Rancho Bernardo as Reinvention of the Suburb: The Formation of a New Type of
West Coast Master-Planned Community
Thesis Committee Chair: Dr. Jeffrey Charles
Thesis Committee Reader #2: Dr. Michael Henderson
Thesis Committee Reader #3: Dr. S. Deborah Kang
Completed for a Master of Arts in History Degree at California State University San
Marcos in the Summer of 2016
Introduction
Knopp 2
Rancho Bernardo is a suburb — albeit not what some might consider a
“stereotypical” suburb, because it is actually a part of the much larger city of San
Diego, California. When the first modern construction began in what is now Rancho
Bernardo in July of 1962, the area planned for development measured only about
5,400 acres. 1 But over time, various acquisitions would cause it to expand to
encompass much more land, as the market demand for people to move into the area
called for a growing share of the available land. And as it grew, Rancho Bernardo
evolved from a developer planned and corporately governed project into an
independent community of actively zoned, homeowner association-controlled
neighborhoods.
As a planned community aiming for those who had retired from employment,
Rancho Bernardo clearly was not the first. Nor did it bring about homeowners’
associations. However, what set it apart from other suburban developments for its
time was the union of all of these things into an innovative type of development,
known as a common interest development, or CID for short; this would then go on to
inspire many other communities across the United States. During an era when
suburbs of all types were growing and expanding, Rancho Bernardo stood out as an
atypical example, due to its master-planned origins and its incorporation of senior
citizen-only neighborhoods.
Additionally, the master planning did not quite work out as originally hoped:
“Developers Discuss 5,400-Acre Annexation,” San Diego Union, Tuesday, November 7, 1961,
A11.
1
Knopp 3
the citizens of Rancho Bernardo came to believe that their interests were not being
sufficiently represented in the earlier years, so they embraced the idea that
homeowners’ associations and other organizations, such as the Rancho Bernardo
Town Council, could advocate on their behalf. For these reasons, Rancho Bernardo
provides us with a fine example of a community that started out as a master-
planned, prototypical late-twentieth century southern California suburb, all the
while remaining within the official incorporated limits of the city of San Diego, to
become a cohesive, civically engaged community. Examining the earlier
developmental trajectory of Rancho Bernardo illustrates not only how early planned
suburbs were designed according to a top-down, marketing driven vision, but also
how grassroots activist forces can reduce interference from outside entities.
Historiography and General History of Modern Suburbanization
Most of us upon hearing the word “suburb” have a certain stereotypical image in
our minds — that of a tightly zoned municipality with separate areas devoted to
single-family housing subdivisions, sprawling shopping centers and office
complexes, air-conditioned indoor megamalls, and municipal parks with
playgrounds for children. Wide-open parking lots accommodate the automobiles we
need to get us to and from all these places. These have all, to one extent or another,
come to dominate the mainstream culture of the United States of America. Yet there
is also an incredible deal of variety within what we know to be suburbia: some
suburbs are exclusively well to do and have large custom-built mansions on multi-
acre lots, some are home to the “broad middle” and have an assortment of housing
types, and still others are older industrial towns that now experience widespread
Knopp 4
unemployment, poverty, crime, and disrepair. Despite all this, though, it seems that
no matter where we choose to go, we cannot escape the influences that
suburbanization has brought about, both in terms of the physical “built” landscape
and in terms of how we live our lives; it appears to be all-encompassing.
Scholars have written about the "suburbs" for close to a century now, and
they have covered wide-ranging aspects of the topic; however, the key focal points
have shifted, due both to changing interests in the halls of academia and the
changing nature of suburbia itself. Yet scholars themselves still do not all agree on
whether modern suburbanization has always been a flexible mosaic of forms, or
whether it has tended to shift from one form to another over time. They generally
agree that suburbanization has brought about quite a few changes — social, cultural,
and otherwise — but not all of them have been positive. Nor is this concern new;
nearly a century ago, an article in the British Medical Journal put forth this question:
“Would not a scheme of populations based on long arterial roads bordered mile
after mile by villas and bungalows abolish community life?” 2 Indeed, suburbia still
consists of communities, but these communities are for the most part organized in a
notably different manner from the more locally oriented, traditional-type
settlements with multiple uses in the same area, and in some cases, even on the
same parcel of land.
In his seminal work, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United
States, Kenneth T. Jackson notes five aspects of the “walking city,” against which “the
suburbs” have commonly been juxtaposed: 1) congestion; 2) a “clear distinction
2
“Suburbanization,” British Medical Journal, Saturday, May 30, 1925, 1011-1012.
Knopp 5
between city and country”; 3) mixture of functions or “uses”; 4) short distance from
workplaces; and 5) “the tendency of the most fashionable and respectable addresses
to be located close to the center of town.” 3 In opposition, the phenomenon most of
us refer to as “suburbia” would be characterized by the exact opposite traits: 1)
sprawl; 2) blurred lines between city and country; 3) extensive single-use zoning; 4)
the necessity of driving to get to any place of employment or business; and 5) desire
for those with financial means to locate their residences further from their
workplaces. Suburban scholars continue to debate today over whether suburbs and
their accompanying lifeways came about as a result of changes in economic
structures and technology, whether they actually shaped those changes, or whether
the two were interactive processes, feeding off each other. Thus far, evidence seems
to point most favorably toward the latter conclusion.
As other scholars have amply documented elsewhere, the U.S. did, in fact,
become an increasingly suburbanized nation, due to a combination of several
factors: 1) World War II veterans returning home and having relatively large
numbers of children (the "baby boom"); 2) Increasing automobile ownership as
more people needed cars to commute to places of employment, education, and
commerce; 3) the rise of so-called "merchant" building of single-family houses, as
pioneered by Levitt and Sons, Kaufman & Broad, Ryan Homes, and several others; 4)
federal and state government policies that tended to favor more dispersed
development than in prior eras; and 5) Flight of people and jobs from the old,
Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States (Oxford,
England, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 1985), 14-15.
3
Knopp 6
historic center cities. Construction in the United States entered a great slowdown
during the period of the country’s involvement in World War II, as President
Franklin D. Roosevelt enacted Executive Order 9024 in January 1942. This order
mandated that all factories convert from producing civilian goods to war materiel
(weaponry, tanks, aircraft, and the like), and as a direct result, both raw materials
and consumer goods had to be rationed. But after the end of World War II, demand
for new housing so outpaced supply that many families had to either “double up”
with relatives or friends or find other temporary places to live. Various types of
structures originally designed for other purposes became converted for human
habitation, such as: chicken coops, horse stables, railroad cars, grain silos, and
abandoned military barracks. Still others lived out of their cars. 4 These conditions,
along with soldiers and their families receiving benefits from the G.I. Bill and other
government programs, provided the perfect recipe for a midcentury construction
boom.
Merchant Building and “Mass-Produced” Housing
The familiar suburban residential subdivisions may not have arisen as quickly as
they did were it not for a firm called Levitt and Sons, responsible for their
trademark mass building projects named “Levittowns”. In his classic work The
Merchant Builders, Ned P. Eichler points out that prior to the rise of the so-called
“Levittowns,” housing construction remained local: the typical construction firm
was able to build only a handful of new homes per year, and they had to subcontract
Becky M. Nicolaides and Andrew Wiese, eds., The Suburb Reader (New York, New York:
Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2006), 257.
4
Knopp 7
out most of the work to other tradespeople — plumbers, electricians, and roofers,
among others. 5 The Levitts did things differently by vertically integrating their
business to a large degree, effectively bringing detached single-family homes toward
the “mass-produced” category. Instead of building to a customer’s specifications or
simply buying from the suppliers who offered them the best deals at any particular
time, they decided to build their own centrally located facilities that then cut the
lumber, made the piping, and supplied the appliances and fixtures, among other
things. Afterwards, these facilities sent the materials in as pre-assembled of a form
as possible to the evenly spaced construction sites. 6 The peak year for new singlefamily housing starts in the mid-twentieth-century United States was 1950, with
approximately 1.95 million permits for these units approved. 7 However, despite the
increase in nationwide fertility rates, most homes remained smaller by today’s
standards, averaging only about 1,000 square feet and containing only one
bathroom despite having two or three bedrooms. 8 At first blush, one might not think
that Levitt and Sons had much to do with the formation of Rancho Bernardo, and the
Levittown homes were small, simple, and architecturally rather plain — in these
regards, directly comparable to Henry Ford’s Model T. However, what they achieved
compares to what the “Tin Lizzie” had done for automobile ownership: through
mass production-inspired building techniques, the Levitts and their developments
took a major step toward making long-term homeownership possible, and
5
6
7
8
Ned P. Eichler, The Merchant Builders (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), 66.
Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier, 234-235.
Ned P. Eichler, The Merchant Builders, 165.
Ibid, 139.
Knopp 8
eventually widespread, for the typical middle-class or working-class American
family, unleashing a massive social change across the nation. 9
Beginnings of Master-Planned Communities
Rancho Bernardo was not completely a standalone venture — it followed a
larger nationwide trend of corporate master-planned communities. In fact, the
central portion of the East Coast of the United States contained two notable planned
communities preceding Rancho Bernardo. These were the cities of Columbia,
Maryland, established by James Rouse, and Reston, Virginia, founded by Robert E.
Simon. Unlike Rancho Bernardo, however, both Columbia and Reston incorporated
multiple-use zoning into their designs from the very beginning, thus rendering them
closer to traditional city layouts despite being called “new towns”. 10 The creators of
these two cities hoped that they would become successful in persuading individuals
to relocate to these places, but these efforts met with only modest success in the
long run, as they did not attract as many residents as was originally hoped;
nonetheless, they influenced other communities far beyond the area — including, to
some extent, Rancho Bernardo.
Suburbs and the Problem of Invisible Boundaries
Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier, 236. The Levitts concentrated their business primarily in the northeastern United States, and then gradually spread their influence westward and southward;
however, they did not introduce any major projects in the West or in the Deep South, perhaps due to
regional differences in architectural and construction styles.
10
John M. Findlay, Magic Lands: Western Cityscapes and American Culture after 1940 (Berkeley,
California: University of California Press, 1992), 289-290. In fact, “new towns” attempted to draw on traditional city planning techniques, but incorporate modern amenities and technologies into them.
More recently, such projects have also often included energy- and resource-efficient construction techniques.
9
Rancho Bernardo also provides a good example of transitions from one
Knopp 9
suburban area to another: when tourists pass from Escondido into the city of San
Diego while driving south on Interstate 15, there are two primary indicators that
they have changed municipal boundaries: Lake Hodges and a green sign just before
it that reads, “San Diego City Limits.” The sign is the primary marker clarifying
matters; otherwise, many people might think that they were either still in
Escondido, or that they were passing through an unincorporated area. When looking
solely at topographical features, it is difficult if not impossible to tell where one
municipality ends and another begins, especially if one of them has a far higher
population than the other. Therefore, people often have to rely on maps, in-vehicle
navigation systems, and Internet-based technologies such as Google Maps,
MapQuest, and even real-estate listing websites such as Zillow in order to make sure
they are in the correct city and neighborhood when they arrive at their intended
destinations. And this problem is not at all isolated to San Diego or even to
California: suburbanization, with all of its myriad varieties, has grown over time to
become, by a wide margin, the dominant type of land-use pattern nationwide.
Because of this, Americans now have a different relationship to the land as a whole
than did their ancestors. In past eras, urbanites could access most of their cities’
amenities simply by walking several blocks.
San Diego was clearly no exception to the suburban sprawl phenomenon with
regard to Rancho Bernardo. However, it was the master-planning aspect within an
area that had not yet been clearly defined that helped to set Rancho Bernardo apart,
and initially, Rancho Bernardo residents were eager to move into a new community
Knopp 10
that put a single company in charge of overseeing the process of development, as
this may have made the community appear more cohesive than simply allowing
builders free rein to purchase and build according to their various preferences.
Furthermore, Rancho Bernardo’s availability of various housing types presented an
alternative to communities such as the Levittowns and Lakewood, California, which
mostly consisted of row after row of the same types and sizes of single-family (and
often single-story) houses and lots. Nonetheless, many people who lived in Rancho
Bernardo wanted to exercise a degree of control over what their neighbors and
others living in close proximity could and could not do with their homes.
Homeowners’ Associations and Common-Interest Developments (CIDs)
Many residential developments in the United States constructed within the past
several decades have something in common: they contain homeowners’
associations, which are groups of all of those who own homes in the development
and pay a monthly fee to use certain “shared amenities” such as playgrounds,
swimming pools, tennis courts, and the like. And although homeowners’
associations tend to be treated as business entities under the United States legal
code, membership in an association is mandatory for anybody living in a
neighborhood governed by one. 11 Many of the developments with homeowners’
associations began as common interest developments (CIDs), which, in essence,
were large-scale master-planned developments governed by a range of covenants,
conditions, and restrictions, or CC&Rs for short.
11
Becky M. Nicolaides and Andrew Wiese, eds., The Suburb Reader, p. 440.
Overall, homeowners’ associations can be either a blessing or a burden,
Knopp 11
depending on one’s perspective. Some people view them as benefiting resale values
and overall perceptions of neighborhood orderliness, due to their limitations on
arbitrary cosmetic or structural modifications. However, others, especially those
living in more rural areas, might instead feel that the associations constitute a form
of “shadow government” that places unnecessary restrictions on top of pre-existing
laws and local ordinances. 12 In Rancho Bernardo, for example, the associations
limited or prohibited the parking of certain types of vehicles, such as recreational
vehicles (RVs), but the street layouts and driveway designs seemed to already
discourage this. Rancho Bernardo’s residents apparently seemed to accept the
prohibitions on posting signage, especially signs for yard sales, political campaigns,
and other related activities. On top of this, one association’s regulations even
determined the acceptable colors for window drapes and blinds. 13
Whenever a new resident moved into a home in Rancho Bernardo, they were
provided with a copy of the CC&Rs specific to their development — the promoters
likened it to an “owners’ manual for one’s home.” 14 When the typical casual
observer looks at Rancho Bernardo as it is today, it may be difficult for them to
simply guess that this place originated as a master-planned community, as many of
the nonresidential spaces have been heavily renovated. However, the CC&Rs still
Ibid, p. 440.
Evan McKenzie, Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Residential Private
Government (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1994), in Becky M. Nicolaides and
Andrew Wiese, eds., The Suburb Reader (New York, New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group,
2006), 456.
14
“On Behalf of the Buying Public: Guide Lines for Improvement, Maintenance and Protection of
Your Property,” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 7, No. 1 (January 1974), 28-29.
12
13
Knopp 12
appear to remain in full force and effect, as overall neighborhood appearances tend
to remain relatively well kept. Yet some neighborhoods seem much more stringent
than others in this regard: for example, The Trails tends to allow much wider
latitude in exterior decorations than the Haciendas, the Villas, or Oaks North, where
exterior modifications other than modest wind chimes tend to be frowned upon.
Even in its earliest developmental phases, Rancho Bernardo helped to lead the
way toward modern suburban homeowners’ expectations from their residences.
One article in the April 1966 edition of the Bernardo Brandings, titled “Mrs. America
Builds Her Dream House,” makes this clear by detailing certain specifications
women wanted to have in their new homes. These included master bedrooms with
ensuite bathrooms, multiple bathrooms in the same residence, fully enclosed twocar garages with optional electric openers, and open back patio areas with direct
viewing from the kitchen window. 15 And yet, even though these would seem like
features befitting growing families, they also appealed, in the case of Rancho
Bernardo, to some retirees. Other large merchant builders and corporations would
not follow en masse until later in the 1970s, when technological advancements and
increased competition drove prices down, and they did not make the features
standard across some (or all) of their home lines until the 1980s.
San Diego Prior to Rancho Bernardo
For the longest part of its inhabited history, the area we now call Rancho
Bernardo first functioned as a seasonal hunting, fishing, and camping grounds for
15
2.
“A House to Build a Dream On … Mrs. America’s Home in RB,” Bernardo Brandings, April 1966,
Knopp 13
local Native American groups. Some of the rock formations in this area bear witness
to the activities of the indigenous women, who used smaller rocks or stones to grind
corn and seeds, and doing this repeatedly caused pits and eventually holes to appear
in the rock formations. 16 Then in 1789, just twenty years after Father Junípero Serra
established Mission San Diego de Alcalá, this area would become home to a
permanent settlement. The Spanish monarchy called this area La Cañada de San
Bernardo and granted it as a ranch to an English sea captain, Joseph Sevenoaks, who
became a Spanish colonial citizen and Hispanicized his name to José Francisco
Snook. 17 Thus, Rancho Bernardo had notable Anglo involvement long before
California changed hands from Mexico to the United States when both countries
signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to end the Mexican-American War in 1848.
Two years thereafter, California became promoted to official statehood status. But
after this happened, the ranchos fell into decline; however, this presented another
opportunity for enterprising individuals — they could purchase the land the
ranchos occupied, then develop it further into small towns.
In this vein, Rancho San Bernardo became the small town of Bernardo in 1872.
This town lasted for several decades, but by the end of the 1910s, it had yet again
given out, after which prominent local landowner George Daley acquired the land
and added it to the Daley Ranch, where it remained undeveloped for the next four
decades. 18 One key reason for Bernardo’s decline may have been the development of
“Piedras Pinturas: A Key to Bygone Centuries,” Bernardo Brandings, February 1, 1965, 2.
“Father of Rancho Bernardo,” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 8, No. 3 (March 1975), 11-12.
18
Rancho Bernardo Historical Society. The museum has a sign that reads, “Bernardo — 1872-1918
— ‘The Town That Was’.”
16
17
Knopp 14
land in other areas of San Diego County during the first half of the twentieth century
for both residential and employment purposes. These areas included downtown San
Diego and the areas directly to its east, and these latter areas collectively came to be
known as East County. Some parts of the city of Escondido to the north also grew
during this time. Yet San Diego still remained a relative newcomer compared to the
likes of New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Boston, and even to the northern
California cities of San Francisco and Oakland.
Even before Rancho Bernardo became a local household name, the city of San
Diego had busily transformed itself into a coastal urban center, with its primary
lifeblood at this time being industries related to the armed forces, most especially as
a key stationing and deployment center for sailors in the United States Navy. The
northern boundaries of the city were quite a bit further south than they are today —
in fact, the area that is today Kearny Mesa was considered to be one of the furthest
north points within the official city limits. 19 However, the development of Rancho
Bernardo and other communities would encourage San Diego to annex additional
territory, causing Rancho Bernardo to take on a prominent role in reshaping the
city, both in terms of governing structures and actual physical boundaries and
appearance. San Diego provided ample opportunities for suburbanization after
World War II, as the city had grown its economy during the war by focusing heavily
on technologically oriented industries serving the armed forces, including those
Susan Floyd, mod. “The Daley Ranch House Interview” (Rancho Bernardo Historical Society,
Produced by Teamwork Video, Recorded Feb. 11, 2007), DVD. 43 min.
19
such as aerospace. 20
Knopp 15
A Great Plan Comes of Age
San Diego’s population was growing at a relatively rapid clip during the 1950s
and early 1960s: the 1950 U.S. Census recorded 535,967 people residing in San
Diego County; 21 with the 1960 Census, however, this number had jumped to
1,033,011, meaning that it had nearly doubled within the span of a decade. 22
Because of this growth, developers sought out many vacant areas of land to
accommodate all the new residents. It also should only be fitting that the San Diego
Union newspaper became the first notable publication to mention the modern
Rancho Bernardo, on page 11 of its November 7, 1961 edition, in an article titled
“Developers Discuss 5,400-Acre Annexation.” The developers responsible for this
annexation were two men who were based in La Jolla: W. R. Hawn and Harry L.
Summers, the latter of who would go on to become president of Rancho Bernardo,
Inc. 23 These two commissioned the Los Angeles-based firm of Charles Luckman and
Associates to draw up the original master plan for the new community, 24 with help
from Richard L. Weiser, formerly the Assistant Planning Director for the city of San
Diego; Weiser would go on to become the executive vice president of Rancho
“Wartime Training Classes Offered at Sweetwater,” San Diego Union, Sunday morning, February
21, 1943, A14.
21
“County Population Gains 6.8 Percent since April,” San Diego Union, Monday, January 8, 1951,
B6.
22
“County Population Shows 8.2% Boost,” San Diego Union, Tuesday morning, January 9, 1962,
A17.
23
“Developers Discuss 5,400-Acre Annexation,” San Diego Union, Tuesday, November 7, 1961,
A11.
24
Tom Bishop, “Many Contributors Make a Blend,” San Diego Union, Sunday, May 12, 1963, F15.
20
Knopp 16
Bernardo, Inc. 25 Rather than taking on the tasks of design and development “farmed
out” design and development to various other southern California developers, such
as Tucker, Sadler and Bennett in San Diego for the Pomerado Shopping Village
(Rancho Bernardo’s first shopping center), Livingstone-Brown in La Jolla for what
would become the Rancho Bernardo Swim and Tennis Club, and Earl G. Kaltenbach
in Anaheim for the Rancho Bernardo Inn and some of the early homes. 26
This proposed annexation, moreover, was to bring the northernmost point of
San Diego “…nine or 10 miles farther north”; however, in order for this annexation
to bear fruit in the form of Rancho Bernardo, another prior proposal had to be
cancelled. This proposal was construction of an additional “super” dam for Lake
Hodges, an artificial lake. 27 Additionally, plans for the San Diego Wild Animal Park
(now the San Diego Zoo Safari Park) and possibly the expansion of Interstate 15 to
include a portion of Old Highway 395 would have had to be modified considerably
or tabled altogether. Therefore, if the city of San Diego had approved the proposal
for the dam, then San Diego County would likely look very different today — and
Rancho Bernardo as we now know it may have likely been under water. Thus,
modern Rancho Bernardo clearly was not inevitable, as the city of San Diego tried to
balance growth and water needs.
Promoting the Big Idea: Rancho Bernardo Decides to Advertise
As with other communities that catered to people more advanced in age, Rancho
25
26
27
“An Interview with Dick Weiser,” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 2, No. 10 (October 1969), 8.
Tom Bishop, “Many Contributors Make a Blend,” San Diego Union, Sunday, May 12, 1963, F15.
Ibid.
Knopp 17
Bernardo’s early promoters relied heavily on print advertising from the beginning
to persuade people to move in and to promote this new creation. Regular
newspaper readers could find some of the first advertisements touting the then-new
Rancho Bernardo not only in the San Diego Union, but also, interestingly enough, in
the Los Angeles Times as well. However, these advertisements consisted primarily of
text, likely because the area was still undergoing the earlier phases of construction.
One such advertisement asked “50 or Over?” before describing the Rancho Bernardo
Community Center, which was about to open its doors at the time. 28 Another ad, this
one from the Los Angeles Times, simply asked, “Retiring?” before calling Rancho
Bernardo “America’s most beautiful retirement community,” ostensibly to draw
more people southward. 29 One advertisement on page F3 of the December 2, 1962
edition of the San Diego Union touts the olive trees planted along the median strip,
which grew in the unincorporated community of Alpine before they were moved to
the “center parkway” (median strip) of Rancho Bernardo Road; these were most
likely put there to give the place more of a “natural” feel, and the lower right corner
of the advertisement shows a straight vertical line connecting Escondido to
downtown San Diego, with Rancho Bernardo positioned immediately below
Escondido. 30 An advertisement on page F3 of the July 21, 1963 edition of the San
Diego Union proudly proclaims: “Compare and you'll agree, your best retirement
value is Rancho Bernardo,” further announcing that there is an olive tree in the front
“50 or Over?” Advertisement, San Diego Union, Sunday, April 14, 1963, F7.
“Retiring?” Los Angeles Times, Advertisement, March 17, 1963, I2. Although many people today
are rather young to remember this, the Los Angeles area had the unfortunate distinction of being
highly polluted due to both automobile traffic and industrial waste, so this may have been an opportunity for some retirees to escape to a less densely packed locale with cleaner air.
30
“New Approach,” Advertisement, San Diego Union, Sunday, December 2, 1962, F3.
28
29
yard of every home. 31
Knopp 18
To help draw in more residents and build a stronger sense of community, some
of the organizers decided to put out a newsletter, which they called Bernardo
Brandings. The Brandings started its run in July 1962, having a typical newsletter
format with only four pages and using only black ink. Over time, however, the
number of pages grew, and by the end of the 1960s, the Bernardo Brandings had
essentially changed into a magazine-type layout, with each edition featuring over
fifty pages, full-color photographs, and prominent advertisements for local
businesses. This mode of organization continued until the Bernardo Brandings
ceased publication, at which point most of the land in Rancho Bernardo had already
been either built on or set aside for construction in the near future. And although
Rancho Bernardo advertised all across the United States, the first couple to move
into this new development, Mr. and Mrs. William Lee Burnside, was already local,
having previously resided in La Jolla; they also owned a second home in Parker,
Arizona. 32
The Rancho Bernardo Plan
Now some people might argue that, strictly on the basis of its outward
appearance, Rancho Bernardo does not have anything particularly special about it
(other than perhaps having a mixture of architectural styles). It is true that,
“Compare and you'll agree, your best retirement value is Rancho Bernardo,” Advertisement, San
Diego Union, Sunday, July 21, 1963, F3. Some of the landscaping may also have helped to create a
more “established” feel to the communities, as opposed to simply having the residents move in and
gradually landscape over time.
32
“First Family Moves into Rancho Bernardo!” Bernardo Brandings, June 1963, 1.
31
Knopp 19
beginning less than a decade after it started, Rancho Bernardo veered away from its
originally envisioned development trajectory and toward a more typical suburban
one, and by the mid-1980s, the community had taken on a considerably different
character, both in appearance and in governance, from the one its visionaries
intended. However, Rancho Bernardo still has several age-restricted developments,
which does make it fairly unique among other retirement communities, which
generally do not allow non-retirees or people under age 55 to live there at
all. Moreover, one key respect in which Rancho Bernardo notably differed from
other contemporary suburban-type developments around the nation was its
deliberate inclusion of multiple types of housing. Detached single-family houses,
condominiums, and apartment complexes all existed within a short distance of each
other, thus providing a variety of housing types for customers with different
preferences.
Rancho Bernardo Inc. executive vice president Dick Weiser articulated this
general vision in a 1969 interview, where he stated that he did not want what
started out as “22 miles of undeveloped property and a two lane road … becoming a
stereotype community.” 33 He commented that he specifically aimed for the Seven
Oaks development to “…be an area within a part of the balanced community of
Rancho Bernardo rather than a completely separate entity.” In fact, rather than a
stereotype, Rancho Bernardo was much more akin to a prototype for future
suburban design in several respects: it mixed multiple types of housing
33
“An Interview with Dick Weiser,” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 2, No. 10 (October 1969), 10-12.
Knopp 20
developments tailored for different demographics (including large custom-built
houses), it included an industrial park with “clean” electronics manufacturing
facilities, it offered housing options specifically geared toward senior citizens, and it
helped to bring the common interest development, or CID, into the mainstream of
suburban society.
Up until the 1960s, most homes built in the United States had only one
bathroom, or two if they had two stories. But as living standards increased, so did
the American public's expectations for features in their homes. By design, Rancho
Bernardo became one of the first planned communities where, from the outset,
multiple bathrooms in the same dwelling were the rule rather than the exception —
two, two and a half or in some cases, even three. This possibly paved the way for the
typical model lineups of tract homes all across the United States, and most of us
have come to now expect at least two bathrooms in a dwelling.
Rancho Bernardo as a Different Kind of Retirement Community
Another innovation for the time, one that would go on to become a
distinguishing characteristic of Rancho Bernardo, was the introduction of a then-
new housing type — the condominium, or condo for short. 34 Some people wanted to
enjoy the privilege of owning a home, but also have some of the maintenance work,
especially on the exterior appearance and in the yards, taken care of by a property
management company, as was the case with apartment complexes. 35 It was this
“Rancho Bernardo Opens City’s First Condominium,” San Diego Union, Wednesday, March 6,
1963, F11. Technically, La Jolla was the first area in San Diego County to see condominium
construction, but Rancho Bernardo was the first to have complexes with specific age restrictions.
35
“Condominium — Togetherness Living,” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 6, No. 10 (October 1973),
48-49.
34
Knopp 21
niche market that condominiums sought to fill, and Rancho Bernardo offered some
of the first condominium complexes aimed at retirees. Two of the earliest such
developments built in Rancho Bernardo were the Haciendas and The Rancho
Bernardo Villas. Rather than being a standalone subdivision, the Haciendas became
integrated into the eastern end of the larger age-restricted Seven Oaks development,
and they were grouped into triplexes. In fact, Rancho Bernardo, Inc. President Harry
L. Summers stated that Rancho Bernardo, Inc., became “…the first major builder in
the San Diego area to offer triplex condominiums.” 36 Architecturally, the Haciendas
proved rather basic, and all units had the same general exterior appearance —
white paint with red tile roofs and contrasting dark brown trim on the gutters and
frames around the windows and doors. Customers could choose from three modest
single-story floor plans: one bedroom and one bathroom, two bedrooms and one
bathroom, or two bedrooms and two bathrooms.37 The Haciendas did not contain
garages, but they did include sheltered carports, grassy front lawns, and some
sidewalks, and they were located within walking distance of the Seven Oaks
Community Center.
The Villas followed the same basic color scheme as the Haciendas, but this
development used a different architectural style — one drawing on elements of
Spanish colonial architecture, including rounded archways, smooth stucco siding,
and a central “courtyard” area. Also unlike the Haciendas, the some of the Villas had
Harry L. Summers, “The President’s Corner,” Bernardo Brandings, Oct. 1, 1965, 4.
“Carefree Adult Living … In Seven Oaks Haciendas,” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 2, No. 3 (March
1969), 15-16.
36
37
Knopp 22
two-story floor plans, with some of the units having stairs leading down to the
entrances. The Villas were showcased at Disneyland’s General Electric Pavilion, and
the local firm responsible for designing the Villas, Frank L. Hope and Associates, one
of the 100 largest architectural firms in the United States at this time, won awards
for their work in 1967 and 1968. 38 Notably, many people who bought into the Villas
did not live there year-round; instead, many of the owners of the units used them as
either second/vacation homes or as investment properties (e.g., to build up equity
and/or as tax write-offs). 39 Dedicated retirement-only communities first began in
the 1950s, but Rancho Bernardo helped to pioneer the first retirement-only
condominium developments.
It is also notable that Rancho Bernardo grew at a time when total single-family
housing starts across the United States had entered a period of gradual decline. But
even though houses were not being built in as large of total numbers as they had
been before, they were beginning to become larger and better equipped, a trend
clearly evident in most of the newly built Rancho Bernardo developments.
AVCO Involvement: Corporate Entrance into Community Building
Not long after the modern Rancho Bernardo was born, a combination of local
and corporate influence began to make its way into the grand design. One firm, a
large New York-based conglomerate called AVCO, gained the upper hand in late
“Bernardo Villas Wins General Electrics ‘Builder of the Month’ Award for Rancho Bernardo,” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 3, No. 1 (January 1970), 12-13.
39
Ibid, 13. This general trend still holds, especially in the Sunbelt — many residences, both newer
and older, are used as temporary and/or vacation homes. Another change in recent years has been an
increase in the number of foreign nationals using U.S. residential properties as investments.
38
Knopp 23
1968 when they decided to acquire a fifty-one percent controlling interest in Rancho
Bernardo, Inc., renaming it AVCO Community Developers, Inc. (ACDI) in the
process. 40 Originally established in 1929 as the Aviation Corporation, 41 AVCO was
widely known for its work in the aerospace industry, but also involved itself in
“…electronics, ordnance, abrasives, radio, television, farm equipment, steel, home
appliances, education services, insurance and financial services.” 42 In February
1971, ACDI moved their headquarters from Rancho Bernardo to La Jolla, as the
former community was no longer their primary focus; in fact, ACDI had at this point
diversified not only into other areas in southern California, including in other areas
of San Diego County and Laguna Niguel in Orange County, but also into three other
states: Georgia, Illinois, and Ohio. 43
AVCO sought to develop areas like these not just to increase their profits and
diversify their portfolio; they, like some other development firms, believed that the
overall trajectory suburban development in the United States had taken proved to
be both inefficient and unsightly. One of AVCO’s major goals in real estate
development, then, was to “…provide homes in varying price ranges, industrial
parks, commercial and recreational facilities, schools, open spaces and green belts”
in order to stave off “…the unavoidable evolution of many of these (typical)
Carl W. Ritter, “It’s Official Now — AVCO Joins Us,” San Diego Union, Tuesday, December 10,
1968, p. C9.
41
“AVCO Corporation … Bright New Chapter in the History of the Ranch,” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 2, No. 1 (January 1970), 15-16.
42
Ibid.
43
“AVCO Community Developers, Inc., Active in a Diversity of Projects,” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 4, No. 2, (February 1971), 12-16.
Interestingly, AVCO did not locate any of their early real estate projects in the northeastern United
States, despite having their headquarters there.
40
Knopp 24
‘neighborhoods’ into poorly planned, rapidly obsolescent land uses.” 44 While AVCO
was not officially part of the “New Urbanism” movement, they did embrace some of
their underlying guiding principles in their development of Rancho Bernardo:
providing a mixture of architectural styles, higher developmental density for the
area as a whole, and maintenance of some “open space” for both municipal parks
and natural preserves. However, some elements of “conventional” suburbanization
remained: ubiquitous single-use zoning, allowing roads to follow the natural
contours of the land rather than using “gridiron” layouts, and spreading out
shopping areas and business offices as opposed to gathering them into a single
central business district. Hence, one of AVCO’s explicit goals from the outset was to
participate in the continued suburban expansion across the United States, but to do
so in a more “controlled” form so that the people living in these developments could
enjoy the same benefits of suburbia without the perceived drawbacks. In fact, the
first issue of the Bernardo Brandings, published in July 1962, spoke about the
“Bernardo idea” as a reference to a completely master-planned community,
asserting that “…men have a right to as much security as possible in their homes and
that this security can best be insured by planned land use.” 45 Planned land use may
have increased financial security because it usually proscribed “incompatible” or
other unattractive land uses, and it may have also increased physical security
because master-planning tends to organize the structures in such a way that
community members can more easily spot suspicious activities.
44
45
Ibid, 14-15.
“The Bernardo Idea,” Bernardo Brandings, July 1962, 2.
The Relationship between Rancho Bernardo and the City of San Diego
Knopp 25
Articles from the 1960s and 1970s editions of the San Diego Union newspaper
refer to Rancho Bernardo as a distinct area, even though it had become an integral
part of the city of San Diego. In terms of core-periphery relationships, Rancho
Bernardo was definitely in the periphery at the beginning, especially in terms of
commercial activities. This can be seen in early newspaper advertisements for the
community, which touted Rancho Bernardo as being a reasonable drive from
downtown San Diego. Yet as it developed over time, it seemed to become another
core, as something of both an alternative to and a replacement for downtown San
Diego, albeit with less density and more single-use zoning. In this respect, then,
Rancho Bernardo became more like most other suburbs across the United States.
Most of the people living in Rancho Bernardo seemed to consider themselves
San Diegans, but not truly urbanized. The San Diego City Council, however, may
have pressed for further development in an urban direction. Suburbs that develop
as planned communities are not always as planned as they seem; they, too, are
subject to not only revisions to the initial plans, but also to market forces (including
lobbying efforts at the state and federal government levels). The market forces
include not only individual developers buying and building on parcels of land, but
also corporations such as AVCO purchasing controlling interests in entire
communities, as they did with Rancho Bernardo.
Paving the Way Forward: New Innovations in Community and Home Design
Elements
Knopp 26
It only seems fitting that as it was master-planned, Rancho Bernardo became
among the first major communities to move its entire public utility infrastructure,
including its electrical and cable lines, underground. Harry L. Summers, who was
then president of ACDI, explained that this was a good idea for three key reasons:
“…the protection of the buyers (sic) investment,” “…the safety factors
undergrounding will provide for the community,” and “…its added esthetic value.” 46
This meant that not only would burying all utility lines underground improve the
appearance of the community, it also had a secondary benefit of removing a fire and
lightning hazard because all of the old exposed utility poles were made of unpainted
wood. By contrast, underground lines are protected from the elements. ACDI would
also later take this idea to the city of Laguna Niguel in Orange County, another of
their master-planned communities.
Despite being a master-planned community, Rancho Bernardo also included a
fair degree of architectural variation. Some of the developments, such as the Villas,
attempted to clothe themselves in the more traditional Spanish colonial look of “old
California”; others, such as Gatewood Hills and Westwood, took a notably different
approach with more “nature-inspired” elements, such as brown exterior paint jobs
and shake-shingle roofs, and The Trails allowed custom architecture as long as it
remained within the general guidelines. 47 Regardless of the particular exterior
appearances, however, newer technologies and décor trends dominated the new
“Telephone Cables Go Under,” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 3, No. 4 (April 1970), 14. Today, the only
place in all of Rancho Bernardo that still has overhead power lines is the Bernardo Winery
(considered a “historic” location).
47
Shake-shingle roofs have largely gone by the wayside, especially in the western United States,
due to them being major fire hazards in drought-prone regions.
46
Knopp 27
model houses and condominiums. Rancho Bernardo also helped to popularize a
change in how model homes were presented to prospective customers: instead of
simply putting up the homes and leaving them bare on the inside, developers
decided to furnish the homes with furniture and decorations, making it easier for
people to imagine themselves living in the new homes. 48
The Industrial/Commercial Side of Things
But Rancho Bernardo was not entirely residential: It also hosted various types of
businesses — retail, hospitality, and even industrial. Not long after the first houses
went in place, Rancho Bernardo’s first shopping center, known as the Pomerado
Shopping Village, came about in 1964; a second center, The Mercado, followed a few
years later. Both embodied variations on the strip mall design, with the Mercado
having a markedly more Southwestern U.S. region-specific character to it. Having
multiple shopping centers did present customers with some degree of choice, but
Rancho Bernardo was never to become home to any indoor megamalls (again, partly
due to the traffic reasons).
The Rancho Bernardo Inn is another piece of evidence that the community was
not entirely residential in its zoning. When people traveled to the city of San Diego
prior to the mid-1960s, the only places they could stay overnight were in small
motels or large hotels, mostly in downtown San Diego. With the building of the
Rancho Bernardo Inn, however, another option sprang up, and people did not have
“Experiment Proves Model Homes Sell,” Los Angeles Times, July 18, 1965, I14. Rancho Bernardo,
Inc., did not own their own furniture or decorating firm; rather, they contracted with local companies
and retailers, the most notable being Porter Johnson in downtown Escondido; these companies also
advertised in the Bernardo Brandings.
48
Knopp 28
to drive as far south if they wanted to remain in the city. The RB Inn also provided
private dining and banquet areas, as well as meeting rooms with hookups for audio
and video equipment. 49 Yet this was not all, for another factor worked itself into the
master planning — technological advancements in computing.
Along with the development of microchips and the advent of modern-day
information technology, new occupational possibilities opened up, and Rancho
Bernardo was not about to pass up these opportunities. Seeing that AVCO involved
itself in the aerospace industry, it was not much of a leap for them to attract
industry into this burgeoning new community. Garrett, another company in this line
of work, constructed one of their plants within Rancho Bernardo. 50 Also, Hewlett-
Packard (HP) originally decided to headquarter their Southern California division in
Pasadena in 1958, but moved down to Rancho Bernardo ten years later. 51 National
Cash Register (NCR) constructed a plant in the industrial park, where it
manufactured the Century, one of its top-line machines, 52 and Sony even set up their
own plant for assembling their Trinitron color television sets. 53
Of course, the new community also needed a gathering place for recreation, and
it was this role that the Rancho Bernardo Swim and Tennis Club sought to fill. In
addition to a pool and tennis courts, the club also offered an indoor gym, Little
League baseball batting cages, a playground for young children, a picnic area, a
“The Inn at Rancho Bernardo,” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 3, No. 3 (March 1970), 10-13.
“Here Comes Garrett,” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 2, No. 9 (September 1969), 11.
51
“Bernardo Industrial Park: Hewlett-Packard Brings Impressive Growth Record to Rancho
Bernardo,” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 3, No. 15 (November 1970), 24.
52
“National Cash Register to Begin Operation at Rancho Bernardo in May,” Bernardo Brandings,
Vol. 1, No. 4 (April 1968), 6-7.
53
“The Industrious Folks on the Hill,” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 6, No. 8 (August 1973), 29-32.
49
50
Knopp 29
woodworking shop, and even a couple of meeting rooms that could be reserved for
smaller community events. Therefore, the RB Swim and Tennis Club drew in people
not only because of its athletics and other physical activities, but also because it
became a kind of community hub to leisurely socialize.
As far as religion was concerned, Rancho Bernardo did not show any signs of
becoming an entirely secularized or, at the very least, spiritually neutral community.
Churches played an integral role almost from the beginning, with the oldest and
largest among these being the Rancho Bernardo Community Presbyterian Church
(RBCPC), which also ranks among the best funded. First established as the Rancho
Bernardo Community Church in 1964, it held worship services inside the then-new
Seven Oaks Community Center under the auspices of Reverend J. Earl Cavanaugh,
the vicar of Saint Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church in the neighboring
unincorporated community of Poway. 54 However, the community raised funds to
build a separate sanctuary located near the intersection of Rancho Bernardo and
Pomerado Roads, and the project broke ground in 1966. In these regards, then,
Rancho Bernardo was not destined to become an entirely residential community,
however much its planners may have taken their inspirational cues from places
such as the Sun Cities or Leisure Worlds. It was, in effect, to be more like a “city
within a city,” according to a December 31, 1961 article in the San Diego Union. 55
As Richard A. Mercurio has argued, this type of master planning contrasts with so­
Rancho Bernardo Community Presbyterian Church. This information was gathered from notes
and photographs on display as part of a fiftieth-anniversary commemoration of the church. In addition to St. Bartholomew’s, the northern portion of Poway also had St. Michael’s Catholic Church,
originally built in 1958.
55
“Start of Golf Course Opens ‘Largest’ Project,” San Diego Union, Sunday, December 31, 1961, F3.
54
Knopp 30
called “non-conformist” communities, such as Eucalyptus Woods just northeast of
the city of Escondido, California. In the mid-1980s, Eucalyptus Woods did not
contain any homeowners’ associations, but it also had only detached single-family
homes, whose appearances varied markedly from one home to the next. 56
True to its original planners’ intentions, Rancho Bernardo had become a mostly selfcontained community with housing available in differing sizes, styles, and prices, as
well as multiple shopping centers, an industrial park, and lodging. Eucalyptus
Woods, on the other hand, consisted mostly of single-family homes with some
farmland; residents had to drive to get anywhere other than to other peoples’
homes, as bus service did not reach this community. 57
Evan McKenzie points out in his book Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and
the Rise of Residential Private Government that, among the various communities
within the city and even county of San Diego, Rancho Bernardo ranked among the
best-represented by homeowners. 58 This representation was to prove crucial in the
protracted struggle against corporate and city domination of local neighborhood
policies. One such clash occurred in December 1974, when the Rancho Bernardo
Town Council, led by chairman Ray Webb, disputed the city of San Diego’s findings
that allowing greater growth in and around Rancho Bernardo would “negatively
impact” existing noise and pollution levels. One of the largest sticking points
56
Richard A. Mercurio, “Landscape Taste in Suburbia: A Comparison of Planned and Non-
Conformist Communities” (Master’s thesis, San Diego State University, 1986), 148.
57
Ibid, 114. Even today, Eucalyptus Woods (which has technically become part of the city of
Escondido) is a community zoned only for residential and small agricultural use, and does not have
homeowners’ associations.
58
Evan McKenzie, Privatopia, in Becky M. Nicolaides and Andrew Wiese, eds., The Suburb Reader,
456.
Knopp 31
between the two bodies was that Rancho Bernardo housed a large number of
retirees, whose needs and preferences tended to differ from those of the population
at large. 59 Another show of citizen solidarity took place on March 9, 1982; that day,
nine buses carried approximately five hundred Rancho Bernardo residents to the
San Diego City Council to oppose a proposal that would have widened both Rancho
Bernardo Road and Bernardo Center Drive, as they believed that doing so would
both increase traffic and detract from the “natural beauty” that the olive trees along
the median provided. The residents delivered large packets of letters to the city
councilmembers, resulting in a unanimous council vote against the measure. 60 Later
that year, however, the residents ran into another issue: Except for the landscaped
medians along Rancho Bernardo Road, which technically belonged to the city of San
Diego, AVCO had already transferred landscaping maintenance costs to
homeowners’ associations. As a result of AVCO planning to leave Rancho Bernardo
entirely, they would stop covering the cost of the medians; if the residents did not
do anything, San Diego’s plan was to pave over the medians, as that was what their
standards stated. However, Rancho Bernardo residents believed it was theirs, not
the city’s, tending to“…prefer trees, flowers and grass to concrete.” To this end, the
Rancho Bernardo Community Council planned to set up a maintenance district and
assess an annual fee to Rancho Bernardo residents to maintain the landscaping. 61
At the opposite end of the U.S., another master-planned community by the name
“Bernardo Study Stirs Objections,” San Diego Union, Tuesday, December 24, 1974, B2.
Anthony Perry, “Rancho Bernardo Shows Its Clout,” San Diego Union, Wednesday, March 2,
1982, B2. 61
Ricardo Pimentel, “Taxpayers May Learn Beauty Has Price Tag,” San Diego Union, Sunday, September 19, 1982, B1 and B7.
59
60
of Celebration, Florida, found itself in a situation rather similar to Rancho
Knopp 32
Bernardo’s. The two proceeded from the same basic aim of a master-planned
community that promised to make land usage more efficient and visually appealing.
But whereas Rancho Bernardo actively marketed itself toward retirees and
incorporated regional southern California architectural influences, including
Spanish colonial, Celebration promoted itself as more of a family-friendly
community with building styles more common on the East Coast. Yet they shared a
common underlying thread: Members of both communities felt that geographically
distant moneymaking enterprises excessively dominated the issue of “keeping up
appearances,” primarily for the sake of maintaining and increasing property values.
The particular regulations for the residences in Celebration became notoriously
exacting, numbering in the hundreds; 62 even interior drapes were limited to white
or other neutral light colors. This did not sound like the same company known for
creating “The Happiest Place on Earth.”
The Ascendance of Homeowners’ Associations and Private Residential
Government
In addition to all of the above-mentioned homes and other structures, the
original Rancho Bernardo master plan notably included provisions for two types of
land-use developments which never materialized: an airport and a mobile home
park. 63 Despite AVCO’s direct involvement in the aerospace industry, the residents
Dolores Hayden, Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth, 1820-2000 (New York, New
York: Vintage Books, 2003), 214.
63
“Bernardo in ’66 — A Time of Growth for All the Rancho,” Bernardo Brandings, January 1966, 3.
62
Knopp 33
most likely objected to the increased noise and traffic that an airport would bring.
As for the mobile home parks, the residents already living in the community seemed
to widely believe that introducing this type of housing would lower property values
of nearby residences; this, in turn, would run directly counter to one of the
overarching aims of the various homeowners’ associations — to protect the equity
in the homes. Several other structures/projects neither planned for Rancho
Bernardo nor present there included a separate City Hall, a sports stadium/arena,
an indoor megamall, and a theme park. But even though none of these things got
built, traffic gradually grew over time, as the portion of old Highway 395 running
through Rancho Bernardo became an expansion of Interstate 15.
Like AVCO, Rancho Bernardo residents wanted to do as much as they could to
protect and raise their property values; it was just that they wanted to enjoy greater
control through the individual homeowners’ associations. The city of San Diego and
its council stood on the other side of the equation, which instead stressed more
rapid growth combined with cost-cutting measures. So, in a sense, Rancho Bernardo
came to embody community decentralization not only in terms of actual zoning and
land uses, but also in terms of who retained control over these things.
Like the original community planners and other visionaries, AVCO did not
include provisions for low-income or federally subsidized housing, as they also
believed that doing so would lower property values and contribute to criminal
activities. Even though the prices of the newly constructed residences started much
lower than prices for the same types of units today, advertisements specifically
targeting individuals of modest means proved conspicuously absent from
Knopp 34
newspapers. So the community’s collective distaste toward sharing space with the
socioeconomically disadvantaged may have started with the original planners and
AVCO, but it perpetuated itself through the attitudes of both the residents and the
various homeowners’ associations. The Orange County cities of Irvine and later,
Laguna Niguel also followed this path, causing the financially strapped to move into
older, more run-down neighborhoods in other cities such as Santa Ana and, to a
lesser extent, Anaheim. 64
The Demise of AVCO in Rancho Bernardo
The so-called “master plan” did not remain fixed in stone, evidenced by the fact
that the original plan had to be revised several times, with the first revision being
approved in 1966, just four years after the first modern house went up. Subsequent
revisions followed in 1971 and 1974. 65 In time, AVCO gradually sold off its holdings
in the community to other owners, some of them other corporate entities. One of the
last straws came in May 1982, when then-president and CEO of AVCO Community
Developers, Inc., R. Barry McComic, abruptly resigned from his position amid a
protracted disagreement with the parent company regarding its decision to
“retrench” from Rancho Bernardo due to the lagging real estate climate. 66 By 1984,
AVCO had completely divested itself from Rancho Bernardo despite continuing to
have a presence in other areas of southern California; however, this did not mean
Lisbeth Haas, “Grass-Roots Protest and the Politics of Planning: Santa Ana, 1976-88,” in Rob
Kling, Spencer Olin, and Mark Poster, eds., Postsuburban California: The Transformation of Orange
County since World War II (Berkeley, California: The University of California Press, 1991), 255-256.
65
“Mapped Out for Success,” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 7, No. 8 (August 1974), 30.
66
Donald C. Bauder, “McComic Resigns AVCO Post,” San Diego Union, Monday, May 17, 1982, A1
and A5.
64
Knopp 35
the demise of merchant building in Rancho Bernardo, as one of the buyers of vacant
land zoned for future development was Genstar, a Canadian company who also
purchased some of the land in Rancho Peñasquitos. 67
For as many features and amenities that AVCO tried to include in Rancho
Bernardo, one element that they may have overlooked was that Rancho Bernardo
did not get its own public high school or even middle school while the company still
held a controlling interest; consequently, students in the sixth through the twelfth
grades had to be driven or bused to schools in either Poway or Rancho Peñasquitos.
Another shortcoming may have been that, despite AVCO aiming to make Rancho
Bernardo a largely self-sufficient community, residents frequently drove to other
areas of the city of San Diego, or even to other cities altogether, to work. So even
though Rancho Bernardo offered a fair degree of employment opportunities, not all
workers living in Rancho Bernardo chose those particular opportunities. This may
have been an element of, as Jon C. Teaford puts it in The American Suburb: The
Basics, the triumph of market forces over centrally based planning. 68
Rancho Bernardo Today and in the Future
When construction first began in Rancho Bernardo, the place still contained
something of an overall rustic aura, with much less traffic and much more open
space. At its inception, the planners wanted to create a place within reasonable
commuting distance of downtown San Diego, yet also position it away from the
louder nighttime activities more characteristic of city centers. Today, however, it
67
68
“AVCO Sells Off Land,” San Diego Union, Friday, October 14, 1983, D1.
Jon C. Teaford, The American Suburb: The Basics (New York, New York: Routledge, 2008), 216.
Knopp 36
seems that Rancho Bernardo has become much more of a tourist-friendly location,
as it contains multiple shopping centers, hotels, gas stations, and restaurants. The
Interstate 15 Freeway, the longest north-south freeway in the inland portion of the
western United States, passes through Rancho Bernardo, where it has several onand off-ramps so as to enable tourists to more easily access the amenities. In fact,
Rancho Bernardo has become a key employment hub in San Diego County, marking
a considerable deviation from the originally intended trajectory. However, suburbs
usually develop along this line — they start out relatively quiet and compact, but
over time, they gradually transform due to their expansion, both spatially and
commercially. This outcome is not entirely inevitable, but when they are left to
market forces, suburbs generally grow in terms of commerce, population, and land
area.
In many ways, Rancho Bernardo now seems like a distinct suburb despite being
a part of the city of San Diego. 69 However, at the present, Rancho Bernardo’s
potential for future spatial growth has become quite limited; whatever truly “open”
land remains is not ideally suited for construction, whether due to topography,
being set aside for conservation purposes (especially Lake Hodges), or some
combination of both. However, development is still continuing to take place in a few
nearby areas only a short distance to the west of Rancho Bernardo. These areas
include 4S Ranch, Del Sur, Santaluz, and Torrey Highlands. 70 The structures being
However, it is not the only such area that seems to be this way. In fact, most of the areas within the city of San Diego have a markedly suburban “essence” (with a few exceptions, such as downtown,
Clairemont, and Mission Valley).
70
Three of these areas (4S Ranch, Del Sur, and Santaluz) share a ZIP code with the western and
southern portions of Rancho Bernardo: 92127.
69
Knopp 37
built in these areas tend to differ from those in Rancho Bernardo in two key
respects: their lot sizes are smaller than for older construction, and the sidewalks
are fewer and narrower. This is due primarily to land being at more of a premium
than it was in the past. However, construction activity is still taking place in Rancho
Bernardo, albeit solely to replace demolished structures. So although people are still
selling and renting residences in Rancho Bernardo, customers looking for newer
construction usually have to set their sights elsewhere, and they usually cannot find
as large of lot sizes in this area. Another change in recent years has been the
increase, albeit gradual, of nonwhite residents in Rancho Bernardo, both among
retirees and non-retirees.
Conclusion
Not only has the community of Rancho Bernardo contributed much to the
history and economy of San Diego County and southern California in general, it also
makes a compelling case study as a distinctive type of suburban community for
several reasons: it emerged from the post-World War II suburban boom (albeit not
immediately), it has attracted large numbers of both families and retirees, it has
created a distinctive image for itself while remaining a part of a major metropolis, it
showcases a good example of major corporate involvement in master-planned
community development, and lastly, it demonstrates the power of concerned
residents to stand up against changes they consider undesirable. Prior to the advent
of the modern Rancho Bernardo, most suburban tract developments in the
American Southwest, as in other parts of the country, usually grew wherever
contractors and merchant builders decided to put up residences. And although
Knopp 38
AVCO eventually withdrew their involvement in the affairs of Rancho Bernardo,
they did not scrap their influences; they used the example of Rancho Bernardo to
guide the trajectories of their master-planned developments in other regions, both
inside and outside of California.
This analysis would therefore seem to suggest that the overall pattern of land-
use development contained within Rancho Bernardo was twofold: it followed the
prevailing trend of more sprawling single-use zoning, especially for residences, but
it also may have influenced the ideas of master planners in other parts of the
country, especially with regard to private homeowners’ associations and their
accompanying restrictions.
Although Rancho Bernardo was by no means the only land development taking
place at this time in the city of San Diego, it was the most major, and would forever
change the economic trajectory of the Mexican border region of southern California.
Rancho Bernardo has not yet been studied in sufficient scholarly depth to draw any
definitive conclusions as to whether or not it has helped San Diego feel less like a big
city, if it helped to trigger more sprawl, or if it played a role in the growing
acceptance of homeowners’ associations elsewhere in San Diego County and/or
southern California, but it is clear that the residents themselves played a significant
role in constructing a community, even as they worked from a master plan set up by
developers. If master planning was one redefinition of suburbia, homeowners’
associations and common interest developments was another. The early history of
Rancho Bernardo shows the interplay between outside planning and resident
activism. People moved into a master planned, annexed neighborhood of San Diego,
Knopp 39
and by pursuing their interests, created the community of Rancho Bernardo.
Acknowledgements for This Project
Knopp 40
What an amazing journey this has been for me! I have now been continuously
enrolled in educational institutions (with summers off) since mid-1990. Those
twenty-six years of hard work have most definitely paid off, and more individuals
than I can number (or that I knew personally) have contributed their time and
energy to making me the person I am today. However, I would like to take some
time here to dedicate this project to those who have actively helped me further my
goal of a Master of Arts Degree in History from California State University San
Marcos (CSUSM).
First of all, I would like to thank Dr. Jill Watts, the chair of the History
Department at CSUSM, for admitting me into the Graduate Studies Program in
August 2011, when she was serving as the Graduate Studies Advisor. Even though
she is very busy, she has been able to take time to address my questions and
concerns about the graduate program. Dr. Peter Arnade (now at the University of
Hawaii) was the History Department Chair when I first entered the graduate
program and, as instructor of my History 601 course, helped pace me for the intense
research on which I was about to embark.
I also extend a heartfelt thanks to Dr. Alyssa Goldstein Sepinwall, the original
instructor for the course out of which this project emerged (and an instructor for
two of my undergraduate courses), as well as the recipient of the Harry E. Brakebill
Distinguished Professor Award for 2014-2015. She always responded promptly and
professionally to my e-mails, was always there to help her students, and fostered a
civil and collegial academic atmosphere.
Acknowledgements for This Project (continued)
Knopp 41
My thesis committee chair and the instructor for my final two semesters of this
course, Dr. Jeffrey Charles, is naturally friendly, approachable, and helpful. I first met
him back in the fall of 2006, when I transferred from Palomar College as a junior; he
happened to be the first history professor I had at CSUSM for a course about science
and technology in U.S. history, of which he has a broad wealth of knowledge. He also
specializes in my general subject area — suburban America. My second committee
reader, Dr. Michael Henderson, has a great knowledge of California History. While I
was still an undergraduate at CSUSM, he taught me some things about the state
where I grew up which I did not know before; this helped inspire me to further
pursue research in this arena. Dr. S. Deborah Kang, my third committee reader,
specializes in borderlands history, and since San Diego is indeed in one of the
busiest borderlands regions in the world, I only thought it fitting that she could
provide me with her expertise.
My gratitude also extends to those working outside of the academic arena. Down
at the Rancho Bernardo Historical Society Museum at the far end of the Bernardo
Winery, Peggy Rossi extended her hospitality by allowing me to flip through the
early editions of the Bernardo Brandings newsletters, and she even went out of her
way to scan images from some editions of them for me to use on my website. She
also permitted me to take notes from the living history DVD recorded in 2007.
Wayne Klusmeier, the general manager of the Rancho Bernardo Swim and Tennis
Club, was kind enough to give the green light for me to take pictures of his
establishment. (Coincidentally, his son Richard went to my high school, and we even
Acknowledgements for This Project (continued)
Knopp 42
graduated in the same class.) Zita Sulzburger, who regularly shops at my store,
provided me with a packet summarizing key events in Rancho Bernardo’s past.
Hazel Hulsizer, the historian of the Rancho Bernardo Community Presbyterian
Church (RBCPC) did a fantastic job of organizing the church’s history into book
form, as well as overseeing the exhibit commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of
the church in late summer 2014. I would also like to thank Dr. Mark L. Magulac for
alerting me to this rare opportunity, and for providing me with continuing
emotional support and “life coaching” skills.
Finally, no dedication would be complete without thanking my loving parents,
Tom and Lorraine, for bringing me into this world and putting up with me over all
three of the decades and a year I have been on planet Earth. I would also like to
thank my siblings (who are all my juniors, but none by more than a few years): my
sister, Sarah, and my fraternal twin brothers, Ryan and Jordan (the latter of whom I
thank for helping to keep our Internet safe), as well as my brother-in-law, Ed Wiezel,
for being supportive of my pursuits. You guys are all awesome!
Primary Sources
Bibliography
Knopp 43
Newsletters/Magazines
Bernardo Brandings Newsletter, 1962-1975
“A Custom Home By McCorquodale Builders.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 3, No. 1,
January 1970, 17.
“A House to Build a Dream On … Mrs. America’s Home in RB.” Bernardo Brandings,
April 1966, 2.
“An Interview with Dick Weiser.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 2, No. 10, October 1969,
10-12.
“AVCO Community Developers, Inc., Active in a Diversity of Projects.” Bernardo
Brandings, Vol. 4, No. 2, February 1971, 12-16.
“AVCO Corporation … Bright New Chapter in the History of the Ranch.” Bernardo
Brandings, Vol. 2, No. 1, January 1970, 15-16.
“Bernardo Bulletin.” Bernardo Brandings, June 1, 1966, 1 and 2.
“Bernardo in ’66 — A Time of Growth for All the Rancho.” Bernardo Brandings,
January 1966, 3.
“Bernardo in ’67.” Bernardo Brandings, January 1967, 1.
“Bernardo Industrial Park: Hewlett-Packard Brings Impressive Growth Record to
Rancho Bernardo.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 3, No. 15, November 1970, 24.
Bibliography (continued)
Knopp 44
“Bernardo Villas Wins General Electrics ‘Builder of the Month’ Award for Rancho
Bernardo.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 3, No. 1, January 1970, 12-13.
“California’s Spanish Heritage Influences Rancho Bernardo Architecture.” Bernardo
Brandings, Vol. 4, No. 1, January 1971, 8-9.
“Carefree Adult Living … In Seven Oaks Haciendas.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 2, No.
3, March 1969, 15-16.
“City Services Part of RB.” Bernardo Brandings, August 1962, 1 and 6.
“Condominium Homes … Where Togetherness Really Works.” Bernardo Brandings,
February 1966, 2.
“Condominium Living … The Whys & Wherefores.” Bernardo Brandings, February
1966, front cover.
“Condominium — Togetherness Living.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 6, No. 10, October
1973, 48-51.
“Designing with a Flourish — Villa Architects Take National Honors.” Bernardo
Brandings, Vol. 2, No. 8, August 1969, 14-15.
Elkin, Pete. “Swim and Tennis Club Newsletter.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 2, No. 6,
June 1969, 29.
“Father of Rancho Bernardo.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 8, No. 3, March 1975, 11-12.
“First Family Moves into Rancho Bernardo!” Bernardo Brandings, June 1963, 1.
“First RB Shopping Center Opens.” Bernardo Brandings, February 1964, 1.
“From Chicago … The View of RB Is Terrific.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 2, No. 8,
August 1969, 13.
Bibliography (continued)
Knopp 45
“From Pompeii to Westwood … Condominiums Living at Its Finest.” Bernardo
Brandings, Vol. 4, No. 1, January 1971, 12-13.
“Get a Load of Our New Neighbors.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 2, No. 3, March 1969,
11.
Green Valley Highlands Advertisement (untitled). Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 2, No. 9,
September 1969, 37.
“Here Comes Garrett.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 2, No. 9, September 1969, 11.
“Imagination Frames RB Homes.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 3, No. 5, May 1970, 16­
17.
Isely, Helen. “It's Going, Going, Gone ... Grapes in Escondido.” Bernardo Brandings,
Vol. 8, No. 7, July 1975, 9.
“Lots Available for First Time Throughout RB.” Bernardo Brandings, January 1966, 8.
“Mapped Out for Success.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 7, No. 8, August 1974, 30.
“Medical-Dental Center Expansion Marks New Stage in Development.” Bernardo
Brandings, Vol. 3, No. 4, April 1970, 12.
“Mercado … A People Place.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 3, No. 5, May 1970, 14-15.
“Midwest Migration.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 7, No. 1, January 1974, 26-27.
“Minding Your P’s, Q’s and CCR’s.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 8, No. 11, November
1975, 8-9.
“Mrs. America Builds Her Dream House.” Bernardo Brandings, April 1966, 1.
“National Cash Register to Begin Operation at Rancho Bernardo in May.” Bernardo
Brandings, Vol. 1, No. 4, April 1968, 6-7.
Bibliography (continued)
Knopp 46
“New Model Homes Open in Seven Oaks.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 3, No. 4, April
1970, 10.
“On Behalf of the Buying Public: Guide Lines for Improvement, Maintenance and
Protection of Your Property.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 7, No. 1, January 1974,
28-29.
“Piedras Pinturas: A Key to Bygone Centuries,” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 3, No. 2,
February 1, 1965, 2.
“Pomerado Shopping Village Index.” Bernardo Brandings, February 1964, 4.
“Rancho Bernardo Golf Course Opens — Open Play Set for Nov. 3.” Bernardo
Brandings, November 1962, 1.
“Rancho Bernardo. For Kids and Adults Only.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 3, No. 7, July
1970, front cover.
“RB Expands Off the Ranch.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 2, No. 9, September 1969, 10.
“RB Looks Towards Its Historic Past…” Bernardo Brandings, February 1, 1965, 1.
“San Diego Library Finds a Home at Rancho Bernardo.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 6,
No. 7, July 1973, 24.
“Second Home Buyers Eye Rancho Bernardo Condominiums.” Bernardo Brandings,
August 1966, 2.
“Telephone Cables Go Under.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 3, No. 4, April 1970, 14.
“The Bernardo Idea.” Bernardo Brandings, July 1962, 2.
“The Industrious Folks on the Hill.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 6, No. 8, August 1973,
29-32.
Bibliography (continued)
Knopp 47
“The Inn at Rancho Bernardo.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 3, No. 3, March 1970, 10-13.
“The Luxurious Life … Bernardo Village Green.” Bernardo Brandings, October 1,
1965, front cover.
“The Room that Makes the House — Kitchens.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 8, No. 5,
May 1975, 5-8.
“The Second Home Market Grows at Rancho Bernardo.” Bernardo Brandings, August
1966, 1.
“The Trails … Country Living at Its Best.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 5, No. 1, January
1972, 14-15.
“They Came to La Cañada de San Bernardo.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 3, No. 4, April
1, 1965, 4-5.
“Travelodge Moves to Rancho Bernardo.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 3, No. 1, January
1970, 15.
“Voters Hit 1,000 Mark: RB Readies for First National Election.” Bernardo Brandings,
November 1, 1964, 1.
“Westwood Hits 100.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 2, No. 9, September 1969, 12-13.
“Wes Mohr Answers R.B. Residents’ Questions.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 5, No. 1,
January 1972, 16-17.
“What a Wonderful Place to Vacation … In Your Second Home.” Bernardo Brandings,
Vol. 2, No. 2, February 1969, 8.
“Where Do Chicago Residents Go to Retire?” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 8, No. 4, April
1975, pp. 5-6.
Bibliography (continued)
Knopp 48
“Wild Animal Park Measure Depends on Voter Concern.” Bernardo Brandings, Vol. 3,
No. 15, November 1970, 26.
“You Can See Forever — from a Rancho Bernardo Greens East Home.” Bernardo
Brandings, Vol. 3, No. 3, March 1969, 8.
Newspapers
Los Angeles Times
“Acreage Purchased for Hillside Homes.” Los Angeles Times, February 21, 1965, L15.
Retrieved from ProQuest Newspapers October 2, 2014.
“Churches Part of Tract Plan.” Los Angeles Times, August 11, 1963, O30. Retrieved
from ProQuest Historical Newspapers October 2, 2014.
“Church to Be Built in Rancho Bernardo.” Los Angeles Times, March 7, 1965, N24.
Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers October 2, 2014.
“Dining Rooms Feature View.” Los Angeles Times, March 28, 1965, M7. Retrieved
from ProQuest Historical Newspapers October 2, 2014.
“Experiment Proves Model Homes Sell.” Los Angeles Times, July 18, 1965, I14.
Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers October 2, 2014.
“First Custom House at Project Goes Up.” Los Angeles Times, March 6, 1966, I17.
Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers October 2, 2014.
Bibliography (continued)
Knopp 49
“Free Cookout Offered Today at Seven Oaks.” Los Angeles Times, May 30, 1965, D2.
Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers October 2, 2014.
“Huge Ranch Bought for San Diego Annexation.” Los Angeles Times, November 16,
1961, C8. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers October 2, 2014.
“New Sections Planned for San Diego Project.” Los Angeles Times, August 9, 1964,
M14. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers October 2, 2014.
“Rancho Bernardo Has Plans for 4th.” Los Angeles Times, June 27, 1965, H2.
Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers October 2, 2014.
“Rancho Bernardo Names Designers for Development.” Los Angeles Times, June 20,
1965, L2. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers October 2, 2014.
“Rental Units at San Diego Project Started.” Los Angeles Times, November 22, 1964,
J30. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers October 16, 2014.
“Safeway Plans San Diego Unit.” Los Angeles Times, June 2, 1963, P13. Retrieved
from ProQuest Historical Newspapers October 2, 2014.
“Tract Grows from One Family to 1,300 Persons.” Los Angeles Times, February 16,
1964, O25. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers October 2, 2014.
San Diego Union
“50 or Over?” Advertisement. San Diego Union, Sunday, April 14, 1963, F7. Retrieved
from ProQuest Historical Newspapers March 17, 2015.
Bibliography (continued)
Knopp 50
“ACD, AVCO Subsidiary Plan Merger.” San Diego Union, Saturday, August 9, 1980,
A14. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers December 17, 2015.
“ACD Reports Lower 3rd Quarter Earnings.” San Diego Union, Tuesday, September
30, 1980, C7. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers January 9, 2016.
Aguilar, George. “Poway Ponders, Then OKs Winery Expansion.” San Diego Union,
Thursday, March 24, 1983, B2. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers
June 30, 2016.
“At Rancho Bernardo — Residence Inn On Lake Site.” San Diego Union, Sunday, July
25, 1982, F20. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers June 29,
“AVCO Community Developers Stock Exchange Under Way.” San Diego Union,
2016.
Tuesday, November 11, 1980, A15. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical
Newspapers December 17, 2015.
“AVCO Sells Off Land.” San Diego Union, Friday, October 14, 1983, D1. Retrieved
from ProQuest Historical Newspapers June 29, 2016.
Bauder, Donald C. “McComic Resigns AVCO Post.” San Diego Union, Monday, May 17,
1982, A1 and A5. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers December 17,
2015.
“Bernardo Study Stirs Objections.” San Diego Union, Tuesday, December 24, 1974,
B2. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers June 30, 2016.
Bishop, Tom. “Many Contributors Make a Blend.” San Diego Union, Sunday, May 12,
1963, F15. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers July 24, 2016.
Bibliography (continued)
Knopp 51
Bos, Otto J. “Environmental Impact — Rancho Bernardo Plan Reviewed.” San Diego
Union, Saturday, November 30, 1974, B2. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical
Newspapers March 31, 2016.
Carabet, Denise A. “AVCO Chairman May Leave.” San Diego Union, Sunday, June 3,
1979, H13-H14. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers December 17,
2015.
“Carpet Firm’s $3.7 Million Suit Rejected.” San Diego Union, Friday, August 9, 1974,
B3. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers December 17, 2015.
Clark, Cheryl. “AVCO Vows to Consult Residents.” San Diego Union, Saturday, October
31, 1981, B3. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers March 31, 2016.
---. “Cities’ Officials Want Dual-Purpose Road Plan.” San Diego Union, Thursday,
March 4, 1982, B3. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers June 30,
2016.
“Compare and You’ll Agree, Your Best Retirement Value is Rancho Bernardo.” San
Diego Union, Sunday, July 21, 1963, F3. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical
Newspapers February 4, 2016.
“County Population Gains 6.8 Percent since April.” San Diego Union, Monday,
January 8, 1951, B6. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers August 2,
2016.
“County Population Shows 8.2% Boost.” San Diego Union, Tuesday morning, January
9, 1962, A17. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers August 2, 2016.
Bibliography (continued)
Knopp 52
Daniels, Richard M. “Rancho Bernardo — Ambitious Mix in Land Planning.” Sunday,
August 25, 1974, F1, F6, F8, and F17. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical
Newspapers June 30, 2016.
“Developer Sued for $3.7 Million.” San Diego Union, Thursday, May 23, 1974, D16.
Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers December 17, 2015.
“Development Plan Ordered on Park, Center.” San Diego Union, Friday, September
12, 1980, B3. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers June 30, 2016.
“Isn’t This the Way You’ve Always Wanted to Live?” San Diego Union, Sunday,
August 30, 1964, F10. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers March
31, 2016.
“La Jolla’s James Kerr Retires As Head of Avco Corp.” San Diego Union, Saturday,
September 26, 1981, C9. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers
December 17, 2015.
“New Approach.” Advertisement. San Diego Union, Sunday, December 2, 1962, F3.
Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers July 19, 2016.
“New Library Is Awaited in Bernardo.” San Diego Union, Saturday, September 11,
1976, B3. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers March 31, 2016.
“North County … In Brief — Landscape District.” San Diego Union, Wednesday, July
20, 1983, B3. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers June 29, 2016.
Perry, Anthony. “Rancho Bernardo Shows Its Clout.” San Diego Union, Wednesday,
March 2, 1982, B2. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers June 30,
2016.
Bibliography (continued)
Knopp 53
Pimentel, Ricardo. “Reapportionment Blues Bother a GOP Bastion.” San Diego Union,
Thursday, November 25, 1982, B3. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical
Newspapers June 30, 2016.
---. “Taxpayers May Learn Beauty Has Price Tag.” San Diego Union, Sunday,
September 19, 1982, B1 and B7. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical
Newspapers June 29, 2016.
“Rancho Bernardo: A New Phenomenon Grows.” San Diego Union, Sunday, May 12,
1963, F1 and F14. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers October 13,
2014.
“Rancho Bernardo A Place for All Ages.” San Diego Union, Sunday, June 28, 1970, Z6.
Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers March 31, 2016.
Ritter, Carl W. “It’s Official Now — AVCO Joins Us.” San Diego Union, Tuesday,
December 10, 1968, C9. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers
December 17, 2015.
“Rose Canyon Chimney — A New Role Told.” San Diego Union, Sunday, March 10,
1963, F3. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers October 13, 2014.
Smolens, Michael. “Escondido Accepts AVCO Sewer Offer.” San Diego Union,
Thursday, May 27, 1982, B1 and B3. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical
Newspapers December 17, 2015.
---. “Sewer Ban Extended in $200 Million Suit.” San Diego Union, Wednesday, May 26,
1982, B1 and B3. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers December 17,
2015.
Knopp 54
Bibliography (continued)
Sparks, Bayne A. “A Building Expert Discusses Why Condominium Homes at Rancho
Bernardo Are Excitingly Different from All Others.” San Diego Union, Sunday,
February 13, 1966, F15. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers
October 2, 2014.
“Start of Golf Course Opens ‘Largest’ Project.” San Diego Union, Sunday, December
31, 1961, F3. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers July 19, 2016.
“TV System Draws Fire by Residents — Rancho Bernardo Survey Cites Frequent
Reception Interference.” San Diego Union, Tuesday, December 25, 1973, B3.
Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers March 31, 2016.
“Wartime Training Classes Offered at Sweetwater.” San Diego Union, Sunday
morning, February 21, 1943, A14. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical
Newspapers July 24, 2016.
“Wilson Expects Annual Tax Rise.” San Diego Union, Friday, March 21, 1975, B3.
Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers June 30, 2016.
Scholarly Journal Articles
Harris, Chauncy D. “Suburbs.” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 49, No. 1 (July
1943), 1-13. The University of Chicago Press.
Lieberson, Stanley. “Suburbs and Ethnic Residential Patterns.” American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 67, No. 6 (May 1962), 673-681. The University of Chicago Press.
Bibliography (continued)
Knopp 55
Schnore, Leo F. “The Functions of Metropolitan Suburbs.” American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 61, No. 5 (March 1956), 453-458. The University of Chicago
Press.
“Suburbanization.” British Medical Journal, Saturday, May 30, 1925, pp. 1011-1012.
Videos/Interviews
Floyd, Susan, mod. “The Daley Ranch House Interview.” Rancho Bernardo Historical
Society. Produced by Teamwork Video. Recorded Feb. 11, 2007. DVD. 43 min.
Secondary Sources
Books
Bruegmann, Robert. Sprawl: A Compact History. Chicago, Illinois: The University of
Chicago Press, 2005.
Duany, Andres, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck. Suburban Nation: The Rise of
Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. 10th Anniversary Edition. New
York, New York: North Point Press, 2010. Originally published in 2000.
Eichler, Ned P. The Merchant Builders. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press,
1982.
Bibliography (continued)
Knopp 56
Findlay, John M. Magic Lands: Western Cityscapes and American Culture after 1940.
Berkeley, California: The University of California Press, 1992.
Fishman, Robert. Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia. New York, New
York: Basic Books, Inc., 1987.
Gallagher, Leigh. The End of the Suburbs: Where the American Dream is Moving. New
York, New York: Portfolio/Penguin, 2013.
Garreau, Joel. Edge City: Life on the New Frontier. New York, New York: Anchor
Books, 1991.
Hayden, Dolores. Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth, 1820-2000. New
York, New York: Vintage Books, 2003.
Jackson, Kenneth T. Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States.
Oxford, England, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 1985.
Kling, Rob, Spencer Olin, and Mark Poster, eds. Postsuburban California: The
Transformation of Orange County since World War II. Berkeley, California: The
University of California Press, 1991.
Nicolaides, Becky M., and Andrew Wiese, eds. The Suburb Reader. London, England,
United Kingdom: Routledge, 2006.
Rybczynski, Witold. Makeshift Metropolis: Ideas About Cities. New York, New York:
Scribner, 2010.
Starr, Kevin. Golden Dreams: California in an Age of Abundance, 1950-1963. Oxford,
England, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Bibliography (continued)
Knopp 57
Teaford, Jon C. The American Suburb: The Basics. London, England, United Kingdom:
Routledge, 2007.
---. The Metropolitan Revolution: The Rise of Post-Urban America. New York, New
York: Columbia University Press, 2006.
Trolander, Judith Ann. From Sun Cities to The Villages: A History of Active Adult, AgeRestricted Communities. Gainesville, Florida: The University Press of Florida,
2011.
Scholarly Journal Articles
Bennett, Robert. “Tract Homes on the Range: The Suburbanization of the American
West.” Western American Literature, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Fall 2011), 281-301.
University of Nebraska Press.
Hoff, Derek S. “The Original Housing Crisis: Suburbanization, Segregation, and the
State in Postwar America.” Reviews in American History, Vol. 36, No. 2 (June
2008), 259-269. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Jindrich, Jason. “Suburbs in the City: Reassessing the Location of Nineteenth-Century
American Working-Class Suburbs.” Social Science History, Vol. 36, No. 2.
(Summer 2012), 147-167. Duke University Press.
Logan, John R., and Mark Schneider. “Racial Segregation and Racial Change in
American Suburbs, 1970-1980.” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 89, No. 4,
January 1984, 874-888. The University of Chicago Press.
Bibliography (continued)
Knopp 58
Marsh, Margaret. “Historians and the Suburbs.” OAH Magazine of History, Vol. 5, No.
2, Urban History. Fall 1990, 43-49. Organization of American Historians.
---. “(Ms) Reading the Suburbs.” American Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 1 (March 1994), 40­
48. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Marshall, Harvey. “Black and White Upper-Middle-Class Suburban Selection: A
Causal Analysis.” The Pacific Sociological Review, Vol. 25, No. 1 (January 1982),
27-57.
Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. Suburbanization and Segregation in U.S.
Metropolitan Areas. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94, No. 3 (November
1988), 592-626. The University of Chicago Press.
Miller, Laura J. “Family Togetherness and the Suburban Ideal.” Sociological Forum,
Vol. 10, No. 3. September 1995, 393-418. Springer.
O’Mara, Margaret Pugh. “Suburbia Reconsidered: Race, Politics, and Property in the
Twentieth Century.” Journal of Social History, Vol. 39, No. 1. Fall 2005, 229­
243. Oxford University Press.
Piggot, William Benjamin. “Globalization from the Bottom Up: Irvine, California, and
the Birth of Suburban Cosmopolitanism.” Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 81, No. 1.
(February 2012), 60-91. University of California Press.
Schaffer, Daniel. “After the Suburbs.” 1991. Built Environment, Vol. 17, No. 3/4, PostSuburban America (1991), 242-256. Alexandrine Press.
Bibliography (continued)
Knopp 59
Siembieda, William J. “Suburbanization of Ethnics of Color.” Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 422, The Suburban Seventies
(November 1975), 118-128. Sage Publications.
Stahura, John M. “Suburban Development, Black Suburbanization and the Civil
Rights Movement Since World War II.” American Sociological Review, Vol. 51,
No. 1 (February 1986), 131-144. American Sociological Association.
Master’s Theses
Mercurio, Richard A. “Landscape Taste in Suburbia: A Comparison of Planned and
Non-Conformist Communities.” Master’s thesis, San Diego State University,
1986.