Serra Mesa Planning Group

What and Why of RedistrictingDrawing of district boundaries for elected officeHappens every 10 years at all levels of

governmentAccount for population changes“One person, one vote”Ensure equal access to political representationNew ninth Council District, Proposition D (2010)

– Strong Mayor Form of GovernanceFirst new district since 1960s

City Charter Section 5.1 Requirements

Nine districts to be createdComposed of whole U.S. Census unitsEach has one-ninth of City’s populationGoal is 144,624 people per districtGoal is zero deviation from this number,

but standard is as little deviation as possible

Lines not drawn for the purpose of advantaging or protecting incumbents

Requirements, Cont.Districts Must:Be geographically compactBe composed of contiguous territoryPreserve ‘identifiable communities of

interest’Have reasonable access between

population centersBe bounded by natural boundaries, street

lines and/or by City boundary lines

District 6 Today and TomorrowCurrently Serra Mesa is in District 6,

which includes:Clairemont Linda VistaKearny Mesa Mission Valley

According to the 2010 US Census, the combined population of District 6 totals 161,348, far beyond the Redistricting Commission objective.

Serra Mesa and Kearny Mesa should be considered as one due to natural boundaries, compact geography, shared and unique resource of Montgomery Field Airport, shared library, shared retail areas, and shared history; originally made up one Community Plan.

New District 6, Proposal OneRemove Mission Valley, keep Serra Mesa, Kearny Mesa, Linda

Vista and ClairemontMission Valley has very different/much larger businesses,

geography and significant approved and planned population/business growth

Preserves communities with strong common factors: All mesa communities with finger canyon geography Common freeway access

Defined by natural boundaries of I-5, SR-52, I-15, and northern rim of Mission Valley or Friars Road (Linda Vista)

Geographically contiguous and compactPopulation total of 146,650 deviates from the goal by 1.4%, a

much larger deviation than Proposal Two.

•Shared traffic impacts of current residential, retail, and commercial developments,such as shopping centers, Qualcomm Stadium, SDSU, Hotel Circle

•Shared future traffic impacts from new developments: Civita (Quarry Falls), RiverWalk, Mission Valley Center expansion, Hazard Center Towers, CenterPointe, Archstone apartments, Shawnee, Superior Mine

•San Diego Trolley connects it to Old Town, Grantville, Navajo and College Area•I-8 connects it to Mission Bay, Old Town, Grantville, Navajo, Del Cerro and

College Area•Friars Road and other east/west connector streets connect it to Mission Bay,

Old Town, Grantville and Navajo•San Diego River and proposed San Diego River Park bisect it and connect it

to Mission Bay, Old Town, Grantville and Navajo•Geography of valley (vs. mesa tops) common to Grantville and Mission Gorge •Share seasonal flooding issues around the San Diego River

New District 6, Proposal 2Remove Mission Valley and Linda Vista, retain Serra

Mesa, Kearny Mesa and Clairemont, and add TierrasantaGeographically contiguous and compactCommon north/south and east/west transit routes, roads;

common shopping centers and geographic featuresLinda Vista’s southern boundary is the north side of

Friars Road, so it includes many parcels in the geographic area of Mission Valley, a strong factor to include them with Mission Valley: Fashion Walk and entire north side of Friars Road, from Ulric St. to Morena Blvd.

New population total would be 145,379, a variation from goal of only 0.52%.

Supported by Tierrasanta Community Council

Proposal 2, continuedWhy Tierrasanta should join with Kearny Mesa, Serra Mesa, and

Clairemont: No street connection to District 7 whatsoever, and none planned Street connection to KM and SM via Clairemont Mesa Blvd, Tierrasanta

Blvd/Balboa Ave, and Aero Drive, and shared bus routes, bike routes Shared SDFD mutual aid coverage (Station 39 covers Station 28 and vice-

versa) Shared SDPD Police station (Eastern Division) Shared library (when TS is closed, SM is open) Shared Montgomery Field Airport issues (use, noise, and AAC

participation) Shared borders of I-15 (KM/SM) and SR-52 (KM/CM) Natural eastern divide of Mission Trails Reg. Park and San Diego River Shared retail commerce centers (2 Wal-Mart's, Sears, Vons, PetCo, etc.) Common geography:  mesa top, finger canyons Similar demographics

New District 6, Proposal 3

Remove Linda Vista and Clairemont Mesa, retain Serra Mesa and Kearny Mesa, and join with Tierrasanta and Navajo

Serra Mesa, Kearny Mesa and Tierrasanta have less of affinity with Navajo than with Mission Valley

Deviation is -1.24%, a relatively large deviation.

Navajo Community Plan Area

Community Plan Area

Existing District 6 Proposal 1 Proposal 2 Proposal 3 Proposal 4

MV 14,698 14,698CM 82,479 82,479 82,479 LV 32,649 32,649 32,649 32,649KM 2,633 2,633 2,633 2,633 2,633SM 28,889 28,889 28,889 28,889 28,889TS 31,378 31,378 31,378

Navajo 47,281 47,281Totals = 161,348 146,650 145,379 142,830 157,528 Target: 144,624 144,624 144,624 144,624 144,624

Difference = 16,724 2,026 755 -1,794 12,904Deviation = 11.56% 1.40% 0.52% -1.24% 8.92%

Approved and Proposed Developments for Mission Valley and Grantville/Navajo Calls for Joining ThemMission Valley – 10,000+ new residents

Civita (Quarry Falls): 4,780 units, ~9,560 residentsHazard Center Redevelopment: 473 units, ~946

residentsRiverwalk, planned: 1,329 units, ~2,558 residentsMission Valley Center Expansion, planned: 250

condos and 500,000 sq ft of retail, a 50% increaseGrantville – 2,000 + new residents

Archstone: 444 units, ~888 residentsCenterPointe: 588 units, ~1,176 residentsShawnee, planned: 1,023 units, ~2,046 residents

APAC Proposal

This proposal creates a Districts 5that is far from geographicallycompact, and a District 9 that splitsKearny Mesa and MCAS Miramar, sois not supported by Serra Mesa.

The Kearny Mesa Split is based completely on business ownership,and not residential ownership.

Rancho Penasquitos/North County Inland Proposal Includes new 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 Districts that we can support. Districts 6 and 9 not geographically contiguous and/or compact, and Serra Mesa has very little affinity or connection to Mira Mesa, so we cannot not support them.

La Jolla Community Planning Group Proposal for new District 1, supported by Serra Mesa