Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 88-05; Halverson Family Trust; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (3)August 19, 1990 CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California Alan Sweeney; 92009 4059 I have received your letter dated August 17, 1990. I do not agree with item 3 on page 3 of Policy #17. I do not feel this applies. . .. ..^. This property has approval for commercial zoning. A technicality of, so called redevelopment, appears in the way. This property was used as a retail store for, to the best of my knowledge, six years prior to my purchase of the property. Again I am making no changes to the property only requesting it for office use as is. I did not go into this blinded as prior to purchase I review all aspects of my desire for the property with your office down town. The date of this meeting with your people was the third week of July 1988. At that time it appears I was lied to, miss led or certainly told a different picture. I was even told, within one year that Elm Avenue would be reworked similar to Grand. I would request that the proper committee review and answer my request in writing and signatures, with titles, other than just yours be involved. Thank you, Alan, for your immediate attention to this problem. Melvin B. Halverson City of Carlsbad Planning Department August 17, 1990 Mel Halverson Box 192 Del Mar, CA 92014 Dear Mr. Halverson: Chapter 21.35 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code requires issuance of a Redevelopment Permit. Item 3 on page 3 of Policy #17 requires a public facility fee where redevelopment approval or permit is required. Alan Sweehdy Associate Planner AS:rvo Erin Letsch Kathy Graham 2075 Las Palnnas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 • (619) 438-1161 August 15, 1990 ALAN SWEENEY CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 4859 Subject: 3050 Madison Street * Conversion Res. to Office Reference: Sweeney letter dated August 13, 1990 Dear Mr. Sweeney; What appears to be in question is a conversion and in Policy Number 17 I do not read wherein a conversion is involved. Nearly all reference is made to a development, subdivision, new construction or renovation. I can not see where the quality of life is affected or the character of the community. We are referring to the existing with no changes. The zoning is as required. On 8 8 08 I paid $25.00 i 19.00 * Total of $44.00. Why is it now thousands of dollars? I have painted and cleaned up the area, the neighbors are very pleased. 3050 Madison is advertised for lease and the response has been far greater than on other properties in the area due to the appearance. As is, I would say the quality of life and character of the area has been enhanced. On the subject request 3.5% is unreasonable, I do not feel qualified, and economically, if any gain by approval of office use, would not warrant the cost you request. I first approached the City on this request in May, 1990 and to be only to this point in August, I also feel is unreasonable. I have also not received a response to my letter dated 5 25 90 that you stated Eric Munoz would respond to. I would appreciate your immediate attention to the correct fee. If you should find that an error has not been made, for the records, I would appreciate your detailing the exact portions of Policy Number 17 that do apply. Sincerely, Melvin B. Halverson cc: Michael Holzmiller Patty Cratty Kathy Graham Gary Wayne Eric Munoz Dee Landers Erin Letsch Doris Cosman Angelina Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department August 13, 1990 Melvin B. Halverson Box 192 Del Mar, CA 92014 RE: Conversion of Existing Building at 3050 Madison from Residential to Office Use Dear Mr. Halverson: This will confirm our telephone conversation today. It was a pleasure speaking with you. At your request, I inquired whether your proposal would be required to pay a public facilities fee. The answer I received is that the fee requirement is triggered by issuance of a discretionary permit. The conversion you are proposing requires approval of a Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Permit which are discretionary permits, and therefore a public facilities fee is required. For your convenience, enclosed with this letter is a copy of Council Policy Statement Number 17. This Policy Statement explains in detail the fee requirements and amounts. Thank you for your inquiry. Sincerely, Alan Sweeney (j Associate Planner AS:n/o Enclosure c: Gary Wayne Kathy Graham Erin Letsch 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 • (619) 438-1161 Citv of Carlsbad July 26, 1990 Melvin Halverson Box 192 Del Mar, CA 92014 SUBJECn": 3050 MADISON AVENUE Dear Mr. Halverson, This will confirm our telephone conservation today. It was a pleasure speaking with you. As we discussed, in order to grant your request for office use at 3050 Madison Avenue, it will first be necessary to secure approval of a Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Permit. For your convenience, the foUowing application materials are being sent to you with this letter: 1. City of Carlsbad Land Use Review application form. 2. Coastal Development Permit Supplemental application. 3. City of Carlsbad application requirements for Redevelopment Permits. 4. Public Facilities Fee requirements. Many of these are probably familiar to you from you last application. However, if you have any questions or need assistance please contact me. Thank you. Sincerely, ALAN SWEENE/1^, Associate Planner AS:km Gary Wayne Kathy Graham Tony Mata Dee Landers Erin Letsch 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad. California 92009-4859 • (619) 438-1161 •V July 18, 1990 CITY OF CARLSBAD Alan Sweeney 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 4859 REFERENCE: Alan Sweeney letter dated July 16,1990 to Mr. Melvin B. Halverson Dear Mr. Sweeney; Yes there is a lot of confusion but I don't feel it is on my side of the fence. First Paragraph of your letter: You are correct you and I have not discussed the lighting problem at Kentucky Fried ChJcken. My first letter was dated December 5th, 1989 and addressed to City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Second letter dated January ]'/, 1990 and again addressed to the City of Carisbad Planning Department. The third letter was dated May 25, 1990 and addressed to Michael Holzmiller. As you can see I had no idea that I should even approach you re the problem as I never have received any information from the planning department or response to my letters till now. By the way, no where in any of my letters have I stated that you promised me a letter. Yes, I did ask for a response to my letters in all except the one dated January 17, 1990 but they were addressed to Mr. Holzmiller or the P]anning Department. Second Paragraph: ] wiil wait for a response on this problem from MR. ERIC MUNOZ. Third Paragraph: I never requested an approval for a law office at 3050 Madison. I so indicated this no less than three times in conversations with you, Mr Munoz, and clerks at the front desk. My first conversation was with Mr. Munoz and I stated that two parties, husband and wife, did want to rent and purchase the site. They had talked to Mr. Munoz and there later conversation with me was that they were no longer interested. I don't know what went on when they approached the City but they won't even return my calls now. Yes a law office was discussed but my request was for approval for office use. Please note my site plan states (Request is for qeneral office of existinq). Every time some one approaches the City re 3050 Madison, it is thrown in their face that an application was denied. I guess a denial is something the City feels they deserve a gold star for. Alan Sweeney letter dated May 31, 1990 requested a Disclosure statement. As I recall I talked to Mr Marty Orenyaka on the phone shortly after receiving this letter. He informed me that this was not required and I also gave him some of this information from the Alan Sweeney letter dated June 7, 1990. lie also stated many of these items were not appropriate. I returned a letter dated June 10, 1990 with the requested information. This letter contained a statement as follows: {T'm sure you would agree that there are a couple items on the request for information sheet that are not applicable to our situation.) No response received. Another statement, I made at the front desk when the previous application was brought up, was forget the other application, can't you look at this existing site plan and say yes or no on office use. Now it appears as if the previous plan is stuck in your operation so lets consider this as a revised plan to that application. It was denied without prejudice. The previous plan was denied as it does not meet the redevelopment plan. Now that is vague and not one of the people on the Review Doard asked why! Never getting any thing in letter form on the reasons why I can only go by notations on the prints placed there by the your planning engineer. These are as follows: Rear yard ok if rock garden Seat requested on planters Texture pavement Ijandscape along north wall where hedge now exists Parking approved for general office Site distance on one parkinq slot. The sight is restricted due 1,0 6" ience pui; in by Kenl:ucky Fried Chicken to the aJ Jey asphalt. Brick or wooden cap on fence Trim shutters Colored awnings Wooden planters Lawn and patio furniture for employees These seem like simple items but they are not cost effective and most important not maintenance free, costly, and some not appropriate. Picnic area for a couple of employees? If I rent this as residential you could have as many as 3 5 people in each of the two units. If rented as office the most anticipated is owner and 2 employees. With office in alley across from the units and heavy traffic, Kentucky Fried Chicken, plus commercial lighting to the north and then we have a children's day school to the south and that is not the most quiet operation, it is really no longer conducive to residential. These conditions have transpired due to your approvals. Fourth Paragraph: Action I wish the city to take on the stop sign. I don't require any action. I only pointed it out in case you were not aware of the location of the sign and the painted words, stop, on the left hand side of the street. As the neighbors have asked me ** why ** that appears stupid and I have never seen that before! My intentions are to be able to sell or rent 3050 Madison for use as an office operation. My request is for City approval or permit or what ever is required to accomplish same legally. You have an existing site plan and other information in your hands. In detail, what do I have to do? Don't give me a form to fill out wherein many of the items are not appropriate or required for this application. I don't feel it would be out of place to waJk the property with your people. I have a strong feeling that you are not aware of the location and existing conditions. Please respond at your earliest convenience. Melvin B. Halverson cc: Michael Holzmiller Gary Wayne Dee Landers Doris Cosman Patty Cratty Eric Munoz Erin Letsch Angelina Citv of Carlsbad July 16, 1990 Planning Department Melvin B. Halverson PO Box 192 Del Mar, CA 92014 RE: KENTU(3CY FRIED CHI(3GEN, CARLSBAD VHXAGE DRIVE AND MADISON Dear Mr. Halverson: Apparendy there has been some confusion. In your July 11, 1990 letter you state that I promised you a letter regarding a Ughting problem at Kentucky Fried Chicken at Carlsbad ViUage Drive (formerly Elm Avenue) and Madison. You and I have never discussed a Ughting problem. Mr. Eric Munoz of our depaitment received your May 25,1990 letter regarding the Ughting and has contacted Kentucky Fried Chicken. You wiU be informed by him as soon as a resolution of the problem is determined. Your July 11, 1990 letter refers to a site plan. You have not requested a review of a site plan. You had requested approval of a business Ucense for a law office at 3050 Madison but this request could not be granted due to the fact your redevelopment permit appUcation was denied by the Design Review Board. The BuUding Department also informed you that you must demonstrate that your buUding meets commercial buUding code standards before a non-residential use can be approved. They are stiU waiting for this information. Your May 25, 1990 letter mentions a stop sign. Is there some action you wish the City to take regarding the sign? Thank you for yoiu: letter. Mr. Munoz wUl contact you soon regarding the Ughting problem at Kentucky Fried Chicken. Sincerely, ALAN SWEENEY / / Associate Planner AS:kd c: Michael HolzmiUer Gary Wayne Dee Landers Doris Cosman Patty Cratty Eric Munoz Erin Letsch Angelina 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 • (619) 438-1161 Citv of Carlsbad Planninq Department July 12, 1990 Melvin B. Halverson P.O Box 192 Del Mar, California 92014 Dear Mr. Halverson: I am sorry that you have not received a response to your previous letter. I have referred this matter to Alan Sweeney, Associate Planner, and requested that he respond to your letter immediately. Sincerely, CITY OF CARLSBAD MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director "A arb 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009 • (619) 438-1161 FAX (619) 438-0894 JUNE 15, 1990 TO: MIKE HARRINGTON, CODE ENFORCEMENT FROM: Alan Sweeney, Planiung Department SUBJECn*: WORK ON BUILDING AT 3050 MADISON AVENUE Doris at the BuUding Counter suggested I contact you. The owner of the above buUding previously appUed for and was denied a redevelopment pennit and coastal development permit to convert the buUding from residential to office use. The appUcation was denied by the Design Review Board on January 18, 1989. The buUding came to our attention again this month when a Laura Quakenbush approached us to request approval of her law office in the buUding. When we inspected the site, we discovered that changes had been made to the buUding. Lance Schulte, a former planner with our department, said the owner had tom out the kitchens. Changes visible from the outside include replacement of waUs and fences, paving of the parking area, stuccoing and landscaping. A "for lease" sign is posted in the front yard and Mrs. Quackenbush says the owner is offering the buUding for office use. At the suggestion of Lance Schulte, I spoke with Tony Mata. He said that if the buUding is to be converted from residential to office use it must comply with the requirements of Title 24 and with appUcable fire codes. He said the owner must submit plans for buUding department review. The property ovmer, Mr. Melvin B. Halverson, is refusing to submit plans for plan check. He claims he is not required to do so. Doris said she told him he must submit but she has received only a site plan. Mr. Halverson stated to me and to Doris that he wiU not submit any more plans. Is this an issue code enforcement can help us with? AS:kd c: Doris Cosman Tony Mata Erin Letsch Adrienne Landers Patty Cratty July 11, 1990 CITY OF CARLSBAD Michael Holzmiller Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 4859 Subject: Kentucky Fried Chicken Elm Si Madison Dear Mr. Holzmiller; I have sent you several letters, the last one dated 5 25-90, with regards to the lighting. problem at the rear of the subject property. I have even enclosed photos. The problem still exists and even though I have asked for you to respond in writing to my letter, I have received nothing. I am now getting complaints from the tenant at 3050 xMadison Street. I have addressed this problem to you as your department approved the renovations on the sight. The city wants a mix in down town but certainly not taking into consideration the residential aspect. Problem two is that Mr. Alan Sweeny promised me a letter many weeks ago with regards to a site plan I left with him. To date nothing has been received. Would you please let me know what action is taken or what your position is. Melvin B. Halverson PO Box 192 Del Mar, California 92014 JUNE 15, 1990 TO: MIKE HARRINGTON, CODE ENFORCEMENT FROM: Alan Sweeney, Plarming Department SUBJECn-: WORK ON BUILDING AT 3050 MADISON AVENUE Doris at the BuUding Counter suggested I contact you. The owner of the above buUding previously appUed for and was denied a redevelopment pennit and coastal development permit to convert the buUding from residential to office use. The appUcation was denied by the Design Review Board on January 18, 1989. The buUding came to our attention again this month when a Laura Quakenbush approached us to request approval of her law office in the buUding. When we inspected the site, we discovered that changes had been made to the buUding. Lance Schulte, a former planner with our department, said the owner had tom out the kitchens. Changes visible from the outside include replacement of waUs and fences, paving of the parking area, stuccoing and landscaping. A "for lease" sign is posted in the front yard and Mrs. Quackenbush says the owner is offering the buUding for office use. At the suggestion of Lance Schulte, I spoke with Tony Mata. He said that if the buUding is to be converted from residential to office use it must comply with the requirements of Title 24 and with appUcable fire codes. He said the owner must submit plans for buUding department review. The property owner, Mr. Melvin B. Halverson, is refusing to submit plans for plan check. He claims he is not required to do so. Doris said she told him he must submit but she has received only a site plan. Mr. Halverson stated to me and to Doris that he wiU not submit any more plans. Is this an issue code enforcement can help us with? AS:kd c: Doris Cosman Tony Mata Erin Letsch Adrienne Landers Patty Cratty June 10, 1990 CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Department Alan Sweeney 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 Subject: 3050 Madison Avenue Carlsbad, California Reference; Alan Sweeney letter dated 6-7-90 Dear Mr. Sweeney; In response to your letter please find attached a site plan containing all the information requested. I'm sure you would agree that there are a couple items on the request for information sheet that are not applicable to our situation. I would appreciate your immediate attention to a review and answer to the information provided. /i ^ -^_^^i^xJ. ^^^^^^^ J^lu/M^ Melvin B. Halverson ^ ^tM/Ht/^ ^ Ou/^ilf^ Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department June 7, 1990 Melvin B. Halverson Box 192 Del Mar, CA 92014 Re: 3050 Madison Avenue Dear Mr. Halverson: In order to continue processing your request for a law office use at the above address, the Building Department needs to review your plans. The specific information they will need is shown on the attached sheet entitled ''Commercial/Industrial Buildings and Tenant Improvements". When the Building Department has received, reviewed and approved your plans, we will resume processing of your redevelopment permit application. If you have any questions regarding the Building Department review, you may telephone them at 438-1161. If you have any questions concerning the redevelopment permit, please contact me. Thank you. Sincerely, Alan Sweeney Associate Planner AS:n/o Attachment cc: Erin Letsch Dee Landers Patricia Cratty Tony Mata 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 • (619) 438-1161 Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department May 31, 1990 Melvin B. Halverson P.O. Box 192 Del Mar, CA 92014 Re: Disclosure Statement dated 5/30/90 Dear Mr. Halverson: Thank you for submitting the required Disclosure Statement regarding your request for law office use of the Halverson Trust property at 3050 Madison Avenue in Carlsbad. In Item 1 of the Disclosure Statement, you state the Halverson Family Trust has a financial interest in the application. Item 4 of the Disclosure Statement was not completed. It requires the names and addresses of the trustee(s) and beneficiary(s) of the trust. The Disclosure Statement is being returned to you for completion of Item 4. Please complete and return at your earliest convenience. The sooner we receive your completed Disclosure Statement, the sooner we can begin processing your request. Thank you. Sincerely, Alan Sweeney'^ Associate Planner AS:n/o Enclosure cc: Patricia Cratty, Acting Redevelopment Director Dee Landers, Senior Planner Erin Letsch 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 • (619) 438-1161 •City of darlahaH DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPUCANTS STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON Aa APPUCATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIU OR ANY APPOINTED BOARD. COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE. (Please Print) The following information must be disclosed: 1. Applicant Ust the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. // ^ >' ^. ^ ^' /7>^/ /'^ ?d'i^. (Dwnef Ust the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. c k' r If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names ar addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnersh interest in the partnership. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names ar addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficia of the trust. (Over) Disclosure Statement Page 2 Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boar; Commissions. Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No _2L ^ yw, please indicate person(s) ^ Person is defined as: *Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, sociai club, fratemai organization, corporation, estate, trust receiver, syndicate, this and any other courrty. city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit.* (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) Signature of Owner/date Signature of applicant/date Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE W^/^W^ I TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 WWf/jfM (619) 438-1161 (Eitg of (Earlabaii PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' ^ January 19, 1989 t/^/y P Mr. Mel Halverson ''^^r , P.O. Box 192 / r^'^ Del Mar, California 92014 - SUBJECT: RP 88-5/CDP 88-5 - HALVERSON FAMILY TRUST Dear Mr. Halverson: This letter is a courtesy follow-up to the Design Review Board's action last night. The Design Review Board denied your project without prejudice. That means that you may resubmit your redevelopment permit applications for the site immediately, or appeal the Board's action. As we discussed that evening, I would be more than happy to meet with you to talk over any subsequent reapplication. Please call me if you would like to set a time to meet. Staff regrets that you did not proceed with your second to the last submittal. That design, and improvement to the site was more in line with the Village Redevelopment effort. With a few minor changes, that plan would have received a recommendation of approval from staff. We regret that you choose to delete those improvements. Again, as we discussed after last night's meeting, Carlsbad is making significant public improvements in the Redevelopment Area. Attached is a copy of an article that briefly describes some of those improvements. As you can see, the City has committed millions of dollars to improving the Redevelopment Area. I would be more than happy to show you details of those improvements and relate to you how they would help you in your redevelopment project. Given the tremendous amount of effort to enhance the Village Redevelopment Area it is imperative that all redevelopment projects both contribute to and benefit from the redevelopment effort. Again, I would be more than happy to meet with you and assist you. Sin9eTjely your^ ANCt B. SCHULTE Associate Planner c: RP 88-5/CDP 88-5 Chris Salomone Mike Howes LBS:af halverson.ltr December 12, 1988 \^ ^^T^ STAFF MEMBERS OF THE DEVELOPMENT COORDINATING COMMITTEE Gentlemen; I am Melvin B. Halverson, owner of the property in question and before you today. On 12-9-88 I received your letter dated 12-7-88 from Mr. Holzmiller and, in turn, picked up the preliminary staff report. To save your time and mine, I would prefer to provide you with the following comments without stopping to converse on various items. Reference Page one item 2. It should not be interpreted that the 440 square foot garage is being renovated or used for an office. Reference item 3 (Issue) second paragraph. I must assume that exhibits A and B are the drawings I did provide to your department as there are no exhibits attached. Reference page 2, first paragraph. " Intensity of the site", gentlemen this is a very strong word for 1181 square feet of floor space which was to house two people as a branch civil engineering office. Or how much office do you feel can accommodate 1181 square feet which Includes two bath rooms and two utility rooms? Reference the Costal Development permit. No grounds are indicated for the denial. It does meet, as you say, the minimum requirements and what would be the max requirements and how comfortable is this with 1181 Square feet of which approximately 989 is actually useable for working office? Reference subarea 1. In looking at the maps and information provided to me, I must question this and ask why it is not considered subarea 7? I also have no idea what effect it would have on this project if it were considered subarea 7. You will note that the property is located between the lines you have on the map which has no designation or explanation for this area. I am also in a quandary as to why Resolutions No. 128 and 129 as they are identical on my review and are why conclusions printed for a meeting to be held in the future on these documents? Possibly to save time may I review what I feel we have here. This is a one story building of good sound basic structure, and is not a tear-down. The bath rooms and utility rooms are in excellent condition with new tile floors. The electrical has been inspected and revised, from the home owner additions, to code and inspected by your inspector. There are two new heat pumps providing air conditioning and heat. The interior has been painted and is in very presentable condition. New carpet will be installed at the time of occupancy. Four parking areas will be provided on asphalt and existing concrete, with more than the required space for each. The exterior trim will be painted as a last item. There is a large back yard, good size side yard, and fair size front yard all to be in grass. The existing shrubs will be maintained. The square footage is not capable of large client traffic or employee traffic nor do I plan to make a park out of the property, at my expense, for the city. If this were a large project I could see some of your suggestions, but it is not. How can you expect an owner to spend $45,000.00 for improvements, pay 33.00 a square foot for the property and receive $1.25 per square foot for the 1181 square feet? Also pay taxes, management, insurance, have one tenant- which affects the vacancy rate- have reasonable maintenance and still make any margin of profit, in fact it would be a negative. The increase in value is not foreseen in the future nor can it be calculated, not in this area of Carlsbad. The risk factor is 60 to 80 % of which 60% are city actions and they are not on record as being good. Agreed, these figures are to each his own and no one has the true calculations. In your fast pencil to the above, you must allow the owner to have 30 % equity. I sincerely feel that the existing structure can be office and the existing exterior maintained in good quality which, will consequently do more for the area than the existing condition. I request that you reconsider the rejection now planned and allow my existing plans to take place and see what we all can do in the future years. My confidence in your city is low now but your confidence in me could possibly change that feeling. In contacting your redevelopment center over eight months ago, there was never any indication that this amount of time was in the picture for such a simple project, nor demand for cost would be so high. I can not provide the costs that you are requiring. I will not buy this permit from the city by providing your extravagant suggestions to my plans nor do I feel that the people in the community would request it. Please understand that my attitude here today is not to be taken as negative or abusive to you or your staff. I do prefer to work with the community but, to this point, the street appears one way only, your way. The statements made are factual and possibly helpful to you. 1 have been very offended by the lack of cooperation, lack of courtesy, and the stalling I have received to this point. I feel I have now taken up the time you have allotted to me and do not request answers to my questions and comments at this time. However, I would request a reply in writing. Also, should you have questions, I would prefer these to be in writing. A copy of these comments is available to each of you. Thank you gentlemen for your time and consideration. Melvin B. Halverson 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE • k • TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 WT^»J^M (619) 438-1161 (Etta of (EarlHbaa PLANNING DEPARTMENT December 7, 1988 Mel Halverson PO Box 192 Del Mar, CA 92014 SUBJECT: RP 88-5/CDP 88-5 HALVERSON FAMILY TRUST Preliminary Staff Report The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be available for you to pick up on Friday, December 9, 1988, after 8 a.m. This preliminary report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (D.C.C.) meeting which will be held on Monday, December 12, 1988. A twenty (20) minute appointment has been set aside for you at 10:30 a.m. If you have any questions concerning your project, you should attend the D.C.C. meeting. It is necessary that you bring your required unmounted colored exhibit(s) with you to this meeting in order for your project to go forward to the Planning Commission. If you do not plan to attend this meeting, please make arrangements to have your colored exhibit{s) here by the scheduled time above. If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact the Planning Department at 438-1161. CITY OF CARLSBAD MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director By: 0(hky\ Planning Department LBSs:MJH\lh 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE mJpWJ M TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 WT^T/J^P (619) 438-1161 PLANNING DEPARTMENT \ -'! August 24, 1988 Scott Schwartz 2919 Ivy Street, #2 San Diego, CA 92104 The Planning Department of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed your Redevelopment Permit, application No. RP 88-5, as to its completeness for processing. The subject application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached is a list of information which must be provided to complete your application. You should be aware that no processing of your application can occur until it is determined to be complete. Please contact Nancy Rollman, at (619) 438-1161, if you have questions or wish to obtain additional information. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:NER/af Enclosures