HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUBLIC COMMENTS - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 from: Leslie Cox <Redacted>
to: drawtustin@tustinca.org
date: Oct 11, 2021, 2:15 PM
subject: Comment on district selection for Tustin
Good day,
I want to voice opinion to draw Irvine and Tustin District together. Both communities are very
intertwined and to separate them would be a great disservice. Tustin and Irvine share shopping
centers (Tustin Ranch Marketplace and The District). Both communities share schools including
Beckman High and even UCI is considered "local" for those who live in Tustin.
Thank you,
Leslie Cox,
from: Becca Fong Emery <Redacted>
to: drawtustin@tustinca.org
date: Oct 13, 2021, 5:09 PM
subject: written feedback about draft maps
Dear Draw Tustin coordinator/ committee,
Thank you for encouraging City of Tustin residents to participate in this process. My household
received a mailer in the post. Though the in-person workshops are not conducive to our
schedule, we appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this issue.
At this time, I'd like to submit feedback based on the draft maps.
From the outset, I'd like to clearly state my understanding of the goal is to resolve at-large voting
by establishing "at least one district in which voters of color are the majority of the voting-age
population in that district." (This NAACP LDF document informed my understanding.)
Secondly, a relatively equal distribution of the population was important to me. So, draft maps
109, 112 and 114 were more closely examined. At this time, draft map 114 has my highest level
of support for the following reasons:
• Proposed District 2 defines a district in which voters of color are the majority of the
voting-age population. In particular, it has a predominantly higher percentage of Hispanic
residents.
• Draft map 114 had no decrease in the percentage of non-Hispanic (NH) Black voter
turnout between 2018 and 2020. The same observation doesn't apply to draft maps 109
or 112.
• Draft map 114 has the least disparity in ACS population estimate compared to both
maps 109 and 112.
• Proposed District 2 had significantly less disparity in terms of percentage of single family
homes as well as percentage of housing ownership in contrast to draft map 109 (District
1).
• Proposed District 4 residents have a more even spread based on formal education. The
same observation doesn't apply to draft maps 109 or 112.
Thank you again for public outreach efforts, especially making so much information available
online to help us deliberate proposals. Should future questions arise or clarifications about my
remarks be requested, I may be contacted by email.
Kindly,
Becca Emery
City of Tustin resident
from: Franklin Krbechek <Redacted>
to: drawtustin@tustinca.org
date: Oct 14, 2021, 3:37 PM
subject: Map Submission
To Whom It May Concern:
Attached is a proposed map for the City Council's consideration. Please accept this map, drawn
using a Google Map overlay, for consideration.
One of the largest problems is that most of the maps currently proposed appear to try to put the
maximum number of Latino voters into one district, creating an artificial and improper
segregation of 40% of our City's population. This proposed map maximizes the integration of
the Latino population, while ensuring a majority/minority district.
This map also keeps Old Town Tustin intact, which is a goal expressed by numerous community
members and the City Council. Historically, Old Town existed on both sides of what is now 1-5,
and there remain numerous pre-war buildings, including craftsman-style bungalows, in the Old
Town area south of 1-5. This map also keeps the Newport Avenue commercial corridor mostly
intact (including Larwin Square), running on both sides of the 1-5.
Old Town here is combined with the area around St. Saint Jeanne school and parts of SW
Tustin. This makes more sense than other alternatives because the smaller lots, apartments,
and commercial areas (including Larwin Square) fit in with the dense housing and commercial
areas on Newport Avenue than with the larger lots of mostly SFR residential tracts in the
northern parts of the City. Meanwhile, those parts of areas (outside of Tustin Ranch) but in the
northern part of the City remain together. (This area, along with the neighboring parts of
unincorporated North Tustin, form their own community of interest.)
This map also achieves multiple additional goals. It keeps Tustin Ranch and Tustin Legacy
intact as distinct communities of interest. It uses major streets in Tustin as boundaries, as much
as possible. It creates four geographically compact districts that keep communities of interest
intact.
from: Jerry Amante <Redacted>
to: "drawtustin@tustinca.org" <drawtustin@tustinca.org>
date: Oct 21, 2021, 3:25 PM
subject: District Maps and Mayor's Election
Dear Members of the City Council and Staff;
I am writing to express my support for Map#120 as the map that should be adopted by
the City Council. It clearly balances the City districts, keeps neighborhoods and subdivisions
in-tact, including my neighborhood in Tustin Ranch, and allows for the various parts of the City
that share commonality to have an appropriate District of common interest. It is, above all
others, a map that makes sense and is fair to all citizens.
As a former Mayor selected to serve under our current system, I would like to weigh in
on the issue of the direct election of Mayor. I support the direct election of Mayor in the 2022
cycle. I believe that if we are going to change the manner in which the Mayor will be named, we
should allow for that change to come before the people at the very first election after adoption of
the change. Nothing could be more transparent and fair that to give the citizens of Tustin the
opportunity to select their Mayor at the first opportunity for them to do so.
I thank you all for the hard work you do everyday for all of Tustin. I can truly appreciate
what that sacrifice is from you and from your families and we are all in your debt and thank each
of you for your service. God Bless you all!
Best,
Jerry
P.S. Go Bruins!
from: Chuck Puckett <Redacted>
to: drawtustin@tustinca.org
date: Oct 21, 2021, 4:04 PM
subject: District maps and mayoral election
To whom it may concern: Upon review of subject material, I wish to express my
preference for Map 120 and for the directly elected mayor race to be put on the
2022 ballot. I see no reason to delay the mayoral election until the next election
cycle. LET'S GET IT DONE!!!
Charles E. "Chuck" Puckett (Former Mayor)
from: Doug Davert <Redacted>
to: "drawtustin@tustinca.org" <drawtustin@tustinca.org>
date: Oct 22, 2021, 1:47 PM
subject: Election/Districting
Mayor and Members of the City Council:
I have spent considerable time reviewing the proposed maps and the options for scheduling the
election of the City's first directly elected Mayor.
I respectfully request that the election of the Mayor be placed on the next available election
ballot (2022). Since there is no incumbent, this seems like the most fair and reasonable time to
elect the new Mayor.
Also, I strongly prefer Map#120. Map#120 best keeps communities-of-interest together and not
artificially divided while ensuring fair and diverse representation across all demographics.
Thank you.
Doug Davert
from: Scott Jones <Redacted>
to: "drawtustin@tustinca.org" <drawtustin@tustinca.org>
date: Oct 22, 2021, 3:04 PM
subject: Tustin Mayor 2022 and District Map
I'd like to voice my support for putting the Mayor on the 2022 ballot and support for map 120.
Thank you,
Scott Jones
from: Bryan Crain <Redacted>
to: "drawtustin@tustinca.org" <drawtustin@tustinca.org>
date: Oct 22, 2021, 5:50 PM
subject: 2020 Ballot
Hello,
I live and work in Tustin and I would prefer that the mayor be on the 2022 ballot. Thank
you.
Bryan
from: Al Murray <Redacted>
to: drawtustin@tustinca.org
cc: Al Murray <al4tustin@gmail.com>
date: Oct 24, 2021, 7:53 PM
subject: Tustin Mayor 2022 and Tustin City Districts
Good evening ladies and gentlemen,
As you prepare for a historic and very important geographic decision for the City of Tustin I
would like to make my recommendations.
As a past council member and mayor I understand the complexity of these decisions and
understand there are an abundance of factors to to take into consideration.
With the decision primarily made to go to districting I would recommend an at-large mayor
position be on the 2022 ballot. This change in the districting governance structure is best
accommodated with an at-large mayor based on my observations of other cities that have gone
through this process.
My recommendation for the maps would be map 120. 1 think it best represents the constituents
in the areas the demographer has outlined in this map and suggested.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input.
Best,
Al Murray
Mayor Emeritus