July 18, 2001
6:00 - 8:00 p.m

Rancho Penasquitos Library
13330 Salmon River Road
San Diego, California


By Chairman Ralph Pesqueira at 6:10 p.m.

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-not present
(M) Marichu G. Magaña-present
(M) Shirley ODell-present
(M) Juan Antonio Ulloa-present
(EO) Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster-present
Also present:
       Senior Planner Joey Perry


(C) Chairman Ralph R. Pesqueira-present

(VC) Vice Chairman Leland T. Saito-present

(M) Charles W. Johnson-not present

(M) Marichu G. Magaña -present

(M) Shirley ODell-present

(M) Juan Antonio Ulloa-present

(EO) Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster-present



Welcome and Introductions   Chairman Ralph Pesqueira

Chairman Pesqueira briefly introduced the agenda for tonight’s meeting informing the public to continue following the televised Redistricting Commission’s meetings.

Ms. Heshimu briefly spoke introducing to the audience all staff members present. Ms. Heshimu mentioned that next week the future schedule of Commission meeting will be placed on the City web site. She also said that the Commission’s goal was that by August 12 the final map should be adopted and by September 12 the final map should be sent to the Registrar of Voters.


The Redistricting Criteria   Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster

Lisa Foster:

Using a handout entitled "Factors to be Considered in Drawing Boundaries", Ms Foster spoke to the public outlining the legalities and criteria involved in the redistricting process.


Chairman Pesqueira commented further about the redistricting and map drawing process. He also addressed Council representation for newly formed districts that may exclude a current Council Member from the district they were elected in.

Chairman Pesqueira addressed instances of the public submitting maps to the Commission and the process of accepting or rejecting those maps.

Chairman Pesqueira also commented on organizations, community groups and planning groups not being split as a result of the redistricting process.


The Preliminary Redistricting Plan
(as adopted June 29, 2001)

   Commissioners and Staff

Ms. Perry briefly updated the public by summarizing the changes to the Preliminary Redistricting Plan and explaining why the Commission made decisions on changing various district boundaries.

The Commission accepted public comments on the Preliminary Redistricting Plan.

Speaker #1:Adrian Kwaitkowski commented regarding the "pregnant" District 6 and District 7 having an addition to it. Mr. Kwaitkowski asked the Commission encourage the City Council to increase the number of council districts from eight to ten. He said there needs to be more diversity in the district representation.. In November of 2002 he would like to see a proposition on the ballot.
Speaker #2:Beryl Flom commented on her support of splitting Mission Bay. She is concerned about District 2 having so much power and construction as a result of the new boundaries. She feels this district may be overworked as a result of all the projects.
Speaker #3:Pam Coates commented on behalf of the Mira Mesa Town Council. She feels Mira Mesa should remain intact in one district and in District 5. She explained why the Mira Mesa community feels they should remain together in District 5.
Speaker #4:Barbara Parcells commented on the new map and commended the Commission on their good work. Ms. Parcells requested that maybe all the maps submitted should be placed on the internet for the public to view.
Speaker #5:Bob Dingman commented on behalf of the residents of Scripps Ranch. Mr. Dingman encouraged the Commission to continue following the legal criteria they have thus far diligently observed. He is pleased with Scripps Ranch remaining in District 5.
Speaker #6:Ted Brengel commented concurring with comments made by Pam Coates. Mr. Brengel thanked the Commission for keeping Mira Mesa in a single district in District 5.
Commissioner Ulloa questioned Mr. Brengel on the Asian/Pacific Islander community and their involvement in the political arenas in the Mira Mesa community.
Commissioner Saito questioned Ms. Coates on Mira Mesa being joined with Rancho Penasquitos.
Ms. Coates comments:(Transcript)
An important part of defining a community of interest is that we share a common set of political interests. And there is a real problem with that with respect to Rancho Penasquitos. And I don’t mean to in any way say anything negative about our dear neighbors to the north, across the canyon. But simply because of the structure of the land and the fact that Mira Mesa is an employment center we have a conflict with Rancho Penasquitos that we don’t share with any other community. And it is this: 80,000 people a day are guests in our community and we willingly host them and they come and they work and they go home. And for other...almost all of those guests come up or down I-805, or I-5 or I-15 and across Mira Mesa Boulevard. And that’s fine. That’s like our guest room. We know that we don’t use that. We don’t use those roads at those times of the day and that’s fine. The difference with Rancho Penasquitos is that you don’t have to get on I-15, or I-5, or I-805 to get from Rancho Penasquitos to Mira Mesa. All you have to do is go across Black Mountain Road which is very convenient and that’s just another part of the guest room. You know, we know that’s going to be clogged at those times of day.
The issue is that if you get off of I-15 you’re on Mira Mesa. And you go across Mira Mesa. There are other ways you can get on Black Mountain Road. And this is beyond just Black Mountain Road. This is whether we build additional roads across the canyon that also come in there. But there are ways to get on Black Mountain Road besides on Mira Mesa Boulevard and they are less crowded. They are also through small residential communities on small streets. The City of San Diego has tried to prevent that by making "No left turns" at certain times of day and putting in speed humps. And that hasn’t stopped our neighbors to the north from driving through our residential communities. And some of those communities you can barely get out of, or people can’t get in, their driveways. Kids can’t be allowed to play outside because of those streets being used as commuter streets. This is unsafe and it’s unfair. It’s...well, I’ll let it go at that.
The conflict of course is that if I lived...I mean today I drove down to Mira Mesa Boulevard and across to get here and it was horrible. It was awful. So I can understand if I lived in Rancho Penasquitos saying, "hey, get rid of the left-turn sign; take out the speed humps and give me more access to my community; I’m just right across the canyon."
So, there’s an inherent conflict in terms of traffic. And I know that there’s support within Rancho Penasquitos to build an additional access way across the canyon. Again it would go right into a residential neighborhood. That conflict isn’t ever going to go away. It’s because of the nature of where we sit relative to Rancho Penasquitos. I can understand if I lived in Rancho Penasquitos why I would see one side of it. By living in a community in Mira Mesa, I see the other side. There’s no way a single Council Representative could fairly represent both those views. It’s not possible because they are diametrically opposed. Thank you.
Commissioner Magana mentioned for the record that she was asked to participate in the Mira Mesa Towne Council and she declined for reasons of lack of time to serve on this Council.
Speaker #7:Evalyn Drobnicki commented on her desire to see an increase in the number of Council Districts to ten rather than the current eight.
Speaker #8:Dick Flanagan briefly commented on his pleasure with the Preliminary Map.
Speaker #9:Jeanette Waltz commented on her concern about joining Mira Mesa with Rancho Penasquitos. She feels this change will not serve either of these distinctly separate communities at all. She expressed that Mira Mesa doesn’t share interests with Rancho Penasquitos.
Speaker #10:Joe Frichtel commented on the diversity and ethnicity of Mira Mesa. Mr. Fritchel expressed his support for the Commission’s Preliminary Plan. Mr. Fritchel doesn’t feel the City is prepared for adding two districts and would like to see the City update it’s current building.
Speaker #11:Lance Witmondt (Chief of Staff for Council Member Maienschein) spoke regarding his support for the current Preliminary Redistricting map. He feels there would be problems to adding 50, 000 people to a district that has to lose 35,000 people. He feels that Rancho Penasquitos didn’t elect the current Council Member of District 5. He would like the Commission to keep in mind all the Community Planning groups and their importance to the Council Members.
Speaker #12:(Group Presentation) Levin Sy, a current graduate from UCLA’s Urban Planning program commented on the Rancho Penasquitos residents’ concern about being represented on the City Council. He would like to combine the communities of Mira Mesa and Rancho Penasquitos in order to affect the political process at the City Council level.
 Mr. Sy has issues with growth, immigration in the military, churches, social interactions, business and a broad spectrum of issues needing to be considered for fair representation of the Asian/Pacific Islander population. Mr. Sy feels that the Diamond Gateway of Commerce is something Mira Mesa has in common with Rancho Penasquitos.
Speaker #13:Greg Alabado commented on the Filipino community being a community of interest. Mr. Alabaro requests that the Commission combine Mira Mesa and Rancho Penasquitos.
Speaker #14:Lucy Gonzales commented on the goal of her team to get Filipino residents registered to vote. She feels diversity is important.
Speaker #15:Dr. Allen Chan commented on his practice and the fact that his patients live in both Mira Mesa and Rancho Penasquitos. Mr. Chan shared issues that are common to these two communities. Mr. Chan stated that the Asian American population makes up a large part of District 5, contributing to its population burst. He would like the Commission to protect the interests of Asian Americans.
Speaker #16:Roz Chantengco commented that Mira Mesa and Rancho Penasquitos are one village that should be joined. She feels that the social circles and ethnic businesses of the Rancho Penasquitos residences still remain in Mira Mesa.
Speaker #17:Genevieve DePerio commented that the communities of Rancho Penasquitos and Mira Mesa are intrinsically connected and should not be separate economically or socially. She is a strong advocate of ethnic mult-culturalism and feels Mira Mesa and Rancho Penasquitos should be in one district for fair Council representation.
Speaker #18:Glenn Barroga spoke that his reason for being present is to participate. He would like the two communities of Rancho Penasquitos and Mira Mesa to be combined into one district.
Speaker #19:Dr. Sarah Young commented on diversity. Dr. Young expressed that there has been outreach to the Filipino community.
Speaker #20:Dick Flanagan commented that his community group doesn’t reflect diversity and encouraged the Filipino community to become involved in community groups in Mira Mesa.


Commissioner Saito question Mr. Sy and had the following questions: What is the significance of the social groups in Mira Mesa and Rancho Penasquitos and can political interests in that area be delineated.

Ms. Gonzales commented on the lawsuit she was involved in against the City of San Diego and its affect on the Mira Mesa and Rancho Penasquitos areas.

Commissioner ODell requested Mr. Sy to explain why he is emphasizing Mira Mesa and Rancho Penasquitos. She would like to know why the Filipino community doesn’t serve on Towne Councils in these areas.

Mr. Ulloa commented that Planning Groups and Towne Councils are relevant to Redistricting efforts.


Adjourned by Chairman Pesqueira at 8:00 p.m.


Ralph Pesqueira, Chairman
2000 Redistricting Commission

Ramone Lewis
Legislative Recorder II

Site Map Privacy Notice Disclaimers