[quote=sdrealtor]So the argument we often hear why these public sector palaces are so….well…palacial is that they need to match the community character and design standards. So lets play the old Sesame Street game of “One of these things is not like the others”
The Rancho Santa Fe Protective Covenant was assembled in 1928, to help preserve and maintain the character of the community and unique land features, as well as establish architectural guidelines to restrict the type of homes and amenities to be built in the area…
The Covenant CC&R’s have been amended many times since then.
I’ve left Photos #1 and #4 up because of the age of the buildings. The barn is likely 60-80 yrs old. The Helen Woodward Animal Shelter was built in stages between 1972 and 1983.
I do not have a copy of the Covenant’s CC&R’s (flyer, can you assist us here?) but the buildings depicted above likely predate the RSF “Architectural Committee” or “Art Jury” amendment(s) by decades.
For the sake of illustration, let us compare a South County uninc area (“Sunnyside” 91902) small spec-built infill tract of about 14 “luxury” homes. “Ames Ranch” was completed in 2004 (all but 2 lots) with CC&R’s encumbering. It encompassed only one cul-de-sac, created by the developer. Next to this tract was a dog kennel on 2-3 AC which had been in operation since the early 60’s. It boarded dogs which barked night and day which bothered the new neighbors in the new tract, esp those whose backyards backed into the kennel property. These new owners filed many complaints with the Assn and the county, which went nowhere. The dog kennel had all the necessary permits to operate and was situated in a semi-rural area at least 100 feet from the neighbor on the west and 500 feet from the easterly neighbor … that is, until new owners began moving into Ames Ranch.
Another slightly-newer 9-home spec development situated about 3 mi northwest of Ames Ranch in the South County uninc area of “Bonita Mesa” (91902) is “Vista Pointe,” an infill development of large luxury homes. It had the same fact pattern as Ames Ranch except I don’t believe VP has an HOA. On the southwest corner of this developer-built cul-de-sac, there existed a family-owned chicken ranch on an approx 1 AC parcel which had been in existence for at least 55 years. The *new* VP neighbors complained to the county about the odor of the chicken ranch to no avail.
In the mid-late ’80’s, an “upscale” (for the era) medium-sized tract with dramatic facades (for the era) went up just west of the master-planned community of “Cottonwood” <100 yards south/southeast of an existing commercial egg ranch. Here is a recently closed listing on one of the sts which were most affected by the sulfur odor.
The new owners complained vociferously of the strong sulfur odors after moving in and the Assn/County could do nothing. I do not know if the egg ranch is still in operation today.
In my third example, the egg ranch was a "stone's throw" to three sts in the tract, but was actually situated on a long private gravel drive not reachable directly from that tract. One would have to drive all the way around an adjacent county park and circle around to the north and back south again to reach the egg ranch (3.5+ mi). Nevertheless, the odors were there intermittently when viewing the builder models and should have been noticed by potential buyers. In all of these cases, the new owners had the oppt'y to notice and should have noticed what was on the adjacent properties PRIOR to going under contract in a new development.
Compare the above scenarios to a new owner moving in under the jet-rising path in 92106 and then complaining to the City about the noise! I'm sure there are many other areas of the county which have infill and tract development adjacent to these pre-existing issues.
Here, there was nothing the RSF Assn could do about the animal shelter or old barn. The other properties in photos #2 and #3 look as if they could be newer and thus went thru some sort of "vetting" by the RSF Assn. Remember that the "amendments" to the CC&R's were a "work in progress" all during this time.
A civil action was filed in 1996 by a new RSF homeowner who sought a judicial determination of the validity and enforceability of certain unrecorded (RSF Assn) guidelines. Later the Assn filed a writ of injunctive and declaratory relief against her (to have her seek the proper permits or tear down her newly-erected wrought-iron fence). The case is interesting but has a bit of convoluted fact pattern. The Assn ended up prevailing eight years later. In part, the 4th DCA found that the challenged (by Dolan-King) RSF Regulatory Code provisions were valid concerning the definition of the terms "major" and "minor" construction.
Between 1-22-04 (when RSF v Dolan-King was finally published) and July 2006, there were five legislative changes that directly impact CA Architectural Review Committees within HOA’s. Those changes are:
1) Effective July 1, 2006, architectural committees are required to keep meeting minutes. (Civil Code section 1365.2(a)(1)(H).) These minutes must be made available to members, upon request. (Civil Code section 1365.2(b)(1).) The association may withhold or redact information because of privacy, privilege under law, or if the information may lead to fraud in connection with the association. (Civil Code section 1365.2(d).)
2) Architectural committee decisions must be in writing. (Civil Code section 1378(4).)
3) If the proposed change is disapproved, the notice of the decision sent to the homeowner must include an explanation of why the proposed change was not approved and provide a description of the procedure for reconsideration of the decision by the board. (Civil Code section 1378(a)(4).)
4) If an application is denied, associations are required to have a procedure in place to allow homeowners to appeal the architectural committee’s decision to the board. (Civil Code section 1378(a)(4).)
5) Associations are required to annually mail a notice to all homeowners describing the association’s application process. The notice must describe the common changes that require association approval and include a copy of the procedure used to review and approve or deny a proposed change. (Civil Code section 1378(c).)
The above “landmark” published version of this opinion can be cited as Rancho Santa Fe Association v. Patricia Dolan-King (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 28 and has been affirmatively cited throughout CA courts many times since then.
The likely reason for the RSF Fire District’s heavy compliance with the Board’s Architectural Committee or “Art Jury” is due to the fact that, if sued by the Assn to be “out of compliance” after they had already built part or all of the fire stn, they would very likely lose. The District was looking out for its own self-interests (and those of their taxpayers) when they brought all their plans for the new station to the Committee first. It’s really as simple as that and had NOTHING to do with those who work in the building, “public sector porn,” or the “system.”
