Tracy council reviews five draft maps; residents push for more outreach and time

Michael Wagaman, the city’s demographic consultant, presented five draft district maps Tuesday evening and told the Tracy City Council the purpose of the workshop was to narrow options, not to adopt a final plan.

“Our goal is not to land on a final plan,” Wagaman said, adding that he has “no skin in this game” and that revised maps based on council direction would be published by Jan. 6 with further hearings on Jan. 13 and Jan. 20 and a second reading in February.

The five consultant plans — color-coded as green, blue, purple, red and orange — emphasize different criteria. The green plan highlights age of housing stock; blue follows elementary-school enrollment zones; purple uses a few major streets for clear boundaries; red tries to account for southern-city growth by underdrawing two districts (Wagaman noted one district is underpopulated by about 4.8% and another by about 4.3%); and orange creates an east–west District 3 tied to a rail corridor.

Council members pressed Wagaman on concrete neighborhood impacts. Mayor Pro Tem Iberkombe and Council member Nygaard queried whether the red plan splits the Edgewood neighborhood; Wagaman confirmed red splits Edgewood while green, blue, purple and orange keep it whole. Council members also asked whether the consultant had incorporated post-2020 housing growth in areas such as Ellis and Tracy Hills; Wagaman said the maps use the 2020 decennial census for population counts and do not include staff’s unit‑based growth estimates, though staff had calculated an estimate of roughly 3.2 people per new unit that could amount to several thousand additional residents.

April Quintanilla, the city clerk, emphasized the workshop nature of the session and the continuing outreach process. “Tonight we are not requesting map adoption,” Quintanilla said, and she reiterated ways for residents to participate: paper maps at the City Clerk’s office, emailing districting@cityoftracy.org, and upcoming public outreach events.

Public comment centered on process and outreach. Robert Tanner urged caution about switching to districts, warning that district-based representation can encourage parochialism: “Districts always seem to look out for themselves and not for the city as a whole,” he said. Several residents said many community members were unaware of the process or confused by the online maps and colors and asked for more in-person workshops and additional time to prepare public-submitted maps.

One online caller told the council the presentation had moved too quickly and asked for workshops in community centers and daytime sessions for residents who cannot attend evening hearings. The caller also asserted that the consultant’s Tracy Hills numbers may be off by “3 or 4,000,” a concern Wagaman addressed by reiterating that the maps shown use the 2020 census and that separate staff estimates of post‑2020 growth were not included in the decennial counts on the slides.

Staff and the demographer explained the role of the American Community Survey (2019–2023 five-year tabulations) on the maps: ACS rolling averages are included to show eligible‑voter or citizenship metrics used for Federal Voting Rights Act analysis, not to replace the decennial population counts required for equal‑population considerations.

The council unanimously approved a procedural motion to reopen public comment to allow a disconnected online speaker to make a record. No map was adopted. City staff said they will publish revised map variants by Jan. 6, take public input through the Jan. 13 workshop (which will allow refinements and live line‑drawing), and return Jan. 20 with a resolution and potential ordinance introduction and a Feb. 3 second reading if the council moves forward.

The meeting ended after the council received additional initial feedback on each map and moved to adjourn.