Serra Mesa Planning Group

What and Why of Redistricting Drawing of district boundaries for elected office Happens every 10 years at all levels of government Account for population changes “One person, one vote” Ensure equal access to political representation New ninth Council District, Proposition D (2010) – Strong Mayor Form of Governance First new district since 1960s

City Charter Section 5.1 Requirements Nine districts to be created Composed of whole U.S. Census units Each has one-ninth of City’s population Goal is 144,624 people per district Goal 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 compact Be composed of contiguous territory Preserve ‘identifiable communities of interest’ Have reasonable access between population centers Be bounded by natural boundaries, street lines and/or by City boundary lines

District 6 Today and Tomorrow Currently Serra Mesa is in District 6, which includes: ClairemontLinda Vista Kearny MesaMission Valley According to the 2010 US Census, the combined population of District 6 totals 161,348, far beyond the Redistricting Commission objective.

Planning Areas: Serra Mesa Kearny Mesa 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shared and unique resource of Montgomery Field Airport, shared library, shared retail areas, and shared history; originally made up one Community Plan.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 One Remove Mission Valley, keep Serra Mesa, Kearny Mesa, Linda Vista and Clairemont Mission 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 compact Population total of 146,650 deviates from the goal by 1.4%, a much larger deviation than Proposal Two.

Why Mission Valley should be included with Navajo and College Area: 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 2 Remove Mission Valley and Linda Vista, retain Serra Mesa, Kearny Mesa and Clairemont, and add Tierrasanta Geographically contiguous and compact Common north/south and east/west transit routes, roads; common shopping centers and geographic features Linda 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

Linda Vista Community Planning Area

Proposal 2, continued Why 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 6Proposal 1Proposal 2Proposal 3Proposal 4 MV 14,698 CM 82,479 LV 32,649 KM 2,633 SM 28,889 TS 31,378 Navajo 47,281 Totals = 161, , , , ,528 Target: 144,624 Difference = 16,724 2, ,79412,904 Deviation =11.56%1.40%0.52%-1.24%8.92%

Approved and Proposed Developments for Mission Valley and Grantville/Navajo Calls for Joining Them Mission Valley – 10,000+ new residents Civita (Quarry Falls): 4,780 units, ~9,560 residents Hazard Center Redevelopment: 473 units, ~946 residents Riverwalk, planned: 1,329 units, ~2,558 residents Mission Valley Center Expansion, planned: 250 condos and 500,000 sq ft of retail, a 50% increase Grantville – 2,000 + new residents Archstone: 444 units, ~888 residents CenterPointe: 588 units, ~1,176 residents Shawnee, planned: 1,023 units, ~2,046 residents

APAC Proposal This proposal creates a Districts 5 that is far from geographically compact, and a District 9 that splits Kearny Mesa and MCAS Miramar, so is 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