10B Action - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

File Number: 25-113 notice of intent triggered a 90-day safe harbor period, preventing Mr. Bulatao from suing the City, and capping at $30,000 any attorneys’ fees Mr. Bulatao can recover. The 90-day safe harbor ends on April 7, 2025. Consistent with the initial 180-day timeline, the January 6, 2025 resolution also assumed that Mr. Bulatao would grant the City an additional 90-day extension allowed under the CVRA. Prospective Plaintiff Bulatao has agreed to enter into a Written Agreement with the City for an additional 90-day extension but conditioned the extension on the City adopting an ordinance to establish district-based elections within the 90-day extension. LEGAL ANALYSIS The City can enter into a Written Agreement with the Prospective Plaintiff, which would allow for an additional 90-day extension of the safe harbor period, on the condition that the City Council present and vote on an ordinance moving the City to district-based elections by July 7, 2025. If the City agrees to the Written Agreement, the safe harbor from litigation remains and the attorneys’ fees will be capped at $30,000. Conversely, if the City rejects the condition that it must adopt the ordinance by July 7, 2025, Prospective Plaintiff will withdraw the written agreement and the safe harbor will end. As such, Prospective Plaintiff will be permitted to sue and seek attorneys’ fees beyond the $30,000 cap. If this is the case, the City will not be bound by any schedule or timeline to conduct its hearings and may still opt to put the question to the voters in the 2026 primary election. The value of the cap and the corresponding attorneys’ fees and expenses saved by the City’s lawyers defending a lawsuit, especially given the routine success of CVRA plaintiffs throughout the state and if the City presumes that it would move to district-based elections in any event, are compelling grounds for the City Council to enter into the agreement. A.The City’s Position is Generally Consistent with the CVRA. The City maintains that the CVRA is clear that district-based elections do not need to be established by the City until six months before the 2026 general election and that the CVRA gives the City the option to either adopt an ordinance or put the question before the City’s electorate. As such, the CVRA does not mandate that the City adopt an ordinance within the safe harbor period in order to comply with the CVRA. As a preliminary matter, there is nothing in the Elections Code that mandates the City to adopt an ordinance to go to district-based elections within the safe harbor period. Nor is there anything in the Elections Code that prohibits the City from instead placing the issue on the ballot for its voters. Instead, the Elections Code only requires that district-based elections be “established.” (Elections Code section 10010, subdivision (e)(3)(C)(i).) The Elections Code states in relevant part: A political subdivision and the prospective plaintiff who first sends a notice [as Prospective Plaintiff did on November 21, 2024] may enter into a written agreement to extend the time period described in subparagraph (B) [the first 90-day safe harbor] for up to an additional 90 days in order to provide additional time to conduct public outreach, encourage public participation, and receive public input. The Page 2 City of San Leandro Printed on 9/4/2025