Rancho Santa Fe Cityhood Backed : Leaders of Wealthy Enclave Start Incorporation Campaign

Civic leaders here, convinced that they must wrest political control from the hands of county supervisors to protect the rural character of the ritzy Ranch, have launched a campaign to incorporate.

At a press conference Thursday, leaders of a citizens committee formed to study the feasibility of cityhood announced that research and interviews with residents in recent weeks indicate that home rule is the best tonic for the community’s woes.

Committee Chairman Ed Foss said that lax land-use standards approved by the Board of Supervisors and county plans to widen several key roadways through the sleepy hamlet have angered residents and combined to jeopardize the quality of life in town. Rancho Santa Fe must install a local government to prevent unsuitable development and effectively control its destiny, he said.

“We need to have our own people making decisions that affect our fate,” said Foss, who is also a member of the Rancho Santa Fe Assn. Board of Directors. “That is the bottom line.”

Foss said the committee will hold a public meeting on May 19 to formally announce its recommendation of cityhood and address any lingering community concerns. Immediately thereafter, proponents will begin circulating petitions to gather the signatures necessary to qualify the incorporation proposal for the ballot.

On July 1, committee members hope to present the petitions and their application for cityhood to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), a state agency organized at the county level that must approve all incorporation bids. If all goes as scheduled, the proposal would be before voters in June, 1987.

Thursday’s announcement makes Rancho Santa Fe the third entry into the North County incorporation fray. Incorporation proposals for Solana Beach and a city encompassing Encinitas, Leucadia, Olivenhain and Cardiff will be on the June 3 ballot.

The committee’s decision to recommend cityhood stems from what one member describes as a gradual shift in attitude among many residents of the Ranch, which has a population of about 4,200. At one time, civic leaders believed the community’s protective covenant, a collection of strict rules adopted in 1927, was strong enough to maintain the town’s bucolic ambiance and insulate it from development on its boundaries.

Covering a 10-square-mile area, the covenant is administered by the seven-member Rancho Santa Fe Assn. Board of Directors, essentially a homeowners’ group, and regulates everything from permissible landscaping to a resident’s right to hang laundry in public view. At one time, it included racial residential restrictions.

In recent years, however, community leaders have realized that the covenant is powerless to mute the impacts of the urbanization creeping toward the Ranch from all corners.

Meanwhile, problems like traffic congestion, the level of sheriff’s protection, and controversial land-use standards have gone unaddressed by the Board of Supervisors, according to residents of the estate community. Causing still greater perturbation has been the county’s plan to widen two-lane roads to four-lane highways, a move that locals say will exacerbate an already bad traffic problem.

“That has to be the main motivator,” said committee member Don Frick. “If they build that road, they’ll be sending a thoroughfare right into our little village.”

Despite their firm decision to proceed toward a vote on home rule, Ranch leaders concede that there are numerous details yet to be resolved. Topping the list is the question of boundaries. Foss said there are two choices: To include only that area covered by the covenant or to expand the city to encompass a “narrow rim” of territory populated by about 1,400 people.

“The first route, just the covenant, would be the easy way to go,” Foss said.

But including a wider territory in city boundaries would give Rancho Santa Fe greater control over development on its fringe. And LAFCO officials have indicated that they may not endorse the plan without the wider boundary. The agency generally prefers not to leave pockets of county territory between cities, which would result if only the covenant area were incorporated.

However, some critics of the larger city boundary have suggested that there could be friction between those Ranch residents living within the covenant area and those living around its rim.

“Covenant members get certain advantages, like the privilege of joining the tennis and gold clubs,” Foss said. If cityhood passes, the covenant probably would not be expanded to include the new territory. Foss said residents oppose such an expansion because new covenant members would put a strain on the recreational facilities.

Given that, Foss conceded that “it’s impossible to say that there won’t be tension.” But he predicted that it would wane, and Frick said he believes that “anyone outside Rancho Santa Fe would be delighted” to be included in the new city.

Another detail committee members are still addressing concerns state laws requiring cities to provide affordable housing. Foss, asserting that “people who live in low-cost housing would be just as uncomfortable here as we would be having them here,” said several options are under consideration.

Most promising, he said, is the possibility that Rancho Santa Fe could provide funds to subsidize low-income housing in another community. Also, the presence of maids’ quarters in the community might be used to fulfill its affordable-housing obligation.

Finally, incorporation proponents say they are still wrestling with the precise division of power between the Rancho Santa Fe Assn.--which would remain intact under cityhood--and the new municipal government. Foss said city officials would assume control of roads, police and other functions now performed by the county, while the association would maintain its art jury and administration of the golf and tennis clubs.

“We’re not sure just how it will all fall in place, but we foresee a lot of interplay,” Foss said.