Item 26 - Public Hearing Vista Heritage Charter School (601 North Fairview Street)

Home Browse Search

Dr. Collin Felch, Deputy Superintendent Vista Charter Public Schools December 7, 2023 Page 2 such as fences or walls and the Project would violate the Agreement. We disagree. The Reciprocal Easement Agreement grants to the owners of Parcel 1 and 2 non-exclusive easements for ingress and egress to public streets and highways and parking located on Parcel 3 and Parcel 4. Provided that the non-exclusive easements held by Cano are not impaired, nothing in the Reciprocal Easement Agreement prohibits the right of VCPS to develop the Project. 3. Unanimous Written Consent of Members Document June 9, 1993): Cano claims the referenced document delineates the shared common areas, including parking spaces, and the Project playground within the common areas "would infringe upon the rights and privileges of all unit owners." This is not correct. As discussed in our December 6th letter, the Second Amendment to the CC&Rs is the operative document concerning the rights of the owners of the Association to exclusive use common area that is appurtenant to Building A/B. As stated in our December 6t1i letter, Cano has no right to use any portion of Building A/B exclusive use common area, including the area of the proposed playground located on a portion of the exclusive use common area. 4. Correction Terminology misused by Legal Counsel paid by Vista Charter School: Cano claims that VCPS, through its legal counsel, has erroneously asserted that "Restricted Area" means "Ownership." It is Cano who misunderstands VCPS' position with respect to Building A/B restricted common area. VCPS has not asserted it "owns" the "Restricted Area." As set forth in our December 6th letter, the Second Amendment to CC&Rs in Section 2.2.5 altered the definition of a portion of common area on Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 that is appurtenant to Buildings A/B to mean "restricted common area" for the "exclusive use of Building A/B owner." (Emphasis added.) The ownership rights of Cano in Association common area is irrelevant. What is relevant with respect to VCPS's right to develop the Project is that Cano has no right to use restricted common area appurtenant to Building AB that is contained with the Project. 5. Potential Impact to the Community: Cano makes a claim that there are "practical implications" of the proposed Project in terms of health and safety that go beyond legal arguments based on provisions in the CC&Rs. Any health and safety issues concerning the Project will be addressed through the conditional use permit application process for the Project. This process will as a matter of law include reviewing the Project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. ("CEQA"). Hsi i y ounce 26 — 653 1/16/2024