HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 83-04; Windsong Shores; Tentative Map (CT)POST CONSULTANTS
5150 Avenida Encinas
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(619) 431-9924
October 16,1989
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Attention: Christer Westman
Subject: Windsong Shores (CT 83-4)
Onsite Grading Permit Time Extension
Dear Mr. Westman:
Enclosed is a copy of the approved Amendment to the Coastal Development
Permit for the subject grading time extension. Please call me with any further
requirements you may have.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Very truly yours,
POST CONSULTANTS
Kim L. Post
cc: Dan Clark, Engineering Department w/enclosure
Leonard Bedolla, MDC
Dale Mitchell, CMB
Paula Madson, Lightfoot Planning Group
RECEIVED
OCT161989
CITY OF CARLSBAD
DEVELOP. PROC. SERV. DIV.
KPLTR89003
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO COAST DISTRICT
1333 CAMINO DEI RIO SOUTH, SUITE 125
SAN DIEGO, CA 92)08-3520
(619) 297-9740
AMENDMENT TO
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6-83-613-A3
Page 1 of 3
On October 12. 1989 the California Coastal Commission granted to
Marlborough Development
this permit for the development described below, subject to the attached
Standard and Special Conditions.
Original
Description:
Proposed
Amendment:
Site:
Demolition of two single family residences and construction of
140 condominium units with underground parking and common
recreational areas-on a ten acre bluff-top parcel overlooking
Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
Lot Area
Building coverage
Pavement Coverage
Landscape Coverage
Wetland Area
Parking Spaces
Zoning
Plan Designation
10.15 acres
1.75 acres (18%)
0.13 acres ( 1%)
6.75 acres (66%)
1.52 acres (15%)
348
PC
Residential Medium High Density
Allow extension of the grading season from October 1 to November
15, 1989 to allow for site preparation, trenching for the
installation of major utilities, construction of subterranean
parking and installation of temporary and permanent erosion
control facilities.
Located at the southerly terminus of Harbor Drive, between, the
AT & SF Railway right-of-way and Interstate Highway 5, in the
City of Carlsbad, San Diego County. APN 206-222-22.
Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Commission by
PETER DOUGLAS
Executive Director
and
MVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6-83-613-A3AMENDMENT TO COASTAL
Page 2 of 3
IMPORTANT: THIS PERMIT IS NOT VALID UNLESS AND UNTIL A COPY OF THE PERMIT
WITH THE SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION OFFICE.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The undersigned permittee acknowledges
receipt of this permit and agrees to
abide by all terms and conditions
thereof.
Date Signature of Permittee
STANDARD CONDITIONS: '
1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgement. The permit is not valid and
development shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the
permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and
acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission
office.
2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two
years from the date on which the Commission voted on the application.
Development shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a
reasonable period of time. Application for extension of the permit must
be made prior to the expiration date.
3. Compliance. All development must occur in strict compliance with the
proposal as set forth below. Any deviation from the approved plans must
be reviewed and approved by the staff and may require Commission approval.
4. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any
condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission.
5- Inspections. The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site
and the development during construction, subject to 24-hour advance notice.
6. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided
assignee files with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and
conditions of the permit.
7. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall
be perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee
to bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the
terms and conditions.
L^VAMENDMENT TO COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6-83-613-
Page 3 of 3
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
The permit is subject to the following conditions:
1. Grading and Erosion Control. The applicant shall comply with the
following conditions related to grading and erosion control:
A. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit
amendment, the applicant shall submit final grading and erosion control plans,
approved by the City of Carlsbad, to the Executive Director for review and
written approval. Said plans shall indicate that all grading activities shall
be completed by November 15, 1989.
t
B. Prior to commencement of any grading activity, the permittee
shall submit a final, detailed grading schedule which indicates that all
grading and construction/installation of erosion control measures will be
completed within the permitted time frame designated in this condition and
that any variation from the schedule shall be promptly reported to the
Executive Director.
City of Carlsbad
•& MB^^^Hf—VfMBBm^H^V^IHBB^HP^^^^^MPlannina Deoartment
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF DECISION
September 19, 1989
Dale Mitchell
Crosby Mead Benton & Associates
5966 La Place Court, Suite 170
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: Dl 89-4 WINDSONG SHORES
At the Planning Commission meeting of September 6, 1989, your application was considered.
The Commission voted 7-0 to approve your request. Some decisions are final at Planning
Commission, and others automatically go forward to City Council. If you have any questions
regarding the final dispositions of your application, please call the Planning Department at 438-
1161.
L,
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
MJH:af
Enclosure: Planning Commission Resolution No. 2910
2O75 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 - (619) 438-1161
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk
DATE:
(Ettg of Otadabafo
TELEPHONE
(619) 434-2808
IP
TO:
FROM:
RE:
L.6.6.
PI
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council
within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item
will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by
all parties.)
Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the
Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council
Meeting of ^e^f" ,X^ /<?
Signature
O: Mayor Lewis & Mayor Pro-tern Ann Kulchln
City Council Members Marnaux, Larson and Petti ne
Director of Community Development Orenyak
City Manager Ratchet!
Director of Planning ^
City Planning CommissionesSchlehber, Schramm, Erwin, Hall,
ncFadcen. Holmes, and riarcus
City Planner Westrnan
CHy Engineer Evens
Posies Chief ^ales
Firs Chief Thompson ,
FsCM oaroara R. Falgoust
'lichael R. Papenthien^Sf
40 ISA Leyeng Layang Circle, Windscng Cove
°. 0. Oox 1660
Carlsbad, CA 92000
434-2632
RE: Proposed Permit No. 63-4; Construction of Condominium Project by
fieri borough Construction on North Shore of Ague Hedonia Lagoon
This project should not be built at all because it would be excessively
destructive to human environmental factors including quality of living,
nee-Uh, a?id safety. The destruction would include overburdened population
Density, noise pollution., carcinogenic pollutants, and various safety hazards.
These problems are inevitable in the event of further construction due to
:wo prohibitive design features of the Windsong Cove project.
~he *"ir?t design feature is the nature of the existing permanent accas?
routes. These routes are not adequate enough to accommodate existing
traffic safely. The accesses ere not even designed as thoroughfares. They
5re bt't narrow, winding driveways, it is already hazardous to back out of or
approach a parking space as cars whip around" blind corners, sometimes on
the wrong side of the access. Collisions are narrowly avoided. Even worse
potential hazards are the very real prospects of hitting a child who is riding
a Dike or nitting a pedestrian who is crossing a drive or walking along it to
'he ms'1 boxes which are along the drives. There is indeed a 15 mph speed
limit, but the res/nt/ that must acknowledged as the basis for sound
decision-making is that drivers ignore this limit unsafely despite speed
bumps, narrow routes, anc blind comers. Cars literally "squee;" around
cor-sre. We 3re certain that you can vsrify such complaints If you research
police records. These hazards would remain even if the speed limit were
heeded. Furthermore, the permanent access routes are not designed to meet
ecrsss neecs in the event of mass exodus. There would be no way ail
residents could exit safely in the event of a sweeping fire, for example.
These accesses do not safely meet the needs of individual fire, police or
Health emergencies either. You csnnot safely add the traffic of 130
additional units (most of which will probably have more than one vehicle) to
permanent access routes that are already unsafe for 213 units (161 existing
Windsong Cove and 52 neighboring Papagayo on Kalpati Street}! These small
routes would bear the everyday traffic of 343 units, 227 on the east
"Papagayo" side and 116 on the west "Palms" side.
The second prohibitive design feature is that second floor living areas
literally overhang the permanent access routes. These areas are master
iadrGoms. Living rooms or; the ground level are also within feet of the
:"outes. We cannot understand why you would even entertain this proposal
which will allow carcinogenic and chemical exhaust pollutants to be
projected directly into our dwellings, especially of the concentration that
would be emitted from such a volume of cars within such a small area. It
would be unconscionable and irresponsible to allow this to happen. Noise
pollution is another issue. Noise pollution is compounded on all streets by
speed bumps necessary for safety. Moreover brick surfacing in the middle
of ihs accesses on Layang Layang Circle further exacerbate noise pollution
in Ihese sreas. Further noise pollution is emitted from a drain grating in
the st^ee? within feet of rny bedroom and living room. These carcinogenic,
ch?r~«c9K an^ noise po^utents ere intolerable. These pollutants sap a
aualitu of living that is basic to human health and well-being. We plan to
const,;! whatever state agency has jurisdiction over these concerns if
necessary.
Compounding the problems of unsafe and inadequate traffic flow and
pollutants is the reasonable projection that two of the four permanent
access routes would bear the additional traffic of Merlborough units. These
two streets are Canano and the western segment of Layang Layang. (They
are cited as route numbers 5 and t on a possible construction routes study
map for CT No 63-4, see attached.) Canario (route 5} currently bears the
traffic of 37 units. It would bear the traffic of 61. The western segment of
Layang (routs 1) currently bears the traffic of up to 96 units (66 Windscng
Cove plus most of the traffic of the 30 units in the neighboring Papagayo
cGiT;p'sx on Ka'pati Street}. The layout of the complex encourages traffic to
follow liris western segment rather than shore the traffic load with the
3
eastern side of the circle. This would mean that the western segment would
bear the traffic of 102 units! You cannot let this happen! We VEHEMENTLY
TO THE TRAFFIC OF 142 WITH ONE OR VEHICLES
A FEW FEET OF MY AMD LIVING ROOM.
it is unfortunate that the planning commission, city council and mayor ever
gave any approval to the plans Marl borough construction proposes to build.
~his approval wes a mistake due to the design of inadequate permanent
access routes and living areas which are directly exposed to pollutants. We
urge not cover up &y city by
ersotfier. It would be a grave mistake to impose inevitable adverse
conditions upon the people you represent. Marl borough Construction is but
one oropertu owner in this city, it is not even a voter or resident, it will
;iot have to endure the suffering it proposes to impose. Two years ago when
voters of this city had two options to choose from in regard to growth
mansgemsnt, ths city council pledged that it would protect its citizens
jnder Irs proposa; it endorsed. This propose] passed. You now hsva a
responsibility to ensure health and safety to the Carlsbad voters and
cilizens who inhabit the 161 units of Windsong Cove- regardless of ill-
founded past decisions and promises, big business, or regulatory and legal
technicalities. Because, the two design features are irreparable, adverse
consequences are unavoidable in the event of further construction.
Therefore., further construction should not be allowed.
If the sieve cited project is to be built, it must be redesigned to
accommodate permanent ingress and egress via Harbor Drive for several
heaUh and sefety reasons. Not to do this would be to make yet a third
mistake. We are informed that the city government insists upon living up to
3 prior promise made to 18 homeowners on Harbor Drive that, their street
would be left sacrosanct despite any future construction. This promise was
i'!i-forinded considering the grave environmental consequences to Windsong
Cuve in im event of further construction It is good to keep promises, and
ws QC srnp^thize with the people cf Harbor Drive. But we do believe
promises must be broken under certain circumstances. The health and
safety of the residents of 161 units far outweighs the convenience of 18. !t
•5 unfortunate that such a promise wss ever made. DO SOT COVER UP A
A THI
Has'icents of Windsong Cove were Informed by Marlborough Construction at
on oDen meeting on September 2, '!989 that the City Planning Commission
require;! changes to the plans in order to accommodate a wider corridor for
ji£;1c access to the lagoon. We are informed that a City Council meeting
will be held Wednesday night to determine substantial conformance to city
4
standards, if the city government can impose its authority to require this
change as well as ethers we are aware of, it can Impose changes to secure
our health, safety, and well being.
Ws would also like to inform you of a statement made by Mr. Leonard Bedolla
of Marlbcrough at this meeting. He stated that Maryborough would assert its
access rights on our property for construction purposes (despite availability
Gf the approved access via Santa Fe Railway) if our objections further delay
construction. When several of us in attendance immediately held him
accountable fcr making what is tantamount to a threat, he hedged and
backed off. You as our city representatives cannot allow this project to be
rammed down our throats before vital health and safety issues are resolved.
Mu position remains as it was at the outset. This project cannot be built in
a manner that will preserve our health and safety. In the event that you
refuse to set on this premise, several courses of action will ameliorate the
situation.
1. Harbor Drive must be opened to share the burden of traffic. This will
iYiiticets safety hazards and concentration of pollutants. This will require
'-edesigning the Merlborcugh plans. Could it be that Marl borough refuses to
pursue this avenue because any changes will require a reduction of the
number of total units in the project in accordance with current growth
management requirements. The number of units should be reduced for the
health and safety reasons we have described. Notwithstanding, Harbor Drive
must be opened at minimum.
2. r^ss emergency exit routes must be provided. This must, include Harbo-*
Drive. The only way to do this is to open Harbor Drive and redesign the
5. Mrs, police, and medical accesses must be provided for individual
emergencies. This also requires opening Harbor Drive and redesigning the
project. As far as we understand, Marl borough wants to use strips of lend
cvv-nsd by Windsong Cove adjacent to Harbor Drive for these purposes. As far
•?s we olso understand, Herlborough has neither emergency nor residential
access rights on these parcels. When my husband and I purchased our unit,
we were told that it would be highly unlikely that the proposed project
cuulu ever be built. This problem was cited.
4 Units, minimally those along routes 5 and 1, must be sound-proofed. This
would include soundproofing the walls and floors cf those areas directly
adjacent tc routes 1 and 5. it would also include installing soundoroof
V-
J
vdc^ie-.rene) glass end adequate venltuetton to compensate Tor the fact
thst we cannot ccar our windows..
5. The streets should be repaved to mitigate noise pollution. This
particularly applies tc the brick surface of Layang Layang Circle and to the
drain grate in front of my unit. The benefit of speed bumps for safety
purposes versus the additional noise they cause cause should be assessed.
Speed buiTips must be enhanced to be effective
5. Construction should be limited to the hours between 8 and 5 p.m Monday
through Friday.
sn addition to heeUh and safety considerations, fiduciary/matters must also
be resolved. Marl borough must:
;. Gear the cost of retrofitting our drives to mitigate health and safety
% •"-*-•-"•'•'-•
2 ;.TpH''Ha s rrut'-ally ssMsfsr^nn? sQr^^e"* *n share tn? nost of
permanent maintenance of the drives.
2. bear the cost of soundproofing.
3. conclude a mutually satisfactory agreement with us.if it wants to secure
*n-;sHjencu and/or perrnfinsnt access ever the property we own adjacent tc
Hsrbor Drive.
4. r-i-:air end bear the cost of construction damage to our property. This
mc'uaes. :cr example, oust bui;d-up on our patios or landscape damage.
5. concede mutually satisfactory agreements regarding other perpetual
Tict-.?r?, such as gate maintenance and mutually enjoyed landscaping.
5. bear the cost of installing a permanent fence and gate separating
rlerlborouQh property from Windsong, including the strips adjacent to Harbor
7. reimburse owners for any Ices cf property value due to overburdening,
uwesithy., and unsafe conditions.
'n sun. u -'£s s -nistfika ::o evn- ^pp-cvs the pnpcssd plens in the face a
gr^vs hssHh and safety consequences. Any completed environmental impact
at •;•-•_ •.-•'.•h'sn u;as n:t rectify :h3 3rou;8™s we have described is
6
unacceptable. Our understanding is that the 1983 study done by consultants
assessed the impact of the entire Windsong Complex (existing and proposed)
upon the surrounding community, but not the environmental worthiness of
the complex itself. In light of the first mistake, it was a second mistake to
promise the nomeowners of Harbor Drive that they would be immune from
ameliorating this overburdening in light of the design flaws. This promise
was well-meaning but unacceptably harmful. IT WOULD BE THE MOST GRAVE
MISTAKE OF ALL TO ALLOW THIS CONSTRUCTION TO PROCEED. At minimum
the project must oe redesigned and Harbor Drive must be opened as an
emergency and permanent access. Certain health, safety, and monetary
issues must be resolved before construction can begin.
if you nave not evaluated the situation in light of the design flaws we have
described or if you would like to re-evaluate your position, please call us
or, better yet, come see our unit. This month we will be available through
Friday September 15.
cc: Dave vinegrad. President, Windsong Cove Board of Directors
Paul Webo, California Coastal Commission
' ^J 9/6/5° ^EflO
7-
Falgoust/Papi .Men RE: flartborough/winds^Shores
representatives 1 formed us at the 9/2/39 meeting that it
s tc ^TKe its r- • 3 gated community. Gates would disable access
"ysidenis c :^m and the Palms. We object. !f Marlborough nas
easenic it rights Lc use our accesses, the same rights should be
- -;e sHjoued direct access to the Isgoon. Shutting us out
ild force inose of us 1: ing "ear the lagoon to walk the entire length of
^espectlve complex to Chinquapin, across Chinquapin, ;nen up Hsrbcr
D the proposed public access. This is an undue burden. Such
reciprocation would also alleviate health and safety problems in the event
kqrtinr Drive is opened up. For example, ! once summoned the police, it took
the officers a considerable time to reach me. They cited the leuout of our
complex as a problem in locating7me.
) V,JO"- ----:->£=•— ^CHiNQUAPIN _X./.,. ,^,-^||i_i r' /"iv^ • i— ^—Vw f*? crr;"i^FTilfrt
SOttf f l'.404'
HOUTES STUDY
r «w ^jeuv <om <r rwf WIWDWAM wmm»4rwr
* -~o
-r/"
A ..'1i / W <
rtsuor Lewis 8: Manor Pro-tern Ann Kulchin
CHy Council Members nannaux, Larson and Pettine
Qjreritor of Communitu Develooment Orenyak
City Manager Patchett
Director of Planning Hoitzmiller
City Planning Commissioners Sehlehber, Schrarnm, Erwin, Hall,
i ' L- r d u u B i F . ...n_u ?; ijj^ o, dfiti i ids L-UO
City Engineer" Evans
Police Chief vales
Firs Chief Thornoson
rRGM baroara R. Falqotist
hicnae! R. Papen-thi
40,16A Layancj Layanq Circle, Windsong Cove
Carlsbed. CA 92003
RE: Prooosed Permit No. 83-4; Construction of Condominium Project by
flariborouun Construction on North Shore of Aqua Heaonia Lagoon
This project should not be built at all because it would be excessively
destructive to human environments! factors including quality of living.,
nealtlv and safety. The destruction would include overburdened population
density, noise oouution. carcinoaenic oollutants. and various safetu hazards.-_4 ^ . -• ,_J f ,^f
These problems are inevitable in the event of further construction due to
two pronJuitjve design features of the Windsong Cove project.
The first design feature is the nature of the existing permanent access
routes. Th8;;e routes are not adequate enough to accommodate existing
traffic safetu. The accesses ere net even designed as thoroughfares. They
*rs nut narrow winding driveways, it is already hazardous to oack out of or•* " ^- -I? o
aoprcacn s parkinq space as cars whip around blind corners, sometimes on
the wroriQ side of the access. Collisions are narrowly avoided. Even worse
potential hazards are the veru real prospects of hittinq a child who is riding
a Dike or hittinq a pedestrian who is crossing a drive or walking along it to
the mail boxes which are along the drives. There is indeed a 15 mph speed
limit, but the reality that must acknowledged as the basis for sound
dscision-rnaking is that drivers ionore this limit unsafely desoite speed
bumps, narrow routes, and blind corners. Cars literally "squeal" around
corners. We are certain that you can verify such complaints if you research
police records. These hazards would remain even if the speed limit were
heeded. Furthermore, the permanent access routes are not designed to meet
egress needs in the event of mass exodus. There would be no way all
residents could exit safely in the event of a sweeping fire, for example.
These accesses do not safely meet the needs of individual fire, police or
health emergencies either. Vou csnnot ssfeiy add the traffic of 130
additional units (most of which will probably nave more than one vehicle) to
permanent access routes that are already unsafe for 213 units (16\ existing
Windsong Cove and 52 neighboring Papagayo on Kalpati Street}! These small
routes would bear the everyday traffic of 343 units, 227 on the east
"pQoaaauo" side and 116 on the west "Palms" side., -
The second prohibitive design feature is that second floor living areas
literally overhang the permanent access routes. These areas are master
bedrooms. Living rooms on the ground level are also within feet of the
routes. We cannot understand why you would even entertain this proposal
which will allow carcinogenic and chemical exhaust pollutants to be
projected directly into our dwellings, especially of the concentration that
would be emitted from such a volume of cars within sucn a small area, it
would bs unconscionable and irresponsible to allow this to happen. Noise
pollution is another issue. Noise pollution is compounded on all streets by
speed Pumps necessary Tor safety, noreover, brick surfacing in the middle
of the accessss on Lsyang Lauang Circle further exacerbate noise pollution
i *-> fhpc;p .3--~p:5c Fnri hfir~ p"ii~>'sfi inl'ipf inr1 :-.'-. o'T'iftprt frnfTi s flrsi'i nr^ilnn in
the street within feet of mu bedroom and living room. These carcinogenic,
chemical, and noise pollutants are intolerable. These pollutants sap a
quality of living that is basic to human health and well-Deing. we plan to
consult whatever state agency has jurisdiction over these concerns if
necessary."
Compounding the problems of unsafe and inadequate traffic flow and
po llutants is the reasonable projection that two of the four permanent
access routes would bear the additional traffic of Marlborough units. These
two streets are Cansrio and the western segment of Lauang Layang. (They
are cited as routs numbers 5 and 1 on a possible construction routes study
map for CT No 83-4, see attached.) Canario (route 5) currently bears the
traffic of 37 units, it would bear the traffic of 81. The western segment of
Lauang (route i) currently bears the traffic of up to 96 units (66 Windsong
Cove plus most of the traffic of the 30 units in the neighboring Papagoyo
complex on Kalpati Street). The layout of the complex encourages traffic to
follow this western segment rather than share the traffic load with the
3
Cr -=f O * O *•"""'' C'-r-QC- G o t " I I ! o I U t?
Dear the traffic of 182 units! You cannot let this happen! We VEHEMENTLY
OBJECT TO THE TRAFFIC OF 142 UNITS WITH ONE OR VEHICLES
PASSING WITHIN A FEW FEET OF h¥ AND LIVING ROOM,
ii is unfortunate that the planning commission, city council and mayor ever
yavs ana approval to the plans Marlborough construction proposes to build.
This approval was a mistake due to the design of inadequate permanent
access routes and living areas which are directly exposed to pollutants. We
yrge you not cover up one mistake by city government by making
another, it would be a grave mistake to impose inevitable adverse
conditions upon the people you represent. Marl borough Construction is but
one property owner in this city, it is not even a voter or resident, it will
not nave to endure the suffering it proposes to impose. Two years ago when
voters of this city had two options to choose from in regard to growth
management, the city council pledged that it would protect its citizens
under the proposal it endorsed. This proposal passed. You now have a
responsibility to ensure health and safety to the Carlsbad voters snd
citizens who inhabit the 161 units of Windsong Cove- regardless of ill-
founded past decisions and promises, big business, or regulatory and legal
technicalities. Because the two design features are irreparable, adverse
consequences are unavoidable in the event of further construction.
Therefore, further construction should not be allowed.
if ^ ^~! :": Cs H :~I : i Q -"• 1 £ :~! l~* ~: 7--l~T 1 :~; :*• t ^ '~' * ?~J H Cj H ' -: ^ 1 ^ ? * T*>~' !•'"•'=' — O '~~d H O *~* ^ O ^~- £l H 'f i"»! ! i-HC QLJU V C- i_. i ttu i-iivjC^L i C i.U Utf UUlilj it liiUO*. UC I CUtO I IjlidU i.U
accommodate permanent ingress and egress via Harbor Drive for several
health and safety reasons. Not to do this would be to make yet a third
nvstake. We are informed that the city government insists upon living up to
a onor promise made to 18 nomeowners on Harbor Dnve that their street
would be left sacrosanct despite any future construction. This promise was
ill-founded consioennq tne grave environmental consequences to Windsong
Cove in the event of further construction It is good to keep promises, and
we do empathize with the people of Harbor Drive. But we do believe
premises must be broken under certain circumstances. The health and
safety of the residents of 151 units far outweighs the convenience of ^6. it
is unfortunate that such a promise was ever made. DO NOT COVER UP A
SECOND MISTAKE WITH A THIRD
Residents of Windsong Cove were informed by Marlborough Construction at
an open meeting on September "2, 1989 that the City Planning Commission
required changes to the plans in order tc accommodate a wider corridor for
public access to the lagoon. We are informed that a City Council meeting
will be held Wednesday night to determine substantial conformance to city
standards, if the city government can impose its authority to require this
change as well as others we are aware of, it can impose changes to secure
our health, safety, and well being.
.
we wouio; also liK.e to inform you of a statement made by Mr. Leonard Bedolla
of Marlborough at this meeting. He stated that Marlborough would assert its
access ngnls on our property for construction purposes (despite availability
of the approved access via Santa Fe Railway) if our objections further delay
construction. vViien severoj 01 us in a*, it-nuance immeLnaieiy neiu mm
accountable for making what is tantamount to a threat, he hedged and
backed off. vou as our city representatives cannot allow this project to be
rammed down our throats before vital health and safetu issues are resolved.w
MM position remains as it was at the outset. This proiect cannot be built in... •• .'
a manner that will preserve our health and safety, in the event that you
refuse to act on this premise, several courses of action will ameliorate the
situation.
1. Harbor Drive must be opened to share the burden of traffic. This will
mitigate safety hazards and concentration of pollutants. This will require
redesigning the Marl borough plans. Could it be that flarlborough refuses to
pursue this avenue because any changes will require a reduction of the
number of total units in the project in accordance with current growth
management requirements. The number of units should be reduced for the
health and safety reasons we have described. Notwithstanding, Harbor Drive
must be ooened at minimum.
2, Mess emergency exit routes must be provided. This must include Harbor
Drive The only wau to do this is to open Harbor Drive and redesion the
project.
3, Fire, police, and medical accesses must bs provided for individual
emergencies. This also requires opening Harbor Drive and redesigning the
project. As far as we understand, llarlborough wants to use strips of land
owned by Windsong Cove adjacent to Harbor Drive for these purposes. As far
as we also understand, Marlborough has neither emergency nor residential
access rights on these parcels. When my husband and 1 purchased our unit,
we were told that it would be highly unlikely that the proposed project
could ever be built. This problem was cited.
4, Units, nv.nimaily those along routes 5 and 1, must be sound-proofed. This
would include soundproofing the walls and floors of those areas directly
adjacent to routes 1 end 5. It would s^so include installing soundproof
i~: • -• f~: ^ -~t '-; -:i *•"• £5 '• --? *T •-: :~- ~- -i r~: H "3 H £2 j~* • id* r~- i i Q r~t * *t 1 T Ci T T :~: >~ "r" i"i »"*• :": W: !~: r~: >"r "• -=t f :"; f ;~: ^~ * P"; Q Tv-^UtC PUIlt?^ ;jiUOO OUU uUtuUUvC V Siii. S ) iLlllUil ?.U OUUijJCi/OU LC i Ui ISiC i
b.The streets should be reosved to mitiqste noise pollution. ' his
particularly aopsies to the brick surface of Layang Leusng Circle and to the
drain grate in front of my unit. The benefit of speed bumps for safety
purposes versus the additional noise they cause cause should be assessed.
Speed Pumps must be enhanced to be effective
6. Construction should be limited to the hours between 5 and 5 p.m Monda
m addition to health and safety considerations, fiduciary/natters must also
oe resolved. Marlborough must:
I. D?ar the cost of retrofitting our drives to mitigate health and safety
concerns.
2 rnnnl'jrip 0 rnijt!J9iiu sotisfoctoru onrs^rnRnt in 5?hsrH thR rnKt nf~ ' -i? ~ " "~' -i3 w ' "° '" - - -
oermsnent meintenance of the drives.
2. oear trie cost or soundproofing.
3. conclude a mutually satisfactory agreement with us. if it wonts to secure
emergency and/or permanent access over the property we own adjacent to
4. repair and Pear the cost of construction darnaoe to our property. This
includes, for eHamDie: dust build-up on our patios or landscape damage.
5. conclude mutual iy satisfactory agreements regarding other perpetual
matters, such as gate maintenance and mutually enjoyed landscaping.
H r-asir *ho r,",::t ."f incf sllir, r\ A norTOflfJOfit fcni^o anri
-_- . ^ '-- -^ : , i , -_• -,- -_- •-• ••- •_• • i 4 : --1 '- Jw i i i I -. *_f :_i jj G i i 1 ! O f 1 V -1 '. •- i '-' : i J-- ;-- '•— -. i ;-i - -. -- -_ •-' ;_ - ; -_..- 7 ;_|
Mgrihnrounh nropsrtu ^0!7i Windson" ^nciudinn the Rtrios soMacsnt to Harbor
7. reimburse owners for any loss of property value due to overburdening,
unneaitny, ano unsafe conditions.
in s wes a mistake to ever approve the proposed plans in the face a
grave health and safety consequences. Any completed environmental impact
vvhirh rinfic nni thp nrnh]fimc yvR
Our understanding is that the ;983 study dens by consultants
assessed the impact of the entire Windsong Complex (existing and proposed)
upon ins surrounding community, but not the environmental worthiness of
th? complex itseif. in lipht of the first mistake, it was a second niistake to
promise me homeowners of Harbor Drive that theu would oe immune from
ameliorating this overburdening in light of the design flaws. This promise
*vas well-meaning Dut unaccsptably harmful. IT WOULD BE THE HOST GRAVE
Mir'TAi/r nr~ A ' ! T"! 'M ' <~H'J T~U! "• i^nf*i^"!"ni ir-Tinti* -rn £;.-*-*.-•£ —r-> /, i ^v-.-ir.i!^(,,^,-.: UO '. HiX-1 Uf rti_i_ ! U HLi_U¥? i fl i O LUND i r^UU i iui^ I U r^UuLCiJ. ^l Miilsimuni
the project must be redesigned ond Harbor Drive must be opened as an
emergency and permanent access. Certain health, safety^ and monetary
issues must be resolved before construction can begin.
if uou nave not evaluated the situation in light of the design flaws we have
described or if uou would like to re-evaluate your position, please call us
or better uet, come see our unit. This month we will oe available through
hndau Sfiplemfafir lb.
cc: Dave vinegrad. President. Windsong Cove doard of Directors
Paul WebO; California Coastal Commission
t-Kufl. Falcioust/Papenthien RE: Marlborou§h/windsong Shores
flariorough represen^ves informed us at the 9/2/89 noting that it
intends 10 make its cWipIex a gated community. Gates wald disable access
to residents of Windscng and the Palms. We oDject. if Marluorough has
s^iemsnt rights to use our accesses, the same rights should be
:~9~;-i!j:--nf;;=|t pri Wg hguci onio!'8d direct scnsRFi to Ins laQoon. Shutting us out
wou'd force those of us livinq near the Isqoon to walk the entire length of
our respective complex to Chinquapin, across Chinquapin, then up harbor
Drive to the nrcposed public access. This is an undue burden. Sucn
reciprocation WOUHJ also alleviate health and safety problems in the event
HsrDor Orws is opened up. For example, i once summoned the police, it took
•.Tic QTTicers s consioeraD16 ^.ifne 11
p'^p^nl i-1^ r''-' :i ^ *'<"'- n i ft rp ^-r> Inrp^^nn
•
=^'- -CHINQUAPIN />j».
Pr^jfiiW/f *<(-/)t'lf-VU I*/ /7 •/?.. ^
:-'Q, r,/ * i,3i5jLflj \ -: iifi i!^S^Pl *1151 Af^^Mf Ix/llrl
POSSIBLE ROUTES STUPY
•-- Q
f.. / ,„/ i1.'7' •,
t , -, , '
UOVA^C;• •
<?
dr 83-V
PLANNING
Independent Representative
September 5, 1989
Mr. Claude A. Lewis, Mayor
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Dear Mayor Lewis:
I am writing this letter regarding the traffic issue of the Marlbrough
Development Corporation Wind Song Shore's project. This is not a new
issue, you the mayor and the city council had heard of this issue many
time before.
I do not object to the development because I realize I am not the only
one should be. allowed to enjoy the finest city living such as Carlsbad,
the other people should have the same privilege also. The only request
I have is to reconsider using Wind Song Cove roads as access to the
Marlbrough project.
1 realized the city council had made a commitment to the Harbor Drive
residents, dedicating Harbor Drive cul-de-sac as a dead-end street. In
a fast growing county such as San Diego we all benefit the monetary gain
in property and business and at the same time we also trade off for a
lesser quality of life style due to growth. We do not have the luxury
of space any longer. But traffic safety should not be compromise be-
cause it involves human lives. I apology to the residents of Harbor Dr
in suggesting to use Harbor Dr. as the access road to the Marlbrough
project. The narrow Wind Song roads were not built for another additional
2 cars per family of a 140 units condos traffic.
Saturday, Sept. 2nd, 1989, • Marlbrough Corp. held a neighborhood meeting.
The Wind Song Cove residents were warned if we try to delay-the project,
Marlbrough will drive their heavy construction equipment through our
gate because they have the right to do so.
Please, Mayor and the city council, consider the needs and safety'of the
Wind Song Cove children and residents before you make the final decision.
Thank you in advance for your help.
Sincerely,
£*L~,~; e c i I i a L e o": t"ar*d2
311-B KaJpati Street • Csilsbad, CA 92008 • (619) 434-7624
PUNNING
-5 R iu?
is
c^no t"
736
- "tl/Ljr?^ri3
c2
0<sl
UJ
"
~trU.aL.tr
Xt" ^-^ vzoT o
PUNNING
August 28, 1989
Mr. Claude A. Lewis, Mayor
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mayor Lewis:
For the past several years approximately 1000 residents in
and around the 'Windsong Cove' area of Carlsbad have been
burdened by the planned development, by Marlborough
Development Corporation of its 'Windsong Shores' project.
This development is to be located on lands immediately
north of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
As of today many important issues remain unresolved. For
example, residents do not feel that Marlborough has secured
a proper route for ingress and egress of emergency vehicles
in case of fire, medical emergency, etc... The fact is that
NO route exists at all! Current plans, as drawn by
Marlborough, show emergency vehicle access over a 30'by
120' strip of Windsong Cove property. This particular
parcel of land is wholly owned by the Windsong Cove
Homeowners Association and NO emergency vehicle access
easements exist over this property. Thus any emergency
located at a remote,end of the Windsong Shores project
would be extremely difficult to access. This dire situation
is only compounded by the fact that a high pressure gas
pipe is located at the far western portions of this
development.
Secondly, construction access to the planned Windsong
Shores development remains a point of concern among area
residents. History shows that a major miscalculation was
made by developers of the 'Windsong Cove' area.
Specifically, property immediately north of Agua Hedionda
Lagoon was left undeveloped while land just south of
Chinquapin Street was fully developed. As a result, access
to the undeveloped (Windsong Shores) land will be
impossible without placing an unsafe and unjust burden on
hundreds of homeowners. At a minimum, construction traffic
should not be allowed access to Chinquapin Street, but
rather Tamarack Avenue.
Further, many other issues remain unresolved between
Marlborough and homeowners. For instance, Marlborough's
current Plans do not conform to those plans as approved by
the City of Carlsbad in 1983 (CT 83-4/CP-227JT Such a
change should be approved only after review by the city
council.
In addition, legal counsel informs us that under various
legal theories Windsong Shores might not have access
through Windsong Cove property for ingress and egress of
residential vehicular traffic. Also, a cost sharing
agreement (as required under the California Government
Code) between The Windsong Cove Homeowners Association and
Marlborough has not been negotiated as of today. Such an
agreement would be necessary because Windsong Shores
homeowners might use Windsong Cove roads as access to their
residences. Also unresolved are a) the hours and days of the
week to be allowed for construction operations, b) the loss
of ocean views for certain homeowners who were 'guaranteed'
permanent ocean views, c) the archaeological mitigation
measures required by developer as outlined in the Environ-
mental Impact Report on file with the city engineering
department, and d) numerous other issues such as noise
control, signage, scope of liability for construction
accidents, pollution (i.e. blowing dirt), etc...
Therefore, to say the least, it would be unwise for the
City of Carlsbad to allow any construction activities prior
to the parties involved resolving these critical issues.
Obviously, any development would proceed much smoother if
all terms are agreed to prior to construction.
Thus, before any plans, permits, routes, extensions, etc...
are approved by the City of Carlsbad, the residents in and
around Windsong Cove request a public hearing on each and
every issue.
David N. Vinegrad
4016 Aguila Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
CC:Mr. Marty Orenyak
Mr. John Mamaux
Mr. Mark Pettine
Mr. Eric Larsen
Ms. Ann Kulchin
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
August 22, 1989
Dale Mitchell
Crosby Mead Benton & Associates
5966 La Place Court, Ste. 170
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: DI 89-4 WINDSONG SHORES Preliminary Staff Report
The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be available
for you to pick up on Friday, August 25, 1989, after 8 a.m. This preliminary
report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee
(D.C.C.) meeting which will be held on Monday, August 28, 1989. A twenty (20)
minute appointment has been set aside for you at 9:30 a.m. If you have any
questions concerning your project, you should attend the D.C.C. meeting.
It is necessary that you bring your required unmounted colored exhibit(s) with
you to this meeting in order for your project to go forward to the Planning
Commission. If you do not plan to attend this meeting, please make arrangements
to have your colored exhibit(s) here by the scheduled time above.
If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact the
Planning Department at 438-1161.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
By:
Planning Department
CW:MJH\lh
2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
August 22, 1989
Paula B. Madson
Lightfoot Planning Group
702 Fourth Street
Oceanside, CA 92054
SUBJECT: DI 89-4 - Windsong Shores Preliminary Staff Report
The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be available
for you to pick up on Friday, August 25, 1989, after 8 a.m. This preliminary
report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee
(D.C.C.) meeting which will be held on Monday, August 28, 1989. A twenty (20)
minute appointment has been set aside for you at 9:30 a.m. If you have any
questions concerning your project, you should attend the D.C.C. meeting.
It is necessary that you bring your required unmounted colored exhibit(s) with
you to this meeting in order for your project to go forward to the Planning
Commission. If you do not plan to attend this meeting, please make arrangements
to have your colored exhibit(s) here by the scheduled time above.
If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact the
Planning Department at 438-1161.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
By:
Planning Department
CW:MJH\lh
2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161
• •
City of Carlsbad
Plannina Deoartment
August 17, 1989
Leonard Bedolla
Marl borough Development Company
28751 Rancho California Road
Suite 203
Rancho California, CA 92390
RE: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 89-41
Dear Mr. Bedolla:
After receiving your application and reviewing the conditions of the property,
it was determined that a Hillside Development Permit would not be required.
The Qualifications for the Exemptions are as follows:
1) The proposed fill within the railroad right-of-way is a Class 4 CEQA
exemption, therefore it has been determined that there are no significant adverse
environmental impacts. 2) It has also been determined that as an "isolated
ravine" and an area that has been previously disturbed by authorized grading,
it is exempt from the Hillside Development Ordinance.
Staff will complete an assessment to determine the extent of the fee refund.
If you should have any questions, please contact me at 438-1161.
Sincerely,
/
CHRISTER WESTMAN
Associate Planner
c: Erin Letsch
CW:lh
hdp8941.1tr
2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161
MEMORANDUM
AUGUST 16, 1989
TO: FILE
FROM: Christer Westman
RE: OFF SITE UINOSONG SHORES GRADING AND ACCESS
Hillside Development Permit
Section 21.95.030 General Restrictions of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance states "If no
permits other than a building or grading permit are required for the project, the
Planning Director shall have the authority to approve or deny Hillside Development
Permits subject to appeal of the Planning Commission"
The proposed access through the AT&SF Railroad right-of-way only requires a grading
permit therefore the Planning Director is the decision making body for the possible
review of a Hillside Development Permit on this site.
However, "Areas previously disturbed by the authorized grading" and "small isolated
ravines where there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment as determined by the Planning Director" may be excluded from
the requirements of the hillside Development Ordinance by the decision making body when
these areas have been fully identified.
Both findings can be met and a Hillside Development Permit will not be required.
Environmental Assessment
Article 19, Categorical Exemptions of the CEQA guidelines, includes a list of classes
of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the
environment and which shall, therefore, be exempt from CEQA.
Class four consists of minor public and private alterations in the condition of land
such as "filling of earth into previously excavated land with material compatable with
the natural features of the site.". Such action shall also not involve the removal
of mature, scenic trees.
The proposal is to move excavated earth from the adjacent building site to the project
site. The earth would be used to fill an existing ditch between an existing dirt
access road to the YMCA site and the existing railroad tracks.
It shall be considered a class 4 statutory exemption.
Conclusion
Therefore, because the proposed fill operation is a class four CEQA exemption it can
be determined that there will not be a significant effect on the environment. It can
then also be determined that as an "isolated ravine" and an area which has been
previously disturbed by authorized grading that a Hillside Development Permit is not
required.
CW:kd
WSGA.mem
City of Carlsbad
Community Development
August 8, 1989
California Coastal Commission
San Diego Coast District
1333 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 125
San Diego, CA 92108-3520
The City of Carlsbad is aware of Marl borough Development's proposal to construct
a temporary access road in the AT&SF railway right-of-way. The City is in
support of the proposal.
Access through the right-of-way in advantageous because it reduces the number
of residents directly impacted by construction traffic. Also, the physical
constraints of moving construction traffic through the existing condominium
developments make such a construction route unreasonable.
Access to the right-of-way from Chinquapin vs. Tamarack is preferred by the City
because as a local street Chinquapin carries less traffic and will have less of
a traffic safety impact than Tamarack. Additional drainage issues would also
need to be resolved with a Tamarack access.
Sincerely,
-JOMARTY ORENYAK C\ '
Community Development Director
CW:lh
windsong.ltr
2O75 Las Palmas Drive •Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859»(619) 438-1161
THE
LIGHIF001
August 7, 1989
GROUP
Mr. Christer Westman
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Windsong Shores (83-4)
Dear Christer:
This letter is to provide you with additional planning
information and/or the status of the items you listed in
your June 29 letter regarding the Windsong Shores project.
1. The Environmental Impact Assessment for the "off-site"
grading was submitted to your office on July 10. A
Hillside Development Permit application was submitted
concurrently regarding the manmade "V" ditch next to
the railroad tracks.
702 FOURTH STREET
OCEANSIDE, CA 92054
(610| 722-1924
FAX (619) 433-7511
27919 FRONT STREET
SUITE 208
RANCHO CALIFORNIA
CA 9Z390
(714) 699-6190
FAX (714) 699-6193
Enclosed is Marlborough's
agreement with AT&SF.
construction access
Marlborough is currently working with the City's
landscape consultant, the Fire Marshall and the
Coastal Commission to ensure everyone's concerns are
met regarding the landscape plan. We hope to obtain
everyone's approval by next week, at which time we
will submit a copy of the landscape plan with the Fire
Marshall's and Coastal's signatures of approval.
The Amendment to the original Windsong Shores Coastal
Permit for the ramp access will be heard at the August
10 Coastal Commission hearing. The permit application
for the grading in the railroad right-of-way was
submitted to the Coastal Commission on July 27. We
anticipate a public hearing within six to eight weeks
for this request.
Mr. Christer Westman
Page 2
August 7, 1989
5. The sign program for the trail signs is enclosed for
your approval. We have shown this sign program to
Paul Webb, at the Coastal Commission, and he indicated
they were acceptable. The landscape plan discussed in
Item 3 will identify the locations of the various
signs.
6. Enclosed is a sight-line study to illustrate the
screening of the roof mounted equipment from 1-5.
7. Enclosed is a color and materials board.
I have also enclosed the following items:
8. 100-scale exhibit of the garage landscape plan.
9. A signed letter by Tom Lickterman, at the North County
Transit District, regarding bus stop facilities.
Should you have any questions regarding this information,
please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Paula B. Madson
Senior Planner
PBM/sc
Enclosures
cc: Leonard Bedolla, Marlborough Development
Kim Post, Crosby, Mead, Benton
173.07/49
ATTACHED TO CONTRACT BETWEEN
THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
AND
M ARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
SCALE: 1 IN. TO None FT.
CALIFORNIA DIV.
3A.H DIEG-O SUBDIV.
DATE: June 28.IQ89
L.
TRIM LINE
CHIEF ENGINEER
DESCRIPTION APPROVED
E.S. 2284 + 50
MP230+I211.2
To Fuller-ion
fMl"?
IPI^ro oo
IFcJcvJ
CJ C<J
0-
UJ
fVW Linc'T^
To KaVi'onal
DESCRIPTION
Riqhf o-f entry as shown shaded, includ ina
fence and qates as noted.
Near Carlsbad; San Dieqo County,
The Atchison, Tc^eka and Santa Fe Railway
One Santa re Plaza
July 20, 1989
11013356
Mr. Richard A. Niec
Vice President-Division Manager
Marlborough Development Corporation
28751 Rancho California Road No. 208
Rancho California, California 92390
Dear Mr. Niec:
Enclosed you will find executed, in duplicate, original and copy of a
Right-Of-Entry License covering your request to use our property at or near
Carlsbad, California for a roadway to enter into and out of your Windsong
Development Project.
As you can see, this license contains a number of qualifications that
must be met in order to leave the property in a manner which will benefit all
parties involved. The Right-Of-Entry License contains a one-time fee of
$400.00 and I would appreciate your arranging for that to be sent with the
executed original to this office.
I would also appreciate your staying in contact with our Division
Office personnel in San Bernardino at (714) 387-1258 in order that an orderly
progress of work can be accomplished. There may be occasions where changes
are necessary as this project is progressed. Therefore, the Division
Manager's office in San Bernardino should be apprised of any modifications.
In addition, a final determination of the cost to move the various facilities
existing there is not known at this time, but as expenses occur or upon
completion, we anticipate issuing a bill for that work in addition to the
flagging protection as noted in the contract.
I would appreciate your arranging for execution of both copies of
this agreement, returning the copy stamped "Santa Fe Original" to this
office. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact Mr. C. A. Starkebaum of my office on (913) 357-2114.
Yours truly,
T. J. Nelson
Director of Contracts
2353d/2114/5
11013356
RIGHT OF ENTRY LICENSE
THIS LICENSE, made as of the 29th day of June 1989, between THE
ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation
(hereinafter called "Licensor"), and MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORP.
(hereinafter, whether one party or more, called "Licensee").
NITNESSETH, That the parties hereto for the considerations
hereinafter expressed covenant and agree as follows:
1. Licensor hereby licenses Licensee to use, subject to the rights
and easements hereinafter excepted and reserved and upon the
terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the land
(hereinafter called "Premises") situated at or near Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, shown on the print
hereto attached, C.E. Drawing No. 3-10460 dated
June 28. ' 1989 marked "Exhibit A" and made a part hereof,
for a term beginning on July 3, 1989, and ending when this
License shall be terminated as hereinafter provided.
2. Licensor hereby excepts and reserves the right, to be exercised
by Licensor and by any others who have obtained or may obtain
permission or authority from Licensor so to do, (a) to operate,
maintain, renew and relocate any and all existing pipe, power,
and communication lines and appurtenances and other facilities
of like character upon, over or under the surface of the
Premises; and (b) from time to time to construct, operate,
maintain, renew and relocate such additional facilities of the
same character as will not unreasonably interfere with the use
of the Premises by Licensee for the purpose specified in
Section 4 hereof.
3. Licensee shall pay to Licensor as compensation for the use of
the Premises the sura of Four Hundred and No/100 Dollars
($400.00).
4. (a) Licensee shall use the Premises exclusively as a site for
an Access Road. Licensee covenants that it will not treat,
store or dispose of on the Premises "hazardous waste" or
"hazardous substances", as "hazardous waste" and "hazardous
substances may now or in the future be defined by any
federal, state, or local governmental agency or body. In
the event the Premises are now or in the future used in
generating, handling, or transporting of "hazardous waste"
or "hazardous substances", Licensee agrees fully to comply
with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules,
regulations, orders, decisions and ordinances (hereinafter
referred to as "Standards") concerning "hazardous waste"
and "hazardous substances". Licensee further agrees
periodically to furnish Licensor with proof, satisfactory
to Licensor, that Licensee is in such compliance. In any
event, Licensee shall allow Licensor to enter upon the
Premises at reasonable times for the purpose of inspection.
Should Licensee not comply fully with the above-stated
obligations of this Section, notwithstanding anything
contained in any other provision hereof, Licensor may, at
its option, terminate this License by serving five (5)
days' notice of termination upon Licensee; but any waiver
by Licensor of any breach of Licensee's obligations shall
not constitute a waiver of the right to terminate this
License for any subsequent breach which may occur, or to
enforce any other provision of this License. Upon
termination, Licensee shall be governed by the two sections
of this License regarding Licensee's surrender of
possession of the Premises.
(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in the liability
sections hereof, in case of a breach of the obligations
contained in this Section, or any of them, regardless of
the negligence or alleged negligence of Licensor, Licensee
agrees to assume liability for and to save and hold
harmless Licensor from and against all injuries to any
person and damage to property, including without
limitation, employes and property of Licensor and Licensee
and all related expenses, including without limitation
attorneys' fees, investigators' fees and litigation
expenses, resulting in whole or in part from Licensee's
failure to comply with any Standard issued by any
governmental authority concerning hazardous substances
and/or hazardous waste. Licensee, at its cost, shall
assume the defense of all claims, suits or actions brought
for damages, and fines or penalties hereunder, regardless
of whether they are asserted against Licensor or Licensee.
Licensee also agrees to reimburse Licensor for all costs of
any kind incurred as a result of the Licensee's failure to
comply with this Section, including, but not limited to,
fines, penalties, clean-up and disposal costs, and legal
costs incurred as a result of Licensee's generating,
handling, transporting, treating, storing, or disposing of
"hazardous waste" or "hazardous substances" on the Premises.
(c) It is understood and agreed that a Licensee who does not
now, or in the future, generate, handle, transport, treat,
store or dispose of "hazardous waste" or "hazardous
substances" within the meaning of this Section, is not
subject to the provisions of Subsection (b) supra.
- 2 -
1529V
(d) The object of Licensor is to provide for the convenient
access to development project by Licensee and related
business thereon. In case Licensee shall use the Premises
for any other purpose whatever than above mentioned, then
Licensor may declare this License at an end and prevent
Licensee from using or remaining upon the Premises, with or
without process of law. Licensee shall not have the
exclusive possession of the Premises as against Licensor.
(e) It is understood and agreed that licensee shall as a result
of being granted this license request perform or cause to
be performed the following:
1. Fill and pack the site under subject license in a
matter to preclude any entrapment of water from
Chinquapin Road to Bridge 230.6 and grade to
insure proper drainage with proposed concrete
ditch to provide drainage away from track area.
2. Install a 6-foot chain link fence on top of fill
with gates as shown on Division File Print
110/3356, attached hereto and made a part hereof
to be locked with Santa Fe locks when not being
used by Licensee or Licensee's representative.
Fences and gates to become a permanent part of
project and remain in place at no cost to Licensor
upon completion or termination of this License.
Licensee will also install a gate at Maya Street,
compatible with those previously installed upon
completion of project.
3. All approaches to gates and/or access/egress shall
be graded to allow the safe use by Licensor's
vehicles.
5. Licensee shall keep and maintain the Premises and improvements
in such safe, sanitary and sightly condition as shall be
satisfactory to Licensor, and if Licensee fails or refuses
within fifteen (15) days after receipt of any request by
Licensor so to do, Licensor may, at its option, perform such
work; and in such event Licensee shall within thirty (30) days
after the rendition of bill therefor reimburse Licensor for the
cost so incurred.
A *1.1 It is further understood that if a Regulatory Agency prohibits
any work to be done under this license/ that Marlborough
Development Corporation will not be held responsible for any
prohibited work. All other terms of this license shall remain
in full force and effect.
- 3 - Init.
1529V
In using the Premises, and in constructing, maintaining,
operating and using the improvements thereon. Licensee shall
comply with any and all requirements imposed by federal or state
statutes, or by ordinances, orders or regulations of any
governmental body having jurisdiction thereover. In the event
the Premises or improvements shall be used for the loading,
unloading, storing, or otherwise handling of any petroleum
products, Licensee shall comply with all regulations and
recommendations from time to time promulgated by the Bureau of
Explosives of the Association of American Railroads, or any
successor agency. All artificial lighting in pump houses,
warehouses, or other enclosures upon the Premises, where oil or
other inflammable fluid supplies are handled or stored by
Licensee, except in unbroken original containers, shall be
electricity, and such electrical installation and any other
electrical installation upon the Premises shall at all times
conform to and be maintained in accordance with the provisions
of the then current edition of the National Electrical Code with
respect to Class I hazardous locations. Licensee shall promptly
pay and discharge any and all liens arising out of any
construction, alteration or repair work done, or suffered or
permitted to be done, by Licensee on the Premises, and Licensor
is hereby authorized to post any notices or take any other
action upon or with respect to the Premises that is or may be
permitted by law to prevent the attachment of any such liens to
the Premises; provided, however, that failure of Licensor to
take any such action shall not relieve Licensee of any
obligation or liability under this or any other section hereof.
Licensee shall at all times keep a space of 75 feet from the
nearest rail of any railroad track entirely clear of structures,
material and obstructions of every sort, other than those
specifically caused to be as ordered herein.
Licensee agrees to indemnify and save harmless Licensor against
all loss, damage or expense which Licensor may sustain, incur or
become liable for, including loss of or damage to property to
injury to or death of persons and fines or penalties imposed
upon or assessed against Licensor, arising in any manner out of
(a) the use of the Premises or improvements by Licensee, (b) any
breach by Licensee of the terms, covenants or conditions in this
Instrument contained, or (c) the sole or contributing acts or
omissions of Licensee or the employes, agents, patrons or
invitees of Licensee in, on or about the Premises or
improvements, except that if Licensor shall participate in any
such contributing acts or omissions, then the loss, damage or
expense arising therefrom shall be borne by the parties hereto
equally.
- 4 -
1529V
9. Neither Licensee, nor the heirs, legal representatives,
successors or assigns of Licensee, nor any subsequent assignee,
shall transfer or lease the Premises or the improvements, or any
part hereof, nor assign or transfer this License or any interest
herein, without the written consent and approval in each
instance of Licensor.
10. In case of eviction of Licensee by any one owning or claiming
title to or any interest in the Premises, Licensor shall not be
liable to Licensee for any damage of any nature whatsoever, or
to refund any compensation paid hereunder, except the
proportionate part of any compensation paid in advance.
11. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this License, Licensee
shall comply with all statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations,
orders and decisions (hereinafter referred to as "Standards"),
issued by any federal, state or local governmental body or
agency established thereby (hereinafter referred to as
"Authority"), relating to Licensee's use of Licensor's property
hereunder. In its use of the premises, Licensee shall at all
times be in full compliance with all Standards, present or
future, set by any Authority, including, but not limited to,
Standards concerning air quality, water quality, noise,
hazardous substances and hazardous waste. In the event Licensee
fails to be in full compliance with Standards set by any
Authority, Licensor may, after giving reasonable notice of the
failure to Licensee, and Licensee, within thirty (30) days of
such notice, fails either to correct such noncompliance or to
give written notice to the Licensor of its intent to contest the
allegation of the noncompliance before the Authority
establishing the Standard or in any other proper forum, take
whatever action is necessary to protect the premises and
Licensor's railroad and other adjacent property. Licensee shall
reimburse the Licensor for all costs (including but not limited
to, consulting, engineering, clean-up and disposal costs, and
legal costs) incurred by the Licensor in complying with such
Standards, and also such costs incurred by the Licensor in
complying with such Standards, and also such costs incurred by
the Licensor in abating a violation of such Standards,
protecting against a threatened violation of such Standards,
defending any claim of violation of such Standards in any
proceeding before any Authority or court, and paying any fines
or penalties imposed for such violations. Licensee shall assume
liability for and shall save and hold harmless the Licensor from
any claim of a violation of such Standards regardless of the
nature thereof or the Authority or person asserting such claim,
which results from Licensee's use of Licensor's premises, except
those claims which arise in whole or in part from the negligence
of Licensor. Licensee, at its cost, shall assume the defense of
all such claims regardless of whether they are asserted against
Licensee or Licensor.
- 5 -
1529V
Upon written notice from Licensor, Licensee agrees to assume the
defense of any lawsuit, administrative action or other
proceeding brought against Licensor by any public body,
individual, partnership, corporation, or other legal entity,
relating to any matter covered by this License for which
Licensee has an obligation to assume liability for and/or to
save and hold harmless the Licensor. Licensee shall pay all the
costs incident to such defense, including, but not limited to,
attorneys' fees, investigators' fees, litigation expenses,
settlement payments, and amount paid in satisfaction of
judgments. Any and all lawsuits or administrative actions
brought or threatened on any theory of relief available at law,
in equity or under the rules of any administrative agency shall
be covered by this Section, including, but not limited to, the
theories of intentional misconduct, negligence, breach of
statute or ordinance, or upon any theory created by statute or
ordinance, state or federal.
12. If any compensation hereunder shall be due and unpaid, or if
default shall be made in any of the covenants or agreements of
Licensee herein contained, or in case of any assignment or
transfer of this License by operation of law, Licensor may, at
its option, terminate this License by serving five (5) days'
notice in writing upon Licensee; but any waiver by Licensor of
any default or defaults shall not constitute a waiver of the
right to terminate this Licensee for any subsequent default or
defaults.
13. This License may be terminated at any time by either party upon
thirty (30) days' notice in writing to be served upon the other
party, stating therein the date that such termination shall take
place, and upon the expiration of the time specified in such
notice this License and all rights of Licensee hereunder shall
absolutely cease and determine.
14. All notices to be given hereunder shall be given in writing, by
depositing same in the United States mail duly registered or
certified, with postage prepaid, and addressed to the Licensee
or Licensor as the case may be at the address shown on the
signature page hereof, or addressed to such other address as the
parties hereto may from time to time designate.
15. Upon termination of this License in any manner herein provided,
Licensee shall forthwith surrender to Licensor the possession of
the Premises with improvements as described in Article 4C
herein, and in case Licensee shall fail within thirty (30) days
after the date of such termination to make such improvements may
at its election to be exercised within thirty (30) days
thereafter, make or cause to make the improvements to the
Premises for the account of Licensee, and in such event Licensee
shall within thirty (30) days after the rendition of bill
therefor reimburse Licensor for the cost so incurred.
- 6 -
1529V
16. If Licensee fails to surrender to Licensor the Premises, upon
any termination of this License, all the liabilities and
obligations of Licensee hereunder shall continue in effect until
the Premises are surrendered; and no termination hereof shall
release Licensee from any liability or obligation hereunder,
whether of indemnity or otherwise, resulting from any acts,
omissions or events happening prior to the date of termination.
17. In the event that Licensee consists of two or more parties, all
the covenants and agreements of Licensee herein contained shall
be the joint and several covenants and agreements of such
parties.
18. All the covenants and agreements of Licensee herein contained
shall be binding upon the heirs, legal representatives,
successors and assigns of Licensee, and shall inure to the
benefit of the successors and assigns of Licensor.
19. Licensee will perform all work to be performed by Licensee on
Licensor's property to the satisfaction of Licensor and shall
reimburse Licensor for all expense including but not limited to
engineering, inspection and flagging charges considered
necessary by Licensor pertaining to such work. Flagging
protection must be secured when License personnel or equipment
are working within 25 feet of centerline of Licensor's track.
Flagging protection will be assessed on a flat fee basis of
$300.00 per day or any portion thereof.
20. Licensee agrees to furnish and keep in force or arrange to have
furnished and keep in force insurance of all kinds and amounts
specified below during the period of operation on Licensor's
Premises.
Licensee shall, with respect to the operations which it performs
upon, beneath or adjacent to Licensor's right of way and/or
track, furnish or arrange to have furnished (i) regular
Contractors' Public Liability Insurance with limits of not less
than Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) for all liability
arising out of bodily injuries to or death of one person and,
subject to that limit for each person, One Million Dollars
($1,000,000) for all liability arising out of bodily injuries to
or death of two or more persons in one accident or occurrence;
and (ii) regular Contractors' Property Damage Liability
Insurance with limits of not less than One Million Dollars
($1,000,000) for each occurrence for all liability arising out
of damage to or loss or destruction of property. Licensee and
all its contractors and subcontractors shall be named insureds
either in a single policy of insurance complying with the
requirements of this Section or in separate policies maintained
during such periods as such contractors and/or subcontractors
shall perform any work hereunder. The policy or policies
insuring Licensee shall insure Licensee's contractual liability
in favor of Licensor contained in Section 8 of this License.
- 7 -
1529V
21. Licensee agrees to furnish or arrange to have furnished to
Licensor certificates reflecting the insurance coverage or
certified copy of insurance policy, if requested by Licensor, as
required by Section 20 hereof. Certificates reflecting the
coverage required by Section 20 shall unqualifiedly require
thirty (30) days' notice to Licensor of cancellation or
modification of the insurance referred to in such certificates.
22. Licensee shall not be permitted to exercise the license and
permission granted hereunder until notified by Licensor that
insurance furnished pursuant to Section 20 hereof is
satisfactory.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this License has been duly executed, in
duplicate, by the parties hereto as of the day and year first above written.
THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
By
its Manager of Contracts
(Licensor)
MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORP.
By
Its
(Licensee)
- 8 -
1529V/2114/5
MEMORANDUM
AUGUST 3, 1989
TO: FILE
FROM: Christer Westman
RE: RECON LETTER DECEMBER 19, 1988
Based upon the information in the Recon Tetter and the plans provided by the
Marlborough Development Company indicating the location and extent of the
proposed grading, the indicated population of salt grass will not be adversely
effected.
This information and grading plans have been forwarded to the Coastal Commission
staff with the application for a Coastal Permit to allow grading within the AT&SF
right-of-way to be heard on August 10, 1989. Based on a concurring determination
of insignificant adverse environmental impact, Coastal Commission staff has
recommended approval of the Coastal Permit.
CW:kd
Recon.mem
August 3, 1989
City of Carlsbad - -^
Michael G. Howes ^ '*
Associate Planner _, ' V:
Planning Department
1200 Elm Street
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Re: Declaration of Annexation for Windsong Cove
Dear Mr. Howes:
Would you please furnish me with a copy of the
Declaration of Annexation that is referred to by
Mr. Richard C. Fugate in his letter of November 6, 1985-
re: Lot # 5 of Carlsbad Tract 77-22. I have checked
this number and also Tract 7^-22.
Enclosed please find a copy of Mr. Richard Fugates
letter with a description of the information re-
quested by me.
Thank you for your help in this matter. I am,A n
Jam^s E. Hasburgh (Homeowner)
4-011 Canario Drive (Unit E)
Windsong Cove-The Palms
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Phone 4-34~64-34-
Please call if further information is required.
I am a concerned homeowner adjacent to the proposed
development of Lot 5.
enc. copy of letter from SSB
SEARS SM/iNQS
701 Nonn Stand Boulevard
Glendate. diitcma 91203-1213
Tgiepr.cne (313) 955-'800
VIA AIR EXPRESS
November 6, 1985
Mr. Michael G. Howes
Associate Planner
Planning Department
1200 Elm Street
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: Windsong Cove Condominiums
Dear Mr. Howes:
Enclosed herewith, please find a copy of the revised "Third
Declaration of Annexation for Windsong Cove" which we discussed
yesterday (the "Declaration of Annexation"). The Declaration of
Annexation, as revised, contains the Coastal Commission
requirements in Section V and the new requirements of the City of
Carlsbad in Section VI.
Further, this will confirm our conversation that, in the event
that Lot 5 of Carlsbad Tract 77-22 in not annexed into the
existing Windsong Cove Condominium Association (i.e. , if Sears
Savings Bank or a new buyer of Lot 5 choses to create a separate
condominium development) , the provisions of Sections V and VI of
the Annexation Agreement could be incorporated verbatim into a
new set of CC&Rs and thereby satisfy the requirements of the City
of Carlsbad pertaining to Lot 5 CC&Rs.
You did mention that, in such event, since access to Lot 5 is by
roads accross Lots 2 and 3 and Lot 4, the Lot 5 Association might
have to enter into a cost-sharing agreement with the Windsong
Cove Condominium Association whereby the Lot 5 Association agrees
to pay for a portion of the maintenance and repair on the access
roads situated on Lots 2 and 3, and Lot 4. Sears Savings Bank
would have_ no objection to such a cost-sharing agreement.
We thank you very much for your courtesy with" respect to the
above.
Sincerely ,
rj - , j x» rr z2 •
— / 6^- <%^~&f (~- r /(^^. ^xO-
Richard C. Fugate
Vice President and
Senior Counsel
RCF:ocs
*City of Carlsbadi&F -—-—_- — MB^Hmmf<aaT ffjjW'B'ysi wwww^tB?*e^lff!F9^9iwwf999w&wwu
July 11, 1989
Kim Post
CMB
5966 La Place Court, Suite 170
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR WINDSONG SHORES
Dear Kim:
The landscape plans have been reviewed and comments have been written on the
prints. Please forward the plans to the landscape architect for revisions. Once
revisions have been made the plans should be resubmitted to Larry Black in care
of the Planning Department for a second review. Please include the original
check set with your second submittal.
If you should have any questions, please contact me at 438-1161.
Sincerely,
CHRISTER WESTMAN
Associate Planner
CW:af
c: Michael Holzmiller
Mike Howes
David Mauser
Scott Evans
2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-'1859 • (619) 138-1 161
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
June 29, 1989
Leonard Bedolla
Marl borough Development Corporation
28751 Rancho California Road #208
Rancho California, California 92390
SUBJECT: WINDSONG SHORES CT 83-4
Dear Leonard:
Engineering and Planning staff have reviewed the submittals for Windsong Shores
and have determined that prior to issuance of building permits the following
items must be completed:
Planning
An Environmental Impact Assessment Form Part I must be submitted for
environmental determinations for the "offsite" grading.
2. Provide a copy of the construction access agreement with the AT & SF
Railroad for the City file.
3. Landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved which will include the
location of public trails.
4. Receive all necessary approvals from the Coastal Commission.
5. A sign program shall be submitted for review and approval.
6. Provide a sight-line study indicating screening for roof mounted equipment.
7. Provide a listing of exterior elevation materials and colors and reference
location on the appropriate sheets.
Engineering
1. Submit grading plans for "onsite" and "offsite" work.
2. Submit a haul route and right-of-way permit application for access to
Chinquapin Avenue.
3. Provide a location map of your export site.
2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161
Leonard Bedolla
June 29, 1989
Page 2
4. Submit a phasing and clean-up plan. (Restoration of haul route)
Submit an improvement plan for construction access at Chinquapin Avenue.
6. Provide easements and improvement plans for the fire hydrant system and
water lines.
7. Submit "as builts" for public sewer, water and storm drain.
8. Revise the garage plan (see attached check print and return it with the
next submittal).
\/9. Comply with all conditions of approval per Resolution No. 2186.
If you should have any questions, please contact Scott Evans of the Engineering
Department or me at 438-1161.
Sincerely,
^ • \ U U r~~"' }•., \ ' ,.
CHRISTER WESTMAN
Associate Planner
CW:af
Attachment
c: Dave Hauser
Scott Evans
Mike Howes
Carter Darnell
CM)
B O R O L I O \
June 22, 1989
Mr. Marty Orenyak
Director of Community Development
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA., 92009-4859
RE: Windsong Shores C.T. 83-4
i26^
gj K«
ICQ CITY OFCWHSaa)
^
^fav
Dear Marty:
At our meeting of June 12/ 1989, we discussed several pending issues
regarding Windsong Shores. This letter is to serve as my understanding of
these issues and the direction Marlborough is taking to resolve them.
1. There was uncertainty whether the final site plan was in substantial
conformance with the Cities approved site plan. For your information,
on June 7, 1989, we met with Mike Howes and Christer Westman and
presented them with a copy of the final site plan signed by the Coastal
Commission. They accepted the exhibit as the official final site plan
and as being in substantial conformance to the City's original
approvals.
2. You suggested certain public relation approaches with the neighborhood.
We have since drafted and sent a letter to the entire neighborhood, as
delivered to your office on June 14, 1989, and we are currently
preparing a press release for the Blade-Tribune and Carlsbad Journal to
address the construction access.
3. Loyd Hubbs mentioned that several of the homeowners indicated a grading
plan should be required. A grading plan was entered with the Building
Package Submittal on January 31, 1989. I indicated that after
considerable investigation and conversations with the Planning,
Engineering and Building Departments, it was concluded that a grading
permit for this project was not required due to the fact that all
excavation was within the shadow of the Building.
4. I further indicated to Mr. Hubbs that Marlborough would comply with any
reasonable request by the Engineering Department for a grading permit,
and was assured by Mr. Hubbs that our job mobilization start date would
not suffer because of this late request for a grading permit, as a
grading plan was entered by specific direction from Engineering with
the Building Package Submittal January 31, 1989.
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION • 28751 RAMCHO C.ALiFOBN.A RC =:u» » *ANCHO CALIFORNIA « CALIFORNIA 92390 • 714 676-4292
Mr. Marty Orenyak
Page 2
June 22, 1989
The above is presented as a record of our discussions and the follow up
Marlborough has since accomplished. Should there be any disagreement or
inconsistency/ please contact me promptly to avoid future
misunderstandings.
Sincerely/
-—Leonard Bedolla
cc: Mike Holzmiller/ Planning Director/ Loyd Hubbs, City Engineer, Walter
Brown, Engineering Dept., David Hauser/ Engineering Dept./ Christer ;
tWestman, Planning Dept., Kim Post/ Crosby, Mead and Benton, Paula
Madson, Lightfoot Planning Group, Richard Niec/ Marlborough
Development
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION • 287-' RANCHO CAL!CORNIA RD -208 • 3ANCHG CALiFORMA • CALIFORNIA 93390 • 7i4 676-4292
Crosby Mead Benton & Associates,
Planners • Engineers • Surveyors //,'
5966 La Place Court. Suite I ?o / ... [». wjf
Carlsbad. California 92008 j >.'
(619)438-1210 '-••:
June 14, 1989
City of Carlsbad Job No. 300-3
Community Development Dept. File No. 3
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859
ATTN: Marty Orenyak, Director of Community Development
RE: Windsong Shores, C.T. 83-4
Dear Marty:
On behalf of Marlborough Development Corporation, we are provid-
ing you with the enclosed update information concerning the
Windsong Shores project. The letter to the neighborhood should
go in the mail today, so we have enclosed an advance copy to keep
you informed. The chronologies are not being sent to the
neighborhood, but are being enclosed as reference information
concerning milestone events of this project.
Marlborough wants to begin construction of this project just as
soon as the necessary approvals and permits can be obtained. We
would appreciate any assistance we can get or feedback you deem
helpful toward that end.
Very Truly Yours,
CROSBY MEAD BENTON & ASSOCIATES
Kim L. Post, P.E.
Vice President
KLP:ltg
cc w/ enclosures:
Mayor Bud Lewis, City of Carlsbad
Mayor Pro Tern Ann Kulchin, City of Carlsbad
Ray Patchett, City Manager, City of Carlsbad
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, City of Carlsbad
Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, City of Carlsbad
Rick Niec, Vice President, Marlborough Development Corp
Orange County Office: l 82O E. Deere Avenue. Suite l 20, Santa Ana. California 927O5 / (7 14) 261-956O
Los Angeles County Office: 6345 Balboa Boulevard, Suite 14O, Encino, California 9 l 3 i 6 / (81 8) 343-5384
Riverside County Office: 29377 Rancho California Rd.. Suite 102. Rancho California, California 9239O / (7 14) 676-6O61
IHE
LIGHJFOO!
PLANNING
GROUP
June 13, 1989
Mr. Tom Lickterman
Manager of Operations
North County Transit District
311 South Tremont
Oceanside, CA 92054
RE: Windsong Shores
Dear Mr. Lickterman:
This letter is to serve as a summary of our previous telephone
conversations regarding the need for bus stop facilities for
the Windsong Shores project in Carlsbad. It is my
understanding that the North County Transit District is not
interested in placing a bus stop on Chinquapin Avenue or
Harbor Drive. You indicated that the existing bus stops on
Jefferson and Tamarack will serve the Windsong Shores
neighborhood, however, improvements to these bus stops would
be appreciated.
If you are in concurrence with the information contained
herein, please sign below and return a copy of this letter to
me. Should you have any questions, please give me a call.
Sincerely,Acknowledged By:
.
Paula B. Madson
Associate Project. Planner-Date
PBM/sc
cc:
Tom Lickterman
Manager of Operations
North County Transit District
Christer Westman, City of Carlsbad
Leonard Bedolla, Marlborough Development Corp.
173.07/38
702 FOURTH STREET
OCEANSIDE. CA 92054
(619| 722-1924
FAX (6191 433-7511
NO. 64-021-OO2 62
EXHIBIT "A"
ATTACHED TO CONTRACT BETWEEN
THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
AND
MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
SCALE: 1 IN. TO None FT.
CALIFORNIA DIV.
3A.H DIEQ-Q _ SUBDIV.
DATE: June 28,1389
L.
TRIM LINE
CHIEF ENGINEER
DESCRIPTION APPROVED
Co' Chain link fence
Q.
E.S. 2284 + 50
MP230+I2H1.2
To Fuller+on
DESCRIPTION
Riqhf o-Teniry as shown shaded, includ ina
fence and qate«. as noTed.
or
UJ To National City
Mear Carlsbad; San Dieqo County,
California C.E. DRAWING NO. 3 - IO46O
DIV. DWG. NO.DIV. FILE NO.G. M. FILE NO. HOI 335Co JWE-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
CAN p::oo COAST DISTRICT
. 1333 CAMINO DU RIO SOU1H, SUIH 125
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-3520
(619) 297-9740
NOTICE OF PROPOSED PERMIT AMENDMENT
X
TO: All Interested'Parties
FROM: Peter Douglas, Executive Director
DATE: June 12, 1989
""* SUBJECT: Permit No. 6-83-613 granted to Hunt Partnership
for .demolition of two residences and construction of 140 condominium units
at southerly terminus of Harbor Drive between 1-5 and the AT&SF Railway
right-of-way.
V
The Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission has reviewed a
proposed amendment to the above referenced permit, which would result in the
following change(s):
Construct an access ramp between the AT&SF right-of-way and the most southerly
portion of the construction site, including erosion control measures and hydro-
seeding to stabilize the fill slopes created to construct the ramp.
This amendment is considered to be IMMATERIAL and the permit will be modified
accordingly if no written objections are received within ten working days of
the date of this notice. This amendment has been considered "immaterial" for
the following reason(s):
The proposed access ramp will be located in an area that is already disturbed
and no additional on-site disturbance will occur. The proposed erosion control
measures including sandbag checkdams and erosion control planting will prevent
any potential erosion on the proposed ramp from impacting the resources of the
nearby lagoon. .
If you have any questions about the proposal or wish to register an objection,
please contact Paul Webb at the District Commission office.
(1683N)
dDCOMMOOA/'WlN HUNl*
2-1729'? iEBCDROINO RIQUISTTO DY: fiSf) *"~~ **OO/
IAND TTTU fNSURANCB COMfAKT
!-JD^tecordin, ..qu..t.d By ^-^ -^ W » ^W'JUI-7 W D 00
and
Ifhan Rtcordtd Raturn Toi
McDOKALD, HECHT, MORLXT i
Mr. A. John Recht
117 financial Square
»00 •&' §treet
• a Di»yo, California 92101
DECLARATION OT X&8TRICTIOHI
FOR
covx
I
I
NlMt*t Of '
Condominiums
•22
portion of
Lot 5
'^5 portion of %4 . ^
Lot 3
There if no guarantee that all phase* will b* constructed or
completed. The Owner* of • Condominium in «ach phase will
receive title to a Living Dnlt plus *n undivided fractional
interest as tenant in coupon to the Common Area (aa hereinafter
dtflned) located within that phase. In addition, each Owner of •
Cot>oami«nium will recei-ve the exclusive right to use and occupancy
of a portion of the Coeimon Area witnin that phase designated aa
Exclusive U«e Area*, all aa ahown on the Condominium Plan (aa
hereinafter defined) covering that phase. 7,ach Owner at a Condo-
minium will also receive an easement Cor Ingress, tgress and
recreational ua* over portion* of the Common Area of the other
phase. If all phases are completed aa planned, thera will b« a
total of tMC^ondomlfilujns in the Condominium project. Each
Condominium shall have appurtenant to it • membership in NIHDSOHQ
COVI CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, a California nonprofit Mutual
»«nefit Corporation (*Co*rporatlon* ) , which will b« the management
body for the condominium project.
S. Before telling or conveying any interest* in the
miniun Property, Declarant decire* to subject the Condominium
Property in accordance with a co«»on plan to certain covenants,
conditions and restrictions for the benefit of Declarant and any
•nd all present and future owner* of the **al property (defined
below). .
I, TBEJCErORE, Declarant hereby certifies and declares and
does hereby establish the following general plan for the protec-
tion and benefit of all of the Real Property, and has fixed and
doea hereby fix the following protective covenants, conditions
and restrictions upon each and every ownership interest in the
Real Property, und»r which aaid covenants, conditions and
restrictions each ownership interest In tht Real Property shall
b« hereafter held, used, occupied, leased, sold, encumbered, con-
veyed and/or transferred. Each and all of said covenants, con-
dition* and restriction* are for the purpose of protecting the
value and desirability of and shall inure to the benefit of all
of tb* »»al Property and shall tun with «nd b» binding upon and
••*-
VIAHLBOROLGH O E V E L O P M t \ T CORPORATION,
June 12, 1989
Dear Neighbor:
As a builder/developer of neighborhoods and communities throughout Southern
California and Arizona, we are sensitive to the concerns and conveniences of our
neighbors. We know that many of the residents in the neighborhood have had
questions and concerns regarding Marlborough Development's Windsong Shores
project. The intent of this letter is to hopefully answer your questions and
alleviate your concerns.
Our legal access through Windsong Cove and The Palms condominiums has been
verified and insured by Continental Land Title Company. But we have worked hard
to avoid bringing construction traffic through these areas, or along Harbor
Drive/ once that neighborhood concern was brought up last summer. At
considerable time and expense we have been negotiating with AT&SF Railroad since
then, and they have recently agreed to allow us to use the existing road in
their right-of-way as a temporary construction access route. Review of this
route by the City and Coastal Commission is in progress. The enclosed map shows
the overall route we will use for construction access to our site.
We have continued to process our grading and building plans through the Carlsbad
Planning, Engineering and Building Departments, and anticipate approval to begin
our grading and construction program this summer.
We are also setting up meetings with neighborhood representatives and
homeowners' associations to discuss our plans in greater detail. Should you
have any further questions or comments, please direct them to us through your
representatives so all interests can be addressed at these meetings.
We have and will make every effort to keep any neighborhood inconvenience to a
minimum. We sincerely want to be good neighbors and appreciate your
cooperation.
Sincerely,
MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
A. Niec
'President/Division Manager
RAN/sk
Enclosure
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION • 28751 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD.. #208 • RANCHO CALIFORNIA. CA 92390 - (7UI 676-4292 FAX (714) 676-9550
^^^Sssr^r--^ t^Gao/s
Exhibit I
WINDSONG SHORES CHRONOLOGY
September 28, 1983 Planning Commission recommends
approval of Tentative Map CT83-4 for
140 du and Condominium Permit CP-227
with Resolution 2186 (see Attachment A).
November 1, 1983
December 13, 1983
September 1985
City Council approves CT-83-4 & CP-227
with Resolution 7384 (see Attachment B).
Coastal Commission Intent to Issue
Permit No. 6-83-613 issued with
certain conditions (see Attachment C).
Tentative Map and Condominium Permit
extension requested in the event the
final map was not approved prior to the
expiration date.
October 1985 City writes proposed additional
conditions for time extension (see
Attachment D) . Request never goes to
hearing.
December 1985 Coastal's Intent to Issue Permit
extended for one year.
January 28, 1986 Final Map 11484 accepted by the City
Council and recorded thereafter.
September 1986 Construction of Harbor Drive improvements
begins.
November 23, 1986 Site plan revised to reconfigure
buildings per Coastal conditions.
Resulted in a reduction of units from 140
to 130. Reviewed and approved by Coastal
Commission (see Attachment E) .
December 9, 1986 Coastal Commission recorded IOD from
Sears Savings Bank for a 50-foot wide
public access easement from Harbor
Drive to bluff top and a 10-ft. wide
lateral strip of land along the entire
bluff top (see Attachment F).
December 10, 1986 Landscape Plans reviewed and approved
by Coastal Commission (see Attachment G)
December 11, 1986 Coastal Permit issued and accompanied
by letter from Coastal staff regarding
pending conditional requirements (see
Attachment H).
June 1988 Marlborough Development Corporation
purchases property
Exhibit II
May 26, 1988
June 1988
July 1988
July 25, 1988
September 1988
January 1989
April 1989
May 2, 1989
May 19, 1989
May 23, 1989
CURRENT CHRONOLOGY
Neighborhood Meeting held regarding project
and alternative access routes.
Marlborough purchases property.
Building and grading plans submitted for plan
check.
Meeting with Mayor, Mayor Pro Tern, Senior
City staff, and Harbor Drive Representatives.
Marlborough contacts AT&SF Railroad regarding
temporary access.
Building plans resubmitted for second plan
check, included foundation, grading and
offsite improvement plans.
Building plan resubmitted for third plan
check.
Landscape and irrigation plan submitted for
plan check.
Foundation, grading and improvement plans
resubmitted for a separate plan check at
City's request.
Application for amendment to Coastal Permit
submitted for an interim construction access
road.
THE
LIGHTFOO!
PLANNING
GROUP
MEETING NOTES
June 7, 1989
RE: Windsong Shores
ATTENDEES: Mike Howes, City of Carlsbad
Christer Westman, City of Carlsbad
Leonard Bedolla, Marlborough Development
Kim Post, Crosby, Mead, Benton
Paula Madson, The Lightfoot Planning Group
DISTRIBUTION: Attendees
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. Paula indicated that an amendment to the 1983 Coastal
Permit was submitted to the Coastal Commission on May
24. This amendment is requesting a "notch" cut into
the site from the railroad access road for interim
construction traffic. A copy of the exhibit was left
with Christer. It is anticipated that this request
will be nonmaterial and will be on the Coastal
Commission's June agenda.
2. Subsequent to approval of the amendment, Marlborough
will submit a Coastal Permit application for the
permanent grading that will be done in the railroad
right-of-way. The grading plan for these improvements
and the Environmental Intake Form will be submitted to
the City for their approval. It was uncertain, at
this time, whether City approval is required prior to
submittal to the Coastal Commission.
3. Chris and Mike indicated the revised site plan, dated
November 26, 1986, was in substantial conformance and
requested that the final site plan print be officially
signed by Sharilynn Sarb, of the Coastal Commission.
(The signed map is attached for your files.) The
mylar of the final site plan was given to Christer.
702 FOURTH STREET
OCEANSIDE. CA 92054
(G19) 722-1924
FAX (619) 433-7511
4. There was some general discussion regarding legal
access through the existing condominium project.
Marlborough will provide the City with documentation
for their files.
5. Christer indicated the concern with the visibility of
roof top equipment from 1-5, Harbor Drive and the
Lagoon. Marlborough will provide the City with sight
line cross-sections to illustrate the mechanical
equipment will be hidden from view.
6. Mike Howes indicated sign program will require size
and location of temporary signs, project
identification signs and public access signs. The
public access signs program will also require Coastal
Commission staff approval. Public access signage must
be approved prior to issuance of building permits.
Staff agreed the monument sign approval can be
approved prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
7. Paula will submit a letter regarding NCTD's position
on bus stop requirements for this project.
8. Christer and Mike reviewed and approved the landscaped
planter areas proposed for the garage. They requested
the landscape plans be submitted on one sheet, at
100-scale. They also requested a cross section of the
planter areas to illustrate the planters are raised
from the floor level.
9. Mike and Christer indicated that a detailed
subterranean landscape and irrigation plan needs to be
submitted for City review and approval.
9. Christer approved the trail system, as shown on the
landscape plan.
10. Christer agreed the Coast Waste Management letter has
been satisfied.
11. Paula indicated the color and material board will be
submitted to the City in the next couple of weeks.
The above is presented as a record of our discussions and
understandings. Please acknowledge your agreement with the
above by signing and returning a copy of these notes. If
you do not agree with any item herein, please contact me as
soon as possible so we can respond appropriately.
By: Paula Madson, Associate Project Planner
sc
Acknowledged By:
Carlsbad Planning Department Date
173.07/39
CC: Marty Orenyak, City of Carlsbad
MARLBDRDUGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
May 30, 1989
Christer Westman
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92009
RE: Windsong Shores - Mini Dumpsters
Dear Mr. Westman:
Working with Coast Waste Management/ Inc.; our mini dumpster disposal
company, we have come up with a mutually acceptable system for moving the
mini dumpsters from their trash acceptance/storage locations to their
pick-up and dump locations. This would be accomplished by placing a Cosco
Cupler, suggested by Cubic Container Co. the supplier of bins to Coast Waste,
to each bin with another placed on the maintenance vehical which will be
provided to the Homeowner Assoc. maintenance man. He would be responsible
to move for pick-up and dumping, then replacing in storage area.
Sincerely,
Leonard Bedolla
Marlborough Development
LB:cj
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION • 28751 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD, #208 • RANCHO CALIFORNIA CA 92390 • (714)676-4292 FAX (714) 676-9550
.aotes
THE
LIGHIF001
PLANNING
GROUP
May 25, 1989
Mr. Christer Westman
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859
RE: Windsong Shores - C-T-83, CP-227
Plan Check No. 88-0806-4200
Dear Christer:
In response to your letter of April 21 and the pending issues
discussed at our meeting with you and Mike Howes on May 3, we
are providing you with additional information on the Windsong
Shores project.
First of all, due to the long history of the project, I
thought it would be helpful to provide an historical
chronology from the Resolution of Approval in 1983 until
Marlborough purchased the property in 1988 (see Exhibit I) .
Attached to the chronology are the pertinent resolutions,
permits and exhibits.
Please note that the Coastal Commission required revisions to
the site plan subsequent to City approvals. The Coastal's
conditions required an increase in the width of the public
view at the terminus of Harbor Drive and that the building
heights of some of the buildings be reduced to lessen the
visual impact of the project. This required a
reconfiguration in the buildings, which resulted in a
decrease in units from 140 to 130. The Coastal Commission
approved these modifications based on a revised site plan on
November 23, 1986. This revised site plan may not have been
given to the City, which is why there was some confusion
regarding the final site plan. The approved site plan is
Attachment E.
702 FOUflTH STREET
OCEANSIDE. CA 92054
(619) 722-1924
FAX (619) 433-7511
Mr. Christer Westman
May 25, 1989
Page 2
Also, the October 29, 1989 draft conditions to the
Engineering Department from the Planning Department were
never part of a resolution of approval since the time
extension never required a public hearing. Therefore, it is
our understanding that Marlborough is not required to comply
with these conditions. Marlborough, however, is willing to
continue to work with the City wherever possible.
Secondly, I have attached, as Exhibit II, a chronology of
what's gone on since Marlborough acquired the property. This
is to illustrate that Marlborough has been actively
processing the necessary construction and improvement plans
and has been successfully working with the AT&SF Railroad in
pursuit of an alternative access route for construction
traffic.
Thirdly, I would like to briefly address the status of the
thirteen items listed in your April 21, 1989 letter.
1. Mylar of Final Site Plan - Will be submitted at our May
31 meeting. Print is enclosed as Attachment E.
2. Master Plan of Existing Trees - Was submitted to the
City on May 2 as part of the landscape plans.
3. Detailed Plan of Storage Areas - Submitted to you on
May 3 for your review and approval.
4. Parking Plan - Submitted to you at our May 3 meeting.
5. Landscape and Irrigation Plan - Submitted to the City on
May 2.
6. Sign Program - Has not been completed as yet.
7. Screening of Roof Equipment - This item is per the draft
conditions of October 28, 1985 that were never
approved. Therefore, Marlborough is not required to
provide screening as a condition of approval. However,
they are willing to paint the equipment so that it
blends in with the buildings.
8. Bus Stop Facilities - This item is also part of the
draft conditions that were never officially adopted. I
did, however, speak with the Manager of Operations, Tom
Lickterman, at NCTD. He indicated that no bus stop
facilities are needed for this project, either on
Chinquapin or Harbor Drive.
wesMr. Christer westman
May 25, 1989
Page 3
9. Garden Areas within Garage - Proposed garage level
landscape plan will be submitted to you at our May 31
meeting for your review and approval.
10. Color and Material Board - Will be submitted to you at
our May 31 meeting.
11. Compact Parking Spaces - On garage plan that was
submitted to you on May 3.
12. Location and Design of Public Trail System - Shown on
conceptual landscape plans as approved by the Coastal
Commission on December 10, 1986 (see Attachment G) . The
specific alignment for the trail system was subsequently
recorded by the Coastal Commission on December 9, 1985
(see Attachment F) . The trail is also shown on the
current landscape plans that were submitted to the City
on May 2.
13. Letter from Coast Waste Management - Completed. In
addition, Marlborough is preparing a letter describing
the internal handling of the mini-
dumpsters. This will be submitted to you on May 31.
Christer, I hope you find this update helpful. As you can
see, Marlborough has been actively pursuing their building
permits. We appreciate your review of the attached
information and hope you will be able to find the Coastal
revisions to the original project in substantial
conformance. We look forward to meeting with you on May 31
to discuss this information in further detail.
Sincerely,
Paula B. Madson
Associate Project Planner
PBM/dlb
Attachments
cc: Leonard Bedolla, Marlborough Dev. Corp,
Richard Niec, Marlborough Dev. Corp.
Kim Post, Crosby, Mead, Benton
Rob Quisenberry, Lorimar & Case
Mike Howes, City of Carlsbad
Exhibit I
WINDSONG SHORES CHRONOLOGY
September 28, 1983 Planning Commission recommends
approval of Tentative Map CT83-4 for
140 du and Condominium Permit CP-227
with Resolution 2186 (see Attachment A).
November 1, 1983
December 13, 1983
September 1985
City Council approves CT-83-4 & CP-227
with Resolution 7384 (see Attachment B).
Coastal Commission Intent to Issue
Permit No. 6-83-613 issued with
certain conditions (see Attachment C).
Tentative Map and Condominium Permit
extension requested in the event the
final map was not approved prior to the
expiration date.
October 1985 City writes proposed additional
conditions for time extension (see
Attachment D) . Request never goes to
hearing.
December 1985 Coastal's Intent to Issue Permit
extended for one year.
January 28, 1986 Final Map 11484 accepted by the City
Council and recorded thereafter.
September 1986 Construction of Harbor Drive improvements
begins.
November 23, 1986 Site plan revised to reconfigure
buildings per Coastal conditions.
Resulted in a reduction of units from 140
to 130. Reviewed and approved by Coastal
Commission (see Attachment E).
Exhibit II
CURRENT CHRONOLOGY
May 26, 1988 Neighborhood meeting held regarding project
and alternative access routes.
June 1988 Marlborough purchases property.
July 1988 Building and grading plans submitted for
plan check.
July 22, 1988 Meeting with Mayor, Mayor Pro tern, Senior
City staff, and Harbor Drive
representatives.
September 1988 Marlborough contacts AT&SF Railroad
regarding temporary access.
January 1988 Building plans resubmitted for second plan
check, included foundation, grading and
offsite improvement plans.
April 1989 Building plan resubmitted for third plan
check.
May 1989 Landscape and irrigation plan submitted for
plan check.
May 19, 1989 Foundation, grading and improvement plans
resubmitted for a separate plan check at
City's request.
May 2, 1989 Parking and garage plans submitted to the
Planning Department for a separate plan
check.
May 23, 1989 Application for amendment to Coastal Permit
submitted for an interim construction
access road.
December 9, ISaS.Ws Coastal Commission recorded IOD from
Sears Savings Bank for a 50-foot wide
public access easement from Harbor
Drive to bluff top and a 10-ft. wide
lateral strip of land along the entire
bluff top (see Attachment F).
December 10, 1986 Landscape Plans reviewed and approved
by Coastal Commission (see Attachment G)
December 11, 1986 Coastal Permit issued and accompanied
by letter from Coastal staff regarding
pending conditional requirements (see
Attachment H).
June 1988 Marlborough Development Corporation
purchases property
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859
TELEPHONE
(619)438-1161
0f
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
April 21, 1989
Rob Quisenberry
Lorimer and Case
1747 Hancock Street
San Diego, CA 92101
RE: PLAN CHECK #88-0806-4200 HARBOUR DRIVE, WINDSONG SHORES - CT 83-04/CP-227
Dear Mr. Quisenberry:
Your plans have been reviewed by the Planning Department for building permit
issuance and the following items must be submitted or completed prior to issuance
of a permit. In addition to the following list review Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2186 and the exhibits accompanying the Resolution.
1. A reproducible mylar of the final site plan shall be submitted which
has incorporated all conditions of approval to the Planning
Department for approval by the Planning Director.
2. A Master Plan of existing trees shall be submitted to the Planning
Department prior to the issuance of grading or building permits.
3. A detailed plan indicating storage area volumes shall be submitted
prior to building permit issuance.
4. Submit a separate plan illustrating the location of assigned parking
spaces, storage spaces, and visitor stalls.
5. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for review prior
to building permit issuance. Plans shall include perimeter fencing
location and materials.
6. A sign program shall be submitted for review and approval.
7. Roof mounted equipment shall be screened. Provide details for
certification.
8. Bus stop facilities shall be provided by the project. Facility
design and location shall be reviewed and approved by NCTD and the
Planning Director.
9. Garden areas within the garage have not been provided as per the
original approval.
Rob Quisenberry
April 19, 1989
Page 2
10. Provide a listing of exterior elevation materials and colors and
reference location on the appropriate sheets.
11. Compact spaces should be provided:
1. Sheet AG-6 by the Comm. Room.
2. Sheet AG-3 by the Electrical Mach. Room.
12. Provide a detailed plan showing the location and design of the
proposed public trail system.
13. Submit a letter from Coast Waste Management stating that they have
completed a review of the project and can adequately service the
project.
Please complete the items mentioned above and resubmit for Planning Department
review. If you should have any questions, please call me at 438-1161.
Sincerely,
CHRISTER WESTMAN
Associate Planner
c: Mike Howes
Carter Darnell
CW:lh
ct8304cp.ltr
COAST WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC
PHONE' 753-9412 596° BL CAMINO REAL' p- °- BOX 947- CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
or 452-9810 McOOUGAL SANITATION DEL MAR DISPOSAL CO.
CARLSBAD DISPOSAL CO. RANCHO SANTA FE DISPOSAL CO.
SOLANA BEACH DISPOSAL CO. SORRENTO VALLEY DISPOSAL CO.
April 3, 1989
Rob Quisenberry
Architects Lorimer - Case
1747 Hancock Street
San Diego, CA 92101
RE: Refuse Service for Windsong Shores, Carlsbad
2nd Review
Dear Rob:
I have reviewed the plans for the Windsong Shores Complex.
The modifications to the trash plan appears to be adequate
for us to be able to efficiently service the development.
The space allocated for the bins near the underground
parking access should eliminate the unnecessary costs for
rolling out the bins for servicing.
If you have any other questions please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Conrad B. Pawelski
General Manager
A SATISFIED CUSTOMER IS OUR FIRST CONSIDERATION
FEC0NRegional Environmental Consultants
December 19, 1988
2\
Mr. Kim Post
Crosby Meade Benton & Associates
5966 La Place Court, Suite 170
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Reference: Wetland Check at the Windsong Shores Access Road Site (RECON Number R-1926)
Dear Mr. Post:
At your request, we surveyed the drainage ditch located between the AT&SF tracks and the
sewer right-of-way and access road between Chinquapin Street and the YMCA Aquatic
Campsite in the City of Carlsbad. The purpose of the survey was to determine whether
wetlands or other significant biological resources were present which might prevent the
construction of the proposed access road or the disposal of excess earth from the asso-
ciated grading project.
No wetland vegetation or wetlands were present in the ditch above the 10-foot mean sea
level elevation. In the portion of the ditch which is located between the utility and
railroad dikes out in the lagoon, the bottom of the ditch is vegetated with salt grass
(Disticlis spicata) which is listed on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
wetland plant list as a 'Facultative Wetland" species (see enclosed drawing). The
definition of this area as a wetland is equivocal according the current U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USAGE) criteria, but would probably be so defined according to the USFWS
definition. Since the latter definition is cited in the Coastal Commission's Statewide
Interpretive Guidelines (which defines the Commission's wetland policies), we think that
the placement of fill in the areas of the ditch supporting saltgrass would be difficult
or impossible to obtain a coastal permit for.
If the placement of fill in the lower areas of the ditch, is crucial to the feasibility
of your project, we should do a more precise wetland delineation in the area by digging
holes to define the extent of hydrlc soils and consult with Coastal staff to assess
feasibility. Otherwise, it would be prudent to avoid the area indicated.
Please call if you have any questions.
Cam Patterson
Ecologist, E.S.A.
CCP:st
cc: Rick Nice, Marlborough Development
Enclosure
1276 Morena Boulevard • San Diego, CA 92110-3815 • (619) 275-3732 • FAX (619) 275-3619
2922 N. 70th Street • Scottsdale, AZ 85251 • (602) 947-8042 3120 Chicago Avenue • Riverside, CA 92507 • (714) 784-9460
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE • jffWtM TELEPHONE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 W^ij^M (619)438-1161
nf (Earlsbab
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
September 22, 1988
Rob Quisenberry
Lorimer and Case
1747 Hancock Street
San Diego, CA. 92101
RE: PLAN CHECK NO. 880806 - 4200 HARBOR DRIVE, WINDSONG SHORES CT 83-4/CP-227
Dear Rob,
The proposed construction plans for the above mentioned project do not comply
with the conditions of approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2186 which
granted approval of this project. The following items must be submitted before
the Planning Department can complete a review of this project:
1. Detailed landscape plans showing all common recreation areas and the
facilities within these areas. These plans shall also show bike racks,
benches, and drinking fountains at the terminus of Harbor Drive. Condition
Nos. 10, 12, and 22 of P.C. Resolution No. 2186. Staff has seen some
preliminary plans, but we do not have any copies of these plans.
2. Detailed sign program. Condition Nos. 14 and 23 of P.C. Resolution No.
2186.
3. Plans showing a wrought iron fence along the northerly property line where
it adjoins the single family homes which front on Harbor Drive. Condition
No. 30 of P.C. Resolution No. 2186.
4. Detailed plans showing the location and design of the proposed public trail
system. Condition No. 17 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2186.
The following problems were noted on the plans submitted and need to be
corrected.
1. It appears that some of the buildings intrude into the 25' setback from the
edge of the bluff. Sheet AS-2, AS-3, AS-4. This does not conform with
condition No. 20 of P.C. Resolution No. 2186.
2. The siding of the building shown on the construction plans does not appear
to match the siding approved by the Planning Commission. The approved
exhibits show wood siding, while the construction drawings appear to show
stucco siding. This type of change would have to be presented to the
Planning Commission as an information item.
Plan Check No. 880806
September 22, 1988
Page 2
3. There are numerous problems with the design of the underground parking
garage.
A. Amount of Parking
It appears that only 284 parking spaces have been provided. This
project requires 300 parking spaces to comply with the city's
standards.
B. Location of Visitor and Compact Spaces
It is difficult to determine the number and location of visitor parking
spaces from the plans submitted. A parking plan for the entire project
showing the location of all resident and visitor parking spaces should
be provided. This plan shall also show the location of all compact
spaces. Assigned resident parking spaces should be within 300 feet
of the unit they are assigned to.
C. Trash Enclosures
Access to many of the trash enclosures by Coast Waste Management would
be extremely awkward if not impossible. For example: sheet AG-3, AG-
7, and AG-8, how can trash bins be removed from the trash enclosures
if cars are parked in the adjacent parking spaces? A letter from Coast
Waste Management stating that they have completed a detailed review
of these plans and have vehicles that will be able to access these
trash enclosures will be required prior to issuance of a building
permit.
D. Storage Areas
Access to many of the storage areas will be difficult and impractical,
storage areas assigned to one unit shall not be located in front of
a parking space assigned to another unit. How does someone get into
their storage closet if their neighbor goes on vacation and leaves a
van parked in their assigned parking space which would be in front of
their storage space? This situation occurs in a number of locations.
The design of some of the storage areas would make it very difficult
to gain access: example sheet AG-1, storage spaces 103 and 106. In
addition the cubic footage of each of the storage areas must be
provided to determine whether they comply with the 392 cubic foot
requirement.
Plan Check No. 880806
September 22, 1988
Page 3
E. Parking Space Dimensions
Compact parking spaces must have a minimum width of eight feet, one
of the spaces on sheet AG-6 appears to be only seven feet wide. Full
size parking spaces must have a minimum width of 8^ feet.
The above mentioned information should be submitted and problems corrected prior
to submittal of another set of plans for plan check.
Mike Howes
Senior Planner
cc: Richard Niec
Michael Holzmiller
Charlie Grimm
Carter Darnell
MH:kd
CT834
6 September 1988
Mr. Mike Howes
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas
Carlsbad, Calif. 92009
Ref: Harbor Drive
It is our understanding that Marlborough Construction Corp. may present
council with a proposal for access to the Windsong Shores phase of the
Windsong Cove Development. Because of the complexity of this
development, due to changes in ownership and time of construction
phases, we have assembled excerpts from the city and county records
pertaining to Harbor Drive.
We understand that, with the exception of some staff members, very few
people have taken the opportunity to read through the city file or look at the
final map. We hope you will take a few moments to review these excerpts.
The documents these excerpts were taken from are labeled at the top of
each page. All records are available from the City of Carlsbad.
Although it is our desire to keep Harbor Drive free from construction and
residential traffic as repeatedly described in the city records, we have
agreed to help the city with alternate access routes. We will write to the
railroad in support of any proposal presented for that access; but have not
been informed (as requested) of any negotiations with the railroad that are
taking place at the present time.
On 30 August 1988, Marlborough attempted to remove fencing at the end
of Harbor Drive. Their contention is that they have access to Harbor Drive
through the cities utility and sewer access which abutt the end of Harbor
Drive. The city engineer's office was notified and Marlborough replaced the
fencing. Some residents of Harbor Drive have been told by residents of
Windsong Cove and the Palms that Marlborough will never be allowed to
access their property through those developments for any reason. As this
seems to be in conflict with Resolution 2186, Page 7, Item 40, and since
Marlborough has made no attempt to exercise their legal easments, we
would appreciate an explanation in this matter.
ncerely,
ames A. Hawes
or The Residents Of Harbor Drive
4065 Harbor Dr.
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
6 September 1988
Mr. Michael Holzmiller
Director of Planning
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas
Carlsbad, Calif. 92009
Ref: Harbor Drive
It is our understanding that Marlborough Construction Corp. may present
council with a proposal for access to the Windsong Shores phase of the
Windsong Cove Development. Because of the complexity of this
development, due to changes in ownership and time of construction
phases, we have assembled excerpts from the city and county records
pertaining to Harbor Drive.
We understand that, with the exception of some staff members, very few
people have taken the opportunity to read through the city file or look at the
final map. We hope you will take a few moments to review these excerpts.
The documents these excerpts were taken from are labeled at the top of
each page. All records are available from the City of Carlsbad.
Although it is our desire to keep Harbor Drive free from construction and
residential traffic as repeatedly described in the city records, we have
agreed to help the city with alternate access routes. We will write to the
railroad in support of any proposal presented for that access; but have not
been informed (as requested) of any negotiations with the railroad that are
taking place at the present time.
On 30 August 1988, Marlborough attempted to remove fencing at the end
of Harbor Drive. Their contention is that they have access to Harbor Drive
through the cities utility and sewer access which abutt the end of Harbor
Drive. The city engineer's office was notified and Marlborough replaced the
fencing. Some residents of Harbor Drive have been told by residents of
Windsong Cove and the Palms that Marlborough will never be allowed to
access their property through those developments for any reason. As this
seems to be in conflict with Resolution 2186, Page 7, Item 40, and since
Marlborough has made no attempt to exercise their legal easments, we
would appreciate an explanation in this matter.
erely,
mes A. Hawes
or The Residents Of Harbor Drive
4065 Harbor Dr.
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
4 August 1988
Mr, Vincent F, Biondo, jr.
City Attorney
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Ave.
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
Ref: Marlborough Construction's Presentation.
Dear Mr. Biondo,
I attended a meeting on 25 July 1988 at the city offices to discuss the
construction ingress and egress to the Windsong Shores PC development.
I am very concerned about the validity of a study being presented by
Malborough Construction Corp. The report compares pictures and
dimensions of proposed construction access routes to the development.
Very biased photographs taken of Harbor Dr. show a semi-truck posed in
the center of the street in an area where no vehicles were parked. The
camera was positioned at a much greater distance from the truck than in
any of the other photographs. The photos of the other access routes were
taken at a much closer distance with the vehicles positioned much closer to
existing structures.
The construction access to Windsong Shores which was provided when
the Windsong Cove (Palm's) development was constructed is Canario St., to
the west of Harbor Dr. This access was approved on the final plan and
studied and approved by the city staff prior to construction. Canario St. is
24 feet wide at its narrowest point. There is no parking allowed at this point.
Marlborough's report shows the "traveled way" of Harbor Dr. to be 20 feet
wide, in order to compare it favorably to Canario St.
The total width of Harbor Dr. is 36 feet. With 2 legal vehicles parked a
legal distance :":om the curbs the "traveled way" of Harbor Dr. is 17 feet not
20 feet as presented by Marlborough. Two legal width vehicles passing on
Harbor Dr. would have 12 inches of clearance to divide. By comparison, the
width of a childs bicycle handlebar is 24 inches. Two legal vehicles passing
on Canario St. would have 8 feet to divide for clearance.
This report is being presented by Marlborough to city officials and
neighbor residents in support of a political solution they are seeking to their
easement desires.
I urge the City of Carlsbad to look closely at the content of this
misrepresentation and deny it for any consideration.
les A. Hawes
365 Harbor Dr.
'Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
(619) 729-8252
•
CC/Ray Patchett, Marty Orenyak, Lloyd Hobbs. Michael Holzmiller,
Members of Council.
4 August 19
Mayor Claude "Bud" Lewis
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Ave.
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
Dear Mayor Lewis, .
In review of our meeting of 25 July 1988, I would like to take this
opportunity to express my understanding of the items discussed, which I
have related to the residents of Harbor Dr.
It is our understanding that the "railroad" access is the primary desired
construction route for Marlborough Construction Corporation to use to
access their property. That efforts will be made, with the help of the City of
Carlsbad, to obtain temporary construction access to this route from the
railroad.
Should these efforts fail, it is our understanding that a temporary lease
will be sought by the construction company with 6 of the residences on the
west side of Harbor Dr. for the use of 45 feet of the rear of their property to
construct a temporary service road to the Windsong Shores property. This
road would be accessed at the entrance of Canario St. to the west of
Harbor Drive.
The Harbor Dr. residents have expressed concern with the manner in
which Marlborough may choose to deal with the railroad. We feel it is
imperative that the city take an active part in any negotiations and meetings
with the railroad. I request that we receive a copy of correspondence
relating to these negotiations. Should the city choose not to be involved in
these negotiations we feel there is little chance of Marlborough negotiating
in good faith. Consider the following:
• At least 6 weeks prior to meeting with us, after stating their intentions in
a letter to Mr. Holzmilier on 10 May 1988, they organized a "political
grandstanding" public comment at the June council meeting. Using vocal
opponents of Harbor Dr. in an attempt to abrogate an agreement
between the residents of Harbor Drive and the City of Carlsbad.
• Prepared a biased and misrepresentative report concerning proposed
construction access routes to Windsong Shores which is being
presented to city officials and neighbor residents.
• Has expressed very little desire to use their existing easements. The
designed construction access route is through Canario St. This was
studied and approved by the city staff and council prior to construction
of the Palms development.
• The tactic of having a meeting late in the afternoon, dominating the
majority of the meeting while allowing no comments, and leaving little
time for discussion or negotiation is not the hallmark of a fair and
honest company.
It is very difficult for us to imagine the Marlborough Construction
Corporation as the "good guys" in white hats from Century City that they
keep claiming to be.
The resideflts-of Harbor Drive are trying to understand the political balance
which Marlborough has forced all of us into during this election year. We do
not understand why any problems between Marlborough and the residents
of the Windsong and Palms developments are being pushed onto the
residents of Harbor Dr.
An agreement has existed, between the city and the residents of Harbor
Drive, for more than 16 years concerning the ingress and egress from the
PC developments surrounding this residential area. It is our desire to
preserve the residential quality of our street and homes. Certainly 3 years
of heavy construction traffic will destroy what we, as residents of Carlsbad,
have traditionally enjoyed. We will do what we can to help the city find a
solution to allow Marlborough to use their existing easements, or the
"railroad" route. We request the city avoid any action that would allow
Marlborough Construction Corporation to usurp the agreement between
the residents of Harbor Drive and the City of Carlsbad as recorded in the
city records and final plans.
Sincerely,
A. Hawes
4065 Harbor Dr.
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
(61 9) 729-8252 (Home)
(619) 578-6550 Ext. 507 (Work)
Courtesy Copies:
Members of Council
Mr. Vincent Biondo
Mr. Ray Patchett
Mr. Michael Holzmiller
Mr. Lloyd Hobbs
Mr. Marty Orenyak
4 August 1988
Mr. Marty Orenyak
Director of Community Development
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
Ref: Windsong Shores Construction Access
Dear Mr. Orenyak,
After the meeting regarding Windsong Shores construction access on 25
July 1988,1 had the opportunity to discuss the events of that meeting with
the residents of Harbor Dr. Although we were not permitted, at the meeting,
to discuss the topics involved, a number of suggestions have been offered
which I would like to address at this time.
The decision to pursue the "railroad" route as a temporary construction
access is the solution most desired by all residents. It also seems to be
politically acceptable to council members. I have attached a copy of a letter
sent to Mayor Lewis which expresses our feelings as to the importance of
the city's involvement in any negotiations for this access.
Your suggestion of switching the building phases so the east phase
- (nearest the freeway) will be built first was indeed a good one. We feel this
will help reduce a number of potential conflicts, which have been
discussed, in regards to the time of construction of pedestrian access, etc.
(Ref: 7384, #17).
Of major concern to the residents is the lack of discussion, at our meeting,
concerning the Canario St. access route. This is the designated
construction access which was approved by the city at the conception of
the second phase of the project. The legal easements are in place for this
route. It's "traveled way" is seven feet wider than Harbor Dr. Along the wall
on the east side of Canario St. is a planted area and a trash dumpster stall.
One suggested modification was to temporarily cut back the road to the
brick wall and move the parking to the west side of the road. The parking
spaces could be angled to allow drive thru parallel parking in the area
between the access route and the garages. Moving the road back to the
wall would allow additional width to what is already the widest access route
available. This would also allow safe entry and exit to the garages.
A suggestion was also made that although the Windsong Cove acess route
is not deemed suitable for semi-truck vehicles, it does not prohibit it's use
by light truck traffic or double axle dump trucks.
Marlborough seems to have put little thought or effort into the use of
access routes to which they have established legal rights. We feel that
some effort in this area will make their existing easements the most cost
effective and suitable for their construction tasks.
We do not feel that Marlboroughs self-defined problems should be pushed
onto the residents of Harbor Drive. As stated in our letter to Mayor Lewis it
is our desire to keep the quality of life intact and not see it destroyed by
three years of construction traffic. Your efforts to find a viable non-political
answer to this problem should be applauded by all concerned.
rely,
imes A. Hawes
/4065 Harbor Dr.
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
(619) 729-8252 (Home)
(619) 578-6550 Ext. 507 (Work)
Courtesy Copies:
Members of Council
Mr. Vincent Biondo
Mr. Ray Patchett
Mr. Michael Holzmiller
Mr. Lloyd Hobbs
27 June 1988
Mayor Bud Lewis
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, Calif
Dear Mayor Lewis,
I recently received the attached flyer from Windsong Cove in relation to
the development of the final stage of the Windsong Cove/Palms planned
development community
As a resident of Harbor Drive, I am obviously very concerned about any
decisions concerning opening Harbor Drive to construction traffic.
From the original ordinance in 1972 the only ingress and egress allowed
from Harbor Drive has been a walk-thru entrance to allow access to the
wetlands as prescribed by the Coastal Commission,
All of the original city exhibits, provided by the developer, and City
Managers Staff Report/Memorandum to the Planning Commission of 9 May
1972 (Reference: Section I, Paragraph 3 and Section IV, Paragraph 2)
provide for the guidance of traffic flow in and around the development
areas.
The easement established by the owners of Lots No. 3 & 1 in Case No.
490779, San Diego Superior Court, and described in the California
Department of Real Estate Report No. 054064LA-LOO, issued 19 April 1983,
Pages 4 & 7, further establishes the ingress and egress to the property.
• The owners within the Windsong/Palms development were aware of the
design and easements when they purchased their property.
• The interior walkways for pedestrians, and play areas for children are
inside the the development center and away from traffic flow patterns.
• The roadways are equipped with "speedbumps" which will limit the
speed of construction vehicles and damage to the roadway surface.
• Harbor Drive has no provisions for limiting the speed of construction
traffic. The chances of getting law enforcement to control speed is very
slim.
• There are no sidewalks on Harbor Drive and the positioning of
telephone poles dictate that pedestrians walk in the center portion of
the roadway when passing parked vehicles.
• There are over twenty pre-teen children on Harbor Drive at this time.
When Harbor Drive was used for construction access to deliver building
materials and remove the buildings from the property, it created some
extremely dangerous situations. Traffic speed was not controlled and the
drainage aprcn at the intersection of Harbor Drive and Chinquapin
received so much damage from the heavy vehicles that it had to be
reconstructed twice.
Prior to purchasing my home in 1975 I paid the City of Carlsbad for a
copy of all ordinances, resolutions, and memorandums concerning
easments and access to Harbor Drive. This was the major consideration in
the purchase of this property. I was reassured by the City Council and Mr.
Larry Hunts in 1982 that there was no plan to provide for the opening of
Harbor Drive.
I believe the vision and decisions put forth on this matter by the city,
from the initial planning stages through the development of the various
areas, should be allowed to stand.
Page 2
I suggest that the planning commission examine the access road which
lies to the west of the Palms development and to the east of the railroad
tracks as an alternate construction access route. This road is used primarily
on v/eekends to service the YMCA camp. It can be 'accessed from
Chinquapin St. or from Tamarack Ave. This access route would not impact a
residential area.
It is my understanding that an approved final site plan is still valid for
this phase of the development. I believe it would not be in the best interests
of the City of Carlsbad or its residents to put the city in a position of liability
on this matter.
A. Hawes
'4065 Harbor Dr.
Carlsbad, 92008
Courtesy Copies:
Mr. Marty Orenyak
Mr. Mike Howes
Mr. John Mamaux
Mr. Mark Pettine
Ms. Ann Kulchin
Mr. Eric Larsen
Mr. Adam Birnbaum
CARL KNOX
REAL ESTATE BROKER
4130 Harbor Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(619) 729-8852
June 27, 1988
City of Carlsbad PLANNINGoEPARTisa
1200 Slai Street ciTYOF
Carlsbad, CA 92008 CARLSSftD
Attn: The Honorable Bud Lewis, Mayor
and members of the city council "-_,_.
Subject: Harbor Drive as access to lot 5. of Windsong Cove/Palms
Dear Sirs;
In May or June of 1981 in a special meeting at city hall, the
original developer Mr. Larry Hunts of Papagayo/Windsong Cove/Palms
and the residents of Harbor Drive, and members of the city council
discussed and resolved the access question in regard to Harbor Drive.
It was agreed upon by all in attendance that no access to lot 5»
final phase would ever take place on Harbor Drive except for a
walk through pedestrian gate at the end of the cul d sac for public
access to the lagoon for viewing and fishing etc.
All access to lot 5» final phase as described by Larry Hunts would
take place through two access routes. One through the west corridor
or Windsong Cove and a new private access street west 6f Harbor Drive
whiffh is now known as Aguila Street in the Palms section of the
project.
The undersigned, residents of Harbor Drive desire that you honor
these prior decisions and abide by the provisions set forth in the
approval of the final map (No. 8107) by the city in 1951.
Sincerely y 3urs,
Carl Knox, For the residents of Harbor Dr
ec; to council members
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE m^JlWJ M TELEPHONE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 WT»W-#M (619)438-1161
<£ttg 0f
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
June 14, 1988
Melinda Young
Horizons
810 Los Vallecitos Blvd., Suite B
San Marcos, CA 92069
RE: LETTER OF MAY 11, 1988 REGARDING WINDSONG COVE
Dear Ms. Young;
This letter is in response to the above mentioned letter
concerning access problems at Windsong Cove. Many of the issues
brought up in your letter were discussed at the meeting you
attended on June 9, 1988 between the City, The Marlborough
Development Corporation and representatives of the Windsong Cove
Homeowner's Association. At this meeting it was determined that
Marlborough Development Corporation does have access rights
through Windsong Cove to construct Windsong Shores.
Representatives of the Homeowner's Association expressed concerns
about the impacts this would have on the existing private
driveways. Representatives of Marlborough discussed the
possibility of using Harbor Drive as a construction access. They
were informed that if they wished to use Harbor Drive as an
access they should approach the residents of Harbor Drive and try
to get their support before they proposed the idea to the City
Council. Staff also advised them to investigate the possibility
of gaining access to the site from the dirt road that currently
provides access to the YMCA site.
If Marlborough had to gain access through your project they would
be required to post a bond to ensure that any damage done to the
private streets was repaired in a timely manner.
Questions in your letter regarding traffic safety on Chinquapin
have been forwarded to Bob Johnson, the City's Traffic Engineer.
Michael Holzmiller is in charge of the Planning Department which
does not handle traffic safety issues. Mr. Johnson will either
contact you by phone or send you a letter regarding your
concerns.
Melinda Young
June 14, 1988
Page Two
Attached to this letter is a copy of the approved exhibits and
conditions of approval for CT 83-4/CP-277 Windsong Shores. I
would like to apologize for the delay in responding to your
letter. Due to a heavy workload I was unable to get to it
sooner. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free
to contact me.
Sincerely,
MIKE HOWES
Senior Planner
MH:af
Enclosure
c: Ray Patchett
Marty Orenyak
Michael Holzmiller
Charlie Grimm
CARL KNOX
REAL ESTATE BROKER
4130 Harbor Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(619) 729-8852
4025 Harbor Drive
4030 Harbor Drive <f/V
4045 Harbor Drive
4050 Harbor Drive
4065 Harbor Drive
4070 Harbor Drive
4075 Harbor Drive
4080 Harbor Drive
4095 Harbor Drive
4092 Harbor Drive
— -L -• jnarbor uriv
4130 Harbor Drive
4145 Harbor Drive '\
4150 Harbor Drive
4l65 Harbor Drive
4170 Harbor Drive
June 14, 1988
Dear Windsong Cove/Palms Homeowner:
As you may be aware, Windsong Cove/Palms was originally designed as a
five phase project consisting of approximately 250 units. Obviously,
only the first three phases were developed which now comprise a total
of 161 units. The undeveloped property consists of Lot 5 which is
located adjacent to the lagoon and abutt.; the south end of the Palms
and the Cove.
At this time, interest has been expresses in developing Lot 5.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF LOT 5 SERIOUSLY IMPACTS YOUR ASSOCIATION.
The developer claims that easements exis;. within the Association which
would allow construction and residential traffic to access Lot 5 throug
the existing development of Windsong Cov,./Palms.
In order to- most effectively address thi- issue, the Board of Directors
has determined the following:
1. Any units constructed on Lot 5 could not be annexed into the Associ
ation without approval of two-thirds of .-he membership. Therefore, wit-
the exception of tne security gate and internal streets, common area
facilities would not be shared v/ithout membership approval.
2. The purchaser of Lot 5 is Marlborougn Development. Marlborough
Development is located in Rancho California. It is their intent to
develop approximately 130 "up-scale" condominiums. Currently, Marl-
borough Development is attempting to gain City approval for a "haul
route pass" from Harbor Drive. This wou ..d allow construction traffic
to access Lot 5 from Harbor.
3. When the final Map (No. 8107) was or-.ginally approved by the City
of Carlsbad, Harbor Drive was not considered suitable public access to
Lot 5.
Obviously, it is to the benefit of the A. .sociation that construction ar.
residential access to Lot 5 not be grant d across Windsong Cove prooert
This can be accomplished through legal a.-tion and bv applying political
pressure to your City Council Members as well as the City of Carlsoad.
Therefore, your individual support and Concern become paramount in
dealing with this issue.
Windsong Cove
Proposed Development of Lot 5
Page 2
This correspondence is being distributed oy concerned homeowners. As
you receive it, you will be apprised of Council Meeting dates and any
other "grass-roots" activity.
You are encouraged ro voice your concerns and lend your support by
attending Council Meetings and corresponding with your Council Members
Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
FOR THE WINDSONG COVE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
BOAR$ OF/-DIRECTORS
Young
Horizons
81 O Los Vallecitos Blvd.. Suite B
San Marcos. California 92O69
[619] 744-920O [61 9] 941-54OO
May 11, 1988
Mr. Ray Patchett $i-
City Manager
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Windsong Cove Homeowners' Association
Dear Mr. Patchett:
At the last Board of Directors' Meeting, both Ann Kulchin
and Planning Director Mike Holzmiller were invited to attend
to hear concerns regarding proposed annexation to the Assoc-
iation, as well as health and safety issues.
Ms. Kulchin suggested that we direct this correspondence to
you. We have listed the issues that are of major concern
to us:
1) It is our belief that the proposed annexation would
be in violation of the CC&Rs - Page 25, Section 11
(b). (A copy is enclosed for your review). It
appears tht the right to annex has expired on August
8, 1987.
2) Should the development proceed - we would like to go
on record with the following concerns that need to be
addressed:
a) A major concern is for the health and safety of
our residents. Can we be assured that there
will be adequate access for emergency services?
b) The present entrance roads are barely sufficient
for the volume of traffic at existing levels.
We feel that major damage may occur to the asphalt
and drains beneath the asphalt - due to any con-
struction traffic or increased traffic volume.
The Association has also recently spent funds on
the installation of speed bumps, and these surely
would be decimated.
c) The roads do not seern to meet City standards at
this time. Will new roads need to be constructed?
(Specifically, all roads within the project).
Community Association/Property Management
Mr. Ray Patchett
City Manager
May 11, 1988
Page -2-
d) In reviewing the sub-division map, it appears as
if the developer would need to remove one small spa
in the rear of the project. Is that accurate?
e) We are concerned about access through the security
gates. At this time construction trucks would
not be able to traverse through the existing set-up.
f) We are also concerned about the ultimate decline in
property value - due to the problems which will
arise in construction, including property damage re-
sulting from inadequate access.
g) And, if development is approved, why can't access be
granted through Harbor Drive or on a finished road
outside the Palms by the YMCA park?
3) We have also outlined issues regarding traffic safety on
Chinquapin to Mr. Holzmiller. We would like your response
to the following:
a) Jefferson and Chinquapin intersect. At this time a
"YIELD" sign is not sufficient. We would like to
have a "STOP" sign reinstalled.
b) The "NOT A THROUGH STREET" sign does not seem to be
effective at the corner of Chinquapin and Jefferson.
Perhaps this sign could be relocated for greater
visibility.
c) The exit at Windsong Cove is very dangerous when
vehicles are parked on the east side of the driveway,
We would like to have this area designated as a "NO
PARKING ZONE;" red curbed if necessary.
In summation, the homeowners at Windsong Cove Homeowners' Assoc-
iation have many concerns to which they would like the City to
respond to.
We also request that a copy of the final sub-division map, as
well as the stipulated conditions or provision for development
be forwarded to the Association. And, if they are on file with
the City, we request a copy of the original plumbing and elec-
trical plans for Windsong Cove. These have never been supplied
to the Association by Sears.
We appreciate your review and look forward to your response to
these issues.
Sincerely,
FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Ypung\-xmexinuct luunyy <
Project Manager J cc: Ann Kulchin/Councilwoman
V- -; v" " Mike Holzmiller/Planning Director
/msr
MARLQQRaUBH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
May 10, 1988
City of Oceanside
Mr. Michael G. Holzmiller
Director of Planning
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859
RE: Windsong Cove Property, 130 Condominiums Carlsbad Tract 83-4, Map 11484
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
Marlborough has recently met with City staff on two occasions, most recently
last Wednesday, April 27, 1988 with Michael Howes, Adrienne Landers, and
Walter Brown. As of this date, we have entered into a purchase agreement with
Sears Savings Bank to purchase recorded map number 11484 (Carlsbad Tract #83-
4) and all entitlements to build the 130 condominium units known as Windsong
Cove. At our meetings with staff, we discussed some of the critical issues
that need to be answered during the next 20 days in order that Marlborough can
proceed with the acquisition of the property.
It was suggested that we make a formal written request to the City on certain
questions of major concern and I would very much appreciate whatever written
responses you can provide us prior to May 20th in order that we may finalize
our contract with Sears.
ACCESS ROUTE
It is Marlborough's position that access to Tract 83-4 was granted by recorded
easements through Grant Deeds over Lots 2, 3 & 4 of Tract Map 74-22. It is
also our position that these easements are available for ingress, egress and
construction and development of the referenced property. We also are of the
opinion that as a practical matter, the development of the referenced property
would be best served by using Harbor Drive as a temporary construction route
to Tamarack. (Please see attached proposed construction route). We
understand that direct access to Harbor Drive from the referenced property has
been relinquished on the recorded map due to the sensitive nature of this
project and the Harbor Drive residences. Technically, the attached exhibit
shows a legal access which was not relinquished through a 30' easement off of
the referenced property, and access to Harbor Drive through that easement.
Our question is: If most of the Harbor Drive homeowners can somehow be
accommodated through Marlborough's efforts and if most of the residents sign
an agreement stating that, ^they recognize Marlborough's intended use of
Harbor Drive as a_ construction route for a_ period of approximately _3 years and
that an agreed accommodation plan has been found to be acceptable" ,~would the"
City approve Harbor Drive as our temporary construction route? Marlborough
understands that certain repair, reconstruction or sealing of Harbor Drive may
have to be bonded for and completed at the end of the Use Permit.
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION ° 28751 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. #208 ° RANCHO CALIFORNIA " CALIFORNIA 92390 ° 714 676-4292
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE
The attached agreement was entered into on October 24, 1985 between Allstate
and the City of Carlsbad for the payment of a Public Facilities Fee. Under
Paragraph 8 of the Agreement, this Agreement can be transferred. When
transferred to Marlborough Development will there be any additional public
facility fee charges or fees in kind in addition to those identified in the
agreement which was set at 2-1/2% of the building valuation. If so what
amount and why?
PARK FEES
The attached agreement was entered into between the City of Carlsbad and
Allstate for the payment of fees in lieu of Park Land for the development of
this property. The agreement attached hereto is also transferable and our
question is: Is there any additional Park fees other than those identified
under the agreement which Marlborough will be subject to? If so, what amount
and why.
ARCHAEOLOGY
The Environmental Impact Report for this property as well as the Conditions of
Approval, required specific archaeological requirements regarding the W-131
archaeological site. The attached study has been completed and we have been
informed by Westec that the archaeological Conditions regarding this property
have been satisfied. If this is not the case, we would very much like to be
so informed.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
Per conditions number 6-A of the Tentative Map a traffic signal had to be
installed atJefferson St. & Tamarack Ave. It is our understanding that a
signal has been installed and this Condition has therefore been satisfied.
Please inform ma if this Condition has not been satisfied or if Marlborough
will be responsible for any additional fees to satisfy this condition.
We would be most appreciative if we could receive your written confirmation to
these questions before May 20 to allow us to make our final determination on
the purchase of this property.
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Sincerely yours,
MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
A. Niec
President-Division Manager
RAN/cv
cc: Mike Howes
Adrienne Landers
Walter Brown
Larry Knopf, Sears Savings Bank
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION o 28751 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. #208 • RANCHO CALIFORNIA ° CALIFORNIA 92390 « 714 676-4292
MEMO
TO: MIKE HOWES, SENIOR PLANNER
From: Murray Fulford, Assistant Planner
LANDSCAPE PLAN "WINDSONG SHORES"
The symbols are not identified, but it looks as if it needs more
trees between water and building to soften and screen the
buildings.
If the circle with dot is going to be a palm (as it appears from
the legend), these will do nothing to soften, screen, or enhance
the view of the project from Agua Hedionda or the western side.
They are okay (I guess) as street trees, but because they are so
narrow and minimal, they need to be much closer than 40 feet O.C.
On the plan they are 20 feet O.C. — this is okay.
I would discourage widespread use of palms throughout the
project, but they are good as a grouping when clustered for ifocal
effect or to frame a view.
Summary
Lots of trees are needed around the buildings to help blend them
with the surrounding open areas.
Tree Survey
There seem to some worthwhile mature macadamia trees being
removed — perhaps they can be used elsewhere on site.
MF:dm
3 -30-
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859
(619)438-1161
dtp of Carteimb
January 6, 1988
C. N. Willess, President
Gold Coast Surveying, Inc.
P.O. Box 1876
Vista, CA 92083
RE: WINDSONG SHORES (CT 83-4)
Dear Mr. Willess:
In response to your request to construct Windsong Shores in
phases, we cannot create new phasing for a final map that was
approved as one phase. We would require you to take the
tentative map back to the Planning Commission. What you can
do, however, is to pull your building permits in whatever
numbers you choose, after the infrastructure is in place per
your originally-approved map.
We occasionally approve requests to make minor changes to
existing phasing plans, such as changing the sequence of the
phasing, but as I mentioned, we cannot create new phasing for a
project without re-reviewing the project and going back to
Planning Commission. Please call me or Nancy Rollman of my
staff, if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
/fKW
MICHAEL 3. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
M3H:NER/af
Horizons
81 O Los Vallecitos Blvd.. Suite B
San Marcos. California 92O69
[619] 744-92OO [61 9] 941-54OQ
May 11, 1988
Mr. Ray Patchett
City Manager
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Windsong Cove Homeowners' Association
Dear Mr. Patchett:
At the last Board of Directors' Meeting, both Ann Kulchin
and Planning Director Mike Holzmiller were invited to attend
to hear concerns regarding proposed annexation to the Assoc-
iation, as well as health and safety issues.
Ms. Kulchin suggested that we direct this correspondence to
you. We have listed the issues that are of major concern
to us:
1) It is our belief that the proposed annexation would
be in violation of the CC&Rs - Page 25, Section 11
(b). (A copy is enclosed for your review). It
appears tht the right to annex has expired on August
8, 1987.
2) Should the development proceed - we would like to go
on record with the following concerns that need to be
addressed:
a) A major concern is for the health and safety of
our residents. Can we be assured that there
will be adequate access for emergency services?
b) The present entrance roads are barely sufficient
for the volume of traffic at existing levels.
We feel that major damage may occur to the asphalt
and drains beneath the asphalt - due to any con-
struction traffic or increased traffic volume.
The Association has also recently spent funds on
the installation of speed bumps, and these surely
would be decimated.
c) The roads do not seem to meet City standards at
this time. Will new roads need to be constructed?
(Specifically, all roads within the project).
Community Association/Property Management
Mr. Ray P'atchett
City Manager
May 11, 1988
Page -2-
d) In reviewing the sub-division map, it appears as
if the developer would need to remove one small spa
in the rear of the project. Is that accurate?
e) We are concerned about access through the security
gates. At this time construction trucks would
not be able to traverse through the existing set-up.
f) We are also concerned about the ultimate decline in
property value - due to the problems which will
arise in construction, including property damage re-
sulting from inadequate access.
g) And, if development is approved, why can't access be
granted through Harbor Drive or on a finished road
outside the Palms by the YMCA park?
3) We have also outlined issues regarding traffic safety on
Chinquapin to Mr. Holzmiller. We would like your response
to the following:
a) Jefferson and Chinquapin intersect. At this time a
"YIELD" sign is not sufficient. We would like to
have a "STOP" sign reinstalled.
b) The "NOT A THROUGH STREET" sign does not seem to be
effective at the corner of Chinquapin and Jefferson.
Perhaps this sign could be relocated for greater
visibility.
c) The exit at Windsong Cove is very dangerous when
vehicles are parked on the east side of the driveway,
We would like to have this area designated as a "NO
PARKING ZONE;" red curbed if necessary.
In summation, the homeowners at Windsong Cove Homeowners' Assoc-
iation have many concerns to which they would like the City to
respond to....
We also request that a copy of the final sub-division map, as
well as the stipulated conditions or provision for development
be forwarded to the Association. And, if they are on file with
the City, we request a copy of the original plumbing and elec-
trical plans for Windsong Cove. These have never been supplied
to the Association by Sears.
We appreciate your review and look forward to your response to
these issues.
Sincerely,
F0R THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
....MeTinda YoungN
s
Project M^nag^r ) cc: Ann Kulchin/Councilwoman
x—J '" Mike Holzmiller/Planning Director
/msr
I
MARLBOROUEH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
May 10, 1988
City of Oceanside
Mr. Michael G. Holzmiller
Director of Planning
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859
RE: Windsong Cove Property, 130 Condominiums Carlsbad Tract 83-4, Map 11484
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
Marlborough has recently met with City staff on two occasions, most recently
last Wednesday, April 27, 1988 with Michael Howes, Adrienne Landers, and
Walter Brown. As of this date, we have entered into a purchase agreement with
Sears Savings Bank to purchase recorded map number 11484 (Carlsbad Tract #83-
4) and all entitlements to build the 130 condominium units known as Windsong
Cove. At our meetings with staff, we discussed some of the critical issues
that need to be answered during the next 20 days in order that Marlborough can
proceed with the acquisition of the property.
It was suggested that we make a formal written request to the City on certain
questions of major concern and I would very much appreciate whatever written
responses you can provide us prior to May 20th in order that we may finalize
our contract with Sears.
ACCESS ROUTE
It is Marlborough's position that access to Tract 83-4 was granted by recorded
easements through Grant Deeds over Lots 2, 3 & 4 of Tract Map 74-22. It is
also our position that these easements are available for ingress, egress and
construction and development of the referenced property. We also are of the
opinion that as a practical matter, the development of the referenced property
would be best served by using Harbor Drive as a temporary construction route
to Tamarack. (Please see attached proposed construction route). We
understand that direct access to Harbor Drive from the referenced property has
been relinquished on the recorded map due to the sensitive nature of this
project and the Harbor Drive residences. Technically, the attached exhibit
shows a legal access which was not relinquished through a 30' easement off of
the referenced property, and access to Harbor Drive through that easement.
Our question is: If most of the Harbor Drive homeowners can somehow be
accommodated through Marlborough's efforts and if most of the residents sign
an agreement stating that, "they recognize Marlborough's intended use of
Harbor Drive as a_ construction route for a. period of approximately 3 years and
that an agreed accommodation plan has been found to be acceptable" /~would the"
City approve Harbor Drive as our temporary construction route? Marlborough
understands that certain repair, reconstruction or sealing of Harbor Drive may
have to be bonded for and completed at the end of the Use Permit.
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION • 28751 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. #208 • RANCHO CALIFORNIA » CALIFORNIA 92390 • 714 676-4292
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE
The attached agreement was entered into on October 24, 1985 between Allstate
and the City of Carlsbad for the payment of a Public Facilities Fee. Under
Paragraph 8 of the Agreement, this Agreement can be transferred. When
transferred to Marlborough Development will there be any additional public
facility fee charges or fees in kind in addition to those identified in the
agreement which was set at 2-1/2% of the building valuation. If so what
amount and why?
PARK FEES
The attached agreement was entered into between the City of Carlsbad and
Allstate for the payment of fees in lieu of Park Land for the development of
this property. The agreement attached hereto is also transferable and our
question is: Is there any additional Park fees other than those identified
under the agreement which Marlborough will be subject to? If so, what amount
and why.
ARCHAEOLOGY
The Environmental Impact Report for this property as well as the Conditions of
Approval, required specific archaeological requirements regarding the W-131
archaeological site. The attached study has been completed and we have been
informed by Westec that the archaeological Conditions regarding this property
have been satisfied. If this is not the case, we would very much like to be
so informed.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
Per conditions number 6-A of the Tentative Map a traffic signal had to be
installed atJefferson St. & Tamarack Ave. It is our understanding that a
signal has been installed and this Condition has therefore been satisfied.
Please inform ma if this Condition has not been satisfied or if Marlborough
will be responsible for any additional fees to satisfy this condition.
We would be most appreciative if we could receive your written confirmation to
these questions before May 20 to allow us to make our final determination on
the purchase of this property.
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Sincerely yours,
MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
A. Niec
President-Division Manager
RAN/cv
cc: Mike Howes
Adrienne Landers
Walter Brown
Larry Knopf, Sears Savings Bank
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION • 28751 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. #208 • RANCHO CALIFORNIA • CALIFORNIA 92390 • 714 676^292
t
MEMO
TO: MIKE HOWES, SENIOR PLANNER
From: Murray Fulford, Assistant Planner
LANDSCAPE PLAN "WINDSONG SHORES"
The symbols are not identified, but it looks as if it needs more
trees between water and building to soften and screen the
buildings.
If the circle with dot is going to be a palm (as it appears from
the legend), these will do nothing to soften, screen, or enhance
the view of the project from Agua Hedionda or the western side.
They are okay (I guess) as street trees, but because they are so
narrow and minimal, they need to be much closer than 40 feet O.C.
On the plan they are 20 feet O.C. — this is okay.
I would discourage widespread use of palms throughout the
project, but they are good as a grouping when clustered for ^ocal
effect or to frame a view.
Summary
Lots of trees are needed around the buildings to help blend them
with the surrounding open areas.
Tree Survey
There seem to some worthwhile mature macadamia trees being
removed — perhaps they can be used elsewhere on site.
MF:dm
it*/
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859
(619)438-1161
Cttp of Cartebab
January 6, 1988
C. N. Willess, President
Gold Coast Surveying, Inc.
P.O. Box 1876
Vista, CA 92083
RE: WINDSONG SHORES (CT 83-4)
Dear Mr. Willess:
In response to your request to construct Windsong Shores in
phases, we cannot create new phasing for a final map that was
approved as one phase. We would require you to take the
tentative map back to the Planning Commission. What you can
do, however, is to pull your building permits in whatever
numbers you choose, after the infrastructure is in place per
your originally-approved map.
We occasionally approve requests to make minor changes to
existing phasing plans, such as changing the sequence of the
phasing, but as I mentioned, we cannot create new phasing for
project without re-reviewing the project and going back to
Planning Commission. Please call me or Nancy Rollman of my
staff, if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL 3. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
M3H:NER/af
GOLD COAST SURVEYING. INC.
P.O. BOX 1876 VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92083 /K
(619) 758-7732 / I \
JN 83005.1
December 28, 1987
City of Carlsbad, Community Development
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859
Attn: Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
RE: Windsong Shores
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
Pursuant to our conversation with a member of your staff, Nancy Rollman,
December 23, 1987, and at her request, we submit the following:
At the request of our client, Sears Savings Bank, we are attempting to
bring the last portion of the Windsong Shores condominium development to
the building permit stage.
At a minimum, it would be desirable to build the project in two (2)
phases. Would our clients be allowed to construct this project in three
(3) phases on the two (2) parcels as they now exist? Further, would this
three (3) phase construction be allowed if it could be demonstrated that
this could be accomplished and provide the necessary infrastructure
facilities (i.e. sewer, water, storm drains, traffic and utilities) to
support each phase as they are developed?
Enclosed please find three (3) copies each of the architect's (Lorimer-Case)
site plan, the site grading and drainage plan by Post Engineering Consultants
and Map 11484 (the final map).
As time is of the essence, a timely response to these questions would be
greatly appreciated. Should you have any questions regarding this matter,
please do not hesitate to call
Very truly yours,
GOLD COAST SURVEYING, INC.
C-
C. N. Willess, L.S.
President
CNW/m
enclosures
xc - Don Deemar, Sears Savings Bank
xc - Scott Bernet, Lorimer-Case
GOLD COAST SURVEYING. INC.
P.O. BOX 1876 VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92083 M
(619) 758-7732 / I \
83005.1
October 4, 1985
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attn: Engineering Department
City Engineer
Dear Mr. Donovan:
This letter is to request an extension per Chapter 20.12.110 of City code
for Tentative Tract Map No. CT 83-4, Windsong Shores.
We, Gold Coast Surveying, Inc., representative of the owner, request
extension of CT 83-4 because the conditions of the City of Carlsbad have
not been satisfied as of this date, and more time may be needed to comply
to these conditions.
We request this extension understanding that this extension will not be
processed unless we are unable to satisfy the City of Carlsbad conditions
before the Tentative Map expires and that all fees for this extension will
be returned if extension is not processed.
Enclosed is check no. 1845 in the amount of $500.
Sincerely,
Gold Coast Surveying, Inc.
Nathan C. Willess,
President
NCW/m
enc
pctgctyo
terprises
April 11, 1985
Mr. Marty Orenyak
Building & Planning
Director
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
*t JEIV
APR 171985
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Building Department
Dear Marty,
Pursuant to your request yesterday, I am enclosing several
letters regarding Windsong Cove. I have noted that the
temporary sales office constructed at Windsong Cove is no
longer in use, but has not been removed. The structure was
designed and permitted as a temporary structure. In order
to obtain the City's consent to construct the sales office,
we agreed that no occupancy certificates would be requested
on five of the Windsong Cove units until the structure was
removed. The letter dated October 26, 1983 discusses this
agreement.
You asked that I also confirm to you my understanding of any
additional unfulfilled conditions for the development. The
original permit included a number of standard conditions.
The major improvements were to be a traffic signal light at
Tamarack and Jefferson and the improvement of Chinquapin
Avenue.
Because the original approval was for a specific plan, land-
scaping and recreation facilities were also subject to City
approval. When PAPAGAYO Enterprises obtained the building
permits for Lot 4, a planned landscaping revision had not
been completed. I agreed to submit the plans to the City
for review and approval when they were completed. Based on
the assurance, set forth in a letter to Mike Howes dated
November 23, 1982, the City issued building permits.
The only other condition which I am aware of at this time is
the requirement to install a sidewalk along Chinquapin Avenue.
As you will recall, during construction on Lot 2 a question
arose as to the method of determining the height of the
Windsong Cove units on Kalpati Street. In order to resolve
this question expeditiously, we agreed to the sidewalk
2725 Jefferson, Suite 11 • P.O. Box 787, Carlsbad, California 92008 « (619)434-6111
Page 2
installation. Because the improvement had not been completed
when the Lot 4 building permits were requested, an additional
letter to Mike Howes on November 23, 1982 agreed that no oc-
cupancy would be allowed on Lot 4 until the sidewalk was in-
stalled.
It was nice speaking to you again. If I can be of any additional
assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
.^
Larry D . Hunts
PAPAGAYO Enterprises
LDH/dck
enc .
pogayo
nterpriscs
October 26 , 1983
Mr . Tony Ma ta
Senior Building inspector
Buil ng Inspection Department
City of C a r1s b a • •
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 9 20u •..'
R £ .- Sales Office
>/1 n d s o n g C o v e
C a r 1 s b a d ". A
When L originally requested permission to construct the
temporary addition to 4005 L a y a n g - L a y a n q Circle, which we
are using as 3 sales office, the City staff member with
whom I was dealing wanted some assurance that the structure
•.-.• o u 1 d be removed w he n sale:, were discontinued. L r. order ;
provide him this assurance, I agreed that I would not request
certificates of occupancy for the five units in this building
until the structure was removed. This e s t a b 1 L s h e d five
"hostage" units.
As you know, we have recently completed five new models in
the northwest end of 4007 Layang-Layang Circle. Pursuant to
our conversation on Friday, this letter shall serve as an
agreement that no certificate of occupancy will be requested
for 4007 F, G, H, I & J until such time as the temporary
sales office is removed from 4006. This again will provide
you with a substantial security for our performance.
As you have requested, I have enclosed a copy of our authori-
zation to open escrow on 4006-B, the only sale in this building
for which we currently have these documents. Please note that
item 5 under instructions specifies the conditions for our
rental of the garage space which is being used as a part of the
o i. :\ c e r e L v ,
f., jfr-v D. Hunts
2755 Jefferson. Suitu 15 • P.O. Box 787. Carlsbad, California 92008 • (619)434-6111
DEVELOPMENTAL Ilw~^=B^TQ 120° ELM AVENUE
SERVICES II ^^7 m CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-1989
LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE W^I'&Mi (619)438-5591
Citp of Cartebab
September 16, 1983
Hunts Partnership
2755 Jefferson St., Suite #15
P. 0. Box 787
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: EIR 83-3/CT 83-4/CP-227/SUP-8 WINDSONG SHORES
Preliminary Staff Report
The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project has
been completed. A copy of the report, including the recom-
mendation and conditions, is enclosed. This preliminary report
will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating
Committee (D.C.C.) meeting which will be held on September 20,
1983, beginning at 9:50 a.m. If you have any questions
concerning the report, you may attend the D.C.C. meeting.
If you need additional information concerning this matter, please
contact the Land Use Planning Office at 438-5591.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
J
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Land Use Planning Manager
Land Use Planning Office
MJH:bw
Enclosure
Carlsbad Unified School District
8O1 Pine Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92OO8 729-9291 'Excellence In Education"
BOARD OF
TRUSTEES
THOMAS L CURTIN, M.D.
President
W. ALLAN KELLY
Vice President
j. EDWARD SWITZER, JR.
Clerk
JOHN J. MAMAUX
Member
JULIANNE L NYCAARD
Member
DISTRICT
ADMINISTRATION
PHILIP CRIGNON, Ed.D.
District Superintendent
SUSAN H. LARCEN
Instructional Services
DAVID WM. BATES, SR.
Employee Relations
JAMES M. STARK
Comptroller
RICHARD A. SHALER
Information Systems
K.C. DUN LAP
Facilities/Services
February 25, 1983
Mr. Vernon Farrow, Jr., Chairperson
and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California
Attention: Mr. Martin Orenyak, Building and Planning Director
Reference: Hunts Partnership, Windsong Shores
Our District has reviewed the proposed development consisting
of 150 condominium units generally located at the south end of
Harbor Drive between 1-5 and the ATSF right-of-way and has
evaluated the impact of that project on the facilities of this
District.
The governing board wishes to advise the city officials and
the residents of Carlsbad that as residential units are added
to the community, it is likely that many classes in the District
will be crowded, resulting in possible impairment to the
educational and transportational services offered to the students,
It is also likely that school schedules may have to be changed,
resulting in an increase in the year-round program, or double-
sessions, or both. However, the District is able to assure you
that school physical facilities will be available concurrent
with need for this development as it is presently proposed.
James Stark
Comptroller
ac
February 18, 1983
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Windsong Shores
Gentlemen:
This letter is an authorization and request for you to proceed with an •
environmental impact report for the tentative subdivision and major
condominium permit application for Windsong Shores. We understand that
applicant will bear all costs incurred.
Sincerely,
Larry D. Hunts
General Partner
Hunts Partnership
LDH/dck
P.O. Box 787, Carlsbad, California 92008 (714) 291-3813
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE
Cttp of
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-1989
(619) 438-5591
February 9, 1983
Larry Hunts
Papagayo Enterprises
2755 Jefferson St.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: School Fees, Papagayo
This office was recently informed by the Carlsbad Unified School
District that the school fees for the latest phase of Papagayo
have not yet been paid as per your agreement. . -:
Please be aware that occupancy will not be granted and no other
permits will be issued until these fees have been paid.
If you have any questions, please call me at 438-5591.
ADRIENNE LANDERS
Land Use Planning Office
AMLrkb
cc: Mike Howes
James Stark, Carlsbad Unified School District
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
D Assistant City Manager
(714) 438-5596
D Building Department
(714) 438-5525
D Engineering Department
(714) 438-5541
D Housing & Redevelopment Department
3096 Harding St.
(714)438-5611
/Planning Department
(714) 438-5591
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
November 24, 1982
Larry Hunts
Papagayo Enterprises
2755 Jefferson St.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Hunts:
This is to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of November 23,
1982 regarding CT 74-22, Unit 4. Based on your letter staff can
approve the issuance of building permits prior the approval of
detailed plans for a recreation building and swimming pool.
However, under no circumstances will the City allow occupancy of
any units within this phase, prior to the installation of the
recreation building and swimming pool.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free
to contact me.
MICHAEL HOWES
Assistant Planner
MHrkb
November 23, 1982
Mr. Dave Mauser
Associate Civil Engineer
Engineering Department
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Sidewalk Improvements
Tract 74-22
Dear Mr. Mauser,
The purpose of this letter is to summarize my understanding of our
conversation this afternoon. I acknowledged to you that PAPAGAVO
Enterprises and Allstate Savings & Loan are aware that the letter of
credit held by the City for public improvements shall .ipply to the
extention of the sidewalk along the south side of Chinquapin Avenue
between our Lot 2 and Lot 4. We further understand that occupying
of units constructed in Lot 4 will not be allowed until this sidewalk
improvement is completed.
If your understanding of the conversation differs, please let me know
Sincerely,
Larry D. Hunts, A.I.A.
PAPAGAYO Enterprises
ODH/dck
'0 Bo- •"*'? •:'•' ioac v^ann-
November 23, 1982
Mr. Michael Howes
Assistant Planner
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Recreation Facilities
Tract 74-22, Lot 4
Dear Mr. Howes,
This letter is to confirm my conversation with you this morning in
which I informed you that the details of the recreation building
and swimming pool will be presented to you in landscape drawings.
These facilities will meet the standards of the original specific
plan approved by the City Council. You will have the opportunity
to approve or disapprove the landscape and recreation plans prior
to installation.
Sincerely,
Larry D. Hunts, A.I.A.
PAPAGAYO Enterprises
LDH/dck
P.O. Box 787, Carlsbad, California 92008 (714) 291-3813
Papagayo II April 12, 1982
Larry Hunts Mike Howes
Henry Matson Charlie Grimm
Tom Hageman
Mr. Hunts and Mr. Matson asked what would be involved in filing
a new CT and PUD for the development of Papagayo south of the
easement.
They were told to submit an application for a CT and PUD along
with an EIA. The site plan could be subject to modification but
should be to scale.
A major EIR would be required for the project. Processing an
EIR could take 6 months. The steps in processing this project
would be:
1. Application
2. Selection of consultant to prepare the EIR
3. EIR preparation
4. Concurrent processing of plan at applicants risk
5. Planning Commission
6. City Council
7. Coastal Commission
Tom explained processing thru the Coastal Commission and said
the proposed project is in conformance with the Agua Hedionda
Specific Plan and city of Carlsbad General Plan and that there
should be no problem with the Coastal Commission.
MH:rh
8/13/82
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
March 26, 1982
JAMES HAGAMAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR
Building Official
BUILDING HEIGHT/PAPAGAYO DEVELOPMENT/
JEFFERSON AND CHINQUAPIN
On .March 25, a physical building height measurement was taken at
the above referenced project.
Results of this measurement are as follows:
BUILDING NUMBER HEIGHT TO GRADE
13
15
18
19
33'3"
33'9
34'6"
34'9"
Buildings 21-21A-22 and 22A were not measured since they are
exactly as high as previously approved adjacent structures.
Exterior grade elevations were established by the Engineering
department using top of curb on Chinquapin as the reference
point.
Height elevation measurements were taken from the average height
of the highest gable of the pitched roof.
Our conclusion is that none of the buildings measured exceed
35' above grade. This conclusion is valid whether we establish
grade based on past or current ordinance criteria.
MARTIN ORENYAK\
Building Official
MO/gl
cc: ACM/Development
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 22, 1982
TO: Ron Beckman, Assistant City Manager/Developmental
Services
FROM: Bill Hofman and Mike Howes, Planning Department
SUBJECT: Papagayo - Chronology
1. Zone Change from R-T and R-1 to P-C and a Specific Plan
application was filed on April 18, 1972.
2. The P-C Zone, at that time, did not have a building height
requirement; however, the P-C Zone did require that a build-
ing height be determined as part of the Specific Pain (Ordi-
nance No. 9218). Staff can find NO evidence in any of the
existing files indicating a specific building height. The
only indication or reference to buiding height is contained
in the project's E.I.R. under "project description" which
states:
"Additional earth work will create east-west longitudinal
mounds upon which dwelling units are to be built. The mounds
will have a maximum elevation difference of 20' above the
existing terrain. The maximum height of the units construc-
ted on the mound will be 15' - 18' above finished grade."
And a typical elevation drawing on a Tentative Tract Map sub-
mitted to our department by Commissioner Jose, dated August
29, 1982, which shows the building height as it exists today.
The tract map is not labled as either approved or as an offi-
cial exhibit.
3. The definition of building height at the time of approval
reads as follows:
"Building Height" means the vertical distance measured from
the official sidewalk or property line grade of the highest
abutting street at the center of the building structure to
the highest point of the roof." (Ordinance No. 9141, dated
November 20, 1962).
6* &'
Using this definition, the height of the buildings^are ap-
proximately S8-^5' .
4. The Zone Change was approved on June 7, 1972; the Specific
Plan was approved on June 20, 1972.
5. Condition No. 4 of the Specific Plan required the submittal
of a Tentative Tract Map. The Tract Map was submitted on
August 23, 1972, which corresponds with the date on Commis-
sioner Jose's exhibit mentioned in No. 2 above.
6. The Tentative Tract Map contained no conditions regarding
height.
7. An amendment to the Specific Plan was approved on September
11, 1974. The approval related to phasing and other public
service modifications, however, did not effect any develop-
ment standards. Condition No. 4 E, however, does indicate
that if building permits are not issued within 5 years, the
project would have to comply with existing codes. Because of
the sewer moratorium, the 5 year period ends on December 1982
(see letter from Michael Holzmiller, dated December 9, 1980),
thus it does not impact this development.
8. The Tentative Tract Map was approved March 4, 1975. To par-
cel the site into 5 lots, no conditions regarding height were
contained in the ordinance.
9. January 13, 1975, an application was received for SP166,
which would have allowed for the development of Lot 6 of
Papagayo. On March 20, 1975, the applicant submitted a
letter requesting that this project be tabled so that he
might have time to work out the technical difficulties with
all affected agencies. The Planning Commission at their
March 25, 1975 meeting, voted unanimously to close and file
this item without taking any action.
BH:MH:rh
-2-
February 9, 1982
Mayor Packard and City Council via Prank Aleshire, City Manager
Carlsbad City Hall
Re: File Wo. 31A Papagayo Development
Dear Sirs:
This Correspondence is in regards to the Papagayo DShrelopment adjacent to
Chinquapin Ave. in Carlsbad. Information contained in this letter was
obtained from files on record at Carlsbad City Hall in particuliar File No.
31A.
The original file date of this project dates back to June 1972. This .^project
was approved in 1974 over the objections of the City Planning department.
Some of the Objections were: 1. Traffic congestion on the street which would
serve it (Document #3134 July 16, 1974 Resolution 1074.) 2. According to
Resolution #786, a development should reflect a intent of the General Plan
in this area and the proposed project should not be a detriment to the
surrounding properties. This project was also approved over the objection and
protest of well over one hundred local residents as shown in the file CT 72-13.
According to the Phase Map on file, (see attached) this is the re-approved
one .and not the original Phasing which the City Council approved back in 1974»
the project was broken down into five developmental phases. Phase I and II
are now complete and Phase III is under construction at present. Grading plans
have been submitted for Phase IV. Phase V on the lagoon has not been started
as of yet. According to Document Number 9401 (dated July 1974) #4 (B), Traffic
Signals at Jefferson Street and Tamarack Aye. are required as part of Phase I.
This signal is not presently in existance. If there is to be a study done on
traffic flow in regards to the traffic signal we would like to request a
study on the traffic congestion we feel would result on Chinquapin Ave. due
to the proposed development. Also required under 9401 #4 (C) Full street
improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalks) over southerly 32' of Chinquapin Aye,
between 1-5 and Railroad are to be completed prior to occupany of Phase IV.
We would also like to question how a developer can get approval to build on
raided grade and then go to a questionable height limit? According to our
latest city building code, Section 21.04.065 (Building Heights) in the cases
where retaining walls or fill grading are utilized to create finished grade
higher in elevation than preexising grade, then preexisting grade shall be
used in the determination of building or structure height. Preexisting grade
means the ground level elevation which existed prior to any site preparation
related to or to be incorporated into, the proposed new development or alter-
ation (Ord. 9498). Compliance with this ordinance is highly suspect.
This letter should raise the question as to whether certain verbal or un-
documented special considerations have been granted to Mr. Larry Hunts in
the past. We would like to know how such a development could be approved by
City Council and since years have passed and our city has changed, certain
conditions should be brought up to date. We still feel outraged how a out
of town developer can come into our city and our single family home neighbor-
hood and gain approval of a high rise condo project.
f
Page 2
It is certainly possible that the requirements and stipulations for this
project could have been emursed in a sea of paperwork at the Building
Department and possibly overlooked or forgotten, but we feel it is the
moral obligation of the developer to abide by the conditions that he
agreed to.
As long time residents and taxpayers of the City of Carlsbad, your response
to our inquiry would be appreciated.
cc: Planning Dept. cc: Engineering Dept. cc: Coastal Commission
BY OUR SIGNATURES: c~c: City Attorney
NAME HOW LONG
/
Continued signatures of the Papagayo Development/in protest to.
m /fa $J'
DHVcLOPMENTAL
SERVICES
D Assistant City Manager
(714) 438-5596
D Bolldlng Department
(714) 438-5525
D Engineering Department
(714) 438-5541
D Housing & Rodsvelopment Department
(714)433-5611
D Planning Department
(714) 433-5591
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92003
of Carlsfcab
December 9, 1980
Larry Hunts
832 Kalpati
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Specific Plan 31-A (Papagayo) •
Dear Mr. Hunts,
Specif..:: Plan 31-A for the development of 230 dvrelling
units on property generally located east of the A.T. &
S.F. Railroad, west of Interstate 5 and south of Chinqua-
pin Avenue was approved by the City Council on August 24,
1974. One of. the conditions of approval; No. 4-E, stated
"Building permits shall not be issued on any phase after
5 years from the date of City Council approval unless
development is reviewed by the City Council to determine
if development is in substantial compliance with General
Plan, ordinances or policies that may have been adopted
during this 5-year period."
Because of the sewer moratorium, you were unable to com-
plete the development of the project within 5 years. The
City previously indicated that projects such as yours
would not expire during the sewer moratorium. Therefore,
this is to inform you that the 5-year time period was not
running during the moratorium. The sewer moratorium com-
menced on April 19, 1977. At that time, 2 years and 7
months had elapsed on your Specific Plan. The sewer mora-
torium was lifted on July 1, 1980. 5 months have now elap-
sed since that time, therefore you have 2 years or until
c
/ 4
^December, 1982 to comply with Condition 4-E of the Speci-
fic Plan.
If you have any additional questions, I may be contacted
at 438-5591.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MICHAEL HOLZM1LLER
Principal Planner
MH:jt
12/9/80
March 22, 1974
Carlsbad Unified School District
801 Pine Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Gentlemen-.
Based upon the need of additional financial support at this time through the Carlsbad
Unified School District, Hunts Partnership hereby commits to the following:
1 . Contributions to the school district based upon the fees in effect at
the time of issuance of building permits, which will be issued in
phases of approximately 50 dwelling units per phase, a total of 8
phases expected to be constructed, for a total of 380 dwelling units.
At the present time this fee will be $393.00 per dwelling u-iir to be
constructed. Said agreement to be re-negotiated based on the fees
currently in effect if construction period exceeds two-year time from
tentative tract map filing.
2. It is expected that this project extend over a five-year period from
start of construction.
3. Per unit school fees to be paid fo the Carlsbad Unifed School District
as follows:
(a) Acceptable security to be posted at time of final tract
map filing.
(b) Actual fees to be paid time of building permit issuance.
4. This letter constitutes a binding and irrevocable agreement on the part
of Hunts Partnership, a limited partnership and subsequent owners or
assigns.
HUNTS PARTNERSHIP
Larry J3. Hunts, GeneralPartner
IflRRT D HUNTS 6 flS5Qailfc.fll.fl.
Architects • Environmental Planners
3024 5th Ave., San Diego, Caiifornia:92103/(714) 291-5090
MEMO
DATE: June 24, 1988
TO: RAY PATCHETT, CITY MANAGER
FROM: Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: ACCESS TO WINDSONG SHORES, CT 83-4/CP-227
Windsong Shores, a 130 unit condominium project, was approved by
the City Council in November 1983. It was the last phase of a
project that was originally known as Papagayo. The original
Papagayo project had been renamed and divided into two major
parts, Windsong Cove, which is existing at the present time, and
Windsong Shores, which has an approved final map. See the
attached location map.
When the Windsong Shores project was approved, only a small
portion of Windsong Cove was built. At that time the Windsong
Shores was conditioned to gain access through the Windsong Cove
project. See conditions numbers 38 and 40 of Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2186, attached. When these conditions were placed
on this project, it was envisioned that the Windsong Shores
project would be developed concurrently with or shortly after the
unbuilt portions of Windsong Cove.
These access conditions were placed on the project in an attempt
to reduce construction impacts of this project on the surrounding
single family neighborhood. As shown by the location map, most
of the surrounding neighborhood consists of single family homes.
Many of the people living in this area were longtime Carlsbad
residents who were concerned about impacts on their neighborhood
from the proposed project, especially construction traffic
impacts. When this project was approved, the few existing
residents of Windsong Shores did not express any concerns about
this project gaining access through their project.
During the intervening years, the remainder of the Windsong Cove
project has been developed and occupied. Now the residents of
Windsong Cove are concerned about the impacts of construction
traffic on their neighborhood and its existing private streets.
This concern has arisen because Marlborough Development
Corporation is in the process of purchasing Windsong Shores and
intends to build this project. Representatives of Marlborough
have talked to both the homeowners and staff about the
possibility of changing construction access to Harbor Drive
rather than through the project. Staff has informed them to talk
to the residents of Harbor Drive and try to make some
Page 2
arrangements with them to get their support before they
approached the City Council with this request. Staff has
informed Marlborough that it would be difficult to change the
conditions of approval for this project since it has a final map
that was approved in January 1986.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2186
2. Location Map
3. Staff Report, dated September 28, 1983
MH:dm
xm ^:w~- y--<:^-••?:•..UTA ' ''••• "- '•Vv •:•<•».« ' -r-: •• .'-.:..;. -rl>\ • -;..-... •
A -r i /n
i II \
5E
£'
en
SE fri O. EIR 8;3 - 3/CT 03-4/CP 22^
APPLSCANTgjKBSQKG SHORES
AVE
AVE
r-
OM 5 77? a cm t/J s~bW i_
- nz£j,
MAP NO. 11 48*'
CARLS BAD TRACT NO. 83- 4
1
*•*.
jii>j;
ih
I:•:
r;i
Kl
H.
~Jto-£C/*L€
V., *»!»..«
^
«-iXa_ «WJB~~
'^""
VICINITY" M4f>
SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS
\. '
teoet/o '
TTTTTT u**r;.'ct tsurrcri vtxrt faest rttnn^ifttf^uaffe^Tt ffte ffftfgffffufMfftf Ay///</•« <e/ fae/a rwfi>vi'J.''7ffc.f!tettff.fftr
'*''" amearef te-aeuu/te(ceS4.at*ft
'.' > • maicara iteeuto re* '•*>** ia>fitT
A- matUftf fpMf /Vnw/ny? *rlttctr-'
' • • ^ %V •'» <&\.-' Tv^
^. .'-V^":N>.^
V^^\'\\^^
- 'HOKATU srr r m- iKorJ-fire rx&to, IS 36,34. KtKlOCIHG. FOUND rifCHfVCmm ras'ts. 351.5 pe*M*>/>aio7.lotarioHS pfxnTunTCO ef COUSTBUC-TIOH T/fi
-nn nrorr n*
00*9$ or 0 &*&#$$
r*e M*ire*tt*e tr aw»w.tf>w^*tw«r
^* tvfv* ?rf ^M^»*• ** ^*r *i /» .V _ _^^r^'^m^&
^~ .*af **'**'n't
*$$> "l^;N
^•-"..,-.^ ^"^ ^'t*' •<?• -• *->»•'
«/»•*:•»> ^«»» .4'
£>«/»/£_'/»" "%..«r»"'jr >-=»-.. v
OCTOBER 28, 1985
TO: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT /V
WINDSONG COVE AT"$*3 ""V
fitofk
Please add the following Planning Conditions to the above
mentioned project.
1) All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be
architecturally integrated and concealed from view and the
sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets,
pursuant to Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the
satisfaction of the Land Use Planning Manager and Building
and Planning Director.
2) The project shall provide bus stop facilities at locations
subject to the satisfaction of the North County Transit Dis-
trict. Said facilities shall at a minimum include a bench,
free from advertising, and a pole for the bus stop sign.
The bench and pole shall be designed in a manner so as to
not detract from the basic architectural theme of the
project and said design shall be subject to the approval of
the Land Use Planning Manager and North County Transit
District.
3) The developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use
Map in the sales office at all times, and/or suitable
alternative to the satisfaction of the Land Use Planning
Manager.
4) All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the
public shall include but not be limited to trails, future
and existing schools, parks, and streets.
5) Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on
all new and existing buildings so as to be plainly visible
from the street or access road; color of identification
and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color.
6) Prior to occupancy of any units, the applicant shall
construct a directory sign at the entrance to the project.
The design of this sign shall be approved by the Land Use
Planning Manager.
7) If any condition for construction of any public improvements
or facilities, or the payment of any fees in lieu thereof,
imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this project
are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided
in Government Code Section 65913.5. If any such condition
is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the City Council determines that the project without
the condition complies with all requirements of law.
AML:bn