FOR WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2001 AT 4:00 P.M.


Chairman Pesqueira called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. Chairman Pesqueira adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting at 2:00 p.m. June 20, 2001, in the Executive Complex Building, Lower Level Conference Room.


Operations Director Staajabu Heshimu called the roll:

(C) Chairman Ralph R. Pesqueira-present
(VC) Vice Chairman Leland T. Saito-present
(M) Mateo R. Camarillo-not present
(M) Charles W. Johnson-present
(M) Marichu G. Magaña-present
(M) Shirley ODell-present
(M) Juan Antonio Ulloa-present
(EO) Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster-present



(C) Chairman Ralph R. Pesqueira-present

(VC) Vice Chairman Leland T. Saito-present

(M) Mateo R. Camarillo-not present

(M) Charles W. Johnson-present

(M) Marichu G. Magaña -present

(M) Shirley ODell-present

(M) Juan Antonio Ulloa-present

(EO) Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster-present



Comment by Faith Calloway stating that she has been a resident of City Heights East since 1982 when she moved to San Diego, and that she represented Swan Canyon Neighborhood Association. Ms. Calloway expressed that she is against changing the current boundaries of the City Heights community , and that City Heights East and City Heights West are distinctions for the Police only. Ms. Calloway stated that things are working very well in Districts 3, 4, and 7, and her feeling is that if it is not broke, don't fix it.

Bobby McManis and Toffin Kulevich were in attendance supporting Faith Calloway's statements.

Chairman Pesqueira wished to announce that the Commission does not read testimony into the record, however, all mail, including testimony received by email will go into the record and be part of the official documents. Should anyone wish to see those documents at a future date, they will be available.


Council Member Madaffer: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am here to speak and I have gotten some feedback, whereas perhaps I should weigh in a little bit on a few things relevant to my District. Since I spoke to you last, when I visited you in Tierrasanta, when you were there for the District 7 visit if you will. I am certainly happy to see a draft of a draft of a map -- I guess that's the way to put it - noting very closely this is not a preliminary plan - just a demonstration.

I want to make it really clear in respect to my District -- just leave District 7 the way it is. I know I have to gain about 7,000 or 7,500, but you know, I am very happy with the Council District I have, and I am not interested in changing it one bit. If you have to add a little here and there, that is fine. But I do not want things like College Grove Shopping Center taken away - I've heard about that one. I was disappointed that the Council Member from District 4 didn't even bother asking me first what I thought about that idea. I worked my tail off as a staff member building College Grove up to what it is today, and I think that the relationship between that community that is there now, and the shopping center, is one we want to maintain. It is completely surrounded by communities that are already within District 7, and I think you certainly want to avoid getting into the old "Filner Finger" thing that has happened in other areas, and certainly College Grove. What I would say, that would be like a sore thumb cutting right into the 7th District. The natural boundary lines make sense obviously, and we need to keep those.

You may not know something we have been involved in creating known as "CEAPER." It stands for the College Eastern Area Planning and Economic Review Program. "CEAPER" was an economic development study that took place a number of years ago through former Council Member Judy McCarty; I was her Chief of Staff at the time. We funded that using CDBG grant money, and we wanted to identify some of the economic problems that were taking place along University Avenue Corridor; along College Grove Drive; areas between Oak Park and Darnall. Because of "CEAPER," it really had a number of programs and multiple projects that were designed to refurbish business areas, and work with residential neighborhoods in the College and eastern areas that I know well, and walked during my campaign, and am interested in keeping. Right now I fund a position in the City Manager's Office as part of the "CEAPER" program which includes all of the communities that I have mentioned that are currently in District 7. We are even looking right now at forming a redevelopment area that will take it to the next step in the process for economic prosperity for those that live in the area, as well as the businesses in the area.

Council Member Atkins and I have a very good working relationship, and I want to keep that going. As I have described to you before, we have the Urban Village on the west, you have a 90 million-dollar investment known as the Ray and Joan Kroc Community Center, which not too many people know about, on the far eastern end of the City at University Avenue. This 90 million-dollar investment is essentially building a recreational facility that will include everything from an ice-skating rink to a multipurpose gym, swimming pools, playing fields, things that will not only serve the residents from the 7th District, but the 3rd District, and the cities of La Mesa and Lemon Grove as well. Why am I mentioning all of this to you? Because the "CEAPER" program has a synergistic element to it that is reflective of the current boundaries of District 7 right now. Not only is it a community of interest, but it is a community of economic interest, and one that I want to continue to increase the economic vitality of the area. 54th and Chollas; how many of you are familiar with that road behind K-Mart that goes from nowhere to nowhere? It is in an area that I affectionately call "Trash Triangle." It's been nothing but the subject of code enforcement problems for years; graffiti; vandalism; and nothing but a mess. Because of the "CEAPER" program, we're now able to take that area and it will soon be a 900 to 1,000-job economic Mecca where people will be able to walk to work. Because of the diversity in the area, the multitude of languages, it's a perfect spot to locate a high employment center where you draw on the talents in the District, and all the languages spoken in the area. In keeping with "smart growth," and rather than having people have to drive from here to there and wherever; why not put it in an area where it has been ignored, and now it is getting to see the beginning of revitalization through this "CEAPER" program. At 54th we are actually vacating the road. Where the road is today, will actually be the buildings and the jobs, and the people who can walk to work. As we look at the elements of "smart growth," we will be able to take a lot of the commercial corridors along University Avenue; you'll see tremendous change for the good. I want to keep working in that area of change, and I am already functioning in that direction right now in this redevelopment plan; from a budgetary standpoint; from a CDBG standpoint. I believe you will hear from others that they support this concept as well, and on that basis alone, the "CEAPER" program is very important.

I will touch briefly on City Heights. Many of you may know that I have about a third of City Heights in my District, and again, I'd like to leave it just the way it is. Just last night I was at the Fox Canyon Neighborhood Association Meeting where I presented them with a check from the City for $15,000. The meeting was actually in the 3rd Council District; half of the people there were from the 3rd Council District - it doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is that we do what we can to give these folks the tools to make their neighborhoods better. One of the CDBG projects was a "Neighborhood Tool Box" where the Fox Canyon Association will go out and buy shovels, and paint, and paint brushes so people in the neighborhoods can take control and fix up their own neighborhoods. Toni Atkins and I have a partnership, and I want to keep that partnership working, and I want to implore upon you, we need to keep that partnership working.

Again, I know you have got to gain about 7,000 from me. I wouldn't do too much but maybe add a little there, and add a little here. I'm already committed to coming in. I'll sit down at the computer and give you my two-cents worth, but again, my comments to you are; College Grove - it's District 7-- always has been and always should be. As you move forward in your deliberations and as I am saying to you - it works. Thank you for your time Mr. Chair, and I hope to come back again soon, hopefully to look at some good maps as you get closer and closer in your deliberations. I want to thank all of you personally on the Commission for all your time you have put in on this effort. Thank you very much.


Council Member Atkins: I was downstairs working diligently, and I heard your discussion of City Heights, and I had to run up and make a comment or two. I am still really pleased and thrilled that you are doing this job instead of the City Council. You know my thoughts are with you, and I think that the work you have done thus far is incredible, and I commend you for that. I think you have an interesting situation in the community of City Heights. I came particularly to talk about that because you have a situation where there are three Council Members who love representing City Heights. Maybe it's a first where you see someone fighting over a community or wanting to keep a community in tact because - you know, we love the work we are doing jointly. Deputy Mayor Stevens, Council Member Madaffer and I, to revitalize City Heights. I feel fortunate to have as much of that community in my District as possible. So, I think it is an interesting situation to see people fighting to keep disadvantaged communities rather than saying "give it to someone else."

I would like to comment on Fairmount. You know, the Mayor has ten goals, and we have all memorized them by now. One of them is creating neighborhoods we can be proud of. It is goal number three. It is the goal he has tasked me with, and part of that is creating a City of Villages. I would say to you that City Heights has an Urban Village, and you know I will be so bold as to say that maybe our good Mayor got the idea of the City of Villages from the work we have done in the last seven or eight years in City Heights on the Urban Village. The dividing line at Fairmount would absolutely cut our Urban Village in half. That does concern me because as someone who is committed to continuing resources - to make that revitalization continue to flow east/west north and south in City Heights, you might be -- not meaning to - but disrupting something that is working and in place, and took us decades to get to - that concerns me greatly. I do not want to be a person that directs you to do certain things just because I am a Council Member. I am not that arrogant or egotistical. On behalf of the residents in City Heights, I just want to say that I think they are well represented by the three Council Members that serve them. All three were elected by people who live in City Heights as well as other communities, and I would urge you first and foremost not to split the Urban Village. When I spoke to you back in Normal Heights, a month ago, my position was pretty much that District 3 is wonderful, can remain in tact, and meets all of your criteria I believe. I would ask you to still consider that. I know you have many more hearings to go, and maybe I'll be back. You certainly have kept me on my toes, and made me sure that I am listening and paying attention and not interfering too much - but I want you to consider that one point. I appreciate your letting me speak and I wish you continued success, I think you are doing a great job.

Chairman Pesqueira: As you look at boundaries - and we understand that the boundary comes down so that Fairmount Village and Fox Canyon - Fox Canyon is in District 7 - Fairmount Village in 3 - Islenair is 7 and Swan Canyon is 3 - that being the case, help us to understand - has this boundary line drawn ten years ago inadvertently caused dilution in voting strength in any protected population?

Council Member Atkins: It would be my own personal opinion from experience and working in the District for the last seven or eight years, and I'm a former resident of City Heights. I lived in the Swan Canyon area. I think we are moving in the right direction and City Heights is an absolutely wonderful community that points out to people that we have been able to include all of the ethnic populations. All of these communities have worked hard to come together, and some of these communities, particularly Fox Canyon, Islenair and Swan Canyon, have gained political clout and have found their voice.

Chairman Pesqueira: We are not to draw Districts specifically for the purpose of protecting any group. We're also not to allow Districts to be drawn that would disenfranchise or dilute votes. One of the things we are looking at, and although it is not the major priority, is to be sure that we are not approving a map that has inadvertently diluted voting power of any particular protected group.

Council Member Atkins: Yes. I don't see that you would do that by keeping these communities intact. Hopefully, you will have more people come from these communities, and weigh in from protected classes as well.

REDISTRICTING COMMISSION ACTION (Tape location: A089-307; B159-322.)


Approval of Commission Minutes for the Meeting of May 7, 2001 Approval of Commission Minutes for the Meeting of May 16, 2001 Approval of Commission Minutes for the Meeting of May 30, 2001


"This was a comment on page 11 I was quoted as saying under Tape B as follows: Commissioner ODell questions how much the Commission has actually heard from the Asian community. She suggests running an ad, Asians wanted.

There was a little more conversation going on regarding that issue, and I'd like to make a comment regarding that discussion because I feel really rather uncomfortable with San Diegans not having heard from these people, and we'd like to make sure that their representative position isn't hampered. After all, we are not a ubiquitous organization. We cannot anticipate and act in that role. Therefore, I would like to add to it - actually it is very important that we hear from these people if they want to be heard - if they don't, well that's all right too. It is very important that they know we are anxious to hear from everybody because we don't want anybody to think we are leaving them out - Asians and Pacific Islanders."

Unanimous; Commissioner Camarillo not present.


Item 5. Director's Report

Staff will provide updates on the status of operational issues including new information on the web page, consultant contracts, and siting future Commission meetings and public hearings. Possible direction to staff.

Operations Director Heshimu: Thank you Mr. Chair. I neglected to tell you that Kathy Valverde, the Manager's Liaison to the Commission is not here today because she had a slight accident as the pitcher on her baseball team; whoever hit the ball, hit her right in the nose, so she is swollen and broken up today.

I'd also like to reintroduce Karin Mac Donald, from Cain and Mac Donald who is here at your request to help discuss the voter ballot information you wished to discuss. For that reason I will try to make my report brief. As you requested, we have been in touch with several of the organizations in City Heights one way or another. We touched bases with the heads of the City Heights Town Council, the City Heights BIA, the CDC, the area Planning Committee and the Partnership. You will be hearing from them over the next couple of weeks. I also wanted to let you know that JA Consultants is working on some outreach things for those targeted communities as you directed, and they will be here at next week's meeting on June 20th to report their activities to you.

The Cain and MacDonald contract is signed and on it's way. The draft MOU is on Mr. Loveland's desk, and as Commissioner ODell suggested last week, we have the draft of the financial summary sitting on my desk waiting for me to pay attention to it. We will bring that to you as well. There is something that Commissioner ODell said last week, and I have thought about it every day since. "Well, I thought this was magic" - and I know you were kidding, but I believe I thought this program was going to be much more magical than it is, too. It has been a lot of hard work, and much thanks to our star Joey Perry for hanging in there. She really has guts. Karin - learning that we were actually doing demonstrations and running the program here at the Commission meetings, kept warning us, "no, no, no, you can't do that, what if you have a technical glitch - there are too many things that can go wrong." So, Joey has been very gutsy getting data at the very last minute and trying to do it for you right here. But, we are going to try and do that for you today, and if something goes wrong we will fall back to Plan 2. We think you are still on schedule. We have made some adjustments to the time line that we will discuss with you next week, but that has more to do with getting the information out to other people so they can draw maps, and it will be a little later than we originally scheduled before we are able to invite others into our office to play with the data. We want to keep you on schedule first, and we still think we have time to produce all that data on the Web site. I'm going to turn it over to the Chair and hope that Karin will share with us some of the data that has gone up into the computer.

·Commissioner Ulloa: Mr. Chairman, on the agenda it talks about siting future Commission meetings and public hearings. I was wondering Staa, if you were going to talk about that now or later.

·Operations Director Heshimu: We have not actually confirmed the locations, but in most cases we do know exactly what facility we want. The Council District 6 meeting is sited for Linda Vista. Mr. Johnson, do you know if the Bay Side Settlement House or the Linda Vista Library is in the District 6 portion?

·Commissioner Johnson: Yes, I think both of those are in the District 6 portion.

·Chairmen Pesqueira: Okay, so we'll keep item 5 open to discuss the possible meeting sites a little later on.

Item 6. Discussion of Voting Data to be Used in Redistricting Process

Commission members will discuss data sets to be used to evaluate voting patterns, for purposes of compliance with the Voting Rights Act in the redistricting process. Discussion of the list of recent elections for office and ballot measures distributed to Commission members at the June 6, 2001 meeting.

Possible action related to choosing the elections for office and ballot measures to be used by staff and the consultants for identifying voting patterns for purposes of Voting Rights Act analysis of the redistricting plan.

·Operations Director Heshimu: Actually, this item is on the agenda because Dr. Saito asked for it. Do you wish to get it started Dr. Saito?

·Commissioner Saito: We received a long list of different propositions and other items that were on the ballot, and I'm unclear whether or not they have political implications that are important for us too, in terms of redistricting. I wanted to hear the input from other members of the Commission, and also Karin Mac Donald on the potential for these. Looking through them, I didn't see any that would be important for us to look at in that way. That is why I wanted the input from other people.

·Commissioner Johnson: Mr. Chair, I spent several hours myself going through this list and looking at the propositions and the measures, and I am in concurrence with my colleague. From my point of view, I didn't see anything that stood out and grabbed my attention. Therefore, I would just like to move on.

·Chairman Pesqueira: Very good. We will move on and that will take us to Item Number 7.


Item 7. Development of Preliminary Map

Commission members will continue the map development process which began at the Redistricting Commission meeting of June 6, 2001. Staff will assist the Commission members in making further refinements to the draft preliminary map using the Maptitude Redistricting software. Mapitutude will also be used to analyze the effects of the proposed boundary changes on protected groups and communities of interest. Possible direction to staff relating to refinement of the draft preliminary map.



Comment by Michael Sprague stating that Council Member Madaffer said much of what he was going to say. Mr. Sprague identified the two people with him - Jessie Sargent, and Patty Vacarillo.

Mr. Sprague stated he saw a lot of people from a lot of different communities here from City Heights, and that one thing that does not exist is City Heights East and City Heights West. The Police Department does allocation maps and one of the things that they promised was that these would never be used are community boundaries. Mr. Sprague stated that Fairmount was the spine of their community and a lot of discussion was on dividing the "baby in half." Mr. Sprague expressed they like their current boundaries, and grew up in those boundaries. During the last redistricting was when the final borders of City Heights were created, and that the division between 3rd and 7th is primarily a canyon, so there is a real geographical boundary there, along Fox Canyon. The division between 3rd and 4th is along Home Avenue, again along a major canyon. Mr. Sprague noted that their canyons are their dividing lines, and they have learned to make it an asset. Mr. Sprague expressed that if the Commission were to divide them by cutting into Fairmount, which would be dividing them all the wrong way -- the canyons are real for them, the streets aren't.

Mr. Sprague stated that all the City Council Members have been incredibly good to City Heights, and that they have built a great coalition. Lastly, Mr. Sprague thanked the Commission for their time and asked that they keep them the way they are.

Questions for the Speaker:

Chairman Pesquiera referred to the map handout and asked the speaker Mr. Sprague to clarify some areas and boundary lines. Mr. Sprague informed the Chair that Chollas Creek, Islenair, Fox Canyon, and Colina were all in the 7th District; Ridgeview in the 4th District, and Chollas in the 7th District. Again, Mr. Sprague stated that City Heights is divided along geographic boundaries, and those boundaries actually came into existence during the last redistricting to match the geographic boundaries, and that it is the way they would like to be kept.

Commissioner Saito: I guess it is hard for me to grasp that it is a unified community of interest when it is separated into three separate City Council Districts.

Mr. Sprague: Yes. But if you divide along Fairmount you are literally dividing the center of the community in half.

Commissioner Saito: When you talk about those two canyons, Fox Canyon and Swan Canyon serving as natural geographic boundaries - isn't that creating separate communities of interest as they correspond to three separate Council Districts?

Mr. Sprague: They are slightly, yes, and geographically they are separate. So, I think to us those are boundaries that are natural to us because they are geographically there, and easy to deal with in terms of being a larger community.

Commissioner Saito: A community of interest would be a political community that would want to have sort of a unified voice within one District. You are saying something else exists, and that it works for you.

Mr. Sprague: We have learned that those geographical boundaries can be dealt with, and we like the divisions the way they are. They have brought the Council Districts together.

Commissioner Saito: Also, there is a concentration of Asian Americans in City Heights and Oak Park that is also divided into three separate Council Districts. Do you have any idea if that Asian American community sees themselves as a community of interest, and what they think about being divided into three separate Districts?

Mr. Sprague: I think that each of the Asian communities has a separate answer to that question. However, I think there is a cohesiveness that is building over time, but I don't know if that exists today. To date, most of the communities are individual, but that doesn't mean they see themselves as the same interest group.

Commissioner Ulloa: We have a chart here - Census 2000 population for City Heights which shows the total population to be 79,629, Hispanic 41,700; White 10,100; African American-Black; 10,800; Asian 13,200. One of my concerns is whether the interests of Hispanics or Latinos is being represented in the groups you represent. One of the things I am concerned about is that we had a meeting for District 8 in Otay, and out of the twenty or so people, one person of Hispanic origin was there. Here also today, I don't know if there are any Hispanics here representing any Hispanic interests of that neighborhood. According to the data here - half of City Heights is Hispanic. Can you respond as to whether those interests are being reflected in the Planning Groups or other political groups that are in City Heights?

Mr. Sprague: If you deal with it on those numbers, the answer is no, because the vast majority of that population is under 18. The number of Hispanics over age 18 is dramatically less. In City Heights half the people over 35 are White. There is also a portion of the Hispanic population that has been there for generations, so the Hispanic population in general is represented well. The Asian population in general is represented very poorly, but not because of lack of effort. The African-American community is getting more and more involved each year. So, if there is any disparity, it is in the Asian community.

Commissioner Ulloa: That it my concern in terms of looking at the map for City Heights. If there are a large number of people of color that are separated because of a District, and if that creates a dilution of voting power, or does not allow their other interests they may have in common to be represented - in any one of those three Districts - that is where I have a concern. So, I would like to be able to have some representation at some point of members of those communities to come before this group and give their opinion as to where their interest lies, so we can have a better overall view.

Mr. Sprague: If you were dividing based on ethnicity, you would be dividing north and south, not east and west. The vast majority of apartments by zoning are Colina del Sol and along University Avenue. That is where the immigrants come regardless of nationality, and it is where people who are moving to San Diego come as well. So, that is where you will find the highest concentration of minority groups.

Commissioner Ulloa: So, in general you are saying that the south side is where the lower-socioeconomic . . .

Mr. Sprague: The north.

Commissioner Ulloa: In terms of the socioeconomic, you are saying that the northern side has a greater profile of lower socioeconomic individuals.

Mr. Sprague: Right, by far.

Chairman Pesqueira: Thank you very much. That gives us a better insight. With that we will go to J. W. Stump.


Comment by J. W. Stump stating that he lives and works in Census tract 2502 and has done so for the last 25 years, and has been in the 8th and 3rd District. Mr. Stump stated that he presented the Commission a letter, and that he agrees with many proposals that have come before the Commission in assisting other groups and areas to unite their common interests. Mr. Stump expressed he had difficulty with the way it has been proposed to happen by further placing persons in protected classes on the fringe of Council Districts, rather than providing the opportunity now to fix the problem that was created in the transition from six Council Districts to eight Council Districts. Mr. Stump stated that he was the past Chairman under three Mayors for the Equal Opportunity Commission, and that his wife Elizabeth Moore Stump is an alternate to the Commission should there be a vacancy. She is a native, and the daughter of Archie Moore. Mr. Stump stated that City Heights today is a majority community of persons of color, and that they have little or no representation in City Heights or participation in the voting patterns. It has occurred because City Heights is the fringe for most Districts. Mr. Stump stated as the Commission sees in his letter there is an opportunity to correct that fringe nature, particularly when you look at the stats on the first map the Commission drafted. Mr. Stump expressed that today District 4 has one of the highest home ownership rates in the City of San Diego, but the home ownership rate in City Heights is only 20% or less. Mr. Stump asked that the Commission please help to continue the revitalization of City Heights by now empowering the population. Mr. Stump stated he would be happy to answer any questions.

Questions for the Speaker:

Commissioner Ulloa: Do you have any suggestion in terms of possible boundary changes, and in terms of empowering people of color and low income groups?

J. W. Stump: If you look at your starting point map you can see that District 2 could use some population. If you reversed the proposal we heard so far which is to reunite the Hillcrest area, if you did that in District 2, that would allow you sufficient room to bring the rest of City Heights into a single District. Anything you can do when you look at the numbers for the protected classes, which you haven't done yet, that would tend to group as Commissioner Saito said, "persons of light protected class status together would empower them." If you want to win District 3, you are very nice and respectful to the folks in City Heights, but you don't need to get them to vote. That is an area that is safe for you. If City Heights became less of a fringe area, maybe City Heights would be part of the political process more, maybe we would eventually elect our own Council Member.

Commissioner Johnson: Mr. Stump, you are absolutely correct when you state that the 4th District has the highest home ownership and has improved tremendously over the last few years. It seems to me you have really done your homework, and I want to thank you for that.

Commissioner Saito: Thank you for your comments Mr. Stump. You are saying that these Police Beats which are called City Heights West/ East should be within one Council District?

J. W. Stump: Actually, I don't have available all the data you have available to you. All the testimony you heard today is that the East/West term is simply a management tool of the Police Department, and doesn't have anything to do with the political and human life in City Heights; that's a management tool. I ask the Commission to look at the data concerning protected classes and see if there is an opportunity to bring them together in whatever way that makes more sense so that the political empowerment in those protected classes are enhanced. If you look back to the 1965 map - my District when it was in the 8th District received tremendous attention. From the point the new District map went into place, the decline began.


Comment by Jolaine Harris regarding Oak Park in 1952, and that the children she went to school with were Japanese and Chinese, and that they always had a diversity in their area. Ms. Harris feels they are the role models in their community for how people should be treated. The people that come into the community are treated with great respect. Ms. Harris also stated that when she went door to door in Oak Park for Council Member Madaffer, she talked to everyone personally to find out if everything is okay with the community. Ms. Harris noted that they have a newsletter that goes to 2,800 homes, and that they really try to get the Asian community involved. Lastly, Ms. Harris stated that she spoke with Council Member Stevens and that he said he would like to see 805 be the boundary line; that there is a large Asian population in five census tracts, and that Council Member Atkins would be fine with that too.


Comment by Don Mullen regarding working in Pacific Beach, but that he represents the College Business District. Mr. Mullen stated that the College Business District runs along El Cajon Boulevard; about 700 businesses along El Cajon Blvd., from 54th to the La Mesa border, which is about 73rd Street. Mr. Mullen stated they also have College Avenue from South of El Cajon Blvd., up to interstate 8, Montezuma and the business corridor around SDSU. Mr. Mullen stated that he wished to encourage the Commission to not use El Cajon Boulevard and that area as a dividing line. Mr. Mullen expressed it was his job to bring those communities together, and during the early days of planning the City did use El Cajon Blvd. to divide Planning Groups and Cities. Mr. Mullen stated he works for the businesses and represents the river that runs through it; the territory no one wants to take responsibility for. In many ways Mr. Mullen stated it was his job to bring the communities together.

Mr. Mullen stated he noted regarding Pacific Beach that there still was a deficit to deal with, and would like to remind the Commission that the Bay Park area now in Council District 6 is very compatible with the communities that are around that area. Lastly, Mr. Mullen stated that if the Commission did have to expand, that the Bay Park area and maybe the Morena area would be a pretty good fit.



·Commissioner Ulloa: I still have the same concern in terms of folks in the lower socioeconomic level in all these Districts. We haven't heard from the folks from the protected classes and groups, and I believe the folks that have spoken are sincere as to what they believe people in protected groups believe and think - but I want to hear from them. To me that goes back to the reflection of interest, or are the interests of the folks in the protected classes being reflected at these meetings? I think not. That again goes to the whole question of -- by dividing City Heights and protected groups into the three Districts. I think that is what creates the situation here, where you have no person of representation of those protected groups here. The last thing I want to do is to continue to dilute the voting strength and economic interest of protected groups. Hopefully, in drawing the map, we will be able to do so to satisfy the interests of most folks. I think we need to take a look at the Voting Rights Act and make sure we enforce that to its maximum - even if it does not please some folks. I don't think we are here to please everybody, nor can we. But, I think we are here to make sure that the Voting Rights Act is upheld.

·Commissioner Magaña: I just had a comment regarding the gentlemen who brought up the statistics on ethnic groups in the area. The one comment that you made was that - I'm sorry, it was the first group. You said that there were a high percentage of Hispanics in the area, but a higher percentage of those individuals are underage. So, now I want to turn to Karin and get more information or the data in regards to voting age, and the breakdown of that.

·Chairman Pesqueira: Karin, would you write that question down and then we can get to it. I'd like to get everyone else's comment.

·Commissioner Johnson: My comment is very similar to that of Leland's, we have to stay with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That is the key to resolving the whole issue - we have to do that. Everyone talked about boundaries and that kind of thing, but no one spoke about the Voting Rights Act of 1965 - that is our charge.

·Chairman Pesqueira: That's why we are going to turn to the statistics, and that is one of the things we will be seeing.

·Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster: To follow up on what you were saying, I think that is very important. I wouldn't want anyone left with the suggestion that if we do not have visitors from protected groups coming and testifying, that somehow we will be left with not being able to consider anything regarding those groups and this process. Certainly, we do have statistical information we will be looking at, and will be programmed into our system to help us make determinations regarding whether or not we are taking any actions that are detrimental. Obviously, it is ideal to be able to hear from people directly. I just wanted to comment that we certainly have information available to us that we will be considering even if we don't hear a lot of testimony from members of those groups.

·Senior Planner Joey Perry: We have had some technical difficulties since our last meeting, so I have probably only been able to work on the Maptitude software for about an hour. The data that we saved on the software we were unable to locate on the main drive until Monday morning. We do have the data from the Data Center loaded, and Karin will talk about that data.

·Operations Director Heshimu: Let me just interrupt for a moment to say that as Joey tells you she spent about one hour working on the program, which doesn't mean that she spent just one hour on all of the things that are related. In fact, Joey worked Saturday and Sunday. Karin was here, so they have been working tirelessly.

·Senior Planner Joey Perry: We will be relying on the consultants more than we originally anticipated. We have worked out the file transfer protocol now. They were able to load something this morning and send to me, and I was able to download it in moments as opposed to hours. We are getting better with each day.

·Consultant Karin Mac Donald: I'd actually like to add to that a little more. We have had pretty much every problem you could possibly imagine from not receiving e-mails, and I sent an e-mail to Joey about two weeks ago that she never received. I actually had sent it seven times. I sent it to Staa as well, nobody ever got it, so we had to get in touch with the City's Internet Provider to figure out what happens to these e-mails - they just disappear. We do have the e-mail problem straightened out, and then we started transferring data because what we needed at Berkeley to put this data set together is basically the City Council Districts, then the splits in the blocks. Whoever drew the City Council Districts the last time around had this great idea to just put a line through a Census block. The problem that presents is that you do not know how much of the population is from each side of the block, because the Census Bureau only provides you a total for the block. So, on Sunday, Joey looked at each of the housing units on each side of the block and then sent me block splits up to Berkeley. Then we allocated for each split block for the City of San Diego proportioned to the Census tract that particular block was in. What Joey has right now is a data set that has the accurate lines, and the accurate populations for the City Council Districts. The same is true for the Police Beats and for the Planning Areas as well. The only way we could figure out how to draw those lines accurately was to have a 8:00 a.m. meeting at the Airport on Monday morning where she gave me a big roll of maps that I then took back to Berkeley. We sat there with four people, okay, went right up there and left up there - somebody was sitting on the computer putting all those lines in, then our computer crashed. When Bruce looked at this, this morning, he said, "well you need to tell the Commissioners that they should be looking at the entire block anyway." You should get the split blocks from us probably tonight - she'll get a new data set with those lines since you are supposed to draw these lines using whole Census units. You will do the next Commission a big favor, I assure you, to keep these blocks whole. So, you need to make a decision where to allocate these blocks -- what side of the street basically you want to stick them in. This data set right now has an abbreviated version of the PL 94.171 file , which is the Census data. That is the file that has all of the racial and ethnic data, as well as the age of the population. The variables that we stuck in there are a little more extensive than the ones that you have on that sheet from SANDAG. Bruce and I played around with the data and feel confident that you absolutely have to look at race + one to get at the real racial population. So, what we gave you is total population for the Census okay, and this comes from Table 1, and the Table 1 has Latinos in it - so this is the maximum population. You might remember that Bruce was talking about looking at maximum population and minimum population.

·Commissioner Ulloa: What table are you referring to?

·Consultant Mac Donald: You don't have it. I was actually referring to the SANDAG sheet that showed by City Council. This is what SANDAG put together. I explained to Joey that we all feel pretty strongly that you have to be looking at race + one. It really does make up for a solid increase to the total population by race.

·Commissioner Ulloa: I'm sorry. What do you mean race + one?

·Consultant Mac Donald: If you remember the data layout for the PL 94 for the Census redistricting they just released. Since you could check more than one box in race, e.g., if people basically checked White and Black, then that is race + one. So it is like White + Black; race + one. It is also counted as Black + one. So, all of these possibilities are listed in the table, in the Census table. So, what we did was we looked at all of the like White + one - it was White + African-American; White + American Indian; White + Asian; then it goes down to African-American + White; African-American + American Indian, and so on. We just aggregated them up to say White + one; Black +one; Asian + one; Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander + one - then there was some other race + one. So you get all the single race categories, then you get the single race categories + one, then you get a total of two or more races which is also a separate variable. So, we aggregated all of these things together into one variable. So, if you want to look at what kind of population checked just two races, then you can do that.

·Commission Ulloa: What about in terms of if you are White/Hispanic + one? Does your data show that the person not only is in the White race, is Hispanic, and is also part Black?

·Consultant Mac Donald: That Census tape doesn't show you White/Hispanic - that particular variable. The way that you would get that is to look at Table 2 which has the Latinos taken out, and you basically just subtract Table 1 from Table 2, and that is how you get the Latinos only. We did these aggregations for the two tables, and that really cuts it down a whole lot. We ended up with one additional variable actually, which is 3 +. So, that is all the people that checked three races or more, and we stuck them all in there because that is a very small fraction of the population. If you ever - on that Census block you get a higher population, we will break it down and look at it in more detail. So, those are the Census variables Joey has.

What we also did was we gave her some registration data. Our registration data is Surname matched. That means that all the last names of people are run through Surname dictionaries, and if that particular last name is in the Surname dictionary, then it gets flagged under a particular ethnicity or nationality. Now, there is a lot wrong with that. I just had the Surname dictionary we used copied for you and Staa has it, so if you want to take a look at it. We used a new Surname dictionary. That way, we actually pulled out some of the Asian categories. We can do better than the Census right now because as you know, the only Asian variables are just Asian-total. Then you have Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders.

·Commissioner Magaña: My name is Hispanic, but I am Filipino.

·Consultant Mac Donald: Yes. What might give you an indicator is - you are looking at communities of interest, or if you are looking at some sort of Voting Rights issue. It is better than nothing. Joey has that too.

In addition, we have assessor data. This tape is current as of October 2000 and gives variables like sales price on the house, and housing value, and then date recorded. Also, a bunch of land-use variables. As we all know Prop. 13 made it a little bit difficult if the house wasn't sold recently to access any kind of housing value. Bruce and I talked about it, and we firmly believe that we should look at homes that were recorded in the last ten years as having turned over and sold. You really only need to look at two or three parcels on a block to get an idea what that block looks like. The other variable you can look at is renter/ownership information; single family residences; dwelling information. So, this can be used to give you a little socioeconomic indicator.

We would suggest and from reading the transcript from when Bruce was here, looking at Prop. 187, one of those famous wedge issues and part of the terrible threes. 209, 227, and Prop. 22 because of a lot of gay and lesbian issues that came up in the hearings - and he thinks that should pretty much do it, and I agree. We talked to Mr. Kern and we talked to Joey. Nobody could immediately come up with a San Diego issue. People have to think about it for a few days. Mr. Kern recommended Seaworld, a growth proposition; and the George Stevens' race for Mayor. Our recommendation would have been only if we have to, absolutely have to, because it's really difficult to put these data sets together because you are putting geography together from all different departments. It's time consuming and very pricey. We can look into how difficult it would be to get the precincts for these races, and how difficult it would be to work with the data from the Registrar. I could probably get a good idea of how difficult it would be in about half an hour.

·Chairman Pesqueira: My hope would be that we don't wash this entire City through data. But, where we get to areas that we're not quit sure where a particular Census tract or Census unit needs to move, then we begin to start looking at the data in a prioritized way to try and find them.

*Senior Planner Joey Perry brought up maps and various Census tracts for the Commission to look at and discuss.

·Consultant Mac Donald: What also might make sense is - if you would give us some variables for particular areas that you would like to see so we could bring in some large maps that we have prepared with the statistics, so that she doesn't have to do this very quickly.

·Chairman Pesqueria: The maps that show the Police Beats are nice maps, and the one map that we received from the speaker is a nice map. Can the computer give us a map similar to this, then a second sheet with the primary variables on it? Can we print that out before the next meeting and have it sent to us if that is possible?

·Consultant MacDonald: Yes. Sure. You just need to tell us what to put on it.

·Chairman Pesqueria: I am concerned about some areas in District 3, some in District 8, and an area in District 4. We're going to have to make some decisions on those, and they may or may not be popular decisions, but they are going to have to be made. It would be good for us to look at those areas. I'd like to concentrate on areas that seem to be drawing fire.

·Commissioner Ulloa: Karin, I had mentioned before at looking at educational level, income level . . .

·Chairman Pesqueria: Juan, may I suggest that we look at the primary items first? Rather, than to jump to income level? I believe it is not the income level that will drive us as much as the ethnic breakdown in the area.

·Commissioner Ulloa: Yes. But, I understand that we cannot use race alone to make these determinations. It is important to use these other factors because we run the risk of being accused of basing our boundary changes on just race alone.

·Chairman Pesqueria: Yes, I hear what you are saying.

·Commissioner Magaña: By following the Police Beats, or the community of interest maps, or the planning area maps, that is a variable that we can say we used - then we will be fine.

·Consultant Mac Donald: Actually, we do not have educational attainment. SANDAG might have it. The median income data, and the SANDAG projections are on 1990 Census tracts. While we are working on bringing them up to 2000 Census tracts, these are not good data to look at.

·Commissioner Saito: Karin, would you say that socioeconomic data is a good indicator or a good proxy for other sorts of data such as educational level?

·Consultant Mac Donald: No, I don't think it is.

·Commissioner Ulloa: It is my understanding that educational achievement is closely alined to socioeconomic levels, so that you can make some relationship between the two. Many times your socioeconomic level can almost always predict your educational achievements. So I think there is some ability to take a look at that - if you see one, you'll probably also see the other.

·Lisa Foster: I am thinking of the legal implications of what we are doing here, and granted some of the things we are doing are exercises, but everything we do here is a part of building our record and showing the things that are important to us. So, I do think there is some value as Juan was saying at looking at some race neutral factors, and I'm certainly interested in hearing Karin -- what you would think would be appropriate. I'd like to see us get something other than just race related data. Whatever other indicators of communities of interests might you think appropriate?

·Consultant Mac Donald: I'm not sure you can call them indicators of communities of interests - the variables we were just discussing. You have the Police Beats - what people feel strongly about are indicators of communities of interest. We have the community planning areas and we have voting behavior. So, there is plenty of non-racial data in this particular data set. If you want more - I would suggest getting neighborhoods.

·Commissioner Johnson: At the last meeting I think we talked about priorities and it seems to me if we put everything in its proper perspective here - one person - one vote, etc. - we could accomplish what we are trying to accomplish. As Lisa stated so eloquently to us, race cannot be used as the primary factor. If we follow our lists then I think we can go back and double check that the race, and the different ethnic groups are covered. We don't need to put the horse before the cart. Let's do this in an organized manner.

·Commissioner Ulloa: I think as the map stands today - a lot of the pieces are in. We might want to look at all our criteria except race until the end, and see if in the end are we diluting the voters' strength of the protected groups. If we are, then go back in and say we are making this change not to enhance the voting strength, but to prevent further dilution of that particular protected group. We can then frame our evaluation of the lines so that we are not at risk of any type of violation of the law.

·Commissioner Saito: If I could disagree then. I think the map that we developed last week - it was my understanding it was merely a mapping exercise. I thought we would start over again from scratch. I think we should consider racial data from the beginning concurrently with the other sorts of data so we could sort of see it all holistically, rather than separate parts. We should look at the entire City and some things we didn't consider, for instance, looking at some of the population distribution maps that our staff prepared before. As the Districts now stand, the Asian-American population is divided between Districts 1 and 5, which we didn't consider at all last week. In addition, now it is divided between 6 and 5, and between 3, 4, & 7. Some of these things we have to reconsider in terms of what we were doing last week, and think of that only as an exercise. We should look at the entire City again, and important kinds of data for the entire City. Some of the areas that we are particularly concerned about, such as City Heights - where that part is between 2 & 8 - we can look at that in more detail.

·Operations Director Heshimu: Mr. Chair, in order to keep us on our time line we need to either make some big decisions today, or tell us what you would like to see and we will draw the maps and try to come back with them in hard copy format. For example, there are a number of things we heard out in the communities that we did not try. We did not try to move Rancho Penasquitos as the people asked us to; we did not try to separate part of Mira Mesa. We are going to bring all of those things to your attention. While we are drawing the maps, we are also working on the analysis, and the reasoning behind the changes that you are making. You tell us what you'd like to see, and we'll come back with it, or you can try it right now.

·Commissioner Ulloa: I agree that the map is still open and should be - it's a draft. We should look at all these factors. Staa, I don't understand what it is you're asking us to give you. Are you asking us to tell you which top five factors we want your staff to look at, or are you wanting us to continue to give you more detail on these boundaries?

·We want you to tell us where to put City Heights for example. If you cannot make a decision on what you agree on, then we want you to say okay, show us what all of City Heights looks like in District 7. Show us what all of City Heights looks like in District 3 - you know. You can give us that and we'll try some things for you. But somebody has to make that decision.

·Commissioner Ulloa: Without specific data on the maps, it is difficult to give you any specific information where City Heights should go. On racial make-up; racial level; voting data; ownership, etc.

·Operations Director Heshimu: The Police Beats are there. The Community Planning areas are there. We loaded all this today.

·Commissioner Johnson: Mr. Chair, I feel very strongly what we need to do is crunch the numbers. I see that as a very high priority - within each District. The second thing we must do is follow the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Let the staff bring us back something with the numbers crunched and build on that.

·Commissioner Magaña; In regards to what Leland stated, I agree with that and also to take a look strictly on certain variables and the first one would be ethnicity. To lump the ones that we can - because they are in certain areas - and if you lumped them, they would be a cohesive whole. You can't go from Rancho Bernardo all the way to Otay Mesa. Take that information first and then follow the other ones. My second thing is that, I would suggest that each of us come down and draw our own maps and then come back in. Then at least we could look at the numbers and variables that we are very interested in, and then do our maps.

·Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster: I just wanted to say that from a legal standpoint, I support the proposal that Charles is making as far as talking about the numbers first. It does make sense to start with the numbers, and then step back from crunching the numbers and look at the consequences of crunching the numbers. That is more consistent with our directive and from a legal perspective.

·Commissioner Magaña; What I am suggesting is that if we do that, you basically are left with the same Districts. You are going to increase 2 just a little bit. We don't really have an exercise of - you know - Census tract 51 - we don't have to worry about that because the numbers are crunched. Let's look at the issue of providing an opportunity for certain groups to have that voting ability. Again, I'm not saying that's all we're going to look at. I'm open to all of the different suggestions, but the way I can function most effectively, is to just go in and draw my maps. Come back and give my explanation of why I drew my map a certain way.

·Chairman Pesqueira: We must find eight Districts and only eight. Those eight Districts must be within plus or minus - 5 percent is the target we shot - of the same population. That to me comes first. We can look at them, and then have staff come back and give us all the breakdowns. I still believe we start with the eight Districts with the numbers in there - approximately 153,000. Once we are satisfied that we've got those eight Districts, then I say let's go and look for anything we want to look at.

·Commissioner ODell: I agree with you. Let's not get too complicated to begin with. Let's build as we go along.

·Chairman Pesqueira: Another thing - when we look at these Districts, we should have some kind of a cut off. The chart looks like we have hundreds of zeros - we can eliminate those right off the bat, and then work up the scale and find out where does it become important for us to know - that a particular group in any one of the Districts - if there are only 13 in that Census tract - only 23 in that Census tract - or 123 - what impact does that have? If it changes nothing, then what value is it to spend much time on that? Let's look at numbers that are close to each other - look at numbers that will be affected by a boundary drawn through them, rather than to try to find out for example how many people went to college in the middle of District 8, or any District you want. Let's go around the borders there, because at least they give us something we can work with and start with. If we start too far away, then we have no borders. Then we would be lost, and looking at months of work.

·Consultant Mac Donald: Suggestion. If you were to direct us for example to put these Police Beats in the District and just see how many people you would get - that would be easy to do.

*Senior Planner Joey Perry and Consultant Karin Mac Donald pulled up maps showing various variables the Commission had been talking about, and answered questions regarding that.

·Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster: I want to correct a statement that the dilution isn't specific to the ethnic groups having the ability to vote candidates of their same color. That's not what - the standard is closer to what Juan said, and that is to be able to elect candidates of choice, and to have their voting on whatever their issues are of interest to them, be reflecting. But there is dilution and there is dilution. Some dilution is insignificant from a voting rights and a statistical standpoint. So, we would need to look at a lot more than just the fact that we might have a geographically compact group that falls into an ethnic category to determine if taking a part of that population and putting it somewhere else is a significant dilution for purposes of voting rights. It's a little more than that.

·Commissioner Johnson: Concerning the Police Beats maps - how accurate are those boundaries? Have we verified those? I have some testimony here in my notes that some of those boundaries on those Police Beat maps that we have discussed have been off and not exactly where they appear to be.

·Senior Planner Joey Perry: We took the basic - the geographic file that the Police Department uses and provided that to the consultants, and we also provided to them the maps we took out to the community.

·Consultant Mac Donald: So we have a hard copy map. We got the shape file which did not align with the geography, so we looked at the map and looked at the streets and made assignments. So, what we have - they have.

·Senior Planner Joey Perry: We do believe they are accurate, but the maps we provided to the consultants do not include any changes or corrections based on some of the testimony we heard earlier. But, some of the testimony we heard, people were mistaken as to what was a Police Beat, what was a community, and what was a neighborhood. So, the Police Beats were accurately reflected.

·Commissioner Magaña: If we go back to what we said was our first priority, which were strictly numbers, why are we having such a detailed discussion on this particular block, this particular block? When clearly District 2 needed population and someone said we can give up that particular portion of our population. Let's stick with the numbers right now - I don't really agree with handpicking certain blocks, and say okay, we're going to keep this one, and this one, and this one. We should definitely not be doing that. We should be looking at the Police lines or the Districts or how they do it. I feel more comfortable with that.

·Operations Director Heshimu: Thank you Commissioner. What would be helpful to us is if you would make the big decisions, and then we'll put on a list those little things. They are not little to the people that live there, and of course they are not little to the Commission. If we could make the big decisions, then we could make a list to come back to those. There are some places you said last week - well, we may want to look at the block level, rather than Census tracts. If you can make the big decisions so that we can come back with a general idea of two or three different ways to present this to you - we can work on some of those smaller areas by presenting a full slate of data for those areas.

·Chairman Pesquiera: The reason I chose this, it seemed to me to present all of the variables that could possibly be used. As Staa just said if we moved District 2, Otay Mesa/Nestor area into the Otay - so that's one District. We do, as I recall, have to take something out of District 8. Since the Council person had mentioned 51 as the Census tract we could take out - I knew if I were to say let's just take 51 out - immediately someone was going to say, and Juan said it - "well, that is diluting Barrio Logan." That's why I wanted to take a look at the blocks right then and there to see in fact whether or not that was the case. But, I still want to go along with the idea of staying with the equal number of people in each District, and then as we move a particular Census tract, we can look at that tract to see if there is anything in that Census tract, plus the Census tracts around it to see if we're splitting something there that is cohesive.

·Commissioner Magaña: We can't look at the small Census blocks in and of itself - we need to look at the whole District. By including the west part of South Bay as one District, we have already increased the voting strength of whatever group. Now, they have to give something up, and if that means the northern part, well, you know unfortunately for the people who live there, they are just going to have to be with another District. The other option is to not take that part of 2 away. That is my concern. We are getting into this nitty gritty stuff, when you are not looking at the bigger picture of before they had a 100 Latinos, but then they included District 2 and now they have 150, and now we are quibbling about ten additional people.

·Chairman Pesqueira: You are right. I am looking at the map of last week, and with the exception of District 2, everybody is within the five percent. If we were to go back and look at District 2 to see how that looks and what impact it will have on District 1, as well as District 6 - then we have solved that. If you want to go any further - then we have to turn to the blocks.

·Commissioner Johnson: We have got to make a decision, and again we have to do the numbers for each District. Let's do the numbers, we can decide on this map, and build on that. Once the numbers are in place, then we go back and do some of the stuff we are tinkering with now. Build on the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

·Commissioner Saito: For myself if I had much larger maps, and each was laid out with variables, e.g., Asian-Americans/Pacific Islanders; African-Americans; Latinos; so that would be a set of maps. Maybe then a set of maps showing economic data. Another map showing voting patterns. Then, a set of transparencies that I could use so I could take the District boundaries as they now stand, and say, "okay, how do these current boundaries match the data we now have." How do we know about the inequities that may now exist according to race, economical level or whatever, if we don't see this data?

·*Senior Planner Joey Perry brought up additional maps for discussion regarding District 2.

·Commissioner Ulloa: In terms of East Village, why not at this point use the Police Beat? East Village would be in 2 according to the Police Beat, and Barrio Logan would be in 8 according to the Police Beat - leave it at that now.

·Chairman Pesqueira: If we can do that, and we know the Census blocks starting at the boundary at 2 and 8, and working toward Coronado Bay Bridge. If we take a half of a dozen of these blocks for example and move them over, what kind of a population do we have? I have no problem with that.

·* Senior Planner Joey Perry brought up maps for discussion.

·Commissioner Ulloa: On the northern side, that community you mentioned earlier, Bay Ho, Bay Park. I only recall one person that mentioned that she wanted that community in Pacific Beach. We need to look at other factors to see if they have a common bond.

·Chairman Pesqueira. I like Interstate 5 as a strong dividing line. When we bring a District that is on the east side of 5, and put it in with the west side of 5. I don't know if we are doing something good at that point.

·Commissioner Johnson: District 6 is pretty well in balance, and if you take those two out of District 6 - probably will have a effect on District 6.

·Commissioner Saito: Bay Park is right near Mission Bay - in many ways it does have a natural boundary that separates it from Clairemont.

·Chairman Pesqueira: The only population would be that population at Garnet, Mission Bay Drive, Mission Bay High School. The population is right down in that area - Garnet - where Balboa goes under the freeway.

·Commissioner Saito: We could add Bay Park, but not Bay Ho. I think Bay Park makes sense. People have talked about that, but Bay Ho has a different set of circumstances.

·Chairman Pesquiera: Let's finish up here with 51 and see what it does for us. District 8 is at point 64, so they are very good. If we add the population that is in 51 . . .

·*Senior Planner Joey Perry brought up the map regarding the 51 Census tract with the Police Beats.

·Commissioner Ulloa: Assume that Police Beat is Barrio Logan, and if we kept it in District 8 - moved East Village Police Beat in District 2, I think we are on our way in giving District 2 the numbers they need.

·Chairman Pesquiera: Joey, if you would check that during the week to get the population there so we can take a look at that.

·Operations Director Heshimu: You might take a look at City Heights, frankly, I do not know where it is now, but you might look at that while you are making these other decisions.

·Chairman Pesquiera: That is a very good point because we moved City Heights.

·*Senior Joey Perry answered questions regarding moving the equipment and what maps could be provided to the Commission at future meetings.

·Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster: Just a couple of things. I know there is not complete agreement on the method. To some extent we are certainly not limited to working on this one map - using this one map. I don't want to commit the staff to working behind the scenes, but I am wondering why they couldn't work on alternative maps, and if some of you want to try working on a map using a totally alternative method, e.g., if Marichu wants to do something totally different - is there some method that direction can be communicated to the staff? Then those maps can be brought in for everyone to see based on the different methods that people want to use. I don't want to see us get so stuck working on one map that we forget we certainly have the option of staff drawing alternatives for us using whatever method you want to try.

·Senior Planner Joey Perry: Yes, we can do that.

·Chairman Pesqueira: Just send one e-mail to Staa, she then e-mails your request to Joey, and it will be available for everyone to see. For next week is it possible to get maps with a District showing the surrounding Census tracts.

·Senior Planner Joey Perry: It will be difficult to get a complete District on one map. But, we can give you several maps. I would certainly be happy to create individual ones with all the data you request.

·* Discussion was held regarding what the Commission would like to see on future maps, especially total population by Police Beat.

·Commissioner Saito: All this discussion of Police Beats - we still have no idea where communities of interest lie. All we have is population and the Districts by population, but we do not know if we are fragmenting communities of interest.

·Consultant Mac Donald: It depends on your definition of "community interest."

·Chairman Pesquiera: Next week we can start off with the number one map. It is evenly divided by8 Districts, and we know there are some areas that we need to look at very closely. At that point in time we will see if there is a division on either side of a boundary. We can see if that boundary line needs to be moved one way or another.

·Commissioner Magaña: I just want the population for all the Police Beats. If it is easy, put in the ethnicity.

·Consultant Mac Donald: I will e-mail it to Staa, you can print it out and distribute.

·Commissioner Saito: So, next week we will have our boundaries of our proposed map which we can overlay on the City, and then we can look at different sort of factors, and looking at boundaries of our proposed map, see if they do keep whole or fragment communities of interest depending on how we define them.

·Consultant Mac Donald: On the computer.

·Commissioner Ulloa: What I would like to see at the next meeting is to have the map that we worked on last week, and for the staff to show us population, Planning Groups, Police Beats, race, and voting data on the computer.

·Senior Joey Perry: We will work to have that happen.

·Chairman Pesquiera: If you will look at Census tract 51, move out that area we just talked about, go to probably 91.01 (Bay Park) and move that into District 2. Next week when we come in we'll see what kind of balance we have. We'll also look at Commissioner Saito's suggestion next week as well.

·Operations Director Heshimu: Mr. Chair, last week you stated that we should start looking at long meetings - I think we are at that point. I'd like us to start thinking about coming in early on June 20th.

·Chairman Pesquiera: Okay, and please start thinking about going into two nights. I'd like us to have the preliminary map ready to go before the 4th of July.


Item 8. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Ralph Pesqueira at 7:50 p.m.


Ralph Pesqueira, Chairman
2000 Redistricting Commission

Peggy Rogers
Legislative Recorder II

Site Map Privacy Notice Disclaimers