Cities Index.
ECOMMENT- ANONYMOUS (ITEM 5)

Tustin City Council
October 6, 2026

Document
ECOMMENT- ANONYMOUS (ITEM 5)
Meeting
October 6, 2026
Body
Tustin City Council
Original file
139 KB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on tustin.granicus.com. That file is the official record.

From: [email protected]
To: Yasuda, Erica; Woodward, Carrie; E-Comments
Subject: New eComment for Regular Meeting of the City Council/Special Closed Session-5:00 pm/Regular Meeting-6:00 pm Date: Monday, October 5, 2026 5:52:39 PM
City of Tustin, CA
New eComment for Regular Meeting of the City
Council/Special Closed Session-5:00 pm/Regular
Meeting-6:00 pm
Guest User submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: Regular Meeting of the City Council/Special Closed Session-5:00 pm/Regular Meeting6:00 pm Item: 5. SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1581 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2026-0002 FOR THE MARINERS CHURCH TUSTIN LEGACY PROJECT Adoption of Ordinance No. 1581 approves Development Agreement 2026-0002 to facilitate the development and conveyance of the 3.324-acre City-owned site for the Mariners Church Tustin Legacy project.
eComment: Mayor Austin Lumbard Mayor Pro Tem John Nielsen Council Member Ryan Gallagher Council Member Ray Schnell Council Member Lee K. Fink City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 To the Mayor and City Council, I'm a Tustin resident, and I'm not signing my name to this letter. That alone should tell you something about how people in this city feel about speaking up right now. But I want answers, and so do a lot of my neighbors. On September 16, 2025, a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Mariners Church for about 3.3 acres of City-owned land at Tustin Legacy appeared on your agenda. Public land at Tustin Legacy doesn't just end up in a deal with one buyer by accident. Somebody started this. Somebody decided this parcel would go to this church, on these terms, apparently without an open bid.

Residents deserve to know who. So I'm asking you directly: Who first proposed selling this land to Mariners Church, and when? Which Councilmembers met or talked with Mariners Church representatives about this property before it reached the agenda? Did any Councilmember direct or encourage City staff to negotiate with Mariners Church specifically, instead of putting the land out for competitive bids? Why was there no open request for proposals, the way the City handles other property? What is the sale price, what is the appraised value, and are there any discounts, credits or side agreements? Does any Councilmember, commissioner or senior staff member belong to, attend or have ties to Mariners Church? If so, did they recuse themselves? What limits, if any, will the City place on meetings and events at this site, and why weren't Council Member Fink's questions about them answered before the deal moved forward? Council Member Fink raised concerns about this deal, including questions about the church using the site to host meetings and events. That isn't a small detail. A campus that hosts large meetings and events affects traffic, parking, noise and how the surrounding neighborhood works every day of the week, not just on Sunday mornings. From what I've seen, the rest of the Council brushed those concerns aside instead of answering them. When a Councilmember who practices public transparency law says something about a deal doesn't look right, and the majority moves ahead anyway, that is a huge red flag. It makes the rest of us wonder what the Council doesn't want the public to see. The Council needs to come clean about this deal. Release the emails, meeting calendars, staff memos and negotiation records connected to it. Explain, on the record and in plain language, how this arrangement came together and who pushed it forward. If everything was done properly, transparency costs you nothing. You should also know that I have reported this to Voice of OC and asked them to look into it. I'm also prepared to file California Public Records Act requests for the documents I've listed above. I'd much rather the Council release them on its own. This is public land. It belongs to every resident of Tustin, not to whoever has the right connections at City Hall. We're watching how you handle this, and we'll remember it. A concerned Tustin resident cc: Voice of OC, P.O. Box 10020, Santa Ana, CA 92711 · [email protected]
View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://tustin.granicusideas.com.

Unsubscribe from future mailings

← All documents from this meeting