Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 83-04; Windsong Shores; Tentative Map (CT) (9)POST CONSULTANTS 5150 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 431-9924 October 16,1989 City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 Attention: Christer Westman Subject: Windsong Shores (CT 83-4) Onsite Grading Permit Time Extension Dear Mr. Westman: Enclosed is a copy of the approved Amendment to the Coastal Development Permit for the subject grading time extension. Please call me with any further requirements you may have. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, POST CONSULTANTS Kim L. Post cc: Dan Clark, Engineering Department w/enclosure Leonard Bedolla, MDC Dale Mitchell, CMB Paula Madson, Lightfoot Planning Group OCT161989 CITY OF CARLSBAD DEVELOP. PROC. SERV. D1V. KPLTR89003 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST DISTRICT 1333 CAMINO DEL RIO SOUTH, SUITE 125 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-3520 (619) 297-9740 AMENDMENT TO COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. Page 1 of 3 On October 12. 1989 Marl borough Development the California Coastal Commission granted to this permit for the development described below, subject to the attached Standard and Special Conditions. Original Description: Proposed Amendment: Site: Demolition of two single family residences and construction of 140 condominium units with underground parking and common recreational areas-on a ten acre bluff-top parcel overlooking Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Lot Area Building coverage Pavement Coverage Landscape Coverage Wetland Area Parking Spaces Zoning Plan Designation 10.15 1.75 0.13 6.75 1.52 348 PC acres acres acres acres acres (18%) ( 1%) (66%) (15%) Residential Medium High Density Allow extension of the grading season from October 1 to November 15, 1989 to allow for site preparation, trenching for the installation of major utilities, construction of subterranean parking and installation of temporary and permanent erosion control facilities. Located at the southerly terminus of Harbor Drive, between, the AT & SF Railway right-of-way and Interstate Highway 5, in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County. APN 206-222-22. Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Commission by PETER DOUGLAS Executive Director and .DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6-83-613-A3AMENDMENT TO COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6-83-613-/ Page 2 of 3 IMPORTANT: THIS PERMIT IS NOT VALID UNLESS AND UNTIL A COPY OF THE PERMIT WITH THE SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION OFFICE. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The undersigned permittee acknowledges receipt of this permit and agrees to abide by all terms and conditions thereof. Date Signature of Permittee t /-/£rCl/V/'f/Z-</ /£ «=? </o//A. x //STANDARD CONDITIONS: ^ A^llr***^ /-/ & ^/^ 1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgement. The permit is not valid and development shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office. 2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two years from the date on which the Commission voted on the application. Development shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of time. Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the expiration date. 3. Compliance. All development must occur in strict compliance with the proposal as set forth below. Any deviation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the staff and may require Commission approval. 4. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission. 5. Inspections. The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site and the development during construction, subject to 24-hour advance notice. &• Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided assignee files with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and conditions of the permit. 7. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land, these terms and conditions shall be perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee to bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions. L^VAMENDMENT TO COASTAL uEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6-83-613- Page 3 of 3 SPECIAL CONDITIONS: The permit is subject to the following conditions: 1. Grading and Erosion Control. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions related to grading and erosion control: A. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit amendment, the applicant shall submit final grading and erosion control plans, approved by the City of Carlsbad, to the Executive Director for review and written approval. Said plans shall indicate that all grading activities shall be completed by November 15, 1989. i, B. Prior to commencement of any grading activity, the permittee shall submit a final, detailed grading schedule which indicates that all grading and construction/installation of erosion control measures will be completed within the permitted time frame designated in this condition and that any variation from the schedule shall be promptly reported to the Executive Director. City of Carlsbad Plannina Department PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF DECISION September 19, 1989 Dale Mitchell Crosby Mead Benton & Associates 5966 La Place Court, Suite 170 Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: Dl 89-4 WINDSONG SHORES At the Planning Commission meeting of September 6, 1989, your application was considered. The Commission voted 7-0 to approve your request. Some decisions are final at Planning Commission, and others automatically go forward to City Council. If you have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please call the Planning Department at 438- 1161. L. MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:af Enclosure: Planning Commission Resolution No. 2910 2O75 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 - (619) 438-1161 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Office of the City Clerk Otttg 0f TELEPHONE (619) 434-2808 DATE: TO: FROM: RE:PI THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by all parties.) Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call. The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council Meeting of S^f" ,1^ 14 f ? Signature Septembers, I9c Tu:Mayor Lewis & Mayor Pro-tern Ann Kulchin City Council Members Mamaux, Larson and Pettine Director of Community Development Orenyak City Manager Patchett Director of Planninq>fl5TtzmiTliE*r w \^__^ „_— ~~^ City Planning Commissioners Schlehfaer, Schrarnm, Erwin, Han, McFadden, Holmes, and Marcus City Planner Westman City Engineer Evans Police Chief Vales Firs Chief Thomoso FROM Barbara R. Faloust ichael R. Papentnienen^f 40 IDA Layang Layang Circle, windsong Cove ". 0. Box 1560 Carlsbad, CA 92000 434-2632 Proposed Permit Mo. 83-4: Construction of Condominium Project by Maryborough Construction on North Shore of Agua Hedonia Lagoon This project should not be built at all because it would be excessively destructive to human environmental factors including quality of living, health, and safety. The destruction would include overburdened population density, noise pollution, carcinogenic pollutants, and various safety hazards. These problems are inevitable in the event of further construction due to two prohibitive design features of the Windsong Cove project. The first design feature is the nature of the existing permanent access routes. These routes are not adequate enough to accommodate existing traffic safely. The accesses are not even designed as thoroughfares, they are but narrow, winding driveways, it is already hazardous to bock out of or approach a parking space as cars whip around blind corners, sometimes on the wrong side of the access. Collisions are narrowly avoided. Even worse potential hazards are the very real prospects of hitting a child who is riding a bike or hitting a pedestrian who is crossing a drive or walking along it to 'Hie mail boxes which are along the drives. There is indeed a 15 rnph speed limit, but the reality that must acknowledged as the basis for sound decision-making is that drivers ignore this limit unsafely despite speed Dumps, narrow routes, and blind corners. Cars literally "squeal" around corners. We are certain that you can verify such complaints if you research police records. These hazards would remain even if the speed limit were heeded. Furthermore, the permanent access routes are not designed to meet egress needs in the event of mass exodus. There would be no way all residents could exit safely in the event of a sweeping fire, for example. These accesses do not safely meet the needs of individual fire, police or health emergencies either. You cannot safety add the traffic of 130 additional units (most of which will probably have more than one vehicle) to permanent access routes that are already unsafe for 213 units (161 existing Windsong Cove and 52 neighboring Papagayo on Kalpati Street)! These small routes would bear the everyday traffic of 343 units. 227 on the east "Papagayo" side and 116 on the west "Palms" side. The second prohibitive design feature is that second floor living areas literally overhang the permanent access routes. These areas are master bedrooms. Living rooms on the ground level are also within feet of the routes. We cannot understand why you would even entertain this proposal which will allow carcinogenic and chemical exhaust pollutants to be projected directly into our dwellings, especially of the concentration that would be emitted from such a volume of cars within such a small area. It would be unconscionable and irresponsible to allow this to happen. Noise pollution is another issue. Noise pollution is compounded on all streets by speed bumps necessary for safety. Moreover, brick surfacing in the middle of the accesses on Layang Layang Circle further exacerbate noise pollution in these areas. Further noise pollution is emitted from a drain grating in the street within feet of my bedroom and living room. These carcinogenic, chemical, and noise pollutants are intolerable. These pollutants sap e quality of living that is basic to human health and well-being. We plan to consult whatever state agency has jurisdiction over these concerns if necessary. Compounding the problems of unsafe and inadequate traffic flow and pollutants is the reasonable projection that two of the four permanent access routes would bear the additional traffic of Marl borough units. These two streets are Canario and the western segment of Layang Layang. (They are cited as route numbers 5 and 1 on a possible construction routes study map for CT No 83-4, see attached.) Canario (route 5) currently bears the traffic of 37 units, it would bear the traffic of 81. The western segment of Layang (route 1) currently bears the traffic of up to 96 units (66 Windsong Cove plus most of the traffic of the 30 units in the neighboring Papagayo complex on Kalpati Street). The layout of the complex encourages traffic to follow this western segment rather than share the traffic load with the eastern side of the circle. This would mean that the western segment would bear the traffic of 102 units! You cannot let this happen! We VEHEMENTL? OBJECT TO THE TRAFFIC OF 142 UNITS WITH ONE OR MORE VEHICLES PASSING WITHIN A FEW FEET OF M¥ BEDROOM AND LIVING ROOM. It is unfortunate that the planning commission, city council and mayor ever gave any approval to the plans Mariborough construction proposes to build. This approval was a mistake due to the design of inadequate permanent access routes and living areas which are directly exposed to pollutants. We yrge you not cover up one mistake by city government fiy making another. !t would be a grave mistake to impose inevitable adverse conditions upon the people you represent. Mariborough Construction is but one orooertu owner in this city. It is not even a voter or resident, it will•.j -3 not have to endure the suffering it proposes to impose. Two years ago when voters of this city had two options to choose from in regard to growth management, the city council pledged that it would protect its citizens under the proposal it endorsed. This proposal passed. You now have a responsibility to ensure health and safety to the Carlsbad voters and citizens who inhabit the 161 units of Windsong Cove- regardless of ill- founded past decisions and promises, big business, or regulatory and legal technicalities. Because the two design features are irreparable, adverse consequences are unavoidable in the event of further construction. Therefore, further construction should not be allowed. t;-,10 if the above cited project is to be built, it must be redesigned to accommodate permanent ingress and egress via Harbor Drive for several health and safety reasons. Not to do this would be to make yet a third mistake. We are informed that the city government insists upon living up a prior promise made to 18 homeowners on Harbor Drive that their street would be left sacrosanct despite any future construction. This promise was ill-founded considering the grave environmental consequences to Windsong Cove in the event of further construction It is good to keep promises, and we do empathize with the people of Harbor Drive. But we do believe promises must be broken under certain circumstances. The health and safety of the residents of 161 units far outweighs the convenience of 18. it is unfortunate that such a promise was ever made. DO NOT COVER UP A SECOND MISTAKE WITH A THIRD Residents of Windsong Cove were informed by Marl borough Construction at an open meeting on September 2, 1989 that the City Planning Commission required changes to the plans in order to accomrnod"ate a wider corridor for public access to the lagoon. We are informed that a City Council meeting will be held Wednesday night to determine substantial conforrnance to city standards, if the city government can impose Its authority to require this change ss well as others we are aware of, it can impose changes to secure our health, safety, and well being. we would also like to inform you of a statement made by Mr. Leonard Bedolla of flarlborough at this meeting. He stated that Maryborough would assert its access rights on our property for construction purposes (despite availability of the approved access via Santa Fe Railway) if our ob|ections further delay construction. When several of us in attendance immediately held him accountable for making what is tantamount to a threat, he hedged and backed off. You es our city representatives cannot allow this project to be rammed down our throats before vital health and safety issues are resolved. My position remains as it was at the outset. This project cannot be built in a manner that will preserve our health and safety. In the event that you refuse to act on this premise, several courses of action will ameliorate the situation. 1. Harbor Drive must be opened to share the burden of traffic. This will mitigate safety hazards and concentration of pollutants. This will require redesigning the Marlborough plans. Could It be that Marlborough refuses to pursue this avenue because any changes will require a reduction of the number of total units in the project in accordance with current growth management requirements. The number of units should be reduced for the health and safety reasons we have described. Notwithstanding, Harbor Drive must be opened at minimum. 2. Mass emergency exit routes must be provided. This must include Harbor Drive. The only way to do this is to open Harbor Drive and redesign the project. 3. rire, police, and medical accesses must be provided for individual emergencies. This also requires opening Harbor Drive and redesigning the project. As far as we understand, Marlborough wants to use strips of land owned by Windsong Cove adjacent to Harbor Drive for these purposes. As far as we also understand, Marlborough has neither emergency nor residential access rights on these parcels. When my husband and 1 purchased our unit, we 'were told that it would be highly unlikely that the proposed project could ever be built. This problem was cited. 4 Units, minimally those along routes 5 and 1, must be sound-proofed. This would include soundproofing the walls and floors of those areas directly adjacent to routes 1 and 5. it would also include installing soundproof v- tdouDle-pane) glass and adequate ventlilatlon to compensate for the fact that we cannot open our windows.. 5. The streets should be repaved to mitigate noise pollution. This particularly applies to the brick surface of Layang Layang Circle and to the drain grate in front of my unit. The benefit of speed bumps for safety purposes versus the additional noise they cause cause should be assessed. Speed bumps must be enhanced to be effective 6. Construction should be limited to the hours between 8 and 5 p.rn Monday through Friday. m addition to health and safety considerations, fiduciary/matters must also be resolved. Marlborough must: 1. bear the cost of retrofitting our drives to mitigate health and safety concerns. 2. conclude a mutually satisfactory agreement to share the cost of permanent maintenance of the drives. 2. bear the cost of soundproofing. 3. conclude a mutually satisfactory agreement with us.if it wants to secure emergency and/or permanent access over the property we own adjacent to Harbor Drive. 4 repair and bear the cost of construction damage to our property. This includes, for example, dust build-up on our patios or landscape damage. 5. conclude mutually satisfactory agreements regarding other perpetual matters, such as gate maintenance and mutually enjoyed landscaping. Q. bear the cost of installing a permanent fence and gate separating Marlborough property from Windsong, including the strips adjacent to Harbor Drive 7. reimburse owners for any loss of property value due to overburdening, unhealthy, and unsafe conditions. In sum, it was a mistake to ever approve the proposed plans in the face a grave health and safety consequences. Any completed environmental impact study which does not rectify the problems we have described is 6 unacceptable, our understanding is that the 1903 study done by consultants assessed the impact of the entire Windsong Complex (existing and proposed) upon the surrounding community, but not the environmental worthiness of the complex itself, in light of the first mistake, it was a second mistake to promise the homeowners ol Harbor Drive that they would be immune from ameliorating this overburdening in light of the design flaws. This promise was well-meaning but unacceptably harmful. IT WOULD BE THE MOST GRAVE MISTAKE OF ALL TO ALLOW THIS CONSTRUCTION TO PROCEED. At minimum the project must be redesigned and Harbor Drive must be opened as an emergency and permanent access. Certain health, safety, and monetary issues must be resolved before construction can begin. if you have not evaluated the situation in light of the design flaws we have described or if you would like to re-evaluate your position, please call us or, better yet, come see our unit. This month we will be available through Friday September 15. r 1 Dave Vinegrad, President, Windsong Cove Board of Directors Paul Webb, California Coastal Commission eras-1/ 7- ADDENDUMT -a'qeust/Psp:. .men RE: Marlborough/wlnds^N^Shores Harlorougli representatives inarmed us et the 9/2A39 meeting that It intends ro make '*-- complex c osteo communitu Getss would disable access%.? • re :;:.:- :s of Windsong and the Palms, we oDieci. If ilarlborough nas easement r ights 10 use cur accesses, the same righto should oe eeiprocated. We nave enjoyed direct access to the lagoon. Shutting us out would force those of us !"-nq near the iacoo- to walk the entire ;=n::-": }f•-- •_* •—- our respective complex to Chinquapin, across Chinquapin, "nsn up Harbor Dri^ e to the proposed public access. This 's an undue burden. Such reciprcc2i:on would also alleviate health end safety problems in the event Harbor Drive is ooened up. For ey^rple. : once sun^moned the ponce, it took me officer" o considerable time to reach me. They cneti the leuout of our y^ a problem in locating"me. r^^'trrr.b. AVENUE -rv JP^?5SS^=z$bH£$^l£i idv^H cr n II wmK^^9Wf,-rSr—•tr—-(, >l—1_jK,|IiPy(J—=arl-/if[DC ll?if KlT^ilvkT r—JLI ^ —--''o ?T-/ » ifeOi^T-~*-~- , U T x-"_C«ftl3 3^r'C<iJ.W^^isx ^siiM; \i i ; ••fte^P^rVSiT!W'qi'^vMP iiw^^ii POSSIBLE mjre r* S^W•&<&*&&$*%* ^-W'vJ1 VTJ^JJ g Mi «wf FMT c-*i"o*w>i sf*«f»*i.fit wwrriw rp-».vvW>!f.<*M */<&rt*<»-if&(:> Afl.pi''*tfW£-StM5'6MW; ffW/S*W§ i*# nrM?$tbr& ft/tf&Nf, JLJL AH^*^ I , ^J-^JjLo '. 1 W •:.^ /- h5yor lewis & Mayor Pro-tern Ann Kulchin City Council Members Mamaux, Larson and Pettine Director of Community Development Orenuak,_. . .^ City Manager Patchett Director of Planning Holtzmiller City Planning Commissioners Schlehoer, Scnramm, Erwin, Hall, ricFaddenJiolns, and Marcus Citu Engineer Evans Police Chief Vales Fire Chief Thomson Barbara R. Falqoust Michael K. Papenthien, 40I6A Layang layang Circle, Windsong Cove P. 0. Box 1650 Car'sbsd. CA 92000 434-26-52 Proposed Permit No. 83-4; Construction of Condominium Project oy iborouoh Construction on North Shore of Aqua Hedonia Laqoon destructive to human environmental factors including quality of living, neatth and safety. The destruction would include overburdened population density, noise pollution, carcinogenic pollutants, and various safety hazards. These problems are inevitable in the event of further construction due to two prornoitive design features of the Windsong Cove project. The first design feature is the nature o^ the existing permanent access routes.not adequate enouoh to accommodate existinQraffin ^afe-y T'^s ancess?;?1 C"R nn^ RVRH des^nngrj gs thorounhfares. They e but narrow, windina dnvewaqs. it is already hazardous to Dack out of or• -™1 O *~* approacn a parKino space as cars whip around Plind corners, sometimes on the wronq side of the access. Collisions are narrowly avoided. Even worse potential hazards are the very real prospects of hitting a child who is riding a bike or hitting a pedestrian who is crossing a drive or walking along it to the mail boxes wnich are along the drives. There is indeed a 15 rnph speed limit i""'1* fho rejAJi'tii that rr-U'-t sr-l'Tin'-y'sjHnpd BC rhfl Kacic- fnr onnprj. i S -!(... i,.--i^- -_:ij_- .> L-i-1.-." i. if ;ii'~i; ! S ; U '.; 1. U'-'S'sU'-- :; i'_-UL|CU U --' '- i l l-- ^ --i '-M '_' i '_• i l^UUHU decision-making is that drivers icinore this limit unsafely desoite speed !".• : * r'r'l ;~1 ?"'• f } £ir™y~;~= >.ji..> p-;~; * > $ ~: :"• 'S !•" *~f K 1 i }--j H i~- a"! S^rt Q J^f' ;~' •& K"l~° 1 i ^ Q F"<S I 1 f ! " ;~ r* | 5 f~l O 1 " O p- :~; • J fr HUUiFry.o.. iiti! ! 'Jft i Ji.jj.'-o, ui-.u Jtfiiu L-ul 1181 o. L-Qf b filet ai-lli SljucQi QiuUiiu corners. We are certain that you can verify such complaints if you research police records. These hazards would remain even if the speed limit were heeded. Furthermore, the permanent access routes are not designed to meet egress needs in the event of mass exodus. There would be no way ail residents could exit safely in the event of a sweeping fire, for example. These accesses do not safely meet the needs of individual fire, police or health emergencies either. Vou carmai ssfeli/ add the traffic of 130 .ifUHi "f T *"i rVs! j ! *••( •» •£ i"- I KV> i~t ~- 4 t~i f V-'-~{ i f'*"i ;.vU»-5 1 1 r';ll~i~>?"-^H 1 f ' *"r--i: '- O ?V« f* *"~ Q f r~j -S >": f^^"'^"! 2 i G H 1 s"~- 1 £"e 's "^ :"~!uUUliiUitu! UHt'..o \ii3UO5. ui ¥rf!iCn r¥l!l pi OUuLUy MdVB fifUi c IfldH Unc ^blULle/ LU permanent access routes that are already unsafe for 213 units (151 existing Windsona Cove and 52 neiqhborinq Paoaoauo on Kaloati Street)! These small-™i -— 3 ' w -w - routes vyould bear the everyday traffic of 343 units, 227 on the east "Papagayo" side and 1 16 on the west "Palms" side. The second prohibitive design feature is that second floor living areas literally overhang the permanent access routes. These areas are master bedrooms. Living rooms on the ground level are also within feet of the routes. We cannot understand why you would even entertain this proposal which will allow carcinogenic and chemical exhaust pollutants to be projected directly into our dwellings, especially of the concentration that would be emitted from such a volume of cars within such a smell area, it would be unconscionable and irresponsible to allow this to happen. Noise pollution is another issue. Noise pollution is compounded on all streets by speed bumps necessary for safety. Moreover, brick surfacing in the middle of the accesses on Layang Layang Circle further exacerbate noise pollution in these areas. Further noise pollution is emitted from a drain grating in the street within feet of rnu bedroom and livtTig room. These carcinogenic, chemical, and noise pollutants are intolerable. These pollutants sap a quality of living that is basic to human health and weii-Deing. We plan to consult whatever state agency has jurisdiction over these concerns if necessary. Compounding the proolems of unsafe and inadequate traffic flow and pollutants is the reasonable projection that two of the four permanent access routes would bear the additional traffic of Marlborough units. These two streets are Canarin and the western segment of Leuang Layang. (They are cited as route numbers 5 and I on e possible construction routes study map for CT No 83-4, see attached.) Canario (route 5) currently bears the traffic of 37 units* It would bear the traffic of 81. The western segment of Layang (route 1) currently bears the traffic of up to 96 units (66 Windsong Cove PIUS most of the traffic of the 30 units in the neighboring Papagayo rnryvnlQV nn k'^lnqti Ctrpaf'1! Tha Isn-Hst r>f thp r-nrnnl ov Qnpnii^flopc fr-sffir- tnL'Ua Hp » «_//•: -Jii i \'-i : *J>.= -. t -_'-,. C^t.«. : MU- : ;_i --i l_- '-4 v *_M ". I I U *-• *-' I H i.M •_• i"s <j < -. >„• •-• vi i ^ ;«| w •-< U Ui i fc -^ '•- V follow this western segment rather than share the traffic loed with the eastern side of the circle. This would mean that the western segment would Sear the traffic or 182 units! You cannot let this happen! We VEHEF1ENTLY OBJECT TO THE TRAFFIC OF 142 UNITS W!TH ONE OR VEHICLES PASSING WITHIN A FEW FEET OF M¥ AND LIVING ROOM. It is unfortunate that the planning commission, city council and mayor ever gave any approval to the plans Marlborough construction proposes to build.. This approval was a mistake due to the design of inadequate permanent access routes and living areas which are directly exposed to pollutants. We urge you not cover up one mistake by city government by making another. !t would be a grave mistake to impose inevitable adverse conditions upon the people you represent. Marlborough Construction is but one property owner in this city, it is not even a voter or resident. It will not have to endure the suffering it proposes to impose. Two years ago when voters of this city had two options to choose from in regard to growth management, the city council pledged that it would protect its citizens (jnrfCif- thp niTinnc-s' it or=dprcQrt Thie nrnnricsl n:=ecpf) Vn'i r.m,v hsup AT.* I i U C-l 1. M ;_- p • w j-5 •„» •-,' :_4 i I <- '-• : I :-i *-' I •_' i_- :J . > > i I •-• ^.' • U |_- U •_' l-i J p <J -^ ^' C U . I ~-J W 3 • V I 5 II :— ¥ C- U responsibility to ensure health and safety to the CarlsDad voters and cHizens who inhabit the 161 units of Windsong Cove- regardless of ill- founded past decisions and promises, big business, or regulatory and legal technicalities. Because the two design features ere irreparable, adverse consequences are unavoidable in the event of further construction. Therefore, further construction snould not oe allowed. ;f the above,cited project is to be built, it must be redesigned to srrnfrtrwdsitp nprmsnsnt innrpc-q snf! onrpoc yia Usrhor r*riya fnr co^prpi•J -—' '—• *—' i i 5 j r : -w '^ '-i "- s-f i." W s i i i ---i I i. '_f i i J- I 1 I %|.I *-c •—' %J W 'I : l~c w *J « 3-t •—• •—J i t U i i "-; 1 t-- '—• i i_' ; i V '„- i W i -_; *—• i 1_- i %j i health and ssfetn reasons. Not to do this would be to make uet a third ~-4> •-> mistake. We are informed that the citu government insists upon livina up to a onor promise made to 18 homeowners on Harbor Drive that their street would be left sacrosanct despite any future construction. This promise was ill-founded considering the grave environmental consequences to windsong Cove in the event of further construction It is good to keep promises, and we do empathize with the people of Harbor Drive. But we do believe promises must be broken under certain circumstances. The health and safety of the residents of 161 units far outweighs the convenience of 16. it *s unfortunate that such a promise was ever made. 00 NOT COVER UP A SECOND MISTAKE WITH A THIRD Residents of Windsong Cove were informed by Marlborough Construction at an open meeting on September 2, 1989 that the City Planning Commission required changes to the plans in order to accommodate a wider corridor for public access to the lagoon. We are informed that a City Council meeting will be held Wednesday night to determine substantial conforrnance to city standgrds. if the city government can impose its authority to raqui change as well ss others we are aware of, it can impose changes to secure our health, safet's, and well hsin3- we woulo also like to inform you of a statement made by Mr, Leonard bedolla of flarl borough at this meeting. He stated that flariborough would assert its access rights on our property for construction purposes (despite availability of the approved access via Santo Fe Railway) if our objections further delay construction. When several of us in attendance immediately held him accountable for making what is tantamount to a threat, he hedged and backed off. You as our city representatives csnnot allow this project to be rammed down our throats before vital health and safety issues are resolved. My position remains as it was at the outset. This project cannot be built in a manner that will preserve our health and safety, in the event that you refuse to act on this premise, several courses of action will ameliorate the situation, 1. Harbor Drive must be opened to share the burden of traffic. This will mitigate safety hazards and concentration of pollutants. This win require redesionina the Merlborouqh plans. Could it be that Merlborough refuses tow •-* • '-J pursue this avenue because any changes will require a reduction of the number of total units in the project in accordance with current growth management requirements. The number of units should be reduced for the health and safety reasons we hsve described. Notwithstanding, Harbor Drive must be opened at minimum. 2. Mess emergency exit routes must be provided. This must include Harbor Drive.. The onlsj wau to do this is to ooen Harbor Drive and redesion the•C? '-.• • •— • project. 3. Fire, police, and medical accesses must be provided for individual emergencies. This also requires opening Harbor Drive end redesigning the project. As far as we understand, Maryborough wants to use strips of land owned by Windsong Cove adjacent to Harbor Drive for these purposes. As far ss we also understand. Marlborough has neither emergency nor residential access rights on these parcels. When my husband and i purchased our unit, we were told that it would be highly unlikely that the proposed project could ever be built. This problem was cited. K n t-- -r, •& ] n *-> *-j *-T& i * $ ™' T~- *•-- -5f -k"= HI ^ s^vs M *-- 4- H fj r- n £ ; >"•• H _ n ?"*'** o * O H T H i »—nUby dIOny * UUibo ^ Gnu \ f nfuot Ud oUunU jJ.I uUlcu. i ilto would include soundproofing the walls and floors of those areas directly adjacent to routes 1 and 5. it would also include installing soundproof ; j~| ;-v l ; H 1 ]~: _ r~: -Z* V?. :": "i -~l \ •-; i~- :"• T^ i^T H O H :~! iT i I C: $ ~: j : Q >*i ^ T 1 7 S 'f "3 ~: r'l "P* !~t >"• 3": J-Vi p :~r 5-~r l~- O f t~l *f f : «~ f K /": *f -S i". *UJUUUiC ijUUCy yiUOO QiiU duCUUUi.C ¥ Bill 5 I I Qt S Ull 5.U (.-US i ipCi !C>U i.C I Ui LiiC laUl 5. The streets should be repaved to mitigate noise pollution. This particularly applies to the brick surface of Layang Layang Circle and to the drain grate in front of my unit. The benefit of speed bumps for safety purposes versus the additional noise they cause cause should be assessed. Speed bumps must be enhanced to be effective 6. Construction should be limited to the hours between 5 end 5 p.m Monday through Fridey.a o / IT in addition to health and safety considerations, fiduciary/matters must also be resoived. Manborough must: 1. oeor the cost 01 retrofitting our drives to mitigate nealtn and safety concerns. 2. conclude a mutually satisfactory agreement to share the cost of permanent maintenance of the drives. 2. oear the cost of soundproofing,'" 3. conclude a mutually satisfactory agreement with us.if it wants to secure emergency and/or permanent access over the property we own adjacent to Harbor Drive. 4 repair and Pear the cost of construction damage to our property. This includes, for examole. dust bui<d-up on our oatios or landscape darnaoe. 5. conclude mutually satisfactory agreements regarding other perpetual matters, such as gate maintenance and mutually enioyed landscaping." Drive Marlhnrnunh nrnnprit; frpm Winrlcnnn inpMsrtinn thp eirinQ pdispprit in Harborj i •_!. i w w : J_- -_i —j • i J-" i V f-1 '—* i w H '—'ill II . - . :™ ••- •--.._, r i I i W 3 J-* Li ! 1 IU 5_ j j •— --? 1, i S ijv '—i W j ™ ^_- -_• i i !- =_ -—= , . ^ . —- •_ ; 7. reimburse owners for any loss of property value due to overburdening, unhealthy, and unsafe conditions. !n sum, it wes s mistake to ever approve the proposed plans in the face a grave health and safety consequences. Any completed environmental impact studn which doss not rsctifn the problems we have described is ~ : •= - l ;* ?• •t *> i~r 1 f~^ S "j' ~- ^ S J i"f ! 1 f~tidnuiny 10 lupt i.=id i ^u^-i.'«.uijy u assessed the inipact of the entire Windsong uomplex (existing and proposed) upon ins surroundinq community, but not the environmentel worthiness of the complex itseK. in siciht of the first mistake, it was o second mistake to promise the homeowners of Harbor Drive that they would be immune from ameliorating this overburdening in light of the design flaws. This promise was well-meaning but unacceptable harmful. IT WOULD BE THE MOST GRAVE MISTAKE OF ALL TO ALLOW THIS CONSTRUCTION TO PROCEED. At minimum the project must be redesigned and Harbor Drive must be opened as an emergency and permanent access. Certain health, safety, and monetary issues must be resolved before construction can begin. If you have not evaluated the situation in light of the design flaws we have described or if you would like to re-evaluate your position, please call us or, better ijet, come see our unit. This month we will oe available through hndau beptemusr is. cc: Dave vineqrad. President, w'indsong Cove Hoard of Directors Paul Webc California Coastal Commission rKun: f-aigousT/Kapenimen Kt: nanoorou§n/winasong bnores**7» . riarlorough represen^ves informed us at the 9/2/89 mating that it intends to make its Cusuplex a pated communitu. Gates ?ieulu disable accsss :o residents of Windsong and the Palms. We object, if flarluorough Has easement rights to use our accesses, the same rights should be reciprocated. We heve enjoyed direct access to the lagoon. Shutting us out would force those of us livina near the lagoon to walk the entire length of our respective complex to Chinquapin, across Chinquapin, then UP Harbor Drive to the proposed public access. This is an undue burden. Such reciprocation V'/ould also alleviate health and safety problems in the event Harbor Drive is opened up. For example, I once summoned the police. It took the officers a considerable time to reach me. They cited the layout of our complex as a problem in locating rne. -kflftesctri I m m </ JP' - sottf f ('•«)•4'yi»_ B; pa POSSIBLE ROUTES STUDY MCfTf lnf CAL/f&lNiA SfWflXtffl H»<T< n^CKS -WF PTB FKU&£ 40*0 Of Tt-ff CM-ffTJRNM (XIWTMfHtor rRAvyofirxrw fcU&iWW'wSK'V *«Mj«t < RfPfltStttr? tNtf&el4yGlt,vfibtC*$\ 6rQ f g I ,.-,': *;'• _^-t7'; ^7 / -V PLANNING Independent Representative September 5, 1989 Mr. Claude A. Lewis, Mayor City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, Ca 92008 Dear Mayor Lewis: I am writing thi-s letter regarding the traffic issue of the Marlbrough Development Corporation Wind Song Shore's project. This is not a new issue, you the mayor and the city council had heard of this issue many time before. I do not object to the development because I realize I am not the only one should be. allowed to enjoy the finest city living such as Carlsbad, the other people should have the same privilege also. The only request I have is to reconsider using Wind Song Cove roads as access to the Marlbrough project. 1 realized the city council had made a commitment to the Harbor Drive residents, dedicating Harbor Drive cul-de-sac as a dead-end street. In a fast growing county such as San Diego we all benefit the monetary gain in property and business and at the same time we also trade off for a lesser quality of life style due to growth. We do not have the luxury of space any longer. But traffic safety should not be compromise be- cause it involves human lives. I apology to the residents of Harbor Dr in suggesting to use Harbor Dr. as the access road to the Marlbrough project. The narrow Wind Song roads were not built for another additional 2 cars per family of a 140 units condos traffic. Saturday, Sept. 2nd, 1989, Ma-rlbrough Corp. held a neighborhood meeting. The Wind Song Cove residents were warned if we try to delay-the project, Marlbrough will drive their heavy construction equipment through our gate because they have the right to do so. Please, Mayor and the city council, consider the needs and safety'of the Wind Song Cove children and residents before you make the final decision. Thank you in advance for your help. Sincerely, v - /? , ? *£fr&J&-eciTia Leonard. 31 !-B Kaloati Street • Cailsbad, CA 92008 • (619) 434-7624 S S .fR I ^l\£,y'WlajjL horR^Q k %£ (jCFnc£s*=rn S_~~-*~_ O^___., ^^. -*-• . *.!.—. '-« —»-- II- C o r, C M 3->n o r ccfc-y^ c o co o a_t7 s o M. o s^tr tKa.tr b ire IRC Jib-E: £«t \)ts c~ (7T83-V PLANNING August 28, 1989 Mr. Claude A. Lewis, Mayor City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mayor Lewis: For the past several years approximately 1000 residents in and around the 'Windsong Cove' area of Carlsbad have been burdened by the planned development, by Marlborough Development Corporation of its 'Windsong Shores' project. This development is to be located on lands immediately north of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. As of today many important issues remain unresolved. For example, residents do not feel that Marlborough has secured a proper route for ingress and egress of emergency vehicles in case of fire, medical emergency, etc... The fact is that NO route exists at all! Current plans, as drawn by Marlborough, show emergency vehicle access over a 30'by 120' strip of Windsong Cove property. This particular parcel of land is wholly owned by the Windsong Cove Homeowners Association and NO emergency vehicle access easements exist over this property. Thus any emergency located at a remote,end of the Windsong Shores project would be extremely difficult to access. This dire situation is only compounded by the fact that a high pressure gas pipe is located at the far western portions of this development. Secondly, construction access to the planned Windsong Shores development remains a point of concern among area residents. History shows that a major miscalculation was made by developers of the 'Windsong Cove' area. Specifically, property immediately north of Agua Hedionda Lagoon was left undeveloped while land just south of Chinquapin Street was fully developed. As a result, access to the undeveloped (Windsong Shores) land will be impossible without placing an unsafe and unjust burden on hundreds of homeowners. At a minimum, construction traffic should not be allowed access to Chinquapin Street, but rather Tamarack Avenue. Further, many other issues remain unresolved between Marlborough and homeowners. For instance, Marlborough's current plans do not conform to those clans as approved by the City of Carlsbad in 1983 (CT 83-4/CP-227^ Such a change should be approved only after review by the city council. In addition, legal counsel informs us that under various legal theories Windsong Shores might not have access through Windsong Cove property for ingress and egress of residential vehicular traffic. Also, a cost sharing agreement (as required under the California Government Code) between The Windsong Cove Homeowners Association and Marlborough has not been negotiated as of today. Such an agreement would be necessary because Windsong Shores homeowners might use Windsong Cove roads as access to their residences. Also unresolved are a) the hours and days of the week to be allowed for construction operations, b) the loss of ocean views for certain homeowners who were 'guaranteed' permanent ocean views, c) the archaeological mitigation measures required by developer as outlined in the Environ- mental Impact Report on file with the city engineering department, and d) numerous other issues such as noise control, signage, scope of liability for construction accidents, pollution (i.e. blowing dirt), etc... Therefore, to say the least, it would be unwise for the City of Carlsbad to allow any construction activities prior to the parties involved resolving these critical issues. Obviously, any development would proceed much smoother if all terms are agreed to prior to construction. Thus, before any plans, permits, routes, extensions, etc... are approved by the City of Carlsbad, the residents in and around Windsong Cove request a public hearing on each and every issue. David N. Vinegrad 4016 Aguila Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 CC:Mr. Marty Orenyak Mr . John Mamaux Mr . Mark Pettine Mr . Eric Larsen Ms. Ann Kulchin -z- City of Carlsbad Planning Department August 22, 1989 Dale Mitchell Crosby Mead Benton & Associates 5966 La Place Court, Ste. 170 Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: DI 89-4 WINDSONG SHORES Preliminary Staff Report The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be available for you to pick up on Friday, August 25, 1989, after 8 a.m. This preliminary report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (D.C.C.) meeting which will be held on Monday, August 28, 1989. A twenty (20) minute appointment has been set aside for you at 9:30 a.m. If you have any questions concerning your project, you should attend the D.C.C. meeting. It is necessary that you bring your required unmounted colored exhibit(s) with you to this meeting in order for your project to go forward to the Planning Commission. If you do not plan to attend this meeting, please make arrangements to have your colored exhibit(s) here by the scheduled time above. If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact the Planning Department at 438-1161. CITY OF CARLSBAD MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director By: L^S Planning Department CW:MJH\lh 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161 City of Carlsbad Planning Department August 22, 1989 Paula B. Madson Lightfoot Planning Group 702 Fourth Street Oceanside, CA 92054 SUBJECT: DI 89-4 - Windsong Shores Preliminary Staff Report The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be available for you to pick up on Friday, August 25, 1989, after 8 a.m. This preliminary report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (D.C.C.) meeting which will be held on Monday, August 28, 1989. A twenty (20) minute appointment has been set aside for you at 9:30 a.m. If you have any questions concerning your project, you should attend the D.C.C. meeting. It is necessary that you bring your required unmounted colored exhibit(s) with you to this meeting in order for your project to go forward to the Planning Commission. If you do not plan to attend this meeting, please make arrangements to have your colored exhibit(s) here by the scheduled time above. If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact the Planning Department at 438-1161. CITY OF CARLSBAD MICHAEL 0. HOLZMILLER Planning Director By: Planning Department CW:MJH\lh 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161 * f City of Carlsbad Planninci Deoartment August 17, 1989 Leonard Bedolla Marl borough Development Company 28751 Rancho California Road Suite 203 Rancho California, CA 92390 RE: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 89-41 Dear Mr. Bedolla: After receiving your application and reviewing the conditions of the property, it was determined that a Hillside Development Permit would not be required. The Qualifications for the Exemptions are as follows: 1) The proposed fill within the railroad right-of-way is a Class 4 CEQA exemption, therefore it has been determined that there are no significant adverse environmental impacts. 2) It has also been determined that as an "isolated ravine" and an area that has been previously disturbed by authorized grading, it is exempt from the Hillside Development Ordinance. Staff will complete an assessment to determine the extent of the fee refund. If you should have any questions, please contact me at 438-1161. Sincerely, CHRISTER WESTMAN Associate Planner c: Erin Letsch CW:lh hdp8941.1tr 2O75 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161 MEMORANDUM AUGUST 16, 1989 TO: FILE FROM: Christer Westman RE: OFF SITE WINDSONG SHORES GRADING AND ACCESS Hillside Development Permit Section 21.95.030 General Restrictions of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance states "If no permits other than a building or grading permit are required for the project, the Planning Director shall have the authority to approve or deny Hillside Development Permits subject to appeal of the Planning Commission" The proposed access through the AT&SF Railroad right-of-way only requires a grading permit therefore the Planning Director is the decision making body for the possible review of a Hillside Development Permit on this site. However, "Areas previously disturbed by the authorized grading" and "small isolated ravines where there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment as determined by the Planning Director" may be excluded from the requirements of the hillside Development Ordinance by the decision making body when these areas have been fully identified. Both findings can be met and a Hillside Development Permit will not be required. Environmental Assessment Article 19, Categorical Exemptions of the CEQA guidelines, includes a list of classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and which shall, therefore, be exempt from CEQA. Class four consists of minor public and private alterations in the condition of land such as "filling of earth into previously excavated land with material compatable with the natural features of the site.". Such action shall also not involve the removal of mature, scenic trees. The proposal is to move excavated earth from the adjacent building site to the project site. The earth would be used to fill an existing ditch between an existing dirt access road to the YMCA site and the existing railroad tracks. It shall be considered a class 4 statutory exemption. Conclusion Therefore, because the proposed fill operation is a class four CEQA exemption it can be determined that there will not be a significant effect on the environment. It can then also be determined that as an "isolated ravine" and an area which has been previously disturbed by authorized grading that a Hillside Development Permit is not required. CW:kd WSGA.mem City of Carlsbad Community Development August 8, 1989 California Coastal Commission San Diego Coast District 1333 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 125 San Diego, CA 92108-3520 The City of Carlsbad is aware of Marl borough Development's proposal to construct a temporary access road in the AT&SF railway right-of-way. The City is in support of the proposal. Access through the right-of-way in advantageous because it reduces the number of residents directly impacted by construction traffic. Also, the physical constraints of moving construction traffic through the existing condominium developments make such a construction route unreasonable. Access to the right-of-way from Chinquapin vs. Tamarack is preferred by the City because as a local street Chinquapin carries less traffic and will have less of a traffic safety impact than Tamarack. Additional drainage issues would also need to be resolved with a Tamarack access. Sincerely, ^MARTY ORENYAK < A " Community Development Director CW:lh windsong.ltr 2OT5 Las Palmas Drive*Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859»(619) 438-1161 THE LIGHTFOOT August 7, 1989 GROUP Mr. Christer Westman City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Windsong Shores (83-4) Dear Christer: This letter is to provide you with additional planning information and/or the status of the items you listed in your June 29 letter regarding the Windsong Shores project. 1. The Environmental Impact Assessment for the "off-site" grading was submitted to your office on July 10. A Hillside Development Permit application was submitted concurrently regarding the manmade "V" ditch next to the railroad tracks. 702 FOURTH STREET OCEANSIDE. CA 92054 (619) 722-1924 FAX (619) 433-7511 27919 FRONT STREET SUITE 208 RANCHO CALIFORNIA CA 92390 (714) 699-6190 FAX (714) 699-6193 Enclosed is Marlborough's agreement with AT&SF. construction access Marlborough is currently working with the City's landscape consultant, the Fire Marshall and the Coastal Commission to ensure everyone's concerns are met regarding the landscape plan. We hope to obtain everyone's approval by next week, at which time we will submit a copy of the landscape plan with the Fire Marshall's and Coastal's signatures of approval. The Amendment to the original Windsong Shores Coastal Permit for the ramp access will be heard at the August 10 Coastal Commission hearing. The permit application for the grading in the railroad right-of-way was submitted to the Coastal Commission on July 27. We anticipate a public hearing within six to eight weeks for this request. Mr. Christer Westman Page 2 August 7, 1989 5. The sign program for the trail signs is enclosed for your approval. We have shown this sign program to Paul Webb, at the Coastal Commission, and he indicated they were acceptable. The landscape plan discussed in Item 3 will identify the locations of the various signs. 6. Enclosed is a sight-line study to illustrate the screening of the roof mounted equipment from 1-5. 7. Enclosed is a color and materials board. I have also enclosed the following items: 8. 100-scale exhibit of the garage landscape plan. 9. A signed letter by Tom Lickterman, at the North County Transit District, regarding bus stop facilities. Should you have any questions regarding this information, please give me a call. Sincerely, Paula B. Madson Senior Planner PBM/sc Enclosures cc: Leonard Bedolla, Marlborough Development Kim Post, Crosby, Mead, Benton 173.07/49 C. E.NO. 64- O2l-OO2(b2 EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY AND MARYBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY CHICAGO, ILLINOIS SCALE: 1 IN. TO None FT. CALIFORNIA DIV. SA.N DIEGO SUBDIV. DATE: June 28,1989 TRIM LINE CHIEF ENGINEER DESCRIPTION APPROVED or cr o: <r> CQ uj ,60 ^" CQ' chom linK fence u.HIIX 0. E.S. 2284 + 50 MP230-H211.2 To Fuller-ion DESCRIPTION Riqhi- o-fenfry as shown shaded, includ inc| fence and qates as noTed. ror UJ To Kah'onal Mear Carlsbad, San Dieqo County, California C.E. DRAWING NO. 3 - IO46O DIV. DWG. NO.DIV. FILE NO.G. M. FILE NO. HOI 335Co JWE- . The Atchison, Tc^eka and Santa Fe Railway July 20, 1989 11013356 Mr. Richard A. Niec Vice President-Division Manager Marlborough Development Corporation 28751 Rare ho California Road No. 208 Rancho California, California 92390 Dear Mr. Niec: Enclosed you will find executed, in duplicate, original and copy of a Right-Of-Entry License covering your request to use our property at or near Carlsbad, California for a roadway to enter into and out of your Windsong Development Project. As you can see, this license contains a number of qualifications that must be met in order to leave the property in a manner which will benefit all parties involved. The Right-Of-Entry License contains a one-time fee of $400.00 and I would appreciate your arranging for that to be sent with the executed original to this office. I would also appreciate your staying in contact with our Division Office personnel in San Bernardino at (714) 387-1258 in order that an orderly progress of work can be accomplished. There may be occasions where changes are necessary as this project is progressed. Therefore, the Division Manager's office in San Bernardino should be apprised of any modifications. In addition, a final determination of the cost to move the various facilities existing there is not known at this time, but as expenses occur or upon completion, we anticipate issuing a bill for that work in addition to the flagging protection as noted in the contract. I would appreciate your arranging for execution of both copies of this agreement, returning the copy stamped "Santa Fe Original" to this office. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. C. A. Starkebaum of my office on (913) 357-2114. Yours truly, T. J. Nelson Director of Contracts 2353d/2114/5 11013356 RIGHT OF ENTRY LICENSE THIS LICENSE, made as of the 29th day of June 1989, between THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation (hereinafter called "Licensor"), and MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORP. (hereinafter, whether one party or more, called "Licensee"). WITNESSETH, That the parties hereto for the considerations hereinafter expressed covenant and agree as follows: 1. Licensor hereby licenses Licensee to use, subject to the rights and easements hereinafter excepted and reserved and upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the land (hereinafter called "Premises") situated at or near Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, shown on the print hereto attached, C.E. Drawing No. 3-10460 dated June 28.' 1989 marked "Exhibit A" and made a part hereof, for a term beginning on July 3, 1989, and ending when this License shall be terminated as hereinafter provided. 2. Licensor hereby excepts and reserves the right, to be exercised by Licensor and by any others who have obtained or may obtain permission or authority from Licensor so to do, (a) to operate, maintain, renew and relocate any and all existing pipe, power, and communication lines and appurtenances and other facilities of like character upon, over or under the surface of the Premises; and (b) froia time to time to construct, operate, maintain, renew and relocate such additional facilities of the same character as will not unreasonably interfere with the use of the Premises by Licensee for the purpose specified in Section 4 hereof. 3. Licensee shall pay to Licensor as compensation for the use of the Premises the sum of Four Hundred and No/100 Dollars ($400.00). 4. (a) Licensee shall use the Premises exclusively as a site for an Access Road. Licensee covenants that it will not treat, store or dispose of on the Premises "hazardous waste" or "hazardous substances", as "hazardous waste" and "hazardous substances may now or in the future be defined by any federal, state, or local governmental agency or body. In the event the Premises are now or in the future used in generating, handling, or transporting of "hazardous waste" or "hazardous substances", Licensee agrees fully to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations, orders, decisions and ordinances (hereinafter referred to as "Standards") concerning "hazardous waste" and "hazardous substances". Licensee further agrees periodically to furnish Licensor with proof, satisfactory to Licensor, that Licensee is in such compliance. In any event, Licensee shall allow Licensor to enter upon the Premises at reasonable times for the purpose of inspection. Should Licensee not comply fully with the above-stated obligations of this Section, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision hereof, Licensor may, at its option, terminate this License by serving five (5) days' notice of termination upon Licensee; but any waiver by Licensor of any breach of Licensee's obligations shall not constitute a waiver of the right to terminate this License for any subsequent breach which may occur, or to enforce any other provision of this License. Upon termination, Licensee shall be governed by the two sections of this License regarding Licensee's surrender of possession of the Premises. (b) Notwithstanding anything contained in the liability sections hereof, in case of a breach of the obligations contained in this Section, or any of them, regardless of the negligence or alleged negligence of Licensor, Licensee agrees to assume liability for and to save and hold harmless Licensor from and against all injuries to any person and damage to property, including without limitation, employes and property of Licensor and Licensee and all related expenses, including without limitation attorneys' fees, investigators' fees and litigation expenses, resulting in whole or in part from Licensee's failure to comply with any Standard issued by any governmental authority concerning hazardous substances and/or hazardous waste. Licensee, at its cost, shall assume the defense of all claims, suits or actions brought for damages, and fines or penalties hereunder, regardless of whether they are asserted against Licensor or Licensee. Licensee also agrees to reimburse Licensor for all costs of any kind incurred as a result of the Licensee's failure to comply with this Section, including, but not limited to, fines, penalties, clean-up and disposal costs, and legal costs incurred as a result of Licensee's generating, handling, transporting, treating, storing, or disposing of "hazardous waste" or "hazardous substances" on the Premises. (c) It is understood and agreed that a Licensee who does not now, or in the future, generate, handle, transport, treat, store or dispose of "hazardous waste" or "hazardous substances" within the meaning of this Section, is not subject to the provisions of Subsection (b) supra. - 2 - 1529V (d) The object of Licensor is to provide for the convenient access to development project by Licensee and related business thereon. In case Licensee shall use the Premises for any other purpose whatever than above mentioned, then Licensor may declare this License at an end and prevent Licensee from using or remaining upon the Premises, with or without process of law. Licensee shall not have the exclusive possession of the Premises as against Licensor. (e) It is understood and agreed that licensee shall as a result of being granted this license request perform or cause to be performed the following: 1. Fill and pack the site under subject license in a matter to preclude any entrapment of water from Chinquapin Road to Bridge 230.6 and grade to \ insure proper drainage with proposed concrete ditch to provide drainage away from track area. Install a 6-foot chain link fence on top of fill with gates as shown on Division File Print 110/3356, attached hereto and made a part hereof to be locked with Santa Fe locks when not being used by Licensee or Licensee's representative. Fences and gates to become a permanent part of project and remain in place at no cost to Licensor upon completion or termination of this License. Licensee will also install a gate at Maya Street, compatible with those previously installed upon completion of project. 3. All approaches to gates and/or access/egress shall be graded to allow the safe use by Licensor's vehicles. 5. Licensee shall keep and maintain the Premises and improvements in such safe, sanitary and sightly condition as shall be satisfactory to Licensor, and if Licensee fails or refuses within fifteen (15) days after receipt of any request by Licensor so to do, Licensor may, at its option, perform such work; and in such event Licensee shall within thirty (30) days after the rendition of bill therefor reimburse Licensor for the cost so incurred. *1.1 It is further understood that if a Regulatory Agency prohibits any work to be done under this license/ that Marlborough Development Corporation will not be held responsible for any prohibited work. All other terms of this license shall remain in full force and effect. _ 3 _ = /i, 4 1529V 6. In using the Premises, and in constructing, maintaining, operating and using the improvements thereon, Licensee shall comply with any and all requirements imposed by federal or state statutes, or by ordinances, orders or regulations of any governmental body having jurisdiction thereover. In the event the Premises or improvements shall be used for the loading, unloading, storing, or otherwise handling of any petroleum products, Licensee shall comply with all regulations and recommendations from time to time promulgated by the Bureau of Explosives of the Association of American Railroads, or any successor agency. All artificial lighting in pump houses, warehouses, or other enclosures upon the Premises, where oil or other inflammable fluid supplies are handled or stored by Licensee, except in unbroken original containers, shall be electricity, and such electrical installation and any other electrical installation upon the Premises shall at all times conform to and be maintained in accordance with the provisions of the then current edition of the National Electrical Code with respect to Class I hazardous locations. Licensee shall promptly pay and discharge any and all liens arising out of any construction, alteration or repair work done, or suffered or permitted to be done, by Licensee on the Premises, and Licensor is hereby authorized to post any notices or take any other action upon or with respect to the Premises that is or may be permitted by law to prevent the attachment of any such liens to the Premises; provided, however, that failure of Licensor to take any such action shall not relieve Licensee of any obligation or liability under this or any other section hereof. 7. Licensee shall at all times keep a space of 75 feet from the nearest rail of any railroad track entirely clear of structures, material and obstructions of every sort, other than those specifically caused to be as ordered herein. 3. Licensee agrees to indemnify and save harmless Licensor against all loss, damage or expense which Licensor may sustain, incur or become liable for, including loss of or damage to property to injury to or death of persons and fines or penalties imposed upon or assessed against Licensor, arising in any manner out of (a) the use of the Premises or improvements by Licensee, (b) any breach by Licensee of the terms, covenants or conditions in this Instrument contained, or (c) the sole or contributing acts or omissions of Licensee or the employes, agents, patrons or invitees of Licensee in, on or about the Premises or improvements, except that if Licensor shall participate in any such contributing acts or omissions, then the loss, damage or expense arising therefrom shall be borne by the parties hereto equally. - 4 - 1529V 9. Neither Licensee, nor the heirs, legal representatives, successors or assigns of Licensee, nor any subsequent assignee, shall transfer or lease the Premises or the improvements, or any part hereof, nor assign or transfer this License or any interest herein, without the written consent and approval in each instance of Licensor. 10. In case of eviction of Licensee by any one owning or claiming title to or any interest in the Premises, Licensor shall not be liable to Licensee for any damage of any nature whatsoever, or to refund any compensation paid hereunder, except the proportionate part of any compensation paid in advance. 11. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this License, Licensee shall comply with all statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, orders and decisions (hereinafter referred to as "Standards"), issued by any federal, state or local governmental body or agency established thereby (hereinafter referred to as "Authority"), relating to Licensee's use of Licensor's property hereunder. In its use of the premises, Licensee shall at all times be in full compliance with all Standards, present or future, set by any Authority, including, but not limited to, Standards concerning air quality, water quality, noise, hazardous substances and hazardous waste. In the event Licensee fails to be in full compliance with Standards set by any Authority, Licensor may, after giving reasonable notice of the failure to Licensee, and Licensee, within thirty (30) days of such notice, fails either to correct such noncompliance or to give written notice to the Licensor of its intent to contest the allegation of the noncompliance before the Authority establishing the Standard or in any other proper forum, take whatever action is necessary to protect the premises and Licensor's railroad and other adjacent property. Licensee shall reimburse the Licensor for all costs (including but not limited to, consulting, engineering, clean-up and disposal costs, and legal costs) incurred by the Licensor in complying with such Standards, and also such costs incurred by the Licensor in complying with such Standards, and also such costs incurred by the Licensor in abating a violation of such Standards, protecting against a threatened violation of such Standards, defending any claim of violation of such Standards in any proceeding before any Authority or court, and paying any fines or penalties imposed for such violations. Licensee shall assume liability for and shall save and hold harmless the Licensor from any claim of a violation of such Standards regardless of the nature thereof or the Authority or person asserting such claim, which results from Licensee's use of Licensor's premises, except those claims which arise in whole or in part from the negligence of Licensor. Licensee, at its cost, shall assume the defense of all such claims regardless of whether they are asserted against Licensee or Licensor. - 5 - 1529V Upon written notice from Licensor, Licensee agrees to assume the defense of any lawsuit, administrative action or other proceeding brought against Licensor by any public body, individual, partnership, corporation, or other legal entity, relating to any matter covered by this License for which Licensee has an obligation to assume liability for and/or to save and hold harmless the Licensor. Licensee shall pay all the costs incident to such defense, including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees, investigators' fees, litigation expenses, settlement payments, and amount paid in satisfaction of judgments. Any and all lawsuits or administrative actions brought or threatened on any theory of relief available at law, in equity or under the rules of any administrative agency shall be covered by this Section, including, but not limited to, the theories of intentional misconduct, negligence, breach of statute or ordinance, or upon any theory created by statute or ordinance, state or federal. 12. If any compensation hereunder shall be due and unpaid, or if default shall be made in any of the covenants or agreements of Licensee herein contained, or in case of any assignment or transfer of this License by operation of law, Licensor may, at its option, terminate this License by serving five (5) days' notice in writing upon Licensee; but any waiver by Licensor of any default or defaults shall not constitute a waiver of the right to terminate this Licensee for any subsequent default or defaults. 13. This License mav be terminated at any time by either party upon thirty (30) days' notice in writing to be served upon the other party, stating therein the date that such termination shall take place, and upon the expiration of the time specified in such notice this License and all rights of Licensee hereunder shall absolutely cease and determine. 14. All notices to be given hereunder shall be given in writing, by depositing same in the United States mail duly registered or certified, with postage prepaid, and addressed to the Licensee or Licensor as the case may be at the address shown on the signature page hereof, or addressed to such other address as the parties hereto may from time to time designate. 15. Upon termination of this License in any manner herein provided, Licensee shall forthwith surrender to Licensor the possession of the Premises with improvements as described in Article 4C herein, and in case Licensee shall fail within thirty (30) days after the date of such termination to make such improvements may at its election to be exercised within thirty (30) days thereafter, make or cause to make the improvements to the Premises for the account of Licensee, and in such event Licensee shall within thirty (30) days after the rendition of bill therefor reimburse Licensor for the cost so incurred. - 6 - , 1529V 16. If Licensee fails to surrender to Licensor the Premises, upon any termination of this License, all the liabilities and obligations of Licensee hereunder shall continue in effect until the Premises are surrendered; and no termination hereof shall release Licensee from any liability or obligation hereunder, whether of indemnity or otherwise, resulting from any acts, omissions or events happening prior to the date of termination. 17. In the event that Licensee consists of two or more parties, all the covenants and agreements of Licensee herein contained shall be the joint and several covenants and agreements of such parties. 18. All the covenants and agreements of Licensee herein contained shall be binding upon the heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns of Licensee, and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of Licensor. 19. Licensee will perform all work to be performed by Licensee on Licensor's property to the satisfaction of Licensor and shall reimburse Licensor for all expense including but not limited to engineering, inspection and flagging charges considered necessary by Licensor pertaining to such work. Flagging protection must be secured when License personnel or equipment are working within 25 feet of centerline of Licensor's track. Flagging protection will be assessed on a flat fee basis of $300.00 per day or any portion thereof. 20. Licensee agrees to furnish and keep in force or arrange to have furnished and keep in force insurance of all kinds and amounts specified below during the period of operation on Licensor's Premises. Licensee shall, with respect to the operations which it performs upon, beneath or adjacent to Licensor's right of way and/or track, furnish or arrange to have furnished (i) regular Contractors' Public Liability Insurance with limits of not less than Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) for all liability arising out of bodily injuries to or death of one person and, subject to that limit for each person, One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for all liability arising out of bodily injuries to or death of two or more persons in one accident or occurrence; and (ii) regular Contractors' Property Damage Liability Insurance with limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for each occurrence for all liability arising out of damage to or loss or destruction of property. Licensee and all its contractors and subcontractors shall be named insureds either in a single policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this Section or in separate policies maintained during such periods as such contractors and/or subcontractors shall perform any work hereunder. The policy or policies insuring Licensee shall insure Licensee's contractual liability in favor of Licensor contained in Section 8 of this License. - 7 - 1529V 21. Licensee agrees to furnish or arrange to have furnished to Licensor certificates reflecting the insurance coverage or certified copy of insurance policy, if requested by Licensor, as required by Section 20 hereof. Certificates reflecting the coverage required by Section 20 shall unqualifiedly require thirty (30) days' notice to Licensor of cancellation or modification of the insurance referred to in such certificates. 22. Licensee shall not be permitted to exercise the license and permission granted hereunder until notified by Licensor that insurance furnished pursuant to Section 20 hereof is satisfactory. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this License has been duly executed, in duplicate, by the parties hereto as of the day and year first above written. THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY By rts Manager of Contracts (Licensor) MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORP. By Its (Licensee) - 8 - 1529V/2114/5 MEMORANDUM AUGUST 3, 1989 TO: FILE FROM: Christer Westman RE: RECON LETTER DECEMBER 19, 1988 Based upon the information in the Recon letter and the plans provided by the Marlborough Development Company indicating the location and extent of the proposed grading, the indicated population of salt grass will not be adversely effected. This information and grading plans have been forwarded to the Coastal Commission staff with the application for a Coastal Permit to allow grading within the AT&SF right-of-way to be heard on August 10, 1989. Based on a concurring determination of insignificant adverse environmental impact, Coastal Commission staff has recommended approval of the Coastal Permit. CW:kd Recon.mem August 3, 1989 City of Carlsbad Michael G. Howes Associate Planner ,,^;>i:o Planning Department • 1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Re: Declaration of Annexation for Windsong Cove Dear Mr. Howes: Would you please furnish me with a copy of the Declaration of Annexation that is referred to by Mr. Richard C. Fugate in his letter of November 6, 1985- re: Lot # 5 of Carlsbad Tract 77-22. I have checked this number and also Tract 7^-22. Enclosed please find a copy of Mr. Richard Pugates letter with a description of the information re- quested by me. Thank you for your help in this matter. I am, Jam$s E. Hasburgh (Homeowner) Jj-Oll Canario Drive (Unit E) Windsong Cove-The Palms Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Phone ^3^-6^3^ Please call if further information is required. I am a concerned homeowner adjacent to the proposed development of Lot 5. enc. copy of letter from SSB SEARS 701 ,Vo/rn 5fana Boulevard Gientiate. Cjlifcrma 91203-1213 Tgiepnor.e ;313) 956-'800 VIA AIR EXPRESS November 6, 1985 Mr. Michael G. Howes Associate Planner Planning Department 1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Windsong Cove Condominiums Dear Mr. Howes: Enclosed herewith, please find a copy of the revised "Third Declaration of Annexation for Windsong Cove" which we discussed yesterday (the "Declaration of Annexation"). The Declaration of Annexation, as revised, contains the Coastal Commission requirements in Section V and the new requirements of the City of Carlsbad in Section VI. Further, this will confirm our conversation that, in the event that Lot 5 of Carlsbad Tract 77-22 in not annexed into the - 71-- existing Windsong Cove Condominium Association (i.e. , if Sears Savings Bank or a new buyer of Lot 5 choses to create a separate condominium development) , the provisions of Sections V and VI of the Annexation Agreement could be incorporated verbatim into a new set of CC&Rs and thereby satisfy the requirements of the City of Carlsbad pertaining to Lot 5 CC&Rs. You did mention that, in such event, since access to Lot 5 is by roads accross Lots 2 and 3 and Lot 4, the Lot 5 Association might have to enter into a cost-sharing agreement with the Windsong Cove Condominium Association whereby the Lot 5 Association agrees to pay for a portion of the maintenance and repair on the access roads situated on Lots 2 and 3, and Lot 4. Sears Savings Bank would have^no objection to such a cost-sharing agreement. We thank you very much for your courtesy with" respect to the above'. Sincerely, C- <• f~ts<:a^C>- Richard C. Fugate ' Vice President and Senior Counsel RCF:ocs Cityof Carlsbad July 11, 1989 Kim Post CMB 5966 La Place Court, Suite 170 Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: Dear Kim: LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR WINDSONG SHORES The landscape plans have been reviewed and comments have been written on the prints. Please forward the plans to the landscape architect for revisions. Once revisions have been made the plans should be resubmitted to Larry Black in care of the Planning Department for a second review. Please include the original check set with your second submittal. If you should have any questions, please contact me at 438-1161. Sincerely, CHRISTER WESTMAN Associate Planner CW:af c: Michael Holzmiller Mike Howes David Hauser Scott Evans 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-'J8b9 • (619) 138-1 161 City of Garlsbad Planning Department June 29, 1989 Leonard Bedolla Marl borough Development Corporation 28751 Rancho California Road #208 Rancho California, California 92390 SUBJECT: WINDSONG SHORES CT 83-4 Dear Leonard: Engineering and Planning staff have reviewed the submittals for Windsong Shores and have determined that prior to issuance of building permits the following items must be completed: Planning vXl. An Environmental Impact Assessment Form Part I must be submitted for environmental determinations for the "offsite" grading. vx' 2. Provide a copy of the construction access agreement with the AT & SF Railroad for the City file. i^3. Landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved which will include the location of public trails. ^4. Receive all necessary approvals from the Coastal Commission. 5. A sign program shall be submitted for review and approval. 6. Provide a sight-line study indicating screening for roof mounted equipment. 7. Provide a listing of exterior elevation materials and colors and reference location on the appropriate sheets. Engineering S 1. Submit grading plans for "onsite" and "offsite" work. v 2. Submit a haul route and right-of-way permit application for access to Chinquapin Avenue. ^ 3. Provide a location map of your export site. 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161 Leonard Bedolla June 29, 1989 Page 2 4. Submit a phasing and clean-up plan. (Restoration of haul route) kSubmit an improvement plan for construction access at Chinquapin Avenue. 6. Provide easements and improvement plans for the fire hydrant system and water lines. 7. Submit "as builts" for public sewer, water and storm drain. 8. Revise the garage plan (see attached check print and return it with the next submittal). \/§. Comply with all conditions of approval per Resolution No. 2186. If you should have any questions, please contact Scott Evans of the Engineering Department or me at 438-1161. Sincerely, CHRISTER WESTMAN Associate Planner CW:af Attachment c: Dave Mauser Scott Evans Mike Howes Carter Darnell \1 A R i 0 1.1 H L a H 1,L „• P VI 6 N T t O *» P II H A 'ION June 22, 1989 Mr. Marty Orenyak Director of Community Development City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA., 92009-4859 RE: Windsong Shores C.T. 83-4 Dear Marty: At our meeting of June 12, 1989, we discussed several pending issues regarding Windsong Shores. This letter is to serve as my understanding of these issues and the direction Marlborough is taking to resolve them. 1. There was uncertainty whether the final site plan was in substantial conformance with the Cities approved site plan. For your information, on June 7, 1989, we met with Mike Howes and Christer Westman and presented them with a copy of the final site plan signed by the Coastal Commission. They accepted the exhibit as the official final site plan and as being in substantial conformance to the City's original approvals. 2. You suggested certain public relation approaches with the neighborhood. We have since drafted and sent a letter to the entire neighborhood, as delivered to your office on June 14/ 1989, and we are currently preparing a press release for the Blade-Tribune and Carlsbad Journal to address the construction access. 3. Loyd Hubbs mentioned that several of the homeowners indicated a grading plan should be required. A grading plan was entered with the Building Package Submittal on January 31, 1989. I indicated that after considerable investigation and conversations with the Planning, Engineering and Building Departments, it was concluded that a grading permit for this project was not required due to the fact that all excavation was within the shadow of the Building. 4. I further indicated to Mr. Hubbs that Marlborough would comply with any reasonable request by the Engineering Department for a grading permit, and was assured by Mr. Hubbs that our job mobilization start date would not suffer because of this late request for a grading permit, as a grading plan was entered by specific direction from Engineering with the Building Package Submittal January 31, 1989. SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION • 28751 RAMCrlO CALIFORNIA 90 =~<>8 • *ANCHO CALIFORNIA • CALIFORNIA 92390 • 714 676J292 Mr. Marty Orenyak Page 2 June 22, 1989 The above is presented as a record of our discussions and the follow up Marlborough has since accomplished. Should there be any disagreement or inconsistency, please contact me promptly to avoid future misunderstandings. Sincerely, "" •• '**—3;^ Leonard Bedolla cc: Mike Holzmiller, Planning Director, Loyd Hubbs, City Engineer, Walter Brown, Engineering Dept., David Hauser, Engineering Dept., Christer j Westman, Planning Dept., Kim Post, Crosby, Mead and Benton, Paula Madson, Lightfoot Planning Group, Richard Niec, Marlborough Development SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION • T875' RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD -208 * RANCHO CALIFORNIA • CALIFORNIA 92390 • 714 676-4292 Crosby Mead Benton & Associates Planners • Engineers • Surveyors 5966 La Place Court. Suite l 7O Carlsbad. California 92OO8 (619) 438-1 2 10 \v June 14, 1989 \ City of Carlsbad Job No. 300-3 Community Development Dept. File No. 3 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 ATTN: Marty Orenyak, Director of Community Development RE: Windsong Shores, C.T. 83-4 Dear Marty: On behalf of Marlborough Development Corporation, we are provid- ing you with the enclosed update information concerning the Windsong Shores project. The letter to the neighborhood should go in the mail today, so we have enclosed an advance copy to keep you informed. The chronologies are not being sent to the neighborhood, but are being enclosed as reference information concerning milestone events of this project. Marlborough wants to begin construction of this project just as soon as the necessary approvals and permits can be obtained. We would appreciate any assistance we can get or feedback you deem helpful toward that end. Very Truly Yours, CROSBY MEAD BENTON & ASSOCIATES Kim L. Post, P.E. Vice President KLP:ltg cc w/ enclosures: Mayor Bud Lewis, City of Carlsbad Mayor Pro Tern Ann Kulchin, City of Carlsbad Ray Patchett, City Manager, City of Carlsbad Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, City of Carlsbad Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, City of Carlsbad Rick Niec, Vice President, Marlborough Development Corp Orange County Office: l 82O E. Deere Avenue. Suite I 2O. Santa Ana. California 927O5 / (7 14) 261-956O Los Angeles County Office: 6345 Balboa Boulevard, Suite 14O, Encino, California 91 3 l 6 / (8 l 8) 343-5384 Riverside County Office: 29377 Rancho California RcL Suite l O2. Rancho California. California 9239O / (714) 676-6O61 IHE LIGH1FOOI PLANNING June 13f 1989 GROUP Mr. Tom Lickterman Manager of Operations North County Transit District 311 South Tremont Oceanside, CA 92054 RE: Windsong Shores Dear Mr. Lickterman: This letter is to serve as a summary of our previous telephone conversations regarding the need for bus stop facilities for the Windsong Shores project in Carlsbad. It is my understanding that the North County Transit District is not interested in placing a bus stop on Chinquapin Avenue or Harbor Drive. You indicated that the existing bus stops on Jefferson and Tamarack will serve the Windsong Shores neighborhood, however, improvements to these bus stops would be appreciated. If you are in concurrence with the information contained herein, please sign below and return a copy of this letter to me. Should you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Acknowledged By: Paula B. Madson Associate. Project Planner Tom Lickterman Date Manager of Operations North County Transit District PBM/sc cc: Christer Westman, City of Carlsbad Leonard Bedolla, Marlborough Development Corp. 173.07/38 702 FOURTH STREET OCEANSIDE. CA 92054 (619| 722-1924 FAX (619)433-7511 ZENITH AERIAL Photo Date- 5-2-88 SCALE: i"= so1 TIE lIGHHOOl PUNNINGGROUP E9,600 N8.4OO N8.20O E9.800 DISTRIBUTION OF DISTICHLIS SPICATA ON AT. & S.F. RR. R.O.W.(Recon ^R-1926) 173.07 7/24/28 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governori: CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CAN D::GO COAST DISTRICT , 1333 CAMINO Oil RIO SOU1H. SUIU 125 SAN DIEGO. CA 92108-3520 (619) 297-9740 NOTICE OF PROPOSED PERMIT AMENDMENT / TO: All Interested Parties FROM: Peter Douglas, Executive Director DATE: June 12, 1989 ^ SUBJECT: Permit No. 6-83-613 granted to Hunt Partnership for demolition of two residences and construction of 140 condominium units at southerly terminus of Harbor Drive between 1-5 and the AT&SF Railway right-of-way. > The Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission has reviewed a proposed amendment to the above referenced permit, which would result in the following change(s): Construct an access ramp between the AT&SF right-of-way and the most southerly portion of the construction site. Including erosion control measures and hydro- seeding to stabilize the fill slopes created to construct the ramp. This amendment is considered to be IMMATERIAL and the permit will be modified accordingly if no written objections are received within ten working days of the date of this notice. This amendment has been considered "immaterial11 for the following reason(s): The proposed access ramp will be located in an area that is already disturbed and no additional on-site disturbance will occur. The proposed erosion control measures including sandbag checkdams and erosion control planting will prevent any potential erosion on the proposed ramp from impacting the resources of the nearby lagoon. . If you have any questions about the proposal or wish to register an objection, please contact Paul Webb at the District Commission office. (1683N) HLJNU IBOOKWNO IAND TTTLI BY: COM? ANT according Requcitvd By and Rtcordcd Rttutn Tot HECRT, NORuty 4 Mr. A. John Hecht •17 Financial Squirt tOO 'ft* Street CalifornU >2101 680 2-17JS37 ttooo FRF |_HG ' DCCLAAATICM Of KUTUCTXOlK FOR COV1 S^*?'?:^***''*'*^ number of ' Condominium *** portion of ^It- Lot 5 ' ^ 5 portion of Lot 5 There is no guarantee that all phases will be, constructed or completed. The Owners of s Condominium in each phase will receive title to a Living Unit plus an undivided fractional interest as tenant in co«u*on to the Common Area (as hereinafter defined) located within that phase. In addition, each Owner of * Corwiomiiiium will receive the exclusive right to use and occupancy of • portion of the Common Area within that phase designated as Exclusive Use Areas, all as shown on the Condominium Plan (as hereinafter defined) covering that phase. Jsch Owner ol a Condo- minium will also receive an easement Cor ingress, egress and recreational use over portions of the Common Area of the other phase. If all phases are completed as planned, there will be a total of 1^46 Condominiums in the Condominium project. Each Condominium shall have appurtenant to it s membership in WINDSOHO COVI CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION. • California nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation ('Co'rporat Ion*), which will be the management body for the condominium project. B. Before selling or conveying any interests in the •iniun Property, Declarant desires to subject the Condominium »rop«rty in accordance with a co«mon plan to certain covenants, conditions and restriction* for the benefit of Declarant and any •rvd all present and future owners of the Real Property {defined below). . r, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby certifies and declares and does hereby establish the following general plan for the protec- tion and benefit of all of the Real Property, and has fixed and does hereby fix the following protective covenants, conditions and restrictions upon each end every ownership interest in the Real Property, und?r which said covenants, conditions and restrictions each ownership interest in the Real property shall be hereafter held, used, occupied, leased, sold, encumbered, con- veyed and/or transferred. Each and all of said covenants, con- ditions and restrictions are for the purpose of protecting the value and desirability of and shall inure to the benefit of all of the *e«l property and shall run with and be binding upon and ••*• BOROUGH rjEVELQPMEVI COHPtlRATIU June 12, 1989 Dear Neighbor: As a builder/developer of neighborhoods and communities throughout Southern California and Arizona/ we are sensitive to the concerns and conveniences of our neighbors. We know that many of the residents in the neighborhood have had questions and concerns regarding Marlborough Development's Windsong Shores project. The intent of this letter is to hopefully answer your questions and alleviate your concerns. Our legal access through Windsong Cove and The Palms condominiums has been verified and insured by Continental Land Title Company. But we have worked hard to avoid bringing construction traffic through these areas/ or along Harbor Drive, once that neighborhood concern was brought up last summer. At considerable time and expense we have been negotiating with AT&SF Railroad since then, and they have recently agreed to allow us to use the existing road in their right-of-way as a temporary construction access route. Review of this route by the City and Coastal Commission is in progress. The enclosed map shows the overall route we will use for construction access to our site. We have continued to process our grading and building plans through the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Building Departments, and anticipate approval to begin our grading and construction program this summer. We are also setting up meetings with neighborhood representatives and homeowners' associations to discuss our plans in greater detail. Should you have any further questions or comments/ please direct them to us through your representatives so all interests can be addressed at these meetings. We have and will make every effort to keep any neighborhood inconvenience to a minimum. We sincerely want to be good neighbors and appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely/ MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION A. Niec 'President/Division Manager RAN/sk Enclosure SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION • 28751 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD.. #208 • RANCHO CALIFORNIA. CA 92390 • (714) 675-1292 FAX (714) 676-9550 \ t. Exhibit I WINDSONG SHORES CHRONOLOGY September 28, 1983 Planning Commission recommends approval of Tentative Map CT83-4 for 140 du and Condominium Permit CP-227 with Resolution 2186 (see Attachment A). November 1, 1983 December 13, 1983 September 1985 City Council approves CT-83-4 & CP-227 with Resolution 7384 (see Attachment B). Coastal Commission Intent to Issue Permit No. 6-83-613 issued with certain conditions (see Attachment C). Tentative Map and Condominium Permit extension requested in the event the final map was not approved prior to the expiration date. October 1985 City writes proposed additional conditions for time extension (see Attachment D) . Request never goes to hearing. December 1985 Coastal's Intent to Issue Permit extended for one year. January 28, 1986 Final Map 11484 accepted by the City Council and recorded thereafter. September 1986 Construction of Harbor Drive improvements begins. November 23, 1986 Site plan revised to reconfigure buildings per Coastal conditions. Resulted in a reduction of units from 140 to 130. Reviewed and approved by Coastal Commission (see Attachment E). December 9, 1986 Coastal Commission recorded IOD from Sears Savings Bank for a 50-foot wide public access easement from Harbor Drive to bluff top and a 10-ft. wide lateral strip of land along the entire bluff top (see Attachment F). December 10, 1986 Landscape Plans reviewed and approved by Coastal Commission (see Attachment G) December 11, 1986 Coastal Permit issued and accompanied by letter from Coastal staff regarding pending conditional requirements (see Attachment H). June 1988 Marlborough Development Corporation purchases property Exhibit II May 26, 1988 June 1988 July 1988 July 25, 1988 September 1988 January 1989 April 1989 May 2, 1989 May 19, 1989 May 23, 1989 CURRENT CHRONOLOGY Neighborhood Meeting held regarding project and alternative access routes. Marlborough purchases property. Building and grading plans submitted for plan check. Meeting with Mayor, Mayor Pro Tern, Senior City staff, and Harbor Drive Representatives. Marlborough contacts AT&SF Railroad regarding temporary access. Building plans resubmitted for second plan check, included foundation, grading and offsite improvement plans. Building plan resubmitted for third plan check. Landscape and irrigation plan submitted for plan check. Foundation, grading and improvement plans resubmitted for a separate plan check at City's request. Application for amendment to Coastal Permit submitted for an interim construction access road.