HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 97-54; Ocean Bluff; Coastal Development Permit (CDP)JUNE 4, 1998
TO: ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: City Attorney
DCC COMMENTS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 17, 1998
My comments are as follows:
1. OCEAN BLUFF TENTATIVE MAP REVISION (CT 93-09(AVHDP 93-09f AW
CDP 97-54
A. Staff Report.
Old Tentative Map Condition No. 59 states that the Tentative Map expires within 24
months from City Council approval. The staff report states that the City Council
approved the previous project on April 2, 1996; accordingly, this Tentative Map expired
on April 2, 1998, unless it has been extended by some action not discussed in the staff
report (see CMC § 20.12.100(a)). An extension of the map is controlled by Government
Code section 66452.6(e) and CMC section 20.12.110. It appears to be too late for the
applicant to apply for an extension and trigger an automatic extension of the map for a
maximum of 60 days; but even if it was timely filed and is being processed, that 60 days
has already expired!!
B. Extension Provisions.
If the map hasn't expired and the item should proceed for consideration, the list of
applicable regulations on page three, the staff report should include reference to the
subdivision map revision and extension provisions in Chapter 20.12, and there should
be some discussion in the staff report on page six with regard to the map aspects of
this project.
C. Environmental
The discussion in the Environmental Review section on page seven of the staff report is
confusing. It states that the originally approved subdivision was conditioned to mitigate
3.9 acres of habitat and that impacts beyond what was analyzed in the final PEIR would
not result from implementation of the revised project, and, therefore, it is a subsequent
development eligible for prior compliance. However, the paragraph also states that the
proposed mitigation for disturbance to .35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat and .45
acres of southern maritime chaparral (apparently arising only because of the expansion
of the project to include additional offsite areas) is to purchase from an offsite habitation
mitigation bank, and/or do offsite revegetation. These appear to be additional impacts
beyond those analyzed in the final PEIR, requiring a subsequent Negative Declaration,
Mitigated Negative Declaration, or some other environmental document. Or, did you
mean that the additional .35 acres and .45 acres are within the original 3.9 acres of
mitigation, because the actual impact of the project turned out to be less than originally
thought?
D. Resolution 4318.
If the project is still alive, please insert revision and/or extension, as appropriate in the
second recital on page one and in the title, and specify which of Exhibits A through Z
applied to the tentative map extension and/or revision. In Finding No. 1, please identify
for the reader where the modifications can be found by adding at the end of the last
sentence:
", by findings and ,
respectively."
In Condition No. 2, prior Planning and Fire conditions are preserved, except as
specifically called out, but Engineering and Water conditions are not mentioned.
Please comprehensively address the impact of these conditions on all prior conditions
of the prior tentative map approval. For the reader, please identify where conditions
from the prior tentative map approval which are being modified, are modified in this
resolution. Please add an additional sentence which states what the effect of this
approval is on the existing exhibits from the original approval (A through N, dated
12/20/95).
Please delete one of the two identical conditions relating to irrevocable offers (either 7
or 9).
Please delete Note Two with regard to the effects of the new Engineering conditions on
the old Engineering conditions and include it in the comprehensive provision in
Condition No. 2. If this is impossible, please at least add a list of which old conditions
are deleted and modified, and specify which new conditions modify which old modified
conditions, in the note.
Please clarify Condition No. 23c. Is the Developer required to construct/install the
traffic signal at the specified intersections or not? The asterisk and its accompanying
text appear to negate the duty to construct/install, and require instead an agreement to
pay for only a portion of those traffic signals, at some future unspecified date. What is
being required? What can be required is something which has a nexus to the impact of
this project and is reasonably proportional to the impact of the project. Is that what is
being required?
What is the impact of Water conditions 25 through 33 on the existing Water conditions
76 through 79? Please delete Water Condition No. 26, since there is a Site
Development Plan in these approvals and presumably that condition has already been
satisfied. Please delete or clarify Condition No. 32. It uses the phrase "if checked",
which would be appropriate for an administrative check list, but not for conditions in a
tentative map.
Please clarify Condition No. 33. Is this an obligation to dedicate easements and/or
construct improvements similar to those set forth in that portion of Resolution 4318
within the Engineering section (Conditions 19 - 24); or is it a requirement to enter into
an agreement to pay for their fair share of certain water infrastructure, at some time in
the future, or in advance, subject to reimbursement?
In each of the other resolutions please specify which exhibits are applicable to that
approval and the effect of those exhibits on the pre-existing exhibits from the prior
approval.
2. GUNTER RESIDENCE (CDP 98-17).
In Resolution 4397, please insert after reference to the husband and wife and prior to
"owner" the legal capacity in which they own the property (e.g., community property;
husband and wife as joint tenants, tenants in common?). Please delete Condition No.
5, since it restates Action paragraph B and portions of Condition No. 1 and is, therefore,
unnecessary.
3. LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER - (GPA 97-02/ZC 97-02/
CT 97-09/PUD 97-13/SDP 97-07/CUP 97-03/SUP 97-02/SUP 97-03
A. Staff Report.
Please clarify the discussion of the General Plan Amendment with regard to whether
there is a need for a General Plan Amendment for the boundary adjustment for Open
Space. The note under Table 1 says there will be one in the future; the discussion
under paragraph three says one is not necessary at all; and Resolution 4309 seems to
say we are doing one now.
In Table 3 on page six in the zoning discussion, the chart says 442 parking spaces are
being provided by the proposed plan. However, one of the attachments (marked C-1, I
think the SDP exhibit) says there are 445 spaces being provided. Which is correct?
Please clarify the discussion under Table 5 with regard to a deviation from the sign
"standards" in the scenic corridor guidelines with regard to sign regulations (see CMC
§§ 21.40.115 and 21.40.117), as opposed to development standards imposed pursuant
to § 21.40.110 (deviations from which would require a variance). There seems to be
some sloppy usage here, and the resolution adopted by the City Council constituting
the scenic corridor development guidelines should be, but is not, cited as the source for
the "required findings". In the Attachments section, please indicate in some reasonably
identifiable way what each of the numbered resolutions generally refers to, to assist the
reader.
B. Resolutions.
All the resolutions except the CUP indicate that the property is zoned by both American
Stores Properties Inc. and Leucadia County Water District. Is the Leucadia Water
District still the owner of that portion of the property covered by the GPA? ZC? CT?
PUD? and both SUPs? or has the sale been completed subject only to a condition
subsequent that this project be approved?
1. 4309 (GPA).
In Resolution 4309 with regard to the GPA, please change the third recital to move the
reference to Government Code section 65350 et. seq. to immediately follow "as
provided in" and precede "and section 21.52.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code".
Please change the second recital to read as follows:
"WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request to amend the Land
Use Element of the General Plan from C to N and U to N as shown on
the General Plan Land Use Map replacement page attached hereto
(Exhibit 'GPA 97-02'); and"
Please delete the phrase "to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan from C
to N and U to N as shown on Exhibits "A" - "Z", dated June 17, 1998 from Action
paragraph B on page two. On Exhibit GPA 97-02, please add some introductory
language at the top such as:
"The General Plan Land Use Map, being page of the Land Use
Element is amended as shown below:"
Please clarify the reference to "OS**" in the chart at the bottom of the page. The chart
in connection with Finding 1c implies that this General Plan Amendment also includes
and Open Space Boundary Adjustment, although the staff report seems to indicate that
is not being done at least now, and perhaps never.
2. 4310 (ZCA1.
Please change the second recital to read as follows:
"WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a zone change
as shown on Exhibit "XX" attached hereto and incorporated by this
reference, La Costa Lucky Sav-On Shopping Center, ZC 97-02" etc.
Please delete the phrase "according to Exhibit "XX" dated June 17, 1998" from action
paragraph B. In Exhibit "XX", the draft ordinance for City Council adoption of the zone
change, please change the word "exhibits" to "exhibit" at line 14; the word "constitutes"
to "constitute" at line 17; and delete the parenthetical italics sentence relating to the
coastal zone in the Effective Date section, since it is not applicable here.
3. 4311 (CT).
In the second recital, please specify which exhibits of Exhibits "A" through "Z" apply to
the tentative map.
Please modify Condition No. 12 or some other appropriate condition to set forth how
many parking spaces are required to be provided by the project, indicating who owns or
has rights to their use, perhaps providing a cross-reference to where they are actually
provided for in either the Planned Development Permit or the Site Development Plan or
both.
Condition No. 23 requires the establishment of a owners' association and
corresponding CC&Rs, but does not provide any mandatory contents of the CC&Rs
except those we typically only impose with regard to projects where there will be
passive open space not likely to be adequately maintained by the homeowners'
association. Those provisions do not appear to be applicable here but they are the only
ones included. There are no provisions with regard to ownership and operation of the
parking areas and/or establishment of other common areas. Aren't there any created
by this tentative map which the CC&Rs should address?
Please make Condition No. 25 and introductory note, not a condition number, and
preferably move it up as a introductory note applicable to all conditions, not just
engineering conditions.
Condition No. 38 requires additional drainage easements. However, this project
includes a PDP and SDP, and at this point we should know whether and where such
drainage easements are required, and normally require them to be displayed on the
map and dedicated therein. Have we already done this, or can't we do this now and
delete this condition?
Condition No. 39 requires the offer of dedication of all easements on the tentative map,
does this include easements required for all utilities serving the property, including the
applicable water district (either Carlsbad Water District or the Leucadia Water District)?
Can Condition No. 39 be made generic to require all required dedications of streets and
public utility easements for any applicable entity to be shown and offered for dedication
on the map? Shouldn't Condition No. 39 be expanded to include not only public right-
of-way dedications (set forth in subsection (a) plus any other dedications? Aren't sub-
items B, C and D of Condition No. 39 really sub-conditions 1, 2 and 3 of sub-condition A
of Condition No. 39?
Please add a condition or (code reminder, as appropriate) establishing either the
ordinance life of 24 months (see CMC § 20.12.100) or some greater amount, if desired.
In this connection, please note that the municipal code states that the tentative map
expires 24 months after approval, unless otherwise provided, and here all the other
approvals have been set up to expire within 18 months of approval of the project.
Accordingly, if all goes according to plan, it is highly likely that the map will be finaled
within its last six months, and after all the related permits have expired (see CMC §
21.58.020).
Fire Conditions.
Condition No. 54 appears to be the only true condition which has not yet been satisfied.
Please modify Condition No. 54 to specify when the "Fire Suppression Plan" is required
to be submitted for approval, indicate its status once approved, and where it should be
filed, once approved.
Condition Nos. 51 through 56 (except Condition No. 54) appear to be code reminders,
instead of conditions. If so, please place them in that portion of the resolution.
Conditions 47 through 50 should have already been completed since this project
includes a Planned Development Permit and Site Development Plan as to which all the
information required by these "conditions" should have been given and displayed in one
of the approval exhibits. Please confirm that with the Fire Department and delete these
conditions.
Water Conditions.
Which water district will serve this project? Condition Nos. 58, 59 and 61 should
already be completed since there is a Planned Development Permit and Site
Development Plan for this project. Please confirm this with the water district (assuming
Carlsbad Municipal Water District is the serving district), and delete those conditions.
Please clarify the meaning of Condition Nos. 60 and 62 through 67. It seems Condition
No. 67 should come first as establishing a condition requiring the developer to remove
all existing water lines (after which the district will quitclaim easements for them); and
construct and install water lines, water mains, water meters, pipelines, pump stations,
pressure reducing stations, and other appurtenances to serve the project both within
the public right-of-way and within the private property; and then dedicate the public
right-of-way containing them and the private easements containing them, and
dedicating the water improvements within the public right-of-way to the district.
However, unlike the engineering conditions, these conditions never specify what water
6
district improvements and dedications the district is requiring of the developer. Perhaps
Condition Nos. 60, 63 and 66 could be combined into a single condition and/or
combined into Condition No. 67? Do Condition Nos. 64 and 65 say the same thing in
two different ways? And aren't they already provided for in either the Site Development
Plan or Planned Development Plan approval exhibits? If so, generic Condition No. 43
relating to construction of public improvements could be modified to include those water
facilities required to be constructed and dedicated, or modified for use in the water
section of the resolution. Condition No. 62 includes a typo: "devilment" instead of
"development".
Please insert the heading "General" preceding Condition No. 68, and please delete the
numbering on the introductory clause for the code reminders and renumber all code
reminders 69a through h as 69 through 76, or whatever the appropriate numbers are,
following the introductory phrase.
4. 4312 (PUD).
In Recital No. 2, please only specify those exhibits which apply the PUD. In Finding No.
3, please change the language in bold to address the introductory language and make
it say something different from what Finding No. 4 says. Please add a Condition No. 3
establishing a term or expiration date for the PUD and renumber the next one to
Condition No. 4.
5. 4313 fSDP).
In Recital No. 2, please specify only those exhibits applicable to the Site Development
Plan. Please delete the code reminders and insert a new Condition No. 3 establishing
a term or expiration date for the SDP appropriate to a joint life with its related tentative
map.
6. 4314 (CUP).
CUP not necessary because service station is a permitted use in C-1 zone, but Council
will probably adopt an ROI as part of the Tienda La Esquina Appeal to delete it as a
permitted use, so that section 21.42.010(7) will apply. Hopefully you will process the
ZCA so that this project does need a CUP by the time it gets to Council.
In Recital No. 2, please only specify the exhibits applicable to the CUP. In Condition
No. 2, please delete the first sentence and that portion at line 15 and following relating
to extensions after five years, since the Council has given policy authority to have real
conditional use permits which run with the land, unless there is some special reason to
limit them as to time. If there is a special reason to limit this conditional use permit as to
time, there should be some discussion of that in the staff report justifying the CUP
lifetime shorter than forever. Please delete the code reminder and insert the condition
relating to invalidity of the CUP if proper permits are not drawn, but establish a period of
time which will be integrated with the life of the tentative map and other related
approvals, not 18 months.
7. 4315 (CUP for Floodplainl.
In Recital No. 2, please only refer to those exhibits applicable to SUP 97-02 for the
floodplain and delete the code reminders in light of the incorporation by reference in
Condition No. 2. Is it really necessary to have a self-destructive building permits not
drawn within 18 months provision for this type of approval?
8. 4316 (SUP for Scenic Corridor.
In Recital No. 2, please only specify those exhibits applicable to the SUP 97-03 with
regard to the scenic corridor. Particularly, here the exhibit showing the sign with its
internally illuminated channel and acrylic face, wherever that is shown in the approval
exhibits. In Finding No. 2, please make reference to the source of the requirement for
the findings, and clarify whether the Planning Commission by this finding is allowing the
fine deviations, or only allowing the Planning Director to include in a sign program
submitted to him for approval provision for a sign with such deviations. If the latter,
then a condition allowing or requiring that should be added to the conditions for this
approval, specifying what should be done by the developer in order to obtain approval
for such a sign. Such a condition might obviate the need for the code reminder with
regard to expiration if building permits not drawn within 18 months of approval.
9. Disclosure Statement
Please require the developer to complete question number four with regard to whether
$250 worth of business has been transacted within the preceding 12 months.
D. RICHARD RUDOLF
Assistant City Attorney
afs
c: District Engineer
Division Chief Mike Smith
Senior Management Analyst Hoder
Administrative Secretary, Planning
I
8
February 23, 1998
TO: PLANNING TECH. - Chris DeCerbo
From: Engineer Tech. - Land Use Review
CDP 98 -17, SOU 98-02 : TIM AND ANN GUNTHER RESIDENCE
COMPLETENESS AND ISSUES REVIEW
Location: 4160 Sunnyhill Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Description: Single Family Residence
Assessor Parcel No. 207-082-04-00
Engineering Department staff has completed a review of the above-referenced project
for application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this proposed
project are currently incomplete and unsuitable for further review due to the
following incomplete items:
1. Please indicate the name of the sewer, water and school districts providing
service to the project.
2. Please show the bearings as well as the distances of each exterior boundary
line.
3. Please indicate any proposed fences, their location in relation to property line,
materials and heights.
4. Please show street grade adjacent to the property.
5. Please show a typical street section for all streets adjacent to the property.
6. Please show all easements, including their width, location and use, i.e. public or
private, i.e. - 6 and 7 in the title report.
7. Please show sewer and water services (water meter and sewer cleanout).
8. Please indicate the type of driveway, i.e. concrete etc.
February 13, 1998
APPLICATION FOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP 98-17,
SOU 98-02
Page 2
9. Please adjust the toe of the slope relative to the driveway, as it must be 2' away
from property line.
10. Please change the edge of the driveway to accommodate slope modification.
(Relates to note above) Check slope on grading plan.
11. The flow line of the drainage swale must be 5' from the building. (Refer to
Standard GS -14). As an alternative, a letter from a registered soils engineer
recommending the swale be less than 5' from the building may be accepted.
12. Please show access points to adjacent undeveloped lands if applicable.
13. Please indicate earthwork volumes; cut, fill, import and export.
If you or the applicant have any questions, please either see or contact me at
extension 4510.
MARI J. SPARKS
Engineering Tech. - Land Use Review
CITY OP—RLSBAD REVIEW AND COM "~'~T MEMO
DATE APRIL 9, 1998 REVISED PLAN
TO ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
'POLICE DEPARTMENT - J. SASWAY
:FIRE DEPARTMENT - MIKE SMITH
GBUILDING DEPARTMENT - PAT KELLEY
-COMMUNITY SERVICES - MARK STEYAERT
•COMMUNITY SERVICES - VIRGINIA McCOY
* WATER DISTRICT
J LANDSCAPE PLANCHECK CONSULTANT - LARRY BLACK
~~'_ SCHOOL DISTRICT
-NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT - Planning Department
SAN' DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC - BICH TRAN (Memo Only)
-ALWAYS SENT EXHIBITS
FROM: Planning Department
REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON APPLICATION NO. CDP 98-17/SW
NOTE Please use this number on all correspondence.
PROJECT TITLE: GUNTER RESIDENCE
APPLICANT. TIM & ANN GUNTER
PROPOSAL: NEW SF HOME AND REMODEL FOR 2ND DWL UNIT
Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to:
CHRIS DeCERBO the Project Planner in the Planning Department. 2075
Las Palmas Drive, by APRIL 23, 1998 . If not received by that date, it will be
assumed that you have no comment and the proposal has your endorsement as
submitted If you have any questions, please contact C. DECERBO
at 438-1161, extension
THANK YOU
COMMENTS
PI ANS ATI ACHED FRM0020 5/94
PLANNING DEPARTME.
BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVIEW CHECKLIST
Plan Check No. CB
Planner
APN:
Address
Phone (619) 438-1161, extension 4325
75O
Type of Projectjjpd Use:
/•;> / . t > v7 •-••''' '
a-_l_il___ General Plan:
CFD
Cffcle One
.Date of participation:
Project Density:
Facilities Management Zone: /_
Remaining net dev acres:_
o
I
(For non-residential development: Type of land used created by
this permit: )
Legend:
D D
/\ Item Complete ( ) Item Incomplete - Needs your action
Environmental Review Required: YES X NO _ TYPE
DATE OF COMPLETION:
Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action.
Conditions of Approval:
D D Discretionary Action Required: YES ft NO _ TYPE
APPROVAL/RESO. NO. M^ 7 DATEPROJECT NO. co?
OTHER RELATED CASES:
Compliance with conditions or approval? If not, state conditions which require action.
Conditions of Approval:
[_) Coastal Zone Assessment/Compliance
Project site located in Coastal Zone? YES NO
CA Coastal Commission Authority? YES NO
If California Coastal Commission Authority: Contact them at - 3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite
200, San Diego CA 92108-1725; (619) 521-8036
Determine status (Coastal Permit Required or Exempt):
NOCoastal Permit Determination Form already completed? YES
If NO, complete Coastal Permit Determination Form now.
Coastal Permit Determination Log #:
Foliow-Up Actions:
1) Stamp Building Plans as "Exempt" or "Coastal Permit Required" (at minimum
Floor Plans).
2) Complete Coastal Permit Determination Log as needed.
[ I Inclusionary Hv ,ng Fee required: YES _ NO
(Effective date of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - May 21 , 1993.1
Data Entry Completed? YES NO
(Enter CB #; UACT; NEXT!2; Construct housing Y/N; Enter Fee Amount (See fee schedule for amount); Return)
0 D
Site Plan:
|| 1. Provide a fully dimensional site plan drawn to scale. Show: North arrow,
property lines, easements, existing and proposed structures, streets, existing
street improvements, right-of-way width, dimensional setbacks and existing
topographical lines.
2. Provide legal description of property and assessor's parcel number.
Zoning:
CH 1. Setbacks:
Front:
Interior Side:
Street Side:
Rear:
Required
Required
Required
Required
I | | | 2. Accessory structure setbacks:
Front: Required
Interior Side: Required
Street Side: Required
Rear: Required
Structure separation: Required
I | 3. Lot Coverage:Required
Shown
Shown
Shown
Shown
Shown
Shown
Shown
Shown
Shown
Shown
D 4. Height:Required Shown
I I 5. Parking: Spaces Required
Guest Spaces Required
Additional Comments
Shown
Shown
OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPUTER DATE
raO
n
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVIEW CHECKLIST
Plan Check No. CB
Planner
APN:
Address U ft ^7 ?/ M /I /- —
Phone (619) 438-1161, ex-tension
Type of Project and Use: 34 ^ S/)Q
Zoning: g-1- /S;^ General Plan:
CFD fin/nntl #
Circle One _Date of participation:
Project Density: •
Facilities Management Zone: t
Remaining net dev acres:
(For non-residential development: Type of land used created by
this permit: )
Legend: /\ Item Complete Item Incomplete - Needs your action
Environmental Review Required:
DATE OF COMPLETION:
YES X NO TYPE
Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action.
Conditions of Approval:
Discretionary Action Required:
APPROVAL/RESO. NO.
PROJECT NO.
YES NO TYPE
DATE L- I 7- ? &
OTHER RELATED CASES:
Compliance with conditions or approval? If not, state conditions which require action.
Conditions of Approval:
I [ Coastal Zone Assessment/Compliance
Project site located in Coastal Zone? YES / NO
CA Coastal Commission Authority? YES NO
If California Coastal Commission Authority: Contact them at - 3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite
200, San Diego CA 92108-1725; (619) 521-8036
Determine status (Coastal Permit Required or Exempt):
Coastal Permit Determination Form already completed?
If NO, complete Coastal Permit Determination Form now.
Coastal Permit Determination Log #:
YES NO
Follow-Up Actions:
1) Stamp Building Plans as "Exempt" or "Coastal Permit Required" (at minimum
Floor Plans).
2) Complete Coastal Permit Determination Log as needed.
pa n
D
Inclusionary Hoi ig Fee required: YES
(Effective date of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - May 21, 1993.)
NO ,
Data Entry Completed? YES NO
(Enter CB #; UACT; NEXT12; Construct housing Y/N; Enter Fee Amount (See fee schedule for amount); Return)
Site Plan:
1. Provide a fully dimensional site plan drawn to scale. Show: North arrow,
property lines, easements, existing and proposed structures, streets, existing
street improvements, right-of-way width, dimensional setbacks and existing
topographical lines.
I I 2. Provide legal description of property and assessor's parcel number.
Zoning:
I I 1. Setbacks:
Front:
Interior Side:
Street Side:
Rear:
Required
Required
Required
Required
Shown
Shown
Shown
Shown
D
2. Accessory structure setbacks:
Front: Required
Interior Side: Required
Street Side: Required
Rear: Required
Structure separation: Required
3. Lot Coverage:Required
Shown
Shown
Shown
Shown
Shown
Shown
0 D D 4. Height:Required Shown
I ; | | 5. Parking: Spaces Required
Guest Spaces Required
[ I I I Additional Comments
Shown
Shown
OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPUTER
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Project ID
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Inter-office Correspondence
PLANNING DEPARTMENT/SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
Engineering Department
Request for comments to GRADING PLAN for Hillside Development
Ordinance
DWG Plancheck No.
Project Planner
Attached is a copy of the Grading Plan. Please
the Engineering Plancheck Division, attention
iew and return your comments to
Failure to respond to this request by 9 will be interpreted
to mean that the proposed project has your endorsement as submitted (no fee,
deposits, or specific conditions will be required).
Thank you for your cooperation.
Reply:
SIGNATURE DATE
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Project ID
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Inter-office Correspondence
PLANNING DEPARTMENT/SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
Engineering Department
Request for comments to GRADING PLAN for Hillside Development
Ordinance
DWG Plancheck No.
Project Planner
Attached is a copy of the Grading Plan. Pleasejpvjgw and return your comments to
the Engineering Plancheck Division, attention
_/.-^
Failure to respond to this request by
lSn<^\
will be interpreted
to mean that the proposed project has your endorsement as submitted (no fee,
deposits, or specific conditions will be required).
Thank you for your cooperation.
Reply:
SIGNATURE DATE