Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 98-06; Poinsettia Shores - PA C; Tentative Map (CT) (6)Hofman Planning Associates Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis February 15, 2001 Anne Hysong Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: Poinsettia Shores MP -• Santalina; Noise Walls Dear Anne: Thank you completing your review of the proposed changes to the noise mitigation walls identified in my letters dated February 1 and February 14, 2001. This letter serves to document said review and the Planning Department's decision regarding the requested changes. Pursuant to our conversation yesterday, the Planning Department has approved the requested changes to the noise mitigation walls located on Lot 1 and on Lot 27. Lot 1 - Increase the height of the wall from the approved top of wall elevation of 118 feet up to 119.5 feet. Lot 27 - Change the rear Tubular Steel View Fence to a Glass View Fence between the midpoint of Lot 27 and the lot line separating Lot 27 from Lot 28. This is an extension of the required noise mitigation wall approved for Lot 28. Regarding the request to extend the Glass View Fencing down the slope at the rear of Lot 27, the Planning Department denies the request for an administrative change to the fencing plan for this section of fencing. Since walls and fencing were one of the primary issues raised by the adjacent off- site property owners during the public hearing process for Gantalina and there were conditions placed on this project related to the design of the walls and fencing, it is the Planning Department's position that this requested change would require an amendment to the Site Development Plan. This amendment would also require the approval of the Planning Commission at a public hearing. Provided below is a signature line that affirms the above statements. If the above is correct, please sign and return a copy to my office for our records. Thanks again for your assistance. Anne Hysong, Planning Devilment Date Sincerely, Stan Weiler 5900 Pasteur Court ° Suite 150 • Carlsbad ° CA 92008 • (760)438-1465 ° Fax: (760)438-2443 Hofmon Planning Associates Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis February 12,2001 Anne Hysong Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RECEIVED FEB 11 2001 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT. SUBJECT: Poinsettia Shores - Planning Area C (Santalina); Wall Issues - Revised Information Dear Anne: Considering our conversation today, this letter provides you with some additional information regarding the requested changes to the walls within the Santalina project. Traffic Volume Changes After reviewing the noise analysis prepared in February 1998 and comparing it to the latest noise analysis prepared in February 2000,1 found that the primary assumptions that changed were the future traffic volumes on 1-5 and the percentage of medium and heavy truck traffic on 1-5. The original noise analysis assumed future daily traffic volume on 1-5 to be 215,600 based on a traffic analysis prepared by P&D Technologies in April 1991. The updated noise analysis assumes a future daily volume of 235,000 based on information received from CALTRANS (San Diego), February 7, 2000. The percentage of truck traffic on 1-5 in the original noise analysis stated that there would be 3.26% medium trucks and 3.73% heavy trucks. This information was obtained from the Caltrans Highway Traffic Manual (1988). The updated noise analysis assumes 3.9% medium trucks and 4.0% heavy trucks on 1-5 according to the Caltrans Highway Traffic Manual (1997). Sound Wall - Lot 1; Increase in Height The previous letter that I submitted to you on February 1 stated that the noise barrier along 1-5 was originally approved at six feet in height. Upon review of the original noise analysis (attached) and the approved tentative map, the barrier was approved at seven feet with six feet of exposed wall. The top of wall elevation was approved at 118 feet and the revised noise analysis states that the elevation of the wall needs to be 119.5 feet. The noise barrier at Lot 1 can be accommodated by increasing the wall height by 1.5 feet. To mitigate against the aesthetic impacts, Greystone Homes would plant appropriate landscaping that would cover the wall. 5900 Pasteur Court • Suite 150 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (760)438-1465 •> Fax: (760)438-2443 Sound Wall - Lot 27; Increase in Length Again, I found that the noise barrier was originally approved as a seven foot barrier with six feet exposed along the entire rear property line of Lot 28. This is different from what I described in my letter to you on February 1. The revised noise analysis states that a six foot noise barrier along the southern portion of the project must be extended to the halfway point on the rear property line of Lot 27. The difference between the approved noise analysis and the revised analysis is that the height of the noise barrier decreases, but the length increases. This change may be the result of pad elevation < changes as well as increase in traffic volumes. The base-of-wall elevation used in the original noise analysis was 126.7 and the base-of-wall elevation in the revised analysis is 124.5. With regard to the adjacent property owner's concerns, I recall that some of the adjacent property owners stated during the public hearings that they did not like solid walls. They would prefer that the any fences or walls would allow for views. Although these property owners would prefer that there were no solid barriers, I believe that they understood that the city has ordinances requiring mitigation for noise impacts. In order to meet those requirements, these property owners accepted the view wall concept. I do not believe that going back to the adjacent property owners for their acceptance of a view wall for noise mitigation purposes will accomplish anything. The noise analysis states that the noise barrier must be extended,.therefore, the noise barrier must be extended. The opinion of the adjacent property owners is inconsequential. Additionally, the April 13, 1999, City Council minutes stated that "The developer shall consult with surrounding homeowners to determine the most aesthetically pleasing design for walls/fences not required to mitigate noise that are located along the project's Navigator Circle frontage. " It seems to me that it is the Planning Department's role to make this decision. Lot 27 - Greystone Homes is proposing to extend the view wall as required by the noise analysis. There is no additional information regarding the request to extend the view wall down the slope, I hope this additional information is helpful. Sincerely, Stan Weiler cc. Matt Howe enclosures Hofman Planning Associates Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis February 1,2001 \ Anne Hysong Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: Poinsettia Shores - Planning Area C (Santalina); Wall Issues Dear Anne: As requested, this letter is prepared to provide you with background information regarding changes to various walls within Planning Area C (Santalina) of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. Greystone Homes is asking for concurrence with the requested changes. Sound Wall - Lot 1; Increase in Height The original noise analysis for the Santalina project stated that in order to mitigate noise impacts from 1-5 a noise barrier of six feet in height along 1-5 would be adequate. Based on an updated noise analysis by the same consultant (Mestre/Greve), the noise barrier adjacent to Lot 1 needs to. be nine feet. The increase in the height of the noise barrier is due to updated assumptions used in the noise analysis to account for an increase in traffic on 1-5. The noise barrier at Lot 1 can be accommodated by increasing the wall height by three feet. To mitigate against the aesthetic impacts, Greystone Homes would plant appropriate landscaping that would cover the wall. Sound Wall - Lot 27; Increase in Length The revised noise analysis states that a six foot noise barrier along the southern portion of the project must be extended to the halfway point on the rear property line of Lot 27. The noise barrier was originally required as six foot view wall at the top of slope along the entire rear property line of Lot 28. The wall was to terminate at the property line between Lot 27 and Lot 28. The revised noise analysis states that the noise barrier must extend to the halfway point of the rear property line for Lot 27. Lot 27 - Greystone Homes is proposing to extend the view wall as required by the noise analysis. 5900 Pasteur Court • Suite 150 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (760)438-1465 • Fax: (760)438-2443 Also, one of the property owners on Lot 27 requested to have the view wall continue half way down the slope, replacing the tubular steel fencing that is currently in place. This request is to increase the property owner's view from his rear yard. Lot 27 - If acceptable to the City, Greystone Homes would accommodate the request of the property owner. Enclosed are portions of the noise analysis prepared by Mestre Greve Associates identifying the changes to the noise barriers. Also enclosed is an exhibit identifying the location of the requested wall changes on Lot 27. Please review the information provided and notify me regarding your determination of the requested changes. Sincerely, Stan Weiler cc. Matt Howe enclosures BR Bruner&Rosi Management, Inc. Serving the Homeowner Association Industry 1930 So. Coast Hwy. Suite 110, Oceanside, CA 92054-6466 Rosalena Owners Association October 17, 2000 RECEIVED NOV22200Q ENGINEERING City Council DEPARTMENT City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Council Members: I am writing at the direction of the Rosaiena Owners Association Board of Directors. The Rosalena Community is made up of 75 homeowners located on Navigator Circle, a private street, in Southwest Carlsbad. At Windrose and Navigator Circle, Greystone Homes is building a new development called Santalina. As members of our community watch the new homes going in, they have expressed concern regarding the impact the additional traffic will have on the area communities, including Santalina. The concern is the access into Santalina from Navigator Circle. Santalina is a gated community with two entrances, the main entrance on Windrose and the second on Navigator Ckcle. The latter is the entrance that causes concern. This gated entrance onto Navigator Ckcle is located just across the street from the only access to the Vistamar Community, and onto the main access to Rosalena, which is a busy narrow two-way street with parking on both sides. With the addition of the traffic from the Santalina Community it will become a very dangerous street. This will be compounded when two or three vehicles are trying to enter the Santalina gate causing vehicles to backup into the street. Member of the Community met with representatives of the City and Greystone Homes to address the . Communities concerns. At that time, the discussion was to eliminate the gate or make it an emergency gate only. It was determined that neither of these solutions was practical. In an effort to resolve their concerns, members of Rosalena continued to search for a solution that will accommodate everyone. They have found an excellent compromise. Driving through the communities in San Pacifica, all of the second gates are exit only gates. If the Santalina gate onto Navigator Circle was made an exit only gate and a right turns only exit, it would make the street considerably safer. In closing, the Rosalena Community request that the City consider making the Santalina Community gate at Navigator Ckcle be an exit only gate and a right turn only. We understand the developer does not object to this solution. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. The Board of Dkectoi cc: Citv of Carlsbad •:\ Traffic Department Planning Department (858) 481-7823 - Del Mar (619) 670-7508 - El Cajon (760) 431-0148 - Escondido (760) 433-8868 - North County * (760) 433-0507 - Fax City of Carlsbad ' ^ V^V^BiH^^Vi^^^^^V*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Planning Department October 25, 1999 Major Michael L. Bennett 662 Compass Ct. Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: CT 98-06 - POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA C Dear Mr. Bennett: On April 13, 1999, the City Council approved a Planning Commission recommendation for approval of a development proposal for Planning Area C within the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. At both the Commission and Council hearing there was testimony requesting that the secondary access for Planning Area C be gated and available only as an emergency access. Both the Commission and the Council also heard testimony that without the access the project did not comply with the City's cul-de-sac policy. In other words, there would be too many units for a safe single access. In order to address the neighborhood concerns, the Council approved the project with a requirement that the subject secondary access be for residents only, thereby limiting the amount of potential traffic using it. The Planning Commission on October 20, 1999 approved an amendment to extend the grading period for Planning Area C to November 15th. The secondary access was not a matter before them and so they could not take action on the issue. In order to convert the secondary access to an emergency access only would require an amendment to the original conditions of approval. Regarding your request for the City to condition the developer to provide a wall and/or landscape screening' on the west side of Navigator Circle, this also would require an amendment to the original approval. However, this would be more complicated because it would also require the developer to acquire off-site rights to construct either or both. Please note that the existing neighborhoods in the master plan have expressed concerns about additional walls. As you have suggested in your October 23, 1999 letter to Mr. Howe from Greystone Homes, an informal landscape solution worked out between you and Greystone Homes may be amenable to all parties. Please note, however, that if the proposed landscaping alters the approved landscape plans for your Planning Area (B-2), your HOA will need to submit a construction change to the City for approval. Please contact me if you have additional questions or concerns or if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Anne Hysong, Associate Planner AH:eh Gary Wayne File 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 - (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-O894 Maj Michael L. Bennett 662 Compass Ct. Carlsbad Ca. 92009 PLANNING DEPARTMENTv City OfOctober 23,1999 Matthew J. Howe Greystone Homes, Inc. / Lennar Homes 5780 Fleet Street Suite 300 Carlsbad, Ca 92008 Sir I appreciate your willingness to take the time Wednesday evening to discuss a landscaping solution to the problems created by the planned intersection of Navigator Circle and Neptune Circle with the development of Poinsettia Shores Area C. As we have discussed, the intersection will create additional automobile noise and will cause automobile headlights to shine into the yards and homes of the existing Vistamar residents along Navigator Circle. Anne Hysong, representing the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, recommended that I work with your firm to find a solution to the problems that this new construction will generate. A commitment from Greystone to take responsibility for creating this new problem in our neighborhood will certainly generate good will with respect to the project. I know that Greystone has identified a possible need to grade on weekends in order to stay within the November 15th grading deadline; as the closest residents to the site, we would be more likely to communicate positively with the City Engineer, Planning Commission, and City Council about grading on Saturdays if we had an agreement with you that addresses our other concerns. The adverse affects on our quality of life and the value of our homes that this project is going to create are issues that will not go away. It would seem reasonable to address them early, with a low cost landscaping solution, rather than have the issue continue to drag on. Respectfully, _ ^___ Michael L. Benne Major, United States Marine Corps Cc: Mayor Lewis Carlsbad City Council Carlsbad Planning Commission Jean Moore Warrick 7521 Navigator Circle Carlsbad, CA 920O9 April 21, 1999 Ms. Anne Hysong City of Carlsbad Planning Department 205 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 Dear Ms. Hysong: POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA C My husband and I attended the meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on April 13 at which time the subject project was discussed. As a homeowner in Rosalena, living directly across from the proposed project, I was pleased with the amount of time the Council members devoted to the discussion. I am sure you realize we are not happy with having an access and egress gate on our private street into the new project. But we understand the need for two gates into a development as large as this one will be. I am writing about the still-open subject of the walls around the perimeter of the project, facing the street. I was delighted that the Council members referred this matter back to the Planning Department, with the request that the developer and the Rosalena Home Owners' Association confer, leading to a solution that will be satisfactory to all parties. The Greystone representative at the meeting indicated that a low wall with either a tubular metal fence or some sort of plexiglass on the upper half would be acceptable to his firm. I would like to cast a vote for tubular metal fencing on top of low walls for the following reasons: • It would be consistent with homes of nearby neighbors on Navigator Circle. Rosalena is not a walled community. Our homes are open to the street. Between and behind our houses, there is 56" high tubular metal fencing. Where adjacent lots are at different elevations and require retaining walls, this fence is placed on top of those walls. Vista Mar, a community of 16 cluster homes at the corner of our street and Windrose Circle, directly across from the proposed project, has low slump stone walls, with metal tubular fencing on the upper half, facing the street. The walls are very attractive and promote an open and friendly feeling as you pass bv the houses. Between houses is tubular metal fencing, of the same type as between Rosalena's homes. Ms. Anne Hysong Page 2. April 21, 1999 • The new homes in the Santander and San Sebastian developments have high slump stone walls between the houses and the pavements. As you drive on Avenida Encinas and Windrose Circle, you have the feeling that you are in a walled city. What used to be a beautiful open view to the ocean, as you drove around the curve on Avenida Encinas after you passed Ralph's shopping center, is gone and all one can see are walls, walls, walls. Half walls, with tubular metal fencing on the top, would have opened up the area significantly. I certainly hope that the Planning Department will think long and hard before it permits future developers to use miles and miles of such walls as are in our neighborhood and now being built on Palomar Airport Road by the Rancho Carillo developer. • The use of plexiglass or some similar material on the upper part of the walls would certainly strike a discordant note in our community. There are no such walls near us. I have observed this glass in other developments, and as time goes by, it becomes scarred, is often dirty, and lowers significantly the attractiveness of the homes. Many homeowners have a considerable part of our assets invested in our homes. It is critical for us to try to keep the value of these homes as high as possible. But beyond that, the pleasure we get living in houses that we can be proud of and that are attractive, open and conducive to promoting friendships with our neighbors is very important to our well being. Carlsbad is a delightful city in which to live. Let's keep it open and friendly. Sincerely yours, Jean Moore Warrick Copies to: City Councilpersons: Rosalena HOA Board of Directors Mayor Bud Lewis Ramona Finnila Julie Nygaard Matt Hall Ann Kulchin ; JR-13-1999 10=48 CITY OF CPRLSBflD AGENDA ITEM*, a 760 720 9461 P.02/02 Mayor CltyCoaKO City Counsel, City Attorney Ctyderit 4/5/99 PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE POINSETTIA SHORE AREA C PAREL * 36-140-30 to be developed. THE DEVLOPERS OF THIS MASTER PIAN (joko) have gotten away with CRIMINAL ACTS OF FRAUD AND MISREP, THROUGH OUT THIS *****DEVELOPMENT. WHY ARE NONE OF THE COUNSIL HEARING OUR PLEAS? COME TO THE MASTER ASSOC. MEETINGS AND SEE THE ANGRY NOT ONLY ARE THEY SELLING COMMON AREA IN THE AIR AND BELOW THE GROUND, PEOPLE HAVE BEEN MISLEAD. WHEN WILL IT STOP? NOW THEY OPENED A POOL THAT DOES NOT HAVE HEAT OR THE HOT TUB, BUT ONLY ONE WORKING TOILET. THEY HAVE NO AREAS FOR CHILDREN, YET SELL FOURj_FIVE BEDROOM HOMES. AREA C IS USED FOR NESTING FOR MANY DIFFERENT AND RARE BIRDS. IT WILL ALSO BE THE ONLY OPEN SPACE LEFTJ I t PLEASE_IPLEA5E. RECONSIDER LET- AS THEY PUT (FINDING A TRICKY WAY IN SELLIN& US AIR) cc/ mayor city council memberscoast.al comm. dept of real estate TOTflL P.02 CREYSTONE HOMES, INC. / LENNAR HOMES CREYSTONE HOMES I <Slennof ^••H Homes, since 1954 5973 Avenida Encinas Suite 101 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Office 760-804-7700 Fax 760-804-7716 February 18, 1999 Anne Hysong City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: Poinsettia Shores Master Plan - Recreation Center Dear Anne: At your request, I have prepared this letter to address the issue regarding the opening of the San Pacifico Recreation Center and the trail segment between Planning Areas A-2 and A-3 within the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. These issues surfaced long before Planning Area C was heard by the Planning Commission on January 17, 1999, but they were raised again at that forum by a few of the neighbors within Planning Area B-2. Unfortunately for Greystone Homes, the public hearing process for Planning Area C is being used as a platform for disgruntled homeowners within Planning Area B-2 to voice their grievances regarding issues that they have with the developer of their homes. Although, Greystone Homes certainly has sympathy for those property owners, we have not created nor have we been a party to the problems that they have indicated. With regards to the opening of the recreation center, Greystone Homes does not have any substantial influence or leverage to hasten the opening of the recreation center. According to John Laing Homes (formerly Watt Homes and the builder of the recreation center), the recreation center will obtain all "sign-offs" from the city and the county health department this week. We expect to open the recreation center in mid to late March. In accordance with condition 14 of Planning Commission Resolution 3747 approving the site development plan for the recreation center, completion of the recreation center shall be achieved within two years after the issuance of the first building permit for a non- model dwelling unit within the master plan. The first building within the master plan was issued on August 1, 1997 for a dwelling unit within Planning Area B-2. Therefore, by August 1, 1999 the recreation center must be open. Since this date is still several months away and it is anticipated that the recreation center will be open within the next four to six weeks, there is currently no violation of the conditions of approval for the recreation center. Based on the information that I have recently received, I feel that all attempts to provide for a timely opening of the recreation center are being made. With regards to the issue of the trail segment between Planning Areas A-2 and A-3 leading from Windrose Circle to Avenida Encinas, the area where the trail is to be located is currently under construction. Heavy equipment is still moving across this area due to construction in both Planning Areas A-2 and A-3. Greystone Homes cannot open this area for pedestrian use until the trail is constructed and construction in the vicinity has been completed. I personally discussed this issue with one of the neighbors within Planning Area B-2 and indicated to her that Greystone is working as quickly as possible to complete the construction. Condition 22 of planning Commission Resolution 3753 approving the tentative map for Planning Area A-2 requires that this trail segment be constructed and landscaped prior to occupancy of the adjacent residential units in Planning Area A-2. The trail segment within Planning Area A-2 is complete. However, it currently terminates at the boundary of Planning Area A-3 which is currently under construction. This remainder trail segment is shown on the tentative map for Planning Area A-3. Condition 24 of Planning Commission Resolution 3796 approving the tentative map for Planning Area A-3 also requires that the remainder of the trail segment be constructed and landscaped prior to occupancy of the adjacent residential units in Planning Area A-3. Since this area is still under construction, the trail is not available for pedestrian use. I realize that this is an inconvenience for those residents, however, Greystone Homes continues to maintain compliance with the conditions of the tentative map and it is anticipated that the trail segment will be completed and available for pedestrian us within the next two to three months. Greystone Homes has sold many homes within Planning Areas A-l and A-2. We have been diligently disclosing as much information as possible to the homebuyers to ensure that they all have a full understanding of ownership, maintenance responsibilities and the opening of the recreation center and trails. Although some of the current homeowners have called and asked questions regarding these issues, to my knowledge there have not been any complaints to Greystone Homes nor the city. We at Greystone Homes strive to maintain a high level of integrity and product quality. It is our desire to not only meet the needs of our homebuyers, but also those needs of the adjacent neighbors. We have talked to the developers within Planning Area B-l who have assured us that they are diligently working toward the opening of the recreation center. However, Greystone Homes does not have any additional leverage to expedite the opening. We can only continue to be honest with the homebuyers and adjacent neighbors regarding any issues raised and continue to address those issues to the best of our abilities. I think that if you speak with any of the homebuyers and adjacent neighbors, we have been faithful to those people. We do not feel that Planning Area C should be used to solve issues that are outside of our control. I appreciate all of your input during the processing of this project and hope to continue with the dialog that we have enjoyed with you. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, -J\f] j^^h,~ lutfarn Brian Nestoroff U ^ Greystone Homes cc: Mayor Claude A. Lewis Matt Hall, Mayor Pro-tem Ramona Finnila, Council Member Ann Kulchin, Council Member Julianne Nygaard, Council Member Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director Adrienne Landers, Principal Planner ,tLUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON ^-SCRIPPS m> NANCY T. SCULL, PARTNER ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873 DIRECT DIAL NUMBER 619-699-2457 DIRECT FACSIMILE NUMBER 619-645-5398 E-MAIL ADDRESS: NSCULL@AOL.COM SAN DIEGO OFFICE OURFILENO.: 26183-00014 Februarys, 1999 BY HAND-DELIVERY Ms. Anne Hysong Associate Planner City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 Re: Poinsettia Shores Dear Ms. Hysong: I am writing this letter to you at the request of Stan Weiler of Hofman Planning Associates to describe to you the proposed condominium structure which will be utilized by our client, Greystone Homes, for the Poinsettia Shores Planning Area C Project. As you know, Greystone intends to develop a fifty-eight (58) unit duplex condominium project. Under California law, a condominium is comprised of a "separate interest", and an "undivided interest". The separate interest, which is commonly referred to as "air space" actually can consist of an interest in air, or an interest in air and real property. In this case, the separate interest component of this condominium will be comprised of a three-dimensional cube. The lower boundaries of this three-dimensional cube will extend 15-20 feet below ground level elevation. The upper boundary would extend to the heavens above. One side boundary would extend to the air space between the walls of the attached duplex structure, and the other side boundary would extend to the lot line. I have attached diagrams showing the configuration. The undivided interest would consist of the balance of the lot. Each of the two owners would own a one-half undivided interest in the area extending from the lower boundary of the cube to the center of the earth. Each owner will be responsible for maintaining the residence and all the other improvements situated within the owners separate interest. This means that the owners maintain his or her residence, the side yard, rear yard and front yard of either unit. 600 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 2600 • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 • TELEPHONE (619) 236-1414 • FACSIMILE (619) 232-8311 SAN DIEGO • LA JOLLA • NEW YORK • Los ANGELES • SAN FRANCISCO • CHICAGO tM. ^-. ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873 Ms. Anne Hysong February 8, 1999 Page 2 The CC&Rs will provide, however, that if an owner fails to maintain his or her separate interest in accordance with the provisions of the CC&Rs, then the Association could perform that maintenance on behalf of the owner and charge the owner for any costs incurred by the Association. This structure has the advantage of giving owners responsibility for their own home maintenance. I would be happy to answer any questions which you may have regarding the structure. Very truly yours, Nancy T.( of Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP NTS/avt cc: Mr. Stan Weiler Ms. Kristine A. Zortman 600 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 2600 • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 • TELEPHONE (619) 236-1414 • FACSIMILE (619) 232-8311 SAN DIEGO • LA JOLLA • NEW YORK • Los ANGELES • SAN FRANCISCO • CHICAGO POINSETTI*SHORES PLANNING*AREA 'C' TYPICAL OWNERSHIP & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY AREA EXHIBIT -LOT LINE SEE SHT. 2 FOR SECTION LOT LINE PUBLIC UTILITY- EASEMENT LEGEND: CONCEPTUAL BUILDING LINE (TYPICAL) LOT LINE LOT LINE CONDOMINIUM UNIT LINE FENCE LOT LINE 'CURB & CUTTER UNIT OWNER MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY AREA (PRIVATE OWNERSHIP) HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY AREA (ASSOCIATION PROPERTY) NOTE: THIS DRAWING IS INTENDED ONL Y TO BE AN APPROXIMATE VISUAL ILLUSTRATION OF THE TYPICAL OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY AREAS FOR EACH LOT. -* X X X- SHEET 1 OF 2 REVISED 2/12/99 CONSULT J MOO Potteur CourtSoil. 100 CorWxxl. CoBlomio 12006 760-931-7700 Fo»: 7W-UI-8UO Civil Engineering ProcessingSurveying F:\JQBS\9610I9\9619NZ03 2-16-99 10=34=40 an ^OINSETTIA SHORE* PLANNING AREA 'C' TYPICAL OWNERSHIP & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY AREA EXHIBIT ONE LOT (JOINT OWNERSHIP) UNIT 'A' OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE UNIT 'B' OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE t GROUND LEVEL RESPONSIBILITY AREA I RESPONSIBILITY AREA jl^ CONCEPTUAL § ^ CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ^ ^ BUILDING I I \ \ >eeie>eeeieei>iiiliioee>i>eeee«eeeiiiiieeei * It COMMON OWNERSHIP * \ COMMON OWNERSHIP LIMIT EXTENDS TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH v t NOTE: THIS DRAWING IS INTENDED ONL Y TO BE AN APPROXIMATE VISUAL ILLUSTRATION OF THE TYPICAL OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY AREAS FOR EACH LOT. SHEET 2 OF 2 CONSULT** MOD Pottnr Court Soil* 100 CorMxxl. Cofihxnio 92008760-931-7700 Fan: 780-931-8880 Civil Engineering Pfenning ProcessingSurveying FAJDBS\961019\9619NZ03 2-12-99 H8>44 pn Hofmon Planning Associates Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis February 2, 1999 Anne Hysong City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: CT 98-06; Poinsettia Shores - Planning Area C Dear Anne: As requested, this letter is to formally request a 90-day extension to allow for the continued processing of CT 98-06. The tentative map along with the condominium permit, coastal development permit and hillside development permit were first submitted to the city on February 27, 1998. These applications were deemed complete on August 24, 1998. In accordance with state law, final approval must be obtained within six months of the applications being deemed complete. Since that date will be February 24, 1999 and we do not expect to get to City Council until sometime in March, we are submitting this letter to formally request a 90-day extension. If you need any additional information of if you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, *^rStan Weiler cc. Kristine Zortman John Sherritt 5900 Pasteur Court • Suite 150 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (760)438-1465 • Fax: (760)438-2443 01/25/99 MON 15:47 FAS 760 942 8480 Chuck Keeler January 20,1999 To: Mr. Claude Lewis, Mayer Re: Poinsettia Shores Master Plan/San Pacifico/Vista Mar B-2 January 20* Planning Dept. Meeting and February 2nd City Council Meeting I would like to address the problems the home owners are having at Vista mar/B-2/Watt homes. The efforts that we have gone to to work with the City and the Builder to resolve these problems and the frustration I experienced and personally felt while at my first Planning Dept. Meeting on January 20th January 1997 we became aware of the Vista Mar project at Poinsettia Shores, A.K.A. San Pacifico. We put our names on an interest list in April, sold our home in June for a July move in only to find out that Watt had not filed the white papers with the Dept. of Real Estate until July '97. We were forced to put our belongings in storage and find a rental. (during racing season) As were other buyers. The homes were transferred over to us in Dec. '97. The homes were rushed and there were numerous problems with grading, streets, irrigation, title etc.... We started to have dialog with the City of Carlsbad at this point, early 1998. We contacted Eric Munoz, Mr. Ball, Mr. Rudolph, Gary Wayne and too many others to list Watt Homes would placate the City but do little to solve these problems. We then had questions on our title. Mr. Rudolph, Watt Homes and Chicago Title conducted meetings that we homeowner's were refused access to. These title, ownership, lot, irrigation, maintenance and annuity issues are not yet resolved. We waited for the pool area (recreation center) to open. It had been promised to be ready in March '98, then June, then July, then December??? We have been paying $135 a month HOA Fees with no access to private facilities. The trail systems should be completed as each phase goes in but this has not been done either. Now there is talk that we may be shut out of some of the trail system. Vistamar B-2 is also the only phase with* out a gated entry and demarkation? I could go on... I feel that the Builder and the City of Carlsbad have abandoned us. We moved from Del Mar hoping that Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (a.k.a. San Pacifico) would be like Aviara (west). We have been sadly disappointed. 01/25/99 MON 15:47 FAS 760 942 8480 Chuck lieeley The January 20th Planning Dept. Meeting was of importance to the Homeowners due to the possible approval of Final map area C-l, Greystone. I believe that this is the last map to be approved in the Poinseetia Shores/San Pacifico Development, We attended the meeting to express our concerns that once this map is approved the builders may just build out, sell and leave our area without finishing the Rec, Center, trails ect. The City of Carlsbad and the Homeowners will then have no leverage to get the builders to fulfill their obligations to the home owners. One homeowner wrote a lengthy letter to Gary Wayne outlining our concerns but this letter was not passed along to Ann Heyson? At the Planning Meeting I was appalled at the level of respect that the Applicant (Greystone) was shown and the disrespect the homeowners who actually live in Carlsbad were shown. When a motion to pospone was seconded the applicant panicked, he was allowed to go and talk privately with Mr. Rudolf, Gary Wayne and Ann Heyson. The floor was reopened for discussion and the applicant was allowed to use meir Engineer (if he was one) to answer Council Members questions - the City's Engineer was not present When the residents expressed interest in speaking again they were yelled at?, and denied the opportunity to speak. Why is the City bending over backwards to help these Builders who have consistently broken promises over the last year, used the cheapest materials, not completed the private facilities ect.. ? I am hoping that someone that reads this letter will lend us, the residents of Vistamar, San Pacifico a hand in sorting out the ongoing problems in this development before it is too late. We all loved Carlsbad, that is why we moved here. This Development could be beautiful like Aviara but not with out your help! These builders have consistently taken short cuts in this Development. We have also just learned that Greystone is not planning to let us have access to a trail that runs in-between their two communities (A-2/3). This trail gives us access to the pool. When we bought into this project it was sold to us on the premise that all trails would be accessible to the homeowners in all developments of San Pacifico. This is also stated in the Poinstta Shores Master Plan. My point being that if someone in the City can not keep a close eye and a short leash on these builders then this development and our property values will be harmed. -Questions for City Counsel Meeting 1) Why is the City of Carlsbad signing off on building phases when the builder has not yet met their obligations under the Master Plan - to finish private facilities and trails.? 2) Don't the Builders have to build per and follow the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan? 3) Will the Council postpone mis vote on Final Map C-l until Homeowner issues are resolved? 01-25/99 MON 15:47 FAX 76U 942 8480 Chuck Keelej-ifcl O U -4 4) Why is the City of Carlsbad allowing builders to build condos (per permits) and then advertise and sell them as single family homes?, (ie: Tramonto, Marea, Mar Vista, Vista Mar and Oceanwalk?) Thank you ft?your time and assistance. Ms. K. Donnelly 618 Compass Ct Carlsbad CA 92009 (760)942-4952 CC: Bill Compass/Courtney Hememan/RobertNielson/Bsily Noble/Peggy Savary/Kim Welshons //Mr. Rudolf/ Mr. Ball/Gary Wayne/Ann Heyson/Eric Munoz // Claude Lewis/Ramona Finnilla//Julianne Nygard/AimKulchin/Matt Hall // Testa and Assoc. // N.C. Times // S.D. Tribune. //File City of Carlsbad Planning Department December 29, 1998 Greystone Homes, Inc. Attn.: Brian Nestoroff 5973 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT:CT 98-06 - POINSETTIA SHORES - PA C The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be mailed to you on Thursday, December 31, 1998, after 8:00 a.m. This preliminary report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) meeting which will be held on January 11, 1999. A twenty (20) minute appointment has been set aside for you at 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions concerning your project you should attend the DCC meeting. If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact your Planner, Ann Hysong at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4477, or you may contact your Engineer, Clyde Wickham at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4353. CITY OF CARLSBAD GARY E. WtfYNE Assistant Planning Director GEW:AH:eh c: File Copy Hofman Planning Attn.: Stan Weiler 5900 Pasteur Crt. #150 Carlsbad, CA 92008 2O75 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-O894 Hofman Planning Associates Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis November 24,1998 Anne Hysong Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 Subject: CT 98-06 - Resubmittal Dear Anne: This letter is in response to your letter of November 4,1998 regarding Planning Area C of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. The following explains how we have addressed your comments regarding unresolved issues: Planning: 1. As requested, we have provided a 20' front yard setback for the building on Lot 24. Based on our conversation on November 16, 1998 a 24' driveway will be allowed provided that Lot 24 has a 20' front yard setback. 2. We are in agreement to CC&Rs which will provide for 1) the general maintenance requirements for all residential lots and structures within the project; 2) the areas shared in common by owners of 28 duplex lots; and 3) areas shared in common by owners of each duplex lot (exclusive use areas, etc.). 3. Regarding the proposed trail connection, the area referred to in your letter is located off-site. We have provided copies of DWG 265-2B to Clyde Wickham which shows the alignment for the trail connection. However, this connection is not located on-site and is not a part of the Master Plan trails. Since we will not be required to construct the connection, we do not want to show off-site improvements on our plans. We do not want to imply that we will be involved with the off-site construction of the trail connection and believe that not showing the connection on our plans will prevent confusion. 5900 Pasteur Court • Suite 150 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (760)438-1465 • Fax: (760)438-2443 4. As requested, a Disclosure Statement with signatures from the current owners was submitted to the City on November 16, 1998. Engineering: AROUND AT MAIN ENTRANCE: 1. A detail of the turning path for an AASHTO Type "P" vehicle requirement has been incorporated into the plan (see Sheet 3 of the Tentative Map). SECONDARY ACCESS FROM NAVIGATOR CIRCLE: 1. We agree with the requirements Scenario 3 which states that a sign must be posted at the Navigator Circle entrance which states that the entrance is a "RESIDENTS ONLY" entrance. A detail of this has been provided on the Tentative Map. CORNER SIGHT DISTANCE: Regarding the Corner Sight Distance, O'Day Consultants will meet with the Engineering Department to work out the details regarding this issue. No changes have been provided on the Tentative Map. DEVELOPER MUST SIGN THE TENTATIVE MAP: Regarding the letter I sent to you dated October 14, 1998, I indicated the map was signed but it was not. This was my mistake. The Tentative Maps accompanying this resubmittal have been signed as requested. TRAIL ACCESS STAIRS AND ADJACENT IMPROVEMENTS: As stated above, since the off-site trail and access stairs are not a requirement for this project, we have not shown details of the off-site trail/stairway construction. A copy of DWG 265-2B has been forwarded to Clyde Wickham. Accompanying this letter are three (3) copies of the revised Tentative Map, three (3) copies of the Deck/Trellis Exhibits, and the redline check print from the Engineering Department dated November 3, 1998. If you have any questions or need any additional information please call me. Sincerely, J-&Za/£ Stan Weiler t City of Carlsbad Planning Department November 4, 1998 Stan Weiler Hofman Planning Associates 5900 Pasteur Court Carlsbad, CA 92008-7317 SUBJECT: CT 98-06/CP 98-05/HDP 98-04/CDP 98-27 - PLANNING AREA C - POINSETTIA SHORES MASTER PLAN Dear Stan: The Planning and Engineering Departments have completed their review of your October 15, 1998 submittal of the subject project, and the following issues remain unresolved. Please review staffs comments and advise how you wish to proceed. If the applicant wishes to proceed with the current design, staff will be unable to support the project and it will be necessary to recommend denial. Planning: 1. Please widen Street C to a minimum of 30' at all locations along the southern end of the project. Please revise the setback table accordingly (my review indicated that the percentages would still comply with the Master Plan requirements). 2. The project consists of 28 PUD lots with 56 airspace condo units. The project will be conditioned to require CC&R's which provide for: 1) the general maintenance requirements for all residential lots and structures within the project; 2) the areas shared in common by owners of 28 duplex lots; and 3) areas shared in common by owners of each duplex lot (exclusive use areas, etc.) 3. As the Engineering Department points out below, the proposed trail connection to the adjacent property is located on a 2:1 slope. Please provide a section identifying how this trail will be improved. Are stairs proposed down the slope? 4. Please provide a disclosure statement with signatures of current owners as required to attach to the staff report for Planning Commission/City Council hearings. Engineering: AROUND AT MAIN ENTRANCE: 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1161 - FAX (760) 438-0894 [RCT 98-06/CP 98-05/HDF98-04/CDP 98-27 - POINSETTIA STORES MASTER PLAN NOVEMBER 4, 1998 PAGE 2 The previous comments from this department on the proposed gate systems is that a visitor ("P" vehicle) must be able to turn around and exit the project if entry is not available, Not a 3 point turn, not a multiple forward and back motion just a simple sweeping turn similar to a cul de sac. The design proposed has not been shown to provide this simple "P" vehicle maneuver. We have asked that a detail be provided to show these (two) gated systems and the specific design features associated with each. SECONDARY ACCESS FROM NAVIGATOR CIRCLE: As designed, secondary access to this development is required. The point of access on Navigator Circle is identified in the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan and both the entrance and exit maneuver is considered access. Emergency entrance and resident exit only is not acceptable in terms of secondary access. Gates are optional and if provided must include a turnaround for a design "P" vehicle. We have compromised our position on Navigator Circle as a "residents only" entrance with out a visitor call box, with signage, and with a vehicle activated gate opener. The Knox Box access for police and fire is still required as on any gated system. Stan's letter states that they respectfully disagree with the Engineering Departments request for full access at this location. The same paragraph misquotes Fire Chief Smith and then in closing adds " As a compromise .... Although we prefer the exit only concept, we accept the compromise...." The plans have a comment from the design engineer that says "We propose an exit only..." We could approve 3 scenarios: 1. Reduce the project by 3 units, widen the main entrance to 2 lanes each direction to a point that meets cul de sac policy standards, and leave the gate system as exit only. 2. Remove the gate system on Navigator Circle, leave the project as designed. 3. Sign the Navigator Circle entrance as "RESIDENTS ONLY" include a detail on the tentative map of the entrance and show Knox Box locations. Think about which design you wish to develop and let us know the direction you decide. Please let the Rosalina Homeowners association know your decision as well. CORNER SIGHT DISTANCE: The applicants Engineer and Planner have stated that the project is designed with AASHTO standards for sight distance. AASHTO standards do not address residential or condominium streets.. Therefore I ask, to what standard is Stan and Tim designing to? -05/Hff9CT 98-06/CP 98-05/HDF98-04/CDP 98-27 - POINSETTIA STORES MASTER PLAN NOVEMBER 4, 1998 PAGE 3 The concept is to provide a 25' corner cut-off on each side of an intersection. This clear area is an open triangle to give a safe visible area for the mix of pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles within the designed street system. We ask that the lot lines be pulled back, that slopes be reduced and that an effort be shown to meet what we think, is an important safety issue. DEVELOPER MUST SIGN THE TENTATIVE MAP: Stan says the-map is signed, Tim says not until we're done. The plan must be signed, this is a complete/incomplete requirement. TRAIL ACCESS STAIRS AND ADJACENT IMPROVEMENTS: The requirement to show the proposed improvements and to accommodate the construction was made on the last review where the plan said "trail by others". The plan 265-2B is not in the City for reference, the proposed walk runs off of a 2:1 slope, a pad or view point is not provided, and the connection to existing improvements is not shown. The proposed improvements related to the tentative map simply are not clear. As called out in the master plan, the trail improvements will be required to be constructed with this project. Exactly what is proposed for this development? If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact me at (760) 438-1161, extension 4477 or Clyde Wickham at extension 4353. Sincerely, ANNE HYSONG^ U Associate Planner AH:mh Attachment c: Adrienne Landers Clyde Wickham Hofman Planning Associates Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis October 14, 1998 OCT 151998 Anne Hysong CITY City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: CT 98-06 - Planning Area C - Poinsettia Shores Master Plan; 2nd Resubmittal Dear Anne: Thank you for meeting with us last week to discuss the changes that we have made to the tentative map. I felt that the meeting went very well and at this time it appears that we have met all of the staff concerns regarding this project. I have prepared this letter to provide you with an overview regarding how we have addressed the items from the "Issues of Concern" letter from the Planning Department dated August 24,1998 and the agreements that we made during our meeting of October 5,1998. This letter is divided into three sections: Items Submitted, Planning Issues and Engineering Issues. The Planning Issues and Engineering Issues correspond directly with the August 24th letter. Items Submitted: With this letter, we are resubmitting the following items: Three (3) copies of the tentative map Three (3) copies of the balcony/trellis plan Three (3) copies of the landscape plans One (1) landscape plan with redline comments One (1) tentative map with redline comments One (1) front yard setback analysis table One (1) copy of Street Maintenance Agreement for Navigator Circle One (1) color copy of the ownership/maintenance areas exhibit One (1) detailed unit ownership exhibit Planning Issues: 1. It was agreed that Hofman Planning Associates will provide to the Planning Department new QVz" x 11" exhibits at the appropriate time prior to the Planning Commission hearing. 5900 Pasteur Court • Suite 150 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (760)438-1465 • Fax: (760)438-2443 2, O'Day Consultants has prepared an exhibit that identifies ownership and /^/maintenance responsibilities. The exhibit has been reviewed by Master ^' Homeowners Association and is consistent with the Master Homeowners Association CC&Rs. As requested, all retaining walls have been moved a minimum of three feet from the right-of-way line adjacent to the public streets. Landscaping is shown in front of these retaining walls to soften and screen the walls. The retaining walls have been modified as requested in the Planning Department letter dated August 24, 1998. The flagstone veneer treatment will be placed on the lower retaining wall adjacent to Avenida Encinas and Windrose Circle for the sections of the wall where there are dual retaining walls. The upper retaining wall will be a stucco parged, slumpstone wall with a brick cap. Where there is a single retaining wall adjacent to the public street, the retaining wall will be a stucco parged, slumpstone wall with a brick cap and pilasters. The site plan has been revised to accommodate your request for a minimum 15- foot setback from the rear yard top of slope for all balconies except for Lot 26. It was agreed during our meeting on October 5th that Lot 26 would be allowed to encroach into the 15-foot setback. The balcony/trellis plan also requires that all balconies maintain a 15-foot setback distance from the rear yard top of slope. The balcony/trellis plan requires a minimum 15-foot setback from the rear yard top of slope for all trellis where the rear yard slope is 15 feet or greater in height. However, if a rear yard slope is less than 15 feet in height, then a trellis must maintain a minimum 10 foot setback. The maximum height of any trellis is 12 feet. With regards to the front yard setbacks to each building, the buildings were relocated in order to meet this request. A revised Front Yard Setback table is provided that demonstrates compliance with the master plan. Engineering Issues: (From the memo dated August 26,1998) 1. Regarding the exit only gate issue, we respectfully disagreed with the Engineering Department's request for a full access at Navigator Circle. We feel that full access at Navigator Circle is not necessary from an emergency access perspective nor is it desirable from the existing community. On January 19, 1998 and again on September 24,1998,1 met with Mike Smith of the Carlsbad Fire Department regarding this issue and on both occasions he told me that the exit only gate would be acceptable. A letter signifying his acceptance is provided. -2- Also in January of 1998, we met with representatives of the Rosalina Homeowners Association to discuss the development of Planning Area C. One of the aspects of our discussion was in regards to access and traffic. The people we met with fully supported the exit only concept and would oppose full entry into Planning Area C from Navigator Circle. As a compromise, the Engineering Department agreed to allow for the design of the gate as proposed with the stipulation that entry into Planning Area C from this gate is provided for the residents only. Therefore, the residents of Planning Area C will have the option of entering from either the main entrance off of Windrose Circle or the gate off of Navigator Circle. Visitor entry into Planning Area C will only be available from the main entry off of Windrose Circle. There will not be a call box or turnaround area provided at the gate off of Navigator Circle. A sign will also be posted that this gate that states that this entrance is for residents only. Although we would prefer the exit only concept, we accept the compromise provided by the Engineering Department. 2. We will provide the appropriate documentation and notations regarding access and maintenance on Navigator Circle. 3. Access to the "Lamb" property has always been acknowledged and agreed to by the developers of Planning Area C. Additional details showing how access is provided is shown on the tentative map. 4. According to O'Day Consultants, a drawing for the off-site stairway and trail has been approved. O'Day Consultants has placed the appropriate notations and graphics on the site plan to clearly identify the approved future off-site trail improvements. 5. According to O'Day Consultants, the project is in compliance with the proper setback requirements in accordance with City Standard GS 14. 6. The cross sections of the retaining walls on the site plan contain notes that identify the requirement for the provision of a railing. O'Day Consultants has provided a graphic representation of a railing on top of the retaining wall in order to satisfy this issue of concern. Additionally, you had requested an elevation of any proposed railing to be reviewed for aesthetic purposes. We are currently in the process of determining the type of railing to be placed on the top of the retaining walls. Once this has been determined, we will provide you with adequate details of the railing for your review. -3- 7. Although the footing detail shown in the Leighton & Associates soils report provides a cross section that includes the retaining wall, the cross section was to depict the drainage details and not the footing details of the retaining wall. There was never any intent to locate the footings for the retaining wall within the public right-of-way. O'Day Consultants has moved the retaining walls three feet from the property line. With regards to the facilities located near the retaining walls, O'Day Consultants has placed notations on the tentative map where needed indicating that these facilities will be relocated if necessary. 8. According to O'Day Consultants, sight distance is met at the corner of Avenida Encinas and Windrose Circle. Sight distance is not met in accordance with the City of Carlsbad's design standards at the entry gate. However, site distance is met in accordance with ASSHTO standards. The Poinsettia Shores Master Plan says that "sight distance criteria at street corners shall be determined by ASSHTO standards". Since the remainder of the master plan has been approved using ASSHTO standards, the Engineering Department agreed that this would be acceptable subject to their review of this submittal. They also requested that the areas within the sight distance corridor be located within the lots maintained by the homeowner's association. The lot lines were adjusted to meet this request. 9. In order to address this issue, O'Day Consultants has prepared and ownership and maintenance responsibilities exhibit. 10. The current property owner has signed the tentative map. As indicated previously, we will be providing elevations of the railing on top of the retaining walls in the near future. With this submittal, we have met all of your change requests. If you have any questions or comments, or if you need any additional information, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, 4^&> Stan Weiler cc. Clyde Wickham Kristine Zortman John Sherritt Tim Carroll -4- City of Carlsbad Planning Department August 24, 1998 Stan Weiler Hofman Planning Associates 2386 Faraday Avenue, Suite 120 Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CT 98-06/CP 98-05/CDP 98-27/HDP 98-04 - PLANNING AREA C - POIN- SETTIA SHORES MASTER PLAN Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your tentative map, condominium permit, coastal development permit, and hillside development permit, applications no. CT 98-06, CP 98-05, CDP 98-27, and HDP 98-04, as to their completeness for processing. The items requested from you earlier to make your application complete have been received and reviewed by the Planning Department. It has been determined that the application is now complete for processing. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this communication. Please note that although the application is now considered complete, there may be issues that could be discovered during project review and/or environmental review. Any issues should be resolved prior to scheduling the project for public hearing. In addition, the City may request, in the course of processing the application, that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise, supplement the basic information required for the application. Please contact your staff planner, Anne Hysong, at (760) 438-1161, extension 4477, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. 7) MICHEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:AH:b c: Gary Wayne Brian Nestoroff, Grey stone Homes Adrienne Landers, Team Leader Data Entry Clyde Wickham, Project Engineer Planning Aide Bobbie Hoder File Copy 2O75 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 With regards to the noise issue, we have contacted Mestre-Greve regarding the site design in order to minimize the influx of noise into the site. By facing nearly all the outdoor use areas away from the freeway, the need for large noise barriers decreases. This will be a positive aspect of the project in that by designing the units so that in most cases the garages face the freeway and the outdoor living areas face the ocean, noise impacts are reduced and views are increased. An update noise study will be provided to ensure that noise is adequately mitigated. As specified in the master plan, the units and the orientation of the units are designed to take advantage of the views. In order to provide many of the views as well as create usable area ,J>\ for each unit, there are instances when the proposed project grading will require the installation v^r of retaining walls. The retaining walls are proposed as crib type walls that will allow for <u,t/t landscaping to be placed within the walls to soften the appearance of the walls. The usable ^ ^ \r area created by these retaining walls will allow for the provision of minimum 15' x 15' rear yards. However, most of the rear yards will maintain 20 feet or greater in depth. Based on our meetings and discussion, you appeared very supportive of the project. The reduction of the number of units, the duplex product type, the ability to meet the city's concerns regarding noise and pedestrian circulation, represent a project that could be supported. We understand that we will be required to process a Condominium Permit, Tentative Map and Coastal Development Permit. The number of units will require that the application be brought forward to the City Council foNijTal approval. ^ o o^P At your suggestion, we have met with interested residents within the Sea Cliff and Rosalina neighborhoods. We presented the same conceptual site plan and floor plans that we showed to you. Both home owner groups supported the product type and felt that the duplex prQoduct would be an asset to the master planned community. The Sea Cliff residents are concerned with their views. We explained to them that the product that is being proposed is two stories with a peak height of near 26 feet. Colin also had several poles with flags mounted on the top installed on Planning Area C to represent maximum height of the proposed product. These poles could be seen from the Sea Cliff neighborhood when looking in a south westerly and westerly direction. Although the poles demonstrated that some south westerly views would be reduced, the residents indicated that they would prefer the duplex product type with the proposed reduced number of units instead of townhomes or stacked flats with up to 70 units. We told the interested residents in both neighborhoods that we will continue to provide them with updates regarding the progress of this project. We are looking forward to working with you on this project in the future. If you have any questions, please feel free to give Colin or me a call. Sincerely, .^^ Stan Weiler cc. Colin Seid City of Carlsbad ^_ ••^••••^^•••^•^••^•••^^•••••MPlanning Department March 23, 1998 Area C Homebuilding Partners, L.P. 4141 Jutland Drive, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92117 SUBJECT: CT 98-06/CP 98-05/CDP 98-27/HDP 98-04 - PLANNING AREA C/ POINSETTIA SHORES MASTER PLAN Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your tentative map, condominium permit, coastal development permit, and hillside development permit, application nos. CT 98-06/CP 98-05/CDP 98- 27/HDP 98-04, as to their completeness for processing. The application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is information which must be submitted to complete your application. This list of items must be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment. All list items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals. No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. The second list is issues of concern to staff. When all required materials are submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the application was initially filed, February 27, 1998, to either resubmit the application or submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted. Please contact your staff planner, Anne Hysong, at (760) 438-1161, extension 4477, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHACL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:AH:mh c: Gary Wayne Stan Weiler, Hofman Planning Adrienne Landers Clyde Wickham Bobbie Hoder File Copy Data Entry Planning Aide 2O75 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (76O) 438-1161 - FAX (760) 438-O894 LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION No. CT 98-06/CP 98-0/CDP 98-27/HDP 98-04 - PLANNING AREA C Planning: 1. In accordance with the attached information sheet, please submit the slope analysis in which onsite slope gradients are identified as required for Hillside Development review. 2. As required by the Master Plan, please provide a table identifying the percentage of units proposed with 5' setbacks, 10' setbacks, and 20' setbacks that shows conformance to the percentages permitted for Area C. Also, please provide the location and area of common passive recreation required by the Planned Development Ordinance. ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1 . Please remove the substantial conformance signature block from the tentative map to avoid confusion. 2- Please draw lot lines so that they are legible and clearly distinguishable. 3. Visitor parking shown at the end of the cul-de-sac appears to be a part of Lots 18 and 19 which are residential lots rather than common area. 4. The recently adopted Hillside Ordinance amendment limits the use of retaining walls in developments proposing uphill manufactured slopes along the project perimeter exceeding 40% and 15' in height to a single 6' retaining wall. The proposed retaining walls do not conform with this standard and appear excessive at some locations. 5. A related issue to the use of walls is that it should not be necessary to raise the pad grade up to 13' above existing grade (see section C-C on Sheet 3 of 4). Please redesign so that pad grades are more consistent with existing grade and eliminate one set of walls where possible. This may be accomplished by increasing wall heights adjacent to I-5 and/or replacing walls with slopes. 6. Wall designs should incorporate the use of natural appearing rock to mitigate the appearance of excessive hardscape. 7. The proposed design at the corner of Windrose Circle and Avenida Encinas would result in two 6' high retaining walls and one 5' - 6' high noise wall. As previously recommended, walls/fences should be designed with a minimum 10' separation. At other locations along Windrose Circle, the proposed design would result in two 4' - 6' retaining walls with a 6' fence above the second retaining wall. The combination of walls/fences should not exceed 6'; therefore rear yard fences would not be allowed above or slightly separate from retaining walls due to visual impacts. The only ~ exception to the 6' height limit is that an open 36" - 42" safety railing is required above retaining walls exceeding 3'. 8. Please provide a 5' separation between the noise wall separating the project and the retaining wall as shown by typical sections A-A and B-B on the tentative map to allow adequate room for landscaping. Engineering: 1. Engineering issues of concern will be forwarded under separate cover. JILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT0 OR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AMENDMENT INFORMATION SHEET GENERAL INFORMATION This sheet generally explains how your Hillside Development Permit (HDP) will be processed. If you have any questions after reading this, please call the Planning Department at 438-1161 or review Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the Hillside Development Guidelines. A proposed! project^uiiTOg^tha^ prior to 3:30 p.m. A proppsed;projeGt;requinng that only one a^plratib^be^id|r»iustbe.subrnitted prior to 4:00 p.m. When a Hillside Development Permit is needed: A Hillside Development Permit (HDP) is required when development is proposed on land with a slope gradient of 15% or greater and a slope height of greater than 15 feet. Development means building, grading, subdivision or other modification of a hillside area. It is highly recommended that you, as an applicant: 1) review Chapter 21.95 and Chapter 11.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (The Hillside Ordinance, Excavation and Grading); and 2) discuss the Hillside Development with a City Planner before submitting an application for a Hillside Development Permit. The Hillside Development Permit should be submitted concurrently with any permit or application for development of a Hillside area. How your Hillside Development will be Processed Generally the steps involved in reviewing your Hillside Development Permit application are as follows: 1. A Hillside Development Permit application is submitted to the Planning Department at 2075 Las Palmas Drive. The application must be submitted with and reference any other permit application such as a building or grading permit, tentative map, etc. All maps submitted shall be folded to 8-1/2" x 11". Information items required: a. A completed Land Use Review Application Form. b. Five (5) copies of the slope analysis - Include north arrow and scale (see Section 21.95.020 of Carlsbad's Municipal Code). The slope analysis should be the same scale as the site plan and grading plan. Acres % Identify slopes (1) 0 to less than 15% slope fj Q (2) 15% to less than 25% slope n D (3) 25% to less than 40% slope Q [J (4) 40% or greater slopes Q Q Indicate the acreage of land in each slope category TOTAL 100% % Slope = Vertical Distance x 100 Horizontal Distance (Distance between contour intervals) FRM00011 3/98 Page 1 of 5 c. SLOPE PRORLE(S): five (5) copies - Include vertical and horizontal scale. A minimum of three (3) slope profiles (slope cross sections) shall be provided and indexed on the constraints map. See Section 21.95.020(b) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code for additional requirements. d. Assurance of SLOPE ANALYSIS and slope profile accuracy. Both the slope analysis and slope profiles shall be stamped and signed by either a registered landscape architect, civil engineer or land surveyor indicating the datum, source and scale of topographic data used in the slope analysis and slope profiles, and attesting to the fact that the slope analysis and slope profiles have been accurately calculated and identified. e. PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN: five (5) copies on a 24" x 36" sheet(s) folded to 8 1/2" x 11" size. The scale should be consistent with all other exhibits. Each landscape plan shall contain the following information: 1.) Landscape zones per the City of Carlsbad Landscape Manual. 2.) Typical plant species, quantity of each species, and their size for each planting zone in a legend. (Use symbols). 3.) An estimate of the yearly amount of irrigation (supplemental) water required to maintain each zone. 4.) Landscape maintenance responsibility (private or common) for all areas. 5.) Percent of site used for landscaping. 6.) Water Conservation Plan. f. Show with a SITE PLAN, GRADING PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN, AND BUILDING PLANS AND ELEVATIONS how development fulfills the following Hillside Development and Design Standards (21.95.060). Submit five (5) sets of each plan. 1.) Coastal Zone Requirement (if applicable). 2.) Contour grading. 3.) Area or extent of grading. To define the area or extent of grading, the area in acres, of both cut excavation and fill areas shall be calculated. This calculation shall be noted on the particular cut or fill area. 4.) Screening graded slopes. 5.) View preservation and enhancement. 6.) Roadway design. 7.) Hillside architecture. 8.) Hilltop architecture 9.) Hillside drainage FRM00011 3/98 Page 2 of 5 01/19/1999 12:26 31065955 PAGE 01 COVER PAGE DATED;. January 18, 1999 FROM: 'John .Lamb 1446 Devlin Drive Los Angeles, Ca 90069-1804 Phone: (310) 659-3550 . Fax f; (310) 659-5558 TO:Planning Commission •207:5.'La Palmas Drive •Carlsbad, Ca 92009 Phq;ne: (760) 438-1161 X 4451 Fax; #: (760) 438-0894 SUBJECT: ,CT 98-06CP 98-Q5/CDP 98/27/HDP 98-40 Poinsettia Shores Planning Area C A public hearing on the above project will be •; held by the Planning Commission in the council ^chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, .California on Wednesday January 20, 1999 at 6:00! P.M.. John Lamb requests a delay of any decisions tobe made. PAGE:- 1 of 12 PAGE 2 of 2 STATEMENT BY JOHN LAMB I am a 77% owner of a little over one acre of Carlsbad property (Parcel #216-140-39-00) which borders on the west ;<side of the San Diego freeway and .is on the north shore of Batiquitos Lagoon. Mrs. Constance Sammis is the co-owner with 23%. The Applicant is apparently Greystone Homes, which intends to subdivide and build duplexes on 10 acres immediately to the north and west of the one acre. I understand that; Greystone has had several months to inform me of their plans but has failed to do so. My recent telephone calls to them have not been answered- • Our one acre parcel has the highest point of elevation north . and west of the lagoon and has a priceless view, yet I have been told that a "sound wall" will be erected to seal off and isolate oux one acre from the rest of the Batiquitos property completely blocking the view. I am also afraid that if one could see over the wall and gate the view would then be blocked by dumpsfcers and two story duplexes that will sit 6ri elevated bulldozed lots. The "sound wall" should continue straight along the freeway boundary leaving our property ocean side of the wall with the rest of the properties, 1 respectfully request that any action be delayed until I have time to substantiate these objections and prepare others. Yours truly, ( ""89SS&S90T8 3Z-ZI 666T/6I/T020 3Dtfd Anne Hysong Lynn Donnelly Carlsbad Planning Department 618 Compass Court 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, Ca 92009 Carlsbad, Ca 92009 January 11,1999 (760) 603-9835 Re: CT 98-06/CP 98-OS/CDP 98-27/HDP 98-40 -Poinsettia Shores Planning Area C Parcel#216-140-30 Dear Ms. Hysong: This letter is in response to the Notice of Public Hearing on Area C, I would like to share some of my concerns. The plans show quite clearly that Area C 's residents would exit and enter through the main entrance on Windrose Circle, not Navigator Circle. This letter is to assure that during construction, the traffic will not be relocated to Navigator Circle. This would greatly impact the residents of both Roselena and Vistamar South (B-2). Windrose Circle is clearly a better choice to handle that sort of traffic. Secondly there is the ever-present issues that is well known to both Ms. Finilla and Eric Munoz. What kind of CONDO will they be? Is this the new type of condo, traditional condo or a hybrid that nobody recognizes because it doesn't follow Carlsbad Municipal code 21.45? Do they own land in common or just an ethereal piece AIR?. These question have not fully been answered for B-l and especially B-2 lot 79 as of yet. Also we the homeowners have yet to realize any amenities in the Poinsettia Shores Master plan after one full year of paying HOA fee's, we have no trails or recreational facilities available to us. I believe it would be prudent to clear up some or all of these issues before proceeding with Area C. Sincerely, Lynn Donnelly cc. Eric Munoz Ramona Finilla Mayor Lewis January 23, 1998 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR CITIZEN CONTACT REGARDING POINSETTIA SHORES - AREA "C" Today the Mayor and I met with several residents (including Mona Reasons) from the Sea Cliff project located on the southeast corner of I-5 and Poinsettia Lane. The residents asked for the meeting to voice their concern that the developer of Planning Area "C", within the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, is proposing to raise the grade of the property and negatively impact their views of the ocean. They indicated that they have met with the developer who is unwilling to accommodate their desire to "share" the view. The residents were assured by us that the project would be reviewed for compliance with codes and policies and with principles of good planning and engineering. They were advised to submit letters requesting to be notified of any hearings regarding Area "C". If you would like more information or have questions regarding this memo, please contact me. Gary E. Wayne c: Community Development Director Planning Director Associate Planner, Eric Munoz SENT BY:LFH&S VOICE> 235-3541 ; 11-24-97 I ; FAX#> (619)232-8311 4380894;# I/ 4 , FORWARD, HAMILTON & S< ATTORNEYS AT LAW . FOUNDED 1873 600 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 2600 , SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 TELEPHONE (619) 236-1414 . FACSIMILE (619) 232-8311 www.luce.com FACSIMILE DOCUMENT DATE: TO: FIRM: November 24. 1997 Eric Munox Citv of Carlsbad CITY, STATE: Carlsbad. CA FAX TELEPHONE NUMBER: 760-438-0894 CONFIRMING NUMBER: 760-438-1161 x4441 FROM: Nancv T. Scull. ESQ.PHONE: 619-699-2457 TRANSMITTING;!PAGES (including cover page) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR INSTRUCTIONS;. toftsMV^ Anyone wto ivoemys Ws cammmKatiOfl in emr should notify us immed/Btety by telephone Bndietuin the original message tout. TIME/DA TE TRANSMITTED BYOl'ERA TOR: November 24. 1997at IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE THE ENTIRE FAX, CALL (619) 23S-3S41, DURING THE HOURS OF 8:30 a.tn. AND 6:00p.m.; AFTER 6:00p.m. AND ON WEEKENDS, CALL (619) 699-2478. SENT BY:LFH&S V01CE> 235-3541 : 11-24-97 Jll'OSAM : FAX#> (619)232-8311-* 4380894 :# 2/ 4 LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON efScRiPFs ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873 NANCY T. SCULL, PARTNER DIRECT DIAL NUMBER 6 19-699-2457FACSIMILE NO.: 619-645-5310 INTERNET: NSCULL@LUCE,COM SAN DIEGO OrriCE OUR FILE NO.: 21239-1 November 20, 1997 BY TELECOPY Rich Rudolf, Esq. City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Poinsettia Scores Master Plan Dear Rich: 1 am writing this letter to you at the suggestion of the Planning Department to set forth the proposed condominium structure which is anticipated to be used for Planning Area C of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan which will be developed by Col-Rich Communities. Col-Rich Communities intends to develop a 58-unit duplex project in Planning Area C which is currently designated to allow for the development of up to 70 units. The Poinsettia Shores Master Plan specifies that Planning Area C may be developed with duplex units but cannot contain any individually owned residential lots. The master plan further specifies that the lot must be "owned in common." Preliminary discussions with Planning Department staff have indicated that they would support a duplex condominium product type on this site. Given the foregoing, we suggested that the Tentative Map should show 25 residential lots. Streets and slope areas would also appear as separately lettered lots on the map. Within each of the residential lots, a duplex condominium unit (i.e., two attached units) would be constructed. Under California law, a condominium is comprised of a separate interest and an undivided interest. In this case, we suggested that the separate interest component of the condominium should be comprised of a three-dimensional cube. The lower boundaries of this three-dimensional cube would extend 15 to 20 feet below ground elevation. (This can be extended further to 50 feet if there are benefits to extending the depth of the cube.) The upper boundary would extend to the heavens above, The side boundary would C,nn WEST BROADWAY. SUITS 2600 • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 • TELEWONB (619) 23$-NM • FACSIMILE (619) 2S2-H3I1 SAN DIEGO • LAJOUA • NEW YORK • Los ANGP.US • SAN FRANCISCO • CHICAGO SENT BY-LPH.S V01CE> 235-35,! -,1-24-37 .,06AM '. LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON <£SCRIPPS ATTORNEYS AT L/w . FOUNDED 187? Rich Rudolf, Esq. November 20, 1997 Page 2 extend to the air space between the walls of the attached duplex structure and the other side boundary would extend to the lot line. Each of the two owners would also own an undivided interest in the balance of the lot, The undivided interest would consist of a one-half undivided interest in the area extending from the lower boundary of the cube to the center of the earth. This structure would enable Col-Rich to comply with the master plan lot ownership requirement. With regards to the relationship of each until within the duplex structure, the roof lines would be constructed so that each unit is completely and totally independent. The only common element would be roof flashing. To address this issue, one of the units will have an assessment to attach its roof flashing to the wall of the other duplex unit. One of the advantages of this structure is that ownership and maintenance of the individual units will be the responsibility of the unit owner. This proposed design will also further diminish the possibility of one unit affecting the other unit. I would be happy to answer any questions which you may have regarding the foregoing. Also, 1 will be contacting you so that I may have the opportunity to discuss this matter further in the presence of the Engineering and Planning Departments so that concurrence regarding the proposed lot ownership can be achieved. Very truly yours, d- - jc* Nanc£.TyScull of Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP NTS/dlh cc: Mr. Gary Wayne (By Telecopy) Mr, Eric Munoz (By Telecopy) Mr. Bob Wojaik (By Telecopy) Mr. Colin Seid (By Telecopy) Mr, Bill Hofman (By Telecopy) C:\DMS\NTS\1229758.0I SENT BY^LFH&S SENT BY: VOICE> 235-3541 =11-24-97 ;ll:06AM ; FAX#> (619)232-8311- 11-19-97 : 8;48AM ;UJCE, FORWARD, HAMIL^LUCE. FORWARD, ET AL;# 4/ 5 II. ! V.fft* City of Public Works — Engineering September 28,1998 Kristine Zortman GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. 5973 Avenida Encinas, Suite 101 Carlsbad, CA 92008 POINSETTIA SHORES MASTER PLAN, PLANNING AREA C - PARK FEE As requested, this letter was prepared to explain and document the expenditure of park land credit for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. This letter also provides a park-in-lieu fee amount required to be paid to the City of Carlsbad for impacts to park facilities created by the development of Planning Area C. In accordance with the Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park Master Plan Parks Agreement dated August 20, 1986, there were 3.95 acres of park land credit provided to allow for future development within the master plan area. Several years after that agreement was executed, the BLEP Master Plan was amended and is now recognized as the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. This master plan amendment changed the original residential land use assumptions. The BLEP Master Plan was approved with a total of 605 dwelling units (500 multiple family; 105 single family) and the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan is currently being developed with a total of 531 dwelling units (475 single family detached; 56 duplex). The Dedication of Land for Recreational Facilities Ordinance (Carlsbad Municipal Code 20.44) specifies that single family and duplex dwelling units create a greater demand for park facilities than multiple family dwelling units. Although the residential development within the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan is less in terms of overall dwelling units, the impacts are greater due to the type of dwelling units being developed. With the development of Planning Area J (Rosalina) and Planning Area B-2 (Watt Homes - Vistamar) as well as the approval of final maps for Planning Areas A-1 through A-4 and B-1, all remaining park land credits for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan have been fully expended. This is demonstrated by the accompanying Park Land Demand table. Therefore, the remaining residential planning areas, Planning Areas C and D, will be required to pay park in-lieu fees prior to the issuance of building permits. Currently, the park in-lieu fee is $1,575.00 per dwelling unit. This fee per unit amount will be effective until the City revises the Dedication of Land for Recreational Facilities Ordinance and/or the Park In-Lieu Fee amount. 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 431-5769 s> i September 28, 1998 POINSETTIA SHORES MASTER PLAN, PLANNING AREA C - PARK FEE Page 2 Based on the current park-in-lieu fee, Planning Area C will be required to pay a park in-lieu fee in the amount of $88,200. This fee amount is determined by multiplying the 56 dwelling units by the current park in-lieu fee of $1,575.00 per dwelling unit. The payment of the park in-lieu fee, or securing a bond or a letter of credit in the amount of the park in-lieu fee identified must be provided to the City prior to the approval of the final map. Providing a bond or letter of credit would allow for the actual payment of the park in-lieu fee to be deferred until the issuance of building permits. I hope that this letter serves to clarify the park fee situation for Planning Area C. Please call me at 438-1161, extension 4362, if you have any questions. Sincerely, DAVID MAUSER Assistant City Engineer Enclosure c: Public Works Director Principal Civil Engineer, Bob Wojcik1 Associate Engineer, Clyde Wickham Senior Planner, Eric Munoz Stan Weiler, Hofman Planning Associates Poinsettia Shores Master Plan - Park Land Demand Planning Area J A-1 A-2 B-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 (2) Poinsettia Units 77 36 49 16 50 61 158 Unit Type SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD Population perDU 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Remaining Credits as of 9/17/98 D r\ta» 28 56 Total 531 SFD Duplex 3.00 3.00 Sq.Ft. Demand perDU(1) 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 ParK Acreage Demand 0.695 0.325 0.442 0.144 0.451 0.550 1.425 Available Credits (ac.) 3.95 3.255 2.931 2.488 2.344 1.893 1.343 -0.083 0.000 393 393 0.253 0.505 4.791 0.000 0.000 0.000 (1) Based on the Park Land Dedication Formula Table (Section 20.44.040) (2) Planning Area B-1 is the latest planning area to obtain a final map. The developers for Planning Area B-1 paid $14,474.25 in park-in-lieu fees to resolve the deficiency in park land credits. September 17,1998