[quote=ocrenter]UCGal, you are absolutely correct. the city of SD never annexed the area of 4S. because it had the strip of 92127 next to I-15, I think this is why BG mistook the entire 92127 for 4S.
I know the numbering convention of “921xx” to signify city of SD, but these conventions does not always fit.[/quote]
In my 1994 Thomas Guide, I have on pg 1169 the 92127 zip as white (City of SD, inc) The area is bounded on the north and west by “Artesian Road” (dirt) and Black Mtn Road on the east (partly dirt). What appears to be a 4-lane continuation of Black Mtn Rd (headed east) turns into Rancho Bernardo Rd with the first cross-street being “Camino San Bernardo.” This strip is uninc. After you pass CSB heading east, RB Rd turns back into the City.
The small development off Camino San Bernardo appears to be the only improvements made within 92127 (uninc. area). On the Fairbanks (west side) of inc 92127, “Artesian Rd” becomes paved with a few straight dirt roads off of it (uninc).
The northern boundary of Lake Hodges and surrounds belongs to 92128 (City of SD, inc).
It appears at that time, uninc 92127 had maybe 100-200 residents and inc 92127 none (unless you count lizards).
92173 (San Ysidro, formerly 92073), is now almost ALL incorporated into the City of SD. Formerly uninc, the City now encompasses Brown Field and the Otay Border Crossing. The only part left uninc was the area adjacent to the RJ Donovan Correctional Facility.
The reason I used SY for an example here is because when the City annexed the land in this instance, they actually took over the uninc portion and the zip code was changed to 92173.
I’m not suggesting here that this will happen in 4S but it is still a mystery to me why the City didn’t take over the interior land when everything around it is their jurisdiction. 4S was in the City’s general plan. The (city) zip code was in place. Something happened where the City decided (or was made a deal by developers) NOT to take it. This “deal” theory is probable only because in order for the higher MR to be more “palatable” to the future buyers of 4S, the developer(s) may have not wanted the extra .11 to .27 “incorporation premium” to be added to the Prop 13 base of 1% and then try to saddle the owners with the (by then exorbitant) MR. It would have made the units harder to sell.
I wasn’t born yesterday but wasn’t paying attention to North County shenanigans during these years. If any Piggs can shed light on why 4S isn’t in the City (except that it isn’t), I would be much obliged :=]
