CC 2022-03-08_9b Supplemental 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Legislative & Information Services Director/City Clerk
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 9.b. – Public Hearing on the Creation of a District-Based
Election System and Consideration of Final District Maps
DATE: March 8, 2022
Attached is correspondence received prior to 4:00 p.m. for the above referenced item.
cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website (or public review binder)
From:gail lightfoot
To:public comment
Subject:District Elections
Date:Tuesday, March 8, 2022 1:06:40 PM
I do not see the need for District Elections in our city. In fact, I believe
District Elections will harm the very people the proponents of District seek to
favor.
The City of Arroyo Grande is no broken up into ethnic or racial neighborhoods.
The only division would be by cost of homes. So, there are neighborhood where
higher income individuals or families live but most of the city has comparable
prices from one neighborhood to the next.
These demands by attorney seeking to gain by suing cities ignores the fact
that small cities like Arroyo Grande do not harm voters by denying them
representation on governing bodies.
In fact, since Arroyo Grande is small, At-Large elections would be more likely
to see candidates of any and all races/ethnic, religion and political preferences
end up on the governing bodies such as City Council.
Bowing down to external pressure and wasting your time and ours is not in the
best interest of our city.
Be brave. Drop it.
gail lightfoot
text messages
From:Claudine Lingo
To:City Council; Jessica Matson
Subject:Re: DISTRICT-BASED ELECTIONS
Date:Monday, March 7, 2022 2:52:47 PM
This is to provide input in regard to items 9.a. and 9.b. on the March 8, 2022 City
Council meeting agenda regarding the water and waste water rate increases and
four proposed maps for dividing Arroyo Grande into four voting districts.
Regarding item Item 9.a. (water and waste water rate increases): I am strongly
opposed to rate increases without implementing and enforcing a ban on installing,
expanding or replacing lawns for current residents and new construction. Maybe with
sufficient fines imposed for violating the ban would discourage residents from
breaking the ban. Also, it would be critical to impose fines on landscaping/gardening
businesses who perform such work. As a result of the severe drought, a large
amount of water must be conserved to ensure we have water to drink, cook
with, bathe in, etc.; that is a critical necessity, but having a lawn is neither critical need
nor a necessity. The continued construction of housing units (which will increase the
local population and, therefore, water consumption) and the unwillingness of many
residents to conserve water to the greatest extent possible will only exacerbate the
water shortage. Since some residents are not deterred by rate increases, one of the
ways to help reduce water usage is to implement and enforce a ban on installing,
expanding, or replacing lawns.
Those of us whose homes already have low-flow showers, low-flush toilets, and no
lawn (only drought tolerant/succulents/cacti plantings) do not have many ways to
further reduce water usage. Like some residents, we never stopped conserving water
after the previous water usage restrictions were lifted a couple of years ago, so we
will be disproportionately impacted by further conservation requirements. We still use
buckets to capture water from the showers and sinks while the water heats up (we
even have our house guests to do the same) which is used to water plants and water
down where the dog potties. Our dog has to potty on the hardscape or rocks, so it
smells if not diluted with a little water. We do not run the water while brushing teeth;
we pour water into a bucket from dog and cat bowls before cleaning them and the
water is used to water plants.
Regarding item 9.b. (District Based Elections): For the reasons indicated in my
February 26, 2022 email, I support Plan 903 Mod (reflected on Attachment 4), and
Plan 202 Mod (reflected on Attachment 5) and oppose Plan 902 (reflected on
Attachment 2) and 902 Mod (reflected on Attachment 3).
Sincerely,
Claudine Lingo
On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 9:19 PM Claudine Lingo < wrote:
This is to provide input in regard to proposed maps for dividing Arroyo Grande intofour district-based areas as required by the California Voting Rights Act.
I have reviewed suggested district-based elections maps included in the February
22, 2022 council meeting agenda. Below are my comments/input.
One of the requirements indicated in the February 22, 2022 agenda item regardingdistrict-based elections was maintaining geographic integrity of localneighborhoods/communities of interest. A community of interest is defined as “apopulation that shares common social or economic interests that should be includedwithin a single district” to provide effective representation.
I will address the composition of Districts 1 and 2, as those are the areas with whichI am most familiar.
In order to maintain communities with “common social and economic interest” in thesame district, the boundaries for District 1 should be Oak Park/Noyes, west andeast sides of James Way to the intersection with Mesquite (if not down to theintersection of Village Glen or Tally Ho), and intersections of Old Ranch Road/WestBranch. It is my opinion that any plan that divides this area does not reflect an areaof “common social and economic interest”. This is especially true when Grace Lane
is the dividing line between Districts 1 and 2 (reference Plans 102 and 106,). GraceLane is closely connected with Rodeo, Mercedes and Old Ranch Road socially andeconomically. Also, Rodeo Drive, Grace Lane, Mercedes Drive and Old RanchRoad are considered part of the “Royal Oaks neighborhood”. Rodeo and Mercedesresidents represented Grace Lane, Rodeo, Mercedes and Old Ranch Roadresidents in regard to the Brisco Interchange Project. To balance the population inDistricts 1 and 2, the Tally Ho intersection at the intersection of 227 could be theborder between Districts 1 and 2 since that area is more closely aligned with thevillage area. The areas west of the 101 could be moved from Districts 1 and 2 toDistricts 3 or 4 (whichever is determined more appropriate by those who know those
neighborhoods better).
While areas east of the 101 connected to the village might be consideredcommunities of “common social and economic interest” with the west side of the101 (I don’t know those neighborhoods good enough to hazard a guess), I do notbelieve that the area on the west side of the 101 have a "common social andeconomic interest" with the areas on the east side of the 101 from Oak Park to OldRanch Road. Removing the west side of the 101 from Districts 1 and 2 would help
to balance the populations of each district. Furthermore, by moving the area southof Tally Ho/227 intersection to District 2, the populations of District 1 and 2 wouldbecome more balanced.
In summary, I am opposed to the following Plans without adjustments to Districts 1and 2 to reflect “common social and economic interests” in Districts 1 and 2: 102,106, 108, 112, 113, 114, 115, 901, and 902.
I’m sure Arroyo Grande residents more familiar with districts 3 and 4 are better ableto recommend changes needed to represent their communities of interest west ofthe 101.
It should be noted that with the exception of one current council member, I do notknow where the other three current council members reside; so my comments arenot the result of a desire to include or exclude anyone from representing the area inwhich I live.
Thanks for the opportunity to provide input; I hope the City Council and Mayor willseriously consider these comments before making a decision on the boundaries ofthe voting districts.
Sincerely,
Claudine Lingo