Att. 3 - Agenda Report and Exhibits, dated September 16, 2025 — San Clemente City Council, January 20, 2026 (part 2 of 2)

among other things, that an equitable servitude does not require that the property to be benefitted be identified in the deed to be enforced and does not require a written agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants. The Court further found that the F AC adequately alleges that the Broad.moor HOA CC&Rs contained a height restriction specifically for the benefit of the uphill Felicidad Homeowners.

Second, the Parties have commenced initial discovery. In response to written discovery requests, Defendants admitted: their property is subject to the CC&Rs; that they were provided a copy of the CC&Rs when they purchased the home, and that "there are trees on the property exceeding 1 7 feet in height .. "
Third, we obtained documents and learned additional information which confirms the City's involvement and enforcement rights. These documents include, by way of example, declarations from long-time homeowners on Felicidad who were involved with the City when it approved the development on Delicada. See, Declarations of Mrs. Sally Sargent, and Mr. and Mrs. Rice. These declarations detail the events su1Tounding the City's approval of Tract No. 8963 between the years 1973 and 1976. We have also been in contact with Mr. Lizotte who, as noted above, was a Senior Vice President with Broadmoor Homes and was involved in obtaining the City's approval for the Deli cad a homes. Mr. Lizotte has reviewed these declarations, and has confirmed that they are accurate, and that the height restrictions imposed by the City which are included in the recorded declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions were meant to protect the views of the uphill Felicidad homeowners. He said he would be happy to discuss this with the City, if called upon to do so.

Fourth, the City has provided us with Building Permit documentation for 203 Calle Delicada, the house with the offending trees screening out Mr. Buck's ocean and coastal views.

Among these documents is the Broadmoor HOA letter, dated September 11, 2007, to the then owners of the house, Roger & Lonnell Nestie, approving the Nestie's proposed modifications.

This letter from the HOA, Exhibit 9, specifically states that if trees reach 20 feet (should actually be 17 feet per the CC&Rs) or more in height, the homeowners are required to trim or remove these trees at their own expense. Also stated is that this requirement applies to the current and any future homeowners. Given this, the HOA is clearly aware of the tree height requirement, however, they still neglect their duty to enforce their CC&Rs. The City used this Broad.moor HOA approval letter in their process to grant a building permit.

Finally, the Broadmoor HOA recently trimmed all of its common area trees to approximately 17 feet or less. There is no dispute that there exists a 17-foot height restrictio~ • and the recent actions of the Broad.moor HOA confirm this fact. Nonetheless, the Broadmoor Association refuses to enforce the restriction on homeowners on Delicada, who refuse to comply with the 17-foot height restriction. As previously stated, the Broadmoor HOA's position is that because Felicidad is not a part of the Broadmoor HOA, it has no obligation to Felicidad homeowners. It appears that the Broadmoor HOA has purposefully discounted the events that led to the approval of the 19 Delicada houses 45 years ago. 1078493
Cit'J Clerk
Ci"t'J of San Clemente
May 17, 2021

Page 6 ends

Because the HOA and certain Delicada homeowners refuse to comply with the recorded Supplemental CC&Rs which were required as part of the City's approval process, the City must consequently step in for enforcement purposes. The City has the auth01ity under its prior approval and as recorded in the CC&Rs to enforce the restriction.

As the approving body for Tract No. 8963, the City has enforcement authority to remedy the violation of the CC&Rs caused by the overgrown trees on Delicada Specifically, the City can and should compel the Broadmoor HOA to enforce the CC&Rs because the height restrictions were specifically imposed on the 19 lots on Delicacla by the City as a condition for the subdivision approval. A local government agency that grants entitlements for development on condition that the developer record specific restrictions regarding the use and occupancy of the project, has the authority to enforce the restrictions and to enjoin a violation that would be contrary to the restrictions of the approval. (See, e.g., Ojavan Investors, Inc. v. Califom-ia Coastal Commission (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 516, 526 [noting Coastal Commission authority to obtain an injunction and recover civil penalties and fines from any person who violated restrictions in a declaration of restrictions imposed by the Commission as a condition to a development permit]; and Santa Clara v. Paris (1977) 76 Ca1.App.3d 338, 342 [city had the legal ability, in its own right, to bring an action to enforce a condition to a variance granted to the violating party].) Here, because the City required the CC&Rs to include the height restriction as a condition of approval for Tract No. 8963, the City can enforce the restriction against the Delicada Homeowners and/or compel the Broad.moor HOA to enjoin the violation.

The City may also remedy the issue of the overgrown trees on Delicada under the City Municipal Code's provisions. Chapter 8.52 of the City Code defines a public nuisance as "[a]nything which is ... an obstruction to the free use of property so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by any considerable number of persons ... " (City Code, § 8.52.010.) The City Code specifically discusses overgrown vegetation "causing detriment to neighboring properties or property values" as a public nuisanc_e. (City Code, §

8.52.030, subd. (G)(2).) The overgrown trees interfere with the Felicidad Homeowners' enjoyment of their properties because their ocean views are obstructed by non-compliant neighbors on Delicada. Indeed, ocean views are a significant consideration in assessing the value of properties located near the coastline, and as a coastal city, San Clemente has acknowledged this fact in its City Code. Therefore, because the City has a direct interest in ensuring its laws are complied with, an enforcement action under the public nuisance theory is appropriate.

The Claimants have suffered damages, and continue to suffer damages in excess of the· jurisdiction of the Superior Court.

The City Attorney, Scott Smith, and the City Staff identified in the attached correspondence are, to Claimants current understanding, familiar with some of the facts su11"ounding this claim.

The Bucks and other Felicidad homeowners have tried to resolve this tree height dispute amicably with their neighbors on Delicada for three years. The Buck's situation is not unique as 1088594
City Clerk
City of San Clemente
May 17, 2021

Page 7 ends

there are multiple Felicidad neighbors who have similar challenges with their Delicada neighbors. All 19 homes in Tract 8963, Delicada, need the City to enforce the 17-foot, treeheight limit in accordance with the recorded CC&Rs. Currently there are nine Delicada homeowners that are not in compliance with the height restriction.

The City told the Felicidad homeowners that the City would enforce the height restriction. Thus, the City has the obligation to take action to remedy the situation so that further litigation and conflict between neighbors may be avoided.

We, therefore, request that the City exercise its enforcement powers. The City can enforce the height restriction very easily. The City can simply send a code enforcement letter to the nine Delicada neighbors and the Broadrnoor HOA to cut the trees. If they refuse, the City has the right to enforce the height restriction and obtain its attorney fees and costs from the violators.

We appreciate your consideration of this matter and look forward to hearing from you. If the Council needs any additional information, please contact us. Please send all responses and communication to this office.

Very truly yours,
Michael L. Tidus
Enclosures
cc: Scott C. Smith, Esq.* ([email protected])
City Councilmembers*
*via email and U.S. Mail
1518366.3
ATTACHMENT 8
86 EXHIBIT H
10995
Indian Wells
(760) 566-2611
Irvine
{949) 263-2600
Los Angeles
(213) 617-8100
Manhattan Beach
(310) 643-8448
Ontario
(909) 989-8584
Scott C. Smith
(949) 263-6561
[email protected]
File No. 55452.01100
BEST .B EST & KRJllEGlER ::

ATTOR N F.l' S .\T L AW
18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1000, Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: (949) 263-2600 I Fax: (949) 260-0972 I www.bbklaw.cotn June 30, 2021
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL AND EMAIL TO: MTllDUS@JACl(SONTIDUS.LAW Michael L. Tidus, Esq.

Jackson Tidus
2030 Main Street, 12th Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
Riverside
(951) 686-1450
Sacramento
{916) 325-4000
San Diego
(619) 525-1300
Walnut Creek
(925) 977-3300
Washington, DC
(202) 785-0600
Re: Broadmoor San Clemente Community Association and Calle De]icadaTract No. 8963 Dear Mr. Tidus:

On behalf of our client, the City of San Clemente. this letter responds to your conespondence of May 18, 2021 with regard to issues on Calle Delicada, Tract No. 8963. The City Council discussed the matter 1n dosed session on June 1, 2021, considered your letter and the attached exhibits. The Council declined the request to intervene in the matter, except to reiterate the City's commitment to full cooperation to facilitate and expedite any access or permits necessary to accomplish the work in question.

Please contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,
I .) . . ,· ._ ~ t-f __ »L.r ✓ ~ , \~~l~::_~~
Scott C. Smith
City Attorney, City of San Clemente
SCS:nrw
cc: Erik Sund, City Manager
Community Development and Public Works Directors
5545:!.01100\34066782.3
ATTACHMENT 9
87 EXHIBIT I
11096

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF ORANGE

CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 02/09/2024 TIME: 02:34:00 PM
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: John C. Gastelum
CLERK: J. Roa
REPORTER/ERM: None
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT:

DEPT: C11
CASE NO: 30-2019-01086744-CU-BC-CJC CASE !NIT.DATE: 07/29/2019 CASE TITLE: Buck vs. Garruba
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Breach of Contract/Warranty EVENT ID/DOCUMENT ID: 7 4227192
EVENT TYPE: Chambers Work

APPEARANCES
There are no appearances by any party.

The Court having fully considered documents submitted, now makes the following ruling as attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Statement of Decision signed and filed this date, a copy is attached hereto.

Court orders Clerk to give notice.

DATE: 02/09/2024
DEPT: C11
MINUTE ORDER Page 1
Calendar No.
1118897
30-2019-01086744
PAUL BUCK VS. ANGELO GARRUBA AND LISA GARRUBA
Statement of Decision
A bench trial was held in the above-referenced matter on February 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10, 2023. The court heard all the evidence, am~ closing arguments were submitted in written form, pursuant to a briefing schedule. The Court then issued its Tentative Decision. At trial, the parties requested a statement of decision. To the extent that request purports to ask this Court to decide alleged "controverted issues" that are not outcome determinative, the request is denied. Plaintiff filed objections regarding the Proposed Statement of Decision. The Court has considered and will overrule those objections, and now adopts the Proposed Statement of Decision as its final Statement of Decision.

Defendants are directed to prepare a proposed judgment consistent with this decision and serve it on opposing counsel within 10 days of this statement of decision.

GE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
1128998
, Elec onically Received by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 07/07/2023 10:36:00 AM. 30-2019-0108 44-CU-BC-CJC - ROA# 426 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By 0. Saldivar, Deputy Clerk. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Stephen G. Hammers, Esq. (SBN 155740)

HAMMERS LAW PC
1601 Dove Street, Suite 120
Newport Beach, California 92660-2410
Telephone: (949) 783-5143
Facsimile: (949) 783-5144
Email: stephen. [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants,
ANGELO GARRUBA and LISA GARRUBA
FILED

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ORANGE

CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
FEB O 9 2024
DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court
BY._· _____ _
,DEPUTY

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
PAUL BUCK, an individual,
Plaintiff,
vs.

ANGELO GARRUBA and LISA
GARRUBA and DOES 1 to 20,
Defendants.
) Case No.: 30-2019-01086744-CU-BC-CJC
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Assigned for All Purposes to
Hon. John G. Gastelum, Dept. CJ I
lllUA?.~ STATEMENT OF

DECISION
Trial Date: February 1, 2023
Time: 9:00 AM.

Dept: Cll
The above-captioned matter convened for trial on February 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10, 2023 in Department C 11 of the Orange County Superior Court, the Honorable John G. Gastelum presiding as judge without a jury. Plaintiff Paul Buck ("Plaintiff') was represented at trial by Gregory Regier and Stephanie Talavera of Jackson, Tidus, and Defendants Angelo and Lisa Garruba ("Defendants") were represented by Stephen G. Hammers of Hammers Law PC. The court heard all the evidence, and closing arguments were submitted in written form, - 1-
l'!l."1 MtID STATEMENT OF DECISION
1139099
1 pursuant to a briefing schedule, with the matter being submitted on April 10, 2023. At trial, 2 the parties requested a statement of decision. To the extent that request purports to ask this 3 Court to decide alleged "controverted issues" that are not outcome determinative, the request 4 is denied.
5 Plaintiff brought this action against Defendants to enforce an equitable servitude, and for 6 promissory estoppel, nuisance, and declaratory relief. Before trial, a demurrer to the second 7 cause of action for promissory estoppel was sustained without leave to amend for failure to state 8 facts sufficient to maintain a cause of action.
9 Three causes of action remain at issue in the First Amended Complaint ("F AC"): ( 1) the 10 First Cause of Action for Enforcement of an Equitable Servitude, (2) the Third Cause of Action 11 for Nuisance, and (3) the Fourth Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief. The parties agreed 12 certain issues within the First and Fourth Causes of Action should be bifurcated and should be 13 tried first as a court trial. They also agreed that the resolution of the equitable causes of action 14 and/or issues would promote the ends of justice and serve economy and efficiency in handling 15 the case. The parties disputed what the equitable issues from the First and Fourth Causes of 16 Action should be. The Court modified the issues to be bifurcated and tried first by way of a 17 bench trial as follows:
18 1. Whether Plaintiff Paul Buck has an enforceable, equitable servitude over Defendants 19 Angelo and Lisa Garruba's property in the form of the height restriction prohibiting structures 20 and vegetation over 17 feet high.
21 2. Assuming Plaintiff has an equitable, enforceable servitude in the form of the height 22 restriction prohibiting structures and vegetation over 17 feet high, whether Plaintiff Paul Buck 23 has standing to enforce said equitable servitude.
24 Accordingly, this first phase of the trial involved only the above-listed claims for 25 equitable relief.
26 Plaintiff lives one block away and uphill from Defendants. Both homes are located in the 27 City of San Clemente ("City") on a hillside facing the ocean. Plaintiff contends that, when the 28 City approved the Broadmoor homes development, including Defendants' home, it conditioned -2-
J,1,JUJ1 ~STATEMENT OF DECISION
100 11491
1 that approval on the adoption of a height restriction that protected the views of the existing 2 homes on his street, Calle Felicidad. That restriction limited the height of trees and other 3 structures to a maximum of 17 feet. According to Plaintiff, the City required that the height 4 restriction be included in the CC&Rs. Per Plaintiff, Defendants has allowed four palm trees on 5 their property to reach a height more than 17 feet, and these trees now block a significant portion 6 of his ocean view. Plaintiff asks that the trees to be removed or cut down to the permitted height, 7 and to ensure Defendants do not violate this restriction by adding any other tall trees. 8 Defendants note they bought their house - with the palm trees already in place- back in 9 December 2013. Because they value these trees, they engage in regular trimming and 10 maintenance. According to Defendants, Plaintiff demanded that they simply remove their trees, 11 as opposed to merely cutting or trimming them. Because only dues-paying members of the 12 Broadmoor HOA can enforce the CC&Rs' height restriction, and Plaintiff does not live in their 13 HOA, pay dues, or live by the HOA's restrictions, he cannot enforce the CC&Rs. Noting the 14 HOA had not required them to cut down their trees, and the HOA's lawyer rejected a demand 15 from Plaintiffs lawyers to do so, they argue they are not in violation of any restriction and 16 should not have to remove or trim their trees.
17 FACTS
18 Defendants' home is located within a planned community developed by Broadmoor 19 Homes, Inc. ("Broadmoor") in the early 1970s. The Broadmoor community is governed by a 20 homeowners' association and a set of covenants, conditions and restrictions ("CC&Rs"). 21 Broadmoor recorded a Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions 22 ("Master CC&Rs") on August 19, 1974. 1 (Trail Exhibit ("TE") 16.) The Broadmoor San 23 Clemente Community Association (the "HOA") enforces the restrictions set forth in the Master 24 CC&Rs. "Supplementary CC&Rs" were enacted in 1976 governing the homes on Calle 25 Delicada, including the home now owned by Defendants (the "Supplementary CC&Rs"). (TE 26 26.) The Master CC&Rs include definitions of important terms. For example, Article I, sections 27 28 1 The parties stipulated to admissibility of several exhibits, both by way of agreements noted directly on their exhibits list, and a "Further Stipulation re Admissibility of Trial Exhibits" filed February 8, 2023. The court issued a Minute Order dated February 10, 2023 accepting the stipulation. -3-
Flf:tJf'tJ~ .HA TEMENT OF DECISION
101 11592
1 5 and 7 provide that an "Owner" of a "Lot" is the record owner offee simple title to any 2 "numbered plot of land shown upon any recorded subdivision map" of the Broadmoor 3 community. (TE 16, p. 2.) Plaintiff does not reside in the Broadmoor community. His home is 4 located one block outside the Property on Calle Felicidad. His property sits at a higher elevation, 5 separated from Defendants' home by a city street (Calle Delicada), a long, sloping hill leading 6 down from his residence to Calle Delicada, and a strip of "common area" property between his 7 property and Calle Delicada. (TE 206, p. 8.)
8 By its own express terms, the Master CC&Rs contain a provision indicating the 9 "servitude" created by the CC&Rs benefits only the Association, the Owners and the Developers 10 of Association property. Article X, section I provides in pertinent part as follows:
11 "Section 1. Duration. The Covenants, conditions and restrictions of this 12 Declaration shall run with and bind the real property within Broadmoor San Clemente, 13 and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the Association, or the Owners, 14 including Developer, their respective legal representatives, heirs, successor, and assigns, 15 and are imposed upon the real property within Broadmoor San Clemente as a servitude in 16 favor or each parcel ofland therein as a dominant tenement..." (Master CC&Rs, Art. X, 17 Sec. l.) (TE 16, p. 18.)
18 Additionally, Article X, section 4, labelled "Enforcement," provides as follows:
19 "Section 4. Enforcement. Violation or breach of any covenant, condition or 20 restriction herein contained shall give to the Developer, so long as it is an Owner of at 21 least twenty-five percent (25%) of the Lots, or the Association, the right to enter upon the 22 property upon or as to which said violation or breach exists and to summarily abate and 23 remove, at the expense of the Owner thereof, any structure, thing or condition that may 24 exist thereon contrary to the intent and meaning of the provisions hereof, and/or shall 25 give to the Association or the Owner of any Lot, including Developer, the right to 26 prosecute a proceeding at law or in equity against the person or persons who have 27 violated or are attempting to violate any of these covenants, conditions or restrictions to 28 -4-
Ji(th Ofili.D ST A TEMENT OF DECISION
102 11693
enjoin or prevent them from doing so, to cause said violation to be remedied or to recover 2 damages for said violation." (Master CC&Rs, Art. X, Sec. 4.) (TE 16, p. 18.) 3 The Master CC&Rs include a height restriction for all the Broadmoor homes, as follows:
4 "Section 22. No building, structure, improvement or addition ( excluding 5 chimneys and roof vents) shall be constructed, erected, altered, placed or permitted to 6 remain on any portion of the Property which exceeds one story in height with a maximum 7 height of 17 feet. No tree, bush or shrub shall be placed or maintained. upon (i) any Lot 8 described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which 9 exceeds 17 feet in height or (ii) upon any other Lot in the Property which exceeds 20 feet 10 in height." (Master CC&Rs, Art. VII, Sec. 22.) (TE 16, p. 15.) 11 The Supplementary CC&Rs expressly incorporate the Master CC&Rs, providing, "The 12 Property is hereby made subject to all the terms, covenants, conditions and provisions as set forth 13 in the Master Declaration, and specifically pursuant to Section 2 or Article II of such Master 14 Declaration, to all intents and purposes as though the Property were part of the Master 15 Declaration." (Supplementary CC&Rs, p. 1, sec. 1.) (TE 26, p. 1.) 16 The Supplementary CC&Rs include a height restriction nearly identical to that in the 17 Master CC&Rs. (Supplementary CC&Rs, p. 2, Sec. 3.) (TE 26, p. 2.) Thus, the Developer 18 incorporated the height restriction from the Master CC&Rs into the Supplementary CC&Rs. 19 Defendants are dues-paying members of the Broadmoor Association, and the Broadmoor 20 CC&Rs govern their property on Calle Delicada. They pay assessments to the Association. 21 Plaintiff purchased his home on Calle Felicidad, a block outside the Broadmoor Association, in 22 1987. He has never paid dues to the Broadmoor Association. Plaintiffs property overlooks 23 Broadmoor Association property, including Defendant's home. Plaintiff visited Defendant's 24 home one night in December 2014, a bottle of wine in tow, ostensibly to compliment Defendants 25 on their Christmas lights, including various lights strung across the palm trees at issue here. (TE 26 212.) The parties exchanged pleasantries and discussed getting together on another occasion. 27 Over time, other relatively brief meetings between the parties occurred, involving social 28 conversations unrelated to the trees.
-5-
M8,U~T ATEMENT OF DECISION
103 11794
1 Sometime in 2019, Plaintiff arrived at Defendants' home and directed them to "do 2 something" about their trees, claiming they impacted his ocean view. Defendants noted they 3 regularly trimmed their trees and were not inclined to remove them. A short time later, on June 4 18, 2019, Plaintiff sent a forceful letter, now insisting that they should remove the trees 5 altogether. (TE 61.) Defendants refused.
6 Approximately one year earlier, Plaintiff had his attorneys send a letter to the City 7 Attorney for San Clemente, asking the City to take action regarding the trees. The City declined 8 to do so.
9 Next, counsel for Plaintiff sent a letter to HOA Attorney Josh Smisko at the firm of 10 Hickey & Associates. That letter demanded that "as the enforcement authority for the homes on 11 Calle Delicada violating the height restriction in the CC&Rs, we expect that the Broadmoor 12 Association will take action to remedy the situation so that litigation can be avoided." Smisko 13 rejected this demand, noting Plaintiffs residence was located outside ofBroadmoor, and his lack 14 of standing under the Davis Stirling Act. Smisko noted only HOA members can enforce 15 Broadmoor's CC&Rs, and no member or the HOA itself had ever demanded that Defendants cut 16 or remove their trees. Daniel Hoon, President of the Broadmoor HOA testified at trial and 17 confirmed this was the case. This lawsuit followed.
18 ISSUES
19 First COA (to Enforce an Equitable Servitude): At trial, Plaintiff argued the City had, 20 many years earlier, conditioned approval of Broadmoor's development on the adoption of a 21 height restriction to protect existing homeowner views. CC&Rs were to be enacted incorporating 22 this agreement. The problem is this - by its express terms, the Master CC&Rs contain a standing 23 provision (the enforcement section). (Master CC&Rs, Art. X, Sec. 4.) (TE 16, p. 18.) Pursuant 24 to those terms, Plaintiff lacks standing to enforce any provision of these CC&Rs, including the 25 height restriction. Based on the evidence, the Court finds Plaintiff has no enforceable equitable 26 Equitable servitudes permit courts to enforce promises restricting land use when there is 27 no privity of contract between the party seeking to enforce the contract and the party resisting 28 enforcement. Like any promise given in exchange for consideration, an agreement to refrain -6-
/Ul(i)P~ STATEMENT OF DECISION
104 11895
1 from a particular use of land is subject to contract principles, under which courts try 'to effectuate 2 the legitimate desires of the covenanting parties. When landowners express the intention to limit 3 land use, that intention should be carried out. (Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn. 4 (1994) 8 Cal.4th 361, 375.) An equitable servitude is a legal term that is used, in the context of 5 real property, to describe a non-possessory interest in land that operates much like a covenant 6 running with the land. In other words, it operates very much like a restriction on the use of land. 7 Indeed, in certain situations, if restrictions on the use of property do not meet the 8 requirements of covenants running with land, they still may be enforceable as equitable 9 servitudes. In other words, courts can enforce promises regarding the use of land "even though 10 the person who made the promise has transferred the land to another." (Cebular v. Cooper Arms 11 Homeowners Ass'n (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 106, 122, citing Marra v. Aetna Construction Co. 12 (1940) 15 Cal.2d 375, 378.) The underlying idea behind equitable servitudes is that "a 13 landowner's promise to refrain from particular conduct pertaining to land creates in the 14 beneficiary of that promise 'an equitable interest in the land of the promiser."' (Ibid.) 15 Equitable servitudes can be created either by deed, lease, or any written agreement been 16 the landowners. (See, Riley v. Bear Creek Planning Committee (1976) 17 Cal.3d. 500, 512 17 [ deed]; see also, Hudson Oil Co. v. Shortstop (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 488, 494-495 [lease]; see 18 also Wayt v. Patee (1928) 205 Cal. 46, 48 [contract].) They cannot be oral. Importantly, for an 19 equitable servitude to be recognized, "the person bound by the restrictions [ must have] had 20 notice of their existence." (Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 21 361, 3 7 5 citing Riley, supra, 17 Cal.3d at 507.)
22 The doctrine of equitable servitudes makes enforceable at equity a covenant appurtenant 23 to other benefited property that might be otherwise unenforceable. (Marra v. Aetna Const. Co. 24 (1940) 15 Cal.2d 375, 378-379.) "A covenant running with the land is created by language in a 25 deed or other document showing an agreement to do or refrain from doing something with 26 respect to use of the land. [Citation.] An equitable servitude may be created when a covenant 27 does not run with the land but equity requires that it be enforced." ( Committee to Save Beverly 28 Highlands Homes Ass'n v. Beverly Highlands Homes Ass'n (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1247, 1269 -7-
,'lJHJRQ.ljjl,STATEMENT OF DECISION
105 11996
1 (Beverly Highlands); see Citizens for Covenant Compliance v. Anderson (1995) 12 Cal.4th 345, 2 354-355.) Equitable servitudes are enforceable "although they benefit or restrict only a single 3 parcel ofland." (Marra, supra, at p. 378.)
4 Plaintiffs home is located at 203 Calle Felicidad in San Clemente. (Plaintiffs First 5 Amended Complaint ("FAC"), ,r 16.) In plaintiffs original complaint, he admitted his home was 6 one of several on Calle Felicidad not situated in the Broadmoor development, it "is not governed 7 by the Broadmoor Association," and it "is not subject to the Broadmoor CC&Rs." (Complaint, 8 ,r,r 11, 19.) The F AC alleges that in 1973, Broadmoor commenced development of 19 homes on 9 Calle Delicada - including defendants' home - and a group of homeowners located uphill from 10 these new homes, including Plaintiffs' predecessor, formed a neighborhood group to file a 11 petition to protect existing ocean and coastal views. (FAC, ,r~[ 22-29.) Numerous meetings with 12 the City Council for San Clemente and the Planning Commission occurred. (FAC, ,r,r 30-40.) 13 The FAC alleges that "[p]rotecting the existing ocean and coastal views from Calle Felicidad 14 was a key consideration in allowing the l 9 lots on Calle Delicada to be developed because the 15 homeowners on Calle Felicidad were assured that height protections would be included as part of 16 the CC&Rs, which were required by the City as a condition ofapproval. The height limit would 17 be imposed for the benefit of the uphill landowners on Calle Felicidad." (FAC, ,r 47.) The FAC 18 alleges Broadmoor made certain properties within the Broadmoor Community subject to the 19 Master CC&Rs, recorded on 8-19-74. (FAC, ,r 50.)
20 The FAC also alleges that to ensure the 19 lots on Calle Delicada would also be subject 21 to the CC&Rs, Broadmoor executed a Supplementary Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and 22 Restrictions, dated 1-16-76, and these CC&Rs include the Height Restriction that applies to 23 homes on Calle Delicada, i.e., no tree shall be placed or maintained which exceeds 20 feet in 24 height. (FAC, ,r,r 50-53.) The F AC further alleges the restriction approved by the City, including 25 those benefitting the Calle Felicidad Homeowners, were to be recorded as covenants against the 26 Calle Delicada homes. (F AC,, 55 .)
27 Moreover, the F AC alleges plaintiff is "an intended successor beneficiary of the Height 28 Restriction because he is an adjoining landowner and the support of his predecessor owner was -8-
.'>JIO@(Mi,JiR STATEMENT OF DECISION
106 12097
necessary to build the Calle Delicada homes, including Defendants' home." (FAC, ,r 58.) The 2 F AC alleges there is a right to an unobstructed view that may be created by private parties 3 through the adoption of CC&Rs. (F AC, ,r 66.) It also alleges the Height Restriction is recorded 4 against defendants' property which is sufficient notice to permits its enforcement. (F AC, ,r 67.) 5 Additionally, the FAC alleges the City imposed certain conditions on its approval of the 6 Calle Delicada lots and required Broadmoor to include the Height Restriction in the written 7 covenants to be recorded against the new homes." (F AC, ,r 68.) And "Broadmoor recorded the 8 Height Restriction against the Calle Delicada properties as an equitable servitude in order to 9 ensure that Calle Felicidad Homeowners' views would be obstructed or compromised by the 10 development of the downhill homes," that the "Calle Felicidad Homeowners became intended 11 beneficiaries of the equitable servitude created by Broadmoor and obtained an equitable interest 12 in ensuring the Calle Delicada homeowners complied with the Height Restriction recorded 13 against their properties." (F AC, ,r,r 71-73.) Defendants had notice of the equitable servitude 14 when they purchased their home. (FAC, ,r 79.)
15 Defendants purchased their home on Calle Delicada in San Clemente, California in 16 December 2013. (Trial Transcript, Day 3 ("3 TT") 72:21-26.) Plaintiff contended at trial that 17 certain palm trees on Defendants' property are blocking a portion of the view from the rear of his 18 home. Defendants testified that these trees were not planted by them, but by the previous owners 19 of their home. (3 TT 55:11-17.)
20 Based on the evidence offered at trial, Plaintiff argues his ocean views are protected in 21 perpetuity as against unnamed residents in the neighboring Broadmoor Community. The 22 argument is premised on, for the most part, decades-old City Council minutes and related 23 correspondence between various Calle Felicidad homeowners and the Broadmoor developers. 24 Given the lengthy passage of time, no one from the City of San Clemente was available to appear 25 and explain these Minutes. The sole City representative who appeared, Cecelia Gallardo Daly, 26 admitted she knew nothing about the City's actions regarding this issue in the l 970's. 27 Plaintiff contends these documents and other comments at various city council meetings 28 formed an "equitable servitude." But the express, recorded provisions approved by the City -9-
I'-MJ, 0~ :iT A TEMENT OF DECISION
107 12198
1 suggest otherwise, as they limit enforcement of the height restriction to home owners within the 2 Broadmoor community. The Court finds the express recorded provisions must prevail. No 3 recorded document indicates the City ever granted any rights in perpetuity either to all of 4 Felicidad, or specifically to BUCK's property.
5 Minutes for the City Council meeting on January 10, 1973, held before any CC&Rs were 6 approved, indicate enforcement rights belonged to those living within the community: "[A]fter 7 the tract is developed, the control of the CC&R's would be turned over to a group comprised of 8 homeowners in the development." (TE 5, p. 4.) Whatever concerns were expressed by the 9 Felicidad homeowners as to protecting their views, it appears the City Council decided it would 10 be the Broadmoor residents who would ultimately possess the authority to enforce the height 11 restriction. The CC&Rs themselves, after all of these meetings and discussions, limited dominant 12 tenements to the Broadmoor homeowners, and limited enforcement to them as well. Consistent 13 with this position is the City's global refusal to restrict views. At trial, Daly confirmed the City's 14 Municipal Code imposes no restrictions regarding views. In fact, it appears the City has never 15 restricted views, and as recently as October 2022, rejected a proposal to protect views. (1 TT 16 136:21- 137:6.) Again, pursuant to the Broadmoor CC&Rs, the only recorded document on this 17 issue, enforcement rights as to the height restriction are limited to the developer, the HOA, and 18 Broadmoor HOA members. (1 TT 117:17 - 22.)
19 At trial, witness and former property owner Sally Sargent admitted she knew the CC&Rs 20 containing the height restriction did not apply to her, and she needed "another restriction," but 21 never received one. The only restriction she was aware of was the one located in the CC&Rs. (1 22 TT 178: 1 - 26.) Plaintiff offered no explanation as to why the recorded CC&Rs allow only the 23 HOA and Broadmoor residents to enforce tree height regulations, as opposed to any homeowners 24 located outside association limits. Thus, regardless of discussions within various City Council 25 minutes, neither the City nor the Developer recorded any document granting enforcement rights 26 to Felicidad homeowners. Worthy of note, the City attorney was involved in the approval process 27 for this development, and yet no recorded rights were granted to any property owners on 28 Felicidad.

Mtn 0:'fffl STATEMENT OF DECISION
108 12299
1 Authorities discussing the issue note the necessity of a recorded document, identifying 2 the benefitted and burdened properties, to establish an equitable servitude. (Civ. Code§ 1468, 3 Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 361, 375; 6 Miller & Starr, 4 Cal. Real Estate (4th ed. 2019) § 16:12, "Creation-Description of the dominant tenement.") 5 Plaintiff relies on authorities requiring only two elements- notice and the possibility of an 6 "inequitable result." (Plaintiffs Closing Brief, p. 19, 11. 7 -13, citations omitted.) But none of 7 these cases involve a nonmember's attempt to enforce HOA CC&Rs against a member, where 8 such enforcement rights are expressly limited to members of the HOA. 9 Here, the CC&Rs expressly define dominant tenements as Broadmoor owners. The cases 10 Plaintiff cites do not involve these critical facts. Second, it is well settled that there is no "right to 11 a view." (Boxer v. City of Beverly Hills (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1219; Posey v. Leavitt 12 (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1236, 1250.) Thus, cases dealing with height restrictions require far more 13 than mere "notice" and an "inequitable result" if plaintiff seeks rights under a recorded 14 restriction. For example, Pacifica Homeowners' Assn. v. Wesley Palms Retirement Community 15 (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 114 7 holds that if a court is going to entertain evidence on "conditions of 16 approval" to establish an enforceable height restriction on a view, the language of the restriction 17 determines the right of enforcement. Also, Plaintiff is not in the same position as Sally Sargent, 18 the person claiming to have received the benefit of the original promise. Plaintiffs home has 19 been sold at least twice since she owned it. As such, his case is even more dependent upon the 20 language of the restriction. At most, Sally Sargent would have had a "personal covenant," an 21 interest Plaintiff cannot enforce. (See, Miller & Starr, supra, Cal. Real Estate ( 4th ed. 2019) § 22 16: 12.)
23 Plaintiff suggests the element of "notice" has been met here because Defendants were on 24 notice of their obligations within their community, by virtue of the height restriction provisions 25 set forth within the Broadmoor CC&Rs. But the notice of their obligation to their neighbors 26 within their HOA is not notice that persons living outside the community can enforce any of 27 those rights against them. Along these lines, Civil Code sections 1468 proves that notice of the 28 identity of the "dominant tenement" is imperative. Similarly, decades-old city council minutes -11-
P~~ 006~ STATEMENT OF DECISION
100 109 123
would not provide constructive notice to a prospective buyer, who would have no obligation to 2 search through them. Even assuming such a search, it is just as likely that such a purchaser 3 would find the comment that control of the CC&R's would be turned over to "a group comprised 4 of homeowners in the development" as that he/she would find discussions or complaints between 5 Sargent and the City. (TE 5, p. 4.)
6 In sum, the Court finds Plaintiff has no enforceable, equitable servitude over Defendants' 7 property in the form of the height restriction prohibiting structures and vegetation over 17 feet 8 high. All that remains is the height restriction set forth within the CC&Rs. 9 Standing To Enforce Equitable Servitude: "At its core, standing concerns a specific 10 party's interest in the outcome of a lawsuit. [Citations.]" (Weatherford v. City of San Rafael 11 (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1241, 1247.) "Standing is a threshold issue necessary to maintain a cause of 12 action, and the burden to allege and establish standing lies with the plaintiff. [Citations.]" 13 (Mendoza v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 802, 810.) Under Code of Civil 14 Procedure section 367, "'[o]nly a real party in interest has standing to prosecute an action, except 15 as otherwise provided by statute."' (Summers v. Colette (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 361, 367.) 16 Article X, sections 1 and 4 of the Master CC&Rs expressly limit the right of 17 enforcement to the Association, the owners of separate interests and the developer. (TE 16 & 18 201, p. 18.) These enforcement provisions ofBroadmoor's CC&Rs mirror the standing limitation 19 at Civil Code section 5975, entitled, "Covenants and restrictions in declaration as equitable 20 servitudes; enforcement; alternative dispute resolution." The pertinent part provides: "The 21 covenants and restrictions in the declaration shall be enforceable equitable servitudes, unless 22 unreasonable, and shall inure to the benefit of and bind all owners of separate interests in the 23 development. Unless the declaration states otherwise, these servitudes may be enforced by any 24 owner of a separate interest or by the association, or by both." (Civ. Code§ 5975, subd. (a), 25 emphasis added.)
26 By his own admission, BUCK is not an owner of a lot within the HOA at issue, the HOA 2 7 itself, or the original developer. He thus lacks standing to enforce the CC&Rs as a matter of law 28 against Defendants, who are owners in the development and members of the Broadmoor -12-
l'HBNJM!'I) STATEMENT OF DECISION
101 110 124
Association. (See, Civ. Code§ 5975.) Again, the CC&Rs expressly preclude any enforcement 2 action by Plaintiff here. No evidence was offered to show the CC&Rs governing the height 3 restriction were drafted in error, or the result of mistake, or that the enforcement provision is 4 susceptible to a different interpretation or meaning. 5 Equity: The second part of Plaintiffs argument is whether inequity would result in the 6 absence of enforcement of the proposed servitude. As to any extension of the right to enforce the 7 height restriction to Felicidad homeowners, the court notes actions taken by the City and the 8 Developer excluded Calle Felicidad, and those choices have been relied on for decades. Dan 9 Hoon, president of the Broadmoor HOA, stated the Broadmoor HOA does not enforce the height 10 restrictions in favor of nonmembers of the HOA, specifically due to the language of the CC&Rs. 11 (3 TT 75:5 - 76:1.) That position is supported by the standing provisions set forth in Article X, 12 sections 1 and 4 of the Master CC&RS.
13 Without a recorded restriction in his favor, Plaintiffs right to enforce the height 14 restriction fails. In California, the law is firm that there is no legal right to a view. (Boxer, supra, 15 246 Cal.App.4th at 1219.) To the extent BUCK wants to rely upon "conditions of approval" 16 cited in decades old city council minutes to establish an equitable servitude, the Court notes 17 Plaintiffs property is not identified in the height restriction and the CC&Rs exclude his right of 18 enforcement. Plaintiff has no recorded enforceable right at risk of forfeiture. To the contrary, the 19 only recorded documents deny him that right, and any expectation that he could rely on the 20 recorded documents is unreasonable. Also, no recorded documents put Defendants on notice of 21 any right of outside homeowners to enforce provisions of the Broadmoor CC&Rs. Despite the 22 clear and unequivocal language in the CC&Rs, neither Plaintiffs predecessors, or anyone else, 23 took any action to record a right to enforce height restrictions over any part of Broadmoor. After 24 an intervening sale, the property was conveyed to Plaintiff, who acknowledged his property was 25 not identified in the Supplementary CC&Rs he received in 1987. He too, did nothing for 30 26 years. That his view was not "actually impacted" until a few years ago is irrelevant. The CC&Rs 27 created for Broadmoor were enforceable only by Broadmoor's HOA or its members. Given the 28 lengthy period of delay, Plaintiff cannot invoke equity based on his inaction. -13 -
PRtfJ1»f:i!J-ED STATEMENT OF DECISION
102 111 125
1 Fourth COA (Declaratory Relief): As to the issue of declaratory relief, Plaintiff 2 offered no credible evidence at trial to support his claim that he had acquired an enforceable 3 equitable servitude over Defendants' property, and Plaintiffs claim for declaratory relief cannot 4 succeed.
5 Based on the evidence submitted at trial, the Court finds Plaintiff has not carried his 6 burden of proof to show each of the elements necessary to sustain his equitable claims. Based on 7 all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds in favor of Defendants and denies the claims to 8 enforce an equitable servitude and for declaratory relief. 9 10
11 DATED: _ ____:_:2:.._~_-_Z_Lf __
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 -14-
FIMJ,.,.6iJt!'IJ ST A TEMENT OF DECISION
103 112 126

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
Central Justice Center
700 W. Civic Center Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92702
SHORT TITLE: Buck vs. Garruba
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL CASE NUMBER:
30-2019-010867 44-CU-BC-CJC
I certify that I am not a party to this cause. I certify that a true copy of the Minute Order was mailed following standard court practices in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid as indicated below.

The mailing and this certification occurred at Santa Ana, California, on 02/13/2024. ~-12-P-- Clerk of the Court, by: ________________ , Deputy

JACKSON TIDUS, A LAW CORPORATION
2030 MAIN STREET# 1200
IRVINE, CA 92614
HAMMERS P.C.
1601 DOVE STREET# 120
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL
V3 1013a (June 2004)
Page: 1
Code of Civil Procedure , § CCP1013(a)
127 104 113
,
Superior Court of California
County of Orange
Civil and Probate/Mental Health Division
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, California 92701
C11
689 (R7/13)
Hasler 1w,,, T • CL.''.c<; MAIL
02/14 /2024 $001 8 7 0 (1~1i1•I,.i Mffi1 · -
Will,;~

JACKSON TIDUS, A LAW CORPORATION
2030 MAIN STREET# 1200
IRVINE, CA 92614
ZIP 92701
011D12603745
City of San Clemente Code Compliance
Danielle Sorahan, Code Compliance Manager
Phone: (949) 361-8200
[email protected]
June 26, 2024
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND EMAIL AT [email protected] Broadmoor San Clemente Homeowners Association
Attn: Ryan Phillips, Agent for Service
1505 Corporation
Compass Property Management Corporation
302 N. El Camino Real, Suite 100
San Clemente, CA 92672
Subject: Demand for Compliance with CCRs Regarding Tree Heights Dear Broadmoor Homeowners Association,
As the Code Compliance Manager for the City of San Clemente, I am writing to address a matter concerning compliance with the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRs) of the Broadmoor community.

Facts:

It has come to our attention that there are violations of Article VII, Section 22, of your CCRs, specifically pertaining to the height restrictions on trees, bushes, and shrubs. The relevant section states:
"No tree, bush, or shrub shall be placed or maintained upon any Lot described in Exhibit 'C,' attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which exceeds 17 feet in height or upon any other Lot in Broadmoor San Clemente which exceeds 20 feet in height." Additionally, Article XII of the CCRs grants the City of San Clemente the authority to enforce these regulations, if the HOA fails to do so. The Article states:
"If the City Council of the City of San Clemente reasonably determines at a public hearing held after not less than ten (10) days’ prior written notice to the Association that the Association has failed to perform any of its duties under the Declaration, the City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to thereafter assume the performance of any such duty until such time as the Association demonstrates its ability to reassume such performance; provided, however, that the City shall not exercise any of the rights granted under this Article XII unless, after giving the Association written notice of its determination that the Association has failed to perform its duties… the Association does not cure such failure within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt by the Association of said notice." Code Compliance Division
910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA 92673
www.san-clemente.org
ATTACHMENT 10
105

EXHIBIT J
114 128

Page 2 ends

Demand:

To avoid the City exercising Article XII, the City hereby demands that the Broadmoor HOA take immediate action to ensure compliance with the CCRs regarding tree heights within the development, including but not limited to, trees located on the properties between 201 and 327 Calle Delicada, San Clemente, CA.

If the Association does not remedy this issues of non-compliance within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of this notice, the City of San Clemente may assume enforcement duties as outlined in Article XII.

Consequences:

Per Article XII, the reasonable costs of the City’s enforcement, if any, will be borne by the Association, and failure to pay these costs within sixty (60) days will result in the City levying and collecting a uniform assessment against each lot within Broadmoor San Clemente.

Please provide written confirmation of your action plan to address the issues of noncompliance set forth above within the specified timeframe. Should you have any questions or require further clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Danielle Sorahan
Code Compliance Manager
City of San Clemente
106 115 129

EXAMPLES OF NON-COMPLIANT TREES ON CALLE DELICADA
1 ATTACHMENT 11
107

EXHIBIT K
116 130

EXAMPLES OF NON-COMPLIANT TREES ON CALLE DELICADA
2 108 117 131

EXAMPLES OF NON-COMPLIANT TREES ON CALLE DELICADA
3 109 118 132

EXAMPLES OF NON-COMPLIANT TREES ON CALLE DELICADA
4 110 119 133

EXAMPLES OF NON-COMPLIANT TREES ON CALLE DELICADA
5 111 120 134
From: Atamian, Adam
To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Josh Smisko
Subject: Notice of Hearing - Enforcement of Broadmoor CC&Rs - City Council Meeting November 19, 2024 Date: Friday, November 8, 2024 12:02:43 PM
Attachments: Notice of Public Hearing 11-19-2024 - Broadmoor Association CCR Enforcement.pdf [EXTERNAL]
Dear Mr. Phillips and Ms. Cervantes,
Please find attached Notice of Public Hearing for the November 19, 2024 City Council Meeting. Hard copies of this notice are also being sent via certified and regular mail. The City will provide notification to you when the agenda and agenda packet is published.

Sincerely,
Adam Atamian, MPA, AICP
Community Development Director
Community Development Department
910 Calle Negocio
San Clemente, CA 92673
p: (949) 361-6196
[email protected]
SCSEAL
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail Attachment 12
112

EXHIBIT L
121 135
4895-6062-5911 v1

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING

WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA,
RELATIVE TO THE FOLLOWING:

TO:

Broadmoor San Clemente Community Association
Attn: Ryan Phillips, Agent for Service
Compass Property Management Corporation
302 N. El Camino Real, Suite 100
San Clemente, CA 92672
Broadmoor San Clemente Homeowners Association CC&R Compliance Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of San Clemente shall conduct a public hearing to address non-compliance with the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) specific to the Broadmoor community.

Details of Non-Compliance:

The identified violations pertain to Article VII, Section 22, of the Broadmoor CC&Rs, specifically related to height restrictions for trees, bushes, and shrubs within the community. The CC&Rs stipulate:
"No tree, bush, or shrub shall be placed or maintained upon any Lot described in Exhibit 'C,' attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which exceeds 17 feet in height or upon any other Lot in Broadmoor San Clemente which exceeds 20 feet in height." Hearing Details:

Date: November 19, 2024
Time: 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 910 Calle Negocio, 2 nd Floor, San Clemente, California
92673
Purpose of Hearing:

This hearing has been scheduled to review the CC&R violations and determine whether the City of San Clemente shall assume enforcement duties as permitted under Article XII of the Broadmoor HOA CC&Rs. Should the City take on enforcement responsibilities, the reasonable costs incurred, including reasonable attorney fees, may be assessed to the HOA, potentially leading to a uniform assessment against each lot within Broadmoor San Clemente.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (949) 361-8200. 113 122 136
4895-6062-5911 v1
All interested parties are invited to attend this public hearing or provide comments by written communication to the City Council. All written comments must be received by the City Clerk’s Office by no later than 4:00 p.m. on the date of the hearing to ensure sufficient time to distribute to the City Council and the public. If you challenge the actions taken by the City Council in court, you may be limited to the arguments raised at the hearing.
114 123 137

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
Tuesday, November 19, 2024 5:00 PM
City Council
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org
Council Chambers
Regular Meeting Minutes
5:00 p.m. - Closed Session
6:00 p.m. - Business Meeting
Mayor Cabral
Mayor Pro Tern Enmeier
Councilmember Duncan
Councilmember Knoblock
Councilmember Loeffler
These minutes reflect the order in which items appeared on the meeting agenda and do not necessarily reflect the order in which items were actually considered.

A Regular Meeting of the San Clemente City Council was called to order by Mayor Cabral on November 19, 2024 at 5:00 p.m. in the San Clemente City Council Chambers, located at 910 Calle Negocio, 2nd Floor, San Clemente.

PRESENT: Duncan, Enmeier, Knoblock, Loeffler and Mayor Cabral STAFF PRESENT: Andy Hall, City Manager; Elizabeth Mitchell, City Attorney; Laura Campagnolo, City Clerk; Megan Jimenez, Deputy City Clerk

CLOSED SESSION
Motion by Councilmember Loeffler, second by Mayor Pro Tern Enmeier, CARRIED 5-0, to recess to Closed Session at 5:00 p.m. to discuss the following:

A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) Number of Cases: 1
Case Name: Harbor View Estates Homeowners Association v. City of San Clemente, Orange County Superior Court Case No.
30-2024-01371169-CU-WM-CXC
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- INITIATION OF LITIGATION Whether to initiate litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d) (4) Number of Cases: 1
AYE:

NOE:

Duncan, Enmeier, Knoblock, Loeffler and Mayor Cabral
None
Closed Session concluded at 5:57 p.m.

Page 1 of 26 ends

Attachment 3
124
EXHIBIT 3Type
138
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 19, 2024
8E. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 24-169,

APPROVING A REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE FEE FOR VEHICLE REMOVAL,

IMPOUND, STORAGE OR RELEASE BY THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S

DEPARTMENT FOR THE TRAFFIC VIOLATOR APPREHENSION PROGRAM (TVAP)
Mayor Cabral opened the Public Hearing.

City Manager Hall reviewed the contents of the Administrative Report and responded to City Council inquiries.

There being no one desiring to speak, Mayor Cabral closed the Public Hearing.

Motion by Councilmember Loeffler, second by Mayor Pro Tern Enmeier, to:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 24-169 entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING

A REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE FEE FOR VEHICLE REMOVAL, IMPOUND,

STORAGE OR RELEASE BY THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S

DEPARTMENT FOR THE TRAFFIC VIOLATOR APPREHENSION
PROGRAM (TVAP) IN THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE.

2. Repeal Resolution No. 21-11.

AYE: Duncan, Enmeier, Knoblock, Loeffler and Mayor Cabral NOE: None
8F. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE FAILURE OF BROADMOOR SAN

CLEMENTE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION TO ENFORCE CERTAIN

COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&RS)
This item was considered following Item 8A. Please reference page 5 of these minutes for a summary of that action.

Mayor Cabral opened the Public Hearing.

Councilmember Loeffler disclosed that he met with Broadmoor residents.

Mayor Cabral disclosed that he visited the site.

Community Development Director Atamian narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Public Hearing Regarding the Failure of Broadmoor San Clemente Community Association to Enforce Certain Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)" and responded to City Council inquiries. A hard copy of the presentation is on file with the City Clerk.

Joshua Smisko and David Hickey. counsel for the Broadmoor Homeowners

Page 9 of 26 ends

125 139
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 19, 2024
Association, opined on the legal precedent and previous legal action taken concerning trees exceeding the height limitations.

Ryan Phillips, Broadmoor Community Manager, commented on his experience with the Broadmoor Homeowners Association as it relates to the process of the Broadmoor Homeowners Association Board addressing issues or complaints within the community.

Stephen Hammers, on behalf of Broadmoor residents, representing five Broadmoor families; opined on previous legal action taken concerning the tree height on Calle Delicada.

Reva Buck spoke in support of the City Council adopting Resolution No. 24-173.

Paul Buck, San Clemente, displayed a photograph of conditions at his property on Felicidad; spoke in support of the City Council adopting Resolution No. 24-173. A hard copy of the photograph is on file with the City Clerk.

Eric Fermin narrated a PowerPoint presentation displaying photographs of trees exceeding the height limitations on Calle Delicada; spoke in support of the City Council adopting Resolution No. 24-173. A hard copy of the presentation is on file with the City Clerk.

Jeff Chambers commented on the original CC&R agreement for Broadmoor Community; spoke in support of the City Council adopting Resolution No. 24-173.

John Carretti, San Clemente, commented on landscaping requirements and enforcement by the Broadmoor Homeowners Association; spoke in support of the City Council adopting Resolution No. 24-173.

Paul Lefcourt, San Clemente, commented on trees exceeding the height limitations on Calle Delicada, spoke in support of the City Council adopting Resolution No. 24-173.

Alan Korsen, San Clemente, spoke in opposition of the City taking action against the Broad moor Homeowners Association.

Chaundra Vidakovich opined that the City should mediate with the residents on Calle Delicada and Felicidad to mitigate trees exceeding the height limitations.

Gordon & Antonia Sipes spoke on efforts they have taken to compromise with their neighbor on Calle Delicada concerning trees exceeding the height limitations; spoke in support of the City Council adopting Resolution No. 24-173.

Mike Kay opined that the City should only be involved in enforcement of CC&Rs when it concerns homeowners associations not clearing vegetation in open space and to protect views for residents.

Page 10 of 26 ends

126 140
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 19, 2024
Ryan Phillips, Broadmoor Community Manager, responded to City Council inquiries.

Karen New, Vice President Broadmoor Homeowners Association Board of Directors, responded to City Council inquiries.

Matt Silver, Civica Law Group, City Prosecutor for the City of San Clemente, responded to City Council inquiries.

There being no others desiring to speak, Mayor Cabral closed the Public Hearing.

Motion by Councilmember Duncan, second by Mayor Pro Tern Enmeier, CARRIED 5-0, to continue this item to a future City Council meeting to allow the parties (Broadmoor Homeowners Association and homeowners on Felicidad) to discuss a resolution/mediate concerning the trees exceeding the height limitations within the Broad moor Homeowners Association Community.

AYE: Duncan, Enmeier, Knoblock, Loeffler and Mayor Cabral NOE: None

MEETING RECESS
The City Council meeting recessed at 9:12 p.m. and reconvened at 9:15 p.m. with all City Councilmembers present.

9. Unfinished Business
None.

10. New Business
1 0A. APPOINTMENT OF THE CITY CLERK AND CITY TREASURER, AND

INTRODUCTION (FIRST READING) OF ORDINANCES MAKING THE CITY

TREASURER AND CITY CLERK POSITIONS APPOINTED BY THE CITY

MANAGER
Administrative Services Director Brower reviewed the contents of the Administrative Report and responded to City Council inquiries.

Motion by Councilmember Knoblock, second by Councilmember Loeffler, CARRIED 5-0, to:

1. Adopt Resolution 24-170 appointing Laura Campagnolo to the office of City Clerk in accordance to Chapter 2.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of San Clemente.

2. Introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1783 entitled AN

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE,

Page 11 of 26 ends

127 141
1 Atamian, Adam
From: Josh Smisko
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 3:39 PM
To:

Subject: Broadmoor Association Tree Heights
Dear ,
Our firm represents the Broadmoor San Clemente Community Association (“Association”), and we are reaching out on behalf of the Association’s Board of Directors regarding your recent interactions with the Association, as well as the San Clemente City Council and staff, concerning potential tree height issues on Calle Delicada that may be affecting your view.

Be sure to include the address of the property in question along with photographs taken from your lot that clearly illustrate the issue.

In accordance with the Association’s enforcement procedures and policies, a representative from Compass Property Management and the Association will review your complaint. This process may include a site visit to assess the impact from your property. If a visit is necessary, we will reach out to coordinate a convenient time.

Should the Association confirm that a violation exists, it will take appropriate enforcement action with the property owner. Please note that this process may take between 60 to 180 days or more, depending on the circumstances. Providing clear and detailed information in your initial complaint will help expedite the review and resolution process.

Please direct any and all future correspondence on this matter to Compass Property Management. Thank you.

Regards,
Joshua Smisko
Senior Counsel
HICKEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
27261 Las Ramblas, Suite 120
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Tel: (949) 614-1550
Fax: (949) 748-3990
WARNING: This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. It contains information from the law firm of Hickey & Associates, P.C. which may be privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Dissemination or copying of this e-mail and/or any attachments by anyone other than the addressee or the addressee's agent is strictly prohibited. If this electronic transmission is received in error, please notify Hickey & Associates, P.C. immediately at (949) 614-1550. Thank you.

ATTORN EYS AT LAW

MISSION CORP ORATE PLAZA
27261 LAS RAMBLA S, SUITE 120
MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691
TELEPHONE (949) 614-1550
FACSIMILE (949) 748-3990
BroadmoorSanClemente/CityofSCFurtherReply/020525
February 5, 2025
City of San Clemente
City Council
c/o Adam Atamian
910 Calle Negocio
San Clemente CA 92673
VIA U.S. MAIL &
EMAIL
[email protected]
Re: Broadmoor San Clemente Community Association
Subject: Tree Height Violation Hearing
Dear Members of the City Council:

As you are aware, this firm is legal counsel for the Broadmoor San Clemente Community Association (“Association”). We are writing to you regarding the recent Public Hearings regarding the tree height restriction within the Association’s CC&Rs and the Association’s enforcement of that restriction and the Association’s plan moving forward.

The Association’s Board of Directors has been deliberating on a path forward. The Board has elected to reach out to each Calle Felicidad owner directly and offer them the opportunity to send a complaint to the Association’s management company if a downslope owner on Calle Delicada has a tree in violation of the height limit, unreasonably impacting the Calle Felicidad owner’s view. Once Compass Property Management receives this formal complaint, they will investigate it and determine the next step forward, despite these Calle Felicidad owners not being dues paying members of the Association.

If the complaint is confirmed, then Compass Property Management will initiate violation procedures against that homeowner on Calle Delicada. Despite the comments made by the Calle Felicidad owners at the hearings, and comments from the recent City Council meeting, the Association cannot legally take immediate action (or go on to private property and trim or remove these trees). Under the violation enforcement policy, the offending Calle Delicada owner will first be sent a demand letter to cure the violation.

After 30 days has passed, if the violation has not been satisfactorily corrected, that homeowner will receive another demand letter and invitation to a violation hearing, where a fine can be levied by the Board. If this step has not resulted in the tree being trimmed or removed, the next step under California law, is for the Association to offer Internal Dispute Resolution (“IDR”) as required under Civil Code Sections 5910 and 5915.
www.HickeyAssociates.net
Attachment 5
129
EXHIBIT 5
143
City of San Clemente
February 5, 2025

Page 2 ends

BroadmoorSanClemente/CityofSCFurtherReply/020525
IDR is a formal meeting with the homeowner and Board representative to discuss the issues and attempt to obtain a resolution without requiring further legal action. The IDR meeting is usually set within 30 days. If a resolution is reached, it is memorialized and should be acted upon.

If the owner ignores the IDR offer, or no resolution is reached, then the Association must legally offer the owner to participate in Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”).

ADR is essentially a formal mediation or arbitration hearing with the parties and a neutral and the costs are shared equally. Pursuant to the Civil Code, the Association may not file an "enforcement action" in superior court unless the parties have first "endeavored" to submit their dispute to ADR pursuant to Civil Code Section 5930(a). ADR hearings are usually set within 90 days. If the owner refuses to participate in ADR, and/or no resolution is otherwise reached, then the Association may proceed with enforcement litigation against that owner. Litigation may take anywhere from 12 to 24 months or longer to complete.

The City Council and Calle Felicidad owners are greatly mistaken if they believe the Association can just go and cut down a tree on private property in the next 30 days. Further, if the City Council should elect to disregard the Association’s enforcement procedures required by statute, and its timelines and “assign” the enforcement “right” to the owners of Calle Felicidad, or act to enforce it themselves, either party must follow the same rules, procedures and California law that is required of the Association as outlined in the CC&Rs, Art. XII, “…In connection with any such performance by the City, it may exercise any of the rights and powers granted to the Association under this Declaration.” The Association has no right to enter private property and cut down allegedly offending trees.

In summary, the Board has “heard” the City Council and reached out to each owner on Calle Felicidad and given them an opportunity to file a complaint against a Calle Delicada owner, as if they were dues paying members of the Association, which they are not. If a complaint is determined to be supported, the Board will/has begun enforcement measures against the Calle Delicada owner(s). As such, the City Council cannot reasonably determine that the Association has failed to perform its duties under the Declaration. Respectfully, this matter should be deemed closed by the City Council or at a minimum continued out for at least 6-8 months to allow the process to unfold.

Very truly yours,
HICKEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Joshua A. Smisko, Esq.

JAS:rf
cc: Board of Directors,
Broadmoor San Clemente Community Association
130 144
Attachment 6
4895-6062-5911 v1

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING

WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA,
RELATIVE TO THE FOLLOWING:

TO:

Broadmoor San Clemente Community Association
Attn: Ryan Phillips, Agent for Service
Compass Property Management Corporation
302 N. El Camino Real, Suite 100
San Clemente, CA 92672
Cc: Joshua Smisko, Esq. (via email only)
Broadmoor San Clemente Homeowners Association CC&R Compliance Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of San Clemente shall conduct a public hearing to address non-compliance with the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) specific to the Broadmoor community.

Details of Non-Compliance:

Date: March 18, 2025
Time: 5:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 910 Calle Negocio, 2 nd Floor, San Clemente, California
92673
Purpose of Hearing:

Further information may be obtained by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (949) 361-8200. 131
EXHIBIT 6
145
4895-6062-5911 v1
All interested parties are invited to attend this public hearing or provide comments by written communication to the City Council. All written comments must be received by the City Clerk’s Office by no later than 4:00 p.m. on the date of the hearing to ensure sufficient time to distribute to the City Council and the public. If you challenge the actions taken by the City Council in court, you may be limited to the arguments raised at the hearing.
132 146
133
EXHIBIT 7
147
Begin forwarded message:

From: Josh Smisko <[email protected]>
Date: March 11 2025 at 12:24:33 PM PDT
To:

Cc: >, John Milroy >, Ryan
com as e1 managemen
ente.org>
Subject: Inspection Re-Schedule
If you have a tree impacting your view, I suggest you agree to an inspection. If you want to continue to create obstacles to improving your view, then do not comply.

Regards,
Joshua Smisko
Senior Counsel
HICKEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
27261 Las Ramblas, Suite 120
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Tel: (949) 614-1550
Fax: (949) 748-3990
[email protected]
WARNING: This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. It contains infmmation from the law firm of Hickey & Associates, P.C. which may be privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Dissemination or copying of this e-mail and/or any attachments by anyone other than the addressee or the addressee's agent is strictly prohibited. If this electronic transmission is received in error, please notify Hickey & Associates, P.C. immediately at (949) 614-1550. Thank you.

From:

Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 12:20 PM
To: Josh Smisko <[email protected]>
Cc: reva.wright ; John Milroy >; Ryan Phillips
<[email protected]>; Krystal Cervantes <[email protected]>;
; d ;
Adam Atamian <[email protected]>; Andy Hall <halla@sanclemente.org> Subject: Re: Inspection Re-Schedule
Mr Smisko , are you saying the Broadmoor HOA regulations / bylaws state that the 17 ft height restriction is only applicable if views are impaired / impacted ? That is a subjective criteria vs 17 ft which is not subjective . Would Broadmoor allow a second story on any home if it does not impair or block anyone’s views? Regards
Bill Garcia
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 11, 2025, at 11:32 AM, Josh Smisko
<[email protected]> wrote:

Reva,
The purpose is to make sure there is a tree impacting your or your neighbor’s view. If there is a random tree, that exceeds 17 feet and impacts no one’s view, there is no need to remove it. The height restriction is a view protection.

Regards,
Joshua Smisko
Senior Counsel
HICKEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
27261 Las Ramblas, Suite 120
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Tel: (949) 614-1550
134 148
Fax: (949) 748-3990
[email protected]
WARNING: This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510- 2521. It contains information from the law firm of Hickey & Associates, P.C. which may be privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Dissemination or copying of this e-mail and/or any attachments by anyone other than the addressee or the addressee's agent is strictly prohibited. If this electronic transmission is received in error, please notify Hickey & Associates, P.C. immediately at (949) 614-1550. Thank you.

From: reva.wright
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 11:27 AM
To: John Milroy ; 'Ryan Phillips'
<[email protected]>; 'Krystal Cervantes' <[email protected]>; Josh Smisko
<[email protected]>
Adam Atamian' <atamiana@sanclemente.org>; 'Andy Hall' <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Inspection Re-Schedule
Hi Josh,
We still don't have answers to our 5 questions below. Simply telling us that this is how it's done for Broadmoor members is not adequate.

Again, without this information and a clear understanding of why anyone needs to enter Felicidad properties to conduct an undefined "investigation" rather than investigate the violating Delicada properties, we remain uncomfortable allowing strangers into our homes.

FYI, Two Homeowners that did allow Krystal and Linda (last name requested but still not provided) into their homes, found Linda to be argumentative and attempted to twist the 17' height limit into her own subjective assessment. Linda asked "which trees are blocking your view" as if she couldn't see them, and stated that they can't just go around cutting trees to 17 feet.

Just simply drive down Delicada. It's blatantly clear which properties have trees and foliage over the rooftop. There is not even a need for a measuring tape.

Felicidad Homeowners feel the HOA continues their game of deny, delay and avoid.

Regards
135 149
Reva Wright Buck
On Tuesday, March 11, 2025 at 10:13:43 AM PDT, Josh Smisko <[email protected]> wrote:

Felicidad Owners,
As I understand it, Compass doesn’t always know which Board or Committee member is available and when to attend. This is no different than a request that any Broadmoor member would receive for a similar issue.

Regards,
Joshua Smisko
Senior Counsel
HICKEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
27261 Las Ramblas, Suite 120
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Tel: (949) 614-1550
Fax: (949) 748-3990
[email protected]
WARNING: This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510- 2521. It contains information from the law firm of Hickey & Associates, P.C. which may be privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Dissemination or copying of this e-mail and/or any attachments by anyone other than the addressee or the addressee's agent is strictly prohibited. If this electronic transmission is received in error, please notify Hickey & Associates, P.C. immediately at (949) 614-1550. Thank you.

From: John Milroy >
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 8:35 AM
To: 'reva.wright' 'Ryan Phillips'
<[email protected]>; Josh Smisko
<[email protected]>; 'Krystal Cervantes'
136 150
137 151
am Atamian'
< [email protected]>
Subject: RE: Inspection Re-Schedule
Krystal,
We agree with Reva Wright. Since your response does not address Felicidad questions, 313 will not be available on Thursday.

Regards,
John Milroy
From: reva.wright >
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 12: 19 PM
To: Ryan Phillips <ryan@compasspropertymanagement com>; Josh Smisko <" • • • >· antes
clemente org>
Subject: Re: Inspection Re-Schedule
Krystal
your response does not address our questions.

As a resul~ ill not be available on Thursday.

Frankly, the homes in violation of the height restriction you should be "inspecting" are on Delicada. take care,
Reva Wright Buck
On Monday, March 10, 2025 at 11:45:35 AM PDT, Krystal Cervantes <[email protected]> wrote:

Good morning,
We answered the questions on 2/25 (attached). It is your prerogative not to participate so please let me know by 4:00pm on Wednesday, 3/12 if your home should remain on the list for inspection.

From:

Monday
reva.wright
, Mar
~
~
To: Krystal Cervantes <[email protected]>; Ryan Phillips <[email protected]>; Josh Smisko <"smisko hicke associates.net>
Cc:
am Atamian
a [email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Fwd: Inspection Re-Schedule
Hi Krystal
Per om previous 3 unanswered inf01mation requests to Compass, ( email strings attached), I have provided a little more clarity sw-rounding our questions:

1. Who exactly is to arrive at our homes?

1. Full name, affiliation and position
I am not comfortable allowing strangers into my home to conduct an unknown type of "inspection".

2. Exactly what is the purpose and what do they intend to do at om homes?

3. Why are the pictures which you previously requested, not adequate for your pUiposes?

1. Any pictures taken during “inspection”, should be approved by and provided to, the Homeowner

4. Why can you not simply drive down Delicada and easily see which trees are over the rooftop, which is the 17’ height limit?

1. The 17’ height limit (which is the roof height) is not subjective to anyone's assessment. It is a specific condition of approval surrounding roof, tree and foliage height. * For your convenience and in the event that anyone challenges the roof height, I have attached 2 letters from the City Planning Commission confirming to Felicidad Homeowners that all models were measured and rooftops measure within 16'10" and 17'1", which makes it quite obvious in identifying trees and foliage over the 17’ limit

1. Please see Exhibit 4

5. Why are you not addressing all the neighbors on Calle Felicidad?

1. Every Felicidad property was assured that the height limit would be observed by Broadmoor as well as the City Planning Director, and are entitled to enforcement without being subjected to invasive and unnecessary harassment
If a representative is unable to provide this information by end-of-day on Wednesday, please be advised that will not be available on Thursday.

Take care,
Reva Wright Buck
140 154
-
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

On Wednesday, March 5, 2025, 1:34 AM, reva.wright <r > wrote:
thanks Krystal
Per my 2 prior requests, please kindly respond to the questions below:

1. Who exactly is to arrive at our homes?

2. Exactly what is the purpose and what do they intend to do at our homes?

3. Why are the pictures which you previously requested not adequate for your purposes?

4. Why can you not simply drive down Delicada and easily see which trees are over the rooftop, which is the 17 ft height limit.

5. Why are you not addressing all the neighbors on Calle Felicidad? Regards
Paul Buck
Sent from my iPhone Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

On Wednesday, March 5, 2025, 7:12 AM, Paul Buck
> wrote:

Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Krystal Cervantes
<[email protected]>
Date: March 3, 2025 at 6:36:15 PM GMT+1
To:

Subject: Inspection Re-Schedule
Good morning,
141 155
We have re-scheduled the inspection for those that
weren’t available on 2/27.

We will be at your properties to perform the requested
inspections on 3/13 starting at 9:00am.

This is the scheduled order:

Thank You,
Krystal Cervantes
Operations and Accounting Manager
Compass Property Management
302 N. El Camino Real, Suite #100
San Clemente, CA 92672
Office (949) 429-7717, ext. 234
Fax (949) 429-7718
www.compasspropertymanagement.com
We’re Hiring!
Join our team and be part of something great! We’re
looking for a talented Association Manager to grow
with us. To apply, please email me your resume or you
can apply here
https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/4108482432
142 156
Dear Homeowners,
Compass has been tasked to investigate reported tree violations as they have been conducted over the years with the homeowners of Broadmoor. When a complaint is filed, we, along with a Board member visit the site and verify the complaint. This is the first step in the violation process. Once confirmed the next step in the process is implemented per the Broadmoor governing docs. This is and has been the process for those in the Broadmoor community.

If you are not available at this time for the 2/27 date, we will have to get back to you on our next available date.

Thank You,
Krystal Cervantes
Operations and Accounting Manager
Compass Property Management
302 N. El Camino Real, Suite #100
San Clemente, CA 92672
Office (949) 429-7717, ext. 234
Fax (949) 429-7718
www.compasspropertymanagement.com
We’re Hiring!
Join our team and be part of something great! We’re looking for a talented Association Manager to grow with us. To apply, please email me your resume or you can apply here https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/4108482432
From: Paul Buck
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 1:29 PM
To: Krystal Cervantes <[email protected]> 143 157
Cc: Reva Wright Buck Paul Buck
>; Ross Peterson <r >; John Milroy
; Antonia Sipes <t >
Subject: Re: Inspection Scheduled
Thank you Krystal:
is not available on February 27th.

We have a few questions:

1. Who exactly is to arrive at our homes?

2. Exactly what is the purpose and what do they intend to do at our homes?

3. Why are the pictures which you previously requested not adequate for your purposes?

4. Why can you not simply drive down Delicada and easily see which trees are over the rooftop, which is the 17 ft height limit.

5. Why are you not addressing all the neighbors on Calle Felicidad? Thank you in advance for your responses. Please confirm receipt of this message.

Regards
Paul Buck
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 25, 2025, at 9:22 PM, Paul Buck > wrote:

Sent from my iPhone
144 158
-
Begin forwarded message:

From: Krystal Cervantes
<[email protected]>
Date: February 25, 2025 at 9:05:25 PM GMT+1
To: Paul Buck >,
Ross Peterson , John Milroy
>, Antonia Sipes
Subject: Inspection Scheduled
Dear Homeowners:

We will be at your properties to perform the requested inspections on 2/27 starting at 9:00am.

This is the scheduled order:

Thank you for your cooperation.

ARTICLE X
CENI•:ML J?ROVIS IONS
11 1 I 224PG 604
Sccl:ion l. Duration. The covenants, conditions and
r.e:strictions of this Declaration shall run with and bind the real property within 01."0admocn· San Clemente, and shall inure l:o the oonef it of and be enforceable by the Association, or the Owher.s, including Dev<'!loper, of anY. I.ot Gubject t:o this Deola•• r.a tion, their respective legal representatives, heirs, successors, and nss.igns, and are imposed upon the real property within 13.roadmoor San C.lcmente as a servitude in favor of each· anti every parcel of l,md therein as a dominant tenement, for a term <>f t:wcn t~• ( 20) years f.rom the date this Declaril tion is recorded, after which time said covenant:s, conditions and restrictions shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) ye.us, unless an instrument, signed by a majority of the then Owne1.·s of t11e Lots, has been recorded \dtlt tllc Orange County riecorde.r, agrceirlg to change said covenants, conditions and restrictions in whole or in part.

Section :? . >.snendment. The covenants, conditions and restrictions of this Declarati011 may be amended by an instrument in wr.iting signed by not l~ss than the Owners of three-fourths (3/,t) of the f:Dts: provi.de<l that Article VII, Section 22 of this 1,ecl.aration shall not be amended without the consent of the City Council of San Clemente; and provided .further that until 1980, Article lI hereof may not be amended without the consent of Developer. i\ny amendment must be properly recorded.
s,~ction 3. Notices, .i\ny notica required to be sent to 11ny Member or Owner under the provisions of this Declaration shall b~ deeR1ed to have been properly sent \-1hen mailed, postage prepaid, ID the last known add>:es!1 of the person who appears as t,tembcr or Owner on the rccoJ:C.ls of the Association at the time of such mailing.

Secl~on 4. Enfo1.-cement. Violation or breach of any
c-.ov(:)niJnt ;-T:oridT'ffon or i.:estrl.ction herein contained shall give to the Ocvclo per, so long as it is an Owner of ;it least twentyf .i va percont (2S'!d of the r,ot-.9, or the Association, the right lo <mt.er upon the pro1)<'1:ty upon or. "$ to ,~hich said violation or brc,"'l.c:h c x Ls t :; .:.nd ~o m1r.:111al.'.i l.y abate a1ld 1:emove, at tho ox• pen!,e of the Otmer theroof. , any structure, thing or oonrlition thilt may exi.st thereon contrary to the intent and meaning of tho provisions hereof, .ind/or shall give t:o the Association or th~ owner of olny LOt, includi r>eveloper, the right to rosecuto a pr oc e eding at l,1\\1 or in ~quit.y ,1gainst the person or per- sons who have·violated or are attempting to violate a ny of these eov,manti;, conditionr. nr. restrictions to enjoin orp revent them c rom rlo in<J ::.o, to c.:iuse said viola.Lion to ba 1.·emcdied or to recovcr-lLl.ma.gos for said violation.

The rcsul t ot: every action or omission whereby any covenant, condition or restriction herein contained is violated in whole or in par:t is hereby d~:clarcd to be nnd to cons ti tutc a nui::.ance, and ev11ry 1:emady allowed by law or equity against an owner, either public or priv.t te, shall be applicnble against c.vfi:ry such result and nny be ~xercisetl by the Association or any Owner, including Developer, subject to these restrictions. ·18-
GARR146
Ex 16-18
148 162
I _': .

BK I 1224PG 604

ARTICLE X
GE EML P.ROVISIONS
Section 1 . Duration . Tl'l covenants, onditions and
r<::strictions of t h is DeclaratiOl\ s h a ll run with and bind the real property within Droadtr.oor San Cl emente, and .shall inure l:o t he benefit of and b~ enf.oxceabl.e by the Association , or the Owhers, incl uding Developer , of any Lot subject to th.is Deola·· r,1 tio n, t heir respective l aga.l re pres en ta tives, heirs, succes- sors, and nssi gns, a,d re imposed upo n the real property withi n n.roadmoor San Clement e s a serv i ude i n favor of ea ch· and every parcel of 1. nd t here in as a dominant tenement , for a ter m o f twenty (2 0 ) ~•ears f rom the dat t h i s Declar.:ition is r corded , < ft e.1: which t ·roe said coven.ant.s, conditions and restrictions s hall be automati c a l ly exl:.e nd e<l for successive pe·riods of ten (10) ye::tr!t, u nless nn i n trument, signed by a majority o f the t hen Owners of t11e Lol:s, has been recorded wi t h· the Orange Cou nty Recorder , agrce ' ng to change sa.id covenants, conditions and restrictions i n ·,thole or J. n part .
. cctJon 2 . ~mendment Th covenants, conditions an
·cst.ric tion:, of this Deel ratio1t may be amended by an instrument .1 n wr.it:in<J signed by not less than the Owners of three-fourths ()/ti l of the Lots: prnvi.de<l that i\rticle VII, Section 22 of this Declarution shall 1ot. be amended without the consent of the Cit buncil of San Clomonte; and provided ·urther that until 980, rtic.Le 11 her.co may not be amended without the consent of cvcl ope.1: . ny Jmendment must be lropcrl recorded.

Section 3 . No t ices . l\ny 11otic e required. to be !';ent t.o any Member or Owne.r u.nder the prov isiot s of t h is Decla.ra tion s h::ill b,1 (leem d o have been properl y sent when il d, postage prepaid , to the l s t k1 own ddress of t he person who appears as t,lembcr. or O\•mer on the rcco.r<ls of the Association t t he time of such mailing . •
e t~ion 4. En .forc ement . Violation or breach of any
coven · n t :-COndition or 1.:ostri ction herein contained s hall give to the Deve loper, so long as i.t i s an Owner of a t least twentyf ivm percent (25.) of t he Lots, or the Association, the right ent.cr upon the rro1x: i: ty upon or. ,1:; to 1"11ich said violc1tion or br:c tt<.:l\ u .·ir.t.:; .;;n s~1m11aL':l ly ab.:1.t.e Qn t·cmove, at tho expen!;e of the Owner therP.of. , any structure , thing or condition hat muy exist thereon conl:rary to the intent anc meaning of ho provisio1 s hereof, und/oi: shall give to the Association a the owner of 1w LOt, includin Developer, the right to prosecute a roccc<l.ing at law or in equity against the person or perrons who have vio l ated or ure attempting to violate any of these covenants, conditions or restriction :o e n join or prevent them rom doing :::;o, to c.il1se said violation to be remedied or to recover uarn,11JcS for sai<l violiltion .

Tic re s ult of ever action or omission whereby any covennnt, condition or r cstr-iction herein contai ned is violated .in 11hole or i n pa r t .i.s he r e by decJ.anid to be and to constitu te a nuic.:rnce, a ncl ever, 1:emedy allowed by law or equity agai nst an Owner, e itl1cr public or pr:i.vate , sh 11 be applicable gainst every sue I result and may be exercise<l by the Association or a n y Owner, inc luding Deve loper, subject to these rcst:.rictions. -1.8 -
GARR146
Ex 16-18
149 163
- ., ::/\~-1~i:~:~X.~f;t~t'.:}F~::_
Bi I I 224PG 60 f
e rt! 01.· a ny earth 9 1bGt nee or other mineral of ny kind, No mac hine ry o r equi pment of any kind r,hall be placed , oper ated or maint<1ined upon ny Lot on which is situated a s ingle-family dwe l i n9 , except such achine ry or equip1ne nt as i s usual and customary 1n connection with t.he use and maintenance of pr ivate residence .

Sect.ton 21. During r easonable hours and after reasonable notice, tiny agent of Developer , so long I\S it i s n O~rn e r of a t least twenty- five per c e n t (25% ) of the Lots, or the Associfttion, sh.:i l l h ve the right t o e nter upon and i nspect Broad- moor S n Clemen te or any por tion t hereof and the improvemen t s thereon for the purpose of ascert a ining whethar or not t.he pro vi.:iions of t h is Declaro~ion are bieng complied with nd shall no t be deemecl guilty of t r espass b y reasons thereof.

Section 22 . No building, s tt"uc ture, iinprovernent or addition (cxcltidln ch1.101cy- .:rnd i:oof vent shall be constructe , e rect0d, a.J. tc.: rcd, !?L1cetl or permit t ed to remain on any portion l3roadmoor ~j n Cl,,inente which . exceeds one story in height 1,1ith a maximUITl height of 17 feet . Uo tree , bush or sh rub shall be pL1ced or maintained 1Jpon any Lo t de.scribe d in Bxhi.bi t "C" , a.ttache hereto an i ncorpora ted herein by reference, whic exceeds 17 f eet i 1eight or upon any other Lot i n 8roadmoo · S.:in Clemon te which exc eeds 20 f ct i n height .

ARTICLE '!III
DUTIES Alm POWERS OF THE JI.SSOCll\'rIO l
Section l. In addition to the duties a.nd oowers e numerated i n 1ts .i\rticles and By-Laws , or P.1.sew)'le re provided for h~re·n, .ln d wi t hou t limi ti ng the genera l itie s t h e r e of , t he Association s h all :
(,) !1a intain, or cause to be ma i n tained, t he
slope ar e as mo re particularly described i n 8xhibi t " B" ( " lope Contxol Ar.eos " ) an d 11 l ndscaping t here on , as originall y improved by Developer , .in ,l neat , safe, sanitar y and orderly co11 - d i t i on (i nc l ud ·ng t he replaceJ111~nt of. l andscn!)ing when necessar~ or appropriate) and in s~ch a manner as t o e nhance their appearance and t o pr.eserv establ ished slope ratios, prevent eros i on and s lidi ng problems, and fa c i litate the orderly discharge of w,.\ter throu gh established drainage s ystems;
(b} Enfor ce the provisio ns o f this Declaration
by approprin.tc~ 1ne ns, i 11c l uding without l i mita t ion, the expenditu re of f unds of the Association, t he e mp l oyment of legal counsel nd' U e commencement of acti ons;
(c) Mai ntdin such policy or policies of i nsurance
a s the Bo~rd of the hssociati on deems necessary or desirable i n f urtheri ng the purposes of and protect i ng the i n terests of t he Ass ocia tion Md its /•embers ; and
-.1.5-
• V -1 ' •- · ' •
GARR143
Ex 16-15
March 12, 2025
City of San Clemente
City Council
910 Calle Negocio
San Clemente, CA 92673
Over the past decade, the Felicidad Homeowners have requested Delicada Homeowners and the Broadmoor HOA to comply with City imposed Conditions of Approval requiring a height limit of 17 feet on trees, bushes and shrubs. They have consistently refused to comply or even engage with Felicidad Homeowners.

On November 19, 2024, the Council unanimously found that Broadmoor has failed to enforce its tree height restrictions on Delicada which the City imposed as a Condition of Approval 50 years ago. The Council also agreed that enforcement should be turned over to the City or a 3rd party, such as Felicidad Homeowners. The Council agreed to table their decision to a future meeting to allow Broadmoor and Felicidad Homeowners the opportunity to meet and hopefully come to a resolution without Council intervention. Despite multiple communications from Felicidad offering several available dates to meet, Broadmoor never responded.

Instead, Broadmoor took two months to devise a unilateral, and invasive process with unrealistic timeframes of 60 to more than 180 days. And that’s only IF the HOA agrees that a significant violation exists. “Smisko HOA process to Felicidad 2-4-25” Seventeen feet is not subjective. It is the roof height and a quick drive down Delicada easily reveals which properties have trees and foliage above the rooflines. No tape measure is even needed - See roof top compliance confirmation from City Planning Director “Exhibit 4 – letters to and from City Planning confirming height limit” We anticipate that Broadmoor may attempt to justify their inaction by claiming:

1. That Felicidad residents have refused access to their homes for mandatory inspections. x No such access is required to determine whether trees exceed the 17-foot height limit

2. That impacted views are subjective, despite the explicit language of Section 22, which imposes a clear height limit without any conditional view-based qualification.

3. That the height restriction is open to interpretation, which is an attempt to circumvent the straightforward enforcement of the rule.

Broadmoor’s management company has repeatedly failed to answer our clear and straightforward questions regarding their “required” home investigation. x “Compass 2-25-25 Felicidad requesting info”
x “Compass 3-4-25 Felicidad requesting info”
x “Compass no response to questions 3-10-25”
x “Smisko demand to inspect or no compliance 3-11-25”

150 164
“Broadmoor CCR Section 22” does not condition height limitations on view impacts, nor does it require intrusive inspections inside private homes to determine Broadmoor compliance.

Broadmoor’s stance appears to be an effort to make enforcement discretionary rather than mandatory, in direct contradiction to the governing regulations.

Furthermore, Section 22 cannot be amended without City approval, as stipulated in Section 2, “Broadmoor Section 2 and 4”. Broadmoor’s failure to enforce these provisions not only undermines the integrity of these regulations but also disregards the City’s authority in maintaining compliance.

If Broadmoor had genuine good-will, instead of causing further distress for Felicidad, they would have already implemented very simple and effective steps:

1. Issued "out of compliance" letters to Delicada offenders

2. If, after 2 weeks the offenders were still in violation, the HOA would have sent the HOA gardeners to cut the palms and vegetation to the required 17 feet The Association, and the City, has a right to enter upon the property and remove any structure or condition creating a violation
“Broadmoor CCR Enforcement article X section 4”
At the November 19 Council meeting, Mr. Smisko failed to acknowledge Broadmoor’s ineffective enforcement efforts, which amount to a negligible $100 monthly fine - insignificant for properties valued at over $2 million. Given the low home turnover on the Hill, most homeowners remain unaffected by such a nominal penalty. Even if Broadmoor places a lien, accrued fines can simply be settled upon the eventual sale, often after the homeowner’s passing, making enforcement virtually meaningless.

Broadmoor continues to disregard the interests and concerns of Felicidad Homeowners by deliberately failing to collaborate with Felicidad on a formal, documented agreement, and filed with the City.

Furthermore, the Management Company has not engaged with all Felicidad Homeowners. The height limit applies uniformly to every Felicidad property, regardless of whether a formal complaint, photographic evidence, or a Broadmoor-led inspection has been submitted. “Exhibit 4 – Letters to and from City Planning Confirming Height Limit”.

Felicidad is not an Association, we do not have a general fund, nor do we have lawyers at our disposal. We are individual Homeowners, and we should neither bear the burden of enforcement nor incur any cost to mitigate Broadmoor’s intentional violations.

Without City enforcement, Broadmoor and specifically Delicada Homeowners, currently have no compelling reason to ever comply with the 17 foot CC&R height restriction.

Broadmoor has demonstrated that it is either incapable or unwilling to enforce its tree height limitations as required by the City-imposed Conditions of Approval. The City’s focus should now be on swift compliance.
151 165
Given the continued delay tactics and the detrimental effect the ongoing non-compliance has had on the financial value of Felicidad properties, we respectfully request that the Council expedite City enforcement of the Broadmoor height limit, without further delays.

Respectfully submitted,
Paul and Reva Buck
152 166
City of San Clemente Code Compliance
Danielle Sorahan, Code Compliance Manager
Phone: (949) 361-8200
[email protected]
June 26, 2024
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND EMAIL AT [email protected] Broadmoor San Clemente Homeowners Association
Attn: Ryan Phillips, Agent for Service
1505 Corporation
Compass Property Management Corporation
302 N. El Camino Real, Suite 100
San Clemente, CA 92672
Subject: Demand for Compliance with CCRs Regarding Tree Heights Dear Broadmoor Homeowners Association,
As the Code Compliance Manager for the City of San Clemente, I am writing to address a matter concerning compliance with the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRs) of the Broadmoor community.

Facts:

Page 2 ends

Demand:

Consequences:

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Danielle Sorahan
Code Compliance Manager
City of San Clemente
Danielle Sorahan
154 168
1 V) i
155 169
Re: Inspection Scheduled
Paul Buck
Subject
From
To: Krystal Cervantes
<[email protected]>
Cc:

Date Feb 25 at 1 :29 PM
Thank you Krystal:
e erson
John Milroy
nia Sipes
is not available on February 27th.

We have a few questions:

1. Who exactly is to arrive at our homes?

2. Exactly what is the purpose and what do they intend to do at our homes?

3. Why are the pictures which you previously requested not adequate for your purposes?

4. Why can you not simply drive down Delicada and easily see which trees are over the rooftop, which is the 17 ft height limit.

5. Why are you not addressing all the neighbors on Calle Felicidad?
Thank you in advance for your responses. Please confirm receipt of this message.

Regards
Paul Buck
Sent from my iPhone
Show trimmed content
156 170
Subject Fw: Fwd: Inspection Re-Schedule
From reva.wright
To: Krystal Cervantes
<[email protected]>
Cc:

Date Mar 4 at 1 0:34 PM
thanks Krystal
Per my 2 prior requests, please kindly respond to the
questions below:

1. Who exactly is to arrive at our homes?

2. Exactly what is the purpose and what do they intend to do at our homes?

3. Why are the pictures which you previously requested not adequate for your purposes?

4. Why can you not simply drive down Delicada and easily see which trees are over the rooftop, which is the 17 ft height limit.

5. Why are you not addressing all the neighbors on Calle Felicidad?
Regards
Paul Buck
Sent from my iPhone Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

On Wednesday, March 5, 2025, 7:12 AM, Paul Buck
> wrote:

Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Krystal Cervantes
<[email protected]>
Date: March 3, 2025 at 6:36:15PM GMT+1
To:

Subject: Inspection Re-Schedule
Good morning,
We have re-scheduled the inspection for those that
weren’t available on 2/27.

We will be at your properties to perform the requested
inspections on 3/13 starting at 9:00am.

This is the scheduled order:

Re: Inspection Re-Schedule
reva.wright ->
Ryan Phillips
Krystal Cervantes
<[email protected]>
Cc:
ndy
Hall <[email protected]>
Date Today at 12:19 PM
Krystal
your response does not address our questions.

As a result, -will not be available on Thursday.

Frankly, the ~es in violation of the height restriction you should be 11 inspecting II are on Delicada.
take care,
Reva Wright Buck
On Monday, March 10, 2025 at 11:45:35 AM PDT, Krystal Cervantes <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank You,
Krystal Cervantes
Operations and Accounting Manager
Compass Property Management
302 N. El Camino Real, Suite #100
San Clemente, CA 92672
Office (949) 429-7717, ext. 234
Fax (949) 429-7718
www.compasspropertymanagement.com
We’re Hiring!
Join our team and be part of something great! We’re looking for a talented Association Manager to grow with us. To apply, please email me your resume or you can apply here
https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/4108482432
From: reva.wright
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 10:22 AM
To: Krystal Cervantes
<[email protected]>; Ryan Phillips
159 173
yy g y
<[email protected]>; Josh Smisko
<[email protected]>
Cc:
; Adam Atamian <atamiana@sanclemente.org>; Andy Hall <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: Fwd: Inspection Re-Schedule
Hi Krystal
Per our previous 3 unanswered information requests to Compass, (email strings attached), I have provided a little more clarity surrounding our questions:

1. Who exactly is to arrive at our homes?
Full name, affiliation and position
I am not comfortable allowing strangers into my home to conduct an unknown type of “inspection”.

2. Exactly what is the purpose and what do they intend to do at our homes?

3. Why are the pictures which you previously requested, not adequate for your purposes?
Any pictures taken during “inspection”, should be approved by and provided to, the Homeowner

4. Why can you not simply drive down Delicada and easily see which trees are over the rooftop, which is the 17’ height limit? The 17’ height limit (which is the roof height) is not subjective to anyone's assessment. It is a specific condition of approval surrounding roof, tree and foliage height.
* For your convenience and in the event that anyone challenges the roof height, I have attached 2 letters from the City Planning Commission confirming to Felicidad Homeowners that all models 160 174
•
•
•
Commission confirming to Felicidad Homeowners that all models were measured and rooftops measure within 16'10" and 17'1", which makes it quite obvious in identifying trees and foliage over the 17’ limit
Please see Exhibit 4

5. Why are you not addressing all the neighbors on Calle Felicidad? Every Felicidad property was assured that the height limit would be observed by Broadmoor as well as the City
Planning Director, and are entitled to enforcement without being subjected to invasive and unnecessary harassment
If a representative is unable to provide this information by end-ofday on Wednesday, please be advised that will not be available on Thursday.

Take care,
Reva Wright Buck
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

On Wednesday, March 5, 2025, 1:34 AM, reva.wright
< > wrote:
thanks Krystal
Per my 2 prior requests, please kindly respond to the
questions below:

1. Who exactly is to arrive at our homes?
161 175
•
•
-
162 176

2. Exactly what is the purpose and what do they intend to do at our homes?

3. Why are the pictures which you previously requested not adequate for your purposes?

4. Why can you not simply drive down Delicada and easily see which trees are over the rooftop, which is the 17 ft height limit.

5. Why are you not addressing all the neighbors on Calle Felicidad?
Regards
Paul Buck
Sent from my iPhone Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

On Wednesday, March 5, 2025, 7:12 AM, Paul Buck
wrote:

Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Krystal Cervantes
<[email protected]>
Date: March 3, 2025 at 6:36:15 PM GMT+ 1
Good morning,
We have re-scheduled the inspection for those that weren't available on 2/27.

We will be at your properties to perform the requested inspections on 3/13 starting at 9:00am.

This is the scheduled order:

Thank You,
Krystal Cervantes
Operations and Accounting Manager
Compass Property Management
302 N. El Camino Real, Suite #100
San Clemente, CA 92672
Office (949) 429-7717, ext. 234
Fax (949) 429-7718
www.compasspropertymanagement.com
We’re Hiring!
Join our team and be part of something great! We’re looking for a talented Association Manager to grow with us. To apply, please email me your resume or you can apply here
https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/4108482432
Dear Homeowners,
Compass has been tasked to investigate reported tree
violations as they have been conducted over the years
with the homeowners of Broadmoor. When a complaint
is filed, we, along with a Board member visit the site and verify the complaint. This is the first step in the violation process. Once confirmed the next step in the process is implemented per the Broadmoor governing docs. This is
and has been the process for those in the Broadmoor
community 163 177
community.

If you are not available at this time for the 2/27 date, we will have to get back to you on our next available date.

Thank You,
Krystal Cervantes
Operations and Accounting Manager
Compass Property Management
302 N. El Camino Real, Suite #100
San Clemente, CA 92672
Office (949) 429-7717, ext. 234
Fax (949) 429-7718
www.compasspropertymanagement.com
We’re Hiring!
Join our team and be part of something great! We’re looking for a talented Association Manager to grow with us. To apply, please email me your resume or you can apply here
https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/4108482432
From: Paul Buck
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 1:29 PM
To: Krystal Cervantes <[email protected]> Cc: Reva Wright Buck
Paul Buck Ross Peterson
; John Milroy
Antonia Sipes
Subject: Re: Inspection Scheduled
164 178
165 179
Thank you Krystal:
- is not available on February 27th.

We have a few questions:
1 . Who exactly is to arrive at our homes?

2. Exactly what is the purpose and what do they intend to do at our homes?

3. Why are the pictures which you previously requested not adequate for your purposes?

4. Why can you not simply drive down Delicada and easily see which trees are over the rooftop, which is the 17 ft height limit.

5. Why are you not addressing all the neighbors on Calle Felicidad? Thank you in advance for your responses. Please confirm receipt of this message.

Regards
Paul Buck
Sent from my iPhone
I On Feb 25, 2025, at 9:22 PM, Paul Buck
wrote:

Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Krystal Cervantes
<[email protected]>
Date: February 25, 2025 at 9:05:25 PM GMT+ 1
, Paul Buck
>
Subject: Inspection Scheduled
Dear Homeowners:

We will be at your properties to perform the requested
inspections on 2/27 starting at 9:00am.

This is the scheduled order:

Thank you for your cooperation.

DECLARATION OF ALAN JAY RICE
I, Alan Jay Rice, make the following statements based on my own personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances stated herein:

1. I am a long-time resident of the City of San Clemente. I have lived in my home, located at 301 Calle Felicidad, San Clemente, since 1968.

2. The Pacesetter Development Company was the developer that built my home as part of the residential development in the City known as Rancho Margarita. The completed Rancho Margarita homes were terraced at 20-foot intervals on a hillside overlooking the coastline.

3. In the early 1970s, there was no development on the land located below Calle 11 Felicidad, where the Broadmoor community is now located. This land was previously an old 12 landslide complex with coyotes, deer and other wildlife wandering over the open brush and hills. 13 4. Because there was no development downhill, the homes on Calle Felicidad had an 14 unobstructed, clear view of the ocean and coastline, including scenic views of the Dana Point 15 Harbor and Catalina Island.
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 5. Shortly after I purchased my home, Landmark Financial Group wanted to build two-story single-family residential homes on tracts located downhill from Calle Felicidad.

6. A group of neighbors on Calle Felicidad that were concerned with protecting the existing community from ill-planned developed formed a group known as the ''Rancho Margarita Associates". The group's objective was to prevent any negative impacts of new development on their existing community.

7. The Rancho Margarita Associates group became well known to City officials and included approximately 65 members, including myself, Susan P. Rice, William Kerns, Fred • Keeler, Frank and Maryanne Dreher, Richard and Karoline Koester, Bob and Jody Dilworth, Bob and Joan Kahrs, and Donald and Sally Sargent.

8. Our group of neighbors organized to ft le petitions and comment letters with the 27 Planning Commission and City Council in order to express our concerns about de elopment of 28 the downhill tract

DECLARATION OF ALAN JAY RICE
169 183
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

9. Eventually, Landmark Financial Group lost its option to develop the property and Broadmoor acquired the option. Broadmoor subsequently began plans to seek approvals for development of the Broadmoor community, which would include 225 homes to be located on tracts downhill from Calle Felicidad.

10. I personally attended many Planning Commission and City Council meetings where City officials considered approvals for the Broadmoor community.

11. During the period between late 1973 and early 1974, various Broadmoar officials tactfully approached every resident living on Calle Felicidad to explain their plans to build homes below Calle Felicidad.

12. The Broadmoor representatives included: Richard B. Smith (founder), Larry Lizotte (Senior Vice President), Dennis Bickler (Director of Property Acquisition and Assistant Division Manager), S. Reid Gustafson (Vice President and Division Manager), RF. Osgood (Senior Vice President and Secretary), Don Corbin (architect at Morris & Lohrbach Architects), and John Hazeltine.
13 . Broadmoor knew that it needed our support in order to get the City's approval for the Calle Delicada homes. There were several meetings between the Broadmoor officials and the Calle Felicidad homeowners, many of which took place in our homes. Through this series of meetings, many compromises were made to the satisfaction ofBroadmoor and the Calle Felicidad residents.

14. We emphasized to Broadmoor that our existing ocean and coastal views were extremely valuable and needed to be preserved if any new homes were to be built.

15. One of the issues Broadmoor encountered was the narrow sizes of the proposed Calle Delicada Jots. The dimensions ofBroadmoor's original plans did not comply with the· City's Code requirements.

16. Broadmoor sought a solution to the insufficient lot sizes on Calle Delicada by asking individual homeowners on Calle Felicidad to give up a portion of the hillside slopes on their properties, so that depth could be added to the Calle Delicada lots. This was to be accomplished by re-grading the slopes belonging to the Calle Felicidad Homeowners.

DECLARATION OF ALAN JAY RICE
170 184
C
•
1 17. Broadmoor also sought to gain additional area for the lots by asking the Calle 2 Felicidad homeowners to agree that a sidewalk that was supposed to be developed on Calle 3 Delicada could be eliminated.
4 18. City staff did not support deleting the required sidewalk between Calle Felicidad 5 and Calle Delicada.
6 19. Many of the Calle Felicidad homeowners submitted a petition to the City Council 7 that allowed this sidewalk to be elim· at~.d so Broadmoor could gain. the land re.quired to develop 8 the 19 additional lots on Calle Delicada. The City agreed to allow the deletion in response to the 9 Calle Felicidad homeowners' request.
10 20. In return, Broad moor went out of their way to assure Calle Felicidad homeowners 11 that our panoramic views would be preserved and protected despite the construction of the new 12 downhill homes. We were repeatedly assured by Broadmoor that our views would not be 13 obstructed or compromised in any way by the development of the Calle Delicada properties. 14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 21 . During the meetings with Broadmoor, the Calle Felicidad residents agreed to the following concessions in favor of Broadmoor:

1. Broadmoor could completely remove our rear slopes by shearing away all of the dirt embankment, thereby creating a 30 foot shear drop from our backyards. This was deemed to be a crucial element necessary to re-compact, solidify, and reconfigure the angle of our backyard slopes. Broadmoor had to do this in order to stabilize potential slippage zones they supposedly detected on our properties prior to cut and fill operations for the homes on Calle Delicada.

11. We agreed to sign waivers for the City to eliminate the construction of a sidewalk at the foot of our slopes on Calle Delicada, which allowed Broadmoor to gain· land it needed for the new lots to be approved.
25 22. In exchange for the concessions granted by the Calle Felicidad homeowners, there 26 were two primary concessions granted and guaranteed by the Broad moor officials:
27 1. There would never be any two-story homes built in the Broadmoor community that 28 would interfere with the views of any Calle Felicidad resident.

DECLARATION OF ALAN JAY RICE
171 185
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 • 28

23. Broadmoor entered into agreements with myself and other homeowners who provided authorization for Broadmoor to regrade our individual slope areas. This would allow Broadmoor to have additional area for the proposed lats an Calle Delicada because the work involved reconfiguring our existing slope into a steeper angle with a more abbreviated top.

24. I entered into the attached agreement to authorize grading with Broadmoor on February 16, 1974.

25. The process to regrade our slopes was a significant undertaking that involved heavy earthmoving equipment and extensive construction work in our back yards. I took pictures to show the extent of the grading work, attached hereto.

26. In exchange for our cooperation, Broadmoor agreed that the height restrictions that were meant to protect our views would be included in a recorded declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) that would be recorded against each of the 19 homes on Calle Delicada.

27. The City knew about, and was involved in, negotiations between Broadmoor and the Calle Felicidad homeowners, that resulted in Broadmoor's agreement to include a height limitation on the Calle Delicada homes. The City also imposed the height limitation as a condition of approval in connection with its approval of the Calle Delicada homes.

28. The restriction was intentionally included in the CC&Rs by Broadmoor as an additional assurance to Calle Felicidad residents that all trees would be maintained not to exceed 17 feet and any violations would be enforced by the Association created by Broadmoor.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

DECLARATION OF ALAN JAY RICE
172 186
1 Executed on May l!)!,2020, at San Clemente, California. 2 3
4 ~(Zp
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 • 28

DECLARATION OF ALAN JAY RICE
173 187
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
e / 27
28 DECLARATION OF CECILIA GALLARDO-DALY
I, Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, make the following statements based on my own personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances stated herein:

1. I am the Community Development Director for the City of San Clemente.

2. As the Community Development Director, I am familiar with the City's process for approving development projects, and am familiar with its process of imposing conditions of approval on such development projects. I am also familiar with the City's Municipal Code.

3. Attached to this declaration as Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 are true and correct copies of Planning Commission Minutes from March 14 and November 28, 1973, and City Council minutes from January 7, 1976, from the City's files related to the City's 1970s approval of the Broadmoor Community ("Broadmoor") housing project reflecting meetings held by the City.

4. It is a common practice of the City to impose conditions of approval before approving a project. These conditions are found in the City's files for a project, and are, from time to time, also required by the City to be contained in the project's Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("CC&Rs"). The City imposed conditions are meant to benefit the public, to sometimes specific members of the public who may be or are specially impacted by the project, and to mitigate development impacts in general. This was the ca e for the Broadmoor project for which, as part of the approval the City imposed a height restriction that all home be ingle story and no higher than 17 feet, and a 17 foot height restriction on trees, bushe and hrub .

One of the purposes of this condition and restriction was to provide a protection in re pon e to concerns raised by the homeowners on Calle Felicidad over view shed and other impact of the development on their existing homes.

5. The developer accepted these conditions of approval and later signed off on a Supplementary Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restriction· for the 19 lots on Calle Delicada, which, in Section 3, include a 17 foot height restri tion on structure and a 17 fi ot height restriction on trees, bushes and shrubs: "Section 3. No building, tructure, improvem nt or addition (excluding chimneys and roof vents) shall be con tru ted, re t d, alter d, pla d r permitted to remain on any portion of the Property which e ce ds one tory in h ight with a 174 188
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
-
28 maximum height of 17 feet. No tree. bush or shrub shall be placed or maintained upon ( i) any Lot described in Exhibit ·•A''. altached hen:to and incorporated herein by reference. which exceed 17 feet in height or (ii) upon any other Lot in the Property which exceeds 20 feet m height.''

6. By and through the Broadmoor CC&Rs. the City also retains an interest in and abi lity to enforce the provi ion therein. Article XII of the CC&Rs. titled .. Powers of City of San Clemente." gives the City the right to exercise any right. and power grnnted to the Broadmoor Association under the declaration.
1 declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the State of California that the foregoing i true and correct.

Executed on NovemberZ!/, 2021. at 5att C&Me1rkca1ifornia. -1-
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
-1-
DECLARATION OF LAURENCE R. LIZOTTE
Michael L Tidus, Bar No. 126425
[email protected]
Gregory R. Regier, Bar No. 193571
[email protected]
Brittany A. Ortiz, Bar No. 305775
[email protected]
JACKSON TIDUS, A Law Corporation
2030 Main Street, Suite 1200
Irvine, California 92614
Tel: (949) 752-8585; Fax: (949) 752-0597
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Paul Buck

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE – CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
PAUL BUCK, an individual,
Plaintiff,
vs.

ANGELO GARRUBA and LISA
GARRUBA and DOES 1 to 20,
Defendants.

CASE NO. 30-2019-01086744-CU-BC-CJC
Assigned to Hon. John C. Gastelum
Department C-11
DECLARATION OF LAURENCE R.

LIZOTTE
Complaint filed: July 29, 2019
175 189
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
-2-
DECLARATION OF LAURENCE R. LIZOTTE
DECLARATION OF LAURENCE R. LIZOTTE
I, Laurence (Larry) R. Lizotte, currently residing at 23972 Paseo Del Campo, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677, make the following statements based on the best of my personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances stated herein:

1. I have read the “DECLARATION OF SALLY SARGENT executed on October 6, 2020” (attached Exhibit 1), and the “DECLARATION OF ALAN JAY RICE on May 16, 2020” (attached Exhibit 2), and declare that both documents reflect my recollection and understanding about the negotiations, agreements and conditions of approval among the City of San Clemente (“City”), Broadmoor Homes, Inc. (“Broadmoor”), and the Calle Felicidad neighbors about the approval of the Broadmoor homes on Calle Delicada.

2. I was the Senior Vice President of Broadmoor, which developed the Broadmoor Community during the 1970s. I was the key individual working with the City to obtain approval to build homes on Tract 8162, the greater Broadmoor development, and more specifically Tract 8963 which represents the 19 houses on Calle Delicada and their common areas.

3. Initially, we encountered considerable resistance to our planned development from a group of residents on Calle Felicidad which is the adjacent street to the Broadmoor tract development and directly uphill from Calle Delicada. The group was known as the “Rancho Margarita Associates” and they were very concerned about the impact that the Broadmoor development would have on their ocean and coastal views and other aspects such as housing density, architectural size and style and other factors that could negatively impact these Felicidad residents.

4. The Felicidad residents regularly attended City Planning Commission and the City Council meetings and voiced their concerns when issues about the Broadmoor development of tracts 8162 and 8963 were being considered. I and my Broadmoor colleagues also attended these meetings. Sally Sargent, who was one of the homeowners representing the Felicidad residents, was a vocal participant at these meetings and was well known to me. ///
176 190
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
-3-
DECLARATION OF LAURENCE R. LIZOTTE

5. There were several meetings between me, my colleagues at Broadmoor and the Felicidad residents. One such meeting was held on November 27, 1973, at the home of Sally Sargent, at 203 Calle Felicidad. (See p. 6 of the San Clemente Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 1973, attached as Exhibit 1.) Through this meeting and others, compromises and concessions were negotiated to the satisfaction of Broadmoor, the Felicidad homeowners, the City’s Planning Commission and the City Council. These included (1) the regrading of the Felicidad backyard slopes and (2) the elimination of the sidewalk requirement on the east side of Calle Delicada in order to gain more platform area to meet City Ordinance requirements to build the Delicada houses. These concessions were agreed to in exchange for permanent Delicada height restrictions so as to preserve views from Calle Felicidad.

6. I was present at the January 7, 1976, City Council meeting where the tract map for Tract 8963, (Delicada) was finally approved. Sally Sargent asked for assurances that certain provisions in the final map approval requiring various restrictions be contained in the CC&R’s when recorded with the County so that the City, San Clemente, would not be faced with important elements omitted from the document. I, representing Broadmoor Homes, Inc., stated that all of these conditions of approval and restrictions would be included in the CC&R’s for the community that we were building and that such CC&R’s would be recorded with the County. The City Attorney also commented that he would set up a procedure to review these CC&R’s to ensure that all the various items were included therein before recording.

7. Subsequently, on January 16, 1976, Broadmoor Homes, Inc., signed off on the

SUPPLEMENTARY DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND
RESTRICTIONS for Tract 8963 (“SUPPLEMENTARY DECLARATION”), for the 19 Lots on Delicada. This document was recorded with the County of Orange, California, in early February, 1976. The following section below is included in the document (Exhibit 1 at p.2) :

Section 3. No building, structure, improvement or addition (excluding chimneys and roof vents) shall be constructed, erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any portion of the Property which exceeds one story in height with a maximum height of 17 feet. 177 191
I
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
-4-
DECLARATION OF LAURENCE R. LIZOTTE
No tree, bush or shrub shall be placed or maintained upon (i) any Lot described in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which exceeds 17 feet in height or (ii) upon any other Lot in the Property which exceeds 20 feet in height.

8. At that time I understood that Sally Sargent’s key concern, and those of the Felicidad residents, was the preservation of the ocean and costal views from the homes on Calle Felicidad. I considered that the City’s condition of approval restricting the height of all items mentioned in section 3, above, that were also imposed in the SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION would be sufficient to preserve those views for the future.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on December __, 2020, at Laguna Niguel, California.

Laurence R. Lizotte
178 192
179 193
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
DECLARATION OF SALLY A. SARGENT
I, Sally A. Sargent, currently residing at 1121 Jugador Ct., San Marcos, CA 92078, make the following statements based on my own personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances stated herein:

1. I was a resident of City of San Clemente ("The City") during the period of time that Landmark Financial Corp, and subsequently, Richard B. Smith Co which became Broadmoor Homes, Inc. ("Broadmoor") requested approvals from the City of San Clemente to build homes on Tract 8162, the greater Broadmoor development and Tract 8963, which represents the 19 houses on Calle Delicada and their common areas. This period of the development approval phase of the Broadmoor Community lasted from approximately 1973 to 1976.

2. I lived at 203 Calle Felicidad, San Clemente, CA 92672, together with my late husband Donald Sargent during the development approval phase of the Broadmoor Community.

3. Calle Felicidad ("Felicidad") is the street directly above Calle Delicada ("Delicada").

4. From our home on Felicidad we had a wonderful, unobstructed view of the ocean and coastline, Dana Point Harbor and Catalina Island. Prior to the Broadmoor development, there were no homes built on the hillside between the houses on Calle Felicidad and San Clemente High School.

5. The houses on Felicidad were built by Pacesetter Development Company and my home was built in 1966 as part of the residential development in the City known as Rancho Margarita. Felicidad is the lowest street in the Rancho Margarita Development. Other Rancho Margarita houses were built further east and up the hill from Felicidad. The Rancho Margarita homes were single story and terraced at approximately 20 ft. or greater elevation intervals on the 24 25
hillside providing the homeowners with ocean views.

6. In the early 1970's Landmark Financial Group planned on building two-story 26 single-family residential homes on tracts 8 I 62 and 8963, Deli cad a, which are located directly 27 downhill from Felicidad.
28 -2-
DECLARATION OF SALLY A. SARGENT
180 194
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 7. Our immediate concern was that the two-story houses would eliminate our cherished ocean views. Consequently, a group of Felicidad neighbors and a few residents on neighboring streets formed a group known as the "Rancho Margarita Associates". The goal of the Rancho Margarita Associates was to communicate our concerns to the City Planning Commission, the City Council and the developers of the 8162 and 8963 tracts, in order to protect the views on Calle Felicidad and any other factors which would negatively impact the Rancho Margarita Associates ("RM Associates") such as traffic and housing density.

8. The RM Associates filed petitions and comment letters with the San Clemente Planning Commission and City Council and attended Planning Commission and Council Meetings in order to express our concerns about development of the downhill tracts. I personally attended many Planning Commission and City Council meetings and was one of the more active and outspoken members of the RM Associates.

9. The RM Associates, which included at least 65 participants, became well known to City officials. Apart from my late husband and me, the RM Associates included multiple other neighbors living on Felicidad including Jay and Susan Rice, William Kerns, Fred Keeler, Don Stenerson, Frank and Maryanne Dreher, Richard and Karoline Koester to name a few.

10. The 65 members of RM Associates petitioned the City to not deviate from the established Code requirements recommended by the City's Committee on Subdivisions as Landmark, the developer at that time, had requested multiple variances from the Code which we felt would have impacted the Felicidad homeowners. (Seep. 2 of San Clemente Planning Commission Minutes ofJanuary I 0, 1973, attached hereto as Exhibit 1.)

11. During the January 10, 1973, Planning Commission meeting, my neighbor, Fred Keeler, living at 205 Felicidad, specifically asked for clarification as to whether his view would be obstructed by the proposed terraces. He was informed by the developers that the terraces were proposed for 16 to 20 ft. of elevation change so that each terrace would have a view. (Exhibit 1 at p. 4.)

12. There was substantial opposition by the Felicidad neighbors against the Landmark -3-
DECLARATION OF SALLY A. SARGENT
181 195
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
development. After much discussion with the representatives from Landmark, Landmark agreed to include in their proposed development CC&Rs that would only permit single story houses to be built on lots facing Delicada specifically so that the views from homes on adjacent tracts would not be obstructed. The houses on Felicidad are the adjacent tract.

13. Eventually, Landmark Financial Group lost its option to develop the property and it was taken up by Richard B. Smith, Co which became Broadmoor Homes, Inc. and acquired the option. Broadmoor subsequently continued with the plans, originally started by Landmark, to seek approvals for development of the Broadmoor community, which would include approximately 225 homes to be located on tracts 8162 and 8963, downhill from Felicidad.

14. At the Planning Commission Meeting on November 14, 1973, Larry Lizotte, VP of the Richard B. Smith Company, and subsequently Broadmoor, proposed and requested that the City deviate from its standard building code requirements. My husband, Donald, voiced his opposition to the deviations and concurred with the City Engineer that the city code should be adhered to with no deviations.

15. During the period between late 1973 and 1975, various Broadmoor officials approached residents living on Felicidad to explain their plans to build homes below Felicidad.

16. The Broadmoor officials included: Richard B. Smith (founder), Larry Lizotte (Senior Vice President), Dennis Bickler (Director of Property Acquisition and Assistant Division Manager), S. Reid Gustafson (Vice President and Division Manager), R.F. Osgood (Senior Vice President and Secretary), Don Corbin (architect at Morris & Lohrbach Architects), and John Hazeltine. We emphasized to Broadmoor that our existing ocean and coastal views were extremely valuable and needed to be preserved if they wanted the support of the RM Associates for the development of any new homes.

17. There were several meetings between the Broadmoor officials and the Felicidad 22 23
24 25
26 27
28 homeowners, some of which took place in my home, at 203 Calle Felicidad. Through this series of meetings, many compromises and concessions were made by all parties concerned to the satisfaction of both Broadmoor and the Felicidad homeowners. One such meeting was held on -4-
DECLARATION OF SALLY A. SARGENT
182 196
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
IO
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
ovember 27, 1973, by Larry Lizotte and RM Associates. (See p. 6 of the San Clemente Planning Commission Minutes ofNovember 28, 1973, attached as Exhibit 2.)

18. At the Planning Commission Meeting held on November 28, I 973, Mr. Keeler and I represented the Felicidad Homeowners. We were insistent that the height difference between Delicada and Felicidad would be a minimum of20 ft. Broadmoor agreed to this and that only single level homes would be built on Delicada with a maximum roof height of 17 ft. so as to preserve the views from Felicidad. We asked that these conditions would be imposed on the Broadmoor development even though the Broadmoor developers had previously given us their word. (Exhibit 2 at p. 7.)

19. Consequently, the Planning Commission passed a motion to approve the Broadmoor plan with the added conditions to the approval and to the CC&Rs that:
l) the building pads on Delicada be a minimum of20 ft. below the pads of the existing homes on Felicidad, and
2) all homes be single story no higher than 17 ft. and at no time can a second story or other structure be added which would exceed the I 7 ft. height limit. (Exhibit 2 at p. 7.)

20. I was also present at the December 19, 1973, City Council Meeting. Larry Lizotte presented the revised plan for the development at the public hearing portion of the meeting. Bill Kerns addressed the Council apprising them that RM Associates had spoken with the Broadmoor officials and had requested the following before allowing Broadmoor to build:
1) That the first row of houses which are on Delicada be at least 20 ft. below the pads of the houses on Felicidad, and that their roof height is limited to 17 ft. 2) That the CC&Rs include a statement that the houses on Delicada cannot add to the height of those buildings
3) That the size of the houses would be larger than 1720 sq. ft. (See pp. 1-2 of the San Clemente City Council Minutes of December 19, 1973, attached hereto as Exhibit 3.)
-5-
DECLARATION OF SALLY A. SARGENT
183 197
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
IO
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

21. I also addressed the council on behalf of the RM Associates. Given the abovementioned concessions, I spoke in support of the variances requested by Mr. Lizotte of Broadmoor. Mr. Lizotte confirmed for the public record that the three abovementioned requirements that would be imposed by the City as a condition of approval of the subdivision would also be included in the CC&Rs. The Council then unanimously approved the Broadmoor plans subject to the conditions requested by the RM Associates. As far as the RM Associates were concerned the inclusion of the height limitations would preserve the Felicidad views. (Exhibit 3 at pp. 1-2.)

22. Concerned for their view, the Felicidad neighbors were worried that the houses planned for Delicada may have been taller than the 17 foot restriction called for in the CC&Rs.

Consequently, I wrote a letter dated November 13, 1974, to Mr. Dick Ahlman, Director of Planning for the City, requesting that an onsite physical inspection be made of homes to confirm conformance with the CC&Rs. I emphasized in the letter that the 17 ft. height restriction was a major provision that we had worked hard to have included in the CC&Rs and that we wanted to make sure that this limitation was actually being observed. The letter was co-signed by many of our Felicidad neighbors. Mr. Ahlman responded confirming that an onsite inspection was conducted on the models homes and they were all found to be 17 ft. high or a little less.

23. Still concerned for our views, we requested that an additional model be measured which appeared to be taller than the others. I wrote a second letter to Mr. Ahlman, dated February 11 , 1975, to physically measure model 1 A I was present, along with two neighbors at the site inspection and measurement of the model in question. The measurements were 17 feet l inch or less. We considered this within the tolerance of compliance with conditions imposed by the City Council and the CC&Rs. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the correspondence dated November 13, 1974, to Mr. Ahlman, Planning Director, City of San Clemente.

24. I was present at the January 7, 1976, City Council meeting where the tract map for Tract 8963, (the Delicada Tract) was approved. As I was specifically concerned about the views -6-
DECLARATION OF SALLY A. SARGE T
184 198
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 from Felicidad, I asked for assurances that certain provisions in the final tract map be included in the CC&Rs when recoded with the County so the City would not be faced with important elements omitted from the documents as had happened in other situations. As the Felicidad neighbors were relying on the conditions of approval of the tract map and the CC&Rs to protect their views in perpetuity. These conditions included the single story, 17 ft. height restriction on structures and 17 ft. height restriction on trees, bushes and shrubs. (Seep. 7 of the San Clemente City Council Minutes of January 7, 1976, attached hereto as Exhibit 5.)

25. At that meeting, Mr. Lizotte, representing Broadmoor Homes. Inc. stated that all the restrictions for the tract, planting and maintenance were reflected in their plans and would be included in the CC&Rs and recorded with the County. Furthermore, the City Attorney commented that he was setting up a procedure to ensure that the CC&Rs were reviewed to make sure all the various items were included therein before recording. Following discussion, the City Council unanimously approved the final tract map for tract 8963 . (Exhibit 5 at p. 7.)

26. Subsequently, on January 16, 1976, Broadmoor Homes, Inc., submitted its SUPPLEMENTARY DECLARATION OF COVE ANTS, CONDlTIO S AND
RESTRICTIONS for Tract 8963 ("SUPPLEMENTARY DE CLARA TIO '), for the 19 Lots on Delicada. This document was recorded with the County of Orange, California, in early February, 1976. The following section below is included (Exhibit 6 at p.2) :

No tree, bush or shrub shall be placed or maintained upon (i) any Lot described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which exceeds 17 feet in height or (ii) upon any other Lot in the Property which exceeds 20 feet in height.

27. We were told by the City and Broadmoor that the abovementioned SUPPLEMENTARY DECLARATION, in addition to the condition of approval limiting the heights of all plants and building, would be sufficient to protect the views from Felicidad in -7-
DECLARATION OF SALLY A. SARGENT
185 199
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
perpetuity as the limit of the structures and landscape was set at 17 feet.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on October~ 2020, at San Marcos, California.
-8-
DECLARATION OF SALLY A. SARGENT
186 200
1 2
3 4
5 6
DECLARATION OF SUSAN P. RICE
I, Susan P. Rice, make the following statements based on my own personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances stated herein:

1. I am a long-time resident of the City of San Clemente. Beginning in 1968, I lived in a home located at 301 Calle Felicidad, San Clemente, with my then-husband, Alan Jay Rice.

2. The Pacesetter Development Company was the developer that built my home as 7 part of the residential development in the City known as Rancho Margarita. The completed 8 Rancho Margarita homes were terraced at 20-foot intervals on a hillside overlooking the 9 coastline.
10 3. In the early 1970s, there was no development on the land located below Calle 11 Felicidad, where the Broadmoor community is now located. This land was previously an old 12 landslide complex with coyotes, deer and other wildlife wandering over the open brush and hills. 13 4. Because there was no development downhill, the homes on Calle Felicidad had an 14 unobstructed, clear view of the ocean and coastline, including scenic views of the Dana Point 15 Harbor and Catalina Island.
16 5. Shortly after my husband and I purchased our home, Landmark Financial Group 17 wanted to build two-story single-family residential homes on tracts located downhill from Calle 18 Felicidad.
19 6. A group of neighbors on Calle Felicidad that were concerned with protecting the 20 existing community from ill-planned developed formed a group known as the "Rancho Margarita 21 Associates". The group's objective was to prevent any negative impacts of new development on 22 their existing community.
23 7. The Rancho Margarita Associates group became well known to City officials and 24 included approximately 65 members, including myself, Alan Jay Rice, William Kerns, Fred 25 Keeler, Frank and Maryanne Dreher, Richard and Karoline Koester, Bob and Jody Dilworth, 26 Bob and Joan Kahrs, and Donald and Sally Sargent.
27 28
DECLARATION OF SUSAN P. RICE
. .,
187 201
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10

8. Our group of neighbors organized to file petitions and comment letters with the Planning Commiss· d c· c ·1 • ton an 1ty ounc1 m order to express our concerns about development of the downhill tract.

10. I personally attended many Planning Commission and City Council meetings where City officials considered approvals for the Broadmoor community.

11. During the period between late 1973 and early 1974, various Broadmoor officials 11 tactfully approached every resident living on Calle Felicidad to explain their plans to build 12 homes below Calle Felicidad.
13 12. The Broadmoor representatives included: Richard B. Smith (founder), Larry 14 Lizotte (Senior Vice President), Dennis Bickler (Director of Property Acquisition and Assistant 15 Division Manager), S. Reid Gustafson (Vice President and Division Manager), RF. Osgood 16 (Senior Vice President and Secretary), Don Corbin (architect at Morris & Lohrbach Architects), 1 7 and John Hazeltine.
18 13. Broadmoor knew that it needed our support in order to get the City's approval for 19 the Calle Delicada homes. There were several meetings between the Broadmoor officials and 20 the Calle Felicidad homeowners, many of which took place in our homes. Through this series of 21 meetings, many compromises were made to the satisfaction of Broadmoor and the Calle 22 Felicidad residents.
23 14. We emphasized to Broadmoor that our existing ocean and coastal views were 24 extremely valuable and needed to be preserved if any new homes were to be built. 25 15. One of the issues Broadmoor encountered was the narrow sizes of the proposed 26 Calle Delicada lots. The dimensions ofBroadmoor's original plans did not comply with the 27 City's Code requirements.
28 DECLARATION OF SUSAN P. RICE
188 202
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
16 • Broadmoor sought a solufon to the insufficient lot s;,.s on Calle Delicada by asking individual homeowners on Calle Felicidad to give up a portion of the hHbide slopes on their properties, so that depth could be added to the Calle Delicada lots. This was to be accomplished by re-grading the slopes belonging to the Calle Felicidad Homeowners.

17. Broadmoor also sought to gain additional area for the lots by asking the Calle Felicidad homeowners to agree that a sidewalk that was supposed to be developed on Calle Delicada could be eliminated.

18. City staff did not support deleting the required sidewalk between Calle Felicidad and Calle Delicada.

19. Many of the Calle Felicidad homeowners submitted a petition to the City Council that allowed this sidewalk to be eliminated so Broadmoor could gain the land required to develop the 19 additional lots on Calle Delicada. The City agreed to allow the deletion in response to the Calle Felicidad homeowners' request.

20. 15 that our panoramic views would be preserved and protected despite the construction of the new 16 downhill homes. We were repeatedly assured by Broadmoor that our views would not be 17 obstructed or compromised in any way by the development of the Calle Delicada properties.

In return, Broadmoor went out of their way to assure Calle Felicidad homeowners 18 21. During the meetings with Broadmoor, the Calle Felicidad residents agreed to the 19 following concessions in favor ofBroadmoor:
20 1. Broadmoor could completely remove our rear slopes by shearing away all of the 21 dirt embankment, thereby creating a 30 foot shear drop from our backyards. This 22 was deemed to be a crucial element necessary to re-compact, solidify, and 23 reconfigure the angle of our backyard slopes. Broadmoor had to do this in order 24 to stabilize potential slippage zones they supposedly detected on our properties 25 prior to cut and fill operations for the homes on Calle Delicada. 26 27
28 11. We agreed to sign waivers for the City to eliminate the construction ofa sidewalk at the foot of our slopes on Calle Delicada, which allowed Broadmoor to gain land it needed for the new lots to be approved.

DECLARATION OF SUSAN P. RICE
189 203
1 22. In exchange for the concessions granted by the Calle Felicidad homeowners, there 2 were two primary concessions granted and guaranteed by the Broadmoor officials:
3 4
5 6
7 1. There would never be any two-story homes built in the Broadmoor community that would interfere with the views of any Calle Felicidad resident.

11. There would never be any tree, bush, or other landscaping, or any structure which would block or inhibit the existing views of the Calle Felicidad residents. Any potential impediment would be limited to a maximum height of 17 feet on Calle 8 Delicada - with no exceptions.
9 23. Broadmoor entered into agreements with myself and other homeowners who 10 provided authorization for Broadmoor to regrade our individual slope areas. This would allow 11 Broadmoor to have additional area for the proposed lots on Calle Delicada because the work 12 involved reconfiguring our existing slope into a steeper angle with a more abbreviated top. 13 24. I entered into the attached agreement to authorize grading with Broadmoor on 14 February 16, 1974.
15 25. The process to regrade our slopes was a significant undertaking that involved 16 heavy earthmoving equipment and extensive construction work in our back yards. I took 17 pictures to show the extent of the grading work, attached hereto. 18 26. In exchange for our cooperation, Broadmoor agreed that the height restrictions 19 that were meant to protect our views would be included in a recorded declaration of covenants, 20 conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) that would be recorded against each of the 19 homes on 21 Calle Delicada.
22 27. The City knew about, and was involved in, negotiations between Broadmoor and 23 the Calle Felicidad homeowners, that resulted in Broadmoor's agreement to include a height 24 limitation on the Calle Delicada homes. The City also imposed the height limitation as a 25 condition of approval in connection with its approval of the Calle Delicada homes. 26 28. The restriction was intentionally included in the CC&Rs by Broadmoor as an 27 additional assurance to Calle Felicidad residents that all trees would be maintained not to exceed 28 17 feet and any violations would be enforced by the Association created by Broadmoor.

DECLARATION OF SUSAN P. RICE
190 204
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on May~ 2020, at San Clemente, California.
~ I
Susan P. Rice
/: ~
DECLARATION OF SUSAN P. RICE
191 205
Hr. Dick Ahlaan, Planning Director
C(ty of Sen Cl ente
City Ha.U
100 Auen!da Presidio
SCln Clemente, CA 92672
20) Calle FeUcidad
Sen Clononte, CA 92672
NoueJ!.hQr 1;J 1974
Re: Tract Ho. 8597 Broadlloor ROCKls
e, the underJtigruzd, an requesting that an on- {tc, phy:1ical inpcct ion bo aad" of the in the abouo tract to aa1'e sure that hey are, in fact, confo illg to th 17 foot hei_ht Zill{tatfon placed o.n all as ln the tract en H m:ur granted final ap ,roual blJ thQ c(ty c:ouncit. (See Sectfon 22, ~gC! 15 of tho recordeii CC&R1a /o~ thi tract.)
e J e L jwi ti/f.ed f.n «alting this Nq st since a prirl UAinor easure- (Utf by a :staff eotber Ln the plaMtng deP!Jrtl::ent indicatcrd that at least one oft actual buildin ~Lans bJI 1.iLc, y exceed t~..q 17 foot Loht Lf it.
fact that ing this nquest has alr'10dy b~
to Lcr Pnsident of Broa es. He assured
• to ClX'Ce
rt on your findings
th11 uarious utuior
, ich o hlghar rL hen othara)
in San Cl he cuiU, itt
..___.- ~ ~ =a.=...=;.;=-:::......::.=:c..._::e..:,,_=.::=...::c.;-=...:........::c:co-'a= &=--=---=o/ Che part (es. cc: Larry Lt2ott•
Tony Di G!ouann(
Pat Lane
Ctarl•s Fo.,c
{ll be uel'JI rtUCh appra<:iatad aG this
r.:!. to lr:Jua includ d1 and im1 r.ao llli"h
~-~! itatior. is actually being obs rued.
192 206
November 13, 1974 Dick Ahlman -2-
Re: Tract No, 8597 Braadnwor Homes - Additional Signatures 193 207
.... --
(
Dec r 6, 1974
l
R : Tr ct No. 8597
Bro r ff
r lettff of No
requested an on-site 1 inspectf e
Broa r Tract to e confanance with ta- ed on alt thts ts pl t n n w d oeca!ller 5. 1974. of thos the
height 1n evatf pect1o 1 2c.
located at 101 Aven1da Prestd1o. 623 C.lle
d eir heights re. res t1 ely. 16r t•., 17 10" and 16111•.

Enclosed are copies of a plot plan and construction sequence schedule, further tdent1fy1ng thes propert1 •
ta ting with the aY"Chitect. advised that the
elevattons on our approved plans are not to
If you hav any further question on hi tter. please advise me.

RTA:pt
cc: ti ty agetLarry Lizotte
Counctl D1 G10VIM1 r.oun,11 n Lan
C.Ouncn n Fox
V ry truly you ,
Richard T. Ahl n, Director
Dept. of Bufldtng & P1ann1 g
194 208
Hr. Richard T. Ahlllan, DirQCtor
Dept. of Building & PLaMing
City of San Cl '21lte
200 Aumida PNs(dio
SCI\ Cle ente, CA ')2o'J2
San Ct entv, CA 92672
Febr1Jt1ry Zl, 1975
Re: Housa Beighta in Tract 8597
Broa oor Hoz:tea
Dear Hr. .Ah llr.aru
Thank you for your L11tter of 22-6-74 in hich you advised th11 h CO(Qt rs on Catle Fel{eidad r gardi.ng the hatghts of the uar!o~ ~odels (r. Br04dl:ll:,or Tract #8597, specifically deto 2C, JB and~, and the fact tha.t nea ure cnts indicat~ that thy are in con/of"/!lllrl.C ith the l? Jt. height lt•it placed on the tract.

Ve Nally apprec(atq the /i.ne cooperation IOCl Jvwe recoived jT'OIA your depart11ent and noco uiould Hite to request that one addition.al plany od 1 1A be mQClsured to in.sure tlult it, too, does not excoQd the 12 ft. li1J1itaCion. It is tht1 genercl feeling of the ho r ~ CaLte Pelicidad that the ridgetine on del lA appears to be high•~ mn on any other odel.

Ye are, therefore, a3hing for a physicat on-aite
particular i::od11t in at l,10st two locationa as me
by those in coratruction thct actual indiuid~ t
f._rom a standard plan.
w~ ar11 also as~in9 that you noti/u Hrs. Karoline Ko sterp phon - lllhen th& surci ent ia planned as uld l Uul to mua
rlilprlil Gntatiue oj our group in attendallctt.

Again, we {tlQUld 1. Ute to exprHa our tht:Jnks for titer coopcrrat lon me /VJ119 al1DOys reccriucrd !roat th11 p1.ann(ng departunt. 195 209

11.rs. s~ l ly Sargent • et al
San Clemente, Ca.

Dear I lrs. Sargent:

FebruarJ 13., 197!J
R~: ~ouse Heights in Tract 65~7
Broadmoor tioltJ?s
As a result of your letter of February 11, this depilrt:nent il1d, on februat"'J 12. phJsic.illy m.!asure till:! he1snt of those Groadiour 1cl'ies ueslgnate<l iil your request. Th\s was dune in th~ pres~net: of Sally Sargent and t110 otili:!r lad1c!; from the netgnboring area.

Th~se homes riere found to measure, resptctiv~ly, 11•11~•. 16 • 10", and 17 • l ". iThis ICC!asurc "rtt uils fr the top of th!! roof to the estiliJated finish grade.
___ It is our opinion that t!le dev~lo;,~r is fo bes~c cot\J)lhnte ith t>1e cor.-mf tmcnt he r:ia.le to th~ n~1ghbo.,.tng residents ~en the tract was processing tl\roug, the city.

RTA:pc
cc: Councilman Pijt Lane
Very truly yours,
Richard T. Aillraan, Di roctor
Dept. of Building r. Planning
Councilman Charles Fox
Councilman .Antnony Di Giovanni
Larry Lizotte
l
196 210
Subject
From
To:

Cc:

Fw: Broadmoor Association Tree Heights
reva.wright
Adam Atamian <[email protected]>
ryan compassprope ymanagemen .com
<[email protected]>,
[email protected]
<[email protected]>,
Reva Wright >, Josh
Smisko <jsm y es.net>
Date Dec 20, 2024 at 3:14 PM
HI Adam,
Just to keep you in the loop, Felicidad Homeowners have still not heard from Broadmoor representatives.

On December 2, the Broadmoor representatives (copied) were provided with 3 dates that Felicidad Homeowners could be available to meet (Dec 5, Dec 20 and Jan 2. However, 2 of those dates have now passed. Consequently, we are assuming that this matter will be addressed and resolved at the January 14 Council meeting.

Take care and best wishes!
Reva Wright Buck
orwarded Message
From: Josh Smisko <[email protected]>
To: reva.wright < t>; Atamian, Adam
<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2024 at 02:11:56 PM PST
Subject: RE: Broadmoor Association Tree Heights
Hi Adam,
The Board should have a response out shortly.

Regards,
Joshua Smisko
Senior Counsel
HICKEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
27261 Las Ramblas, Suite 120
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Tel: (949) 614-1550
Fax: (949) 748-3990
[email protected]
WARNING: This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. It contains information from the law firm of Hickey & Associates, P.C. which may be privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Dissemination or copying of this e-mail and/or any attachments by anyone other than the addressee or the addressee's agent is strictly prohibited. If this electronic transmission is received in error, please notify Hickey & Associates, P.C. immediately at (949) 614-1550. Thank you.

From: reva.wright
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2024 12:48 PM
To: Atamian, Adam <[email protected]>
Cc:
197 211
---- ----------
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is
important
j g ;j g ;
[email protected];
[email protected]; Josh Smisko
<[email protected]>; Reva Wright
Subject: Re: Broadmoor Association Tree Heights
Hi Adam,
FYI, the Felicidad Homeowners have not heard from any Broadmoor representatives.

Take care,
Reva Wright Buck
On Monday, December 2, 2024 at 04:54:37 PM PST, Atamian, Adam <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mr. Smisko and Mr. Phillips,
198 212
Cc’d on this email are the Felicidad homeowners who have currently expressed interest in meeting with the Broadmoor Community Association to discuss the tree height issues present on properties within the Broadmoor Community. As discussed by the City Council at their last meeting, this is an opportunity to resolve these issues between the parties. We encourage both parties to participate in this effort, and hope for a timely resolution. While the meeting attendance, location, date and time, will be up to the two parties, I am aware that the Felicidad homeowners have indicated the following times as available:
• Thursday, December 5 after 5 pm
• Friday, December 20 after 5 pm
• Thursday, Jan 2 after 5 pm
I will leave the final coordination of this up to the Broadmoor Community Association and interested Felicidad homeowners.

Please note, I do not need to be Cc’d on all future emails on this, but I would like to kept apprised on the progress of these discussions especially as they relate to a final resolution of the issue. Thank you all for your participation in this matter, and I wish you the best in your discussions!
Sincerely,
Adam Atamian, MPA, AICP
Community Development Director
Community Development Department
910 Calle Negocio
San Clemente, CA 92673
p: (949) 361-6196
[email protected]
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail 199 213
Hide trimmed content
200 214
201 215
202 216
203 217
204 218
205 219
III.Otllll08IIMl'Qi:1Nlli&~YA■~
Mtifllllr:1t11.
---~t:ttf 1111.Jats1 ■-.·"'• ..,,. ......... Ile ...... a.a.1111 111 ... 11■ A ...... , a I I IJIPII 1.-. • Calk 1'1111111 n. I••--•. Call Nlddaf 11awlz a J, .... --•--CIIJ'tlfS-Qi1,_..aa, • •• • • • • IIID· JI Hldl .. 11J'.1'1IHll} 11 111-1" Q ..... I IJ&,l:11111 lll'W,JF ll[lltidit.11 ·•-•.1•<- ccaa•t. A,_.. ·11·1.■~ 1 • 111111 • •••* It, 2114 •••mt• 11111 M• llil AIINilllon i:c i!llllalBNY ••n••· at..,. ut• aw en.-, .611 ...... .. •• u1 Ir ........ •••••--• Iii • ._ Jl111mlall111 ••• • l:1:uat·11 . ,1,:1,11• • iiw ._ ;• •flllhDII h .-...... c:c:.a.._ia.-, . ._. ............. ...., ..................... 11,•1 Mlf111d1II+ ..... v, * .._ .• llll:@_., 'Tita1·1•i• • ...... :-1sa1 w O••-•· 1" HIM, - • 111 IIIIU 111' .. Mil( ll .. 1(!1118 1lll fl ..., --• bf ..... lllfllt I I (Jtle.l.!Jf~ .. I: I ....... Wz)IIII llalnb;: ) 111 plN ·••·•. .. . . ""'"' CIJ••· t ..... ..,,ulllll 1·t .. ••·••.• .............. ., .. C..,Nldlf ............... ,.,,, ... .,.Aa,o,Jdro) ............... Y,.,NI

11..,• ur, A.•111.._:.._ u-..JJ>puw, ,.,.. ~••t.11• 1nllHU 111 Jtpll • ... hi--•• ._.,_,{I&.. •aa. . II•••••--,. n.a..,. 11111 •111111. 81 .. Ci1 11l··•1111Dg - W ... • ... -,•e·al11llt al - ··--d:il&dPiPP f 11,.,e J Ill •• '¥8a_.1111hl11 ----Nli!i! UJllll•• ....... .,.aa.D•na-,al I HIii ., ........ ,,.. ................................... , -- ....... 1,1, ............ • _...a., ... :Calla,.1""111•· ........ 11111)hin ••u ·« .... cc.,. M ..... ....... ~ ... .,..,ar+ Pill --... ,.,,. ...... ,. 4illL••llr ,-,,ri11 a... 11, 'llllda ._,., iw•• ,.... .. • Ollo· Dtlc,..................... ltliT1ll1anlrt1•,_ ... ......... lnti•••• u11s· •. ~--•f PIIIJllllf r tr r • Ill Jilt 111 Jt... I .... (Mt).-.m, • .. -• •• • • ,.. _ ltl f;,J I IJV@:U : pa;cs,. _ 206 220
Subject RE: Inspection Re-Schedule
From Josh Smisko <[email protected]>
To:

Cc:
yan
<ryan compasspropertymanagement.com>,
Krystal Cervantes
<[email protected]>,
tamIan <[email protected]>, Andy
Hall <[email protected]>
Date Today at 12:24 PM
If you have a tree impacting your view. I suggest you agree to an inspection. If you want to continue to create obstacles to improving your view. then do not comply.

Regards,
Joshua Smisko
Senior Counsel
HICKEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
27261 Las Ramblas, Suite 120
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Tel: (949) 614-1550
Fax: (949) 748-3990
[email protected]
WARNING: This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. It contains information from the law firm of Hickey & Associates, P.C. which may be privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Dissemination or copying of this e-mail and/or any attachments by anyone other than the addressee or the addressee's agent is strictly prohibited. If this electronic transmission is received in error, please notify Hickey & Associates, P.C. immediately at (949) 614-1550. Thank you.

From:

Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 12:20 PM
To: Josh Smisko <[email protected]>
Cc: reva.wright John Milroy
; Ryan Phillips
<[email protected]>; Krystal
Cervantes <[email protected]>;
Adam
Atamian <[email protected]>; Andy Hall
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Inspection Re-Schedule
Mr Smisko , are you saying the Broadmoor HOA
regulations / bylaws state that the 17 ft height restriction is only applicable if views are impaired / impacted ?
That is a subjective criteria vs 17 ft which is not
subjective . Would Broadmoor allow a second story on
any home if it does not impair or block anyone’s views? Regards
Bill Garcia
Sent from my iPhone 207 221
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 11, 2025, at 11:32AM, Josh Smisko
<[email protected]> wrote:

Regards,
Joshua Smisko
Senior Counsel
HICKEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
27261 Las Ramblas, Suite 120
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Tel: (949) 614-1550
Fax: (949) 748-3990
[email protected]
WARNING: This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. It contains information from the law firm of Hickey & Associates, P.C. which may be privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Dissemination or copying of this e-mail and/or any attachments by anyone other than the addressee or the addressee's agent is strictly prohibited. If this electronic transmission is received in error, please notify Hickey & Associates, P.C. immediately at (949) 614-1550. Thank you.

From: reva.wright
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 11:27 AM
To: John Milroy >; 'Ryan Phillips'
<[email protected]>; 'Krystal
Cervantes' <[email protected]>;
Josh Smisko <[email protected]>
Cc:
208 222
- -_---___ _
Cc:
; 'Adam Atamian' <atamiana@sanclemente.org>; 'Andy Hall' <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Inspection Re-Schedule
Hi Josh,
We still don't have answers to our 5 questions below. Simply telling us that this is how it's done for Broadmoor members is not adequate.

Just simply drive down Delicada. It's blatantly clear which properties have trees and foliage over the rooftop. There is not even a need for a measuring tape.

Felicidad Homeowners feel the HOA continues their game of deny, delay and avoid.

Regards
Reva Wright Buck
On Tuesday, March 11, 2025 at 10:13:43 AM PDT, Josh Smisko 209 223
<[email protected]> wrote:

Felicidad Owners,
As I understand it, Compass doesn’t always know which
Board or Committee member is available and when to
attend. This is no different than a request that any
Broadmoor member would receive for a similar issue.

Regards,
Joshua Smisko
Senior Counsel
HICKEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
27261 Las Ramblas, Suite 120
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Tel: (949) 614-1550
Fax: (949) 748-3990
[email protected]
WARNING: This e-mail is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. It contains information from the law firm of Hickey & Associates, P.C. which may be privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Dissemination or copying of this e-mail and/or any attachments by anyone other than the addressee or the
addressee's agent is strictly prohibited. If this electronic transmission is received in error, please notify Hickey & Associates, P.C. immediately at (949) 614-1550. Thank you.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE. Pursuant to requirements related to practice before the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of (i) avoiding penalties imposed under the United States Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any tax-related matter.
210 224
From: John Milroy
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 8:35 AM
To: 'reva.wright' >; 'Ryan Phillips'
<[email protected]>; Josh Smisko
<[email protected]>; 'Krystal Cervantes'
<[email protected]>
Cc:
; 'Adam Atamian' <atamiana@sanclemente.org>; 'Andy Hall' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Inspection Re-Schedule
Krystal,
We agree with Reva Wright. Since your response does not address Felicidad questions, will not be available on Thursday.

Regards,
John Milroy
From: reva.wright >
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 12:19 PM
To: Ryan Phillips
<[email protected]>; Josh Smisko
<[email protected]>; Krystal Cervantes
<[email protected]>
Cc:
211 225
-----------------
-
-----------------
--------------- ----
; Adam
Atamian <[email protected]>; Andy Hall
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Inspection Re-Schedule
Krystal
your response does not address our questions.

As a result, will not be available on Thursday.

Frankly, the homes in violation of the height restriction you should be "inspecting" are on Delicada.
take care,
Reva Wright Buck
On Monday, March 10, 2025 at 11:45:35 AM PDT, Krystal
Cervantes <[email protected]> wrote:

Good morning,
We answered the questions on 2/25 (attached). It is your 212 226
-
-----
q ( ) y
prerogative not to participate so please let me know by 4:00pm on Wednesday, 3/12 if your home should remain on the list for inspection.

Thank You,
Krystal Cervantes
Operations and Accounting Manager
Compass Property Management
302 N. El Camino Real, Suite #100
San Clemente, CA 92672
Office (949) 429-7717, ext. 234
Fax (949) 429-7718
www.compasspropertymanagement.com
We’re Hiring!
Join our team and be part of something great! We’re looking for a talented Association Manager to grow with us. To apply, please email me your resume or you can apply here
https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/4108482432
From: reva.wright <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 10:22 AM
To: Krystal Cervantes
<[email protected]>; Ryan Phillips
<[email protected]>; Josh Smisko
<[email protected]>
Cc:
213 227
-------------- ----
--------------- ----
-----------------
; Adam Atamian <atamiana@sanclemente.org>; Andy Hall <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: Fwd: Inspection Re-Schedule
Hi Krystal
Per our previous 3 unanswered information requests to Compass, (email strings attached), I have provided a little more clarity surrounding our questions:

1. Who exactly is to arrive at our homes?

1. Full name, affiliation and position
I am not comfortable allowing strangers into my home to conduct an unknown type of “inspection”.

2. Exactly what is the purpose and what do they intend to do at our homes?

3. Why are the pictures which you previously requested, not adequate for your purposes?

1. Any pictures taken during “inspection”, should be approved by and provided to, the Homeowner

4. Why can you not simply drive down Delicada and easily see which trees are over the rooftop, which is the 17’ height limit?

1. The 17’ height limit (which is the roof height) is not subjective to anyone's assessment. It is a specific condition of approval surrounding roof, tree and foliage height.
* For your convenience and in the event that anyone challenges th f h i ht I h tt h d 2 l tt f th Cit Pl i
214 228
the roof height, I have attached 2 letters from the City Planning Commission confirming to Felicidad Homeowners that all models were measured and rooftops measure within 16'10" and 17'1", which makes it quite obvious in identifying trees and foliage over the 17’ limit

1. Please see Exhibit 4

5. Why are you not addressing all the neighbors on Calle Felicidad?

1. Every Felicidad property was assured that the height limit would be observed by Broadmoor as well as the City
Planning Director, and are entitled to enforcement without being subjected to invasive and unnecessary harassment
If a representative is unable to provide this information by end-ofday on Wednesday, please be advised that 203 Felicidad will not be available on Thursday.

Take care,
Reva Wright Buck
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Wednesday, March 5, 2025, 1:34 AM, reva.wright
i h@ 215 229
<r wrote:
thanks Krystal
Per my 2 prior requests, please kindly respond to the
questions below:

1. Who exactly is to arrive at our homes?

2. Exactly what is the purpose and what do they intend to do at our homes?

3. Why are the pictures which you previously requested not adequate for your purposes?

4. Why can you not simply drive down Delicada and easily see which trees are over the rooftop, which is the 17 ft height limit.

5. Why are you not addressing all the neighbors on Calle Felicidad?
Regards
Paul Buck
Sent from my iPhone Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Wednesday, March 5, 2025, 7:12 AM, Paul Buck
<p > wrote:

Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Krystal Cervantes
<[email protected]>
Date: March 3, 2025 at 6:36:15PM GMT+1
To:

Subject: Inspection Re-Schedule
Good morning,
216 230
-----------------
We have re-scheduled the inspection for those that weren’t available on 2/27.

We will be at your properties to perform the requested
inspections on 3/13 starting at 9:00am.

This is the scheduled order:

Thank You,
Krystal Cervantes
Operations and Accounting Manager
Compass Property Management
302 N. El Camino Real, Suite #100
San Clemente, CA 92672
Office (949) 429-7717, ext. 234
Fax (949) 429-7718
www.compasspropertymanagement.com
We’re Hiring!
217 231
-------------- ----
Join our team and be part of something great! We’re looking for a talented Association Manager to grow with us. To apply, please email me your resume or you can apply here
https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/4108482432
Dear Homeowners,
Compass has been tasked to investigate reported tree violations as they have been conducted over the years with the homeowners of Broadmoor. When a complaint is filed, we, along with a Board member visit the site and verify the complaint. This is the first step in the violation process. Once confirmed the next step in the process is implemented per the Broadmoor governing docs. This is and has been the process for those in the Broadmoor community.

If you are not available at this time for the 2/27 date, we will have to get back to you on our next available date.

Thank You,
Krystal Cervantes
Operations and Accounting Manager
Compass Property Management
302 N. El Camino Real, Suite #100
San Clemente, CA 92672
Office (949) 429-7717, ext. 234
Fax (949) 429-7718
www.compasspropertymanagement.com
We’re Hiring!
218 232
-------------- ----
Join our team and be part of something great! We’re looking for a talented Association Manager to grow with us. To apply, please email me your resume or you can apply here
https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/4108482432
From: Paul Buck >
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 1:29 PM
To: Krystal Cervantes
<[email protected]>
Cc: Reva Wright Buck < >;
Paul Buck >; Ross
Peterson >; John Milroy
; Antonia Sipes >
Subject: Re: Inspection Scheduled
Thank you Krystal:
is not available on February 27th.

We have a few questions:

1. Who exactly is to arrive at our homes?

2. Exactly what is the purpose and what do they intend to do at our homes?

3. Why are the pictures which you previously requested not adequate for your purposes?

4. Why can you not simply drive down Delicada and easily see which trees are over the rooftop, which is the 17 ft height limit.

5. Why are you not addressing all the neighbors on Calle Felicidad? 219 233
-----------------
Thank you in advance for your responses. Please confirm receipt of this message.

Regards
Paul Buck
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 25, 2025, at 9:22PM, Paul Buck
wrote:

Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Krystal Cervantes
<[email protected]>
Date: February 25, 2025 at 9:05:25PM GMT+1
To: , Paul Buck < >,
Ross Peterson , John Milroy
< Antonia Sipes
Subject: Inspection Scheduled
Dear Homeowners:

We will be at your properties to perform the requested
inspections on 2/27 starting at 9:00am.

This is the scheduled order:
220 234
- ----
Thank you for your cooperation.

Date Feb 4 at 4:11PM
Dear Reva,
Our firm represents the Broadmoor San Clemente Community Association (“Association”), and we are reaching out on behalf of the Association’s Board of Directors regarding your recent interactions with the Association, as well as the San Clemente City Council and staff, concerning potential tree height issues on Calle Delicada that may be affecting your view.

If a tree or other structure on a neighboring property along Calle Delicada exceeds 17 feet in height and is directly impacting your view in a significant way, please submit your concerns to the Association’s Community Manager, Ryan Phillips/Krystal Cervantes at Compass Property Management, via email at
[email protected]. Be sure to include the address of the property in question along with photographs taken from your lot that clearly illustrate the issue.

Please direct any and all future correspondence on this matter to Compass Property Management. Thank you.

Regards,
Joshua Smisko
Senior Counsel
HICKEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
27261 Las Ramblas, Suite 120
i i Vi C 222362
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Tel: (949) 614-1550
Fax: (949) 748-3990
[email protected]
WARNING: This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. It contains information from the law firm of Hickey & Associates, P.C. which may be privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Dissemination or copying of this e-mail and/or any attachments by anyone other than the addressee or the addressee's agent is strictly prohibited. If this electronic transmission is received in error, please notify Hickey & Associates, P.C. immediately at (949) 614-1550. Thank you.

0. "'
'"CJ "'
"' ... "' u
u cu ·- moc > cu
0 N
E
0 ... ....
;:
cu ·-
>
cu -
u "'
M
0 N
~
N
0 N
co
....
~
cu
.a
E
~ 0
z
Attachment 3

APPENDIX C
239

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
Tuesday, March 18, 2025
City Council
Regular Meeting Minutes
4:30 p.m. - Closed Session
5:30 p.m. - Business Meeting
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org
Council Chambers
Mayor Knoblock
Mayor Pro Tern Enmeier
Councilmember Cabral
Councilmember Loeffler
Councilmember Wu
These minutes reflect the order in which items appeared on the meeting agenda and do not necessarily reflect the order in which items were actually considered.

A Regular Meeting of the San Clemente City Council was called to order by Mayor Knoblock on March 18, 2025 at 4:30 p.m. in the San Clemente City Council Chambers, located at 910 Calle Negocio, 2nd Floor, San Clemente.

PRESENT: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock STAFF PRESENT: Andy Hall, City Manager; Elizabeth Mitchell, City Attorney; Laura Campagnolo, City Clerk; Megan Jimenez, Deputy City Clerk

CLOSED SESSION
Amanda Quintanilla commented on Closed Session Item A - Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation as it relates to previous Closed Session discussions and previously agendized 2026 Mayoral Election for City Councilmembers.

Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Enmeier, second by Councilmember Cabral, CARRIED 5-0, to recess to Closed Session at 4:33 p.m. to discuss the following :

A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(a)(d)(2)
Number of Cases: 1
Facts and Circumstances per Government Code section 54956.9(e)(1 ):

Facts and circumstances that might result in litigation against the City that the City believes are not yet known to a potential plaintiff or plaintiffs.

Page 1 of 14 ends

240
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes

2. Pursuant to Government Code section 54957(b)(1 )&(4) Title: City Attorney
March 18, 2025

7. Staff Communications
None.

8. Public Hearings
BA. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE FAILURE OF

BROADMOOR SAN CLEMENTE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION TO ENFORCE

CERTAIN COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&RS)
Mayor Knoblock opened the Public Hearing.

Community Development Director Atamian reviewed the contents of the Administrative Report and responded to City Council inquiries.

David Hickey, legal counsel for Broadmoor Homeowners Association , spoke on the ongoing efforts by the Broadmoor Community to address the trees that exceed the 17ft height restriction within the Broadmoor Homeowners Association; urged the City to provide additional time for the Broadmoor Homeowners Association to work through their noticing and enforcement procedures.

Linda Williams, Broadmoor Homeowners Association, commented on enforcement action taken by the Broadmoor Homeowners Association ; spoke in opposition to abating violations prima facie and the process for evaluating properties to determine impacts to homeowners on Calle Felicidad .

Reva Buck commented on enforcement action by the Broadmoor Homeowners Association; urged the city to enforce the 17 foot height restriction within the Broad moor Homeowners Association .

Paul Lefcourt, San Clemente, spoke on the Broadmoor Homeowners Association's action since the Novemebr 19, 2024 Public Hearing; urged the City Council to take enforcement action against the Broadmoor Homeowners Association.

Antonia Sipes, San Clemente, commented on action taken by the City concerning the development of the Broadmoor Homeowners Association.

John Milroy. San Clemente, spoke on the Broadmoor Homeowners Association's action since the Novemebr 19, 2024 Public Hearing.

William Garcia, San Clemente, commented on the non-compliance of the Broad moor Homeowners Association.

Paul Buck, San Clemente, spoke on the 17 foot height restriction within the

Page 5 of 14 ends

241
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes March 18, 2025
Broadmoor Homeowners Association; urged the City to take enforcement action against the Broad moor Homeowners Association.

Marianne McAuley, San Clemente, expressed concerns regarding the City Council involving itself with Broadmoor Homeowners Association issues .

Angelo Garruba , San Clemente, commented on Buck v. Garruba as it relates to tree height within the Broad moor Homeowners Association.

M'Liz Kelly, San Clemente, narrated a PowerPoint presentation concerning current conditions on the slopes of Calle Felicidad. A hard copy of the presentation is on file with the City Clerk.

John McAuley spoke on City enforcement of the Broadmoor Homeowners Association Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions .

Lisa Garruba, San Clemente, spoke in opposition to any City enforcement of Broadmoor Homeowners Association Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions .

Eric Fermin spoke on the original agreement between the homeowners on Calle Felicidad and the Broadmoor developers.

Broadmoor Representatives David Hickey and Linda Williams responded to comments made by residents ; clarified that enforcement action is being taken by the Broadmoor Homeowners Association but additional time is needed ; responded to City Council inquiries.

Matthew Si lver, Civica Law Group, City Prosecutor, responded to City Council inquiries.

There being no others desiring to speak, Mayor Knoblock closed the Public Hearing.

Motion by Councilmember Cabral, second by Councilmember Loeffler, CARRIED 5-0, to determine that the Broadmoor Association has initiated enforcement of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and continue the public hearing to September 16, 2025, to allow the Broadmoor Association 's process to continue according to their specified timelines, and direct the Broadmoor Association to abate violations prima facie, not subject to a determination that a Felicidad homeowner's view is obstructed .

AYE: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: None

Page 6 of 14 ends

From: reva.wright
Sent: Sunday, September 7, 2025 9:43 PM
To: CityClerk Mail <[email protected]>; Campagnolo, Laura <CampagnoloL@sanclemente.org> Cc: Barbara Lefcourt >; Bill and Megan Garcia ;
Charisma Fermin < ; Dan Nguyen ; Dave and Penny
Stowe ; Elise Kouatli ; Eric Fermin
>; Gordon Sipes >; Jay and Carol Rice
>; John Carretti ; John & Karen Milroy
>; Kal Kouatli < >; Kim Shanklin
>; Kitty Carretti < >; Moison 1
; Moison 2 >; Moison 3 < >;
Paul Buck ; Paul Lefcourt ; Reva Wright
>; Rhonda Sultan-Ramos ; Rick & Nancy
Hagemeyer >; Ross & Tamara Peterson ;
Toni Sipes >; Jeff Chambers
Subject: Documents for September 16 Council meeting regarding Broadmoor Hi Laura
Attached are 21 documents which should be uploaded to the September 16, 2025 City Council Packet UHODWHGWRWKH%URDGPRRU6SHFLDOPHHWLQJRQ6HSWHPEHU 8QIRUWXQDWHO\,ZDVQ
WDEOHWRDGGDIROGHUZLWKDOOGRFXPHQWVLQFOXGHGVR,KDGWRDWWDFKWKHP LQGLYLGXDOO\
3OHDVHFRQILUPWKDW\RXDUHDEOHWRRSHQDOOWKHGRFXPHQWV 7KHUHZLOOOLNHO\EHDGGLWLRQDOGRFXPHQWVSURYLGHGWR\RXGLUHFWO\E\)HOLFLGDG /HWPHNQRZLI\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQVRUGLIILFXOW\ZLWKDQ\RIWKHILOHV 7KDQN\RX
5HYD:ULJKW%XFN
$WWDFKPHQW
242

APPENDIX D

Page 1 ends

Broadmoor Development Timeline (summary comments)
City Council Timeline (1) summary comments.docx
1966 – The Rancho Margarita homes were built (Felicidad and Presidio).

The land directly in front of Felicidad was completely undeveloped until Broadmoor was approved for development in 1976
January 10, 1973
x San Clemente Planning Commission Meeting
o Landmark announced plans to develop what is now Broadmoor, and requested deviation on street widths which had already been denied at the prior meeting o 65 residents of Rancho Margarita voiced their concerns regarding view protection and protested any relinquishment of code requirements or deviations of code o Landmark Financial announced plans to develop Tract 8162 (future Broadmoor Development) o 65 Residents of Rancho Margarita (includes Felicidad) voiced concerns regarding view protection and compatibility with surrounding area, as well as protesting any relinquishment of present code requirements or deviations
o Landmark committed that elevation change between terraces would be 16 – 20 feet so that each terrace would have a view
o Landmark requested deviation on street widths
o Planning Commission noted that this deviation was denied at the last meeting January 23, 1973
x San Clemente City Council Meeting
o Homeowners requested that the City Council only allow one-story homes as a Condition of Approval o Landmark again challenged the requirement of the width of the street indicating that it would be a hardship and would reduce building pad areas
o Fred Keeler, Felicidad homeowner, asked that the City Council make one-story homes only as a condition of approval
February 14, 1973
x San Clemente Planning Commission Meeting
o The City Engineer commented that the proposed street widths for Broadmoor were not adequate o The City Engineer commented that the EIS study revealed that proposed street widths were not adequate
February 21, 1973
x San Clemente City Council Meeting
o Landmark again requested deviation on the street width and a compromise on the required 8 foot sidewalks. The Felicidad Homeowners continued to state verbally and submitted letters, that they are unalterably NOT in favor of allowing deviation from code and again, stated their concerns about view preservation
o As a result, Landmark agreed to one-story houses to maintain views, speciƱcally those living on Felicidad
o City Council denied the Developers request for deviation from code o Landmark asked for deviation on the street width and compromise on the required 8 foot sidewalks 243

Page 2 ends

o Felicidad homeowners commented that adjacent property owners are unalterably in favor of NOT allowing deviation from code
o Letters were presented from Felicidad homeowners (including Jay and Susan Rice) expressing concerns and objections to Tract 8162 which included size and height of homes and preservation of views
Developer agreed to one-story houses to maintain views speciƱcally those living on Felicidad o City Council moved to require a new tract map incorporating these new restrictions o Council denied deviations from code
March 1, 1973
Event
x San Clemente City Council sent communication to Landmark containing sections of the meeting minutes from the February 21, 1973 meeting acknowledging that Landmark agreed to a restriction of one-story houses on the north and east side of the perimeter lots (Calle Felicidad and Presidio are the perimeter lots) March 14, 1973
x San Clemente Planning Commission Meeting
o Landmark submitted a revised tract map restricting homes to one-story construction on perimeter lots facing Delicada and Avenida Presidio so that views will not be obstructed o The City attorney indicated that he would ensure this condition was included in the CC&Rs prior to the approval of the Ʊnal tract map
8 months later on November 14, 1973
x San Clemente Planning Commission Meeting
o Landmark opted out of the option to develop tract 8162 and Richard B. Smith Co (referred to as RBS) adopted the tentative tract for development
o RBS also requested realignment of the center line of the street, and requested a variance of 4 feet on the slope side and 12 feet on frontage side
o The City Engineer again, opposed any deviation from code, as did Felicidad homeowners. However, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the deviation o Landmark opted out of option to develop tract 8162 and Richard B. Smith Co (RBS) adopted the tentative tract for development
o RBS requested realignment of center line of street, requesting a variance of 4 feet on slope side and 12 feet on frontage side
City Engineer opposed any deviation from code, as did Felicidad residents, however, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the deviation November 21, 1973
x San Clemente City Council Meeting
o Larry Lizotte, RBS Developer, again requested the realignment of the street center line to increase the buildable area. The City engineer maintained his resistance to any deviations from the City’s standards o RBS (Lizotte) requested the realignment of the street center line to increase buildable area o Lizotte assured the City Council that they would submit CC&Rs, Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation o The City Engineer maintained his resistance to any deviations from the City’s standards and the City Council held over any decision
244

Page 3 ends

November 27, 1973
x Event – Broadmoor / Felicidad Homeowners meeting at Sally Sargent’s home o RBS is now Broadmoor. Larry Lizotte, met with Felicidad homeowners at Sally Sargents home to discuss compromises that would create adequate pad size for Broadmoor and satisfy Felicidad concerns.
o Larry Lizotte (RBS is now “Broadmoor”) met with Felicidad homeowners to discuss compromises that would create adequate pad size and satisfy Felicidad view concerns At that meeting, Felicidad Homeowners agreed to:
x Allow Broadmoor to regrade Felicidad slopes creating a 30 foot sharper angle and more abbreviated top of Felicidad slopes
x Support the elimination of a sidewalk on the east side of Delicada (bottom of Felicidad slopes) Broadmoor agreed to:
x Never allow two-story houses in the Broadmoor community that would interfere with the Felicidad homeowners
x Never allow any tree, bush or structure that would inhibit the existing views of Felicidad homeowners
These statements are found in the sworn Declarations for Jay Rice, Susan Rice, Larry Lizotte, Sally Sargent and noted in item #4 of the sworn Declaration for Cecilia Gallardo-Daly *Note – Broadmoor had many meetings with Felicidad homeowners in late 1973 to early 1974 The next day on November 28, 1973
x San Clemente Planning Commission Meeting
o Larry Lizotte and other Broadmoor associates reviewed agenda items that he had discussed with the Rancho Margarita homeowners the previous day, which included their agreement to limit roof height to 17 feet and one-story construction within Broadmoor
o Homeowners requested that a 17 foot maximum roof height be imposed as a Condition of Approval on houses directly below Felicidad, which is Delicada. Homeowners also requested the City Council impose the height restrictions as an additional Condition of Approval, even though they received a verbal agreement from Broadmoor the previous day during the meeting in Sally’s home o City Council required the following conditions be incorporated into the CC&Rs before they would provide approval:
Building pads for homes facing Delicada be a minimum of 20 feet below the building pads of the Felicidad homes
All homes be single story and no higher than 17 feet and that at no time can a second story or other structure be added which would exceed the 17 feet height limit o Broadmoor also requested a 6’ to 20’ front-yard set-back which the Felicidad Homeowners opposed o Broadmoor requested a 6’ to 20’ front-yard set-back from the city code of 20’ Homeowners from Rancho Margarita Associates (Felicidad) opposed the variance Lizotte and other Broadmoor associates reviewed agenda items that he had discussed with the Rancho Margarita homeowners on Tuesday, November 27, 1973 which included agreement to limit roof height to 17 feet and one-story construction within Broadmoor o Fred Keeler, requested that a 17 foot maximum roof height be imposed as a condition of approval on houses directly below Felicidad. (These houses are on Delicada) o Sally Sargent requested the City Council impose the height restrictions as an additional condition of approval, even though they received a verbal agreement from Broadmoor during the November 27, 1973 meeting in her home
245

Page 4 ends

o City Council moved to approve the plan with the following conditions being incorporated into the CC&Rs:
Building pads for homes facing Delicada be a minimum of 20 feet below the building pads of the Felicidad homes
All homes be single story and no higher than 17 feet and that at no time can a second story or other structure be added which would exceed the 17 feet height limit December 12, 1973
x San Clemente Planning Commission Meeting
o Broadmoor presented a revised tract map containing 1 less street to negate the variance request to front yard set-backs
o The Planning Commission recommended approval by the City Council of the tentative Broadmoor tract map
December 19, 1973
x San Clemente City Council Meeting
o Broadmoor withdrew their request for front yard set-backs which continued to be opposed by the City Engineer. The Homeowners requested that Broadmoor include the following conditions before building:
20 ft. diƯerential in height between Delicada and Felicidad with Delicada roof height between 15 – 17 feet
That CC&Rs include a statement that Delicada cannot add to the height o The Felicidad homeowners then supported approval of the revised tract map based on these 2 conditions
o Broadmoor withdrew request for front yard set-backs which continued to be opposed by City Engineer
o Mr. Kearns, on behalf of Felicidad homeowners, requested that Broadmoor include the following conditions before building:
20 ft. diƯerential in height between Delicada and Felicidad with Delicada roof height between 15 – 17 feet
CC&Rs include a statement that Delicada cannot add to the height o Felicidad homeowners supported approval of the revised tract map based on these 2 conditions. Sally Sargent also spoke in favor of granting Broadmoor a variance on the street centerline o City Council approved the tentative Broadmoor Tract map subject to all conditions but held over the decision on the street centerline variance (pad size)
February 16, 1974
x Event - Agreement between Broadmoor and Felicidad Homeowners o As agreed by Felicidad Homeowners, Broadmoor submitted an agreement to Homeowners for “Easement and Authorization to Perform Grading” of Felicidad slopes. This document can be found in the Jay Rice Declaration package along with pics Felicidad slope being regraded o “Easement and Authorization to Perform Grading” of Felicidad slopes provided to Felicidad Homeowners
(Jay Rice Declaration package) – letter and Pics of regrading March 6, 1974
x San Clemente City Council Meeting
o Larry Lizotte noted that the original Broadmoor tract was for 225 homes and has been revised to 199 homes. Sally Sargent commented that this was in response to density issues and to the City Engineer’s continued refusal to vary from code.
o The Council denied Broadmoor’s request for front-yard set-back 246

Page 5 ends

o Also, on this date, Broadmoor sent a letter to Felicidad Homeowners thanking them for their cooperation to regrade their slopes. This document can be found in the Jay Rice Declaration package . o Lizotte noted that the original Broadmoor tract was for 225 homes and has been revised to 199 homes Sally Sargent noted this was in response to density issues and to the City Engineer’s refusal to vary from code
o City Council denied the request for a front yard set-back x Broadmoor letter to Felicidad Homeowners
o Thanking them for cooperation and indicating that the regrading schedule for the individual Felicidad slopes would be forthcoming (letter in Jay Rice Declaration package) March 20, 1974
x San Clemente City Council Meeting
o Broadmoor requested permission from the City to grade the tentative tract which was approved May 21, 1974
x San Clemente City Council Meeting
o Homeowners requested clariƱcation of approval condition #16 which states that homes adjacent to Presidio and Delicada be restricted to single-story homes. Larry Lizotte conƱrmed that Broadmoor would abide by the height conditions and he eliminated a condition whereby up to 10% of the houses could be two-story if they did not block uphill views. The City Attorney acknowledged that the CC&Rs were acceptable and contained the height restrictions. At this point, the City still required sidewalks on both sides of Broadmoor streets. The City Council also followed up with a communication to Broadmoor highlighting the height limitations
o Sally Sargent requested clariƱcation of approval condition #16, “The CC&R’s shall contain a provision that homes adjacent to Avenida Presidio and Calle Delicada shall be restricted to a single-story in height”
Lizotte conƱrmed that Broadmoor would abide by the height conditions o Lizotte eliminated a condition whereby up to 10% of the houses could be two-story if they did not block uphill views
o Sally Sargent inquired about the slope grading work schedule (7:00 am – 7:00 pm) o The City Attorney acknowledged that the CC&Rs were acceptable and contained the height restrictions o The City Council passed a resolution that sidewalks are required on both sides of Broadmoor streets o The City Council approved the CC&Rs as amended
o City Council sent communication to Broadmoor highlighting the height limitations August 7, 1974
x San Clemente City Council Meeting
o Broadmoor requested a variance to reduce the width of the sidewalks Request denied
September 25, 1974
x San Clemente Planning Commission Meeting
o Lizotte reiterates his statement made at previous hearings that Broadmoor had retained architectural control through the CC&Rs
247

Page 6 ends

During November and December 1974 and in February 1975, multiple communications and interactions occurred between the Homeowners and the San Clemente Director of Planning, to ensure that houses met height restrictions. Sally and 2 other Felicidad ladies physically attended two separate on-site measurements with the San Clemente Director of Building and Planning to conƱrm compliance. These letters can be found in the Sally Sargent declaration package.

November 13, 1974
x Letter from Felicidad Homeowners requested by Sally Sargent, to the San Clemente Director of Planning
o Requested a written report on the actual heights of each of the plans to ensure that the 17 feet height limitation is being enforced (letter in Sally Sargent declaration package) o Sally Sargent informed Lizotte of the Felicidad Homeowners request and he assured them that if any house was found to exceed the 17’ limit, it would be “No problem” to lower the roof to bring it into conformity (Sally Sargent declaration package – same letter as above) December 6, 1974
x Response from San Clemente Director of Planning to Felicidad Homeowners November 13, 1974 letter
o ConƱrming an inspection was made on December 5, 1974 and height restrictions were in compliance with the agreement (letter in Sally Sargent declaration package) February 11, 1975
x Follow-up letter from Felicidad Homeowners to San Clemente Director of Planning o Requesting a physical on-site measurement model 1A (along the ridgeline) as it appeared to be higher than any other model and requested that Felicidad homeowner be present (letter in Sally Sargent declaration package)
February 12, 1975
x Event – Sally Sargent and 2 other ladies along with the Dept of City Planning were present during the physical measuring of model 1A homes (Sally Sargent declaration) February 13, 1975
x San Clemente Planning Commission letter to Sally Sargent o Acknowledging that the Department of City Planning along with Sally Sargent and 2 other ladies participated in the February 12, 1975 on-site physical measurement of model 1A (along the ridgeline) which measured 17’1/4”; 16’10”; and 17’1” (letter in Sally Sargent declaration package) March 19, 1975
x San Clemente City Council Meeting
o as agreed by the Felicidad Homeowners 1 ½ years earlier, Homeowners requested that the City delete the sidewalk requirement on the east side of Delicada. As a result, the City Council approved the deletion of the sidewalk.
o As agreed in the November 27, 1973 meeting with Felicidad Homeowners and the Developer, Homeowners requested the City to delete sidewalk requirement on east side of Delicada o Felicidad Homeowners delivered a petition containing 25 signatures of Felicidad homeowners requesting that the City delete the required sidewalk on the east side of Delicada This would allow Broadmoor to gain footage to move the centerline of the street towards the hillside of Felicidad
o City Council approved the deletion of the sidewalk on the uphill side of Delicada, however, the centerline of the street was to remain
248

Page 7 ends

April 2, 1975
x San Clemente City Council Meeting
o The City Council clariƱed that deletion of ONLY the uphill sidewalk on Delicada was approved, not all Broadmoor hillside sidewalks. This was a direct result of Felicidad concessions to provide Broadmoor with adequate building pads
o Lizotte indicated that he understood that all hillside sidewalks were no longer required by the City o The City Council clariƱed that deletion of ONLY the uphill sidewalk on Delicada was approved, not all Broadmoor hillside sidewalks
January 7, 1976
x San Clemente City Council Meeting
o The Homeowners requested assurance that the height restrictions be recorded in the CC&Rs when recorded with the County. Broadmoor conƱrmed that all restrictions would be included o The restrictions were in fact, added as a “Supplementary Declaration of CC&Rs” and included single story, 17 foot roof height and 17 foot height restriction on Trees, Bushes and Shrubs which is SpeciƱc to Lots 1 – 19, tract 8963, which is Delicada
o The City Attorney indicated that he is setting up an operating procedure to review the CC&Rs to conƱrm that these items are included in the CC&Rs before recording o Based on this, the City Council approved the Ʊnal tract map for Delicada o Sally Sargent asked for assurances that the height restrictions be recorded in the CC&Rs when recorded with the County
o Lizotte, representing Broadmoor, stated that all restrictions would be included in the CC&Rs and recorded with the County
Added as Supplementary Declaration of CC&Rs and included single story, 17 foot roof height and 17 foot height restriction on Trees, Bushes and Shrubs
SpeciƱc to Lots 1 – 19, tract 8963 (Delicada)
o The City Attorney commented that he is setting up an operating procedure at staƯ level to review the CC&Rs to conƱrm the various items are included before recording o City Council approves Ʊnal tract map for Delicada
February 4, 1976
x San Clemente City Council Meeting
o City Engineer recommends the granting of an easement to Broadmoor for maintenance of Delicada Parkway
February 6, 1976
x Event - San Clemente City Council Easement Recording with Orange County o City of San Clemente grants easement along the easterly side of Delicada to Broadmoor for maintenance of parkway
February 11, 1976
x Event - Supplemental Declaration of CC&Rs was recorded with Orange County o SpeciƱcally noting lots 1 through 19, inclusive of Tract 8963…” (Delicada) o and Tree Height restrictions are noted in Section 3
o This document can be found in Section 2 of your documentation package Are there any questions on the timeline?
249
September 6, 2025
To: San Clemente City Council
Subject: Enforcement of Height Restrictions of Broadmoor CCRs x On November 27, 1973 Felicidad homeowners agreed to concessions (gave up land and regrade slope to 30 feet sharper angle and abbreviated top) to provide Broadmoor with adequate building pads. In exchange, Broadmoor agreed to never allow any tree, bush or structure that would inhibit the existing views of Felicidad homeowners. x On February 11, 1976 Broadmoor CCRs were recorded in Orange County noting tree height and structure restrictions to a maximum of 17 feet (Article VII, Section 22). x As of today, 9 of 19 Delicada homeowners refuse to comply with height requirements. All violations have been directly reported to the Broadmoor HOA. x Multiple requests to Broadmoor HOA and to the City Attorney have resulted in lack of enforcement of the height restrictions oƯicially incorporated into Broadmoor CCRs in 1976. x The outcome of civil litigation stated that only the Broadmoor HOA and the City can enforce CCR height restrictions on Delicada and only the City can enforce violations of Conditions of Approval.
x Article XII of CCRs grants the City of San Clemente the authority to enforce theses regulations if the HOA fails to do so.

In summary, I and other Felicidad homeowners request the City to enforce Broadmoor CCRs on height restrictions as the Broadmoor HOA continues to do NOT ENFORCE the restrictions and have trees and shrubs abated to the allowable 17-foot height. Felicidad homeowners have been working to resolve the height violations with Broadmoor HOA for many months without resolution.

Thank you,
Elise Kushino
Felicidad homeowner
250
September 5, 2025
Letter of Disclosure to San Clemente City Council
Re: Broadmoor HOA, Broadmoor Management Co., and Homeowner Violations of 17’ Height Restriction on Calle Delicada (Tract #8963)
Dear Council Members,
My name is Alan Jay Rice, age 84, and I have resided at 301 Calle Felicidad since September 1968. This home, along with 301 Calle Rica, was originally owned by my father-in-law, Ray Waser, from whom I purchased my property in 1972.

I first came to San Clemente in 1958 while serving in the 1st Marine Division Band at Camp Pendleton. I performed at the dedication of the U.S. 101 Freeway atop the Ave Presidio overcrossing in 1961. Prior to that time, the sole highway from San Diego to Los Angeles was El Camino Real, known as “Slaughter Alley” which went south to Oceanside where I was a policeman for 31 months of my 37-year law enforcement career.

My recollection of events in San Clemente during that time remains clear:
x Ken Carr was City Manager
x Phil Peters was City Engineer
x Cliff Murray was Chief of Police
(The police station was then located at the City Yard on Avenida Palizada) Now, to the point of my letter:
x The land where Calle Delicada homes now stand was, in the early 1970s, an undeveloped landslide complex with wildlife, brush, grass, a waterfall, and a frog pond downward beside La Cuesta
x Residents of Calle Felicidad enjoyed unobstructed views of Catalina Island, Dana Point, and the Pacific horizon
In the late 1960s, we on Calle Felicidad—organized as the Margarita Associates—had already fought off Landmark Financial Corporation’s attempt to build two-story homes without restrictions. Landmark preceded Broadmoor in a failed attempt to build on the fourth & final phase.

Later, when seeking to develop Tract 8963 (Calle Delicada), Broadmoor met with us repeatedly in 1973 – 1975 to negotiate terms. Their officials included:
x Richard B. Smith, founder of Broadmoor who recently sold Broadmoor to Genstar (1973) but continued to manage for Genstar
x Larry Lizotte, Senior Vice President of Broadmoor
x Dennis H. Bickler, Director of Property Acquisition & Assistant Division Manager x S. Reid Gustafson, Vice President & Division Manager
x R. F. Osgood, Senior Vice President & Secretary, and
x Mr. John P. Hazeltine of Broadmoor
251
From those negotiations, two binding concessions were guaranteed to Calle Felicidad homeowners and affirmed by the San Clemente City Council:

1. No two-story homes would ever be built in the Delicada tract, in order to preserve Felicidad views

2. No trees, landscaping, or other materials (including antennas, birdhouses, etc.) would exceed 17 feet in height on Calle Delicada. Any potential impediment would be limited to a maximum height of 17’ on Calle Delicada, with no exceptions x Elsewhere in Broadmoor, a 20’ limit was allowed—but Delicada was specifically restricted to 17’.

This restriction was written into:
x Broadmoor CC&Rs, Article VII, Section 22
enforcement provisions noted in Articles 8.4, 10.4, and 12 x Broadmoor Supplemental CC&Rs specific to Delicada, Section 3 These commitments were the quid pro quo for concessions given by Calle Felicidad homeowners, including:
x Relinquishing land - portions of our rear property slopes were cut back and steepened by Broadmoor to stabilize the area—reducing my own lot from ~10,900 sq. ft. to ~10,007 sq. ft.
x Signing City waivers to eliminate sidewalks along Delicada at the base of our slopes, benefitting Broadmoor’s project by satisfying City development requirements Broadmoor officials promised us directly: “You don’t have any worries—it will be in writing for your protection.”
This agreement was not incidental—it was foundational to the very approval of the Delicada tract. To ignore or “turn a blind eye” now would negate the commitments made in good faith between Broadmoor, the City, and the residents of Calle Felicidad.

Today, the Broadmoor HOA and Compass Property Management continue to ignore their duty to enforce these binding restrictions, even after the City granted 2 enforcement pauses. Despite Broadmoor’s own investigation of ten Felicidad properties, at least 36 trees remain in clear violation. Allowing violations to persist betrays the promises made, the concessions given, and the binding protections written into the public record more than 50 years ago.

The HOA’s selective enforcement on Delicada is discriminatory, and a blatant breach of contract. If the HOA refuses to enforce, then—the City of San Clemente has the legal authority to enforce their Conditions of Approval.

I respectfully urge the Council to exercise the City’s documented authority and enforce their own rules—uniformly and immediately. Civil court action against individual homeowners should not be necessary if the governing entities uphold their duty.

Respectfully submitted,
Alan Jay Rice
252
42 6
Delicada trees > roof
# Felicidad
complaints
Dates of
complaints
# view inspections
required by
Broadmoor for
same violation
# of tree
violations
# Trees
abated
Date
abated
201 yes 1203 egregious 2 2/10; 4/14 2 5207 yes 1 4/14/25 1 1 301 egregious 3 5/6, 5/12 3 3
303 egregious 3 5/6, 5/12 3 4305 egregious 4 2/4; 5/6, 5/12 4 4 4 5/21/25309 yes 2 2/11; 5/6 2 1 1 7/17/25311 egregious 4 2/7; 2/11; 2/15; 2/25 4 1 1 5/3/25 313 egregious 5 2/7; 2/11; 2/15; 3/28; 4/14 5 11319 egregious 2 5/6; 8/7 2 3 325 egregious 1 5/6/25 1 7327 egregious 1
253
254
I
I
San Clemente, California
!·larch 19, 1975
Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Sao Clemante, California, Council Chambers, Civic Center Building, 100 Aveaida Presidio, Wednesday, Narch 19, 1975, at 7 :30 P .N., Mayor Anthony Di Giovanni presiding.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of .America was led by the Mayor. Invocation was given by the Nayar.

ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen - FOX, 1101.NES, LANE, O'KEEFE, AND DI GIOVANNI ABSENT: Councilmen - NONE
Also Present: Kenneth E. Carr, City Manager; Max L. Berg, City Clerk; and F. llackenzie Brown, City Attorney.

SELECTION OF MAYOR
!he City Clerk took the Chair and advised that this was the time a~d place for the selection of a Mayor for the ensuing year. The Clerk then declared that nominations were open for Mayor and Councilman O'Keefe then placed in nomination the name of Councilman Di Giovanni. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCIUtAN LANE, SECONDED BY COUNClLMA.'l 0 1 KEEFE, AND lJNANil!OUSLY CARRIED that nominations be closed and the Clerk. be instructed to cast the unanimous ballot of the Council for Councilman Di Giovanni as Hayor of the City of San Clemente.

SELECTION OF MAYOR PRO TEHPORE
The selection of Mayor pro · tempore was the next order of business and Mayor Di Giovanni called for nociinations for Nayor pro terapore. Councilman Holmes placed in nomination the name of Councilman Lane. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN FOX, SECONDED BY COlJHCILMA.~ HOLMES, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED that nominations be closed and the Clerk be instructed to cast the unanimous ballot of the Council for Councilman Lane as Hayor pro tel!lpore of the Ci.ty of Sc1n Clement~.

Outgoing Mayor O'Keefe commented on the fruitful and productive past year and reviewed the achievements and hurdles the Council faced in their efforts to serve the needs of the people. He thanked his wife in particular for her tolerance and assistance during the past year. Councilman Lane complimented him on the imagination and vitality he brought to the office and on what he considered was an outstanding job.

Mayor Di Giovanni expressed sincere appreciation to the Council at the confidence in electing him as Mayor and promised to continue the momentum of the past year; and in conclusion thanked his wife and daughters for their support. ' \

SPECIAL BUSINESS
Mayor Di Giovanni called Hrs. Venona M. Straeter to the lee.tern and expressed, on behalf of the Council and her fellow-townspeople, the sincere pleasure in being able.to present to her a Resolution of Commendation (Resolution No. 14-75) for her persistent and tireless efforts towards the retaining of full postal service on Avenida Del Mar in addition to the new facility which would be inconvenient and inaccessible for many residents of the City.

The Clerk read the Resolution, and Councilman O'Keefe read a letter just received from John c. Lintner, Senior Representative, Government Relations Department Office of the' Postmaster General, confirming that there would be no changes which would affect the lobby or window services at the present downtown post office. Mrs.

Straeter expressed her appreciation and thanks to all.

CONSENT CALENDAR
lJPON MOTION OF COUNCILMAN HOU-IES • SECONDED J3Y COUNCILMAN FOX, Ai"'ID UNANntOUSLY CAkRIED, the following Consent Calendar Items were approved, each as indicated below:

Planning Cor,,rnission Minutes
Hinutcs of 2-27-75 - Received and filed.
255
334
... -2-
Synopsis of Planning CotT1111ission Actions
Actions of 3-12-75 - Received and filed.

Traffic and Parking Connission Hinutes
Hinutes of 1-23,.;75, 2-6-75, and 2-20-75 - Received and filed.

Parks and Recreation Comnission Ninutes
l!inutes of 3-10-75 - Received and filed.

Zoning Administrator Hinutes
Minutes of 3-5-75 - Received and filed.

Architectural Review Board Hinutes
Minutes of 2-27-75 - Received and filed.
117 - Zoning Petition No. 202-75.

Co:ru:iunication from Planning Co:nmission recol!ll.lending approval of Zoning Petition No. 202-75, rezoning the property coilllllonly referred to as "Cross Hill", an area approximately 7.2 acres from R-3-G PRD (Garden Apartment Planned Residential) District to R-l (Single Family Residential) District - Due to failure of newspaper to publish notice within legal time limit, the Public Hearing was re-set for 4-2-75.
105 - Grant Deed re Tract No. 8597 .

I
. / Memorandum from City Engineer recommending acceptance of a Grant Deed frOl!l H. E. and Jeanne L, Saleen over portion of Lot 119, Tract No. 898 for street right-ofway for Calle Empalme, required as a condition· of Broadmoor Tract }lo. 8597 - Grant Deed accepted and recordation authorized.
/ 42 - Claim for Damages - Billy D. Jones
Claim for damages to vehicle (fallen tree limb) in the amount of $400, filed by Billy D. Jones - Claim was denied,
42 - Claim for Da111ages - Hugh B. Stultz
Claim for damages to vehicle (fallen tree limb) in the amount of $149.23, filed by Hugh B. Stultz - Claim was denied.
42 - Claim for Damages - Thomas Axtater
Claim for damages to vehicle (golf ball) in the amount of $140.64, filed by Thomas Axtater - Claim was denied.,
42 - Clail!l for Damages - Bonnie J. t1cBride
Claim for personal injuries (trip and fall at Cornr.lunity Clubhouse teen center) inl the amount of $56.00, filed by Bonnie J. McBride on behalf of Terri Ann }IcBride - Claim was denied.
42 - Claim for Damages - Jack Pastorok
Claim for damages (aquarium fish alleged to have been killed by water from new filtration system) in the al!lount of $100, filed by Jack Pastorok - Cla:1..D was denied. 87 - Tax Delinquent Parcel Offered for Public Sale.

Commwtication from County Tax Collector offering for public sale certain tax delinquent parcel (portion of Lot z. Tract ?lo. 851 - T.C. Sale l11192), and submitting Agreement whereby City may purchase sall\e for $25, said parcel needed to vest underlying fee . title to City in port.ion of East San Juan - Objection expressed to public sal~ ~nd Mayor and City Clerk authorized to execute Agreement to purchase said property.
3-19-75
256
I
I
-3-
lll - Abandonment No. 04-73.

Col!llllunication from Planning Collllnission recommending approval of Abandorunent No. 04-73, being a request from Hr. and !'-!rs. Robert Hathaway to abandon a portion of unimproved street right-of-way on East Avenida Cordoba as such is deemed to be unsuitable for a view park, but retaining a 15' easement for public utility purposes - Referred to City Attorney for preparation of abandonment proceedings.
111 - Abandonment No. 601-75.

Cormnunication from Pl;:mning Commission recollllilending approval of Abandonment No. 601-75, being a request by the City to abandon a 15' unimproved alley located between Lots 136 0 137. 148, and 149, Tract No. 898 in the vicinity of Avenida La Cuesta - Referred to City Attorney for preparation of abandonment proceedings.

Deoartmental Activities Reoort
Departmental Activities Report for month of February, 1975 - Received and filed. 51 - Financial Statement
Financial Statement for fiscal year ended June 30, 1975 - Received and filed.

CONSENT CALENDAR (Items Removed for Separate Action)
City COWlCil Minutes of 3-5-75
Councilman Holmes called attention to the item in the Minutes of 3-5-75, Page 7, regarding his report on the recent SCAG meeting concerning the use of the emergency number 911. He requested correction in the fourth sentence beginning "now being used on a trial basis in Marin County" to "possibly to be used on a trial basis in Marin County."
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN HOLMES, SECONDED 1lY COUNCILMAN LANE, AND UN/INIMOUSLY CARRIED that the llinutes of J-5-75 be approved, as corrected, and the reading in full thereof waived.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS
SubJo<1: 105 - Parcel Map No. 803-75 {Rosenbaum-Dashner).

IN RE: Further consideration of the recommendation from the Planning Commission - for approval of Parcel Nap No. 803-75, being a request to divide three lots (Lot 7, 8, & 9, Block 4, Tract No. 795 - addressed 1506-1508 Calle Valle) into two parcels, providing a letter of credit is filed in favor of the City guaranteeing that. certain required,-improvelllents will be made within five years or the funds released to the City for the cost of said improvements if an assessment district under the 1911 Act has not been created, and allowing the Engineering Department the proper amount of time for completion of said improvements; aud that the Staff submit to the City Council a report setting forth details of the prior attempt to form a district under the 1911 Act as well as the present condition of the street.

Discussion ensued between the Council, Mel Portwood, representing the Applicant, and Staff members pertaining to the conditions set forth by the City Engineer and concerns regarding the "jogging" of the lot line between the two parcels. A HOTION BY COUNCILH&'f O'KEEFE, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HOLNES,that the Parcel Map be approved FAILED TO CARRY DUE TO A TIE VOTE with Council.l!lan Fox and Mayor .

Di Giovanni voting "NO" and Councilman Lane "ABSTAINING" from voting. Following explanation by the City Attorney pursuant to the ''rule of necessity" requiring .the one Councilman who "Abstained" to vote, TIIE MOTION FAILED TO CARRY with Councilmen .-Fox and Lane; and Mayor Di Giovanni voting "NO." Following further deliberation and assurance from J:fr. Portwood that he was authorized to approve any changes, IT WAS NOVED BY COUNCIUIAN O 'KEEFE• SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN FOX, .A.."ID CARRIED to approve Parcel Map No. 803-75, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Collllllission, and further condi~ion that a block wall be built along the easterly portion of the building on Lot 8 up to its front on Calle Valle, and that the lot line between the two parcels be a straight line between Lots 8 and 9 on the buiiding line. Councilman Holmes voted "NO." 3-19-75
:335 i
I
257
Sobjut: 87 (68) - Question of Whether Proposed Boys' Club GYlll Could be Part of Coi:i:nunity Development Program,
IN RE: Further consideration of request from Boys' Club of South Coast Area, Inc., for a joint study session with the Council for the purpose of detemining if their proposed gylll could be considered as a part of the "Commtmity Development Program" in order to receive a portion of the Federal Grant.

It was noted that the question previously raised was whether the request to meet was for the entire Council of one or two members only. Discussion ensued with col!!Dleats from Mary Erickson, Human Resources Chairman of the League of Women Voters, suggesting that the p~oj ect '1as one for service clubs and donations and not from monies already set aside for housing and social services in the area.

Cotmcilmen Fox and O'Keefe volunteered to meet with representatives of the Boys' Club and the Mayor so directed.
44 - Colllplaint of Shots fron Skeet and Trap Range I
Landing on Property on Avenida Cota.

IN RE: Further consideration of the complaint from A. L. Wulfeck as to the safety and nuisance factor of the skeet and trap range,
Consideration was also given to a further coilllllunication from A .. L. Wulfeck submitting additional comments and items for consideration in caking determination as to whether or not shooting should continue at the range; :md a communication from - San Cletiente Lodge No. 2068 B.P.O, Elks commenting on their ten-year operation of the skeet and trap range, their pride in this community service, and desire that this valuable city recreational activity be continued,
General discussion ensued between the Council, Mr. Wulfeck, and Walt Liebig, speaking for the shooters and the Elks. Mr. Liebig recotnmended to the Council that the existing range remain status quo and in view of possible development of the State Park on adjacent Camp Pendleton that there be an .immediate investigation of a future site which would be assured of not being·hampered by development and also be able to have future expansion of five ranges plus a pistol range and possibly a rifle range. Mr. Wulfeck reiterated statements made in bis correspondence to the Council and requested that the conditions stated by him be met and the range shut down or he will bold the City responsible for any d.unages.

Councilman O'Keefe agreed that spent shot did carry asfar as the porch on Mr.

Wulfeck.' s property, but expressed the belief that it was not as much a safety problem as a noise problem; and suggested consideration be given the following suggestions: · (1) The range area be secured by fencing and reasonable shooting hours firmly set, (2) That the City construct a glass wind screen alongside }lr. Wulfeck's house as a condition of continuance and if not acceptable that (3) The City reimburse ~Ir. Wulfeck for the cost in his house and interest on his money to be resold with an easement or restrictive covenant allowing the range to continue, and (4) To build the lower skeet house out on stilts closer to the property line and rotated 1s0 w~ich would move th@ tfajectory line away from the subject pro_perty.

Upon further review, IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN O'KEEFE, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN FOX, AND CARRIED to limit the shooting hours from 9 A.M. to 9:P.M. on Saturday a.11d 10 A,M. to 5 P.H. on Sunday; that signs be posted accordingly; that a fence I be installed from behind the range facility building and over to the San Diego Gas & Electric -property; and that shot be lilllited to no larger than 7½ for trap and 8, or 9 for skeet. Councilman Lane "ABSTAINED" from voting as havirig represented Hr. Wulfeck in certain legal matters.
:tT WAS THEN i-10VED BY COUNCILMAN HOLMES• SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN :Fox. AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED that a committee be fonned comprised of members from the Council, Staff, Elks, and Hr. Wulfeck to investigate a possible future site and to study the request for additional facilities, whether at the present location or another location, and the possible realignment of the present facility in the event there is no other location available; nnd that the City contact the State regarding their time· table as to when their recreational park on Camp Pendleton area adjoining the range will come to fruition.

Sublo<1: 105 - Parcel Mao No. 802-75 (Frank Gen:ion).

IN RE: Further consideration of Planui.ig Commission's recommendation for approval of Parcel Hap No, 802-75, being a request from Frank Germon to divide Lots 33 311 35, 36, Block 12, Tract No. 852, addressed 203-209 West San Antonio, into two• • building s~tes; and the request from"Nrs. Germon that the side~alk construction r equirement be waived. 3-19-75
258
I
I
-5-
Folloi,ing cxplao.ation by the Director of Building & Planning, discussion ensued in regard to retention of as l!luch as possible of the trees and landscaping and that the sidewalks would be installed at tha time of the recordation of said prop~rty.
·337
IT WAS :mvrn BY C0L'NCILN.A!~ 0' ~E'FE • SECO~""DED BY COUNC!LNI\N IIOLHES • AlID UtlANIHOUSLY CARRIED that Parcel Map No. 802-75 be approved subject to the conditions reco=ended by Staff and the following conditions: (l) That the oajor trees on the property be required to be retained unless specific permission of the City Council is given to reoove them; (2) That sidewalks around Che entire property be installed at such tir.e as the lot divi~ion is effective and completed, and (3) That i=ediately the hedge be lowered and in the vicinity of the stop sign the foilage behind it be op2ned up so a car stopping at the sign would have visibility, across to the right. s.1,1 .. 1r 109 - Request Cow.mis5ion Minutes be Included on Agenda Consent Calendar.

IN RE: Co'li1!1lunication from AMERICAN REVOLUTION BICENTENNIAL CONMISSION OF SA» CLEMEMTE requesting that the minutes of said Co!Jllllission be placed on Consent Calendar of the next Council Neeting after each Commission meeting. rollowing comment. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN LANE., SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN FOX, AND CA.~IED that the minutes of the Bicentennial Comnission not be placed on the Consent Calendar. Councillllan Holmes voted "NO." 'MEETING RECESSED
II WAS HOVED BY COUNCILH.AN O'KEEFE, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN LANE, AND UNANit1CUSLY CARRIED to convene a meeting of the San Clemente Redevelopment _Agency at 9:25 l',H.

NEETING P-ECONVENED
Meeting was reconvened at 9:35 P.H.
su1tJo<1, 109 - Request City Acknowledge Donors to Bicentennial Fund with Certificate of Recognition.
!N RE: Communication from .AMERICAN REVOLUTION BICENTENNIAL COMMISSION OF SAN CLEMENTE requesting that the City send a Certificate of Recognition to contributors- and donors to the Bicentennial Fund for their patriotic generosity and support of the 200th Birthday Celebration. rollovillg discussion and input from Marie Coleman, representing the Commission,

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN LANE, SECONDED BY COUNCIIMAN O'KEEFE, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED that a letter be drafted expressing appreciation to the donors using either Bicentennial Commission or City letterhead and signed by the Mayor.

Hrs. Coleman expressed pre;erence for use of City letterhead. sul>ioct: 109 - Request for FUilds re Co~ssion' s Office E.'xpenses Past and Future.:
[N RE: Coilllllunication from .AMERICAN REVOLUTION BICENTENNIAL COMMISSION OF SA?! CLEMENTE requesting the Council allocate funds to repay the Commission's office expenses from last year in the amount of $550, and the allocation of $100 per nonth until 12-31-76, when the Comnission will be dismissed. to allow monies received from donations to be used for programs and projects.

Following discussion of possible methods of assistance by the City, IT WAS UOVED BY COUNCILMAN LANE, SECO:l'DEO IlY COUNCILMAN O'KEEFE, AND CARRIED to continue the matter to the next meeting in order to receive from the Bicentennial Commission some breakdown with regard to their economic status at this time, their ability to pay, what amount of money they have, and where they receive their money. CounQilman Holmes and Mayor Di Giovanni voted "NO." Suble<h 109 -:Revised Request for Funds to Attend Bicentennial Workshop. 1N RE: Communication from .AflERICAN REVOLUTION BICENTENNIAL COMMISSION OF SAN CLEMENTE re.questing funds be allocated for two commissioners' travel and hotel acco!nlllodations for tha three-day workshop in Fresno on ~.lay 30, 31, and June l, 1975, fees and agenda for said workshop having been revised since their previ- ous request.

Following discussion and° two motions which dj,ed for a lack of a second, IT WAS 'l'HEN MOVED BY COUNCHJ.IAN I.Ai°"E, SECONDED JW C.OllNCIT.MAN O'KEEl-'P., AND CARRIED to authorize payment of registration fees ($15.00 each person) for two members of the Bicentennial Commission to attend the workshop. Councilman Holmes and 1'1.ayor Di Giovanni voted "NO. 11
3-19-75
259
338
$ul,i•«:
-6-
75 - Recollllllendations re City-wide Business District Parking ProbleCLS and Related Matters.

IN RE: Communication fro~ TRAFFIC AND PARKING COHMISSION submitting their recommendations following review of the various recoCllllendations of the Citizens Parking ColXIJ!li.ttee in regard to City-wide business district parking problems and related matters.

I~ RE: Communication and recommendations from the CITIZENS PARKING COMMITTEE in regard to City-wide business district parking problel!IS and related 1:1atters.

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMA.,,~ FOX, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN LANE, AND UNANIHOUSLY CARRIED to receive and file the communications.
sui., • .,, 105 - Proposed Parks and Street Scapes re Reeves Ranch.

IN RE: Communication from PAR.XS lu"ID RECREATION COMMISSION recOt!llllending that the I 18-acre site offered by tha Developers of Reeves Ranch not be accepted and the recommendations of the Park Planner (attached) be followed in its entirety; that the City request the land adjacent (easterly) to the proposed junior high school and the land adjacent to the Mormon Church be utilized as park sites for said development; that the secondary street, east and west sides of th~ freeway, have a 14' wide landscaped divider and with an 81 wide bike trail; and that further consideration be given .to the seller dedicating land on top of the bluff which will assure public access for a view site,

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN O'KEEFE, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN FOX, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED to refer the communication to the Planning Commission to be considered by them along with the revised master plan.

SubJoct: 105 - Resolution No. 17-75 re .Tract No. 8190.

IN RE: Further consideration of adopting a Resolution accepting from DouglassPacific Corporation all works of improvement for Tract No. 8190, and providin·g for release of bonds at certain times and upon certain conditions.

Upon motion of Councilman O'Keefe, seconded by Councilman Lane, and unanimously carried, RESOLUTION NO. 17-75, BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAM CLEMENTE, CALIFORi.'IIA, ACCEPTING FROM DOUGLASS-PACIFIC CORPORATION ALL WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR TRACT NO. 8190, AND PROVIDING FOR RELEASE OF BONDS AT CERTAIN TI}ffiS AND UPON CERTAIN CONDITIONS, was regularly introduced,. passed, and adopted.
sui.1.c1, 27 - Proposed Changes in Improvement District No. 8-73.

IN RE: Consideration of proposed changes in Improvement District No. 8-73 whereby the maximum bond interest iate would be increased from 7% to 8%, as explained by the City Attorney. IT WAS HOVED BY COUNCILMAN O'KEEFE, SECONDED BY COUNCIL~!AN HOLMES to adopt a Resolution so stipulating.

Discussion ensued prilllarily on the proposed boundaries of the area adopted by the I Council six-l!lonths ago and whether the District would be split. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN O'KEEFE, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN LANE, AND UNANil10USLY CARRIED to table the matter to the next regular meeting.

Sub[e<I: 112 - Use Permit No. 435-74 - Broadmoor Homes, Inc.

IN RE: Further consideration of Use Permit No. 435-74, being the Broadmoor Homes advertising sign on a portable van called up for Council review, said ~atter having been considered at the meeting of 1-15-75 and held in abeyance until the Applicant ·requested t~e matter re~urned on the Agenda.

Larry Lizotte, Broadmoor Homes, Inc., .p9sted a rendering of a proposed 101 x 60' sign and a map location and Bob Albertson, Director of Marketing, explained the .- various medias of advertising. Sally Sargent acknowledged a meeting at her home at which time the Developers explained their proposal and received input from the r esidents, but expressed some concern regarding the size of the sign and where the sign would be relocated as the Tract develops. Residents Fred Keeler and Frank Dreher stated that 75% of the people at the meeting expressed no objections and it was fel.t it was better to have homes occupied and homes built than barren pads. 3-19-75
260
I
-7-
Follov.ing discussion, Council= Fox withdrew his Second co Councilman Lane's t-{otlon for Denial of the requested sign; and IT W/IS HOVEO BY COUNCILMAN O'KEEFE, S~CONDED BY COUNCILHA..'l FOX that the natter be continued to the next oeeti.ng so ·339 .. •.
that the Developer can come in with perspective photographs from different locations, and the fact that it 1s set against the hillside is n strong mitigating factor, and that perhaps this size sign or a smaller size or compliance with our 200 square foot limitation would be appropriate so the Council could make some comparisons. nIE MOTI.ON FA.ILED TO CARRY FOR LACK OF A MAJORITY VOTE with Councilmen Holmes and Lane, and Mayor Di Giovanni voting "NO."
After further revl.ew and comments by Mr. Lizot:te, TI WAS MOVED BY COUNCII..a."ti\N 0'KEEFE, SECOlIDED BY COUNCIUlA..'l FOX, AND CARRIED to continue the matter to the next regular meeting with the request that the Developer bring in signs, both at this l ocation and whatever other potential locations there ·might be, allowing perspective photographs from as many different directions as possible, including the homes that vould be affected and tha Freeway. • Councilman Hol.mes voted "NO."

WRITTEN COHNUNICATIONS
S11bJoct: 105 - Request to Delete the Requirement for Certain Sidewalks within Tract No. 8162 .

IN RE: Petition containing 25 signatures from MR. & MRS, RICHARD KOESTER, et: al, requesting the Council to delete from Broadmoor Homes Tract No. 8162, the requirement that sidewalk be installed on Calle Delicada on the side of the street immediately below the properties of the residents of Calle Felicidad, and Chae the footage gained by the el:m.inat:ion of the sidewalk be put to use by permitting the street centerline and structure pads to be moved four feet in toward the hillside of Felicidad.

The ·Clerk also noted a COllllllUllication from Mr. & Mrs. C. K. Mays and Mr. & Mrs.

Donald Sargent 1n opposition to the petition for deletion of the subject sideva lk.

General discussion ensued and comments were made in support of the petition by Larry Lizotte, representing Hroadmoor Home~, Inc., Fred Keeler, Don Mccormic, and Bob Kahrs. Mr. & Mrs. Donald Sargent reiterated objections made in their communication.

Following lengthy discussion and rewording of the Motion, IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN O'KEEFE, SECONDED BY MAYOR.])l GIOVANNI, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED that the street alignment: and parkway widths remain as they are; that the sidewalk condition on the uphill side of the street be deleted; and that the Developer by agreement cause the Homeowners Association to petpetually uaintain a walk.able grass or turf surface on the 8-foot wide parkway on the uphill side of the c~-rb. ,u1tJ•n: 109 - Resolution No . 18-75 re Earnings Limitation Uade-r Social Secur~ty Act. •
rn RE: Communication and resolution from CITY OF WESTI-fINSTER requesting legislation to repeal the earnings limitations under Social Security.

Upon motion of Council111an Lane, seconded by Counci~n Fox, .'.lnd unanimously carried, RESOLU'l'ION NO. 18-75, BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH.E CITY OF SAl'f CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING TIIE EA&'iINGS LimTATIONS UNDER SOCIAL SECURITY BE REPEALED, was regularly introduced, passed, and adopted.

Slll>l <t : 51 - Recommended Improvements re Internal Control Procedures in Finance Department.
rn RE: Colllltluni=cation from DIEHL. EVANS AND cmll'ANY, Ci ty Auditor, in regard to review of books and records of City, an.d recollllllending certain improvements to internal c~ntrol procedpres relating to data processing.

Counci lman O'Keefe requested that someone check w1th the Auditor if they also recommend controls on accounting for use of equipment, together with tqeir maintenance histories, as he had previously -reCol'lllllended. • : allowing acknow1edgment of a mecorandum conta ining co1111aents from the Finance Oi rec tor. I T WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMA..."1 LA.'11 £ , SEcm mED BY COUNCIUI.A.'I l!OLHES' A,.'lD tr.-1 ,i.'IH!OUSLY CARRIED to receive and file t:he communication with acceptance of the auJit col!IIDents from the Finance Director.
3-19-75
261
340 -8-
SubJo<t, 109 - Bicentennial Celebrati.on Project.

IN RE: Co11m1unications from MRS. BINNIE C. PAYNE and MR. & MRS. WILLIAM R.

CON"NELL favoring the building of a bandstand at Plaza Park as proposed by the American Revolution Bicentennial Col!mlission.

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCill~~ FOX, SECONDED BY COUNCIIMAN LANE to receive and file thQ comml.lllications.

Councilman O'Keefe introduced a letter. from John J. Nolan, Director, Bicentannial Coll!lllunities Division, of the American Revolution Bicentennial Administra.tion in Washington, D, c., agreeing that the construction of a gytDJ1asium would serve a gre~ter goal to the majority of the City than the construction of a bandstand. [twas noted that a copy of said letter should be transmitted to the San Clenente Bicentennial Commission. Councilman Lane also spoke about the possibility oE the development and renaming of .Linda Lane Park as a commemorative event as he and .Council:m.a.c. Fox had proposed. Councilman O'Keefe also expressed commencs .and , _- displeasure to the effect that there appeared to be certain members vithin tne Bicentennial Commission who had ignored the requested guidance and policy of the Council as to desiring a more utilitarian project than a bandstand.

1.'IIE QUESTION \.l'AS TIIEN CALLED AND THE MOTION WAS UNA..'lIMOUSLY CARRIED.

CONMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS
S..l>Jeo, 32 - Use of Sound Amplification Eguioment for Easter Sunrise Service. rn RE: Communication from PARKS AND RECREATION COMMlSSION recommending approval • of the request of tbe First Baptist Church to use V~sta Bahia Park on March 30, 1975,for Easter Sunrise Services; and an application from the Church for the use of sound amplification equipmant for tho Services.

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN O'KEEFE, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HOLMES, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED to approve the request.
tTEMS FROM CITY MAMAGER
~•bl.ct: 68 - Resolution No. 19-75 re Cooperation Agreement with County Coi:rcerui.r:i.g Rousing and Comnlunity Development Act.

IN RE: The City Manager preseuted, explained, and recoJlllllended approval of an amended Cooperation Agreement with the County of Orange in regard to the Housing and Co1mnmity Development Act. Upon motion of Councilman Fox, seconded by Councihuul O'Keefe and wu1:iUJ11ously carried, RESOLUTION NO. 19-75, BEING A RESOLUTION OF 'TilE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT"l OF SA.'t CLEMEllTE, CALIFORNIA, ENTERING INTO A COOPERATION .AGREEMENT: WITH THE COUNTY OF OR.ANGE FOR PARTICIPAI'ION IN HOUSING A..'ID COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES UNDER THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974• was regul~rly introduced, passed and adopted.

PAYING OF TRt DILLS
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN O'KEEFE, SECONDED BY COUtlCIUtAN FOX, AND UNANil!OIJSLY CARRIED that Warrants No. 35327 through No. 3557.4, as audited by the Council, be paid, including ratification of Payroll Warrant l-lo. 35337.

Total Demands approved for payment for the
period of March 6 through March 19, 1975 .. ........ $352,925.51 Ratification of- Payroll Warrant No . 35337, for
period of February 24 through !:"..arch 9, 197.5
TOTAL WARRANT REGISTER.

RESOLUTIONS
$ 62,710.93
• $ 415 ,636.l,4
For Resolution No. 17-75 see under "UNFINISHED BUSINESS" on Page 6.

For Resolution No. 18-75· ·see under "WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS" on Page 7.

For Resolution No. 19-75 see under "ITEMS FROM CITY ?-lANAGF.R" on Page 8. 3-19-75
I
262
I
I
-9- 341 i
,\DJOURNMENT
IT WAS }lOVED BY COUNCILMAN O'KEEFE, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HOLMES, A?m UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED to adjourn at 11: 50 P.H., to Tuesday, March 25, 1975, at 8 A.M. of the City Council
3-19-75
263
I
I
San Clemente, C1lii'ornia
February l,, 197()
t, 1:cgular m~eting of the City Council of the City of San Clemente, California, Council Chamber, Civic Center tuilding, 100 Avenida Pre:i1dio ~ Hec!nesday.

Felii:ua,:-y 4', 1976, at: 7:30 r.a., Hayor Anthoay R. Di Giovanni prcsiclinr;.

PLEDGE 01" ALLEr.I!INCE ANIJ U iVOCAI!Oll
'Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United S_tntes of i'.merica uas led by Councilt:'.an Jlolnes. Invocation was given by Counciloan O'Keefe.

ROLL CALL
PRESENT:

ABSENT:

Councilmen - FO:C, HOLltES, O'KEEFE, Al!D DI GIOVANNI
Councilmen - LAflE (arrived a few minutes late)
Also Present: Kenneth E. Carr, City llanager; Max L. Ilerg, City Clerk; and F. Mackenzie .lirmm, City Attorney.

SPECIAL BUSINESS
Sul,jtct: 43 - Resolution No. 21-76 and Certificate of Appreciat:1.on t:o Gerald Teachout.

IN RE: Presentation of a Resolution and Certificate of Appreciation to retiring Finance Director Gerald Teachout.
- The Mayor aske-0 retiring Finance Director Gerald Teachout to step forward to the lectern and the City Clerk read a Resolution colJllllending Mr. Teachout for his 1~ years of dedicated service to the City.
213
Upon motion of Councilman Holmes, seconded by Councilman O'Keefe, and unanimously carried, RESOLUTION NO. 21-76, BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO GERALD. S. TEACHOUT FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE AND ITS CITIZENS• . AND EXTENDING SINCEREST GOOD WISHES TO HIM IN HIS RETIREMENT, was regularly introduced, passed and adopted.

A Certificate of Appreciation and the Resolution were then presented to Mr~ Teachout · who received a standing ovation frotn those present.

CONSENT CALENDAR
UPON MOTION OF COUNCILMAN HOLMES, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN O'KEEFE, AND UNANIMOUSLY . CARRIED the following Consent Calendar Items were approved, each as indicated below:

Piannin& Commission Minutes
Minutes of 1-14-76 and 1-28-76. - Received and filed.

Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes
~Iinutes of 1-13-76. - Received and filed.
'.traffic and Parking Comission Ninutes
Minutes of 1-22-76. - Received and filed.

Zoning Administrator Minutes
Minutes of 1-21-76 and 1-28-76. - Received and filed.

Architectural Review Board
Hinutes of 1-20-76 and 1-22-76. - Received and filed.

City__ Council Minutes
Minutes of 1-7-76. - Approved as presented and reading in full ~hereof waived. 2-4-76
. !
264
- 2-
5•bi,n, 100 - Slurrv Seal Project No:>. 16-75.
t :· RE : Memorandum fro111 City Engineer advising that Slurry Seal Project No. 16-7 5 has been satisfactor ly CO!!.J>leted by Chamb~c- Mix, I nc. and reco!!ll!lending acceptance of the work. - Work accepted aud fili.ng of Noci c e of Completion aucborized.

Ssbj..,, 2 7 Improvement; District No . 2J-75U - La Cue ta Underground Utility Conversion.
n ; R.E: Memot:andum from City Engineer s ubmitting a property 0 1~-ner pecition. fo:::
foTiilation of an Assessment District f or unde:i;grou.nd utility conversion in the La Cuesta area, to be known a.s Improvement District No. 23-75U. - Referred to Cicy Engineer and City Attorney for preparation of proceedings. 5'oltlodi 105 - Easement Granted to Broadmoor HO!lles, Inc. for Maintenance of Parkway on Calle Delicada, 'I'ract No. 8963 .

IN 'RE: Memorandum from City Engineer rec0111Dending the granting of· an eas-nt to 8roadmoor Homes, Inc. for aiainteu.ance of parbay on Calle Delicada. - Granting of easement approved and exec:utioa. by the Mayor and City Clerk autborized.

CO~SENT CALENDAR (Items Removed for Separate Action)
s..bJ ... , 77 - Amendment to H/CDA Contract - Beach Access - West Portal and Buena Vista.

IN RE: Memorandum from Director of Building and Planning recol!iinending an Amendment to the B/CDA Contract: t:o provide for construction of beach access io the vicinity of West Portal and Buena Vista.

Wilma Bloom questioned why West Portal was being considered as only Avenida Poniente had been discussed at a study session on the matter, aud co!lllllented that many property owners in the Poniente area were working towards providi_ng for this access.

Tne City Engineer indicat:ed it would be more difficult t:o provide the beach access on Avenida Poniente because of the highly eroded land which would also r equire new drain lines and chat West Portal, which is only a distance of some 500 feet from Avenida Pouiente, has been co~pacted and has~ gentler slope with which to work and the expense would be considerably less.

The Director of Building and Planning pointed out on a map the various locations that have beach accesses and the approximate distances between them.

Ruth Kes t er. a resident on Avenida Poniente , expressed the desi.r e for -che beach access on Poniente and felt that if a beach access were provided on West Portal one would not be considered at a later date for the Poniente area. · .

Following discussion, IT YAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN LANE, SECONDED 'BY _COCJNCILMAN O'KEEFE, AND CARRIED to approve the recommendation of the Director of Duilding and I
. Pl.anni.ng and provide for coo.struction of the beach access in the vicinity of West Portal and Buena Vista, and to approve the Amendment to the Agreement and authorize execut:ion by the Mayor and City Clerk. Councilaan Holmes voted ''NO" .

PAYING OF THE BILLS I
IT !IAS HOVED BY COUNCILMAN FOX, SECO..\JDED BY COUNCIU!A..'i HOLMES, AND UNANH!OUSLY CARRIED that Warrants No. 39270 through No. 39451 as audited by the Council, be paid, including ratification of Payroll Warrant No. 39272.

Total Demands approved for payment for the p eriod
January 22 through Februacy 4, 1976 . . . . . . . . $271,787.94 Rat ·fication of Payroll Qarrant No. 39272
for period of January 12 through January 25, 1976 $ 71,793.23 TOTAL WARRANT REGISTER $343,581.17
2-4-76
265
THE: CITY Or SM CLEH':}l'iE. A Municipal Corporation,
for a good and valuable consideration, rec~ipt of i·,hich is acknowledged. hereby grants to
HO:•~O'A~ERS' ASSOC!AHOH OF 6, d~CHXJ. HO, ~s
an ease~ent for the purpose of ingress and ~~intenance of arkways. over and across that certain real property si tu~~ed in the City of San C1errente, County of Orange. State of California. and particularly described as follow~:

The P.arkwa along the easterly side of Calle Delicada
in its entiret;y w1~ill .Tract Ho. 8963 as recorded February ll:, 4. :, 44, and 45 iDcluaive in Book 369 .. Pages • Hi see 1 laneous Haps. Records of Orange County, California.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
Oate February 6, 1976
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS.

COUNTY OF ORANGE )
On February 6, 1976, before me, the undersigned,
a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Anthony: R. Di Giovanni , known to me to be the Mayor, and Hue L. Berg , known to me to be the City Clerk of the corporation that executed the within instrument, and known to me to be the persons who executed t he within instrument on behalf of the corporation therein naited, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to a minute or~er of its City Council .

WI n:ESS my
---.,•- : -
1976~
·•. I
\
September 8, 2025
City of San Clemente
City Council
910 Calle Negocio
San Clemente, CA 92673
For over a decade, Felicidad Homeowners have repeatedly asked Delicada and the Broadmoor HOA to comply with the City-imposed 17-foot height limit on Delicada.

That restriction was not arbitrary, it was the quid pro quo for Felicidad’s concessions that enabled the development of Delicada possible. The agreement was clear:
x Felicidad relinquished land, allowed slope recontouring, and waived the sidewalk requirement, to create the pad space required by the City to develop Delicada x In return, Broadmoor agreed to limit all structures, trees, bushes and shrubs on Delicada to 17 feet
It’ just that simple.

The City was not a by-stander, it actively participated in securing these concessions and imposed the 17-foot restriction as a binding Condition of Approval on every Delicada property.

For almost 30 years, Broadmoor complied. Now, for over a decade, they refuse to even engage with Felicidad, arguing that because we are not HOA members, we have no enforcement rights.

The Council has delayed City intervention by granting two enforcement pauses, totaling 10 months, in the hope that Broadmoor would comply voluntarily.

Since the City’s Demand for Compliance (June 26, 2024), only six of 42 egregious violations have been abated.

The Council has already received extensive documentation proving that Delicada’s 17-foot limit was the direct quid pro quo for Felicidad’s concessions and, was imposed by the City as a binding Condition of Approval.

Supporting documentation has been submitted to the September 16, 2025 City Council Packet:
x Broadmoor CCR Article 8 section 4
x Broadmoor CCR Enforcement Article X section 4
x Broadmoor CCR Article 12
x Broadmoor CCR Section 22
* All grant the HOA and the City authority to enter private property and directly abate violations
x Broadmoor Supplemental CCRs for Delicada
o Section 3: 17 foot Tree Height limit
o Section 4: Broadmoor’s responsibility to maintain east side of Delicada slope

Page 1 ends

266
x Declaration of Cecilia Gallardo-Daly – Former San Clemente Community Development Director
x Declaration of Laurence Lizotte – Broadmoor Developer x Declaration of Alan Jay Rice – Original Homeowner
x Declaration of Sally A. Sargent – Original Homeowner
x Declaration of Susan P. Rice – Original Homeowner
o 5 Sworn Declarations attesting to the quid pro quo and its history x City Council Timeline (1) summary comments
o Official meeting notes from City Planning Commission and City Council Meetings January 10, 1973 – February 11, 1976
x City Demand Letter to Broadmoor HOA
o Issued June 26, 2024
x EXHIBIT 4 – Letters to and from City Planning confirming height limit o Communications between Felicidad and City Planning Director Broadmoor Diversionary Tactics
Slope Maintenance
Broadmoor falsely claims that Felicidad fails to maintain its slopes. In fact, Broadmoor is responsible for maintaining the 8-foot wide parkway from the east side of the curb, along the entire length of Delicada. Notably, several sprinklers in this area have reportedly been capped, not by Felicidad.
x Broadmoor Supplemental CCRs for Delicada - section 4
x SCCC Minutes & Delicada Easement Grant - 2 documents
x SCCC Mar 19 1975 Slope Maintenance - page 7
Height, Not View, Defines the Violation
Broadmoor asserts that some Delicada trees over 17 feet don’t impact Felicidad views and therefore should not be subject to enforcement.

This is not possible on Delicada as every property has a Felicidad home directly above it.

The 17-foot limit on trees is not subjective - it is aligned with the 17’ roof height limit and applies uniformly to every Delicada property (201 – 327)
x Exhibit 4 – letters to and from City Planning confirming height limit Complaint Process
Broadmoor has taken no proactive steps to comply. Instead, they:
x Require Felicidad to file complaints with pictures from their properties x Disclose complainant identification to Delicada violators x Require that we allow three representatives onto our properties for “view inspection” x If the Board confirms that a violation exists, the process could move to IDR and ADR o Smisko HOA process to Felicidad 2-5-25
Broadmoor claims this is the process they take with their HOA members. However, for years, they argued that because Felicidad is not part of the HOA, Felicidad should not benefit from the height limit and cannot compel compliance.

Page 2 ends

267
Following Broadmoor’s ludicrous process dictated seven months ago, most Delicada violations have been reported by 2–5 Felicidad homeowners for the same property, yet each Homeowner must undergo a separate inspection—and still, only a token few (just 3 properties involving 6 violations) have been abated.

Felicidad is Broadmoor’s Land Benefactor and should never have been compelled to endure this burdensome and abusive process.

The Height Restriction Remains Binding, Regardless of Time or View Inspections During Broadmoor’s “inspections”, a Board member argued with Felicidad Homeowners that:
x They can’t tell which trees Felicidad was complaining about; x Certain trees don’t obstruct or significantly obstruct their view; x Homeowner wasn’t around when the agreement was made 50 years ago, implying that the height limit no longer applies;
x Delicada homeowners can simply sit on assessments indefinitely and still not comply x Delicada violations
Litigation Threats
The City must not allow threats of litigation from Delicada dictate enforcement of its regulations.

Delicada and Broadmoor are not fighting to protect any legitimate rights, they are willfully and intentionally breaching their agreement with Felicidad and the City to inflict harm on neighbors, with nothing but malicious intent.

The true risk is not in enforcement of City regulations, but in allowing defiance and delay to prevail, which erodes confidence in every approval, condition and promise the City ever has made, or ever will make, to its citizens.

Felicidad Acted in Good Faith
Any suggestion that Felicidad should “compromise”, “find middle ground” or accept subjective measurements, such as accepting that Delicada merely “thin out” violations - completely disregards and effectively nullifies, the critical concessions Felicidad made 50 years ago.

If the City is prepared to negate one part of the agreement, why not all of it? Return Felicidad’s land, restore slopes to their original grade, install the required sidewalk, and compensate Felicidad for decades of lost land use.

Broadmoor’s token enforcement efforts were never about compliance, they were delay tactics designed to placate the City Council, exhaust Felicidad, and pit neighbor against neighbor. Their refusal to comply not only undermines the integrity of City regulations but shows a blatant disregard for the City’s authority in upholding its Conditions of Approval.

I respectfully urge the Council to uphold the integrity of Conditions of Approval, assume City enforcement of the Delicada height limit, and immediately abate every remaining violation on Delicada.

Sincerely,
Reva Buck

Page 3 ends

268
Dear San Clemente City Council,
I am writing this letter to implore the City Council to resolve the concern of Broadmoor's unnecessarily slow and in some cases non-existing enforcement efforts regarding Delicada Street and park trees that exceed seventeen feet in height. I have heard several Felicidad resident’s accounts that Broadmoor had been enforcing this HOA requirement for thirty some years but then stopped the enforcement. Since that time Felicidad residents have been struggling with trying to work with Broadmoor on this issue. I have personally witnessed this for the past fifteen years.

Thank you for your dedication to the betterment of San Clemente and your consideration to the resolution of this matter.

Regards,
John Milroy
269

San Clemente City CouncilJanuary 20, 2026

San Clemente City Council
January 20, 2026