement subsequently reached
i
Moved to-District election~;-vot~rs I
--------· -----------·---------------
'
had already approved a move~ Settlement; Additional $1,700,000 to
City of Modesto districts before settlement $3,000,000 'defense attorneys _, ----. -···------~------
Madera Unified School
District; Madera County I Moved to "by trustee area" [
Board of Education __ elections via admission of liability i--$162,500 court award
j Moved to by-district elections via I
! ballot measure; kept mayor at ,
City of Compton _[larg~ i co_n~dential settlement I---. ---
!Agreed to hold a~ election re I --------~------
! I changing to district elections in
Tulare Local Healthcare 2012 and agreed to cancel2010 [
District !elections ; $500,000 Settlement ' r----·----------------· --. ---~---
, City agreed to place a ballot
City of Tulare • move to d1stnct electiOns $225,000 Settlement -----·-----
$110,000tettlcment
Hanford Unified School Agreed to move to by-trustee
District district elections r--------------------
Compton Community Agreed to move to by-district
College District elections I $40,000 Settlement ______ I
Page 568Ceres Unified School
District
Moved to by-trustee district
elections before litigation was
filed ____ $3,000 1 Settlem_en_t ___ _
Cerritos Community College /Moved to by-trustee district I , I District elections $55,000 Settlement
County moved to by-District II ------
elections (through a ballot
j, measure) and further agreed to ·
1
redraw its previously-approved [ ,
-~~istrict bounda~ies. b~ forming a 1 1
nme-person redtstnctmg I 1·
committee $650,000 Settlement ----------I --l -----
1
. Agreed to place ballot measure on ,
November 2016 ballot re moving I Settlement; expected costs include at
to by district elections . $1,200,000 least another $800,000
Case dismissed as moot when City I ------~ -----'----------1
changed voting system;
/unsuccessful post election I court award under catalyst theory,
City ofWhi1ti~r ;_chall~nge re at large ma:y~_!__ __ __$l,OOO_,goo[even though case was dism_is_se_d __ --1
Santa Clarita Community \Agreed to conduct cumulative :
College District /voting, and by trustees $850,000ISettlement
--------~--··-·----
§an Mateo County
City of Anaheim 1-------' ---------
Page 569Moved to by district elections via
stipluated judgment; mayor I
City of <:J-<rrden Grove elec!ed__at large _____ _ -~~~~-$290,000 1 Settlemel1t -l
Settled via court order (consent
decree) after vote of the people
failed to adopt by district
$itr()tEscondido 'el~_ctions; m~yor elected at l~g~ $385,000:Settlement --------r greed to move to cumulative I I
r-9ty of~anta Clarit~-~-I,: oting method _ __j_ -~--~--J600,000,Settlement ________ _
~ated judgment, court ordered I
&ty of Visalia __ l~;'~i;;ricts _ __ ~-----_ +-$125,00QjSettlement l Agreed to move to by district; I
0
.:;:(1(\ I~;
1 City _o_!Sa11ta Barba!(l__ :mayor remains electe<!_at large __ _ · $5~~ettlefl1_~nt ____ _
City of Fullerton
City of Merced --------
City of Bell!Jower
D1stnct
i Agreed to pay attorneys fees -
/negotiate in good faith; required
-i. lacing measure on November
0 1~-~allot to m()ve to districts j undisclosed
ettled before lawsuit filed; agreed
l to ballot measure
I Agreed to place ballo~measure o~-+---
iNoveJ:!l:ber ?016 ballo!_ _____ ]ll!ldisclo~e_d~~
Agree to move to by district
Settlement ---+---
_$43,000 1 Settleli1e_llt ______ ~
Settlement -------·-
------
--
Slliphur Springs School lmethod~---------~ $144,000 Settlement
--------------------------------
1 --------t-----------~~----
~--I----J-----~---------
TOTAL PAYMENTS TO
PLAINTIFFS'
ATTORNEYS
1
I $14,482,ooo I
Page 570
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-097
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL.OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING LINE DRAWING CRITERIA FOR ADJUSTING
COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
Exhibit 4
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad ("City") was elected under an "at large"
election system whereby Councilmembers were elected by voters of the entire City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is considering a change to the "by district" elections whereby
each Councilmember must reside within the designated district boundary and is elected only by
voters of that district; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. Section 1973) prohibits the use of any
voting qualification, or prerequisite to voting, or standard practice or procedure in a manner
which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote
on account of race or color; and
WHEREAS, federal law and the equal protection clause require that each district be equal
in population to ensure compliance with the "one person, one vote" rule; however, deviations
approximating five to ten percent may pass muster under the equal protection clause where
required to meet an official criteria; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has instructed its demographer and city staff to develop draft
maps that fully comply with legal requirements and intends to provide official criteria for any
needed deviations.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad
does hereby adopt the following criteria to guide the establishment of districts for council
elections:
1. Each Council District shall contain a nearly equal number of inhabitants; and
2. Council District borders shall be drawn in a manner that complies with the Federal
Voting Rights Act; and
3. Council districts shall consist of contiguous territory in as compact form as possible;
and
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at
6 p.m., or as soon thereafter as it may be heard, in the Council Chamber at Carlsbad City Hall,
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on the following date(s):
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
The purpose of the public hearings is to receive public input on and provide input regarding the
composition of potential Council election district boundaries. Following the public hearings, draft
maps of potential Council election district boundaries will be published and additional public
hearings scheduled.
All interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing(s) and express opinions or submit
information. The public hearings may be continued from time to time, as necessary, by
giving notice at the aforementioned hearing.
j[Office1]Copies of the staff report will be available on and after Thursday, May 25, 2017, for the
May 30, 2017, Public Hearing and after Thursday, June 8, 2017, for the June 13, 2017, Public
Hearing. If you have any questions, please contact the City Attorney's Office at 760-434-2891 or
attorney@carlsbadca.gov.
Information about district elections, why the city is making this change and the process is available
on the city website, http://www.carlsbadca.gov/districts
If a person wishes to challenge, in court, any action the City Council may take regarding the subject
matter of the public hearing, then that person may be limited to raising only those issues raised at
the subject public hearing or in written correspondence timely delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior
to, the public hearing.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
Posted: May 19, 2017
Publish: May 19, 2017 and June 2, 2017.
CIUDAD DE CARLSBAD
NOTIFICACION DE AUDIENCIAS PUBLICAS
SE NOTIFICA POR MEDIO DEL PRESENTE que el Concejo Municipal de Ia Ciudad de Carlsbad tendra
una audiencia publica a las 6:00 p.m., o Ia antes posible despues de esto que se pueda escuchar,
en Ia Camara de Concejo en Ia Sala Municipal de Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California, en la(s) siguiente(s) fecha(s):
Martes, 30 de mayo de 2017
Martes, 13 de junio de 2017
El proposito de las audiencias publicas es recibir comentarios del publico sabre, y proveer
informacion acerca de, Ia com posicion de fronteras electorales potenciales del Concejo. Despues
de las audiencias publicas, se publicaran mapas en borrador de fronteras potenciales de distritos
electorales del Concejo, y se programaran audiencias publicas adicionales.
Se invita a todas las partes interesadas a asistir a Ia o las audiencias publicas y a expresar opiniones
o a presentar informacion. Es posible que se continuen las audiencias publicas de vez en cuando,
segun surja Ia necesidad, dando notificacion en Ia audiencia antes mencionada.
Las capias del informe del personal estaran disponibles a partir del jueves, 25 de mayo de 2017,
para Ia Audiencia Publica del 30 de mayo de 2017, y despues del jueves, 8 de junio de 2017, para
Ia Audiencia Publica del 13 de junio de 2017. Si tuviera alguna pregunta, par favor pongase en
contacto con Ia Officina del Abogado de Ia Ciudad a 760-434-2891 o par correo electronico
aattorney@ca rlsbadca .gov.
Hay mas informacion sabre las elecciones de distrito, Ia razon par este cambia, y el proceso, en el
sitio web de Ia ciudad, http://www.carlsbadca.gov/districts.
Si alguna persona quisiera desafiar en corte cualquier accion que el Concejo Municipal pudiera
tamar acerca del tema de Ia audicion publica, tal persona estara limitada a plantear solo aquellos
temas que se planteen en Ia audicion publica del tema, o en correspondencia entregada
oportunamente a Ia Oficina de Ia Secretaria de Ia Ciudad, antes de Ia fecha de Ia audiencia publica.
CIUDAD DE CARLSBAD
CONCEJO MUNICIPAL
Enviado: 19 de mayo de 2017
Publicar: 19 de mayo de 2017 y 2 de junio de 2017.
Morgen Fry
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Thursday, June 08, 2017 7:36PM
Council Internet Email
2 facts and 1 suggestion
Follow up
Flagged
All Receive -Agenda Item # I~
For the Information of the:
CITY COUNCIL
ACM v CAv' CC~
Date ~ityManager _L_
Dear Mayor Hall, Mayor Pro-tem Blackburn, Council members Packard, C. Schumacher and M. Schumacher, It is a matter
of great concern to me that a California law-the CVRA-has been imposed on our community. While I cherished being
able to contact all five elected officials in Carlsbad with concerns I had, it looks like this will change in the near future. I
witnessed the Council meeting on May 30 on television and it has convinced me to share my thoughts about the Council
districting to be implemented in the near future. Allow to share with you my thoughts:
Fact A: Carlsbad will have to be changed and accept the CVRA law and district four Council districts. Listening to the two
consultants on May 30, this will be not easy and definitely controversial to some residents.
Fact B: I am a German born immigrant for the past 53 years (a US citizen for 43 years) and my home town is NORDHORN.
There are currently 53000 residents and there are 42 Council members in Nordhorn (don't take my word of it and check
for yourselves in case you doubt this). I do not know how they govern the affairs of Nord horn but it appears to work
there. The Mayor in Nordhorn has three Mayor's Pro-Tem.
C. Suggestion: My question is what if we here in Carlsbad would apply this ratio of Council members to residents? It
would mean that Carlsbad would{ or could) have 90 Council members based on the number of residents in Carlsbad
compared to Nord horn. The benefits for Carlsbad would be truly immense. In order to accommodate all 50 Council
members in the Council meeting room would have to be re-arranged and it would not allow for any more "Public
comments" inside the room, the people could be told "Talk to your Council members and he or she would bring it to the
full Council's attention". The Mayor-Mister Hall think about this-could have six mayor's Pro-tem in Carlsbad and
basically defer all matters to them in case they would reach his desk. Another major benefit for Carlsbad if we would
consider to go this road would be that every special area, interest group, school districts, HOA's (Aviary could have 3
Council members) and even minority representation (as appears to be the goal of CVRA) could be easily achieved. The
major benefit of this type of government in Carlsbad would be that the cost for this arrangement would have to be used
for any new revenue and maybe even the Capital Improvement moneys to pay for this increase in Council membership
including staff, administrative support and rental space.
If anything else, it would reduce the grieve you, the current Council members, would receive on a daily basis as you
could then tell residents "go and see your Council member, do not bother me with this."
By now I would expect some of you to ch-uckle and even laugh about this ridiculous suggestion of mine and you will
understand that I am making this to you via e-mail instead of addressing you next Tuesday, June 13, at the next public
hearing on this issue.
It would please me if you could at least smile about this and see that I tried to address absurdity (the CVRA) with greater
absurdity and would not object at all if you felt responding to this e-mail.
Respectfully yours,
Klaus Kirchhoff,
1