Editor’s Note: Covenant members are encouraged to stop by the RSF Post Office to sign a petition (Petition Link Here) asking the Board to call for a vote of the RSFA members to determine if not less than two-thirds of the members agree to amend the Covenant to accommodate the Silvergate proposal and ask the Board that until such a vote is tallied, neither the Art Jury nor the Board be authorized to act relating to the proposed Silvergate project. Signatures will be collected on Tuesday, Nov. 12, or Thursday, Nov. 14 from 2:30 pm to 4:30 pm, at the RSF Post Office. If you are unable to attend the signing or have any questions please email protectthecovenant@gmail.com.
Last month David Petree, President of AmeriCare, appeared at the October 8th Art Jury meeting to present his Conceptual Review application for AmeriCare’s proposed Silvergate Rancho Santa Fe development of the 28+ acres located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Via de la Valle and Calzada del Bosque. He indicated that the facility would be rental units consisting of: 44 cottages, 94 apartments and 24 memory care units, a clubhouse, restaurant and wellness center. Additionally, as stated in the shared PowerPoint presentation, the basis for the design is their Rancho Bernardo facility.
These buildings, as proposed, are larger in square footage than two average Walmart Supercenters and this does not include over 110,000 sq. ft. of underground parking. These cookie-cutter buildings, according to the Art Jury’s concerns of July 2023’s meeting, create “an overly-uniform design lacking architectural variety and character.”
Let the Membership Decide
Most importantly, our 96-year-old Protective Covenant would have to be amended in order to accommodate the Silvergate facility as it is being proposed.
Our Protective Covenant mandates any “Amendment, change, modification or termination of any of the conditions, restrictions, reservations, covenants… may be made by mutual written agreement between the then owners of record of not less than two-thirds in area of said property and not less than two thirds in number of all of the then owners of the record title of said property. [Declaration I, Article V, Par. 164, Sec. 2, entitled “Modification of Basic Restriction.”]
The RSFA Board acted on the precedent of requiring a two-thirds vote as recently as March 5, 2020. The Association called for a vote of all members on whether to proceed with a modification of the Covenant which would have allowed the Village Church to install a columbarium (a memorial garden with human cremains). The Board of Directors voted 6-0 in favor of a community vote. During the December 5, 2019 RSFA Board Meeting, then President Rick Sapp was attributed with asserting that the Board does not have the power to change the language of the Covenant as to do so would require a community-wide vote. [Billing, Karen. “RSF Covenant modification vote invalid, not enough votes received.” San Diego Tribune, Dec. 15, 2020.]
It is in the best interest of the members, as is mandated by the Covenant, that the Board call for a vote of all members on whether to proceed with the proposed Silvergate Rancho Santa Fe facility. Members need to decide if they want to amend the Covenant, as doing so would not simply allow for this very impactful project, but would also open the proverbial Pandora’s Box to other for-profit commercial developments on other Covenant, or adjoining properties. This monumental decision needs to be decided by a vote of all members.
Please read the attached petition (Petition Link Here). And PLEASE come to the RSF Post Office on Tuesday, Nov. 12, or Thursday, Nov. 14 from 2:30 pm to 4:30 pm, where fellow RSFA members will be collecting original signatures and answering any questions you may have. If you are unable to attend the signing or have any questions please email protectthecovenant@gmail.com.
The petition requests the Board to call for a vote of the RSFA members to determine if not less than two-thirds of the members agree to amend the Covenant to accommodate the proposal and asks the Board that until such a vote is tallied neither the Art Jury nor the Board be authorized to act relating to the proposed Silvergate project, other than to conduct such a vote.
Courtney Svajian, RSFA Member
Background on Amendment Required to Permit Silvergate
The property consists of 14+ acres that are subject to the Protective Covenant and double-zoned for multifamily housing (Use Class ‘C’) and horse keeping (Use class ‘L’). The remaining 14+ acres are non-Covenant. The entire site is zoned ‘estate residential’ with the County of San Diego. The site contains four County parcels, two of which contain Covenant portions, and three Covenant-recognized parcels. The entire site is located within the Covenant boundaries. [Then-Planning Director, Keith Behner, RSFA Board Packet Memorandum, Item 8, November 6, 2003, RSFA Board Agenda, p. 1.] Link to Covenant: https://www.rsfassociation.org/Files/Library/RSFAPROTECTIVECOVENANT.PDF]
The Covenant states that “Amendment, change, modification or termination of any of the conditions, restrictions, reservations, covenants, liens or charges set forth and established in any part of this instrument … may be made by mutual written agreement between the then owners of record of not less than two-thirds in area of said property and lot (sic should be not) less than two-thirds in number of all of the then owners of the record title of said property, and the Association, duly executed and placed of record in the office of said County Recorder. [Article V, Par. 164, Sec. 2, entitled “Modification of Basics Restrictions”]
In the following paragraph, the Covenant states that none of the covenants may be changed or modified unless the “owner or owners…of two-thirds in the area of the property directly subject to said change or modification….” agree. This section further provides that not less than two-thirds in area of all the property held in private ownership within five hundred (500) feet in any direction from the subject property agree. [Article V, Par. 165, Sec. 3, entitled “Modification or Other Restrictions”]
Covenant Zoning Classes Defined
In defining Class ‘C’, the Covenant states: “…no building…shall be erected, constructed,…to be used for any purpose other than an apartment house,…multiple dwelling, two-family dwelling and/or single dwelling.” [Art IV, Par. 99, Sec. 5, entitled “Residence Districts of Class C—Apartments and Other Kinds of Dwellings.”] The proposed Silvergate does not fit within the Definition of Class ‘C’ as, among other things, it contains a clubhouse, cottage homes, restaurant, wellness center, multiple apartment houses, and memory care units, which are not described in Class ‘C’.
In defining Class ‘L’ the Covenant states: “In Business and Public Use Districts of Class L, no building, structure or premises shall be erected…which shall be used or designed or intended to be used for any purpose other than that of a riding academy, stable, polo field or residence or lodging for persons employed on said premises.” [Article IV, Par. 110, Sec. 13 entitled “Business and Public Use Districts of Class L— Riding Academies and Polo Fields”]
The Covenant further states: “There shall never at any time be erected, permitted…upon said property,…institutions for the care…of the mentally impaired…or a building for other business or industrial use not specifically mentioned herein….” [Article 1, Par. 1, Sec. 1 entitled “Uses of Property Prohibited”—underlining added] According to the California Department of Human Services, a mental impairment (note the Covenant uses the phrase “mentally impaired”) is defined as including intellectual disabilities that limit “major life activities” which include: Caring for oneself, performing mental tasks, eating, walking, standing, lifting, speaking, learning, reading, concentration, thinking and communicating. These “major life activities” go to the very heart of “memory care” as proposed by the developer. [Art 1. Par. 1, Sec. 1, entitled “Uses of Property Prohibited”]; https://eservices.calhr.ca.gov/Survey/NewEmployee/Impairments
There is no mention in Article 1, Par. 1, Sec. 1 of allowing for businesses or industrial use that include a clubhouse or restaurant or wellness center or multiple apartments or a multitude of houses/cottages.
On April 20, 2006, the Association’s Planning Committee recommended to the Board that it adopt a policy to support senior housing within a 15–20-minute walking distance of the village. The proposed area for inclusion was set as a circle, with the center at the intersection of La Granada and Paseo Delicias, and the radius reached to the intersection of Via de la Valle and Via de Santa Fe. Because the Calzada corner site did not fall within that circle, the Planning Committee did not support senior housing at that location. The RSFA Board voted to recommend against supporting the then application for senior housing at Calzada and Via de la Valle.
Petree’s Golden Eagle Investments Previously Brought Lawsuit Against RSFA
At the RSFA Board meeting of October 3, 2013, David Petree, President of AmeriCare, made a presentation concerning a proposal to develop a health and retirement center on the property located at the intersection of Calzada and Via de la Valle. According to the Board Minutes, Mr. Petree indicated: “This is a joint venture between Golden Eagle Management and AmeriCare Health & Retirement.” Thus, AmeriCare has been involved in trying to develop a senior living facility for a minimum of 11 years on the Calzada site. The Board indicated: “…this is not the type of development the community was looking for.” The Manager indicated the staff would explain to the proposed developers that the development “… does not meet the goals and objectives of the community.”
The proposed developers, which apparently included AmeriCare, since Mr. Petree indicated to the Board that there was a joint venture between Golden Eagle and AmeriCare, were subsequently involved in a lawsuit brought against the Rancho Santa Fe Association. Golden Eagle lost the lawsuit and subsequent appeal against the RSFA. [Super. Ct. No 37-2015-00029425-CU-OR-NC and Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One State of California D069872—Certified for publication]
Art Jury Deferred Silvergate
On October 8, 2024, the Art Jury heard the presentation by the developer. The “Art Jury deferred the application with the following requirements.” The Art Jury Minutes state: “The Association is to assess whether the Protective Covenant Paragraph 1, Section 1 prohibits the inclusion of a Memory Care facility on the subject property, and if Memory Care is allowed in Class C Use Districts.” The Art Jury followed this statement with over two pages of “requirements” that the developer needs to meet. [Art Jury Minutes of October 8, 2024, Item 10, pp. 5-8.]
It is certainly understandable that members at some point in their lives may want to sell their homes and downsize. There are places in and near the Covenant that exist today where members can do exactly that. Also, in the near future, two more options are in the offing: Belmont Village Rancho Santa Fe, which will be rental units, and 13 cottage homes adjacent to The Inn that have been approved by the Art Jury and are under construction for future sales.
The proposed developer has the right to develop the property but only in a manner consistent with the law and with the RSFA’s governing documents. The decision to allow or not allow the proposed project will be one of the most consequential decisions in the history of the Ranch, and therefore a vote of the entire membership is essential.
Please sign the petition (Petition Link Here), with an original signature, so your voice is heard. Again, RSFA members will be collecting original signatures and answering any questions you may have this Tuesday, Nov. 12 or Thursday, Nov. 14, from 2:30 pm to 4:30 pm, at the RSF Post Office. If you are unable to attend the signing or have any questions please email protectthecovenant@gmail.com.
Courtney Svajian is a Covenant resident.