UPDATE: The RSFA Board voted 6-1 in favor of granting a variance for the lot split at the August 6 meeting. Director Jeff Simmons was the lone dissenter.
Three years ago, then-RSFA Board candidate David Gamboa warned Ranch members that Sacramento was coming for our land.
This Thursday, the conversation comes back home.
The RSFA Board will consider a request to subdivide a more than four-acre parcel at the corner of Lago Lindo and El Montevideo into two smaller, non-conforming lots. It may sound like just another development application.
It isn’t.
Land-use decisions are among the most important decisions the RSFA Board is ever asked to make. Long after today’s directors are gone, those decisions will continue shaping the character of Rancho Santa Fe.
The core argument rests on a 1930 deed clause capping the property at “not to exceed five building sites” – language the applicant and the Building Department read as license for five single-family homes. That reading ignores a later Covenant regulation setting a 2.86-acre minimum for single-family lots in that zone. Carried to its logical end, it puts five homes on less than an acre apiece next to three- and five-acre estates – and calls it Lilian Rice’s original vision.
Historically, the Association has denied lot splits that created undersized, non-conforming lots unless there’s unusual circumstances such as irregularly shaped parcels or lots with physical constraints that make them difficult to build upon. This property appears to be neither. It’s a gently sloping, rectangular lot with an existing single-family estate, guest house and citrus grove.
The proposal doesn’t solve a hardship. It creates another lot to develop.
Whether this application meets the findings for the lot split will be one of the central questions before the Board. That question has become more important because Rancho Santa Fe has already been moving toward greater residential density for years.
The Association adopted a generous approach to California’s ADU laws even though it had Historic District exemptions. Today, they’re standard on new homes, and the Art Jury has approved them on lots that previously did not meet Covenant standards, including building them closer to neighbors’ property lines, grading into slopes that were once considered “unbuildable,” and attaching two-car garages – even though ADU laws don’t require a garage.
Whether you agree with those decisions or not, the result is clear. Many properties that once contained one single-family home now contain two, with the second one often used as a long-term rental. The residential density within the Covenant is essentially doubling.
For decades, Rancho Santa Fe’s value has rested on more than beautiful homes. Large lots, open space and low-density development are central to the Ranch’s enduring appeal.
That’s why this proposal matters. It’s no longer a question of one home and an ADU on a single legal lot. It’s a question of whether one lot should become two. Two dwellings become four – not to mention barns, pool houses and other accessory structures that may be added.
California’s housing laws continue moving toward greater density. In 2021, SB 9 legalized duplexes and urban lot splits across much of the state, while Historic Districts – including Rancho Santa Fe – were largely exempt, thanks in part to the efforts of former RSFA Board members and historic preservation consultants. Earlier this year, AB 1061 narrowed that exemption for many properties within Historic Districts. Those changes created a more challenging legal landscape inviting disagreement, appeals and, at times, litigation.
But while Sacramento has narrowed Rancho Santa Fe’s protections, it has not eliminated them. The Protective Covenant and Regulatory Code still give the Association meaningful authority over land use. The question isn’t whether that authority exists. It’s whether we’re willing to exercise it.
The next land-use decision isn’t Sacramento’s. It’s ours.
Want to Weigh In?
If you have an opinion on this proposal, now is the time to make your voice heard.
Covenant members may attend the RSFA Board meeting at 10 a.m. on Thursday, August 6, at the Association offices on Avenida de Acacias, or submit comments in advance by emailing me*********@************on.org.
Kelli Hillard is editor of the RSF Post and a former member of the Rancho Santa Fe Art Jury.
I’ve been warning people about this for years. We have to do everything we can to stop lot splits like this.
Vahe Guzel
I strongly object to this lot subdivision and the variance required. One of the new lots is.49/basically 1/2 acre under size for this area. I hope the board stands up and does not grant this variance but tries to” protect our covenant”!
I don’t understand why there is such a strong opposition to this particular subdivision when many homes on this street are already on smaller lots (about 2 acres or less). It seems inconsistent to treat this property different. I strongly support the subdivision of this lot and think a beautifully designed, upscale “Ranch” home will improve the esthetics and value of our neighborhood.
Actually, most homes on this street are not 2 acres or less, but much larger estates. That’s how it was planned for the lots around the reservoir to be laid out. And this property is not being treated differently, in fact, they are asking for special treatment – a variance – which is an exception to the rules that apply to everyone else so that they can split this into 2 lots that don’t meet the minimum required size per the zoning.
I drive by this property every day, and I think building a beautiful new home while keeping the existing adobe home would be a great improvement. It would make the corner look much better and fit the neighborhood well. Most of the homes on this street are 1-2 acres.
I fully support this project and hope it is approved.
Lacy C.
As an aging resident of Rancho Santa Fe, I find it increasingly difficult to maintain such large lots and acreage. I think it’s a wonderful idea to subdivide this property into two over 2 acre lots. It allows for more manageable homesites without changing the rural character or density of the neighborhood. I don’t believe this subdivision will have any negative impact on our community, and I think it is a sensible use of the land. The board should approve it.
How can you say it doesn’t change the rural character or density, when it LITERALLY will double the density of this lot? Most of us moved here for the large acreage and open space (i.e. the rural character) and don’t want that ruined. Once it’s gone, there’s no getting it back. Sorry, but there are plenty of places nearby to move to if you don’t want to maintain a large property any more.
This project seems to fit the surrounding neighborhood and would be a much nicer use of the property than another oversized mansion.
The reason to disallow this lot split is that to grant this variance breaks the rules. Each time the rules are broken, the rule book is weakened. Soon more and more residents seek lot splits and expect that they too will be granted variances. This is a bad trend. Variances should remain the exceptional exception. They should NOT become the rule. However, since this trend of densification has already established a toehold in Rancho Santa Fe, it is now more important than ever that we who moved here because of the low density of this community (and we are many) take a stand and demand of the Board that the rules we agreed to when we bought our homes here be upheld. Open space between homes is a luxury worth paying for. And THAT is why we purchased our homes here. Those of you who like higher density communities have the option of moving elsewhere. Virtually every other nearby community fits the description of higher density. But please don’t seek to split your lot on the way out to maximize your profit off the sale. And if you do seek a lot split, the Board of Directors, tasked with protecting the community you leave behind, should deny the split.
To those who lament the upkeep of a large property, I suggest a change of landscaping. My ideal in retirement would be a charming small home on a very large lot maintained, predominantly, by Nature. Small homes are less maintenance than large homes. And a large lot is usually high maintenance because it has been landscaped in an unnatural way: expanses of manicured lawn occasionally interrupted by formally pruned bushes and trees. Native plants and informal landscapes go a long way towards achieving a low maintenance landscape. Plus you lower your water bill considerably. I highly recommend you look into native and informal landscaping. Better for the community too.