City Council Special Meeting 7/10/23

LWVDV Observer: Kathy Gallagher

• This was an in-person special Council meeting. Five Councilmembers were in the Council Chambers –Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Shess and Vinson.
• Brown Act compliant, agenda issued on time and contained all details for public attendance and public comment, as well as how to join the meeting via Zoom. Public Comment is now listed in the agenda for both the regular and the closed session. LWVDV has communicated our concerns in the past about how Public Comment has not always been listed on the agenda.

5.1 Introduce Ordinance Establishing By-District Elections

City Attorney, first reading of proposed Ordinance. The sequencing of elections is included in Ordinance, noted that Council had not discussed this before. D2 & D5 would be up for election in 2026, and the others in 2024. She noted that the Council can change this sequence tonight. Four sitting Council members live in D5. She gave examples of how the transition might work with current Council members like Shess who are recently elected. He is at-large now, he could run for D5 seat in 2024, if he wins he would resign his at-large seat and the Council could appoint a new at-large person for the remaining 2 yr. term.  Same for Noack, her term is up in 2026 but she could run in 2024 if she wants.

Shess – asked about number A- 4 in the Ordinance in 2.55.160—asks for clarification of language regarding residency. Jim Phillips, elections attorney, clarified, same as above. This is just a transitional rule until District elections take place for all 5 districts. After 2026 this section will not have any effect.

Shess, if there is a change to the sequencing, how does that affect this language? Coleson said it won’t affect the language in A-4.

Flaherty – says this language is actually ambiguous, shouldn’t it say the term the person holds at the time in office now? It says “term” and “in office” which is unclear. Couldn’t it say that there will be no more at-large members after 2026? Coleson says she could change the language to start with “prior to 2026, ...” so it’s clear that this section is obsolete at 2026. Flaherty asked that the attorneys revise the Ordinance and bring it back for further discussion in a few minutes.

Flaherty decided to ask for Public Comment first, there was none.

A 15-minute break was called to give attorneys time to revise Ordinance section and make copies for distribution.

Resumed meeting with Council discussion. Flaherty read the revised language into the record. All members indicated agreement with the revision.

Rinn proposed changing the sequencing for elections to fill district seats. Flaherty asked for his rationale, Rinn felt that his change would provide more continuity on the Council and provide for a better transition.

Discussion by all members about sequencing and impacts on current Council members and regret that long-standing members will be losing their seats. Most wanted to keep the process simple and not complicate elections with a complicated set of chess moves, that would be perceived as manipulative.

Rinn withdrew his proposal and all agreed to keep the sequencing as contained in the draft Ordinance.

Vinson proposed changing the numbering of the districts to be clockwise starting at the top of the map. Attorney noted that this will change the sequencing numbers in the Ordinance. This was approved by all Council members.

Therefore, on the map, D1 stays the same, D3 changes to D2, D5 changes to D3, D2 changes to D4, and D4 changes to D5.

City Council Meeting 6/26/23

LWVDV Observer: Kathy Gallagher

• This was an in-person regular Council meeting. Five Councilmembers were in the Council Chambers –Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Shess and Vinson.
• Brown Act compliant, agenda issued on time and contained all details for public attendance and public comment, as well as how to join the meeting via Zoom. Public Comment is now listed in the agenda for both the regular and the closed session.  LWVDV has communicated our concerns in the past about how Public Comment has not always been listed on the agenda.

• Regarding housing element change in Paso Nogal and Morello, said he researched regulations in State Housing & Community Development and City did not follow them in regard to rejecting the use of the JC Penney site.  Also, the city document says the grade is 11.6 degrees but the city official survey says over 18 degrees.  He’d like the Council to review this.
• Library manager thanked Council for budget augmentation.

• Item 9.6 pulled by Noack for questions.  Staff explained why all bids were rejected.  This is a project to improve transportation elements on Contra Costa Blvd from Viking to Harriet. Bids did not meet RFP criteria, will be re-bid.
• All Consent items approved

• 10.1: Appointment of new City Manager Ethan Bindernagel, he was the Assistant City Manager under June Catalano.
• 10.2: Budget Update for 2nd year of biennial budget, FY 23/24. Some revenue increases, sales tax losses due to Bed, Bath & Beyond closure.  Budget is balanced.  Item approved.
• 10.3: Changes to Master Fee schedule. This is an annual requirement, recommendations made by outside consultant who has researched fees in surrounding cities.
• 10.4: Public Hearing on District Maps
• City Atty Coleson summarized proposed Ordinance.  July 17 the final Ordinance must be adopted in order to meet the legal deadline.  Could have a special meeting on July 10 to review an amended Ordinance if necessary.  Looking for direction from Council.  Must decide tonight on a 4-district map to specify in Ordinance as one has not been discussed or selected by the Council.  The Council could ask to develop a new 4-district map, there’s time, and have a July 10 meeting, but everything must be done by July 17.

• There were 18 commenters, both in the Chambers and via Zoom.  All endorsed support for Map 5.  Many expressed frustration with the Council’s reversal at the previous meeting at which they asked City Attorney to draft an Ordinance to include calling for an election to allow voters to decided between Map 5 and an undesignated 4-district map with an elected at-large mayor.  This was seen by many in the public as a self-serving gerrymandering effort on the part of the Mayor and Rinn to try to save their seats.
• Commenters asked that the draft Ordinance be revised to omit the inclusion of a 4-district map and the requirement for a special election as it will be expensive to the City, and will be a complex and confusing issue to explain in a ballot measure.
• Many commenters asked that the revised Ordinance include a requirement for the appointment of an independent commission to draw maps and make district recommendations in the future.

• Rinn – he believes the special election is really about whether or not PH wants to have an at-large elected mayor.  If so, that means a 4-district map. Agrees with Map 5 as the default map in the election.  Explained what he sees as the negatives with a rotating mayor which is what PH has now. With the 4-district approach people get two votes, one for their district rep and one for the at-large mayor.
• Vinson – does not see the value of an election for 4-district, an at-large mayor would have to run every two years taking them away from focusing on city duties and requiring a lot of fundraising. He also noted that waiting until March for the special election, which is when it would have to be held, would make it very difficult for those people who want to run for office in the June primary.  So, he does not agree with a 4-district special election plan.
• Shess – he agrees with Map 5, but he believes like Rinn that people should be able to decide if the city should have an at-large elected mayor. He likes the 4-district approach in principle but recognizes that time does not allow for the work that would need to be done to develop everything that would be needed for a special election.  He agrees about the timeline challenges to potential candidates if there were to be an election.
• Noack - no change in her position from last meeting, she supports Map 5 and does not support a special election for a 4-district map.  People just don’t seem to be concerned about this issue, not showing up in spite of public outreach.  She defended the demographer maps; they were drawn only with the minority population rules in mind.  She defended the Council members from accusations of self-interest.  Said that they cannot run again under these maps, accusations of gerrymandering are false.  But thinks this needs to be done, willing to make a motion to vote on Map 5 with no election.  Vinson agreed.
• Flaherty – went over how we got here, Council never resisted moving to districts.  He has felt that minority coalition by district was most important, but clearly retaining communities of interest became more important.  He said that he spoke off the cuff about liking the 4-district map in the previous Council meeting, he says that he sees that the boundaries make no sense.  Agrees that 4-district map did not get any scrutiny.  He said he has no personal interest in having an at-large mayor.  With the proposed Ordinance, there is no time to create a 4-district map and prepare for a special election.  So, the Ordinance as proposed should not be adopted and we should just go to a five-district map.  Regarding an independent commission, he would defer to the Council in place at the time of next redistricting.
• The Mayor summarized the direction of Council to remove language about a special election and 4-district map and just move forward with a five district map, specifically Map 5.  City Attorney said that there will be a need for a July 10 meeting to publish and review the revised Ordinance.  She clarified that Council does not want any further exploration of a 4-district map. Flaherty asked if an election could still be called at a future time, that might be an option for 11/24.
• Majority of Council agreed, consensus on revising the Ordinance as above. The revised Ordinance will be brought to a special meeting of the Council on July 10 and must be adopted by the Council no later than July 17.

City Council Meeting 6/5/23

LWVDV Observer: Kathy Gallagher

• This was an in-person regular Council meeting. Five Councilmembers were in the Council Chambers –Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Shess and Vinson.
• Brown Act compliant, agenda issued on time and contained all details for public attendance and public comment, as well as how to join the meeting via Zoom. Public Comment is now listed in the agenda for both the regular and the closed session. LWVDV has communicated our concerns in the past about how Public Comment has not always been listed on the agenda.
• The Consent Calendar was unanimously approved.

A special presentation was made by Senator Bill Dodd to former Mayor and Councilmember Michael Harris. Another special presentation was made to retiring City Manager June Catalano. The Council recognized the month of June as Pride Month, and designated June 17 as the Juneteenth celebration.

Several speakers who are child care providers asked why their request for ARPA (American Rescue Plan) was denied. In Concord their request was approved, why isn’t PH doing the same for the child care community? They want an email from the Council explaining why they were denied.

Mayor Flaherty responded that staff worked very hard, and the child care group did get a small allocation. Concord as a bigger city got far more ARPA funds, PH got much less. Also, this group came late to making a request so many funding decisions had already been made. He expressed appreciation for their interest and said he hopes they will continue to work with staff.

• 10.1 & 10.2 were combined. These were annual approvals of assessments in accordance with the City Engineer’s reports. Approved unanimously.
• 10.3 & 10.4 were combined. These were City Engineer reports on the completion of the Diablo View Rd. and Pleasant Hill Rd. Storm Drain project, and, to award a contract to Sandstone Environmental Engineering for the downtown tree replacement project and the Grayson Creek restoration project. Approved unanimously.
• 10.5 Public Hearing to Consider Draft Maps and Composition of Districts for By-District Elections.
  • City Attorney stated that the mandated process has been completed. She will be bringing a draft ordinance to Council on June 26 for first reading, and believes that it should be adopted on July 17 at second reading. Under the agreement agreed to with the attorney that threatened a lawsuit, July 20 is the final deadline for the process to be fully completed. She reported that the sub-committee designated by the Council to look at Map 5, worked with demographer to move the “handle” in district 5 into district 2 to keep boundaries smooth. However, doing that takes the map over 10% required threshold. Recommends leaving Map 5 the way it is.
  • Shess & Noack, the sub-committee members, said they tried different ways to move the “handle” but couldn’t make it work.
  • City Attorney addressed the question of holding an election to allow public to select the map they like best. It’s possible to do, but there is a wrinkle with special elections now. Cost is about $200k to $250k because all households have to receive a ballot with a postage paid return envelope. They consulted with the County Elections office to get a new cost estimate. The cost comes down if the election is consolidated with the March primary, so cost would be about $45k. The Council would want to have a back-up in case no map got more than 50% of the vote, and this plan would have to be included in the ordinance. Election could be called in December for the March primary. Attorney said that this would have to be discussed with Shenkman (lawsuit attorney) in regard to another extension. Would have to devise a default map on the books until the election, then the election result takes precedence. But if there is no winning map, then the default becomes the final map. With no fall-back, and the voters say no to both maps in election in March, then city has nothing and it comes back to Council to start over. The language re: default map must be in the ordinance and in the explanation of the ballot measure. The attorney clarified on cost that there has to be a Measure for each map, and there is a cost per Measure. The default map could be one of the Measures.
  • Attorney says we must have an ordinance in place by July 20 stating how we’re going to put by-district elections in place for the Nov 2024 election.
  • Flaherty states that he is concerned that we’re not engaging the entire community in this effort, he says the same faces are in the room tonight. Entire Council is behind district elections, but the process has been narrowed to a small group. He wants to consider the 4-district map, the demographer map is good and well within the range. Likes the idea of an election, cost is attainable. Council should not decide on the district map without more public input, through a vote.

Several commenters stated that they felt blind-sided by this abrupt change in direction from the previous Council meetings with substantial public input. The 4-district map had been broadly rejected, including by Councilmembers, and there had been agreement around supporting Map 5. Several had questions about how this process of a default map with another added for voters to choose between would actually work. The city has not been good at educating the community about districting, why it’s happening, what the limits are, etc. Some commented on the issue of an elected at-large mayor and the negatives of that model that comes with the 4-district map.

One commenter spoke in support of the mayor’s proposal for a 4-district map and an election as many in the community have not had the opportunity to delve into this issue and should have the right to a vote to select the final map.

Rinn – clarified about Measures, one would be 5 district and one would be 4 district map. Ballots come in other languages. Made more comments about the process to respond to some of the public comments.

Noack – most people she’s talked to ask if we have to do this at all, and that will not be on the ballot. We have to do this. She does not like going to an election, they have heard from community that they like Map 5. She does not agree with assertion that 4-district dilutes minority vote, says the numbers are close to Map 5. However, she sees this as the Council responsibility and they’ve had 6 meetings so move on and make decision tonight.

Vinson – agrees with Noack, prepared to make decision tonight, don’t need an election. Thinks an election will just make it more confusing.

Flaherty – the Council is in fact deciding on a map, the default, and then put to the voters whether they want a style of governance different from what the Council selected. He says his question on elections was triggered by Rinn at last meeting. He said again there are voices outside of the regulars who should have a vote. He still questions the 5-district map.

Attorney clarified that decision has to be made tonight if they are going to call for an election so she can write the ordinance properly. Attorney said that the draft ordinance should have the default measure included.

Shess – worth exploring doing ordinance with default map. There are things, questions that need to be answered, like what is the term for an at-large mayor, the experience requirements, etc. Also, Council hasn’t spent time on looking at 4-district map. Lots of heavy lifting before December to develop answers in order to put this on the ballot.

Flaherty --Suggest that they draft an ordinance with map Council adopted and the option to call for election in December to present another map option to voters. So, adopt Map 5 and give direction to attorney on ordinance.

Noack – how are we going to get to this decision by December, what’s going to change our minds, different from today. Doesn’t expect different input from public. Just doesn’t think the public will participate with very confusing ballot measures. Communities of interests are required to be taken into account; she doesn’t think the 4-district maps take these into account as they split up neighborhoods.

Flaherty – hears that a 4-district map is just not to be supported. Noack spoke again saying about how communities of interests would be cut in half. She wouldn’t put any of them up in an election.

Shess – likes idea of election, but the work that has to be done in order to do this is substantial. He went on in frustration.

Vinson – no new maps can be submitted. Attorney said true.

Vinson – open to including 4-district in ordinance but agrees with Noack that it’s not a good idea.

Flaherty trying to count votes. Majority saying Map 5 as the default, include in ordinance calling for an election and including a potential 4-district map with an at-large mayor.

Attorney says she has enough to work with and will draft an ordinance for June 26 meeting.

[Editorial Analysis: this last-minute change led by Mayor Flaherty and Vice-Mayor Rinn is an attempt to save their seats on the Council. Because three Council members all live near each other, only one could hope to be re-elected for the shared district under the 5-district maps. The 4-district maps, with an at-large elected mayor, holds out the possibility of one being re-elected to represent the new district, and the other to be elected as mayor based on his experience.]

_______________________________________

City Council Special Meeting 5/22/23

LWVDV Observer: Kathy Gallagher

• This was an in-person special Council meeting. Four Councilmembers were in the Council Chambers –Flaherty, Rinn, Shess and Vinson. Councilmember Noack joined remotely.
• Not Brown Act compliant, agenda did not have the required agenda item for Public Comment. Agenda was posted on time but was not distributed via email to the subscribers. Agenda contained all details for public attendance as well as how to join the meeting via Zoom. LWVDV has communicated our concerns in the past about how Public Comment has not always been listed on the agenda.

• The Mayor recognized that this item was missing from the agenda and took action to invite public comment. There were four individuals who spoke.

There were no Consent items at this meeting

• City Attorney announced that 3 maps submitted by community had to be rejected due to legal issues. Map 8 had technical issues, but there will be time to reconsider Map 8. Not accepting any more maps from community now. Goal tonight is for the Council to indicate what they like and not like, give direction on any desire to see revisions to existing maps, moving lines around. There will be another public hearing to review any changes or revisions to the maps submitted. There will be two meetings for the Ordinance to be reviewed and passed after a final map is selected. She asked Council for any questions or input. Clarified that Map 8 can be discussed tonight, but no decision can be made on it.
• Timing – original deadline was June 5, but City Attorney had a conversation with Shenkman, the attorney threatening to file suit, and he agreed to an extension of 45 days that will take this process into July. Ordinance has to be adopted by July 17. (NOTE: The Community Partnership and many public commenters asked them to do this back in March, they said they couldn’t, the CVRA was clear regarding the timeframes, and Shenkman was not likely to agree anyway).
• Shess asked if any maps can be eliminated from consideration tonight and identify the ones most liked.
• Attorney said to focus on the one’s you like rather than the negative of elimination.
• Flaherty wants discussion on the 4 district maps with an at-large mayor. He said they had come to a general consensus on a 5-district map, but some community people have still submitted 4 district maps.

• There were twelve commenters. The majority spoke in favor of Map 5 which is proposes 5 districts with a rotating mayor. Some gave their reasons for opposing the 4 district maps—very large districts losing clear neighborhood focus and diluting the voice of minority members, and the at-large mayor seen as unsatisfactory.

• Noack – agrees that Map 5 is best, maybe some slight movement of lines to balance population numbers. She thinks Map 5, maybe take the small yellow “handle” sticking up and add it to District 4.
• Shess – looking at Map 5 where the handle is, suggested how to redraw those lines to put it into district 4. He said that he was misquoted about “wanting 4 districts”, he said at the Saturday meeting that he just thought we should examine it in comparison. He believes a 5-district map will allow for more minority representation on the Council. He sees the coalescence of opinion in the community and that’s a good thing. Map 5 is a good solid map, the districts are contiguous, fit well together.
• Vinson – sees that majority of community like Map 5, he agrees. Also likes 5 districts over 4 districts. Good that kids in the city can see a mayor that is a minority. He suggested renumbering the districts in Map 5 in a clockwise pattern.
• Rinn – would be nice if maps could be sent to voters but can’t be done because of the threat of litigation. In the 4-year voting cycles voters get a total of 5 votes as they don’t have to vote for just one person. Under districting voters can vote for just one person. He spoke to the filling of the vacant seat, he approached several people to apply, implied they were minorities, but they declined to apply. So that’s a factor in minority representation. He was emotional about being districted out. There are elements of Map 5 that he does like, he agrees with Noack about the handle sticking up into district 4. He appreciates how this issue has brought the community together as well as the Paso Nogal issue. Council is usually talking to an empty room. He’s glad they have some extra time to work on this.
• Flaherty asked attorney for clarification about putting this selection to the voters, i.e. Council selects two maps and asks voters to choose. Jim Priest spoke, there is no time under the 45-day extension. Legally it could be put on the ballot to choose a specific map, but just won’t have time. He has not seen this done in any other community. Flaherty said he believes Michelle Simone who represents the community group working with Shenkman would like to have voters choose. Shenkman would likely agree to a further extension for this positive effort. Flaherty said again that he likes Map 5. Not hearing any support for the 4 district maps.
• Discussion about population difference between districts, Noack looking at CVAP but Priest clarified that metric is total population. He said probably shift the handle from district 5 to district 2 to keep total population even.
• Noack commented that under districting, Flaherty, Rinn and Vinson will lose their seats since they all live in the same area. Noack and Shess would remain until their next election comes up.
• City Attorney suggested that Council form a sub-committee to work with staff on how to redraw lines on Map 5, Noack and Shess volunteered. Clarified that the other maps remain open, nothing is being rejected yet.
• Motion approved to form the sub-committee with direction to return with recommendation at next meeting.

• This was a hybrid regular Council meeting. Four Councilmembers were in the Council Chambers –Flaherty, Rinn, Shess and Vinson. Noack was participating remotely. Agenda properly noticed the address of remote site.
• Brown Act compliant, agenda issued on time and contained all details for public attendance and public comment, as well as how to join the meeting via Zoom. Public Comment is now listed in the agenda for both the regular and the closed session. LWVDV has communicated our concerns in the past about how Public Comment has not always been listed on the agenda.
• A new concern: Mayor Flaherty has a habit of leaning back in his chair, away from the microphone. Listeners on Zoom cannot hear all of his comments. I checked the video recording, even with volume up to 100% he still could not be heard.
• I will send an email to the Council to make them aware of this and their need to speak closer to the microphone.

• Consent Calendar approved
• Several recognitions and presentations of committee volunteers
• City Manager and Council member reports on activities

Public Comment: Two people spoke, one taking issue with the Council’s split vote approval of a variance request for a fence. Second speaker commented on district map development, supporting 5 districts, not 4 districts with an at-large mayor.

• Presentation by City Engineer, project will install flashing stop signs with flashing beacons; some speed bumps 50 feet in front of stop signs; and ladder crosswalks painted in bright yellow. Timeline – to start project immediately and be finished by mid-school year, i.e., winter/spring 2024.
• Gave background on Crossing Guard Program, $165,000 annually, that has gone up 12% per year. Started in 1995. PH is the only city still funding guards.
• Intent of this project is to improve safety around school crossings and therefore eliminate the need for crossing guards.
• The eight intersections proposed are:
  • Boyd & Patterson
  • Pleasant Hill Elementary School
  • Viking & Ruth Dr.
  • Gladys & Helen Dr.
  • Viking & Odin Dr.
  • Gregory & Brandon Rd.
  • Contra Costa Blvd. & Ellinwood Dr.
  • Monument & Buskirk
• Public Comment on this issue: Three speakers, all supporting the engineering changes but not the elimination of the guards. Some specific suggestions were made about the proposed intersections. One speaker was from the Education Committee and said that they had held meetings with the public, there is wide opposition to eliminating the guards.
• Much discussion and questions followed from Council members. Surprised that there were few members of the public attending as the crossing guard issue is one of great interest in the community.
• Much discussion about separating the issues of proceeding with the engineering improvements and the funding for the crossing guards.
• Council was clear that there is not enough city funds to continue with this program, that other resources need to be found or the city will have to end it.
• City Attorney was asked about the Resolution, she indicated that it could be amended through a motion and passed tonight.
• Motion to amend to delete language about eliminating the crossing guard program and insert language that the intent is to find alternative funding for the crossing guards during the next year.
• Moved by Flaherty, unanimously approved.

_______________________________________

City Council Special Meeting 5/6/23

LWVDV Observer: Kathy Gallagher

• This was an in-person Special Council meeting held on a Saturday.
• Five Councilmembers were present – Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Shess and Vinson.
• Brown Act compliant, agenda issued on time and contained all details for public attendance and public comment, as well as how to join the meeting via Zoom. Public Comment is now listed in the agenda for both the regular and the closed session. LWVDV has communicated our concerns in the past about how Public Comment has not always been listed on the agenda.

• Mayor Flaherty opened the meeting and announced that Public Comment would be extended to 5 minutes per person. Expanded, more detailed maps were posted on the walls for the public to see in advance of the meeting.
• Overview by City Attorney Coleson. Noted that May 9 is deadline to submit maps from community. Some are currently in pipeline but not ready today as they have to be posted for 7 days before a hearing. Next hearing to review maps is May 22.
• Referred to staff report and appendices. Lists criteria for selecting a map.
• Mayor spoke to criteria. He’s surprised to see that the minority issues are not the most important. Coleson says it’s because PH has no single area with a minority majority. Have to strive for a “coalition minority district”. In PH the minority groups are dispersed throughout the city. Still an important factor, trying to achieve, but up to Council to assign importance. It will be a balancing set of factors.
• Mayor said he thinks it’s still the goal to form districts that recognize minority representation. Attorney said not required to pick the map with the highest % of minority population.
• Mayor said the public comment at previous meetings seemed to be more concerned with maps around communities of interest rather than high minority percentages. Attorney said that it’s not required to pick a specific map, the Council and public can suggest changes to a favored map to make it better.
• Noack said our goal still needs to be to increase the representation of minorities on the Council, so that should be the focus.
• Mayor said they should keep the 40% minority threshold for selecting a map.
• He expressed his opinions and feelings about districting – it creates a fractionalized viewpoint; he has been on Council 11 years and always kept a citywide viewpoint; districts will encourage a focus on local, district issues rather than what’s best for the city. He referenced the Paso Nogal item before the Planning Comm as an example of how the citywide benefit is lost.
• Noack expressed her feelings, said that this process has brought out the discord in the community, not putting aside our personal wishes and working toward consensus. She wants to look at the 4-district map, it has 40+% minority. She went on, repeating herself.
• Shess also wants to look at 4 district maps but has not made up his mind about 4 or 5 districts. He agrees with what Mayor and Noack have said. He said the 4 districts allows the election of 2 people per district every year. (I believe he misspoke).

• There were 22 individual speakers, and several email comments. Some speakers were allowed to speak a second time to add clarity to a discussion or ask a question.
• Most speakers advocated for the 5-district maps, there was general opposition to the 4-district map with an at-large mayor. Speakers expressed their reasons for these preferences.
• The vast majority of speakers advocated for selecting Map #5 as it is more equitable in dividing lines, fewer neighborhoods are split between two districts, and, it meets all of the statistical criteria under the CVRA. Map #5 is one of the maps submitted by a community member.
• Broad agreement that the maps provided by the demographer should be rejected.
• Commenters again complained about the poor level of outreach and communication, pointing out examples of gaps and failures.

• Mayor noted that the Council selects the mayor each year on a rotation basis, but a vote of the Council is still required. His comment was in regard to the 4 district, at large mayor option.
• Shess said he would still like to hear from speakers on why it’s not as important to vote for 2 people per district instead of one. (No one understood this so no comments offered).
• Shess spoke to the concerns about communication, we need to use our commissions to help get the word out. Important to get info to people where they can access it. He’s a communications professional, and there is more info than just about district elections that the community needs.
• Rinn said that he felt better about today’s conversation and dialogue, not so adversarial. Feels more like a team effort, trying to come up with a solution.
• Noack spoke to the concerns raised about fire and flood dangers in some areas. Districts have similar yet distinct challenges. She liked that so many people favored Map #5, she’s still thinking about the 4-district map approach.
• Mayor said that they do need to do better in regard to communication. He noted that the notice for today’s meeting does not show the library as a site for posting. He promised the city will do better. He said that if he had to pick a map today, he too would choose Map #5.

Meeting adjourned to next regular Council meeting on May 15. Next meeting to review district maps will be May 22.

City Council Meeting 5/1/23

by Kathy Gallagher

• This was an in-person regular Council meeting. Five Councilmembers were in the Council Chambers –Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Shess and Vinson.
• Brown Act compliant, agenda issued on time and contained all details for public attendance and public comment, as well as how to join the meeting via Zoom. Public Comment is now listed in the agenda for both the regular and the closed session. LWVDV has communicated our concerns in the past about how Public Comment has not always been listed on the agenda.
• The Consent Calendar was unanimously approved with 9.5 and 9.6 continued until the next meeting.

• 10.1: Taylor Blvd. improvements, adding traffic signal at Taylor and Civic; sidewalks between Civic and Ruth Dr. Bike lanes previously completed. Kerex Engineering best bid at $1,465,400. Revenues are Measure K, TDA grants and Traffic mitigation fund. Timeline, will probably wait until school is out. Signal poles will take about 6 months to arrive, so there is a gap in the project. Crosswalks can't be painted until the traffic signal is installed. Noack suggested that a crosswalk be painted across Civic now since there is a stop sign there. APPROVED
• 10.2: Contract augmentation to complete work on the library was previously approved by Council but did not specify the name of the contractor. This action approved a revised resolution. APPROVED
• 10.3: Presentation of Demographer Maps for New Districts
  • City Attorney introduced item, noted that there are two maps from Demographer and two maps submitted by community members. These have been reviewed by the Demographer. All were posted on website 7 days in advance. Three additional maps from community received late, have now been reviewed by Demographer and are being posted on website to meet the 7 days requirement. They will be part of the special May 6 meeting.
  • The demographer maps meet all of the required CVRA criteria.
  • “Deviation” explained. Based on total population, must be under 10% deviation from the highest and lowest population between the districts. “Minority CVAP (Citizen Voting Age Population)” is the citizen voting age, not full population (i.e., kids not counted). This is the most relevant statistic to use in drawing district maps.
  • No decisions being made tonight, just looking at the maps and answering questions. Pointed out that none of the maps create a single minority majority district, they are a coalition (mixture) of ethnic groups.
  • Criteria are that districts need to closely equal in population; contiguity of districts; easily understood boundaries; respect communities of interest; compact districts; must respect minority groups or coalitions. Attorney answered question that not required to draw the map specifically to create a district that is minority majority, it still would have to meet the other above criteria. Question on the population deviation, is it better to choose the map with the lowest deviation? Attorney said that's a policy decision, but anything under the 10% threshold is legal and acceptable.

• There was a total of 17 speakers not including the emailed comments.
• There was general unhappiness and disappointment with the demographer maps as they split traditional, historic neighborhoods into more than one district (i.e., Gregory Gardens, Poet’s Corner, Fair Oaks, Sherman Acres). There are some unusual artifices such as a sliver that is nothing more than a concrete walkway being incorporated into one district; appending small chunks of a neighborhood into an adjoining district.
• Many expressed frustration with the process in that the community input at previous meetings was not incorporated. Trust in the Council was questioned as some assumed the Council was giving the demographer direction in order to create districts that preserve their positions.
• I read a letter to the Council from our League regarding the inappropriate comments made by Mayor Flaherty at the 4/17/23 meeting at which he described his personal community of interest. This was also referenced by other speakers.
• Many noted that minority groups are split into several districts, there is no “minority majority” district.
• Many stated that they prefer the 5-district approach over the 4 districts with an elected mayor.

• City Attorney said that “blown-up” maps will be available at the May 6 meeting. She noted that the maps on the website can be zoomed in and out. The hearing room will be open 1 hour in advance of the scheduled meeting to allow the public to view the large maps, which will be hung on walls.
• The mayor spoke with emotion about the adversarial nature of the public comments. The Council did not intend for this process to become contentious or adversarial. He said that he believes the demographer had positive intent to create maps according to the CVRA criteria and meeting minority representation. The demographer is not knowledgeable about our neighborhoods in any detail. The mayor agrees with the commenters that the maps do not represent reasonable boundaries. He stressed that his comments on 4/17 about where he lives (which is public record) were not intended to influence the demographer, and it obviously didn’t since these maps would “district him out of office”.
• Noack took up the issue as well, stressing that no one interfered with the map drawing. The demographer was just focusing on minority districting. She was emotional about the tone and tenor of speakers, and the adversarial nature of the comments. PH is a small city, it has always been collegial, so we should not make this process so adversarial.
• Shess said that he too was disappointed in the maps, and he is unhappy with the website, which he said he had talked to staff about. This is an iterative process that will continue over several months.
• Noack spoke again to say that while current Council members all live in the southern part of PH, that is not the history with past Councils. She also said that Council members get paid only $584/month which for her works out to about $4.00/hour based on the time she devotes to this job.
• Vinson said that he too was disappointed in the maps. He appreciates the maps submitted by the community and said we must all work together to complete this process. He said that it seems the demographer didn’t use any of the community input in drawing the maps.
• Jim Priest, one of the attorneys, replied that the focus had been on drawing the maps to achieve minority representation. He can ask the demographer to relook at his maps.
• Rinn said that he too was disappointed in the maps, but it may be impossible not to split up some neighborhoods. But that could be a positive since those neighborhoods would have two representatives on the Council rather than just one.
• The Council directed staff to have the demographer revise maps for the next meeting.

_______________________________________

City Council Meeting 4/17/23

by Kathy Gallagher

• This was an in-person regular Council meeting. Five Councilmembers were in the Council Chambers –Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Shess and Vinson.
• Brown Act compliant, agenda issued on time and contained all details for public attendance and public comment, as well as how to join the meeting via Zoom. Public Comment is now listed in the agenda for both the regular and the closed session. LWVDV has communicated our concerns in the past about how Public Comment has not always been listed on the agenda.
• The Consent Calendar was unanimously approved.

• 10.1: Pre-Map Public Hearing
  • The City Attorney restated from the staff report the legal requirements under the CVRA and the legal risks of not meeting them. She outlined the process and upcoming milestone dates. Demographer maps will be published on the city website April 24.
  • Went immediately to public comment, there were several commenters on-site and over Zoom. Some email comments had also been received. Most commenters thanked the Council for being responsive to requests for better noticing to the public and translating materials. One commenter however took the Council to task for their lack of awareness about the size of ethnic groups in the city and their lack of concern about translation services. He made general comments about what they need to do better. Comments were made to support a 5 district system with a rotating mayor over a 4 district system with an elected mayor. The 4 district system is feared to group minority voters into one single district. One commenter asked that the Council take this opportunity to look at term limits and ranked choice voting.
  • Council discussion:
    • Mayor Flaherty spoke to his community of interest, describing his view of the boundaries that currently define the Poet’s Corner area.
    • RED FLAG: THIS IS AN INAPPROPRIATE STATEMENT ON HIS PART AS COUNCIL HAD COMMITTED TO NOT DO THIS, TO NOT COMMUNICATE THEIR INTERESTS TO THE DEMOGRAPHER OR DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE DRAWING OF DISTRICT LINES.
    • No other Council member spoke about this, nor did anyone share their residence or perception of their community of interest.
    • Rinn clarified that there are some community drawn maps floating around and that these are not the official demographer maps.
    • Vinson & Shess both stated that they would like to see maps from the demographer with both a 5 district option and a 4 district option. They noted that they have not formed any opinion on this matter yet, it’s just good to see all of the options.
    • Council asked the City Attorney if going to ranked choice voting obviate the need for district elections, and what would be impact of adopting term limits?
      • Some Charter cities have adopted ranked choice voting but this is not an option currently available to Pleasant Hill. The issue of term limits is a totally separate process and not under the CVRA.
• 10.2: Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation
  • Homeowner at corner of Pleasant Hill Rd. and Westover Dr. built a six-foot tall fence to help with noise abatement from the busy intersection, and to deflect the new bright pole lights installed by the city. The fence does not meet the current city set-back and height regulations. There was some debate and disagreement over this issue as the homeowner was not aware of the new rules since other homes in the area have similar fences. The Council denied the appeal but did instruct staff to revisit the reasonableness of the rules.

_______________________________________

City Council Meeting 4/3/23

by Kathy Gallagher

• This was an in-person regular Council meeting. Five Councilmembers were in the Council Chambers –Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Shess and Vinson.
• Brown Act compliant, agenda issued on time and contained all details for public attendance and public comment, as well as how to join the meeting via Zoom. Public Comment is now listed in the agenda for both the regular and the closed session. LWVDV has communicated our concerns in the past about how Public Comment has not always been listed on the agenda.
• The Consent Calendar was unanimously approved.

• This meeting is the second public hearing to consider by-district elections and future hearings. The mayor announced that there will be another public hearing on April 17, 2023. This will provide more time for gaining public awareness and providing translations of materials.
• The demographer maps and maps submitted by community members must be made public 7 days before the hearing set for their review, which will be April 24. They will be posted on the city website.
• The hearing to review all maps will be May 1.
• There will be another hearing to review revised maps. At the request of community members, this hearing will be held on Saturday, May 6. Estimated time is 2:00 pm, but final arrangements will be published 72 hours in advance.
• On Monday, May 22 the final maps will be accepted and the draft Ordinance regarding City Council elections will be reviewed.
• Monday, June 5 the Council will adopt the final Ordinance.
• The mayor asked the demographer to draw two maps – one with 5 districts, and one with 4 districts with a mayor elected at-large. He noted that 4 districts may not work because of minority representation.

• There were ten in-person commenters and several comments via email. The mayor does not read the email comments but does read the names of those who submitted comments.
• Only one commenter opposed moving forward with this process, he felt that this was being forced on the city and he urged the Council to fight the law firm threat.
• All other commenters supported the move to district elections and urged the Council to appoint an independent commission, as was done in neighboring cities, to conduct the drawing of the maps. More needs to be done to engage the community, few people are aware of this issue. Several speakers advocated for a careful look at the areas east of I-680 and noted that there is a mix of ethnic groups with a growing Slavic community.
• All stressed the expectation that districts should adequately represent our minority and other under-represented populations.

• Noack asked about outreach. She said that a 6 x 9 postcard will be sent to all Pleasant Hill households and it will be in 6-7 other languages.
• Mayor Flaherty asked to have signs posted at the city library.
• Shess asked that all of the city committees and commissions be informed and asked to get info out to their communities.

_______________________________________

City Council Meeting 3/20/23

LWVDV Observer: Kathy Gallagher 

• This was an in-person regular Council meeting. Five Councilmembers were in the Council Chambers –Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Shess and Vinson.
• Brown Act compliant, agenda issued on time and contained all details for public attendance and public comment, as well as how to join the meeting via Zoom. Public Comment is now listed in the agenda for both the regular and the closed session. LWVDV has communicated our concerns in the past about how Public Comment has not always been listed on the agenda.
• The Consent Calendar was unanimously approved.
• Public Comment on non-agenda items: there was one regarding water retention planning.

• 10.1 was a report by the City Engineer on the completion of the new city library. This project was budgeted at $34 million but came in under-budget at $28 million. The project was delayed due to the Pandemic but efforts of city staff and the contractor brought it to completion nearly on time. The Council accepted the report and authorized the issuance of a Notice of Completion.
• 10.2 Public Hearing on the Transition to a District Election Process: The City Attorney commented that tonight is just for information on the process and for public comment. No maps will be presented and no decisions made tonight. Attorney went over the detail of the process. Demographer has been hired, Brad Wieneke of Haystaq. He gave their experience, and they are a data analytics firm and have done many projects around the country. He explained how they develop the maps using public input about communities of interest and the data on many variables.
• The mayor opened the floor to public comment: There were a total of 14 commenters, only one in opposition to the transition. Most supporters advocated for the appointment of an independent commission to receive public input and draw the maps. Michelle Simone, a member of the Pleasant Hill Community Alliance and the convener of two webinars on how district maps are drawn, provided comments and had hoped to share the suggested maps that the Alliance had developed. However, the Council declined as this meeting was strictly for input and not a review of maps. Marian Shostrom read the letter from the League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley stressing that expanded outreach was necessary in order to ensure full public input and fairness. This was echoed by other commenters who noted that the notice of the hearings has not been widely distributed nor has it been issued in other languages. Many commenters offered ideas about forming districts around communities of interest such as schools, ethnic groups, et.al.
• Council comments:
• Noack agreed that they need to do more to reach out to all in the community. Asked staff to translate materials into other languages. Noted that Council cannot give direction to demographer, only make comments and ask questions. She was addressing some public comments about the Council drawing the maps.
• Shess asked the demographer about the process regarding federal vs. state standards. Brad Weineke answered that they first have to apply federal standards if applicable, and that they’ve already determined that federal standards are not an issue in PH. So, they are looking now at California standards, but it’s still unclear what the result will look like.
• Rinn read the “safe harbor” timeline from law. An extension of the timeline is not guaranteed even if the Shenkman law firm agreed to an extension. He is most worried about any possible cost to the city if the timeline is not met.
• Vinson is very supportive of better outreach and wants to hear more about communities of interest.
• Mayor Flaherty wants staff to get answers to the various questions that were raised in public comment. He agreed that they must do a better job in outreach, especially in other languages. He spoke to some of the specific ideas given about schools, neighborhoods, etc. and expressed interest in hearing more ideas such as these. He does not want to go too fast or too slow in this process. He wants to keep this schedule for now and see how it’s going, and do more outreach. If going too slow, then they may reevaluate timeline and the need for an extension. He noted that the Council is learning about this process along with the rest of us. He said that none of Council are invested in their own situations and would not be influencing the demographer. He wants to move off the independent commission advocacy and asked that public comment at the next meeting focus on ideas on communities of interest. He asked staff that these meetings be agendized as a Special Meeting rather than part of a regular Council meeting. Certainly when the maps are presented in May. Keep schedule as is for now, Flaherty will try to keep the 4/3 agenda light to give ample time for this item. Wants Special Meetings in May when maps are being discussed. Staff will look at dates.

• 10.3  General Plan Study Session: presentation of the GP in general. Noted the updates, see staff report. Some questions from members, referenced some public comment that had come to them directly. No public commenters. Council accepted the report.

LWVDV Observer: Kathy Gallagher

• This was an in-person regular Council meeting. Four Councilmembers were in the Council Chambers –Noack, Rinn, Shess and Vinson. Mayor Flaherty was absent. The meeting was conducted by Vice-Mayor Rinn.
• Brown Act compliant, agenda issued on time and contained all details for public attendance and public comment, as well as how to join the meeting via Zoom. Public Comment is now listed in the agenda for both the regular and the closed session. LWVDV has communicated our concerns in the past about how Public Comment has not always been listed on the agenda.
• The Consent Calendar was unanimously approved.
• Public Comment on non-agenda items: LWVDV member Marian Shostrom provided comments about improving communication and transparency of Council agendas and materials. Additionally, there has been regular in-person comments from a family child care group advocating for the city to support higher wages and benefits for child care workers.

• 10.1 was a presentation by Parks and Rec on planned events for 2023 and funding needs to support these. The Budget Committee had made a recommendation to provide $23,000 and the Council unanimously approved.
• 10.2 was continued to the March 20 meeting. This is a proposed agreement with an engineering firm to complete the Oak Park Blvd. sidewalk project. This project has been presented to the Council in prior meetings.
• 10.3 was a Public Hearing to review and approve the annual report to the State on the General Plan and Housing Element Implementation. The State requires localities to increase housing stock in specified timeframes, and in specified categories. The Annual Report was presented by staff and noted appropriate progress overall, but noted delays in certain areas, mostly in low-income housing. The city remains in compliance with State mandates and will continue housing efforts as contained in the General Plan. Approved and passed unanimously.
• 10.4 Adopting a notice of intention to transition to district elections of Council members. This is an issue supported by LWVDV which has been watched closely in the past weeks. The staff report for this item gives a thorough explanation of the law (California Voters Right Act) and the threatened legal action by Shenkman & Hughes, a California law firm. The 45-day deadline to respond to the litigation threat is imminent and the Council must make their decision and take action now. The staff recommendation to the Council was to avoid expensive litigation and move from the current at-large voting system to one of representation by district. The City Attorney and Jim Priest, a legal consultant specializing in election law, presented the recommendation and took questions from the Council.
  • The expense of litigation was discussed with examples given from other jurisdictions that had chosen to object to moving to district elections. To date, no entity has prevailed in their challenge and have incurred significant costs.
  • The CVRA specifies timeframes for the transition process under a “safe harbor” provision in the law which bars Shenkman from pursuing any legal action for 90 days. This is a very tight timeframe, requiring that two public hearings be held over a period of no more than 30 days to receive public input prior to drawing maps.
  • An expert demographer is then hired to prepare proposed maps. The CVRA requires that districts be similar in population, allowing for a 10% variance. Care must be taken to ensure that minority votes are not diluted. Other legal requirements include consideration of contiguity, compactness, communities of interest and natural geographic boundaries.
  • The Council must also establish the timing and sequence of district elections. In their discussion, Council members expected the first such election to occur in November 2024. Sequencing must be defined to set staggered terms for each seat. The current terms of the Council members would not be affected.
  • After the draft maps have been prepared, they must be published and made available to the public, along with the staggered terms of office and the proposed sequence of elections. The Council must then hold two public hearings over a period of not more than 45 days to receive public input. The maps and election proposals must be made available at least 7 days prior to the first hearing. If the map is revised as a result of public input, it must be published again and made available to the public for at least 7 days before being adoptde.
  • After finalization of the map and election timing and sequencing, the Council must adopt an ordinance providing for district elections, approve the map, and begin implementing district elections with the November 2024 election.
  • Fiscal impact is expected to be approximately $15,500 for a professional demographer, and staff costs for carrying out the necessary work to meet the “safe harbor” requirements. Additionally, there may be up to $34,000 in attorney’s fees and costs charged by the Shenkman firm.
  • Questions from Council members sought to clarify the timeframes in regard to how the 30-day and 45-day requirements are met within the 90 day “safe harbor” allowance. City Attorney noted that indeed these hearing requirements overlap.
  • Questions about an independent commission, noting that there has been public interest in this option and other jurisdictions have used commissions to draw maps. Attorneys explained that the CVRA lists qualifications for commissioners, cannot be selected by the Council, rather a screening panel must be used to make the selections from applications. Attorneys noted that there just is not enough time to utilize this process if the Council wants to avoid possible legal action.
  • Public Comment:
    • There was one individual opposing the transition, accusing the Council of caving to extortion, he urged them to fight back.
    • One individual identified as Slavic noted that no one knew in advance of this issue, it is being pushed by a special interest group. There should have been public input before taking this action. If City does create districts, we must know who the marginalized communities are and create a mix of large and small districts. He suggested looking at how Concord and Martinez handled this process.
    • Five commenters supported the resolution. All recommended using an independent commission, which could be achieved by negotiating an extension to the 90 day “safe harbor” limit with Shenkman. That has been done in other local jurisdictions. Commenters spoke to the current make-up of the Council as not reflective of the city population, that a majority of them live near each other. Commenters also spoke to the purposeful delays in adopting this resolution and putting the city in this corner.

• Council Discussion:
  • Four members spoke, in reluctant recognition of the need to make this change. No strong support for district elections was voiced but they recognize that what is best for the city is avoiding expensive and lengthy litigation that would shift resources from important planned city projects. One spoke in reluctant favor. Mayor Flaherty was absent and did not speak or send his comments.
  • Noack said that she has worked hard to make the city more inclusive, but acknowledged that the Council is not diverse. The city staff and police force are very diverse, however. The Council seats are dependent on who runs and receives the votes, and there just hasn’t been diversity at that level. She feels that just because the Council members are all white, that does not mean they have not and cannot be welcoming to the diverse community.
  • Vinson is the newest member, said that he sees the changing diversity in the city, he engages in many community activities and events. It is better to move forward now, a further delay will cost the city too much.
  • Shess said that we do have to get out in front of this. The majority of people in the city and the Council are white, but districting will bring more participation and that’s good. He is concerned about the rushed timeline. He supports an independent commission, it must be a quality process. He supports moving to districts, but notes that this system has its problems as well.
  • Rinn said that he felt a fiduciary responsibility to the city and it just can’t take this hit. The Council has always kept the care of the city in their hearts. He thinks some of the accusations made by Shenkman could be shown to be false if we fought, but at what cost. We are a welcoming and inclusive community and these accusations are painful. He noted that in the 2020 election, three Council members ran unopposed, there just have not been others willing to run.
• The resolution was adopted unanimously.
• There was no direction to staff to negotiate an extension of the “safe harbor” timeline to allow the city to include an independent commission in the process.

• This was an in-person regular Council meeting. Five Councilmembers were in the Council Chambers –Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Shess and Vinson.
• Brown Act compliant, agenda issued on time and contained all details for public attendance and public comment, as well as how to join the meeting via Zoom. Public Comment is now listed in the agenda for both the regular and the closed session.  LWVDV has communicated our concerns in the past about how Public Comment has not always been listed on the agenda.
• City Manager Report:  Ms. Catalano announced the receipt of a letter from the Shenckman law firm regarding the city’s’ failure to move from at-large to district elections.  March 6 is the deadline for the Council to take action on responding to the law firm’s letter.  She said there would be 4 public hearings for community input. The process must be completed within 90 days.
• Public Comment on non-agenda items: Several commenters spoke or emailed on the issue of district vs at-large elections. Letters from the Asian Law Caucus was read by a commenter, and the letter from the League of Women Voters Diablo Valley was read by Cathleen Kirk. All commenters spoke in favor of moving to elections by district, and urged the Council to appoint an independent commission to hear public input and draw the maps. The Mayor announced that this issue will be on the March 6 agenda.
• Consent Calendar items adopted unanimously.

•  9.1: Presentation of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR).  The audit report was clean, no findings. Accepted and approved by Council.
• 9.2: Measure K Update, presentation by staff on status of city road repair and paving projects funded by Measure K.  Accepted and approved by Council.
• 9.3 thru 9.5: Resolutions to approve funding from Measure K for additional capital improvement projects.  Approved by Council.
• 9.6: Continued to March 6 meeting.
• 9.7: Resolution to oppose the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, a State initiative.  Approved and staff directed to draft a letter.
• 9.8: Resolution to proclaim the end of the local State of Emergency due to the Covid-19 Pandemic.  Adopted by the Council.

City Council Special Meeting 2/16/23

by Kathy Gallagher

• This was an in-person special Council meeting. Four Councilmembers were in the Council Chambers – Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Shess. There is one vacancy on the Council. The meeting was conducted by Mayor Flaherty.
• Continuing concerns about Brown Act compliance. Agenda issued on time, standard format with all required info about participating in meetings, viewing video and making public comment.  However, the agenda for this meeting did not include an item for Public Comment for non-agendized items.  Therefore the public were not advised that public comment could be offered and could have discouraged some people who wished to speak on a non-agendized topic.
• Mayor Flaherty nevertheless announced Public Comment for non-agendized items but no one spoke, possibly because the agenda did not include public comment.
• Public Comment was opened for the agendized item on selecting the new Council member.  Most commenters were advocating for a candidate. One speaker took issue with holding the public comment before the interviews, rather than after the interviews so members of the public could offer their opinions about the candidates.

• The purpose of this special meeting was to interview the four final candidates to fill the vacant Council seat. Mayor Flaherty announced that one of the candidates, Eslam Najjar, had withdrawn from the interviews.  Those to be interviewed were Allen Vinson, Chris Tipton and Zhanna Thompson.  He went over the staff outline of the previously agreed upon process that they would be following.  The candidates had previously been given the list of questions that would be asked during the interviews.  They were advised that they would be allowed 2 minutes to make an opening statement, and 2 minutes for a closing statement. 
• Each candidate was interviewed at the podium, answering 3 questions from each Council member for a total of 12 questions.  The candidates referred to their prepared notes in responding to questions.  Some clarifying follow up questions were from Council members were allowed also. Vinson and Tipton spoke extemporaneously from their notes and added information to their follow ups.  Thompson read her answers from prepared statements, was not an extemporaneous exchange.
• After the completion of the interviews, Mayor Flaherty opened discussion and thoughts from the Council.
  • Flaherty began by noting that the job of a Council member requires some extemporaneous abilities, to debate issues that one is not prepared for (Thompson had written answers to all of the questions that she read to the Council, which did not demonstrate ability to be extemporaneous and to think on her feet).   He stated that he did not like the heavy labor union connection to Ms. Thompson (many of the public comments were labor union officials in support of Thompson).  He questioned her agenda for being on the Council, during her comments she said one of her goals would be creating a PLA with local unions.  He went on say that he weighs the opinions of citizens over those of special interests.  PH has a personality, it’s not a drive-thru city, it’s a welcoming city.  Ms. Thompson has demonstrated tremendous abilities but needs of the Council right now is for experience.  He said the Mr. Tipton has great experience with the housing issues and spoke to an agenda regarding efforts he would want to pursue, Flaherty said that Tipton’s ties to a specific housing group concerned him.  Mr. Vinson has a good deal of experience, is a member of the Planning Commission and has a history of volunteering in many city events.  Flaherty stressed his belief that the Council, given changes coming in the next two years, needs a member with experience in city services.
  • Noack stated that they need to pick someone with less of learning curve.  She brought up the changes that the Council will be dealing with in working on moving to district elections  and that the make-up of the Council may change significantly in coming years. New opportunities will be available to tonight’s candidates to run for a position.  Noack spoke in general about how local office is non-partisan but there has been a shift with increasing emphasis on party affiliation.  She see’s this as disadvantaging the work of local elected officials.
  • Rinn said that he too was looking at the challenges of redistricting and the need for someone who is going to prioritize what is best for PH, without outside influences and bringing their own agenda.
  • Shess said his assessment of the candidates starts with experience, someone who is well-rounded, grounded in PH and has the knowledge and background for the job of a Council member.
• A roll-call vote was taken with each Council member naming their selection:
  • Flaherty selected Allen Vinson
  • Noack selected Allen Vinson
  • Rinn selected Allen Vinson
  • Shess selected Allen Vinson
• A motion and second was made to formally select Allen Vinson to fill the Council vacancy, the vote was unanimous.
• The City Clerk then swore in Mr. Vinson and he was seated as a PH City Council member.
• The meeting was adjourned at this point.

The agenda and attachments for this meeting can be accessed at:

https://www.pleasanthillca.org/agendas

City Council Meeting 2/6/23

by Kathy Gallagher

• This was an in-person regular Council meeting. Four Councilmembers were in the Council Chambers – Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Shess. There is one vacancy on the Council.
• Brown Act compliant, agenda issued on time and contained all details for public attendance and public comment, as well as how to join the meeting via Zoom.
• The meeting was conducted by Mayor Flaherty.
• Council member Noack reported that she has been appointed to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission representing the Council of Mayors.
• Council members that attended the Council of Mayors meeting reported on the discussion of the Delta Tunnel project that is opposed by the Mayors.
• The Consent Calendar contained directives to staff to prepare and file various assessment district reports, and a resolution to approve the Stormwater Utility Area Fee for FY 23/24.

• Council received a report on the completion of the Gregory Gardens Storm Drainage project and acknowledged the significant efforts and contributions of both the staff and residents.
• The major item of the meeting was finalizing the processes for the selection of the individual to fill the current Council vacancy. A staff report summarized the process previously decided at the January 30 meeting.
• Each member listed their top 5 candidates from the pool of 11 applicants. One of the recommended candidates did not receive at least 2 votes, so the final pool to be interviewed will be four:
  • Allen Vinson; Chris Tipton; Eslam Najjar; Zhanna Thompson.
  • A long list of potential questions was provided to the Council and to the public in the chambers but not posted electronically. A request was made for staff to share their screen on the Zoom so the public could see them but it was not possible to see all of the questions. Members discussed and made some changes to the questions.
  • Candidates will be allowed 2 minutes for an opening statement.
  • Each Council member will ask 2 questions of each candidate from the list for a total of 8 questions to each candidate with follow-ups allowed from members.
  • Then each member will verbally name their top 3 choices. Staff will display a tally sheet on-screen. A candidate must be named by at last 3 members to be considered.
  • Council members will ask additional 1 or 2 questions of the top 3 candidates.
  • The Mayor will then open the floor to a motion and second to select one of the candidates. If votes are insufficient for this candidate, a second motion will be opened.
  • When a majority vote for one candidate has been achieved, the Oath of Office will be administered and the new Council member will be seated.

A special meeting will be set for Thursday, February 16 at 7:00 pm to conduct the interviews and select the new Council member.

City Council Meeting 1/30/23

by Kathy Gallagher

• A Closed Session was held at 6:00 pm in a conference room to discuss litigation. These are not open to the public. The agenda did call for public comment.
• CONCERN: Public Comment was conducted via telephone only to the Council in the conference room, and not available to the public to hear. There was no audio recording played during the open session. It appears that this was a Brown Act violation in not allowing the public to hear the comments.
• The regular Council meeting began at 7:00pm. Four Councilmembers were in the Council Chambers – Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Shess. There is one vacancy on the Council.
• Brown Act compliant, agenda issued on time and contained all details for public attendance and public comment, as well as how to join the meeting via Zoom.
• The meeting was conducted by Mayor Flaherty.

• Our League has sent a letter to the City Council regarding the process to fill the vacancy on the Council. LWVDV believes that the thidr-place finisher in the November election should be duly appointed, honoring the will of the voters. The Council, however, has decided to pursue an application and appointment process that will open the vacancy to candidates who did not run for the position and were not chosen by voters.
• There has also been public comment from the general public on this issue.

• The only item on the agenda was the determination of the appointment process to fill the Council vacancy.
• There was a staff recommendation for the Council to work with. Lengthy discussions among the Council members on their preferences for the process, i.e. how many of the 11 applicants should be interviewed and how would that be decided; should there be a set of questions for all applicants to respond to and in what format; who will develop the questions; how will the interviews be conducted and when.
• Final decision was to interview 5 candidates. Each Council member will select their top 5 choices and these will be shared at the Feb. 6 Council meeting. A candidate must receive at least 2 votes in order to be interviewed.
• A sub-committee of the Council comprised of Mayor Flaherty and Vice-Mayor Rinn will develop the set of questions. Each Council member is to submit their recommended questions to the sub-committee by end of day Wednesday, 2/2/23.
• Candidates will be asked to make a brief opening statement before their interview.
• The questions will be made public and provided to the candidates at the Feb. 6 meeting.
• Process to select the top choice candidate was decided. Each member will identify their top 3 choices after the interviews, then a second round of questions will be asked. If there is a tie for 3rd place, then that candidate would be eliminated and only the top two interviewed in the second round. The Council would name their top choice from the second interviews. They did decide on how they would break a 2-2 tie among Council members.
• Dates for future meetings was discussed as the swearing-in of the new Council member must occur before March 1. Both Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 are city holidays. Feb. 6 is the next scheduled regular meeting, so a future special meeting date will be decided at that time.

_______________________________________

City Council Meeting 1/23/23

by Kathy Gallagher

Agenda and attachments

• This was an in-person Council meeting. Four Councilmembers were in the Council Chambers – Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Shess. There is one vacancy on the Council.
• Brown Act compliant, agenda issued on time and contained all details for public attendance and public comment, as well as how to join the meeting via Zoom.
• The meeting was conducted by Mayor for the Day Vivian Veurink, with the support of Mayor Flaherty.

• Public Comment:  Michelle Simone read a letter from LWVDV regarding the process to fill the vacant Council seat.  LWVDV advocates for selecting the third-place finisher in the November election rather than filling the position through an appointment process.  There was no comment from the Council.

• User Fee Study: The Council approved a contract with Willdan, a company that will assist city staff in developing the Cost Allocation Plan, and update the User Fee Schedule.  The purpose is to bring the city into alignment with neighboring cities and to develop a method to update the fees on a regular basis.  Contract not-to-exceed cost is $35,495.
• Diablo Vista Water System: The Council approved a contract with Pakpour to conduct an inspection of this system which provides irrigation raw water to 475 homes and has been experiencing multiple leaks.  They will also rehabilitate 725 feet of pipe within the Contra Costa Canal right-of-way (between Oakvue Road and Roberta Avenue).  Contract cost is $32,414.
• Pedestrian/Bicycle Project Funding: The Council approved an application for funding to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the amount of $100,000.  If approved these funds would be augmented with local funds from gas taxes, Measure K and Measure J.  Total cost of the project is estimated at $600,000.  The project intends to improve pedestrian and bicycle access along Oak Park Blvd. to Hook Ave, near the PH Library, new residential housing and proposed athletic fields.  MTC awards are announced in November and the project will be completed in 2023/2024. 
• Next meeting is a Special Meeting on January 30 to discuss the process to fill the vacant Council seat.  Next regular meeting is February 6, 2023.

City Council Meeting 1/9/23

by Kathy Gallagher

Agenda, with links to documents supporting agenda items

• This was a hybrid in-person and teleconference Council meeting. Four Councilmembers were in the Council chambers – Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Shess.
• Brown Act compliant, agenda issued on time and contained all details for public attendance and public comment, as well as how to join the meeting via Zoom.
• Mayor Flaherty conducted the meeting in accordance with the published agenda.

• The Council recognized departing Council-member and County Supervisor-elect Ken Carlson and provided him with a key to the city.  His many contributions to the city during his multi-year tenure were noted and appreciated.
• The Council approved the mayor’s recommended appointments to various committees. 
• The Council reaffirmed their resolution to continue teleconferenced, hybrid, and in-person meetings of the Council and the various committees.

• The Council considered the process to fill the seat vacated by Ken Carlson, which was not vacant prior to the November election and therefore not filled as a result of that election.  At a previous meeting, the Council had expressed their preference for an appointment process as opposed to appointing an individual from among the unelected candidates in the November election.  Staff had been directed to prepare a recommended application process and form to be discussed at this January 9 Council meeting.
• There was substantial public comment which was fairly evenly split on the options.  Some former Council members spoke to a past experience in which a person was selected from the election results.  This person, they said, created a serious problem and was wholly unqualified to serve, and had to be removed from the Council.  They cautioned about a possible repeat of that experience.  Others spoke in favor of honoring the election results and the will of the voters and appointment of the third-place finisher.  That individual was present and spoke, as did her husband who spoke on Zoom.  It was clear that the Council had already decided their course of action, they did not engage in much discussion of the merits of the proposed options but went directly to issues of process regarding the draft application form provided by the City Counsel.
• The Council voted unanimously to move forward with the option to seek applications for the vacant seat and to not appoint the 3rd place finisher from the November election.
• The city will post the notice and the application form this week with a noon, January 27 deadline to receive applications.  The Council Nominations Committee will review the applications and select the most qualified applicants to recommend to the Council. Interviews of the candidates will be conducted at the Feb. 6 Council meeting. 
• Next meeting January 23, 2023.

City Council Meeting 6/27/22

by Kathy Gallagher

Agenda

• This was a hybrid in-person and teleconference Council meeting.  Four Councilmembers were in the Council Chambers, with Carlson joining remotely.
• Brown Act compliant, agenda issued on time and contained all details for public attendance and public comment.
• Mayor Harris conducted the meeting in accordance with the published agenda.

• The mayor announced that Council minutes will no longer be summary minutes due to the increased workload associated with managing both an in-person and a Zoom meeting.  Staff will instead produce Action Item/Decision minutes.

• Noack pulled the item regarding the Animal Services agreement from the Consent agenda for discussion.  This was presented at the June 7 Council meeting and staff was asked to work with the County on clarifying certain language.  A side letter has been added to the agreement, and the County did revise language clarifying how fees are determined.  Fees are currently $236,673 annually and will go up to $272,040 in FY 22/23 and $320,952 in FY 23/24.  Services will be those mandated under law and associated support costs.  Council adopted the revised agreement and passed the resolution.
• Presentation regarding a resolution to implement a Drought Management Plan for the Diablo Vista Water System that serves 475 homes in the Oak Park/Poets Corner neighborhoods.  This plan would take effect July 1 and require a 15% reduction in water usage monthly.  There will be surcharge of $2.81/1000 gallons if usage exceeds 85% of 2020 levels.  A community meeting was held to discuss planning for rationing if usage levels remain too high.  An outreach and education plan was adopted, along with a plan for 10-day monitoring of usage.  The plan allows for pumps to be turned off on a day when usage is exceeding designated levels.  There were no questions from the Council and no public comment.  The resolution passed.
• Micro-mobility presentation by Bird Rides and city staff.  Proposing a 12-month pilot to station and rent up to 150 electric scooters at various sites around the city.  The scooters have a 15 MPH maximum speed and require that the riders wear a helmet.  Users must have a current drivers license, no one under age 18 can rent them.  They must be ridden in bike lanes, not in the streets.  There was nothing in the presentation on the rental cost, but the agreement does include a revenue generator for the city of $0.15/ride, $4,500 to $6,000 annually.  Questions from the Council centered around safety and management issues such as dealing with discarded scooters, potential for accidents and concerns about liability, contract monitoring and accountability.  The pilot program was approved and staff will work with the contractor on an implementation plan.
• Master Fee Schedule for FY 22/23 was adopted.  Fees will be increased by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rate this year of 5.2%.  These fees apply to a wide array of services such as use permits, architectural reviews, zoning permits, fees for copies of videotapes, photocopying documents, et.al.
• FY 22/23 & FY 23/24 Biennial Budget presentation. The City Finance Manager presented the proposed budget for adoption.  This year is ending with a fund balance of $11,469 that rolls over.  The 5-year forecast shows that FY 22/23 is projected to have revenues of $28,970,000 with expenditures expected to reach $30,301,000 resulting in a deficit of $1.3 million.  For FY 23/24 revenues are projected at $29,921,000 with expenditures of $31,175,000 ending the year with a deficit of $1,254,000.   The increased expenditures are primarily due to increased costs from the CalPERS retirement system unfunded liability and increased costs of insurance, largely due to the wildfire risks.  Budget balancing actions proposed to deal with the possible deficits are freezing some positions, shifting some costs from the general fund to outside revenue sources, reducing costs in services and supplies, reducing some insurance premiums (reducing coverage), and booking additional revenue from a planned apartment project.  The biggest sources of revenue for the city are sales and property taxes.  The City receives about 5.6 cents from each property tax dollar, and about 1 cent in sales tax on every dollar spent.  Transit Occupancy Tax generates about 10 cents on every dollar but the pandemic severely reduced those revenues.  In regard to expenditures, public safety represents about 56% followed by maintenance costs and retirement costs following.  There were no questions from the Council as the budget development process occurs through the City Budget Committee that includes the Council.  There was no public comment. The biennial was adopted.
• City Treasurer position has been recommended by the Council to be an appointed position.  The resolution adopted would call for a vote in November to make the position appointed rather than elected in 2024. 

City Council Meeting 6/6/22

by Kathy Gallagher

Agenda

• This was the first hybrid in-person and teleconference Council meeting.  Two Councilmembers, Flaherty and Carlson were in the Council Chambers, Harris, Noack and Rinn were remote.
• Brown Act compliant, agenda issued on time and contained all details for public attendance and public comment.
• Mayor Harris conducted the meeting in accordance with the published agenda.

• Mayor Harris announced that he will not be running for re-election when his term expires at the end of this year.

• Presentation by the Education Commission Chairperson Jennifer Andersen.  Key points: 
  • Role of the Commission is to advocate for public education for children in PH.
  • Enrollments are down in all public schools except College Park high school.
  • The Commission activities were limited in the past 2 years due to the pandemic.
  • The goals this year are to collaborate with school districts and restore the pre-pandemic efforts that have been on hold. 
  • There are two vacancies on the Commission that are in recruitment.
• Animal Services Agreement presentation by Beth Ward, County Animal Services Director:
  • The County has been meeting with cities and working on a revised fee structure for the past 2 years.  Beth and PH staff presented the revised agreement for the city which contains new service delivery descriptions and options as well as the new fee schedule. 
  • The fees for animal services in FY 22/23 will be $272,000 and for FY 23/24, $310,952.  Beth described the services that these fees cover including the number of AS Officers available to PH and the scope of their services.
  • Lengthy discussion over unclear language in the agreement.  The Council asked staff to work with County staff on amending the agreement to clarify the language to reflect the intent of the agreement to apply only to PH, and asked for the item to be put on a future agenda. 
• Proposed action to decide if the City Treasurer position should be appointed or elected.:
  • Discussion indicated a preference for an elected position; however staff could not provide information regarding the costs associated with an election, the number of hours the job requires (less than full time), and salary comparisons with other cities. 
  • The item was continued to a future meeting with direction to staff to report back with the cost information.
• New City Library:
  • Staff showed slides of the interior of the new library that is currently being set up for operation and opening in July. 
  • A new lease agreement for the operation of the library by the County was presented and adopted. 

Agenda

• Meeting began a little late due to Closed Session running long.  Council members in attendance:
  • Harris, Flaherty, Noack, Carlson, Rinn
  • No absentees
  • Brown Act compliant.  City Attorney present during proceedings.  Remote (Zoom) meeting highly organized and timely, no technology issues regarding public access and comment.  Agenda contains detail information about accessing meetings, providing comments in writing or through public comment opportunities. 
  • Mayor Harris chaired the meeting, ensured all agendized matters were addressed, ensured that Public Comment was made available and accessible throughout the meeting.

• Contra Costa Transportation Authority presentation and update on planning and priorities.  Focus on developing various modes of transportation; improve coordination with public transit; goal to have a public transit site within a half-mile walk; optimize traffic signal synchronization to minimize cars idling at lights; improve accessible transportation for the 65+ age group; continued emphasis on electric vehicles, Contra Costa has been one of the fastest counties to adopt EV’s.
• General Public Comment: 
  • Concern expressed about the termination of the lease for the Friends of the Library bookstore in downtown PH.  Mayor Harris noted that the city is aware, and is actively seeking another site in the downtown area.
  • Another caller expressed some frustration with the Zoon meetings in that there is not the same access to information, such as the number of people watching the meeting, the ability to ask for clarifications on presentations, etc.  Mayor Harris responded that the city is following the county guidelines exactly, and, that beginning with the next council meeting will be an in-person/Zoom hybrid format.

• Public Hearing on an Update of the General Plan and Housing Element:
  • Lengthy presentation by consulting firm on proposals for the update and housing element that came from numerous events with local stakeholders and elected officials over many months. 
  • Focus Area 2, the Mangini-Delu property at the intersection of Taylor Blvd. and Pleasant Hill Road drew the most public interest and Council debate.  This mostly vacant land site is now proposed for development of 210 housing units, which is lower than the State Housing and Community Development department assigned to PH in the Housing Element, but still higher than the community would like. 
  • Council debate over the wording of the Resolution, Mayor Harris wanting a firm statement that the 210 units would be the maximum acceptable to the city.  Final agreement by the full Council to not change the Resolution at this time and let the HCD review process proceed.  This is expected to begin in the summer and will afford the city another opportunity to address the housing element limit if HCD disagrees with the city proposal.
  • A few other minor changes and clarifications were made to the Resolution and passed unanimously by the Council.

• Discussion of Resolution to Request an Allocation from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.  Presentation by staff.
  • These funds would be targeted at the Monument/Contra Costa Blvd./Hwy 680 intersections to improve bicycle and pedestrian access, and safe access to the Iron Horse Trail. 
  • Resolution was adopted unanimously. 

City Council Meeting 5/2/22

by Kathy Gallagher

Agenda

• Meeting began on time at 7:00 pm.
• Council members in attendance:
  • Harris, Flaherty, Noack, Carlson, Rinn
  • No absentees
  • Brown Act compliant. City Attorney present during proceedings. Remote (Zoom) meeting highly organized and timely, no technology issues regarding public access and comment. Agenda contains detail information about accessing meetings, providing comments in writing or through public comment opportunities.
  • Mayor Harris chaired the meeting, ensured all agendized matters were addressed, ensured that Public Comment was made available and accessible throughout the meeting.

• New PH Library project update provided by Public Works & Community Development. Interior work mostly completed, county staff moving in on 5/3/22 and beginning to put books on the shelves. Exterior work continues. The Grand Opening of the Library is set for July 9. The entire project is coming in under budget.
• A resolution to approve a preferred land use alternative as part of the update of the General Plan and Housing Element was moved to the 5/16/22 Council meeting.
• A resolution was unanimously adopted to allow Council meetings, on a permanent basis, to be fully in-person, fully teleconferenced, or a hybrid of both. This conforms to the provisions under AB 361. The City Attorney will provide the Council with a draft of the proposed protocols and procedures at the next meeting, consistent with the recently issued Safety Protocols from the County. Hope to have the first hybrid Council meeting in June.

• Councilmember Sue Noack is now a member of the statewide League of California Cities, Revenue & Finance Committee and will have input on all legislation affecting the financing of cities and their projects.
• City Manager announced that the in-person Government Academy will begin offering sessions again September. This Academy explores how local government works and takes a “behind the scenes look” at operations.
• City Attorney announced that she was in the process of reviewing the just-issued Supreme Court ruling on a Boston City case regarding the flying of flags on city flagpoles. She will prepare an analysis for the Council.

Meeting Adjourned at 8:35pm

Next meeting May 16, 2022