Chronicles
From the MyRSF.net archives of the Email Chronicles
Forwarding an explanation of RSFA processes wrt Silvergate
Author: Phil Trubey
Date: October 22, 2025
With the permission of the author, and as a community service, I am forwarding his email to my list as the email clears up many misconceptions about Silvergate. As far as I can tell, his facts are accurate.
I received the email initially as the author, Pertti Visuri, asked for my help to make sure he had not made mistakes in explaining the Covenant rules and how they govern the Board’s actions and the approval process.
It does a good job an explaining the Association's actions and inactions. There is some opinion thrown in, but I trust you can differentiate between the two.
I continue to hold no opinion on Silvergate as a project. My only interest is in hopefully heading off ill conceived lawsuits and potentially much worse that might occur if incorrect information continues to be disseminated.
The only other thing I would add is that some people have brought up other concerns not mentioned herein such as flooding, traffic and fire. These concerns are not in the remit of the Association. It has no legal authority to deny a project based on these concerns. The County's permitting process is the right venue to express these concerns.
Obviously if someone else would like send an accurate email from a different viewpoint I would be happy to also send that email along.
From: Pertti Visuri
Subject: Our mutual agreement to correct anything incorrect either of us says regarding Silvergate
Date: October 11, 2025 at 6:33:56 PM PDT
To: Saiid
Saiid, I am glad we talked and agreed to cooperate when we met this week at the Art Jury meeting.
As you asked me to do, I am explaining below, with links to source materials, which of the things you say about Silvergate are incorrect. I ask you, in turn, to point out anything in what I say that is not correct, also with links to materials that show what I got wrong.
It is very important that we both only say what we know to be true and do not leave out important facts in a way that would mislead Covenant members. This is especially critical now that you have publicly announced that you intend to ask for money from members. It would be really bad to combine that with giving any incorrect information.
Therefore, I want to do everything I can to help you. Working together is the best way to get this important debate back onto a sound basis. I certainly understand and acknowledge that you, like everybody else, are entitled to your opinion and to expressing it, but neither of us is entitled to creating our "own facts” if we cannot present clear evidence that they are true.
I will first summarize the main topics where I believe I can help and then present the results of my research so far.
SUMMARY OF INCORRECT CLAIMS
1) Board’s Actions
One of the main themes in your town hall meeting last Tuesday was that RSF Association Board is acting, and instructing the Art Jury to act illegally. You even on your website claim that the Board acted “wrongfully” and is not following the Covenant rules. You have also said that the Board, without authority changed the zoning in the resolution they have made about the project.
As you heard at this week's Art Jury meeting, both Art Jury member Janet McVeigh and Building Commissioner Joel Levanetz explained that the Board really can not participate at this stage of the process and that the Board did not change the zoning of the property in its resolution.
I can understand that it may be confusing that Board made a resolution if they cannot participate. I also realize that apparently the wording of the Board resolution can cause a misunderstanding because of the dual zoning. I’ll explain both these things below.
I will show in the following that your claims about the Board actions are not correct. I will present the relevant parts of the regulations with links to the original documents and explain how they demonstrate that Janet and Joel are right and the Board has acted exactly in accordance with the CC&Rs.
2) The openness vs, secretiveness of the Board
The other accusation leveled against the Board is that they are being unresponsive to your input and make decisions in secret.
In your town hall meeting last week, you told everyone about your petition of September 2023, in which the only thing you ask was that the Board engages an independent specialist land use attorney. You said that the Board’s response to it has been zero.
In the same meeting you said that the Board engaged an independent land use attorney, but has not shared the detailed text of the legal advice they received.
I will present publicly available information about how the Board was open about the only decision they have made regarding Silvergate RSF and how they got involved at this early stage of the process precisely because of your petition.
Regarding openness, you and I completely agree that more open sharing of correct information is always better and helps us all. That is why I am happy that you and I are cooperating in this way.
3) The question of whether the project is allowed by the Covenant and other Regulations
You claim in your presentations and on your website that the proposed project is not allowed because it violates the zoning rules and the minimum lot size regulations.
I will recite and provide links to the rules and regulations that show that the opposite is true. I will explain the three competing interpretations of dual zoning and why only one of them can be correct.
Your incorrect lot size violation claim is caused by a misunderstanding that conflates the lot size restrictions in Chapter 60 of the Regulatory Code and the Use Classes in the Covenant. I will show how this has caused you to draw the wrong conclusion about what is allowed.
As a result, you will see that the project is actually allowed by the Covenant rules and the regulations.
4) The ability of Historical Landmark recognition to protects all of us from truly objectionable buildings
In your town hall last Tuesday you concurred when Sharon Ruhnau, who was on your panel, without any hesitation stated that honorary historical landmark recognition would protect us from new construction that could be offensive. This was in response to a genuine concern from the audience that if Silvergate RSF is turned down another owner could use the state law about low income housing to build something far worse on the site.
I have not found any state rules regarding historic landmark recognition that have such power to stop new construction. There are preservation rules for existing historic landmark buildings, but they wouldn’t be relevant (unless you claim that the dilapidated building on the site has achieved landmark recognition 🙂).
Please, help and point out to me what documents back up your claim of protection against exemptions in the state density bonus law.
5) Risk from the State’s Density Bonus Law for affordable/ low income units
I am concerned that an incorrect belief in non-existing protection is lulling everyone to feeling safe. I have studied the State Density Bonus Law and I am convinced that there is a real danger of ending up with something none of us wants.
After what Jeff Brooks said in the Art Jury meeting this week I am even more alarmed. As you heard, he explained that the Senate Bill 79 about affordable homes and transit, "will strip the Association and Art Jury of any power to protect the Covenant”. He said the Bill stipulates, among other things, that “maximum allowed height cannot be less than 75 feet”. I checked and the SB79 has already been passed by both chambers of legislation and is waiting to be signed by the governor.
This danger of really high density is another topic where you and I are absolutely on the same side. I will explain the Density Bonus Law risk below. Perhaps you can work with Jeff to help out regarding SB 79.
These five topics of incorrect claims are the most important. In the following I will show the detailed results of my research so far. As I said above, please, tell me if anything in the following is incorrect and point me to documents that show it.
DOCUMENTS AND EXPLANATIONS SHOWING THE INCORRECTNESS OF THE STATEMENTS LISTED ABOVE
1. The Board’s and Art Jury’s process of evaluation and approval of the Project
The exact process and rules for approving or denying proposals for buildings and other property improvements can be easily found in the Covenant. I am sure you have a copy, but for your convenience, the full Covenant text can be viewed at the following link (You may need to first log in at the RSF Association home page www.rsfassociation.org using your default browser before using the links to RSFA documents in this email):
https://www.rsfassociation.org/Files/Library/RSFAPROTECTIVECOVENANT.PDF
Each paragraph in the Covenant text has a unique number identifier so it is easy to find the parts referenced in the following.
The description of the approval process starts in paragraph 46. It says that [No part of the Covenant shall be improved by buildings or other changes] "except with the approval of the Association with the written advice of the Art Jury”.
The next paragraph lays out the process: [plans] "shall be submitted to the Association by submitting the same to the Secretary of the Association for a preliminary check as to cost limitations, yard requirements, and other specific requirements of this Covenant. If the Secretary shall find any specific clash between the said plans and specifications and the requirements of the Covenant, he shall communicate with the architect or the owner and try to have the matter corrected before the plans and specifications are forwarded to the Art Jury. After such preliminary, check and correction, if any, the Secretary shall forward the said plans and specifications to the Art Jury for examination, correction, approval or rejection, under the provisions of the Covenant”.
Notably, there is no role for the Association or its Board before Art Jury gives its advice, other than the preliminary check and forwarding to the Art Jury. Also, the words “try to” and ”correction, if any” could be read as meaning that even if the applicant would disagree with any feedback from the Secretary (in practice the Building Department) and refuses tho make corrections, the Association must still forward the plans to the Art Jury, even if there is a clash. I am sure there was no such clash in the Silvergate submission, though.
The Art Jury is set up in the Covenant as separate and independent from the Association. The Jury is mentioned separately in the preamble and established in paragraph 4 as an entity that is separate from the Association. The Board cannot direct or force the Art Jury to do anything.
Therefore, your statement in last week’s town hall that the Board is "holding the Art Jury under their thumb” cannot be correct.
In addition the Bylaws of the Association, in section 6 “Limitations on Board of Directors' Powers” states that the Board cannot approve or deny a proposed project before it has “received the written advice of the Rancho Santa Fe Art Jury thereon”.
The bylaws can be found here:
https://www.rsfassociation.org/Files/Library/AMENDEDBYLAWSLARGEFORMAT2019.PDF
Therefore, following the process set out in the Covenant and Bylaws means that the Board cannot handle the matter until the independent Art Jury has finished their work. That work is ongoing right now and the Board is waiting for its result. They are following the CC&R process exactly as they should be.
If the Board would try to stop that work or order a vote of the members as a prerequisite for it, as has been requested several times by you and others in your opposition group, the Board would be breaching the Covenant rules.
After the explanation above, it is fair to ask why the Board made the resolution about whether zoning allows Silvergate if they are not supposed to participate before Art Jury has finished their work. This actually has to do with your claim about Board’s responsiveness.
2. Board's and Art Jury’s responsiveness to opposition requests and openness
In the very first petition you wrote to the Board in September 2023 the only request was, word for word: “We the undersigned members of the Rancho Santa Fe Association (RSFA) call on the Board, on behalf of all RSFA members, to hire skilled and experienced legal counsel who specialize in Land Use”.
In last Tuesday’s town meeting you said that the board ignored your petition. The truth is that the Board did exactly what you requested. They engaged a land use specialist in a leading large law firm that is completely independent of the Association. Because the Board members wanted to follow the rules of the Covenant the Board could only get involved this way in the approval process after the Art Jury asked for it.
The enabling request from the Art Jury was made last Fall as a result of an initiative by Kelly Hillard, who is now the President of the Art Jury. She specifically suggested that the Art Jury should ask the Board to engage a completely independent lawyer, a specialist in land use because some members of the Association had asked for it. Therefore, the Art Jury made a decision to ask the Board to determine the appropriateness of the project for the zoning, after the Board has obtained additional advice from an outside independent legal counsel who specializes in Land Use. The Art Jury waited three months to let the Board work on this and get the answer before the Art Jury proceeded in their process of deciding about concept approval.
So the Board and Art jury both cooperated to do exactly what your original opposition group petition requested.
Regarding openness, in their their own published words, the Board, “… in considering the matter: 1) reviewed the governing documents 2) consulted with legal counsel from two law firms 3) consulted with professional Association staff4) reviewed the proposed uses provided by the applicant5) exercised independent judgment based on knowledge and understanding of the Association and its history”
The Board then drafted a proposed resolution and published it on the members-only section of the Association website. It is still is available for everyone to read here:
https://www.rsfassociation.org/Files/Library/4ABODRESFORCLASSUSEFORTHESGPRJCT.PDF
The proposed resolution explained their process and then determined that the uses presented to the Association for Silvergate RSF are allowed by the zoning which applies to the property. (Unfortunately they assumed that everyone understands what is the correct interpretation of dual zoning rules. Therefore, after correctly stating the zoning as C and L in the preamble, the resolution only mentioned Class C which is the relevant part of the zoning for this project. This has recently caused some confusion. I will address that later in this email.)
The Board then set up a special open Board meeting on February 11th this year to discuss and determine the correct interpretation of the rules regarding the proposed Silvergate project.
The Board received substantial input in the form of member comments and correspondence in advance of the meeting. Everyone was offered an opportunity to provide member input verbally at the beginning of the meeting. About ten members gave their comments.
The Board members then discussed the matter, provided thoughtful comments and many members explained their thinking about the matter. Then the Board unanimously adopted the proposed resolution. The entire meeting was livestreamed on the Association website. You can watch the video recording here:
In spite of all this, in the “town hall” meeting last Tuesday, you said that the response to the petition had been “zero” and that the Board is taking actions behind closed doors. It is hard to think of a comment that would be further from what actually happened.
There is something correct in what you say about the Board withholding information: The Board has not published the detailed text of the legal advice that the Board has received from their legal counsels. However, you as a successful businessman certainly should know that such advice of an attorney is normally never shared publicly. It would be privileged information even in a legal proceeding.
The Board would be reckless to publish its attorney-client communications when threats of litigation are already being made - as they now have been; by that unfortunate attorney who apparently fell for the incorrect and inflammatory assertions of the Board's wrongdoing without checking the facts. As a result, he publicly embarrassed himself in last weeks Board meeting. Below is the link to the Board meeting video, which starts by him making his misguided, empty threat.
https://vimeo.com/event/5407313/74561e9d71
3. Does the project meet the Covenant and Regulation rulesThe confusing matter of the dual zoning
One of the examples you have given of the Board’s wrongful actions in your presentations and on your website has to do with the dual zoning of C and L for the property.
I understand that this is a critical matter. If there is no zoning violation, the only remaining argument will be the minimum lot size regulation. Therefore, I want to be as clear as I can. I agree that it is bit complicated and can be confusing. You really need to read the whole thing to get to the correct conclusion.
As your presentation materials point out, the zoning for the property (C and L) was agreed for this area almost a hundred years ago. Lilian Rice was the secretary of the Art Jury when the zoning decision was made. (I guess that answers the question “What would Lillian Rice think?”, which is on your website.) As Joel said in the Art Jury meeting this week, the same dual zoning applies to all the properties East of the Silvergate site on Valle del Oro, including your property.
Your presentation materials correctly cite the relevant Covenant zoning rules in paragraphs 99 and 110. The zoning text for all of the classes has the same structure. It basically says nothing is allowed except … followed by a list of uses that are allowed for buildings that can exist in each Class. So, simplifying the complex text a little:
For class C, paragraph 99 reads:[Nothing except] apartment house, hotel, private school, fraternity dwelling, club,dormitory, boarding house or lodging house, flat, multiple dwelling, two-family dwelling and/or single family dwelling.
For Class L paragraph 110 reads:[Nothing except] riding academy, stable, polo field or residence or lodging for persons employed on said premises.
The crucial question is how the rules are applied when a property belongs to two zoning Use Classes. Two basic possibilities and a variant of the second one have been suggested:
1) The restrictions of what is not allowed from both of the zoning classifications are applied.
2) The buildings and other things that are allowed in both of the use classifications are allowed
3) An interpretation has also been suggested that each property must have buildings and other things that are allowed in each and every one of the zoning Use Classes that apply to the property.
Earlier the opponent group claimed that the restrictions of both classes should be applied for lots that have dual zoning (alternative 1 in the above list). This is was the whole foundation of the second petition, for which names were collected in front of the post office, apparently authored by Courtney Svajian. By the way, thank you for introducing me to her and for pointing out to me that I had offended her by my email, which said that this interpretation and other things in the petition were not truthful. I am glad I got to tell her I am sorry for the way I said it. It had just been so hard for me to understand that anyone could really believe that the interpretation of applying the restrictions of both zoning rules could be correct.
The reason is that with that interpretation, no buildings at all would be allowed.
This is because:
- in Public Use Class L, residence or lodging is only allowed for people who are employed on the premises of a riding academy, stable or polo field. This restricts out all dwellings for people who are not “ employed on said premises”.
- In Residential Use Class C, the rules restricts out all of the horse facilities (“said premises”) listed in Class L, therefore there cannot be any “persons employed on said premises”. If we apply restrictions of both Use Classes, it follows that no buildings for dwellings, or for any other use, are allowed.
In other words, there is no overlap in the things allowed in class L and class C. Therefore, no buildings can exist if the restrictions of both classes are applied.The obviously correct interpretation is the alternative 2 in the above list, namely that both the things allowed by C and the things allowed by L are permitted. This interpretation has been confirmed by two independent legal opinions as was discussed above. When the lawyers prepared their legal opinions to the Board they certainly knew that the zoning was both C and L.
It was for this reason that the Board resolution text focuses on what is allowed in class C after first stating in the preamble that the classification is C and L.Things allowed in L are not relevant for the uses proposed for Silvergate. Therefore, that class was not mentioned in the resolution after the preamble. If you still think that there was something sinister or wrongful in the resolution, I suggest that we both together ask the Board. It might be helpful if the Board issues a clarifying amendment to the February resolution to finally put this matter to rest for everyone.
Perhaps realizing the absurdity of the “both restrictions apply”- interpretation, you have recently changed what you say about dual zoning. Now admit that it is ok to have a dwelling or the property even if the occupant is not employed at the stables or polo field.
However, you now say that each property with dual zoning must have structures allowed by both of the classifications (This is the interpretation alternative 3 in the above list). You were making this assertion very effectively and clearly in last week’s Board meeting. You said: ”C means housing; L means horses; and when it is C and L, we read it as: it needs to have both.”
Everyone can watch the video of the meeting here:
https://vimeo.com/event/5407320/1b3befd21b
The first two minutes of this video shows the first member input, which was that embarrassing diatribe and threat to sue the Board members, which I mentioned above.
The next six minutes are you and Russ Penniman talking about the need to follow the CC&Rs and making your appeal that the Board should stop the Art Jury’s work (which it cannot control) and arrange a vote before letting the work continue, (which would be a breach of the CC&Rs). The following two minutes is me asking the Board to arrange a public meeting to hear what your opposition group have to say and to explain the process to everyone with the help of a legal expert.
Your comment about the zoning comes at exactly 8 minutes and 40 seconds from the start of the video. If your comment would be correct, you would have incriminated yourself and thrown all your neighbors under the bus.
As I explained to you in our quick private chat before the Board meeting started and you made your comment: if we accept your interpretation, all the properties on Valle del Oro that do not have a riding academy, stables or polo field, are in breach of the Covenant.
According to paragraph 172, if the Association records a notice of a breach in the office of the County Recorder, and no remedy is made within sixty days, the title of the property shall "revert to and be vested in the Association". So if you are right, everybody on your street may lose their home.
There clearly is no zoning violation and the Board did not change, nor did it need to change, the zoning designation when they made their resolution that uses proposed for Silvergate are allowed. This is what both Janet and Joel said in this week's Art Jury meeting.
With this conclusion, there is only one thing left to carry your argument that Silvergate is not allowed by the CC&Rs: The minimum lot size requirements and your claim of maximum of one residence per 2.86 acres.
Minimum lot size regulations
The claim that there is a restriction of one residence per 2.86 acres is incorrect. It is based on conflating two separate sets of rules:
- The lot size limits that are in Chapter 60, Subdivision and Boundary Adjustment Regulation; and
- the Zoning Classes that are in the Covenant.
It is true that Chapter 60, Subdivision and Boundary Adjustment Regulation, sets the minimum lot sizes. The map in your material shows them correctly. However, your statement and the text on your website adds the words “per dwelling” when describing the regulation. This claim that this regulation limits the use to one dwelling per subdivision is not correct.
The regulation can be found here:
https://www.rsfassociation.org/Files/Library/CHAPTER60SUBDIVISIONANDBOUNDARYADJUSTMENTREGULATION.PDF
The minimum lot sizes are set in its section 60.0706. However, in that same section the regulation states that the lot size is applied “for properties located within the Residence Districts of Class "A," "B,” "C," and the Public Use Districts of Class "L". Nowhere in the regulation does it say that only one residence can be built on each lot.
Chapter 60 only regulates subdivisions and lot sizes. The allowed uses and what hat can be built on each lot is determined by the Zoning class, as we just discussed above. Your statement would be true only for properties in Residence Districts of Class A, which is almost all of the Covenant area. However, it is not true for the Silvergate site, which is zoned C and L, as you know.
I explained this to Russ Penniman in a conversation after this week’s Art Jury meeting and I was encouraged as he promised to examine the documents and check it.
As a result of all of the above, the fact is that the proposed Silvergate RSF project meets all the rules of the Covenant and associated regulations. If you do not think that this is correct, then please, let me know which regulation is no being met.
I am hopeful that you will have another opportunity to hear this explained directly by the Board. I heard in the Art Jury meeting that an open meeting for discussion about this is “in the works”. Such a meeting is something both you and I have proposed to the Board. My request can be seen on last week's Board meeting video right after your remarks, starting 9 minutes 22 second from the start.
4. Historic Planned Community and historic building protection
There are two separate things that relate to recognition of historical significance.
The first one is Rancho Santa Fe’s recognition as “Historic Planned Community of Rancho Santa Fe.” We all have reason to be proud of the recognition, which can be viewed here:
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/Detail/982
The second one is the listing of Lillian Rice designed buildings in the National Register. The 62-page entry in the National Register is a fantastic source of history about the early years of the Covenant and this community that we all love. It can be found here:
https://npgallery.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NRHP/Text/64500059.pdf
However, these documents do not have any power to regulate new construction, nor are they intended to do so. The best they can do is to bolster the appropriateness of the Covenant rules and the Art Jury review. However, the project is already subject to them and the Art Jury is doing a great job, so they appropriateness of that process does not need any bolstering.
I have not found anything that shows the ability of these honorary historic recognitions to protect us from the risk of objectionable construction projects. Please, point me to the documents if you think such protection exists.
5. Risk from the State’s Density Bonus Law for affordable/ low income units
I believe we need to take this risk seriously. We are on the same side here. Understanding this correctly is the interest of all Covenant members.
We should not believe that we can kick the can down the road by somehow stopping the Silvergate project and then deal with the next project when it, inevitably, will be proposed.
The problem is that the State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code §§65915 – 65918) will equip a new owner to reduce the discretion that the Board and Art Jury can exercise. Here is a good summary of the Density Bonus Law at the website of Southern California Association of Governments.
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/density_bonu...
It is scary reading.
A developer could claim that the Art Jury’s discretionary demands would prevent the builder from getting a benefit stipulated in State law. If discretion-based requirements are eliminated, the next density limit would be the Covenant specified 50%, instead of Silvergate’s 23%, which is based on Art Jury discretion. In addition, the law specifies concessions from other rules, like architectural design requirements like height limitations, required setbacks, parking and minimum open space. Up to four separate exemptions can be obtained depending on the percentage of units reserved for low income residents.
As mentioned above, Jeff’s discovery of Senate Bill 79 brings additional urgency. According to him, the fact that there is a bus route and a stop right next to the site means that this State Law, which is approved by both chambers and ready to be signed by the governor, will override even quantitative restrictions in local rules. Jeff said in the Art Jury meeting that SB 79 will mean the end of our ability to protect the Covenant using the Protective Covenant, regulations or the Art Jury.
Assuming Jeff is correct, now may be our last opportunity to protect what we love; and the only way to prevent super-high density on the site will be to get Silvergate approved before the new State law takes effect.
All the more reason to cooperate.
WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER
Let me thank you again for proposing that we work together this way, and for your commitment to correct everything that you learn is not correct in what you say and write. I will hereby make the same commitment:
I promise to correct any of my statements that anyone can prove are not truthful or correct by showing original source materials.
Both of our websites are obviously an important part of what we say. For your convenience, here is a link to our website:
https://www.rsffriendsofretirement.com/
Obviously, we both still can and we should freely present opinions about what is good for the community and advocate for our views. However, as a result of this cooperation, we can make sure that factual statements from both of us will be correct. All of our fellow Covenant members deserve this. This way we both protect and respect the Covenant and the rules that have been in it for almost 100 years.
We are all in this together and everyone cares about the needs of the residents, each in their own way. Let’s continue to work together — and ask others to participate as well.
Asking help from others
Getting to the truth and making sure things we say are correct will help everyone. Therefore, let’s ask everyone to help in the process.
Please, forward this email to Russ, Sharon, Jeff and others in your group and ask for their input to point out any incorrect facts in what I have said. Also ask them all to commit to correcting any of their statements that can be shown to be incorrect. In other words, ask them to make the same commitment that you and I have made.
Everyone speaking for RSF Friends of Retirement is hereby making the same commitment. If anyone in your group does not want to make it, please, let me know who and why would they not want to.
To help us both get our facts straight, I will also forward this message, like you will, to people I know who have knowledge of the Covenant rules and Board actions. Ideally everyone in the Covenant who is interested in this project should be a part of our effort to keep the dialogue based on correct facts.
Next steps in our cooperation
As the first action, please, help me correct anything that you think is incorrect in this email message. Please, send any documents and material that will show how to correct any errors you find.
I am happy to talk on the phone or get together if you think it would be helpful. Below are my email and phone number. Please, send a text on any urgent matter, there may be a delay before I notice emails.
Let’s work quickly through this. I would like to complete our joint effort before the next events in the approval process.
Thanks again, I look forward to your response,
Pertti Visuri
Phone:
Email: RSFfriendsofRetirement@gmail.com
Previous emails, Rancho information, and the old RSF Post archives available at myrsf.net.