Poll Result: Osuna

Member Comments

You should never sell off a profitable asset.

if you can spend $10 million+ on the golf clubhouse, you can certainly spend $3 million to have this open space benefit for the association members.

I would suggest number three. But I must admit to you that I am not an equestrian participant and never have done. Therefore, I believe this issue should be determined by more qualified people that have a vested interest in the scale of the equestrian needs for the Rancho Santa Fe community. I think their vote should carry a much heavier weight than anyone who has absolutely no interest in that arena no pun intended. Blackburn.

You should explain how the $10 million could be used for the benefit of all Covenant members, rather than the 6 using Osuna now.

Make Osuna a viable horse property similar to the riding club. Have multiple trainers, not just one. Many parents want to expose their children to riding and they should be able to do it in the covenant. Why go to a private barn when we have this amazing facility. I believe it could be even better than the riding club for the community.

I can’t even believe we own this property. I understand there are some very loud and vocal members who love this property and I get that but what they don’t understand is the vast majority of the homeowners in the covenant don’t care about this property or have any interest in using it. You know what would be amazing is selling it and using those funds to fund our association and projects that matter to the majority of the association.

Ex RSF RESIDENT OF 43 years. Keep the prop. Paid for and meaningful to the community forever. Important to ongoing RSF history.

Use the proceeds to build health club in golf club.

Osuna is a gem and worth preserving

The investment option is not possible to answer properly with the limited information the general membership has at its disposal. We can all read the financials, but that does not tell the whole story. There needs to be a budget forecast and/or cash flow model that incorporates all anticipated inflows and outflows for the next 5+ years. This is the only way to determine if there are sufficient funds for further investment. And even if there are, we need a business plan that shows how there will be a positive return on that investment. Osuna is, in reality, a business and decisions about what to do with it should be made as such. These steps I have listed are basic protocols when evaluating capex. If the Board has gone through this exercise already, then we should be able to see the work to make a more informed decision. Because there is still significant information missing, I cannot make an informed recommendation to spend any money on it. Selling it is not a good idea. So the only option of the ones presented is to do nothing.

You have also not listed another option...shut it down. If the facility loses money, you can shut it down. At least you cut the burn rate. That may not be the best option, but it is still an option worth looking at...and would require analysis just like making an investment. If it can't turn a profit or at least break even after regular maintenance capex, maybe it should be shut down.

Really Phil?!? “ You’ve no power here ! Begone, before someone drops a house on you ! “ - Glinda the Good Witch, the Wizard of Oz.
It’s time to let the current board function without your toxic input. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Can we find legacy sponsors and donors who would get a tax refund and recognition (think Holcombe Gym)?
Can we add member valued facilities and charge a club fee for members like the golf club?
Can we hire someone at the association other than volunteers to plan and organize regular events (think senior center director)

Can we charge more rent to a trainer who wants to use it?

$1,500 per member is a small price to pay to keep, and make improvements to Osuna Ranch, as the RSF asset that it is. Why hasn't there been a vote on whether or not we should spend much larger amounts on the RSF Golf Club facility, that not everyone (only a small percentage of covenant members) is allowed to use, unless they join the golf club. There are many other desirable golf clubs, racquet clubs, restaurants, etc in the RSF area, as well as other horse facilities.

No One is asking for money regarding Osuna.
Osuna ranch is profitable.
No request from members to subsidize Osuna
No need for millions to upgrade horse operations.
Osuna Committee is working to increase community use and bring back our school children to educate them on this historic property.
Come to the Osuna committee if you have ideas , they want community use to increase too.
Polls like this are opinions- everyone has one.

Your poll is very misleading. Rather than sell off a PROFITABLE asset, why aren't you polling the community to see if they want to spend $12 million on a restaurant renovation that the Golf Club operates at a loss of $1.2 million annually (which is currently subsidized with 1/2 million dollars from HOA assessments)? You also missed the option that the Osuna committee inquired about operating a Historic non-profit on the entire 25 acres under a land lease from the Association, with donations of over $1 million waiting in the wings. (The RSF Community Center, and part of the Rancho Riding Club, currently operates on HOA-owned land.) Historic land should be cherished, and landmark parks like Leo Carrillo State Park have been shown to increase community home values. BY THE WAY, the Tennis club also operates at minimal profit too, some members think it needs a renovation more than Historic Osuna Ranch.
The numbers don't lie:
(Based on Chief Officer Report (Unaudited Financial Statements for the twelve months ended June 30, 2025)
Revenue over Expenses
General Services $1,809,663
Golf $6,928,182
Restaurant -$(1,288,727) Loss
Tennis $224,897
Osuna $175,743
Other - $(2,160,417) Loss

You may want to disclose that you are a current member of both the Golf and Tennis Clubs.

I thought this topic was closed for the foreseeable future.

no 1 is common sense no problems Its a beautiful site to keep for the horses.

I own two parcels, so multiply this by 2. Thanks.

The Association doesn’t need to run a horse facility.
Very few members board their horses at Osuna.
We already have a riding club in Rancho.
Therefore, I vote to sell the property.

The Osuna Adobe is a treasured landmark in Historic Rancho Santa Fe, embodying the region’s heritage and timeless beauty. Built in the early 1830s and surrounded by 24 acres of original landscape, it remains one of the last California adobes preserved in its authentic setting. The ranch’s horse stables and barns, some dating back to the 1930s, continue to reflect the equestrian traditions that have defined Rancho Santa Fe for generations, with horses grazing behind white fences under graceful eucalyptus trees. Listed on the National Register of Historic Places and recognized as the birthplace of Rancho Santa Fe, San Diego, and California history, Osuna Ranch is a living testament to our past, and we are proud to protect and preserve this irreplaceable piece of our heritage.

Osuna is a historic property that should be preserved. Rancho Santa Fe should preserve a bit of its original character and have a place for community, field trips/education and recreation.

I have horses. The RSF association doesn't fund an upgrade to my barn. I have never been invited to use the Osuna property with my horses. It is only for some special "elite" horse owners. Do they live and pay taxes in the covenant? How come this asset isn't offered for all of us to use. Every year there is only an offer for us lowly plebs to visit Osuna. Now they want $1.5 million per individual to fix up the property! Do they think they are the Padres and want a new sports stadium? What do any of us who pay, get out of this? I know, more bills. Thanks.
We were told Osuna would be open space when it was purchased. I imagined a park we all could walk on. It has turned into a private horse riding club. Does Hap Hansen actually live in the covenant? Only a few cool people get to use it. The rest of us just pay the bills.
Sell it or make it into something that the whole covenant enjoys using.

Open space is very valuable.

1> It doesn't sound like "no changes" is working.
2> Making 2000 household subsidize the boarding of 12 horses is irresponsible.
3> Half measures wouldn't optimize the value of the land or the use of the land.
4> Selling it all makes the most sense but it feels like one option is missing...

Leasing the land to a commercial operator (with restrictions) who could:
- Figure out how to host events to drive more use – competitions, weddings, birthdays, family reunions, etc.
- Pay for upgrades and build more stables to attract more paying tenants.
- Ultimately, unlock more value for the community to better leverage the space.

If there's no commercial interest then it clearly isn't economically viable and should be sold outright.

You left off at least one more option, since your poll is by its structure obviously advocating for selling Osuna - money to be used to fund the huge losses and major expense of remodeling the - can’t call it Golf Club any more, since the Golf Club is a separate, “elite” place now - restaurant that is not being used by members because they don’t feel welcome anymore - How about adding to list the Option to Donate it to the County or State as a historic park? We would get a write off, and not have to spend money on it anymore.

Meanwhile, since 40% of Tennis doesn’t live here, why not mention that? Also, what is the percentage of golfers who play who are guests or former residents? What is the census of golfers vs non-golfers who utilize the restaurant- one report was 60% revenue was from the 25% of us who are golfers, vs 40% from the 75% of us who are non-golfers? CFO provided that info.

No assessment is taken lightly, but to maintain a functioning and quasi competitive equestrian facility requires some investment. The ranch is an extremely important land asset for the association and should not be sold outright. You can only sell once and now is NOT the time.

I lived in the Covenant 1988-2022 Since I lived on Via a la Casa when RSF Association bought the property I am very aware of the pluses and challenges. Option number 4 sell it all is correct for the reasons stated the historic structure is preserved an a private buyer will most likely maximize the properties potential. They would also be likely to work with the association to maximize access to the historic portion. The sale funds could be used to better benefit the community as a whole for example clubhouse remodel, snack bar remodel, dead tree removal and other open space purchases.

It was an awful deal and likely illegal. Sell it and use the proceeds to build / buy something which more members will enjoy.

It is a truly special place. It should be upgraded, and selling lower land to fund it makes sense on multiple levels

Was a bad buy at the time - smacked of insider dealing - and the rest of us have been stuck with it for the benefit of a few equestrians. Just cut losses - redeploy the capital to something that benefits the entire community (such as a fitness/family center). Time to move on.

Not everyone uses the baseball fields.
Not everyone uses the trails.
Not Everyone uses the golf course or tennis or Rancho Riding Club.
Not everyone visits the Arroyo.
Not everyone uses everything that does not mean they don't add value.
Keep it as is or improve it but don't get rid of 25 beautiful acres designated for the entire community.

We are the whole not the sum.

A genuine poll would never be preceded with a statement of one side's position on any given issue. Not eve on: what is your favorite pie? With all due respect, stop it.

I have a soft spot for its original use. Selling the unusable part would be the best for all.

Important to keep the historic Osuna buildings under association ownership.

I definitely would like us to retain 100% of this land. Once sold, it's gone, and open space is getting scarcer all the time. Since I can only pick one option I would go with the one that requires some upgrade investment. But I would predicate that on finding out if there are Association members who would move their horses to Osuna if the property were upgraded, and/or on knowing we could recoup some of that cost by charging higher fees once the facilities were updated/enhanced/upgraded.

Revised Question 1Title:
Continue Operating with Reasonable Enhancements

Osuna Ranch should continue to be operated with thoughtful, incremental improvements that enhance the homeowner experience and encourage broader community use. While the annual HOA parties are a highlight, many residents remain unaware that Osuna Ranch is a shared asset—available for reservation and enjoyment for special occasions.
Questions 2 and 3 seem to assume that major capital improvements are necessary. I respectfully disagree with the proposed $3M budget to upgrade the stable facilities. The barns, stalls, and pastures are already presentable and safe. Notably, Hap Hansen has consistently prioritized and improved the arena footing to meet the standards of national jumping champions who train there.
Additionally, current architectural guidelines favor tiled roofs and block wall construction, yet modern metal barn construction has evolved significantly and is affordable. Today’s metal barns meet high safety standards and offer architectural styles that align with our community’s aesthetic. I encourage the Architectural Committee to revisit these guidelines and consider adopting metal barn alternatives where appropriate. Question #4: Selling Osuna Ranch should not be considered. Its historical significance makes it a unique and irreplaceable asset to our community. Even selling the adjacent pastures would mean forfeiting a park that the HOA has already invested in and improved for resident use. The remaining pasture on the opposite side, though currently underutilized, holds great potential. With thoughtful planning, it could become a valuable community resource—whether for recreation, events, or equestrian use. Ultimately, we must strike a balance between preserving the character and heritage of our historic community while remaining open to reasonable, efficient improvements that benefit all homeowners.

The property is unusable for most of the families living in the Ranch. Better to have the capital to use on upgrading things in the Covenant.

We never should have purchased it in the first place.

What is the objective of this unofficial non-association poll? There is not a stated objective, I don’t know what to make of it.

Keep it as is, with improvements as needed. Osuna represents the history and charm of our community.
All around us development takes over. Let this stand as a beautiful, historic space.

The Osuna Property is a wonderful asset to our horse community. We moved to Rancho because of the horse trails and emphasis on equestrian activities. The Osuna adobe property should NOT be owned by a private company who would treat it in a similar way that the Garden Club is- poorly maintained and constantly in use by people outside our community. I am absolutely opposed to selling this property and $3 mil seems like a small price to pay for the association to upgrade the facilities.

I would love a high school, but it’s probably not possible. The neighbors would object to anything but going along the way it is. Can you subdivide, keeping th status of the historical site in tack?
I hope the value has increased, i’m fine with selling.

Status quo with some more highlighting of access and availability to the community. Not usually wise to sell a limited valuable asset.

Current RSF generations need to retain and preserve as much of what is here today, to pass on responsibility for preserving this amazing place we call home, to our future generations.

99% of all outside commercial parties likely to purchase large land parcels here, care about 1 thing only, maximizing their returns.

Is this really a topic again - we love Osuna. Please maintain and let the community enjoy.

Keep up the good work Phil.

None of the above....I would like to see Osuna kept as an asset of the RSFA, but to raise the stall fees to fund the improvements over time, The non-association individuals that are boarding their horses at Osuna should be limited to 33% of the total boarders (until there are 100% members using the facilities) as they are using/enjoying an RSFA member's asset that should be reserved for the Association members who paid for it. Can a non-member walk on the RSF Golf Course pay a greens fee, and play a round of golf without being a RSFA Golf Club member....NO!
The Osuna asset should be more than a horse facility with empty pastures...it needs to be an asset that the community can use, whether its much needed youth soccer fields, or community gardens, or a Nature Center,...the members should decide what additional uses would be best alongside the equestrian facility that exists.
IMO, Philip

This is a vital part of the community and its history. It shouldn’t be changed!!!

This property should serve a communal benefit.

I don't see the benefit of keeping this specialized property. However, we should only sell if the price is market related and approved by a panel appointed by the Board.

I love the way you lay out all the pros and cons. I tried to read between the lines to see which way you were leaning, and I couldn't do it. We drive by Osuna every day to go here and there. It would be interesting to see those who live on the "other side" of the covenant even care. Right now, the Via de la Valle side is dealing with Silvergate and the ever possibility of roundabouts. Let's not complicate our lives any more.

I don’t thing we should let a few neighbors have veto power over the dog park idea, which would be a marvelous new community asset and in reality not disruptive at all.

We would also like to see an aquatic center built there.

Sadly, this poll suffers from significant methodological flaws and bias. It fails to define its sample, omits key demographic information, raises concerns about the confidentiality of responses, and shows clear bias in its framing. Many non-Covenant members received and voted on the poll, further muddying its validity.
The author’s bias is evident throughout. The introductions to the four options include loaded language—describing facilities as “sub-par,” claiming Osuna “roughly breaks even,” and more—all of which steer respondents toward supporting a sale of the Ranch. Meanwhile, the “Status Quo” option is barely described and lacks rationale.
The poll completely overlooks the success of community events like Celebrate Osuna and the Farm to Table Dinners, as well as the Osuna Committee’s ongoing efforts to expand educational programs, passive recreation, and other community uses for Covenant residents and their families. In reality, Osuna generates a substantial annual profit and maintains strong reserves. The cited $3 million repair estimate for upgrades is not supported by the Osuna Committee or any competitive bids, making the implied $1500 per-member cost both unsubstantiated and unfair.
A majority of people move to Rancho Santa Fe because they value our rural character. Osuna Ranch is unique in providing beautiful open space, natural landscapes, historic stables, and an Adobe of state and national historic significance----priceless assets lacking in many of our neighboring affluent “country club” communities. We should retain and enhance Osuna Ranch, profiting from the guidance and innovative ideas of our talented Osuna Committee.
In summary, this poll lacks rigor, leans heavily toward selling all or part of Osuna, and misleads respondents. It offers little value in gauging the informed preferences of our Covenant members.

We would have to identify potential uses of the cash to ensure compliance with Davis Sterling but we do have things like, trail upgrades, fitness, center, market, and Association offices that all could be quickly mobilized as landing spots for the proceeds

4. Sell it all, or
3. Sell the unused portion and the association keeps the cash

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this as an association member. Thank you for what you do!

Osuna is a unique community based asset in Rancho Santa Fe catering to families, and celebrating the history of our community. Please preserve it. There is a groundswell of support to broaden the use and enjoyment of this property.

It is essential to preserve the historic nature of this facility, and to create a place for the community. This is something that RSF is lacking. We have to create spaces that will survive for future generations.

There are important perspectives and options missing from your poll regarding the future of Osuna. If those were truly the only choices, then keeping Osuna—renovated or not—is still by far the more valuable option.

Selling Osuna as the best option is an annoying narrative that you have continually pushed, especially when it reduces a unique community space to just a $10 million price tag. I don't own a horse, but I've taken my children and guests there many times. And enjoyed the events there. How do you put a dollar value on that kind of shared experience? On the connections it brings to families and the wider community? Could it be improved with additional uses for even more people to enjoy? Absolutely but not if it no longer exists for the community.

This space means more than just $$$ dollars —let’s not lose sight of that.

I believe it is absolutely imperative that we retain the Osuna Ranch in its entirety and maintain it to the high standards of Rancho Santa Fe. We pride ourselves on being an equestrian community, yet our current equestrian facilities are subpar. The Osuna Ranch is a stunning property and has the potential to become an incredible equestrian facility. Although I am not certain how many horses the ranch could support if upgraded to proper standards, I am confident that more than 12 members would be eager to board their horses there. The property offers access to equestrian trails within the Ranch and the Coast to Crest Trail, which would significantly enhance our equestrian amenities when combined with the RSF Riding Club.

This property was acquired to preserve open space in a manner that aligns with our community's values, and that is precisely what we should continue to do. The recent Silvergate project controversy highlighted the community's intense interest in preserving the beauty, charm, and character of Rancho Santa Fe. Osuna embodies these qualities perfectly. In fact, the Silvergate property could have represented a welcome expansion to Osuna, avoiding the divisiveness we are experiencing.

The Association should make every effort to transform Osuna into the finest equestrian center in San Diego. If executed properly, it could even become self-sustaining. We need to take our commitment to preserving the best place to live in the US more seriously. By investing in Osuna Ranch, we can ensure that it remains a cherished asset for our community and future generations.

We are not a real estate development company. Sell it all. But if not, go the other direction and invest heavily to fix it up to an excellent standard. Staying in between does not monetize it and does not increase property values - and therefore benefits a small fraction of the community.

Sell it all and buy land for a high school. Or use the Osana land for a high school

I vote for your Option #1, "No changes. Continue operating."
Osuna (en toto) is historic. It's rustic. And it's fine this way. The scent of History still wafts around Osuna. (Yes. The scent of horses too:) It isn't a money pit (like some other Rancho amenities that come to mind), and it lays claim to undeveloped acreage, the most valuable asset that Rancho Santa Fe can still boast of.

Option #2, "Invest 3M to renovate", might do more harm than good - in my humble opinion. Do repair damage. Do maintain function. Do fix that adobe brick fire pit outside the adobe structure - and maybe enlarge it. (And do keep combustible landscaping well away. A decomposed granite surround and cement or natural rock benches might be the ticket. Reposition fire pit to a more open, expansive area, if necessary, to achieve fire safety standards.) A nicely crafted, adobe brick fire pit is an amenity awaiting realization at Osuna. (Ghost stories around an open fire during the Halloween season? Chestnuts roasting on an open flame for the winter holidays? Stargazing and comet watching on clear nights all year round?) Count me in. And I don't think these items will require $3M.

Option #3, "Sell 'unused' portion to help fund renovation", which seems to be your personal favorite, would strip Osuna of its agricultural context, or any remaining potential for agricultural context. Option #3, the absolute worst - again, in my humble opinion - would leave behind a forlorn and forsaken adobe brick structure largely stripped of the land which is its heritage. This 'worst' option would ensure the encroachment of modern homes, manicured landscaping, pickleball courts, and God-knows-what. Option #3 would strip Osuna (by which I mean the adobe structure PLUS an expansive landscape that pays homage to Osuna Ranch's past) of nothing less than Dignity. A stripped-down "osuna ranch" (small case, reflecting the small regard shown to it by its stewards) would become a barren and forsaken mud hovel on a postage stamp-size parcel, a curiosity marooned in an upscale landscape - one that only just tolerates the presence of this "historical artifact". (Furthermore, I write 'unused', because 'unused' is the descriptive applied to so many of our National Parks and vanishing landscapes these days by elected personages who shall remain unnamed, and therefore unprofaned.

Option #4, "Sell it all", while a terrible option, would at least be honest. Why say you care about History, when you are really only willing to pay History, and its living legacy, a meager token homage? Don't leave a gravesite, if there will be no living regard for those passed on.

Thanks for asking.

It should be sold or turned into a non-equestrian ranch asset (pool, fitness, etc.)

Osuna Ranch is an HISTORIC property. It is meant to be rustic. We should build on that rather than make it look new. There are plenty of brand new barns that don’t have the charm of Osuna.

There are plans that improve what we currently have and those should be executed. We shouldn’t sell anything but perhaps consider leasing the lower pastures to raise funds if a neighbor is interested.

If you renovate many more people will use it - so your argument of 12 users does not avail. We have many restaurants in Rancho so no monopoly there.

Your own views are too transparent given your write up.

I shared this with a group of RSF children and teenagers. They all voted to keep Osuna. But almost everyone asked me the same question, "Is this is real? Is someone really trying to get rid of Osuna?" Smart kids... because it's not a real issue. It's just a made up poll by a guy in the community attempting to stir stuff up.

We were entrusted by our predecessors to preserve this valuable community asset both as open space and for the perpetuation of the rich equestrian heritage the Covenant enjoys.

A large part of what this historic property brings to our community resides in its comfortable country feel and associated ties to Covenant history. Any mission to sell it is destructive, and any mission to do more than preservation upgrades is misplaced. Preserving character should be the point. A 1962 Ferrari 250 GTO will never be a 2025 McLaren. One should resist the destructive urge to turn one into the other, and instead embrace each asset for its unique value.

Nor should the ‘not enough people use it’ tagline be given any weight in this conversation. This is largely about preserving community history and open space and providing facilities for a group of loving horse owners who pay their own way. And recently I think the trend line shows increasing community involvement in Osuna activities outside of boarding horses.

A lot of us never use the golf club, soccer fields, baseball diamonds, library, numerous vacant Association properties among other community assets. Yet that doesn’t lead us to seek their sale or destruction. They along with Osuna are collectively all a part of a vibrant, multifaceted community.

The survey unfortunately presents a false dichotomy in breaking out items 1 and 2. Both support keeping Osuna over selling it, which is the root binary question. Keeping it and improving it is a sound option, if the stakeholders explore the options and agree. But proposing an arbitrary price tag without a detailed plan is unhelpful.

I think the ‘sell Osuna’ campaign has encountered strong headwinds every time it surfaces before the broader audience. Perhaps it is time to take that item off of the menu and focus instead on constructive options to maintain and improve our beautiful community.

Leave it alone. Why does this keep coming up? I moved here for the “historic RSF community. I attend the meetings. What’s your deal - that you keep stirring this up? Clearly Phil Tubey has an agenda.

Sell unused portion or sell it all.
The Association is not in the business of running world-class equestrian facilities.

The ranch was bought at a premium. It was negligence of the part of the association (like so many other things) to purchase the property in the first place.

Protect this property

Thank you for continuing to pursue the highest and best use for this important property.

When I looked up the zoning for this property some time ago, I recall reading about a variety of possible uses besides the two mentioned. I also recall that certain areas of the property have severely restricted uses, such as only a park or similar, without any development potential. Therefore, I think we need to know the zoning for the sale of the 4-acre tract before a community vote could be truly considered, as it impacts sales potential and sales value.

Have you considered selling the horse facility? I don't see that listed as a possibility, but that seems a feasible option to gain funds, without the need to expend funds. It potentially allows for continued use of the facility by members of the HOA, but without HOA costs.

If this hasn't already been done, I recommend putting together a proposed use layout on various parts of the property, noting the property that could be sold. To me, a complete picture of the long-term uses being considered is important before any portion of the property is sold, even if the proposal is to keep unsold property uses as they are. An analysis of sales proceeds vs. expenditure needed for any proposed uses of the property would be important to know as well.

In my experience, it is essential to consider the property as a developer or business would. Personally, I think it would be unfortunate if the community made a decision without the full long-term plan in place.

I would be happy to help evaluate the property if needed.
Thank you again to you and all those involved in considering the best use of the property.

I like the idea of a world first class horse facility.

It was a boondoggle when we bought it in 2006. We bought a business that we as an HOA should never have done.

No real community benefit so sell it. No one uses it.

The people of the community already turned out en made in May to speak on this. Let the committee do their job to create a wonderful resource for the community!

It sounds like a beautiful and very special spot - why change if??

Selling part of Osuna is a close second to selling all of it.

I would vote for investing money if it can be offset, to some degree, from the revenue generating horse business. Is it possible to increase the stall rentals to create a capital cash fund for improvements?

Please preserve this historic property for the community

Either sell it all, or make it into a facility that is an asset for ALL members of Rancho Santa Fe and not a select few. For example, since it's establishment almost 100 years ago, there is zero in the way of an RSF aquatics center. The Osuna property would be an ideal place to build an RSF 50 meter pool with space for lap swimming and playing at the same time. The tennis / pickleball club could also be mover there and expanded at the same time. Please let me stress, whatever is done with the property, it should be for the benefit of all members of the Covenant.