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).
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