FOR THURSDAY, JULY 12, 2001 AT 6:00 P.M.

Chairman Pesqueira called the meeting to order at 6:09 p.m. Chairman Pesqueira adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. to the next scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m. July 16, 2001, at the Sherman Heights Community Center.

Mr. Heshimu called the roll:

(C) Chairman Ralph R. Pesqueira-present
(VC) Vice Chairman Leland T. Saito-present
(M) Mateo R. Camarillo-present
(M) Charles W. Johnson-present
(M) Marichu G. Magaña-present
(M) Shirley ODell-not 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-present

(M) Charles W. Johnson-present

(M) Marichu G. Magaña -present

(M) Shirley ODell-not present

(M) Juan Antonio Ulloa-present

(EO) Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster-present



Chairman Pesqueira wished to thank everyone for being at the meeting and wished to note that it is always good when the Commission can look out and see the neighborhood represented, and people showing an interest in their neighborhood. Chairman Pesqueira expressed it was important to know what the neighborhood likes and wants, and if they can, they will try to accommodate those wishes.

Chairman Pesqueira announced that during their survey they discovered there is a potential Voting Rights violation on the preliminary map. The consultant from Berkeley was requested to do a very detailed and minute survey of all of the census tracts around that particular area in order to find out whether or not there is a Voting Rights situation. Once the potential violation was discovered, Chairman Pesquiera stated that the Commission got together and drew another map in the event there had to be a change. Chairman Pesquiera noted that if they do have to make a change, the Commission would be looking at the movement of 80,000 people which would be significant.



Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster introduced herself stating that she was on loan from the City Attorney’s Office to be a part of the Redistricting Commission through the process as their legal advisor. Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster noted the handout called "Factors to be Considered," in drawing boundaries, and how important it was to hear public testimony tonight, and that some of the factors relate so closely to input from the public.

Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster stated that the first item on the sheet was "equalize the population of the Districts," and that it was first and foremost the highest priority in the Redistricting process. It is based on the constitutional principle called, "one person, one vote." Each person’s vote for their representative should be worth the same amount of representation as someone’s else’s vote in their District. Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster stated that right now since it has been ten years since the last Redistricting, the City has grown substantially, and that growth hasn’t been even — some Districts are very far from the ideal number for the Districts to be equal in population. Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster expressed that as far as how much difference between each District is allowed under the law, the basic rule is about 10 percent total variation. Each District cannot be more than 5 percent greater or smaller than the ideal number that is determined for the District, and right now both the preliminary plan and the alternate map is well within that 10 percent variance. Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster stated that she believed the preliminary map was at about a 7.4 percent total deviation, which is well under the 10 percent tolerance.

Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster noted that the next legal principal the Commission had to follow was the Voting Rights Act; a Federal Statute from the sixties based on the idea that racial, ethnic, and language groups should not be harmed by the Redistricting process. Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster stated that she had given everyone the basic three part tests for when a racial, ethnic, or a language group is entitled to special protection and consideration in having a District drawn around them. The third part of the test is to look at the white population in the same geographical area, and determine does the white population vote in a way that defeats the preferred candidates and issues of the minority group? If all factors are identified when you look at a study of voting patterns and demographics; then there is a group entitled to special protection under the law, and does create certain obligations on the part of the Commission to draw lines in order to maximize the voting strength of that group.

Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster noted that there is a Voting Rights Act study underway relating to the City Heights area of San Diego that is currently split between Districts 4, 3 and 7. Should the Commission based on the study find that group needs to be unified into a single District, that would have a significant effect on the map as well as a potential ripple effect on other Districts. Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster stated that is why the Commission is not going forward right now with the preliminary map, and has presented the alternate map that they may have to turn to. Hopefully, the Voting Rights issue will be resolved by the end of the month at the Commission’s regular meeting downtown on July 25, 2001. The Commission will have the results of the study, and will be determining whether there is any need to deal with the alternate map at all at that time. Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster stated that another principal that the Commission has to deal with regards racial and ethnic groups; number three on the list. Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster stated that she calls that principal "No Racial Gerrymandering," a concept that comes from a line of Supreme Court cases that are from the 1990's — primarily the Shaw versus Reno case in North Carolina. The Court found that in some cases, race should not be given too much consideration in the redistricting process, so in some respects it is the opposite concept from the Voting Rights Act. In the case in North Carolina, the Redistricting Agency had drawn a District that was a very irregular shape to try to pull as many African-Americans into a single District as possible. The people pulled into the single District were very geographically spread out and not in a compact dense area. The Court described it as looking like a bug splattered on a windshield, and it really defied redistricting principals of having compact neat shapes in your Districts. Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster stated this was found to be a legal violation to draw lines around them, and hopefully gives everyone tonight an idea how difficult the legal issues can be for the Redistricting Commission.

Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster referred to the legal principals the Redistricting Commission had to follow from the City Charter, and said that they are also important, but take a "back seat" to those constitutional principals. Also, this is the first year in the history of San Diego that an independent Commission of volunteer citizens are doing the redistricting work, which is what the citizens wanted.

Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster noted that there must be eight Districts unless there is a Charter change, and that all the Districts need to be contiguous territory, except for the southern portion of District 8. All the Districts need to be geographically compact to the extent possible. The Districts are supposed to be bounded by natural boundaries and streets to the extent possible; the Districts are supposed to preserve identifiable communities of interest to the extent possible. Whole census units are to be used, generally census tracts or a smaller unit which is a census block. Finally, the Districts are not to be drawn to create an advantage for incumbent elected officials.

Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster addressed a question regarding how the plan can be challenged by citizens that may be unhappy with the plan:

"At the time that our final plan is filed, a thirty-day period will commence where legal challenges can be brought by the public and there are really two ways that can be done. A lawsuit could be filed in court if there was someone who felt that there was some sort of legal violation involved in the Redistricting. In addition to that, this plan is subject to the power of referendum which means that citizens who are unhappy with the plan can challenge it by going through a petition process. That is the same process that was used to challenge the City on the beach-alcohol ban if you have been following that at all. It is a petition process that requires signatures of at least 5 percent of the registered voters of the City. If such a petition was presented, then the Commission would be given a choice to either go back to the drawing table or have the issues determined by special election. At that time the City Council would put the process in motion to have a special election. Those are the basic legal principals that relate to this process."



Operations Director Staajabu Heshimu stated that the last of the public hearings will be next Thursday, July 19th. After that the Commission will return to its regularly scheduled meetings on Wednesday afternoons at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. They will have at least weekly meetings, but they may have more meetings depending on the Chair and the Commission. Operations Director Staajabu Heshimu noted that the Commission can always call special meetings, but that for now, they are scheduled starting July 25th. Those meetings are also scheduled to be broadcast on the City’s cable channel. All that is left for the Commission to do after the public meetings is to adopt the final map. The Commission cannot do that for thirty days after the preliminary map was filed. It was filed on July 10th. Therefore, not before August 10th can they adopt and file a final map. They may adopt the preliminary map as is, or they can make changes to it. Operations Director Staajabu Heshimu stated that the final map becomes effective thirty days after it is adopted and filed. The Commission is trying to get the final map over to the Registrar of Voters by their due date of September 12th. That way the new boundaries will be effective in the City starting with the March, 2002 elections. After that, it would be effective for the next ten years, or until the lines are redrawn again. That time line would be interrupted only if there was a referendum as stated by the Deputy City Attorney.

Senior Planner Joey Perry stated that every ten years they need to re balance the population within the Council Districts; this year each Council District should have about 153,000 people. Some Council Districts had much more than that, e.g., Council District 5 which needed to loose 35,000 people, and Council District 2 that needed to gain about 25,000 people to reach the ideal of 153,000.

Senior Planner Joey Perry gave an overview of the District 6 area stating that one of the first things they looked at was the foot or tail of District 5 that goes into District 6. What the Commission heard during the first round of public meetings was that the communities of Kearny Mesa, Clairemont Mesa, and Linda Vista should be reunited. Senior Planner Joey Perry stated that the Commission was basically able to do that by moving the boundary line of District 6 up to Highway 52. The other major change in District 6 was the Pacific Beach area; half of it had been in District 6. Because District 2 needed to gain so much population, Pacific Beach was united into District 2. Senior Planner Joey Perry referred to the maps stating that District 8 is still in two different parts of the City, northern and southern. In reality there is a strip of the City 75 feet wide that runs through the bottom of the Bay. That 75 foot strip is in District 8 and connects the northern part of District 8 to the southern part of District 8. In the existing plan that 75 foot strip was shared between District 2 and District 8. Now that area has been combined.

Senior Planner Joey Perry gave an overview of the maps that showed the Police Neighborhoods and the Council District boundaries. The last change was a minor one in District 6, and in the Grantville area. Senior Planner Joey Perry stated that in the 1990 redistricting, some census geographies were split to match the boundary of the Mission Bay and Navajo Community Planning areas. In this round of redistricting that boundary was moved slightly eastward to reflect whole census geographies as opposed to split census geographies. There was no population change.




Council Member Frye: Good evening and thank you. I just wanted to say how happy I am to see the Linda Vista community put back together in one piece, and I certainly appreciate that. Also, on the second map, the alternate map, I am not going to be commenting on the City Heights issue. I believe that the map in the preliminary — first draft map is acceptable. What I would like to comment on tonight is regarding District 6 and getting part of Mission Bay back into District 6 where is used to be many years ago, and some of the reasons behind that. I do not believe it will have any type of an impact related to the numbers as far as upsetting the balance that has been established. As far as the contiguous territory, and if you look at any of these maps, this is actually a watershed map -- it shows you District 6 and that it drains naturally into Mission Bay. It is contiguous and it is a natural boundary for District 6, for Linda Vista, for Clairemont, for Bay Park. There is a natural park that is used by all of the residents in this District, but specifically in these three communities. Many of these communities are built out. There is very little space where we are going to be able to build any more community parks, and the residents of these Districts need to have that connection. If you go around Mission Bay, you’ll see that for example in Clairemont, Clairemont Drive goes directly into Mission Bay. That is one of the bike routes. Even though you see a freeway or quote boundary, the access for our residents is very direct. People use Fiesta Island to run their dogs. It is one of the parks they use for recreation. It is one of the areas they use to go swimming, to go fishing, to go bird watching, to actually have a recreational experience in their own community. There is also, and as far as keeping our community whole -- both of the community plans we are talking about — the Clairemont Mesa Plan that includes Bay Park and Clairemont, and the Linda Vista Community Plan that makes reference as a resource base community park — Mission Bay. I believe that for these reasons I would ask that you would include, if we want to call it — the pregnant piece of Mission Bay, and put it back into District 6. Thank you very much.

Commissioner Mateo: Did you say that Mission Bay has been historically part of the District?

Yes, prior to this Redistricting, we had all of Mission Bay. It was 1980's and 90's. Then that watershed was removed. Frankly, the condition of Mission Bay water as well as some of its natural resources is not so good. When you separate the kind of — the cause and effect -- it does not have a good outcome. Also, what concerns me greatly is the impact on the residents of Bay Park, Clairemont, and Linda Vista as far as the views. That is part of their views — into the water. What is happening in what is now District 2 has a great impact in District 6 with not a lot of ability for the residents to affect changes.

Commissioner Johnson: What you are saying then — that particular area is a community of interest to District 6 then?

Council Member Frye: Yes Sir. If you look at for example Clairemont Drive, that goes right down into the Visitors Information Center. So many people in Linda Vista, Clairemont, and Bay Park are using the Bay, using Fiesta Island, all these places to exercise. It’s our community park. The way our canyons are structured are also part of our resource base community parks. Our canyons are extremely important in all of these communities. What happens if there are decisions made on how something is going to be cleaned up down here, and you don’t take into consideration the impacts up here?. For example, if you decide to put wetlands in the middle of the canyons, that has an impact on the natural resource base parks in District 6, and decisions would be made by someone in District 2. There is a disconnect there and it does have an impact. So, at least if we could keep this little pregnant part here.


Comment by Tim Schauwecker regarding working with the "Friends of Tecolote Canyon" on a urban run off management concept to try to overall clean up the waters in Mission Bay. Mr. Schauwecker stated that of course you do not start off by cleaning up the waters in Mission Bay, but by cleaning up the waters in Tecolote Creek, Rose Creek, etc. Mr. Schauwecker expressed that he supports the inclusion of Mission Bay in District 6, and that natural boundaries should be observed when drawing the District lines. Mr. Schauwecker stated that in terms of surface waters you cannot separate the waters of Mission Bay and separate the waters of Tecolote and Rose Creeks; they are connected. Lastly, Mr. Schauwecker stated it would streamline the process and help them to attain funds to improve the natural resources, with little affect to the population.


Comment by Doug Beckham stating that he concurred with the last speaker and Council Member Frye about the need to include Mission Bay or the better part of it into District 6. Mr. Beckham expressed as a young man he played in Tecolote Creek and all those areas, and that they should be included. Mr. Beckham stated he appreciated all the hard work that the Director, the Chair, and all the Commissioners have done.


Comment by Adam J. Voss regarding wishing to thank the Chairman and the Commission for the good work they have been doing, and that he feels their tapes should be shown to other Commissions and Committees so they can see how easy it is to accomplish the goals set before them. Mr. Voss expressed that he knows that the voters of San Diego will be satisfied with their decisions to make the Council Districts as even as possible.


Comment by Eleanor Mang regarding living in San Diego since 1940, for 61 years, and that she has always lived in what she considers to be a beach community. Ms. Mang stated that Council Member Frey said it very well when she said that Clairemont Drive goes right down to Mission Bay Drive. Ms. Mang also stated that her husband is 73 years old and still goes to the Bay almost every day to do his walking and exercising, and that she still likes to take her grandchildren there. Ms. Mang asked that the Commission reconsider regarding the eastern portion of the Bay which she feels belongs to Clairemont and Linda Vista.


Comment by Ellis Rose regarding wishing to speak on behalf of District 3 residents, and that they like the preliminary map. For some of the residents of City Heights, there is a serious error in the map regarding the area at the bottom of District 7 on the preliminary map. Mr. Rose stated that this area was swapped with another part of District 7, and that part was put into District 4 only because Council Member George Stevens had come to the Commission and made the request that he liked the shape of his District since it was nearly perfect shopping wise, but that he would like a shopping center. Mr. Rose stated that the Commission went ahead and placed an entire neighborhood into District 4 even though there was no testimony requesting that from the residents there. Mr. Rose stated that District 3 also strongly opposes the alternative map because of its efforts to pack all 16 City Heights neighborhoods into one District. Mr. Rose expressed that "packing" is an illegal tactic according to the Voting Rights Act.


Comment by Charles McKain regarding their coalition being concerned with the configuration in District 3, and that they generally support the preliminary map finding that the configuration of District 3 in the alternative map to be unacceptable. Mr. McKain stated that it appears whether the eastern portion of Mission Bay is in District 2 or District 6, does not raise any issues having to do with Voting Rights Act or any constitutional issue, or the ultimate configuration of District 3. Mr. McKain requested that any consideration of the Mission Bay issue be separate from the rest of the alternative map.

Commissioner Mateo wished to make it clear that the preliminary map is the map that they are focusing on now and having hearings on, and considering. The alternative map would not kick in unless the analysis that is currently being conducted by experts on the Voting Rights Act determines that there is a Voting Rights case that the Commission must consider. Only at that time would it kick in.


Comment by Gary Rotto stating that he serves as the Vice Chair of the Sera Mesa Planning group and is before them in that capacity tonight as he was back in May when the Commission had its preliminary hearing in Clairemont. Mr. Rotto expressed that at that time their consensus and their key goal as a community of Serra Mesa was to be in a district with Kearny Mesa and Mission Valley, and the preliminary map supports that. Mr. Rotto thanked the Commission officially for that, and hope it continues to be the Commission’s position during their deliberations. Mr. Rotto stated that his Planning group has not had the chance to give the Commission their official position yet, but hopes to next week at the Bayview Church Redistricting Meeting on July 19th.


Comment by Helen McKenna regarding going out in her backyard looking west and seeing the Bay, and at night hearing the fireworks. Ms. McKenna stated she puts her bike on her truck and then goes to the Bay or Fiesta Island, so she would like to see the alternative map with the eastern part of Mission Bay part of Bay Park. Ms. McKenna stated that is looks as though the numbers are closer to the optimum population that way as well.


Comment by Christian Winkle regarding living in Pacific Beach and the possibility of becoming part of District 2. Mr. Winkle stated he is pleased to see Pacific Beach reunited into one area, however, he is concerned about the decision to not have more than one Council Member cover the Mission Bay area. Mr. Winkle felt that the City would benefit by having two Council Members intimately involved with Mission Bay. Mr. Winkle expressed that having two Council Members would double the number of people involved in Bay issues.


Comment by Wayne Bamford regarding being a member of the Linda Vista Planning Committee and that he supports the alternative map which includes District 6 footprints. Mr. Bamford stated that the problem and the solution all under one Council Member seems to be a major benefit, and if Council Member Frye suggests this, then everyone should start thinking about it.


Comment by Bob Williams regarding considering Mission Bay a part of Linda Vista. Mr. Williams asked the Commissioners to turn around and look at the mural on the wall reflecting a drawing by children in Linda Vista. The children drew Linda Vista and included the Mission Bay showing that they felt Mission Bay is a part of Linda Vista as well. Mr. Williams stated that because Mission Bay is a major watershed from District 6, it should be under that District’s control as well.


Comment by Reggie Smith regarding living in the community since 1962 and that she is very happy that the Commission has decided to reunify her community. Ms. Smith stated that many members of the community have worked hard trying to get bike ways and path ways through the San Diego River area that will go down to Fiesta Island all the way over to Ocean Beach, and that they consider that part of their community. Ms. Smith stated they have all taken their children to those areas, and that it should be part of District 6. Ms. Smith also stated that they would like to have the De Anza area part of District 6 as well.


Comment by Dave Potter regarding representing himself and the Clairemont Mesa Planing Committee. Mr. Potter requested that two areas that are important be amended to the preliminary plan, and to include the eastern portion of Mission Bay. Mr. Potter referred to the concern of the water quality issue as well. Mr. Potter stated that the current plan tends to perpetuate the severance people see with Interstate 5 along the western boundary of Clairemont. Mr. Potter also stated that Clairemont historically has had strong ties to the Bay. There were no freeways there originally, and Morena Blvd. was actually the highway to Los Angeles. The only thing that separated Clairemont from the Bay was the railroad tracks. Lastly, Mr. Potter stated that Bay Park suggests the presence of the Bay as well as the Bay Park Elementary School, and they would really like to see that joined back in with the Clairemont Community.


Due to illness Eloise Battle was unable to attend the Redistricting Meeting tonight. Mr. Potter submitted her written letter and it has been made a part of the record.


Comment by Otto Emme regarding speaking on behalf of himself and that he will bring the map to the Pacific Beach Planning Board in about two weeks for discussion. Mr. Emme stated he is still a believer in three coastal districts for San Diego, and feels that it will not happen under the two present maps. Mr. Emme expressed he still feels that District 2 is a mega District with two bays; San Diego Bay, and Mission Bay. Mr. Emme stated he feels there needs to be a balance, and that would be with Mission Bay. Mission Bay needs two advocates, and is a regional park that will have a lot of development occurring within the next ten to 12 years. Mr. Emme stated that he felt there was no long term harm putting part of Mission Bay into District 6. Mr. Emme suggested that the Commission should do an "after action review," writing down what went right and what went wrong for the next Redistricting Commission.

Chairman Pesqueira informed Mr. Emme that the Commission was already doing that, and that they did draw a map that showed District 6 actually going into the downtown area all the way to the Bay. What happened was that District 2 was split. If the Commission had taken the eastern side of District 2, and moved it, there would be no place it could go because of compactness of District 4, 3, and 8.


Comment by Thomas Martin regarding thanking the Commission for what all the "Kings Horses" and all the "Kings Men" couldn’t do, and that was to put their District all together again. Mr. Martin stated that his main concern was that his District be healed and put back together so that communication, politics, and the environment of their area be established and preserved. Mr. Martin requested that the Commission look at putting Mission Bay back into the Clairemont area. Mr. Martin stated that he would like to take his time to thank Joey, and that he has been entertained on Channel 24 many, many nights watching Joey with her mouse frantically moving across her mouse pad redrawing the City.


Comment by Ed Cramer stating that he was born in San Diego in 1929, and that he went to school on the old Morena Blvd. when it was Pacific Highway. Mr. Cramer stated that he has lived his lifetime in either District 2 or 6, and worked there. Mr. Cramer wished to state that he admired the Commission’s work and perseverance, and enjoys the Internet site. Mr. Cramer expressed that his son thirty years ago was Chief of Staff for the advanced team for the State Redistricting Plan — "those were terrible days for him." Mr. Cramer stated that at the past meeting of the Linda Vista Community Planning Committee they discussed the major trolley development going in at the foot of Linda Vista Road, and the parking goes right across into Bay Park. Mr. Cramer also stated that the City has a major strategic framework within the City which really lays out the planning for the next 100 years -- the City of Villages.


Comment by Margaret Riley stating that she is a law student at California Western School of Law and she is here representing San Diego Baykeeper. Ms. Riley expressed that Council Member Wear’s environmental staff stated that keeping Mission Bay and Pacific Beach in one watershed is the best way to eliminate pollution in Mission Beach. Ms. Riley stated that by not following the watershed lines we have failed drastically in improving local waters as evidenced by the entirety of Mission Bay being listed as impaired, failing to meet the Clean Water Act. Ms. Riley also stated that Mission Bay was listed as the "sewer capitol spill of the world" in last year’s Forbes magazine. Ms. Riley felt that Mission Bay should be included in District 6, and that members of the area here tonight see it as a community. Using the Commission’s definition of a community of interest, District 6 should have Mission Bay.


Comment by Jim Peugh regarding wishing to congratulate the Commission stating that the new map looks a lot more coherent than the old map except for "this District 5 thing." Mr. Peugh stated that the watershed value in the creeks is really important, and that people need to understand that when their dogs poop in those areas and they don't pick it up, they are actually going to swim in it. Mr. Peugh stated that the more connected people are with their watershed and recreational water the better off they are, and to make the political connection as well as the physical connection. Lastly, Mr. Peugh stated that the Bay needs all the representation it can get.


Comment by Marianela Camarillo regarding liking the idea of having two Council people watching out for the Bay. Ms. Camarillo thanked the Commission for their time and energy, and for their meetings. Ms. Camarillo stated that she lives in Linda Vista, works in Linda Vista, and is very happy that it is together.


Comment by Suzanne Michel regarding having her Ph.D. in Water Resource Geography and that she is the Director of Southern California Watershed Alliance. Ms. Michel expressed that she felt there was a need for an additional GIS layer with natural resource boundaries, and that it was very hard to look at the map to know where the watershed boundaries are, or the MSCP, or open space easements are. Regarding water quality impacts to Mission Bay, Ms. Michel stated that what some people do not understand is that the San Diego River is also linked with Mission Bay. One of the primary source of pollution in Mission Bay is the San Diego River according to Ms. Michel, and that she would like to see the mouth of the Bay, and San Diego Bay, and Mission Bay incorporated under somebody who is also handling what is going on up stream. Ms. Michel stated currently she was working with Proposition 13 funds to set up a Watershed Council, and that pollutants don’t float north/south — they float east/west — that is how the watersheds are formed. Ms. Michel stated that one of the things her organization supports is to put that section of Mission Bay and as much as possible the mouth of the San Diego River into District 6.


Comment by E. Reese regarding living in Clairemont since 1957, and that she is seeing Mission Bay change from a mud pile to a very beautiful area. Ms. Reese stated that this area is so important financially and politically to the City, and that there is a need for at least two people to oversee what is going on there. Ms. Reese expressed they needed Donna Frye who is so environmentally sensitive.


Comment by Robert Daniel regarding wishing to point out that it is unfortunate that the census count and the economic growth count don’t match. Mr. Daniel wished to urge the Commission to not take the increase in District 2 to the north because of the number of apartments and construction going on in downtown District 2. There will be quite a number of residents suddenly ballooned down there within the next year. Mr. Daniel stated that he would like to support adding at least half of Mission Bay back into District 6.


Comment by Jim Lewan regarding living at Mission Bay, Mission Bay Park. Mr. Lewan stated that as literally a resident of Mission Bay, and a historic buff, that he watched through his 25 years of residency the degradation of Mission Bay. Mr. Lewan expressed he felt everyone in the room was asking for the same thing he was, and that was to go to the alternative map. Mr. Lewan noted that in the 30's they developed a Park. In 1963 Cal Trans built a freeway, a non natural structure that the Commission has used as a boundary in the preliminary map. Mr. Lewan stated that was created by man, not by nature, but that everything else that concerns Mission Bay was created by nature. Mr. Lewan expressed he wanted to see Mission Bay be a better place, and that the alternative map was a great step forward.


Comment by Billy Paul regarding his concern of what happens in Clairemont, and that Mission Bay has always been an important part of his life growing up. Mr. Paul stated that his mother taught him to appreciate the view they had from their house of Mission Bay, and that he used to cross old 101 to swim in Mission Bay. Mr. Paul expressed that the eastern part of Mission Bay needs to be in District 6, and that a good dividing line is Ingrahm Street; having east Mission Bay be in District 6, and west Mission Bay in District 2. Mr. Paul stated that the Clairemont Town Council was so concerned about Mission Bay, that it gave its first Beautification Award to the Hilton Hotel for its 23 million dollar renovation project in 1997. The Hilton changed it’s design from "50's ticky-tac" to the Spanish Mediterranean that it has now, and by doing that enhanced the property value of South Clairemont/Bay Park. Mr. Paul stated that traffic in Mission Bay at the I-5 interchange dramatically affects the Clairemont Community, also, Balboa Avenue, Clairemont Drive and Tecolote Road. Mr. Paul felt that District 6 needs to maintain influence on the traffic problem. Lastly, Mr. Paul stated that the redevelopment of Sea World will have a dramatic effect on the traffic to Bay Park, Clairemont, and Linda Vista. Those areas should be in District 6 so that their Council person can have an effect as to what happens with the redevelopments. The Council person from District 6 needs to oversee the water quality issues as well.

Redistricting COMMISSION ACTION (Tape location: A578-C451.)


The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Ralph Pesqueira at 8:05 p.m.


Ralph Pesqueira, Chairman
2000 Redistricting Commission

Peggy Rogers
Legislative Recorder II

Site Map Privacy Notice Disclaimers