Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 83-04; Windsong Shores; Tentative Map (CT) (10)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. 7D2 FOURTH STREET OCEANSIDE. CA 92054 (619) 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 MARLBDROLJEH 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, CA92390 • (714) 676-4292 FAX (714) 676-9550 ,05..'23/lfS9 12, S6 FROM •-•'••->• -:•••• •V-?/: v,-v --vs" A Crosby Mcod Benton & flssodotcs 8w*yara / 0 1 S "2 00« (8TB)X3»-1210 ; V - ^ ^ * «» / O 'At*£&-.«•-- '. •" •••••"*' "• * »~-" • "»».• <•. i. v • '_. , • . +• • ; . . »• THE LIGHIFOOT 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 FOURTH 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 June 1988 July 1988 July 22, 1988 September 1988 January 1988 April 1989 May 1989 May 19, 1989 May 2, 1989 May 23, 1989 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. Parking and garage plans submitted to the Planning Department for a separate plan check. Application for amendment to Coastal Permit submitted for an interim construction access road. December 9, lSa6.We 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° EL CAMINO REAL, P. O. BOX 947, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 or 452-9810 McDOUGAL 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 REC&N Regional 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 hydric 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 • ffm i • • TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 WW-/M (619)438-1161 of Carlabafo 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 MHrkd 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. 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 irom 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. Sintrely, James A. Hawes / /D65 Harbor Dr. ^Carlsbad, Calif. 92008 (619) 729-8252 CC/Ray Patchett, Marty Orenyak, Lloyd Hobbs, Michael Holzmiller, Members of Council. 4 August 1980"-= 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. Holzmiller 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 reside»te-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, /rames A. Hawes /M065 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, I 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&#30). 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 Wmdsong Cove in relation to the development of the final stage of the Wmdsong 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 apron 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. Page2 I suggest that the planning commission examine the access road which Hes 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 weekends 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. imes 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 • ' -:" At£ City of Carlsbad PLANNING DEPART^! 1200 Sim Street ; CITYOF Carlsbad, CA 92008 \ CARLSBAD Attn: The Honorable Bud Lewis, Mayor and members of the city council "^--J:•!_---'-""' 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 which is now known as Aguila Street in the Palais 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 1961. Sincerely y ours, J // /^ Carl Knox, For the residents of Harbor Dr I// ec; to council members 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE MjjW-JM TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 WHvJirM (619)438-1161^p7 (Hito of (flarlahab 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 Harbor Drive C ? 4045 Harbor Drive 4050 Harbor Drive 4065 Harbor Drive 40?0 Harbor Drive 4075 Harbor Drive 4080 Harbor Drive 4095 Harbor Drive 4098 Harbor Drive 4l25 Harbor Drive 4130 Harbor Drive 4145 Harbor Drive *\\j 4150 Harbor Drive 4165 Harbor Drive 4170 Harbor Drive June 14, 1988 Dear Windsong Cove/Pu.lms Homeowner: As you may be aware, Windsong Cove/Palms was originally designed as a five pha^e 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 tnroug the existing development of Windsong Cov^/Palms. In order to-most effectively address thi- issue, has determined the following: the Board of Directors 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 ar^a facilities would not be shared without membership approval. 2. The purchaser of Lot 5 is Marlborougu 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. of Carlsbad, Harbor Drive was not consicu Lot 5. Obviously, it is to the benefit of the A residential access to Lot 5 not be grant ginally approved by the City red suitable public access to .sociation that construction ar d across Windsonq Cove prooert This can be accomplished through legal a -tion and by applying political pressure to your City Council Members as well as the City of Carlsuad. Therefore, your individual support and dealing with this issue. ,-oncern become paramount in 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 to 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/pIRECTORS Young • Horizons 81 O Los Vallecitos Blvd.. Suite B San Marcos. California 92O69 [61 9] 744-92OO [61 9] 941 -54OO May 11, 1988 IS Mr. Ray Patchett•* w**Mti2Qftl/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 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' Assoo 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 MeTinda YpungV x Project Manager ) cc: Ann Kulchin/Councilwoman v—••''~~—•"" Mike Holzmiller/Planning Director /msr MARLBOROUGH 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 6764292 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 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619) 438-1161 Citp 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 or iginally- 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 5W (619) 758-7732 / ' \ 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. (2- Lrf. ^W^C^L^- 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 /W (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, Vlindsong 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/tn enc % 2.2 232<f PapogoYO Enterprises April 11,. 1985 Mr. Marty Orenyak Building & Planning Director City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 ip w «5 <.:-.•.'•• 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 . pcigctyo nterprises October 26, 1983 Mr. Tony Ma ta Senior Building inspector Building Inspection Department City of C a r13 b a ': 1200 EL m Ave n ue Carlsbad, CA 920-.J-.? R £ : Sales Office W i n d s o r. g C o v e C a r 1 s b a d ' A When I originally requested permission to con struct the temporary addition to 4006 Lay anq-Lay anq Circle, which we a re using as a sales office, the City staff member with whom I was dealing wanted some assurance that the structure would be removed when sales were discontinued. In or dor ': provide him this assurance, I agreed that I would not request certificates of occupancy for the five units in this build i-n g until the structure was removed. This established 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 v o u 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 ••> • •! ! e s "> f f - ce . n. Hun •A P AO A V) SP. *: < 2755 Jefferson. Suite 15 • P.O. Box 787. Carlsbad. California 92008 • (619)434-6111 DEVELOPMENTAL flw~*^lQ 120°ELM AVENUE SERVICES H ^j&7 m CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-1989 LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE W^r/^JW (619) 438-5591 Cttp of Carteimli 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 MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Land Use Planning Manager By: . 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. NYGAARD Member DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION PHILIP CRIGNON, Ed.D. District Superintendent SUSAN H. LARGEN 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, and Members of the City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California Jr., Chairperson Planning Commission Attention:Mr. Martin Orenyak, Building and Planning Dire Reference: Hunts Partnership, Windsong Shores Director 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 February 9, 1983 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-1989 (619) 438-5591 Cttp of Carlsfaab 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 AML:kb 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 MH:kb 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 PAPAGAYO 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 Chincuapin 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. Sincerelv, Larry D. Hunts, A.I.A. rjAPAGAYO Enterprises [.DH/dck •> 0 Bo- •:•</' .;-.: ;-jac 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 f V' MEMORANDUM DATE: March 26, 1982 TO: JAMES HAGAMAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: Building Official SUBJECT: BUILDING HE I GHT/ 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 33'3" 15 33'9 18 34 '6" 19 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 ORENYAJC\ 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). ,/•fof s"0<l*>Gf 6// ' Using this definition, the height of the buildings^are ap- proximately SS-r-51. 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 Frank Aleshire, City Manager Carlsbad City Hall Re: File No. 31A Papagayo Development Dear Sirs: This Correspondence is in regards to the Papagayo Development 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 .tproject 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 1-3 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 rairsed 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. Page 2 *r It is certainly possible that the requirements\j£& stipulations for this project could have been emursed in a sea of Paperwork at the Building Department and possibly overlooked or forgotfetlj ^^ we feej_ ^ ^g ^he moral obligation of the developer to abide bfy -foe conditions that he agreed to. I As long time residents and taxpayers of the 'City of Carlsbad, your response to our inquiry would be appreciated. ,' ccs Planning Dept. cc: Engineering Dept/ CC! Coastal Commission BY OUR SIGNATURES: / <jc: City Attorney NAME ADDRESS HOVJ LONG Continued signatures of the Papagayo Development/in protest to. /vu. rru^- /fejK ^# M^vbor O. 6 <f S- 'I X * /^e -- £ 0 A>-\P -t DliV'cLOPMENTAL SERVICES D Assistant City Manager (714) 438-5596 D Building Department (714) 438-5525 D Engineering Department (714) 438-5541 D Housing & Rodsvelopment Department (714)438-5611 D Planning Department (714) 438-5591 1200 ELF/AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92003 €itp of C&rteimb December 9, 1980 Larry Hunts 832 Kalpati Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Specific Plan 31-A (Papagayo) • Dear Mr. Hunts, Specific Plan 31-A for the development of 230 dv?elling 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 r ^'December, 1982 to comply with Condition 4-E of the Speci- f fie Plan. If you have any additional questions, I may be contacted at 438-5591. CITY OF CARLSBAD MICHAEL HOLZMILLER Principal Planter MH: j t 12/9/80 '"V 3 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 unit 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 poid to the Carlsbad United School District as follows: (a) Acceptable security to be posted a* 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. HUNTSEARTNERSHIP •'' Larry %>. Hunts, General Partner Architects • Environmental Planners 3024 5th Ave., San Diego, Ca!ifornia: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 f\ T A AVE I. MAP NO. SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS\ mm mount venKuv.* aiceft x»*ft - 5 •XXX. "$s^ ''• I I '' .tl>>C'-g} .SlCafi ( f* \ > \ _*.i**ria*aif^ f&r ^-lBa * » •*•" • » \ j^.ifHM»<&£&**\f ,,-w ffi/~ • • •*™^t* a^t- s-"'^i-x- ~ '^q-? !^.-^^fef^^vtfvti-*- '• ~j**A * c OCTOBER 28, 1985 TO: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT /V WINDSONG COVE 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