City Investigates Dispute Bogging Down Torrey Pines Board

The San Diego Planning Department and city attorney’s office are investigating charges that members were improperly elected to the Torrey Pines Community Planning Board, which in recent weeks has been called everything from a “self-perpetuating oligarchy” to a “vigilante committee” by its detractors.

The accusations come from a dissident group of board members who want a complete overhaul of the organization. The all-volunteer board advises the San Diego City Council on planning issues for the city-controlled land west of Interstate 5 from Via de la Valle Road south to Sorrento Valley.

The bitter squabbling has bogged down the 19-member board at a time when it is supposed to be updating the local community plan, the key blueprint for planning neighborhoods.

“No one wants to talk about the plan, they want to talk about the planning group,” Senior City Planner Mike Westlake said.

Westlake is investigating claims that three board members who were seated in March, 1991, were not elected by the type of community vote required in the group’s bylaws, which could bring into question the status of the entire board.

A majority of board members have called a meeting for Aug. 13 to discuss holding a special election to fill as many as nine seats, which they say have been illegally filled.

Westlake said the group’s bylaws are “ambiguous” in some areas but that he has yet to find any board members who were not properly elected. The Planning Department and city attorney’s office will conclude their investigation by the Aug. 13 meeting, Westlake said.

However, the rift on the board goes beyond election procedures.

“I would like to see the entire board replaced,” said board member Nancy Marincovich, who resigned her post as vice chairwoman of the board earlier this year after a subcommittee’s effort to re-examine the board’s procedures collapsed in rancor.

One board member, who asked not to be named, calls the bickering between board members a “generational conflict,” a split between older, entrenched members and a newer contingent that feels the board is too strict and unwilling to work with the community. But others say it stems from an insensitive board majority that no longer represents community interests.

Most of the controversy centers on the work of board chairwoman Opal Trueblood, who opponents say has turned the board into her own fiefdom.

A retired schoolteacher who has served on the board since 1985, Trueblood is one of the three board members detractors say were improperly reelected in 1991, along with Therese Tanalski and Gus Thorburn, who has since left the board.

Trueblood is a regular at City Hall, an expert on planning issues, and usually knows more about the permit process than other board members and residents, observers say.

Friends and foes alike agree that Trueblood runs the board with a strong hand. She is known for vigorously opposing projects that are incompatible with the natural environment of the area, whether it be a misplaced fence, a view-blocking structure or a brightly colored roof.

But some homeowners say Trueblood and her supporters on the board are overly wary of any proposal, from new homes to simple remodeling projects. There is little undeveloped land in the area; most projects before the planning board involve homes.

“All she is trying to do is delay,” said Carlos Aguilar, who says he unnecessarily spent $18,000 because Trueblood opposed his plan to build a house in Carmel Valley. “She knows how to delay and how to harass and how to play the game.”

Her opponents claim that Trueblood goes too far, representing her own viewpoints as those of the board. In addition, they claim she withholds information, is out of touch with the community and is condescending.

“In my opinion, it is dangerous” to have one person so active on the board, board member Marincovich said. “If one person does all the work, you only get one opinion.”

To Trueblood, the complaints simply go with the territory. She says she spends her own money to make copies of documents for board members and that all the information about city regulations and planning issues is available for those who want to take the time to find it.

The dissident members of the board are simply angry because they haven’t been able to get what they want from the council majority, her supporters say.

“It’s completely a matter of self-interest,” board member Caroline Goupillaud said. “Three or four people . . . are opposed to anything the board does.”

The most persistent charge leveled by opponents and members of the community is that the board is weighted toward people who live in Del Mar Terrace, the area to the east of Los Penasquitos Lagoon. Twelve of the 19 members, including Trueblood, live in Del Mar Terrace or the surrounding area.

“It’s so obvious that they didn’t want (the process) to be opened up,” said board member Shirley Smith, one of the board members who asked for the special meeting. “There was no effort to get people involved.”

But Trueblood and her supporters emphasize that every effort was made to get more people interested in the board, including notices of last year’s election in the local papers.

“We could not find anyone else who wanted to make the commitment” to work on the board last year, Trueblood said.

The update of the community plan has brought matters to a head. Last month, a flyer was distributed to local homes charging that the board was preparing to adopt a plan that would allow the city to confiscate property, dictate the color of homes and destroy property values. The flyer was unsigned.

Dozens of worried community members showed up at recent meetings, which are usually sparsely attended, to voice their concerns. Many expressed surprise that the plan was in the works.

But notices about the community plan were mailed to all homes and businesses in the area, Trueblood said. People just ignored them.

The board is now charged with holding public hearings on the draft plan and providing recommendations to the city. Some homeowners and board members criticize the new plan for failing to address the impact of California 56 on the community, a proposal to pave roads in Del Mar Terrace and other issues.

“Members of the Planning Board are just as unhappy about the plan as members of the community,” Trueblood said.

The lack of communication between the board and the community has been “deliberately fostered by people who want to use the planning group for their own purposes,” she said.

Trueblood’s allies speculate that the recall effort and flyer are being prompted by homeowners looking to redevelop their property under the old plan, not the newer, more restrictive one.

“This is obviously intended to disrupt the planning process,” said former planning group chairwoman Lynn Benn, a member of the San Diego Planning Commission.

“Personally, I feel that if friction on the board brings out the truth, then it is healthy,” board member Smith said. “Isn’t that what democracy is all about?”