Chronicles
From the MyRSF.net archives of the Email Chronicles
The Osuna Poll
Author: Phil Trubey
Date: October 10, 2025
Hello, Phil Trubey here, sending an occasional email about RSF.
Osuna Poll
Osuna Ranch is an unusual Association amenity. Other amenities like the golf club, tennis club, restaurant, riding trails, and baseball/soccer fields all function as a natural monopoly within our community; you can only have one of each. Osuna’s equestrian operation, by contrast, competes with dozens of similar commercial horse ranches in Rancho.
Yet the property includes something truly special: the original Osuna Adobe, dating back to 1848, part of the original land grant from the Mexican government.
So what’s the issue? While we may not need to own Osuna, the fact is we do, and the equestrian operation roughly breaks even, right?
Sort of. The facilities are sub par for this community. In the 18 years since the Association purchased Osuna, successive Boards have not upgraded the facilities that were old and tired 18 years ago. There are several non-conforming structures, like a 10 stall barn with a metal roof, that would be under enforcement proceedings if the Association were inclined to fine itself.
So why not invest assessment money to fix it up? At any given time, only about a dozen Association Members board horses there. Spending the Association-estimated $3 million to bring the property up to standard is hard to justify for such a small segment of the membership. That’s why successive Boards have deferred substantial improvements.
Over the past year, additional uses for the 25 acres were explored. A dog park was proposed but required rezoning, which nearby residents opposed. The County has also indicated that other potential uses, such as a community gathering space, would require extensive permitting and costly infrastructure upgrades, including parking, emergency access, and street modifications.
During my time on the Board, I explored the process to sell all or a portion of the land, and learned that a community wide member vote is needed, which is fine, but only after a binding offer is made and the property is in escrow. So you only want to go this route if know the community is behind you, otherwise it's a giant waste of time and money.
Hence this poll as a finger in the wind to see what you folks think.
Of course, as with all MyRSF.net polls, this is unofficial, non-binding and can only be relied upon to gauge a loose sense of what the community at large thinks. If the Association Board wants to tackle Osuna as a project, I suggest they run a community wide advisory vote with paper ballots.
Here are my poll questions, pick one.
1. Continue running Osuna as we always have, without major changes.
2. Invest assessment money to bring Osuna's facilities to a decent Rancho Santa Fe level.
3. Sell the lower unused portion of Osuna to fund facility upgrades.
4. Sell the entire property.
Following are more detailed explanations and reasons for each.
1. Continue running Osuna as we always have, without major changes.
It costs the Association very little to maintain and ensures continued access to the historic Osuna Adobe. The Association already makes modest improvements each year, and the Board could choose to allocate a small annual capital improvement fund specifically for Osuna, in addition to any profits it generates. This could be justified given that the Association already invests significantly in maintaining our equestrian trails, recreation fields, and similar non revenue generating community assets.
2. Invest assessment funds to upgrade Osuna's facilities to a decent Rancho Santa Fe standard.
This would be one time (or once every 15 years or so) capital infusion to bring Osuna's equestrian operations up to par. It would replace all nonconforming structures and support program expansion, enabling offerings such as more equestrian activities for families with young children.
This would cost about $3M, or about $1,500 per Member if funded via a one-time assessment. As with all assessments, the actual amount each Member pays would be based on County-assessed property values, meaning some Members would pay less and others more.
3. Sell the lower unused portion of Osuna to fund facility upgrades.
There is an approximately four-acre, landlocked lower section of Osuna that isn't used. It is suitable only for grazing and turn outs. Osuna doesn't use it because it has plenty of more accessible land up top. But there are three neighbors that could be interested in buying that particular parcel.
This would be a multi‑year process, as the property would need to be subdivided before the sale could occur. Still, the transaction could generate a significant amount of cash that could be reinvested to enhance Osuna’s facilities.
4. Sell the entire property.
I have long believed Osuna is an underutilized community asset. Its 25 acres could support a significantly larger and higher‑quality equestrian operation. If the Association is unwilling to fund such an expansion or renovation due to understandable Member service economics, why not sell it to a private buyer who has the means to make the proper investment?
Private ranch owners can afford to create truly world‑class equestrian facilities. They benefit from using the upgraded property themselves and can recover their capital investment when selling it in the future.
Selling Osuna would continue its use as an enhanced equestrian facility, while also providing the Association $10M or more in proceeds. This would allow the Association to tackle other amenity enhancements and/or even give us a break on Association dues.
There are several possible objections to this option.
First, once the Association no longer owns the land, could it be purchased by a developer and densified? No it could not. The property is zoned A & L, which means it can be used for a single family home and/or a 50 horse ranch. Rezoning isn't realistically possible as both neighbors and the Board could block it. Subdivision into additional Class A single‑family lots would eliminate the valuable 50‑horse entitlement and require Art Jury approval. Given the site's topography and road access, subdivision would likely allow at most three home lots—hardly a densification issue.
The second objection is the general principle that land is irreplaceable, and once you sell it, you've cut off all potential future use for it. You could envision a future where the Association decides to shut down the equestrian operation and the land reused for some other function (subject to rezoning, of course).
Finally, what about the historic Osuna Adobe? It is registered as a historic building and protected from demolition regardless of ownership. Under new ownership, access might become an issue, but new owners would most likely want to maintain a public non-profit designation for it and allow light public access. Any 50 horse ranch is semi-public as it is, with clients/customers coming and going, so allowing access to the Adobe shouldn't be a problem.
Anyway, that's it. Please ponder these options, and let us know what you think by replying to the poll and maybe leave a comment. I understand this is an emotional issue for many, but PLEASE be civil. We've had two great polls so far, let's make it 3 out of 3.
Click here to vote in the poll and/or view results.
Previous emails, Rancho information, and the old RSF Post archives available at myrsf.net.