San Dieguito Cityhood Foes Try to Block Vote

In a last-ditch effort to block a popular vote on the incorporation of San Dieguito, opponents of cityhood have asked the 4th District Court of Appeal to overturn a ruling that cleared the way for the June 3 balloting.

According to a coalition of business owners and residents fighting incorporation, a favorable decision by the court could either scratch the home rule question from the ballot or nullify the results should the measure, Proposition K, be approved.

“Obviously, we’d like the case heard and a decision issued on this before the election,” said Ralph Ritchie, a member of Citizens for Informed Choice on San Dieguito, the group that filed the appeal. “We hope that this time justice will prevail.”

Last month, a San Diego Superior Court judge rejected a bid by incorporation foes to block the upcoming vote on grounds that the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) acted improperly in approving a proposal to form a city encompassing the communities of Encinitas, Leucadia, Cardiff and Olivenhain.

Despite claims that LAFCO had shirked its administrative duty under state law, Judge Mack P. Lovett ordered that the election be held to determine whether a 45-square-mile city of 44,000 will be created.

As part of the incorporation vote, San Dieguito area residents will also elect a five-member city council and choose one of three names--San Dieguito, Encinitas or Rancho San Elijo--for their new municipality.

An incorporation proposal for Solana Beach will also go to the voters June 3.

Lovett’s verdict didn’t sit well with incorporation opponents, a loose-knit group of retirees, developers and business owners, many of whom question the economic viability of the proposed new city. Last week, Citizens for Informed Choice appealed the ruling. On Tuesday, LAFCO filed its required response to the challenge. A decision by the court could come any day.

Attorneys for the anti-incorporation forces declined to discuss the case. But in court documents the lawyers charge that LAFCO showed “callous disregard for three distinct legal duties” it must perform as overseer of any proposal for cityhood.

Chief among their complaints is that LAFCO, a state agency that must approve incorporation bids before they may go before voters, should have prepared an environmental impact report on the effect the new city would have on the county and neighboring communities.

In addition, so-called sphere of influence studies, which identify land that may logically be annexed by a municipality at a future date, should have been completed before the incorporation proposal was endorsed, the court documents say.

Finally, incorporation opponents have charged that financial feasibility analyses for the proposed city were shoddy and that San Dieguito’s fiscal health under home rule is in doubt.

LAFCO officials, meanwhile, maintain that they followed all the proper procedures in giving the North County incorporation drive the green light.

“As the lower court judge said, LAFCO has done everything in its power to analyze the application intensively,” said Michael Ott, a senior analyst with the agency. “We did one of the most comprehensive fiscal analyses I’ve seen for the San Dieguito proposal. All of our facts have been documented, double checked and verified through numerous agencies.”

In addition, he said: “The facts state that if San Dieguito becomes a city it will be a very financially secure city.”

As for the opponents’ claim that an environmental impact report should have been prepared before a cityhood vote was approved, LAFCO maintains that state law only requires such a report if a project is expected to have an adverse effect on the surrounding area.

“In this case, since there is no city government, no set policies and therefore no concept of what impact, if any, the city’s actions might have on the environment, an EIR is totally inappropriate,” said LAFCO’s attorney, Deputy County Counsel William D. Smith. “It would be speculative. We would have nothing to analyze.”

Smith added that other claims cited in the appeal--like the charge that sphere of influence studies should have been completed before incorporation was allowed to proceed--should have been raised at hearings held before LAFCO months ago.

“They are legally required to raise these questions in an administrative setting first,” Smith said. “We never heard mention of them at any of the hearings. If they had brought up the points, LAFCO could have addressed them and possibly delayed approval of the application.”

Ritchie, an Encinitas artist, said it is his hope that the appeal court will issue a writ of mandate requiring that LAFCO go back and reexamine the San Dieguito incorporation question--before the June election, less than three weeks away.

“A lot of us opponents would favor incorporation under the right circumstances,” Ritchie said. “But the way this is set up, it’s suicide. If it goes forward under these terms, it will be an economic disaster.”

Smith said he doubts that the court will make any decision that would block the election. If incorporation passed, the court could still rule in favor of the opponents and simply nullify the results; if it failed to pass, the appeal would be a moot point.

Still, he conceded, anything is possible.

“Theoretically, the court could issue a writ saying the lower court decision is wrong and requiring that any votes cast for incorporation--which is already printed on the ballots--are not counted,” Smith said. “But I’d hope that if the court planned to decide against us that it would wait until after the voters have had their say.”