HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 00-07; Washington Street; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (2)j^arlsbad Unifllh School District #
f 801 Pine Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008
^ (760) 729-9291 • FAX (760) 729-9685 ...a world class district
April 12, 2000
State of Califomia
Department of Real Estate
107 South Broadway, Room 7111
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Re: Developer: Anastasi Development Company, LLC
Location: Washington Street, Carlsbad
APN: 203-172-7,8
Project Size: 6-unit condominium
Carlsbad Unified School District has review^ed the above project and its impact on school attendance areas in this
District. At this time, the schools of attendance for this project are:
Jefferson Elementary School (K-6)
3743 Jefferson Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 602-6130
Valley Middle School (7-8)
1645 Magnolia Avenue
, Carlsbad, CA 92008
^760) 602-6020'
Carlsbad High School (9-12)
3557 Monroe Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 434-1726
The Goveming Board wishes to advise the Department of Real Estate and residents of Carlsbad that at present
the Carlsbad Unified School District elementary schools are operating at full capacity. It is possible, therefore,
that the students generated from this project may not attend the closest neighborhood school due to overcrowded
conditions and, in fact, may attend school across town. You should also be aware that there are no school buses
for regular student transportation from home to school.
The Goveming Board wishes to also inform you that conditions imposed upon new development within the City
of Carlsbad requires mitigation of school impacts.
Sincerely,
J^^wjpn Freeman
Assistant Superintendent, Business Services
cc: Developer
OCTOBER 5, 2000
TO: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: Management Analyst, Redevelopment Department
Request for Refund (Washington Street Condos)
Anastasi Development Corporation submitted the attached letter requesting an
official withdrawal of all land use permit applications submitted for property
located at 382 Christiansen Way (APN 203-172-07 & 08). The applicant is
requesting a refund in the amount of $15,360.00 for fees paid in association with
the processing of a Major Redevelopment Permit (RPOO-07), Coastal
Development Permit (CDPOO-23), Tentative Tract Map (CTOO-08), and
Condominium Permit (CPOO-04).
In a prior memo to you dated May 26, 2000 (copy attached) I requested the
applicant be refunded $5,000.00 for fees associated with the processing of the
Condominium Permit (CPOO-04) since a separate Condominium Permit is not
required in the Redevelopment Area. If these fees were already returned to the
applicant, please deduct them from the full amount requested by the applicant.
The Housing and Redevelopment Director has authorized a full refund of the
application fees outlined above. I am therefore requesting your assistance in
processing the refund request. In addition, please let me know if I need to enter
this information into Permits Plus or if it will be taken care of during the refund
process.
If you have any questions or require additional information please contact me at
x2813. As always, I appreciate your assistance on this matter.
LORI H. ROSENSTEIN
Management Analyst
0 : Barbara Kennedy, Planning
Frank Jimeno, Engineering
Pat Kelley, Building
Mike Smith, Fire
^jsr ASTAsf
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
September 12, 2000
Lori H. Rosenstein
Management Analyst
CityofCarlsbad
2965 Rooseveh St., Suite B
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389
RE: Carisbad Application/fees
Dear Lori:
The purpose of this letter is to request the cancellation of our Land Use Review
Application for the six unit condominium complex and a refund of the following filing fees:
Description: Amount:
CDP00023 $2,520.00
CP000004 $5,000.00
CT000008 $5,010.00
RP000007 $2.830.00
TOTAL: $15,360.00
We will be reapplying for the larger project shortly, as we have discussed. If you have any
questions or need any additional information to complete this request, please do not hesitate to
call.
Very truly yours,
L.
Vice President
LJS: cmd
1200 Aviation Blvd. Redondo Beach, CA 90278 TeL (310) 376-8077 Fax (310) 379-2694
MAY 26, 2000
TO: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: Management Analyst, Redevelopment Department
Request for Refund CPOO-04 (Washington Street Condos.)
Anastasi Development Company, LLC incorrectly submitted an application and
corresponding filing fee for a Condominium Permit in conjunction with their
project at 382 Christiansen Way. In accordance with the Carisbad Municipal
Code, the Major Redevelopment Permit takes the place of the required
Condominium Permit. Therefore, CPOO-04 should be voided and a refund in the
amount of $5,000 should be returned to the applicant. The applicant's mailing
address is: Anastasi Development Company, LLC, 1200 Aviation Blvd., Suite
100, Redondo Beach, CA 90278.
If you have any questions or require additional information please contact me at
x2813. Thank you for your assistance on this matter.
LORI H. ROSENSTEIN
Management Analyst
4
MAY 26, 2000
TO: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: Management Analyst, Redevelopment Department
Request for Refund CPOO-04 (Washington Street Condos.)
Anastasi Development Company, LLC incorrectly submitted an application and
corresponding filing fee for a Condominium Permit in conjunction with their
project at 382 Christiansen Way. In accordance with the Carisbad Municipal
Code, the Major Redevelopment Permit takes the place of the required
Condominium Permit. Therefore, CPOO-04 should be voided and a refund in the
amount of $5,000 should be returned to the applicant The applicant's mailing
address is: Anastasi Development Company, LLC, 1200 Aviation Blvd., Suite
100, Redondo Beach, CA 90278.
If you have any questions or require additional information please contact me at
x2813. Thank you for your assistance on this matter.
LORI H. ROSENSTEIN
Management Analyst
ANT ASTAS J
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
JON 2000
PLANNING DEPARmNT
June 13,2000 city of
Carlsbad
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
Valerie J. Dinsmore
Administrative Secretary
RE: Request for Refund CP 00-04
Dear Valerie:
Per your request of letter dated June 1, 2000,1 am enclosing the original and the
several copies ofthe Request for Refund.
Speaking with Lori of Redevelopment Department, this fee is a duplication ofthe
Redevelopment Applications which are on file with your City.
Simons, "Special Projects
1200 Aviation Blvd. Redondo Beach, CA 90278 Tei. (310) 376-8077 Fax (310) 379-2694
MAY 26, 2000
TO: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: Management Analyst, Redevelopment Department
Request for Refund CP00-04 (Washington Street Condos.)
Anastasi Development Company, LLC incorrectly submitted an application and
corresponding filing fee for a Condominium Permit in conjunction with their
project at 382 Christiansen Way. In accordance with the Carisbad Municipal
Code, the Major Redevelopment Permit takes the place of the required
Condominium Permit. Therefore, CPOO-04 should be voided and a refund in the
amount of $5,000 should be returned to the applicant The applicant's mailing
address is: Anastasi Development Company, LLC, 1200 Aviation Blvd., Suite
100, Redondo Beach, CA 90278.
If you have any questions or require additional information please contact me at
x2813. Thank you for your assistance on this matter.
LORI H. ROSENSTEIN
Management Analyst
Citv of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
May 24, 2000
JOHN SIMONS
ANASTASI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
1 200 AVIATION BLVD STE 100
REDONDO BEACH, CA 90278
SUBJECT: WASHINGTON STREET CONDOMINIUMS (RP00-07/CDP00-23/CT00-08)
Thank you for applying for a Land Use Permit in the City of Carlsbad. The Housing and
Redevelopment Department, together with other appropriate City departments has
reviewed the following applications as to their completeness for processing: Major
Redevelopment Permit (application no. RP 00-07), corresponding Coastal Development
Permit (application no. CDP 00-23), and Vesting Tentative Tract Map (application no. CT
00-08).
The applications are incomplete as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is
information that must be submitted to complete your applications. This list of items must be
submitted directly to the Redevelopment Office. All list items must be submitted
simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittal. No
processing of your applications can occur until the applications are determined to be complete.
The second list represents issues of concern to staff. When all required materials are
submitted to the Redevelopment Office, the City has an additional thirty (30) days to make a
determination of completeness. If the applications are determined to be complete, processing
for a decision on the applications will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six
months from the date the application was initially filed, April 24, 2000, to either resubmit the
applications or submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the applications or to submit
the materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute
withdrawal of the applications. If the applications are withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, new
applications must be submitted.
Please contact my office at (760) 434-2813, if you have any questions or wish to set up a
meeting to discuss the applications.
SincerelAL
LORI H. ROSENSTEIN
Management Analyst
Frank Jimeno, Engineering Department
Glen Van Peski, Engineering Department
Barbara Kennedy, Planning Department
Bill Plummer, Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Mike Smith, Fire Department
Pat Kelley, Building Department
Larry Black, Landscape Consultant
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 @
LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED
TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION
No. RP00-07/CDP00-23/CT00-08
The following Departments have completed their review of the subject project for
application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this project are
incomplete and unsuitable for further review due to the following missing or incomplete
items:
Planning:
1. The primary issue of concern is that the proposed residential use is incompatible with
the Village Redevelopment Master Plan for District 1 and is not supported by staff. A
mixed-use project would be more appropriate in this location to achieve long-term
redevelopment goals. Planning staff recommends that the project be withdrawn and
redesigned.
If the applicant wants to continue with the proposal as submitted, the following items
should be addressed:
2. The project will require preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. A noise study
will be required since the project proposes a residential use within the 65 to 70 dB(A)
CNEL noise contour. Noise mitigation measures will need to be incorporated into the
project to ensure that noise from buses and trains do not cause significant impacts to
the proposed residential uses.
3. The project density of 21.78 du/ac is over the Growth Management Control Point for
residentiai development in the Village Redevelopment area. Residential development
can exceed the growth control point if the findings under Section 21.90.045 can be
made. These findings relate to: 1) the provision of sufficient public facilities for the
extra density; 2) that the facilities will be provided prior to or concurrent with need;
and, 3) that there are enough units in the excess dwelling unit bank so that the
quadrant cap is not exceeded. The necessary findings to exceed the Growth
Management Control Point are typically applied to sites where the application of the
growth control point would yield a fractional unit. The findings would therefore allow
you to round up to a whole unit. It is important to note that projects within the
redevelopment area are not subject to City Council Policy 43; therefore, finding 3 is not
applicable.
4. The project is subject to the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Projects proposing
six or fewer units may pay an in-lieu fee rather than constructing a unit.
5. The project has been evaluated for consistency with the development standards of the
Planned Development (PD) Ordinance. The plans must show adherence to the following
development standards:
a. The PD Ordinance requires a 20-foot front setback and a 10-foot street side
setback.
b. A 30-foot wide driveway is required to provide access to the units. Garages facing
the driveway must have an additional offset of 5 feet from the driveway and the
garages must be equipped with automatic garage door openers.
Items Needed to Complete Application
No. RP00-07/CDP00-23/CT00-08
Page 2
c. Two covered spaces are required per unit with a minimum clear interior dimension of
20'x20' within the garage. Water heaters and other projections may not encroach
into the required parking area.
d. Three guest parking spaces are required for the project. Standard parking spaces
must have a minimum area of 170 square feet and a minimum width of 8/2 feet. In
addition, when parking spaces are located adjacent to a solid wall, the minimum
width of the space should be increased by two feet.
e. Recreational open space shall be provided for the project at a ratio of 200 square
feet per unit. A minimum of 600 square feet of common active recreation area
must be provided. At least 100 square feet of private passive open space
(balconies or private rear yards) shall be provided per unit. Please refer to Section
21.45.090(g) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code for minimum depths of open space
areas (attached).
f. Storage space is required for each unit. The storage space may be provided within
the garage, provided it does not extend into the required parking area.
g. The trash area should either be relocated so that it is not such a prominent visual
feature, or it should be enhanced with a decorative trellis with vines over the top of
the structure to aid in screening the enclosure.
6. The combined height of the retaining wall and freestanding fence located within the rear
setback area exceeds the maximum height limit of 6 feet.
7. The proposed wood fence around project seems inconsistent with the neighborhood and
with the vision and land uses proposed for District 1.
8. More detail is required to show how the sidewalk will transition around the existing
"heritage" eucalyptus trees.
Housing & Redevelopment:
1. In accordance with the Village Master Plan, all residential units proposed for separate
ownership shall comply with the development standards and design criteria set forth by
Planned Development Ordinance Chapter 21.45 of the Carisbad Municipal Code. In
addition, it has been determined that the development standards set forth in the
Planned Development Ordinance shall take precedence over the development standards
set forth in the Village Master Plan. Therefore, compliance with the development
standards outlined under the Planning comments above must be demonstrated.
2. Provide a total square footage for each of the units.
3. Provide building elevations for the north and east facing sides of the building.
4. Provide a section cutting through the property showing the maximum building height
above both existing and finished grade. See attached definition for building height to
see how building height is measured.
Items Needed to Complete Application
No. RP00-07/CDP00-23/CT00-08
Page 3
5. Show slope of roof. A 5:12 roof pitch is the minimum allowed.
6. If roof equipment is proposed, show how it will be screened.
7. On building elevations, indicate type of materials to be used on the building facade and
front entry wall.
8. Provide a sign detail for any proposed signage.
Engineering:
1. Show a date of preparation.of the tentative map.
2. Correct the names and addresses of the water and sewer service providers.
3. Add the application numbers in the upper right corner, and note as "Vesting Tentative Map".
4. Show location of existing topography, drainage patterns, buildings, trees, utilities, etc. within
100 feet of the project boundary.
5. Show width of adjacent streets and street improvements.
6. Show a typical street section for adjacent streets.
7. Show full circulation for each parking stall with standard turning template.
8. Show existing streetlights across Christiansen Way, if any. Show utilities in Christiansen
Way on the tentative map.
9. Show all fire hydrants located within 300 feet of the project, or add note that there are none
other than those shown.
10. Show additional spot elevations for proposed and existing grades.
11. The Municipal Code requires fully engineered grading and improvement plans before a vesting
tentative map can be approved. If the project is denied or revised, the resultant changes can
result in substantial additional expenditures. The plans must be prepared and processed
through the full plan check process, including payment of plan check fees, before the project
can be deemed complete.
Building:
1. The project must comply with State regulations for disabled access. Guest parking
must be modified to show compliance with California Building Code Section
1118A.1.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
No. RP00-07/CDP00-23/CT00-08
The following Departments have made a preliminary review of the project for associated
issues of concern. The following issues need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior
to conditioning of the project:
Housing & Redevelopment:
1. The Housing and Redevelopment Department maintains the same issues of concern
expressed in the Preliminary Review letter dated November 29, 1999. Multi-family
dwelling units are a provisional land use in District 1 and specific findings must be made
to approve the use. It is staff's position that the required findings cannot be made to
permit a strictly residential use on the subject property. More specifically, it is staff's
position that a multi-family residential use is inappropriate to the site and adjacent
development. One of the reasons for staff's decision is that the Village Master Plan
encourages multi-family housing near the rail station as part of a mixed-use
development project. The second reason is that for all Village properties which are also
located within the Coastal Zone, the primary permitted land uses for all ground floor
space shall be those which are visitor-serving commercial uses. The third reason is that
the subject property is in a critical location and development of the site will guide future
development on the block. To support a strictly residential use on the property
suggests similar residential uses will be supported on the rest of the block as well. This
goes against the vision for the area, which is to transition the existing low-density
residential uses into more commercial retail uses with residential uses incorporated as
part of mixed-use projects. Staff continues to support mixed-use development on this
site.
2. in accordance with the Village Master Plan, the applicable General Plan residential
density designation shall be determined for each project based upon compatibility
findings with the surrounding area. Once the appropriate residential density designation
has been determined, the maximum project density may not exceed the Growth
Management Control Point (GMCP) for the applicable density designation unless a
density increase or density bonus is granted in accordance with Chapters 21.53 and
21.86 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The highest General Plan density designation is
High Density Residential (RH), which allows for a density range of 15 to 23 dwelling
units per acre with a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 19 dwelling units
per acre. The project results in a density of 21.8 dwelling units per acre, which is
within the RH density range (15-23 dwelling units per acre), but above the growth
management control point of 19. It is staff's position that the required findings to grant
a density bonus or density increase to exceed the Growth Management Control Point
cannot be made.
3. Consider alternative fence material such as wrought iron.
4. Consider using a darker color on the fascia and trim detail to create more contrast with
the stucco siding.
Issues of Concern
No. RP00-07/CDP00-23/CT00-08
Page 2
Engineering:
1. Parking stalls must be 10' wide with walls on one side, 12' wide with walls on both sides,
and must be 170 sq. ft. minimum.
2. Circulation of parking areas is an issue. Demonstrate that cars can maneuver in and out of
spaces by use of a standard turning template.
3. We recommend a minimum grade of 2% for asphalt paved surfaces, and recommend
concrete for grades between 1 % and 2%.
4. Drainage sumps will require a dual pump system with a battery backup.
5. Provide rain gutters to intercept roof flow and take it to street to avoid overioading the sump
pumps.
6. Provide a hydrology/hydraulics study to show drainage areas, post-development peak runoff,
and flows entering the site from adjacent properties.
7. The Uniform Building Code requires drainage of 2% minimum for 5 feet away from footings.
Building:
1. The open guardrails on the balconies will not mitigate any of the noise levei issues on
the balcony porches. In addition, there is not enough plan details to note how noise will
be mitigated inside the units.
Fire:
1. Per Uniform Building and Fire Codes, all units, including garages must be protected by
an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
Water District:
The Carlsbad Municipal Water District has no comments at this time.
Landscape Plan Check:
The City's Landscape Plan Check Consultant has completed the initial review of the
Preliminary Landscape Plan. Corrections and suggestions have been included on the
landscape plan. A redlined check print set containing staff's comments is enclosed for
your use. Please make the required changes to the Landscape Plan and resubmit the
revised plans to the Housing and Redevelopment Department for further review. The
enclosed red-lined check print set must be returned with the modified plans to assist staff
in its continued review of the project.
21.04.061
wing-walls, planter walls or grade-separation retain-
ing walls. (Ord. NS-180 § 2, 1991)
2L04.065 Building height
(a) The height of a building shall t>e measured as
follows:
^ (1) "Building height" means the vertical
distance of a structure measured from the more
restrictive Gowest) of finished or existing grade. The
vertical distance is measured from all points at grade
along and within the building coverage to the high-
est point of the structure directly atx)ve that point of
measurement
(2) "Existing grade," for the purposes of
measuring building height, means the ground level
elevation which existed on or before August 1, 1991
and prior to any grading or other site preparation
related to, or to t>e incorporated into, a proposed
new development or alteration of existing develop-
ments unless a discretionary pennit for such devel-
opments or alterations is approved. In that case,
existing grade shall mean the grade after the proper-
ty is developed or improved in accordance with the
grading plans which implement the approved discre-
tionary permit For nondiscretionary permits where
retaining walls, fill or other grading are utilized to
create finished grade higher in elevation than exist-
mg grade as defined in tiiis subsection and as deter-
mined by the planmng director, then existing grade
shall fc>e used in tiie detennination of buildmg
height
(3) Building height measurements include
basements and other subtenanean areas that are
at)0ve existing grade. In the case of basements,
cellars and imderground parking, buOding height is
measured from existing grade, excluding the area
belov/ existing grade.
(4) Building height is measured to tiie peak
of the stnicture. Per Section 21.46.020 of tiiis title,
roof structures specifically for the housing of eleva-
tors, stairways, tanks, ventilating fans or similar
equipment required to operate and maintain the
building; fire or parapet walls, skylights, architectur-
al towers, flagpoles, chimneys, smokestacks, wire-
less masts and similar stmctures may be erected
above the height liraits prescrit>ed in this titie, but
no roof structure or any otiier space above tiie
height limit prescrit>ed for the zone in which the
building is located shall t>e allowed for tiie purpose
of providing additional floor space, or be taller tiian
tiie mmimum height requirement to accommodate
or enclose tiie intended use. (Ord. NS-204 § 2,
1992: Ord. NS-180 § 3, 1991: Ord. 9667, 1983:
Ord. 9498 § 1. 1978: Onl. 9141 § 1: Ord. 9060 §
212)
2L04.070 Building, main.
"Main building" means tiie principal building on
a lot or building site designed or used to accommo-
date the primary use to which the premises are
devoted; where a permissible use involves more tiian
one stiucture designed or used for tiie primary pur-
pose, as in tiie case of group houses, each such
pennissibie buildmg on one lot as defined by tiiis
titie is construed as comprising a main building.
(Ord. 9060 § 213)
21.04.075 Building site.
"Building site" means:
(1) The ground area of one lot; or
(2) The ground area of two or more lots when
used in combination for a building or group of
buildings, together witii all open spaces as required
by tilis titie. (Ord. 9060 § 214)
21.04.080 Business or commerce.
"Business" or "commerce" means tiie purchase,
sale or other transaction involving the handhng or
disposition of any article, service, substance or
commodity for livelihood or profit; or tiie manage-
ment of office building, offices, recreational or
amusement enterprises; or tiie maintenance and use
of offices, strucmres and premises by professions
and ti-ades rendering services. (Ord. 9060 § 215)
21.04.085 Cellar.
"Cellar" means tiiat ponion of a building tetween
floor and ceihng which is whoUy or partiy t>elow
grade and so located tiiat tiie vertical distance t>e-
tween tiie ceiling and tiie average adjoining ground
(Carlshmd 1-93) 546
21.45.080
land uses and witii circulation patterns and open
space on adjoining properties. It shall not constitute
a disruptive element to the neighlx)rhood or commu-
nity;
(4) The intemal sti-eet system shall not be a dom-
inant feature in the overall design, rather it should
t>e designed for the efficient and safe flow of vehi-
cles without creating a dismptive influence on the
activity and function of any common areas and
facilities as mdicated in the design guidelines manu-
al;
(5) Common areas and recreational facilities shall
be located so as to t>e readily accessible to the occu-
pants of the dwelling units and shall be well-related
to any common open spaces provided, as indicated
in the design guidelines manual;
(6) Architectural harmony within the develop-
ment and witiiin the neight)orhood and community
shall t>e obtained so far as practicable. (Ord. 9823
§ 4, 1987; Ord. 9631 § 2 (part), 1982)
21.45.090 Development standards.
In addition to the general provisions of this titie,
the requirements of tiie underiying zones and tiiis
chapter, a planned development shall comply witii
the following standards:
(a) Density. The numt>er of dwelling units in a
planned development shall not exceed the density
pennitted by the underiying zone. The density regu-
lations of the underiying zone may be appUed to the
total developable area of the planned development
rather than separately to individual lots. In no case
shall the density be inconsistent with the general
plan. The density on tiie developed portion of tiie
site shall t>e compatible with surrounding develop-
ment In cases where two or more general plan land
use designations fall witiiin the t>oundaries of a
planned development the density may not be trans-
ferred from one general plan designation to anotiier.
(b) Setbacks.
(1) Arterials. All units adjacent to any road
shown on the circulation element of tiie general plan
shall maintain as a minimum the following setbacks
from tiie right-of-way:
Prime Arterial: fifty feet
Major Arterial: forty feet
Secondary Arterial: tiiirty feet
This setback shall be mounded and landscaped to
buffer residential units from traffic on tiie adjacent
arterials.
(2) Front Yard.
(A) The front yard setiiack for single-family
dwellings shall be twenty feet; however, sethacks
may t>e varied to a fifteen-foot average Vrith a
ten-foot minimum. Garages with entries thai face
directiy onto a public or private street shall maintain
a minimum setback of twenty feet The front yard
setback finom a private driveway, as defined in sut>-
section (h) of this section, may be reduced to five
feet provided that guest parking is dispersed along
the entire driveway or that the widtii of the drive-
way is adequate to accommodate parking on one
side. Garages facing directiy onto a private driveway
tiiai have less than a twenty-foot setback shall t>e
equipped with an automatic garage door opener.
(B) All multifamily units frcinting on a public or
private street shall maintain a minimum of a
twenty-foot front yard setback. Garages thai face
onto a privale driveway serving an attached multi-
family project may have a five foot setback provid-
ed that guest parking is dispersed along the entire
driveway or that the width of the driveway is ade-
quate to accommodate parking on one side. In this
case all garages shall t>e equipped with automatic
garage door openers.
(Q The front yard setback shall be measured
from tiie right-of-way line in the case of a public
su^t and from the edge of tiie driveway, curb or
sidewalk, whichever is closer to the stmcture subject
to tiie setback, in the case of a private street or
private driveway.
(D) It is the mtent of tiiis section to provide sut>-
stantial setback variation from a private or public
street as shown in the design manual and shall not
be construed to allow a uniform fifteen-foot setbacL
The modifications in setback shall not be allowed
where there is the potential for adverse traffic or
visual impacts. At least forty percent of the front
yard setback of detached single-family residences
shall consist of landscaping.
713 (ari»t«d 10^)
21.45.090
(3) Comer Lots. Comer lots shall have a ten foot
side yard setback from the street unless the garage
faces onto the street side yard; in this instance a
twenty-foot setback shall t>e maintained to the ga-
rage.
(4) All setbsLcks shall be measured from the
property line, or in the case where individual prop-
erty lines are not present at the edge of the street
curb or sidewalk, whichever is closest to the struc-
mre subject to die setback.
(5) The distance between single-story stmctures
shall not be less than ten feet When more than ten
structures in a row front or t>ack on a street the
distance twtween two and tiiree-story stmcturcs shall
not fc>e less than twenty-feet and the distance be-
tween two-story and one-story structures shall not
t>e less than fifteen feet Fireplace stnictures, comic-
es, eaves, belt courses, sills, buttresses, and other
similar architectural features projecting from a build-
ing may intmde up to two feet into the required
distance between buildings. Second and third-story
open balconies or eave projections over driveways
are allowed if such intrusions do not inhibit traffic
circulation,, provision of safety, sanitary or other
services, or are not compatible witii the design of
the project
(c) Resident Parking. All units must have at least
two full-sized covered residential parking spaces,
except for studio units which shall be provided with
a ratio of T.5 spaces per unit for which one space
per unit shall t>e covered, planned unit developments
and in the R-W zone, for which one space per unit
shall be covered and one space may be uncovered,
and second dwelling units which shall t>e provided
with one space (covered or uncovered) per second
unit Any uncovered required parking space for units
in the R-W zone may t>e located within a required
front yard setback and may t>e tandem. The parking
space for the second dwelling unit may be provided
tiirough tandem parking (provided that tiie covered
parking spaces for tiie primary dwelling are located
within a two-car garage and the garage is set back
a minimum of twenty feet from the property line)
or in the front yard setback. In cases where a frac-
tional parking space is required, the required nimit>er
of spaces shall be rounded to tiie nearest highest
whole number.
(d) Visitor Paiking.
(1) Visitor paridng shall t>e provided as follows:
Amount of Visitor
No. of Units Parking
10 dwelling units or less 1 space for each 2
dwelling units or frac-
tion tiiereof
Greater tiian 10 dwelling
units 5 spaces for tiie 10
units, plus 1 space for
each 4 dwelling units
at>ove 10 or fraction
thereof
(2) Up to forty-five percent of tiie visitor parking
may t>e provided as compact spaces (eight feet by
fifteen feet). No guest parking credit shall fc»e given
for tandem paridng in front of garages except for
existing duplex lots. These existing lots may provide
their required guest parking space as a tandem park-
ing space in front of the garage if the garage is set
back a minimum of twenty feet from the front prop-
erty line.
(3) Credit for visitor paridng may t>e given for
frontage on adjacent local streets for detached
single-family or duplex projects subject to the ap-
proval of the planning commission; not less tiian
twenty-four lineal feet per space exclusive of drive-
way entrances and driveway aprons shall t>e provid-
ed for each parking space, except where parallel
paridng spaces are located immediately adjacent to
driveway ^rons, then twenty lineal feet may t)e
provided. Streets used for on-street visitor parking
must meet or exceed the city's minimum width
requirements.
(e) Building setbacks from open paridng areas
shall not be less than five feet
(f) Screening of Parking Areas. All open parking
areas shall be screened from adjacent residences and
public rights-of-way by eitiier a view-obscuring wall
or landscaping subject to tiie approval of tiie plan-
ning director.
(C*ri*b«i 10-94) 714
21.45.090
(g) Recreational Space.
(1) Open space areas designated for recreational
use shall be provided for all residential develop-
ments at a ratio of two hundred square feet per unit
All projects except for tiiose in
714-1 (Ciriibtd 10-94)
21.45.090
which all dweUing units are on lots with a mini-
mum size of seven thousand five hundred square
feet, shaU provide txDth common and private
recreational faciUties.
(2) Multi-family projects requesting approval
above the minimum density aUowed by their
general plan designation shaU provide common
active, as weU as private passive recreational
facilities.
(3) Active common recreational facilities
include, but are not Umited to, the foUowing:
(A) Spa;
(B) Sauna;
(C) Cabana (including restroom faciHties);
(D) Swimming pool;
(E) Tennis Court;
(F) Shuflleb)oard court;
(G) Racquetball court;
(H) VoUeybaU court;
(I) Recreation rooms or buildings with any
two of the foUowing items:
(i) Cardroom,
(ii) TV room,
(iii) Weight-Ufting/exercise room,
(iv) Restrooms,
(v) Lounging area,
(vi) Ping-pong table,
(vii) Pool table,
(viii) Kitchen faciUties,
(ix) Wet bar.
(4) Passive common recreational facilities
include but are not limited to the foUov/ing:
(A) Benches;
(B) Bart>eques;
(C) Restrooms;
(D) Sun decks (excluding lawn areas);
(E) Children's play areas;
(F) Horseshoe pits;
(G) Flat grassy play areas with a slope of less
than fifteen percent.
(5) The minimum Uneal dimension of an
open/recreational space shaU be at least ten feet.
(6) AU multifamUy projects developed under
this section shall provide either a balcony with a
minimum dimension of six feet or a patio with a
minimum dimension of ten feet for each dweU-
ing unit;
(7) To count towards satisfying recreation
requirements, private yards shaU have a mini-
mum dimension of fifteen feet with a slope not
greater than fifteen percent
(8) Credit for common indoor recreation
faciUties shaU not exceed fifty percent of the
required recreation area,
(9) Required recreation areas shaU not be sit-
uated in any required front yard, unless the plan-
ning commission or city coundl finds it to be an
integrated feature of the project and that it wiU
not create a disruptive element to the neigh-
borhood.
(10) Speciflcally excluded from meeting the
usable open/recreational space requirement are
driveways, parking areas, pedestrian walkways,
storage areas, fenced areas which are in accessible
to residents, areas with slopes of fifteen percent
or greater, and any other areas deemed not to be
primarily used for open/recreational purposes by
the planning commission or city coundl.
(h) Streets.
(1) Private streets may be pennitted within a
planned unit development, provided their width
and geometric design are related to the function,
topography and needs of the development, and
their structural design, pavement and
construction comply with the requirement of the
dty's street improvement standards. The plan-
ning commission and dty councU shaU deter-
mine the width of private streets which shaU in
no event be less than the minimum standards of
this section. Pavement widths between curbs of
private streets shaU be not less than the foUowing:
SINGLE-FAMILY OR DLTLEX
Type of Street
2 lanes, parking on both
sides
2 lanes, parking on one
side
Mimmum Width
36 feet
32 feet
715 (Carisbad 2-90)
21.45.090
2 lanes, parking on one
side
2 lanes, no parking,
serving twelve units or
less with off-street guest
parking bays
32 feet
30 feet
MULTI-FAMILY ATTACHED
Type of Street
Private driveways
Minimum Width
30 feet
No parking shall be permitted on private
driveways.
(i) Lighting. Lighting adequate for pedestrian
and vehicular safety and sufficient to minimize
security problems shall t>e provided.
0') UtUities. There shall be separate utility sys-
tems for each unit.
(k) Recreational Vehicle Storage.
(1) AU projects containing ten units or more
shaU provide space to store campers, trailers,
boats, etc. The storage space shall be located in
specificaUy designated areas and be made avaU-
able for the exclusive use of the residents of the
development These designated areas may serve
more than one planned development, provided
there is sufficient space to meet minimum
requirements for each planned development
Developments located in areas covered by a mas-
ter plan may have this requirement satisfied by
the common recreational vehicle storage area
provided by the master plan.
(2) The area provided for this storage space,
exclusive of the driveways and approaches, shall
be at least equal to twenty square feet for each
dweUing unit in the planned development. How-
ever, not less than two hundred square feet shaU
be provided. The storage space shall be screened
from view by a view-obscuring fence, waU or
landscaping.
(3) The storage space may be off-site of the
planned development, provided the property to
be used as storage is part of the application for the
planned development permit and that no other
development may occur on this property with-
out an amendment to such permit. The planning
commission or dty coundl must find evidence
that such off-site storage is suitable and not detri-
mental to the surrounding properties of such
storage are.
(4) Storage shaU not be required if the plan-
ning commission or dty coundl finds that the
planned development provides that each lot wiU
have satisfactory storage on the lot and such
storage is compatible with the area. Such storage
shaU h>e a minimum of two hundred square feet
in area for each lot and shall have access for
vehicles.
(5) The storage of recreational vehicles shaU
be prohibited in the front yard setback, on any
public or private streets, or any other area visible
to the public. A provision containing this
restriction shall be included in the covenants,
conditions and restrictions for the project.
(1) Storage Space. Separate storage space of at
least four hundred eighty cubic feet in area shaU
be provided for each unit. If all of the storage for
each unit is provided in one area, this require-
ment may be reduced to three hundred ninety-
two cubic feet. This space shall be separately
enclosed for each unit, meet building code
requirements, and be convenientiy accessible to
the outdoors. The storage space may be designed
as an enlargement of the required covered park-
ing structure, provided it does not extend into the
area of the required parking stall. This require-
ment is in addition to closets and other indoor
storage areas that are normally part of a residen-
tiai dwelUng unit.
(m) Refuse Areas. Centralized refuse-pickup
areas may be required for residential develop-
ment with five or more dwelUng units and for
nonresidential development if deemed to be nec-
essary by the planning commission or dty coun-
dl.
(n) Antennas. No individual antennas shaU
be permitted. Each project shall have a master
(Carisbad 2-90) 716
21.45.090
antenna and/or a cable television hookup. Individual
satelUte television antennas are permitted subject to
tiie provisions of Chapter 21.53 of this code.
(0) Planned Unit Development Lots. For planned
unit developments, as defined herein, lots that do
not meet tiie requirements of Titie 20 of the under-
lying zone may be approved. However, lots with
single-family detached homes shall comply with the
following criteria:
(1) Minimum lot size: tiiree thousand five hun-
dred square feet;
(2) Minimum street frontage on Unear or
semi-Unear streets: forty feet;
(3) Minimum frontage on sharply curved streets
or cul-de-sacs: tiiirty-five feet witii an average of
forty feet;
(4) Frontage on cul-de-sac bulbs may be reduced
to a minimum of twenty-five feet if guest parking
(that does not directiy back out onto street) is pro-
vided near the end of tiie cul-de-sac. Also, lots with
frontages less tiian tiiirty feet must reach a widtii of
thirty-five feet at some point near tiie middle of tiie
lot;
(5) The building height Umit for single-fanuly
and duplex residences shall not exceed thirty feet
and rwo stories if a minimum roof pitch of three to
twelve (3:12) is provided or twenty-four feet and
two stories if less than a three-to-twelve roof pitch
is provided for lots witii a lot area less than twenty
thousand square feet in size, although a lower maxi-
mum height may be estabUshed for the project For
lots with a lot area of twenty thousand square feet
or greater and within a R-l zone and specifying a -
20 or greater area zoning symbol, the building
height shall not exceed thirty-five feet and three
stories with a ininimum roof pitch of three to twelve
provided.
(p) Second dweUing units may be permitted on
lots which are developed with detached single-fami-
ly residences according to the provisions of Section
21.10.015(c), and subject to the following additional
requirements:
(1) All second dwelUng units within a single-
fanuly residential planned unit development shall be
required to eitiier be approved as part of the planned
unit development appUcation or ttu^ough an amend-
ment to the planned unit development appUcation.
(2) All second dwelUng units shall comply with
the development standards of tiiis chapter with the
following exception:
(A) Second dweUing units shall t>e set back the
same distance from the front and side property Unes
as the primary dweUing unit on the lot
(B) Second dweUing units shall be set back a
minimum of ten feet from tiie rear property Une.
(Q Second dwelUng units shaU not be pennitted
to be located witiiin any portion of the lot which is
counted towards satisfying recreation requirements
for the primary residence.
(D) For detached second dwelling units, the dis-
tance between the primary dwelling unit and the
second dwelUng unit shall be not less tiian ten feet
(Ord. NS-288 § 3, 1994; Ord. NS-283 §§ 9, 16,
1994; Ord NS-204 § 11, 1992; Ord. NS-180 § 25,
1991; Ord. NS-lOO § 1, 1990; Ord 9823 § 5, 1987:
Ord. 9804 § 8, 1986; Ord. 9727 § 1. 1984; Ord.
1261 § 49, 1983; Ord. 9631 § 2 (part), 1982)
21.45.100 Conversion of existing buildings
to planned developments.
(a) Conversion of existing buildings to a planned
development which is a condominium, community
apartment or stock cooperative shall be processed in
the same manner and meet all the standards pre-
scribed in this chapter for planned development In
addition, the stmcture to be converted must meet
present city building regulations.
(b) An appUcation for conversion of an existing
stmcture to a planned (jevelopment shall include
building plans indicating how the buUding relates to
present buUding and zoning regulations and where
modifications wUl be required. Also, the appUcation
shall include a letter from San Diego Gas and Elec-
tric explaining that the plans to connect the gas and
electric system to separate systems is acceptable.
(c) An appUcation to convert an existing building
to a stock cooperative shall be approved, condition-
aUy approved or disapproved within one hundred
twenty days foUowing receipt of a completed 'appU-
cation. (Ord. 9631 § 2 (part), 1982)
717 (CArUbad 10-94)
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT
REVIEW AND COMMENT REOUEST
Date: May 10, 2000
Planning Department - G. WAYNE Water District - B. PLUMMER
Engineering Department - R. WOJCIK Landscape Plancheck Consultant
- L. BLACK
Police Department School District
V Building Department - P. KELLEY North County Transit District
City Attorney Fire Department - M. SMITH
To Departments: Subject: RP00-07/CDP00-23/CT00-08
The attached plans have been submitted for the above referenced project. Please review the
attached documents for application completeness and issues of concems and forward your
comments to my office by May 19, 2000.
Thank you for your assistance.
Project Title:
Permit No.:
Applicant:
Washington Street Triplexes
RP00-07/CDP00-23/CT00-08
Anastasi Development Company, LLC
Brief Description of Proposal: Six unit condominium project and appurtenant on-site
improvements.
Assigned staff member: Lori Rosenstein
Comments: (Please send comments via e-mail. If there are no comments from your
department, please indicate in writing.)
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT
REVIEW AND COMMENT REOUEST
Date: May 10, 2000
V
V
Planning Department - G. WAYNE
Engineering Departme
Police Department
artmept - JR. WOJCIK
Building Department - P. KELLEY
City Attorney
Water District - B. PLUMMER
Landscape Plancheck Consultant
- L. BLACK
School District
North County Transit District
Fire Department - M. SMITH
To Departments: Subject: RP00-07/CDP00-23/CT00-08
The attached plans have been submitted for the above referenced project. Please review the
attached documents for application completeness and issues of concems and forward your
comments to my office by May 19, 2000.
Thank you for your assistance.
Project Title:
Permit No.:
Applicant:
Washington Street Triplexes
RP00-07/CDP00-23/CT00-08
Anastasi Development Company, LLC
Brief Description of Proposal: Six unit condominium project and appurtenant on-site
improvements.
Assigned staff member: Lori Rosenstein
Comments: (Please send comments via e-mail. If there are no comments from your
department, please indicate in writing.)
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LAND USE REVIEW
RECEIVED
MAY 2 3 2000
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT DEWRTMENT
TO: Lori Rosenstein, Management Analyst May 23,2000
FROM: Associate Planner - Barbara Kennedy
RE: RP 00-07 - Washington Street
The Planning Department has completed its review of the above referenced project and
is recommending:
1. The proposed residential use is incompatible with the Village Redevelopment Master Plan
for District 1 and is not supported. A mixed-use project would be more appropriate in this
location to achieve long-term redevelopment goals. Planning staff recommends that the
project be withdrawn and redesigned. Development of strictly residential uses on this site
would also set a precedent for future redevelopment ofthe surrounding properties.
2. The project should be evaluated with respect to future development of tourist serving uses
on surrounding properties. It may be appropriate at this time to put some planning effort
into a block study to analyze circulation and explore opportunities for adjacent properties to
utilize shared access in order to reduce the number of driveway entrance points. For
example, some consideration could be given to creating an entrance to the project on
Christiansen with a connection through to the existing driveway north of the site. Perhaps
a shared access agreement can be worked out.
If the applicant wants to continue with the proposal as submitted, the following Items
should be addressed:
3. The project will require preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. A noise study will
be required since the project proposes a residential use within the 65 to 70 dB(A) CNEL
noise contour. Noise mitigation measures will need to be incorporated into the project to
ensure that noise from buses and trains do not cause significant impacts to the proposed
residential uses.
4. The project density of 21.78 du/ac is over the Growth Management Control Point for
residential development in the Village Redevelopment area. Residential development can
exceed the growth control point if the findings under Section 21.90.045 can be made.
These findings relate to: 1) the provision of sufficient public facilities for the extra density;
2) that the facilities will be provided prior to or concurrent with need; and, 3) that there are
enough units in the excess dwelling unit bank so that the quadrant cap is not exceeded.
This is typically applied to sites where the application of the growth control point would
yield a fractional unit. This section would allow you to round up to a whole unit and is not
subiect to City Council Policy 43.
5. The project is subject^the City's Inclusionary Housing O^^ance. Projects proposing six
or fewer units may pay an in-lieu fee rather than constructing a unit.
6. The project has been evaluated for consistency with the development standards of the
Planned Development (PD) Ordinance. The following issues have been identified:
a. The PD Ordinance requires a 20 foot front setback and a 10 foot streetside setback.
b. A 30 foot wide driveway is required to provide access to the units. Garages facing the
driveway must have an additional off-set of 5 feet from the driveway and the garages
must be equipped with automatic garage door openers.
c. Two covered spaces are required per unit with a minimum clear interior dimension of
20'x20' within the garage. Water heaters and other projections may not encroach into
the required parking area.
d. Three guest parking spaces are required for the project. Standard parking spaces
must have a minimum area of 170 square feet and a minimum width of 8 Vz feet. In
addition, when parking spaces are located adjacent to a solid wall, the minimum width
of the space should be increased by two feet.
e. Recreational open space shall be provided for the project at a ratio of 200 square feet
per unit. A minimum of 600 square feet of common active recreation area must be
provided. At least 100 square feet of private passive open space (balconies or private
rear yards) shall be provided per unit. Please refer to Section 21.45.090(g) of the
Carisbad Municipal Code for minimum depths of open space areas.
f Storage space is required for each unit. The storage space may be provided within the
garage, provided it does not extend into the required parking area.
g. The trash area should either be relocated so that it is not such a prominent visual
feature, or it should be enhanced with a decorative trellis with vines over the top of the
structure to aid in screening the enclosure.
1. The combined height of the retaining wall and free-standing fence located within the rear
setback area exceeds the maximum height limit of 6 feet.
2. The proposed wood fence around project seems inconsistent with the neighborhood and
with the vision and land uses proposed for District 1.
3. More detail is required to show how the sidewalk will transition around the existing
"heritage" eucalyptus trees.
c: Principal Planner, Adrienne Landers
REDEVELOPMENT PEmilT
Date: May 10, 2000
REVIEW AND COMMENT REOUEST
KtCiirvED
M^V j 1 2000
tNGINEERING
DEPARTMENT
Planning Department - G. WAYNE V Water District - B. PLUMMER
Engineering Department - R. WOJCIK Landscape Plancheck Consultant
- L. BLACK
Police Department School District
Building Department - P. KELLEY North County Transit District
City Attorney Fire Department - M. SMITH
To Departments: Subject: RP00-07/CDP00-23/CT00-08
The attached plans have been submitted for the above referenced project. Please review the
attached documents for application completeness and issues of concems and forward your
comments to my office by May 19, 2000.
Thank you for your assistance.
Project Title:
Permit No.:
Applicant:
Washmgton Street Triplexes
RP00-07/CDP00-23/CT00-08
Anastasi Development Company, LLC
Brief Description of Proposal: Six unit condominium project and appurtenant on-site
improvements.
Assigned staff member: Lori Rosenstein
Comments: (Please send comments via e-mail. If there are no comments from your
department, please indicate in writing.) . „_.,^^^
^at Kelley- Ml^ 00:07 7
From: Pat Kelley
To: ton Rosenstein; Pat Kelley
Date: 5/12/00 8:31AM
Subject: RP 00-07 / CDP 00-23 / CTOO-08 - Anastasi Condo's
RECEIVED
MAY 12 2000
CITY OF CARLSBAD HOUSINGS REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ton - It doesn't look like the comments from Preliminary review re: Comerical on the first floor or mixed
use were put into the plan. And there sure aren't too many amenities for residents ofthis PD.
The project doesn't have too many hurdles from a building code perspective. The buildings will have to be
sprinklered. Their plan shows this. The dwelling units do not have to be accessible, since they are
multi-story units (more than one floor level per unit). The guest parking does have to be accessible
however per California Building Code Section 1118A.1. It does not appear any of the guest spaces are
large enough to make this work. Please add a general statement in the conditions that the project needs to
comply with State regulations for disabled access.
Th^ elevations show open guardrails on the balconies. This will not mitigate any of the noise level issues
on the balcony porches. There are not enough plan details to note how they are mitigating noise inside the
units.
That's all from BIdg - plans are in transit interoffice mail.
OCTOBER 5, 2000
TO: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: Management Analyst, Redevelopment Department
Request for Refund (Washington Street Condos)
Anastasi Development Corporation submitted the attached letter requesting an
official withdrawal of all land use permit applications submitted for property
located at 382 Christiansen Way (APN 203-172-07 & 08). The applicant is
requesting a refund in the amount of $15,360.00 for fees paid in association with
the processing of a Major Redevelopment Permit (RPOO-07), Coastal
Development Permit (CDPOO-23), Tentative Tract Map (CTOO-08), and
Condominium Permit (CPOO-04).
In a prior memo to you dated May 26, 2000 (copy attached) 1 requested the
applicant be refunded $5,000.00 for fees associated with the processing of the
Condominium Permit (CPOO-04) since a separate Condominium Permit is not
required in the Redevelopment Area. If these fees were already returned to the
applicant, please deduct them from the full amount requested by the applicant.
The Housing and Redevelopment Director has authorized a full refund of the
application fees outlined above. 1 am therefore requesting your assistance in
processing the refund request. In addition, please let me know if 1 need to enter
this information into Permits Plus or if it will be taken care of during the refund
process.
If you have any questions or require additional information please contact me at
x2813. As always, 1 appreciate your assistance on this matter.
LORI H. ROSENSTEIN
Management Analyst
AN ASTASj
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
September 12, 2000
Lori H. Rosenstein
Management Analyst
City ofCarlsbad
2965 Roosevelt St., Suite B
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389
RE: Carlsbad Application/fees
Dear Lori:
The purpose of this letter is to request the cancellation of our Land Use Review
Application for the six unit condominium complex and a refund of the following filing fees:
Description: Amount:
CDP00023 $2,520.00
CP000004 $5,000.00
CT000008 $5,010.00
RP000007 $2.830.00
TOTAL: $15,360.00
We will be reapplying for the larger project shortly, as we have discussed. If you have any
questions or need any additional information to complete this request, please do not hesitate to
call.
Very tmly yours.
Vice President
LJS: cmd
0 c 1
1200 Aviation Blvd. Redondo Beach, CA 90278 Tel. (310) 376-8077 Fox (310) 379-2694
MAY 26, 2000
TO: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: Management Analyst, Redevelopment Department
Request for Refund CPOO-04 (Washington Street Condos.)
Anastasi Development Company, LLC incorrectly submitted an application and
corresponding filing fee for a Condominium Permit in conjunction with their
project at 382 Christiansen Way. In accordance with the Carisbad Municipal
Code, the Major Redevelopment Permit takes the place of the required
Condominium Permit. Therefore, CPOO-04 should be voided and a refund in the
amount of $5,000 should be returned to the applicant. The applicant's mailing
address is: Anastasi Development Company, LLC, 1200 Aviation Blvd., Suite
100, Redondo Beach, CA 90278.
If you have any questions or require additional information please contact me at
x2813. Thank you for your assistance on this matter.
LORI H. ROSENSTEIN
Management Analyst