Answers to some questions from Paul

Below is a series of questions and answers from Jeanine Politte, secretary of the Rancho Penasquitos Planning Board. This doesn't answer all our questions, of course. But it does answer some of the major ones. I advise we all give her our email addresses so we stay informed and up to date with our communities planning board decisions.

.Question:   Are you ready for all of us?

Answer:       YES

.Question:   What information can I give my residents so they can register their emails for updates?

Answer:       They can email me directly asking to be added to the Rancho Peñasquitos Planning Board's email distribution list. Name & email address is really all I need.          Jeanine@jpolitte.com

Question:   When are elections and what is the protocol?

Answer:      Elections are in March, only half of the board each year. PQ is divided into districts and in 2012 we will be electing the even numbered districts. To be eligible, a candidate must attend 3 meetings prior to the election and live in their district, be 18 years of age, complete an application. Each representative serves for a 2 year term.  (I have attached the info pertaining to districts and eligibility that was distributed via email for the past election). Torrey Highlands & Black Mtn. Ranch each have 2 seats on our Planning Board with one in each community being elected each year.

Question:   Are you all volunteers?

Answer:      Yes, we are all volunteers and there is no operating budget. There is a full section on RPPB on the City website. http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/profiles/ranchopenasquitos/index.shtml 

Here is a description of what we do.. The Rancho de los Peñasquitos Planning Board has been formed and recognized by the City of San Diego to make recommendations to the City Council, Planning Commission, City staff, and other governmental agencies on land use matters, specifically concerning the preparation of, adoption of, implementation of, or amendments to either the General Plan or any land use plan within the Rancho Peñasquitos, Black Mountain Ranch and Torrey Highlands boundaries. The planning group also advises on other land use matters as requested by either the City or other governmental agencies.

Question:     People want answers as to what went wrong and why we weren't notified BEFORE the June 21st redistricting meeting. It seems like no one wanted to wake the "fire breathing dragon" as you put it.

Answer:        An observation - if it isn't in our neighborhood or doesn't immediately impact us, we turn a blind eye until the fire is lit; which is what I think happened here and no one thought it was possible - we've never been split before. Both the Town Council and the Planning Board were discussing and involved early on. The topic of Redistricting was covered at multiple meetings which were publicly noticed and the Town Council website posted their proposed plan early on. The City website had all meetings & documents posted as well as articles in the news media. Multiple maps were released initially that split PQ. Representatives from both Town Council & RPPB attending Commission meetings trying to sway the Commission to lean toward a united PQ in a single District with the northern communities.

Question:    What was going on to create that sort of atmosphere and animosity toward Park Village?

Answer:       There is NO animosity toward PV. Our life in PQ revolves around our kids - we tend to forget about our community, civic duty/response, and how decisions that are made by a few can impact all of us. We become complacent & apathetic - someone else will take care of it. The northeastern end of PQ also experienced a similar situation, coming together and getting more involved when potential redevelopment of the Doubletree and the surrounding apartments (now Cresta Bella and another in process) threatened our community as we know it, our way of life, health & safety.

Paul Hoover

Last meeting on Thursday 8/25 - I'll be back!

Residents of the world's greatest community,

Although the Commission has made its final decision, I do want to make sure that you are aware that they do have one final meeting scheduled for tomorrow (Thursday, August 25), 4:00pm in the City Council Chambers.  As with all public meetings, public commentary will be taken in case you have any final thoughts that you want to put into the record.

Andy Berg

We Lost And We Won - Message from Park Village Resident

Park Village Friends,

We lost the battle of redistricting this evening.  I was sorely disappointed
that the Commission did not adopt the change we proposed.  There was ample
rationale for the change. There may be legal challenges ahead.  But I
believe that the districting decided today, with Park Village in District 6,
will be the districting we are going to live with for the next 10 years.

But why were we fighting so hard?  We were fighting to be closer aligned
with the rest of Penasquitos.  We were fighting to create a better community
to live in. 

And in the process of fighting, we achieved both.  We met new friends both
inside and outside of Park Village.  We became closer to the friends we
already had.  We learned to fight for the rights of others.  We learned that
others will fight for our rights.  We learned to face a common threat and
meet it head-on.  We learned how to get involved in the political process.
We learned how to organize ourselves to achieve a common goal.  We learned
that together we can accomplish great feats.

In short, we became the better community that we were seeking.


So many people worked so hard over the past week and a half.  It would be
understandable to feel that it was a waste of time.  But I, for one, would
do it all over again if we had to.  And someday we will have to.  We will
face many challenges in the future.  They may be fires, earthquakes, schools
problems, or crime, politicians, corruption, or the 2020 redistricting.
Whatever it is, I know we will come together again.



For now, we should use the momentum we have to build better tools and better
communication like email lists, shared documents, and community calendars or
a community website.  With better tools we can be alerted earlier and act
faster.  Sometimes the enemy is not a person or a thing.  It is time.

For those of you who did not see the proceedings today, it contained a slide
show of what you did over the weekend.  I've posted an Extended Edition,
Directors Cut of the show on YouTube here
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yybew0YJHYg> .


Oh, and we should have a party to celebrate Park Village.


Regards,

  -Bradlee Chang

  Park Village Resident

Outrageous and senseless result - why???

Commissioners have been saying that it is "necessary" to cut off our part of Penasquitos and move it down with Mira Mesa, because the new District 5 is too big and District 6 is too small.


Most of you have seen the Commissioners' proposed map, where Rancho Penasquitos is being split up and the southern part (including Park Village, Ridge Point, and Adolphia) is being transferred to District 6 (Mira Mesa, Clairemont Mesa etc.). It also shows Scripps Ranch as part of the northern area (District 5).  Most people I've talked to, do not like this split-up at all.

But have you seen the "old" map? The one that has been in effect for the last ten years? I just looked at it. It shows all of PQ being together, and in the (old) northern area where it has always been, of course.
But guess what. It also shows Scripps Ranch in the "old" SOUTHERN area, with Mira Mesa! It has been there for the last 10 years!

They are proposing to move Scripps Ranch north into the new District 5... and to balance the numbers, they will cut Penasquitos in half and move part of it to the new District 6!

 
But in fact, all they have to do is leave Scripps Ranch where it already is, and leave Penasquitos in one piece and leave IT where it already is!

THE OLD MAP

Here is the "old" map of Rancho Penasquitos' district (the old District 1):
http://www.sandiego.gov/citycouncil/cd1/graphics/cd1mapc.gif

And here is the "old" map showing Scripps Ranch and Mira Mesa in the same district (the old District 5):
http://www.sandiego.gov/citycouncil/cd5/graphics/cd5map.gif


The deviation commissioners always talked about is not a true reason! It's a lying!


From several PV residents

Comments from Steve Maher for meeting on 8/22

Well, I'll make it brief: We lost.

I'm very sorry to say. The 350-person audience section was maybe 4/5 full, and more than half were from our group. Our folks made some GREAT presentations. They had their facts well lined up, and were as convincing as I could ever believe they could be. I was certainly sold.

Some folks from Scripps Ranch showed up, a few dozen I think. They were not happy with us, and that's certainly understandable - they don't want to get broken up any more than we do. But DAMMIT, I thought we had this one won.

Then all the public-comment time was over, and it was the Commissioners' turn to speak.

Their comments threw a lot of cold water on us. The 5000+ petition signatures were basically brushed aside, regarded as "conflicting testimony" against other things they had been told for the last 6 months. (Guess who did most of that "telling" - our friends at APAC.)

The commissioners seemed to feel that their choice was between cutting up Penasquitos, and cutting up Scripps Ranch. Their present proposed map (the one we put on our flyers) shows Penasquitos getting split, as you know. There was another map they were considering (from us), showing Penasquitos united in D5 and Scripps Ranch divided. Unfortunately, the way Scripps Ranch was divided, was pretty messy. Dividing lines ran down the middle of residential streets with houses on either side, putting neighbors 50 feet apart, in differing districts.

A few of the commissioners said straight out that, though they knew neither neighborhood wanted to be divided, they felt the way Scripps Ranch was proposed to be divided was worse than the way PQ was proposed to be divided. So they favored the map showing us being divided.

Then there was APAC and Dr. Chan. They were there, but did not speak. I had a little talk with Dr. Chan myself before the beginning of the meeting, can describe it if anyone wants, but it's not germane here. But the commissioners basically said (I thought, please would the rest of you who were there, fill in details and anything I've missed or gotten wrong here?) that they had been hearing testimony of various kinds, and getting emails and reports, from "others" for many months now. It had all been pretty consistent, and most of the commissioners had formed their opinions over a long time, from that. I get the impression that most of those earlier emails and reports, came from APAC.

Now we showed up just in the last week, saying very different things from what they have heard previously. They simply regarded that as "conflicting testimony", and were trying to give each side equal weight and consideration. The idea that maybe one side had told them a bunch of (I'll be charitable here) "inaccurate information" while the other side told the truth, apparently didn't register with the commissioners. I suppose they were not in a position to tell which was which. 

How they were able to brush aside more than 5,000 signatures pleading for PQ to be kept together, is not clear to me. But they basically did. And they also mostly ignored the 1600+ signatures from Aisans saying that APAC did NOT speak for them, maybe this was what they (mistakenly) called "conflicting testimony".

The Scripps Ranch folks complained about what they called "eleventh hour maps" and "last-minuted changes". Unfortunately somewhat accurate, I don't know how much impact that had. (Scripps Ranch has sent the commissioners 400 emails asking for SR to be kept together, they said).

Anyway, when the discusion was over, the chair sounded out several commissioners, who said they did not want to change the map they had (the one on our flyer). And the other commissioners, whom we had hoped would agree with us, just sat there with glum expressions on their faces. None of them even made a motion to consider the maps that we wanted (showing PQ united in District 5). The Chair asked if that was the Comission's general feeling, and they nodded.

That was it. They moved on to discuss other neighborhoods.

They have not taken a formal vote to accept the present map splitting PQ, but that will be done Thursday, Aug. 25. They do not intend to entertain any changes on that day. So if they stick to that intention, that's the ball game.

SUMMARY:

We didn't get into the discussion with the Commissioners early enough. APAC did, and they persuaded them that their view was "the" view. When we finally showed up at the last moment, it certainly wasn't too little (it was HUGE), but it was too late. The commissioners' minds were fairly set, and we did not change them.

And, nobody gave the Commissioners a proposal that made an acceptable division of Scripps Ranch (acceptable to the Commissioners, that is). So they felt they had to choose between a bad plan to divide PQ, or a worse plan to divide Scripps Ranch.

There are important pointers here, for what we must do to win the next time. But that will be ten years from now (correction: NINE AND A HALF, we ***must *** start earlier).

But right now, it doesn't look good for us.

But your effort was nothing short of magnificent. And your RESULTS are absolutely outstanding, commission inertia notwithstanding. 5,700 signatures, and alerting and educating a whole community that didn't know a thing about it at first, all in a span of a few days, with little leadership (the people who stepped in and took responsibility did terrifically, but there was just no time and patchy communications, preparation was impossible even for supermen) and fewer resources... was a feat I have never seen done in all my years. I still stand astonished at what you all did.

I'm proud to have worked with you all, more than I can say. And I hope I can join you again, and soon.

Steve Maher

P.S. This is only my own impression of what went on at the meeting. I have likely made lots of mistakes and left out a lot. The rest of you who were there, can you please "Reply to All" and fill in what you heard and saw?