Dear PRSF members, supporters, and neighbors,
Thank you to everyone who attended the Town Hall, and our apologies to those who could not join us. Thank you all for your continuing and growing support.
1. Town Hall – High Points
Dag Bunnemeyer, former head of Zoning for the County of San Diego PDS for 20 years, outlined a demanding County path for Silvergate and confirmed that the Covenant’s institutional restrictions do not violate fair housing laws. High points:
1. A Major Use Permit is required. This is not a by-right residential project. County review is a separate and difficult process.
2. Paragraph 1 of the Protective Covenant is enforceable. Fair housing protects the right to live in housing that is otherwise allowed. It does not require the Association to approve an institutional memory-care campus the Covenant forbids.
3. Threshold defects should be decided now. Undersized apartments, berms and setback requirements are not items to bury in a later Art Jury “package.”
4. County CEQA review is not done. The Association should take no formal position on Silvergate until those studies – and any required EIR – are complete.
2. Association FAQ No. 22
The Association issued an updated Silvergate FAQ sheet. It contains a number of errors. We responded immediately to FAQ No. 22, which is the Board’s current vehicle for the claim that Paragraph 1 cannot be enforced.
Short answer: it can. Article I, Paragraph 1 bans institutions for the care or restraint of the mentally impaired. Even Class K repeats that ban. Resolution 2025-102 never addressed it. Silvergate’s 24 to 48 memory-care suites far exceed California’s six-resident residential safe harbor. The only lawful path to allow that use is a Paragraph 164 modification with two-thirds owner consent. That vote has not occurred.
3. Proposed Rules of Conduct – September 3, Item 6a
The Board will consider posting new “Rules Pertaining to Conduct at Association Meetings.” Orderly meetings are a legitimate goal. The draft, as written, goes further. It treats criticism of Board action, citation of the Covenant, and a member’s reservation of legal rights as if they were “threats” the Chair may silence. That conflicts with Civil Code sections 4350, 4515, 4925, and 4930. Please read the posted agenda and the draft rule (link 3 below). Please come on September 3 and say so. Talking points are in link 4.
Please Come on September 3
Speak on one “ask” below. Three minutes is enough.
1. The 52 undersized apartments – address now, not later. Regulatory Code § 43.0301 requires 1,750 square feet. Fifty-two apartments are 1,440. The Art Jury required a variance or redesign in October 2024; that requirement then disappeared. Address it now, not when the Art Jury delivers an entire package for project approval.
2. No Board vote on Silvergate until CEQA is complete. The Board should take no vote to approve, recommend, or endorse Silvergate until County CEQA review – and any required EIR – is completed.
3. Do not post the conduct rules as written. The draft, as written, violates California law. Time limits and decorum are lawful. Content control of member comments is not.
Materials
Please review the four folders below and share them with neighbors.
1. Town Hall presentation and high points – Open folder
2. FAQ No. 22 response – Open folder
3. September 3 Board agenda and proposed rules of conduct – Open folder
4. Member comment templates and talking points – Open folder
Opposition continues to grow as people learn more about this project. The more people show up, the higher the probability of the Board and Art Jury paying attention.
Sincerely,
Protect Rancho Santa Fe
