San Leandro council approves agreement to extend CVRA safe-harbor, sets timeline for district elections

The San Leandro City Council on April 7 approved a written agreement with a prospective plaintiff that extends the safe‑harbor period under the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA), giving the city additional time to conduct public outreach and adopt an ordinance to move to district‑based council elections.

The agreement, approved 7‑0, requires the council to adopt an ordinance establishing district elections by July 5, 2025, and anticipates a citywide charter amendment for voters to decide in the June 2026 primary. The agreement caps the plaintiff’s recoverable fees at $30,000 plus an inflation adjustment if the parties meet the safe‑harbor terms.

City staff described the timeline the council will follow if it approves the agreement: post a schedule of hearings within 10 days; hold four required public hearings through May and June; publish a draft map in mid‑May; and adopt a final map and ordinance by July 5. The extension preserves the city’s safe‑harbor from immediate litigation while staff conducts outreach and mapping work.

Deputy City Clerk Sarah Bunting and City Attorney Steve Ngo summarized the city’s interactions with the law firm that sent a pre‑litigation notice in 2024. Steve Ngo told the council the letter did not include the statistical expert data typically used to prove a claim of racially polarized voting; it cited past electoral outcomes and the at‑large system as the basis of the demand. The plaintiff named in the notice is Robert Bulutow.

Council members asked about the compressed timeline, outreach to multilingual communities, and the legal and cost risks of litigation. Vice Mayor Bowen and Councilmember Viveiros Walton pressed staff on outreach to Asian American residents and on whether the city had received prior communications from the plaintiff; staff said they would double‑check earlier correspondence. City staff said that absent the extension the city could face litigation exposure, citing examples of other California cities that litigated similar claims and incurred large legal fees.

Public commenters who spoke in support of district elections also urged the council to consider whether a charter amendment ballot measure is necessary or whether city ordinance alone could accomplish the change. Staff and counsel recommended the charter amendment route to keep the city charter and municipal code consistent.

The council voted unanimously to adopt the amended resolution authorizing the city manager to execute the written agreement with the prospective plaintiff and to proceed with the outreach and hearings schedule described by staff. Councilmembers agreed to return to the schedule of hearings and mapping decisions during the extended safe‑harbor period.

What happens next: staff will publish the hearing schedule and begin outreach; the council must adopt the ordinance by July 5, 2025, and voters would decide a charter amendment in June 2026 if the city proceeds as outlined in the agreement.