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.