Request,Application: BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                OC me DN KH

William H. Staples (Bar No. 64633) ELECTRONICALLY
wstaples@archernorris.com

Ioana R. Mondescu (Bar No. 209471) F ILE D |
imondescu@archernorris.com Superior Court of California,

ARCHER NORRIS County of San Francisco

A Professional Law Corporation NOV 28 2012
2033 North Main Street, Suite 800 Clerk of the Court
Walnut Creek, California 94596-3759 BY: ANNIE PASCUAL
Telephone: 925.930.6600 Deputy Clark

Facsimile: 925.930.6620

Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Defendant
ANNING-JOHNSON COMPANY

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION ~ COMPLEX LITIGATION

BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY Case No. CGC-08-478453
ASSOCIATION,
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN
Plaintiff, SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION

ve
Date: January 17, 2013
CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC, et Time: 9:30 a.m.

al, Dept: 304

Defendants. Assigned to Hon. Richard A. Kramer
Dept.304

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.

Pursuant to California Evidence Code §§ 351, 452 and 453, Defendant/Cross-Defendant

ANNING-JOHNSON COMPANY respectfully requests this Court take judicial notice of certain
documents that are part of this Court’s file.

California Evidence Code §452 provides that a court may take judicial notice of “(d)
[rlecords of (1) any court of this state” and “(h) [flacts and propositions that are not reasonably
subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of
reasonably indisputable accuracy.” Evid. Code §452.

Mt

CHRRSR/14576 14-4

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICESection 453 provides, in pertinent part, that:
The trial court shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in
section 452 if a party requests it and: (a) Gives each adverse party
sufficient notice of the request through the pleadings or otherwise

... and (b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable
it to take judicial notice of the matter.

Evid. Code $453.

Accordingly, ANNING-JOHNSON COMPANY respectfully requests the Court take
judicial notice of the following court records:

1. Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-08-478453,
COMPLAINT. A true and correct copy of the Complaint is attached as Exhibit A.

2. The Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions
And Reservation of Easements for Mission Place. A true and correct copy of the Amended
CC&Rs is attached as Exhibit B. A certified copy of the CC&Rs, including the Articles of
Incorporation for Mission Place Residential Community Association, is attached to plaintiff's
Request for Judicial Notice In Support of Motion for Class Certification at Exhibit A.

3. First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions, Restrictions And Reservation of Easements for Mission Place. A true and correct
copy of the First Amendment to the Amended CC&Rs is attached as Exhibit C. A certified copy
of the First Amendment to the Amended CC&Rs is attached to plaintiff's Request for Judicial
Notice in Support of Motion for Class Certification at Exhibit B.

4, The Certificate of Final Completion and Occupancy for 250 King St., issued on
October 6, 2004. A true and correct copy of the Certificate is attached as Exhibit D (also
attached as Exhibit C to plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice In Support of Motion for Class
Certification.) The original is on file with the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection.

5. ‘The Certificate of Final Completion and Occupancy for 260 King St., issued on
October 6, 2004, A true and correct copy of the Certificate is attached as Exitibit E (also attached
as Exhibit D to plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice In Support of Motion for Class
Certification.) The original is on file with the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection.

Ui
CHR858/1457614-1 2

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICEDated: November 1, 2012

CHR858/14576 14-1

3

ARCHER NORRIS

kp

Ioana R. Mondescu
Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Defendant
ANNING-JOHNSON COMPANY

REQUEST FOR JU

DICIAL NOTICEEXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT Afat

aye
08/08/2008 15:53 FAs C ANGITS & TERRY u @oos

Au Fogle Jetadnd
Davie. asars (CA Sate Bar No, 075708) Se ia! Bist Frarclzeo
ulin M. Mouser (CA State Bar No. 199794)

Kevin ary (CA State Bar No, 226830 6 Ae 708
NGTUS & TERRY LI
me GoPN NHERENCESE.
* ety

1990 N, California Blvd., Suite 90 Crete
f ork

Wal
Telephone: (925) 939-9933 YAN 9 2009 .gauay

HAL ef
Antormeys for Plaintiff A1AOUS ISSUBORURTMENT 212
A OE RIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIF ‘ORNIA.
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.

BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
|| ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,

cegt: 08 -47845 3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
(Amount demanded exceeds $10,000.)

; WEBCOR

CONSTRUCTION, INC. individually and doing)

business as WEBCOR BUILDERS; WEBCOR
)
)

FIKS, INC; HRS ARCHITECTS, INC; HKS,
INC, individually and doing business as HKS
ARCHITECTS, INC. and DOES 1 through 200,

Defendants.

CUDABEACON'PLEW72908 Complaint Three wpd
1
COMPLAINT
ARENDT RTA TIM FI OM eee eee Le

a ntenraenanannmnrarnmeti08/08/2008 13:53 FAS C ANGIUS & TERRY c Boe

‘Wetec Greek, CAA 90596
(705) 0534099

we 2 AH & WN

GENERAL. ALLEGATIONS

1 Plaintiff BEACON RESIDENTIAL. COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION (hereafter
referred 10 as the “Asscciation” and/or *Plaintiff") is non-profit mutual benefit corporation duly
organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, composed of the owners of the units
within the BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY development (hereafter referred to as
“owners"). The BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION development and
common areas consist of no less than Five Hundred and Ninety Five (595) condominium ‘units and
common areas which are located on and about 250 King Street and 260 King Street, San Francisco,
California.

The BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY development is also more particularly
described in the following documents:

(1) Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions And
Reservation of Easements for Mission Place (Residential), including Exhibits, hereafter
referred to as "CC&R's") which was recorded with the Recorder for the City and County of
San Francisco on or about December 28, 2004 as document mumber 2004-H879167-00,

The real property which is described above, including all improvements constructed thereon
and all property heretofore and hereafter annexed by the Association pursuant to the CC&R's, shall
be referred to as the “subject property.”

2. During or about November 9, 2004 the Articles of Incorporation of Mission Place
Residential Community Association were fed with the Secretary of State for the State of
California.

3. During or about December 28, 2004, in the official records of the City and County of
San Francisco, the Association caused to be recorded the Amended and Restated Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions And Reservation of Easements for Mission Place

(Residential).

CADANBEACONVLEWT2905 Complsint Throe wpe
COMPLAINT

NASR RAZOR VII PHL wen ee: C u

0870872008 13:53 FAX ANGIUS & TERRY Boar

4, During, about or afier February 10, 2005, due and proper By-Laws of said
Association were duly adopted at a meeting of the Board of Directors. The principal place of

Noo

business of the Plaintiff Association is in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California,
5. During or about May 2, 2005, 2 Certificate of. ‘Amendment of Articles of

a

|| Incorporation of Mission Place Residential Community Association was filed with the Secretary of

6 || State for the State of California. The Certificate of Amendment caused the name of the Plaintiff

7] Association to be changed from “Mission Place Residential Community Association” to “Beacon

81 Residential Community Association.”

9 6. Plaintiff, in accordance with the aforesaid By-Laws and Declaration of Covenants,
101] Conditions and Restrictions, has the sole and exclusive right and duty to manage, operate, control,
11] repair, replace, and restore the common area and the obligation to maintain, preserve, and repair
121 certain of the individually owned areas of the subject property, to let contracts to accomplish its
13] duties and obligations, and has all of the powers necessary to carry out its rights and obligations,

14} including the right, duty, and power to contract for legal services to prosecute any action which it

15 | deems necessary to enforce its powers, rights, and obligations, including bringing the within action.
16 7 Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1368.3 which
17] confers on Plaintiff legal standing to bring suit to recover for: (a) Damage to the common areas; ()
18] Damage to a separate interest that the association is obligated to maintain or repair; and © Damage
19] to a separate interest that arises out of, or is integrally related to, damage to the common area or a
20} separate interest that the association is obligated to maintain or repair,

21 8. Reserved.
22 9% Reserved.
23 10. At the time the Complaint was filed Plaintiff was ignorant of the true names and

24) capacities of Does One (1) through Two Hundred (200), inclusive, and therefore sues these

25|| Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true names
26\| and capacities when same are ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
27\| each of the fictitiously named Defendants is liable or responsible in some manner to Plaintiff on the

amare |] CSISBEACONLN0TZ98 Complain Three wpa

wegen COMPLAINT .
{ROI ARIANA III PHot .

08208720

C t oos

08 13:54 FAX ANGIUS & TERRY

1]| facts hereinafter alleged and that Plaintiff's damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by

21, euch Defendants.

Ll. Plaintiff'is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that at all times herein
mentioned each of the Defendants, including the Defendants sued herein as Does One (1) through
Two Hundred (200), inclusive, was acting as the agent, servant, partner, joint venturer and/or
I employee of each of its Co-Defendants, and in doing the things hereafter mentioned was acting
within the scope of its authority as such agent, servant, partner, joint venturer and/or employee, with
the full knowledge, permission, and consent, either express or implied, of cach of the remaining
Defendants,

12. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that at all times mentioned
E herein Defendants, and each of them, were individuals, business entities, organizations, corporations
f and/or associations who participated in the development, design, or construction of the subject real
property and structures situated thereon.

13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that, commencing ata
precise date which is unknown to Plaintiff, Defendants, and each of them, participated in the manner
set forth herein in the development, design, financing, sale construction and/or insuring of the
subject property, commonly known as the BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY development.
‘The subject property is now owned, operated and controlled by the Plaintiff Association and its
constituent members, as the homeowners residing therein,

14, Plaintiff's informed and believes and thereon alleges that:

(a) Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant CATELLUS
22}! THIRD AND KING, LLC is, and was at all relevant times, a Delaware limited liability company
H doing business in San Francisco, California,

(6) Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant CATELLUS
25 | DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION is, and was at all relevant times, a Delaware corporation doing
26 |} business in San Francisco, California.

© Plaintiff ig informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant CATELLUS

CADABEACON PLE 072908 Complain Three. wed,

TRY
OO Cae Bites, #80 4
worcirrenprt |
ayant COMPLAINT

eee NARI FEA REDO ORD) PRN cena re be0870842008 13:54 FAX ANGIUS & TERRY ooo

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. is, and was at all relevant times, a Delaware corporation
doing business in San Francisco, California.

(a) Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant CATELLUS
OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHP fs, and was at all relevant times, 2 partnership doing
business in San Francisco, California.

() Plaintiff's informed and believes and thereon atleges that Defendant CATELLUS
URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION is, and was at all relevant times, a Delaware
corporation doing business in San Francisco, California.

(f) ‘Plaintiff's informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant THIRD AND
10 || KING INVESTORS LLC is, and was atall relevant times, a limited liability company doing business

Oo woe DH UM fF YW NH

11]| in San Francisco, California.

12 (g) Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant PROLOGIS is,
13] and was at all relevant times, a Delaware corporation doing business in San Francisco, California.
14] paintiffis informed and believes and thereon alleges that during or ebout 2005, CATELLUS

15) THIRD AND KING, LLC, CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, CATELLUS

16|] COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP., CATELLUS OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
17} and CATELLUS URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION merged with PROLOGIS. Plaintiff
181) ig farther informed and believes and thereon alleges that PROLOGIS is the successor by merger

19] entity to CATELLUS THIRD AND KING, LLC, CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
2011 CATELLUS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP., CATELLUS OPERATING LIMITED

21] PARTNERSHIP and CATELLUS URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.

22 (h) Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant MISSION,

231] PLACE LLC is, and was at all relevant times, a Delaware limited lability corapany doing business
24|| in San Francisco, California.

25 (1) Plaintiff's informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant MISSION

26|) PLACE MEZZANINE LLC is, and was at all relevant times, a Delaware limited liability company
27]| doing business in San Francisco, Califomia.

28
sues THEY CADABEACONPLED72008 Connplainy Thine wp
ep o ean eee
nares NH
cena COMPLAINT

Ml. Cr nae eee a rennet RN HE RNGR WG-7) BEL ae were Eee0870872008 13:54 FAX ANGIUS & TERRY @o10

\ W "Plaintiff is informed and belicves and thereon alleges that Defendant MISSION

PLACE MEZZ HOLDINGS LLC is, and was at all relevant times, a Delaware limited liability
company doing business in San Francisco, Califomia.

(k) \\ Plaintiffis informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant MISSION
PLACE PARTNERS LLC is, and was at all relevant times, a Delaware limited liability company
doing business in San Francisco, California.

() Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant CENTURION
REAL ESTATE INVESTORS IV, LLCis, and was at all relevant times, a Delaware limited liability

eae yt DA HA Db WON

company doing business in San Francisco, Califomia.

(m) Plaintiff & informed and believes and thercon alleges that Defendant CENTURION
REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC is, and was ar all relevant times, a Delaware limited liability
company doing business in San Francisco, California. “

(o) —-Plaintiff'is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant CENTURION
PARTNERS LLC is, and was at all relevant times, a Delaware limited liability company doing
business in San Francisco, California

(0) Plaintiff's informed bnd believes and thereon alleges that Defendant WEBCOR
CONSTRUCTION, INC. is, and was at all relevant times, a Califormia corporation doing business in
San Francisco, Califomia,

{p) Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant WEBCOR
BUILDERS, INC. is, and was at all relevant times, a California corporation doing business in San
Francisco, California.

(q) Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant WEBCOR.
CONSTRUCTION, INC. individually and daing business as WEBCOR BUILDERS is, and was at
all relevant times, a California corporation doing business in San Francisco, California.

® Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant WEBCOR
CONSTRUCTION LP individually and doing business as WEBCOR BUILDERS is, and was at all

relevant times, a limited partnership doing business in San Francisco, Califomia.

CADA'REACONPLEO72008 Complain. Three wpd
6

COMPLAINT
we ammnenes § wm enna ARAN GERRI TOT essa0870872008 13:84 FAX ANGIUS & TERRY Qo

(s) _ Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant SKIDMORE
OWINGS & MERRILL LLP is, and was at all relevant times, a New York limited liability
partnership doing business in San Francisco, California.

(t) _ Plaintiff'is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant HKS, INC. is,
and was at all relevant times, a Texas corporation daing business in San Francisco, California.

(un) Plaintiff'is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant HKS
ARCHITECTS, INC. is, and was at all relevant times, a Texas corporation doing business in San
Francisco, California. /

{v) _ Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant HKS, INC.
individually and doing business as HKS ARCHITECTS, INC. is, and was at all relevant times, a
Texas corporation doing business in San Francisco, California.

15. Plaintiff fs informed and believes and thereon alleges that CATELLUS
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, CATELI.US COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
CATELLUS URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PROLOGIS, ‘WEBCOR
CONSTRUCTION, INC., WEBCOR BUILDERS, INC., HKS, INC. and HKS ARCHITECTS, INC.
and certain of the other Defendants designated herein are corporations (hereafter the “CORPORATE
DEFENDANTS"). Plaintiff is further informed and thereon alleges that Does 175 through 200 were
and are the owners of'a majority of the shares of stock in CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, CATELLUS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP., CATELLUS URBAN
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PROLOGIS, WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION, INC., WEBCOR
BUILDERS, INC., HKS, INC. and HKS ARCHITECTS, INC. and the CORPORATE
DEFENDANTS, which have been issued and are outstanding.

16. °Plaintiff'is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that there exists, and at
all times herein there existed, a unity of interest and ownership between Defendants Does 175
through 200 and CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, CATELLUS COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT CORP., CATELLUS URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PROLOGIS,
WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION, INC., VEBCOR BUILDERS, INC., HKS, INC. and HKS

28
axoneetoartis |] CSDA'BEACONVLE072908.Complaint Thres.wpd
1000 NCabt Bhd , #99

FG boa bert nh eer setmenanannnnnsniniipnnatnert
alos Couch CA 458 C

(928) aT

‘OMPLAINT
ce wn ences aoe He cect a vere RATE ARIE EET) BH ae70 C t 012

087082008 13:54 FAL ANGIUS & TERRY

14 ARCHITECTS, INC. and the CORPORATE DEFENDANTS, such that any individuality and
2] separateness between such Defendants has ceased, and that CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT
| CORPORATION, CATELLUS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP., CATELLUS URBAN
4 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PROLOGIS, WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION, INC., WEBCOR
|| BUILDERS, INC., HKS, INC. and HKS ARCHITECTS, INC. and the CORPORATE
6|| DEFENDANTS are the alter egos of Defendants sued and identified herein as Defendants Does 175

13 | instrumentalities and conduits through which Defendants Does 175 through 200 carried on their
14) business in the corporate name as they bad conducted it previous to formation of the said corporate

t entities, exercising control and dominance of such businesses to such an extent that any individuality

| DEFENDANTS do not, and at all times therein mentioned did not, exist.
18. Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT

COMPLAINT

_ANORON1 BE RRINR 097 PA co cate Ha0870872008 13:54 Fax ANGICS & TERRY Zor

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP., CATELLUS URBAN DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, PROLOGIS, WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION, INC., WEBCOR BUILDERS, INC.,
| HKS, INC. and HKS ARCHITECTS, INC. and the CORPORATE DEFENDANTS, are inadequately
capitalized and incapable of responding in damages to Plaintiff.

19. PROLOGIS, CATELLUS THIRD AND KING, LLC, CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, CATELLUS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP., CATELLUS
OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and CATELLUS URBAN DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION shall hereafter collectively be referred to as “PROLOGIS/CATELLUS.”

20. | MISSION PLACE LLC, MISSION PLACE MEZZANINE LLC, MISSION PLACE
MEZZ HOLDINGS LLC, MISSION PLACE PARTNERS LLC, CENTURION REAL ESTATE
INVESTORS IV, LLC, CENTURION REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC and CENTURION
PARTNERS LLC shall hereafter collectively be referred to as “MISSION PLACE LLC.”

21. WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION, INC., WEBCOR BUILDERS, INC., WEBCOR
| CONSTRUCTION, INC. individually and doing business as WEBCOR BUILDERS and WEBCOR
H CONSTRUCTION LP individually and doing business as WEBCOR BUILDERS shall hereafter
| cotfectively be referred to as “WEBCOR.”

22. SKIDMORE OWINGS & MERRILL LLP, HKS, INC., HKS ARCHITECTS, INC.
and HKS INC. individually and doing business as HKS ARCHITECTS, INC. shalt hereafter
} collectively be referred to as “SOM/HKS.”

23. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants
“PROLOGIS/CATELLUS”, “MISSION PLACE LLC”, THIRD AND KING INVESTORS LLC and
| Does f through 30, as developer, its general partners, owner, designer, builder, contractor, and seller,

ww wen A FH & WN

10

| couunenced to develop the subject real property by causing the construction thereon of the herein

7.0 H
Walera Cig, CA HIM

COMPLAINT
ee cere tn te nnn nce HERAT  RERPIPER U7) DHL087082008 13:55 FAX ANGIUS & TERRY Qo

2 we Ye A mH Bw N

NM NN HR KB Rm eS
a nan er O KH | 5S OD we NUN A HY FY NY SK SS

27

Plaintiff Association and; (b) the documents submitted by said Defendants to the California
Department of Real Estate and upon which the Public Report was issued. At all tires therein
mentioned said Defendants, and each of them, acted as the developers, its general partners, owners,
designers, builders, contractors and sellers of the subject property. It was the intent of the foregoing
Defendants, and each of them, that said property and structures situated thereon were to be used for
residential purposes.

24,  Plaintiff'is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants
“PROLOGIS/CATELLUS”, “MISSION PLACE LLC", THIRD AND KING INVESTORS LLC,
“WEBCOR”, “SOM/HKS” and Does 1 through 65, and Does 150 through 200, inclusive, entered
info agreements, whether in writing or oral, with each other and other Defendants herein for the
purpose of acting as contractors, designers, subcontractors, material men, suppliers and/or builders
with respect to the construction of the subject improvements. Plaintiff is further informed and
‘elieves and thereon alleges that at the times that the subject contracts were entered inte by and
between the above identified Defendants, “PROLOGIS/CATELLUS”, “MISSION PLACE LLC",
THIRD AND KING INVESTORS LLCand Does 1 through 30 were the sole shareholders, officers
and directors of Plaintiff. These contracts were, therefore, made for the express and immediate
benefit of Plaintiff. Plaintiff was a third party beneficiary of the foregoing contracts under the
principles set forth in Gilbert Fin, Corp. v. Steelwork Contracting Co, (1978) 82 €.A.3d 65, among
other cases, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that said Defendants, and each of
them, did in fact, act as developers, contractors, subcontractors and/or builders with respect to
construction of the subject improvernents.

25. Inthe foregoing capacities, and as the principals, developers, subdivides and
contractors, Defendants made and executed certain surety obligations in writing pursuant to Sections
2790 et seq., including but not limited to Section 2792.9(a)(2), of the Califomia Code of Regulations
which, inter alia, secured completion of the common areas of the subject project and payment of the
developer assessments thereunder. Conformed copies of said written surety obligations were filed
with the California Department of Real Estate, which obligations provided coverage in a presently

CADAIBEACON'PLE}072908 Complaizn Three. pd
10
COMPLAIN

T
MARIN FH BRIER U7) PM be08/08/2008 13:55 FAT ANGIUS & TERRY ois

unascertained sum or sums, being the construction costs for certain of said common area properties,
and a partial amount of the developer's assessment obligations, all for the benefit of the Plaintiff
Association.

26. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges thet Defendants
“PROLOGIS/CATELLUS", “MISSION PLACE LLC”, THIRD AND KING INVESTORS LLC,
“WEBCOR” and Does 1 through 30, inclusive, are and at all times therein mentioned were business

entities, individuals, corporations and organizations associated together by way of some agreement,
Joint venture, partnership, or decision between them to participate for the purpose of acquiring the
subject property and/or constructing the subject improvements thereon, anid participating in some
manner or fashion etween them as developers, owners, merchants, lenders, insurers, suppliers,
escrow officers, title companies, contractors, subcontractors, builders, sellers, and/or real estate
prokers respecting the subject dwelling units and subject improvements; that said Defendants
intended to and did act as owners, merchants lenders, insurers, suppliers, contractors, subcontractors,
developers, builders, and sellers and/or real estate brokers respecting the sale of the subject property
and subject dwelling units to members of the public. Plaintiff is unaware of the precise and exact
nature of the relationship among these Defendants and the part each played in the acquisition,
planning, development, financing, construction, and sale of the subject property and the
improvements to the subject property. When the true and precise nature of their participation and
relationship becomes known this pleading will be amended to reflect the same, of it will be
established at the time of trial according to proof,

27. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thercon alleges that cach of the following
Defendants participated in the development of the subject property and the construction of the
improvements upon the subject property as follows:

a. Defendants “PROLOGIS/CATELLUS”, “MISSION PLACE LLC", THIRD
AND KING INVESTORS LLC and Does 1 through 30, inclusive, were the original developers
and/or its general partners and/or joint venturers respecting the subject project, obtained the services
of and entered into agrecments with certain of the other Defendants for the purpose of constructing

CADAIBEACONALEOT2008 Complaint Thene mpd ,
1
COMPLAINT
coe evenness ARR F- RRIEAR 997 PH. bs-nsv2008 13:55 PAX ANGIUS & TERRY Bows

the improvements on the subject property. It was the intent of such Defendants, and each of them,
that the said property, common areas and the improvements on the said property be sold to and used
by members of the public for residential purposes;

b, The original developers commenced to develop the subject project by causing

1
2
3
4
5 || the construction of the herein above described improvements and residential dwelling units on the
6) subject property. Thereafter, and by written contracts of purchase and sale, said residential dwelling
7 units, real property, common arcas and improvements on the subject property were sold to members
|| of the Plaintiff Association, Said contracts and the Association's Declaration of Covenants,
9] Conditions and Restrictions expressly provided that in the event Litigation was commenced to
10) enforce the terms of same, the prevailing party would be entitled to recover reasonable attomey's
11] fees; , i
12 ce. _ Defendants “PROLOGIS/CATELLUS”, “MISSION PLACE LLC”, THIRD
13) AND KING INVESTORS LLC, “WEBCOR” and Does 1 through 50 and Does 150 through 200, -
14|| inclusive, participated as the development entity, its joint venturers, general partners, builders,

15]] contractors, suppliers, insurers, matedal men and subcontractors with respect to the development of

16 || the subject property and construction of the subject residential dwelling units, common areas and

17] other improvements thereon. In performing such services, said Defendants, and each of them did so
184 with the knowledge and understanding that said property, improvements to said property and

19] common areas would be sold to the general public for use as residential dwelling units;

20 d. Defendants “PROLOGIS/CATELLUS", “MISSION PLACE LLC”, THIRD
21) AND KING INVESTORS LLC, “WEBCOR”, “SOM/HKS” and Does 51 through 65 and 150

22|| through 200, inclusive, provided architectural and engineering services with respect to the design of
23 || the subject property, the subject residential dwelling units, common areas and other improvements
24\ thereon. Such design services included, but were not limited to, architecture, landscape architecture,
25 || civil cngincering, mechanical engineering, structural engineering, soils engineering and electrical
26|| engineering;

27 c. Defendants “PROLOGIS/CATELLUS", “MISSION PLACE LLC”, THIRD

CADASEACONPLEOT2908 Comptasn Thive wpd

wane Box tor tc ttt nC
sae COMPLAINT

Wee ee eee ee en NRA ERR TT Oe ee mt. 08/087 20

08 13355 FAX ANGIUS & TERRY Gor

AND KING INVESTORS LLC and Does 1 through 30 sold the subject residential dwelling units,
subject property, improvements to said property and common areas and respective interests in the
Plaintiff Association to members of the public, including members of the Plaintiff Association.
FI EOF 1o
(Civil Code Title 7 + Violation of Building Standards for Originat Construction
Civil Code Sections 895 ef seq.)

28, Plaintiff incorporates herein by this reference paragraphs 1 through 27 above set forth.
29. Defendants “PROLOGIS/CATELLUS”, “MISSION PLACE LLC”, THIRD AND
KING INVESTORS LLC and Does 1 through 30 are each a "Builder" of the BEACON
RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY development pursuant to California Civil Code Section 911.

30. Defendants “WEBCOR”, “SOM/HKS" and Does 3) through 65 and Does 150
through 200 are, pursuant to California Civil Code Section 936, “general contractors, subcontractors,

material suppliers, individual product manufacturers [and/or] design professionals [who] caused, in
whole or in part, a violation of a standard as the result of a negligent act or omission or a breach of
contract.”

31. Plaintiffis informed and believes and thercon alleges that during or after 2004,
Defendants “PROLOGIS/CATELLUS”, “MISSION PLACE LLC”, THIRD AND KING
INVESTORS LLC, and Does 1 through 30 entered into purchase and sale agreements with certain or
all of the original members of the Association in connection with the purchase and sale of the
condominium units which comptise, in part, the BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
development.

32.  Onor before Septernber 8, 2006, Plaintiff caused to be sent to
“PROLOGIS/CATELLUS”, “MISSION PLACE LLC”, THIRD AND KING INVESTORS LEC and
“WEBCOR” a written notice of claim pursuant to Califomia Civil Code Sections 895 ef seq. and
1375, Plzintiff’s written notice of claim was supplemented by the following notices of claims that
were sent to the Defendants: (a) Letter from Plaintiff 19 Daniel B. Berman dated September 20, 2006,
a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this

CADABEACONPLENO72908. Compinut Three. wd
COMPLANT
seca ene es tena a VARIO A RIN TRF OW+ 0870972008 23:55 FAX ANGIUS & TERRY Qos

| reference; (b) Letter from Plaintiff to Peter J. Laufenberg dated September 20, 2006, a true and

24 correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference; ©
3 Letter from Plaintiff to Daniel E. Berman dated September 27, 2006, a true and correct copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by this reference; (d) Letter from
Plaintiff to Peter J. Laufenberg dated September 27, 2006, a tne and correct copy of which is
antached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein by this reference; and, (e) Letter from Robert
M. Osier, Esq. to counsel for the Defendants dated November 10, 2006, a true and correct copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit “E” and incorporated herein by this reference. Asa result of the

i]
9] dispatch of such written notices of claims, all statutes of limitation were tolled on or before

s|
6
7
at

10] September 8, 2006.

33. On November 3, 2006, Plaintiff caused to be sent to “SOM/HKS" a written notice of
| claim pursuant to California Civil Code Section 895 ef seq, A tme and correct copy of such written
notice of claim is attached hereto as Exhibit “F” and incorporated herein by this reference.

14 34,  Onorabout February 4, 2008, Plaintiff and Defendants “PROLOGIS/CATELLUS”,
15 “MISSION PLACE LLC”, THIRD AND KING INVESTORS LLC and “WEBCOR?” signed a

16|| document entitled “Tolling Agreement Regarding The Beacon Residential Owners Association’s SB

19] the alleged SB 800 Claim shall be tolled and suspended as of September 20, 2006, the date the

20|| Association first submitted its SB 800 claim, The tolling and suspension of the investigation,

inspection, testing and repair period shall continue until such time as this [Tolling Agreement] is
terminated ... or September 20, 2008, whichever occurs first ...” ,

35. Defendants “PROLOGIS/CATELLUS", “MISSION PLACE LLC”, THIRD AND

| Code Section 920.
36. Pursuant to California Civil Code Sections 895 ef seq., as “builders” of the BEACON

CADAREACONPLE 72908 Complain, Thee wp

COMPLAINT
Wo. - cree anne eee ERAN fil RRGINR VOT) PM De4» 0808/2008 13:55 FAS ANGIUS & TERRY Boro

RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY development, Defendants “PROLOGIS/CATELLUS”, “MISSION .
PLACE LLC”, THIRD AND KING INVESTORS LLC and Does 1 through 30 are liable to Plaintife
for violations of certain of the puilding standards set forth in California Civil Code Sections 896 and
900. These violations arise out of, pertain to, or are selated to the original construction of the
BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY development.

37. Pursuant to Califomia Civil Code Sections 895 ef seq., a8 gencral contractors,
subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals who
caused, in whole or in part, a violation of a particular standard set forth in California Civil Code
Sections 896 and 900 as the result of an act or omission or breach of contract, Defendants
“WEBCOR”, “SOM/HKS” and Does 31 through 65 and Does 150 through 200 are liable to Plaintiff
for violations of certain of the building standards set forth in California Civil Code Sections 896 and

900. These violations arise out of, pertain to, or are related to the original construction of the
BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY development.

3%. The acts and omissions of Defendants “PROLOGIS/CATELLUS”, “MISSION
PLACE LLC”, THIRD AND KING INVESTORS LLC, “WEBCOR”, “SOM/HKS” and Docs 1
through 200 have resulted in violation of certain of the functionality standards set forth in California
Civil Code Section 896 and certain of the “fit and finish” warranties set forth in California Civil
Code Section 900. These violations include the following:

A The violations identified in Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”, “E” and “FP”,

204 B. ‘There is excessive heat gain through the windows in the condominium units rendering such
21 units uninhabitable during certain periods,
22 1 Excessive heat gain window problems have been compounded by virtue of
23 Defendants’ installation of film on the interior glazing surfaces causing such interior
24 glazing surfaces to reach temperatures in excess of 160 degrees.
25 2. There has been failure and degradation of window seats by virtue of excessive heat
26 gain on interior glazing surfaces.
27 3 There has been failure and cracking of window glazing by virtue of excessive heat -
28
Anaswed de TOMY LP CADABEACONPLEOT2 008. Complain Three wed
IPO N Cal Brod, HO .
P.O hea OP
‘Wena Cho, GA MSPS — tt AA
(725) 999.9992

MPLAINT
pene ance wet Ween sn see oe ttm wee on MORE RIAA OT) DHL+ 0808/2008 13:56 FAT ANGIUS & TERRY Bozo

gain on interior glazing surfaces.

4, The manufacturer's window warranty has been voided by virme of the application of

noe

the film to interior glazing surfaces.

3. Defective design, materials, construction and installation of windows and windaw
systems have contributed to the excessive heat gain problems.

6. Defective desion, materials, construction and installation of window glazing have

contributed to the excessive heat gain problems.

7 Defective design, materials, construction and installation of ventilation systems have

we UN A tA Rw

contributed to the excessive heat gain problems.

_
So

8. Defective design, materials, construction and installation of mechanical systems have

-

contributed to the excessive heat gain problems,

_
™

% Defective design, materials, construction and installation of condominium heat

~
w&

mitigation and insulation systems have contributed to the excessive heat gain

—
>

problems.

C, The ventilation in the condominium units and common areas is deficient.

~
a

16 1. ‘There are not enough “Z" ducts in the condominium units in order to satisfy minium
v7 building code requirements.
1g 2 The “Z" ducts were designed, fabricated and installed in a defective manner as they
19 routinely become obstructed and inoperative.
20 3. The lack of ventilation can lead to health problems due to a lack of sufficient fresh
21 air.
2 4, Defective design, materials, construction and installation of ventilation systems have
23 contributed to the excessive heat gain problems.
24 3, Defective design, materials, construction and installation of “2” duct ventilation
25 systems have contributed to the excessive heat gain problems.
26 6. Defective design, materials, construction and installation of mechanical systems have
27 contributed to the excessive heat gain problems.
28

Ldoarebinertng 9 CDDmmencortecnmos connate ot

wide Gen ek sie i

MPLAINT
mene es en cette at rr mee HORNY HE BERIT) PN08-v9/2005 13253 FAX + v ANGIUS & TERRY uO Qooz

SUMMONS SUMA100
(CITAGION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:

‘O AL, DEMANDADO): .
aN us Bede wae Hie: Catellus Development Corporation; |
Enelins Commercial Developement Corp.; Calellus Operating Limi ed
Partnershi j eatetlus rban_ evelopement Co oration: Third and King
Investors PL * Prologis; Mission Place LLC; Missio: Flace Messanine

Le Ml ete fa Cees et Fe
u7On Kea! ate Invest) th 3 Centurion Keal sstate al
CLC; Centurion Parmers, LLC; Webcor Construction, inc.; se

YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
Beacon Residential Community Association

FOR COURT USE OMY
{SOLO PARA USO BELA CORTE)

‘You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this suramons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a
copy served on the plaintilf. A letter of phone call wilt not protect you. Your writton response must be in proper tegal form if you want the
court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use tor yaur response, ‘Yau can find these court forms and more
information at the California Courts Oniine Self-Help Center (wwrw.courtinfo.ca.goviselfetp), your county law library, of the courthouse
hearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the coun clerk fora fee waiver form. Ifyou do not fite your response on time, you may
tose the case by defauit, and your wages, monay, ard property may be takon without further warning from the court.

There are other legal requirements, You may want to call an attommey tight away. Hf you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an
attomey referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligibte for tree fegal ‘services from a nonprofit legal services:
program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www. Jawhelpcalifomla.org), the California
‘Courts Online Self-Help Center (wwrw.courtinfo.ca.goviselfnelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association,

Tene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después dé que le entrequen esta citacién y papeles legates pera presenter una respuasta por escrito

Jegalas gratultos de un ma de servicios legales sin fines de Iver. Piece enconvar estos grupos sin fines de tucro en ef sido web de
California Legat Services, (www.tawhelpcaiitornia.org), en et Contra de Ayuda de tas Cortes de California,
.courtints.ca.gov/selthelpfespanay) o poniéndose en contacto con le corte el colegia de sbowados foralcs.
The name and address of the court is: cr.
(Elnombre y drwocion deta corte 28) BEE s -478453
an Exarcisco Superior Court
400 McAllister Street

San Francisco, CA 94102

The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attomey, is:
{El nombre, la direccion y ef namero de telefono del abogada det domandanta, o dol demandante que no tiene abogado, eat
Daniel E. Angius {925} 939-9933 (925) 339-9934
1980's satis pia Blvd, Suite 250 4

N. California Sivd, Suite ¢ | “A
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 © GORDON PARK-LL Cashin G. Roukier
DATE: aig 2008 Clerk, by : : 2 deputy
(echo) as (Secretaria) (Agjunto)
(For proof of sei ‘of this summons, Use f of Service of Summons (f 'POS-010),)
{Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use e formulario Proof of Service ef Summons, (POS-010)).

ey NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served

j as an individual defendant.
| as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):

on behalf of (specify):

under: ;° GCP 416.10 (corporation) 1"? COP 416.60 (minor)
[GCP 418.20 (defunct corporation) I7"" COP 419,70 (conservatee)
“CCP 416.40 (association of partnership) "." CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
awe Other (specity):
0 oe 4, [+ by personal detivery on (date) Page tot
Bart maemtea so Haridalory ee Lega Cee of Cini Procckarm $8 412 20, 065
Sako Court of Canaria SUMMONS ? 1

SSUMLI0G frit, danuriry 1, 2004,

Anant

3

AE ARIAL TANGO OH

77 Pm ANS

f08/08/2008 13:53 FAX xX ANGIUS & TERRY uw. fhoos

PETMIONERPLAINTIFF, Beacon Residential Cormunity Associat CASE HUME {
RESPONDENTIDEFENDANT: Catellus Third end King 2LC, et @ ee suse i

Attachment so Summons; :

Webeor Builders, Inc.; Wekcor Construction Inc., individually and doing
business as Webcor Sullders; Webcor Construction oP individually and doing
business,as Webcor Builders; Skidmore Owings & Merrill Lup; HES, Inc.7 HKS
Architects, Inc.; HKS, Inc, individually and doing business as HKS Architects,
Inc. and DOES 4 through 200,

Ss

emanate te ame eit tee ne cn MARAE AE OAD AOA IE0808/2008 14:09 FAX

1990 N.
P.O. Box BO77

TELEPHONE NO. (325

Riera.

MAILUKG ADORESS:

BRANCH NAME,
Beacon

Auto Tort
ro—"’ Auto (22)

{ _[ Asbestos (04)
' ™ proguet liability (24)

“| Other PUPDAND (23)

| "Tei rights (08)
-" Defamation (13)
[77 Fraud (16)

L

Employment

2. Thiscase “xy is

factors requiring exceptional judicial management:

Large number of separately represented parties d.

Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel ¢,

issues that will be time-consuming to resotve
¢. Lx." Substantial amount of documentary evidence

3. Remedies sought (check all that apply)

alo
bs

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY |
srmeer anoress: 400 McAllister Street

c

ATTORNEY OR PARTY VATHOUT ATTORNEY (Mam, Siete Ber munoes, pred AONE!
Daniel E. Angius
Angivs & Terry LLP
California Blvd, Suite 950
Walnut Creek, CA 94596

} 939+!
Res.

9933
iden

orvannzecope San Francisco, CA 94192

Vv.

=] Uninsured motorist (46)
Other PUPDAWD (Personal tnjory/Property
Damagwweongtul Dexth) Tort

[7] Medical matpraction (45)

Non-PUPDAVD (Other) Tort
TZ] Business tonunfair business practice (07)

Imetectual property (19>
“a Professional negigence (25)
{other non-PUPDAWD tort (38)

[] Wrongtul termination (8)
1 Other employment (15)

orsan Francis

ANGIUS & TERRY

1. 1 Counter

Complex Case Designation
pen Joinder
Filed with first appearance by defendan:

{Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402)

ty »/
1 Tapity Cts

Hlems 1-6 belaw must be completed (sea instructions on page 2).

T” Gheck one box below for the casa type that best describes this case:

Contrack

7" Breach of contract warranty (06)
] Rute 3.740 collections (09)

77] omer cotections (09)
eae. MSURANCE coverage (18)
1 oe Othet contract (37)

Real Property

"| Brminard domainvinverse
concemnation (14)

“7 I Wrongful eviction (23)
vom Other real property (26)
Untawful Detaioer
1___! Conwnercial (34)
| Residential (32)
1 [Drags (8)
Judicial Review
"} Asset forfeiture (08)

17] Petition re: arbitration award (11)

* aaaas Writ OF pnandtate (02)
‘Other judicial review (39)

a... X, monetary d.f_._; nonmonetary:

4, Number of causes of action (specify): Eleven.

5. Thiscase [X_ is

Date: August 8, 2008

ele .
TYPE OR FRONT WALIE) ~~

in sanctions.

© Unless this is @ coffecti

tudes Cerone OF Canloenn
[Rev,

2
‘CAMEO [Fuoe, hy 2, 2097}

» File this cover sheet in addition to
» ifthis case ts complex under rule 3.40
other parties to the action oF pr

T7] snot aciass action sult.
6. Ifthere are any known releted cases, file and serve a notice of related

NOTICE

« Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action obpro
under the Probate Coda, Family Cade, of Welfare and Institutions Code), (Cal

cover sheet required by focal court rute.
et seq, of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on alt

fing.
der rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes onty, wa
ts an

Lf Reaor
Cv

Qooz

Provislonally Complex Civil Litigation.
{Cal. Rules of Court, nsfes $.400-3.403)

om,

} Antirusy Trade regulation (03)

Tae! Construction dafest (10)

1

Mass tort (40)
| Securities tigation (28)
} EnvironmentalToxic tart (30)

fs Insurance average claims arising from the
above listed provisionally complex case

types (41)

Enforcement of Judgment
1” “Lentorcement of fudgmant (20)
Miscellancous Civil Complaint

1... Other campltaint (rot specified above) (42)

RICO (27)

Miscellaneous Civit Petition

(7T] Partnership and corporate govemance (21)
aus | Othee petition (not specified above) (43)

e ay use form CM-015.)
YD

“GIVE CASE COVER SHEET . Leva

isnot complex under tule 3.400 of the California Rutes of Court. Ifthe case is comptex, mark the:

“x | Large number of witnesses,

[~“T Coordination with retated actions pending In one or more courts
in other counties, states, or countries, or In a federat court

£. 777) Substantial postfudgment judicial supervision

declaratory or injunctive relief c. |

eding {except small claims cases or cases filed
Rutes of Court, ruta 3.220.} Failure to file may resutt

” punitive

Gok SURGE Om OF dace al AUMINION, az 310

Tal Paden ol Gas. nowt 290, 2220, 3 «00-3403 3740,
is

aan (FE RRDAIRAGAN DEEXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT BRECORDING REQUESTED BY: wll Qh Ct Nt
fan Freeioce
boc: Samet og
Rect 1-CHICAGO Tila Company
Tita guise 28, 2004 ibe 88:88
WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO: REEL I793 TNAGE 6258
par /PB/i-i 34
JACKSON, DeMARCO &
PECKENPAUGH (SLM) se ame tanae mows
2030 Main Street, Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92614

(Space Above for Recorder’s Use)
Cc #1N 532 st

AMENDED AND RESTATED

DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS

AND RESERVATION OF EASEMENTS
FOR
MISSION PLACE (RESIDENTIAL)

$084-3451 NSLM294\CCRS 5439164
HiARweH

AdOD Galles

$H879167

TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOR
AMENDED AND RESTATED

DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS

ES!

ARTICLE I
Ld
12

ARTICLE I
24
2.2
23
24
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
29
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
214
2.15
2.16
247

2.18
2.19

ARTICLE I

AND RESERVATION OF EASEMENTS

FOR
MISSION PLACE (RESIDENTIAL)
IN PAGE
DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION ....ssccssssossessessnsssssssanyerunenssrenvessens 3
DEFINITIONS ..rcssssseesessereesoranesoasears ssoungvaseenansces wad
INTERPRETATION.

USE RESTRICTIONS.
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES
BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ..
NUISANCES

IMPROVEMENTS...
COMPLIANCE WITH FIRE RESTRICTIONS ..
INDEMNIFICATION.
FURTHER SUBDIVISION.
WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM...
VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS
RIGHTS OF DISABLED
CONDOMINIUM WALLS
LIMITED ASSOCIATION COMMON AREAS

COVENANT AND ENVIRONMENT RESTRICTION ON PROPERTY
AND RMP REQUIREMENTS. ....ssessssscssssrsesnsrersssssesananansatenseernnansenson 18

NONDISCRIMINATION REQUIREMENTS...
THRESHOLD SILLS AND DOOR LIMITERS.
DISCLOSURES esos sseessnsesesnsennneconsee

wie
8083-345 | NSLMIGA\CCRS 5439164
tars

AdOD Galsliyad3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6

37
3.8
3.9
3.10
ARTICLE IV
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
ARTICLE V
5.
3.2
5.3
54
5.5
5.6
3.7
5.8
59
5.10
ARTICLE VI
61
6.2

H879167

NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES...
ACCESS FACILITIES; SECURITY AND PRIVACY DISCLAIMER... 20
URBAN ENVIRONMENT
ELECTRIC POWER LINES
PROPERTY LINES

SPECIAL TAX ASSESSMENT OR MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICTS 24

NATURAL HAZARD ZONE DISCLOSURES
CHANGE IN PLANS.
VEHICLE PARKING.
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS

THE ASSOCIATION ..
GENERAL DUTIES AND POWERS...
SPECIFIC DUTIES AND POWERS...
STANDARD OF CARE, NONLIABILITY,
MEMBERSHIP...sssseessossneneeers
VOTING RIGHTS... cesses
REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE .
UNSEGREGATED REAL PROPERTY TAXES.

DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE.......
MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE
POWERS AND DUTIES wsssssesssssessessonee
REVIEW OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS...
MEETINGS AND ACTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE
NO WAIVER OF FUTURE APPROVALS,
COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS.
INSPECTION OF WORK.

PROPERTY EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS .
BASEMENTS u..ssseccccsssseeneasseenansnenees
RIGHT TO GRANT EASEMENTS...

-fi-
. 5083-3451 NSLMIONCCRS 5439164
lnm

AdOD GSISILYso63
64

ARTICLE VII ASSOCIATION MAINTENANCE FUNDS AND ASSESSMENTS.

TA
72
13
14
75
7.6
17

ARTICLE VIN) = INSURANCE.

BI
8.2
83
84
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
89

ARTICLE IX

91
9.2
93
94
ARTICLE X
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6

Ha79167

DELEGATION OF USE
RIGHT OF ENTRY

PERSONAL OBLIGATION TO PAY ASSESSMENTS ..
ASSOCIATION FUNDS.
PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENTS.......
WAIVER OF USE,
LIMITS ON ANNUAL ASSESSMENT INCREASES
ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENTS

DUTY TO OBTAIN INSURANCE; TYPES
WAIVER OF CL