Rancho Bernardo Planning Board, Community Council Face Welcome Sign Issues

Rancho Bernardo's two main leadership groups are each facing issues in the ongoing welcome sign process, from possible bylaw violations to what some call improper interference from a city official.

The RB Planning Board is scheduled to vote on the welcome sign on Thursday, but some question whether the item should even be on the agenda.

According to the Planning Board bylaws, the agenda is set by the vice chair at the administrative committee meeting held at least 10 days before the scheduled board meeting. At that meeting, held April 11, the committee decided not to put the sign on its agenda and wait until May. The RB Community Council also is not planning to vote on the item until May.

However, board chair Teri Denlinger, at the request of Councilman Carl DeMaio's office, added the voting item to the planning board agenda after the committee meeting. Denlinger said she had been in touch with the councilman's office before the administrative meeting, but it was until afterward that she got final word that they did want the item on this month's agenda.

Denlinger says the committee creates a draft agenda and anyone from the group can ask to have something added afterward, as long as it is added at least 72 hours before the board meeting to comply with the Brown Act. Brian Schoenfisch, the city Planning Department's RB representative, said the chair has the ability to set the agenda and most planning boards do not hold committee meetings to do so.

However, RB's bylaws may go beyond that city of San Diego requirement. Article VIII, Section 1 (c) of the bylaws stipulates that the agenda be set 10 days before the scheduled meeting. Article VI, Section 1 does refer to the agenda as a "draft," though a later section about the vice chair setting the agenda does not.

Some group members might challenge the welcome sign's inclusion on the agenda as a voting item at the beginning of Thursday's meeting. Each monthly meeting includes time for agenda modifications, including adding items, which would provide an opportunity for the welcome sign item to be challenged and possibly re-added with board approval. However, for a voting item to be added after the 72-hour deadline, the matter must meet certain requirements defining its urgency. The welcome sign, which won't be installed before the end of this fiscal year and possibly not even until early 2012, does not appear to meet that criteria.

RB Community Council

At least five community council members have been contacted by staff members from DeMaio's office seeking their thoughts about the welcome sign, including how they or others might vote on the sign, RB Community Council President Robin Kaufman said.

One person saved a voicemail from the office but did not respond, and another, who was contacted at work, declined to speak because she was busy, Kaufman said.

Some Community Council members feel the outreach is inappropriate. DeMaio's office took over the welcome sign decision process in the middle of last year and created a committee to help make the choice. That committee—Refresh RB—recently selected a design to put before the Planning Board and Community Council for final approval.

Kaufman also is a member of the Planning Board and said she was asked about how that group feels about the sign.

In an email response to Patch, DeMaio's spokesman said, "We will not be commenting on this subject."

The Brown Act—which the Planning Board but not the Community Council is subject to—does not prohibit members of the community from contacting leadership group members for their thoughts on matters under their jurisdiction. The Planning Board is an official arm of the city of San Diego, but the Community Council is not.

At the least, it's "inappropriate" for DeMaio's staff to try and gauge the opinion of the groups on the welcome sign prior to a vote, Kaufman said. Some of the groups' members, however, do not see a problem with the staff reaching out to discuss timely issues.

As for the Planning Board, it would be a violation of the Brown Act and the group's bylaws should its members, in concert, discuss their positions on the welcome sign before they vote on it publicly.

Allegations of improper influence are not new to the welcome sign process. Some accused business leaders on the Refresh RB Committee of getting a February vote thrown out so that the losers—contemporary designs—could have a chance to win in a runoff. The leaders denied the accusations.

The leader vote-getter only beat out the second choice by 30 out of about 800 votes, and the two contemporary choices collectively had more votes than the winning traditional design, which Refresh RB said made the vote "inconclusive."

The subsequent runoff between February's lead vote-getter, a traditional design, and a new contemporary design, was marred by repeat voters. Those results, too, were disregarded in favor of the new contemporary design now set to go before the community groups.

DeMaio's office expressed support for both the runoff and the latest design up for the community groups' approval.

Find us on Facebook and Twitter @RBPatch.