HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-24; Design Review Board; Resolution 2911
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 291
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
VARIANCE FOR A REAR YARD SETBACK WHICH EXCEEDS THE
MAXIMUM STANDARD RANGE, A VARIANCE FOR A PORTION OF THE
ROOF TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT, AND
MAXIMUM OF FOUR PARKING SPACES, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A 10,490 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2815 JEFFERSON STREET IN LAND USE
DISTRICT 7 OF THE CARLSBAD VlLLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA
AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: KENT JESSEE OFFICE BUILDING
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 02-02, INCLUDING A
PARTICIPATION IN THE PARKING IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM FOR A
APN: 203-1 10-29
CASE NO: RP 02-02
WHEREAS, Smith Consulting Architects, “Applicant”, has filed a verified application
with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by W. Kent
Jessee and Associates, “Owner”, described as Assessor Parcel Number 203-110-29, and more
thoroughly described in Attachment A, (“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, as
shown on Exhibits “A-H” dated February 24,2003, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
Department, “Kent Jessee Office Building RP 02-02”, as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the day of February 2003, hold a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to
“Kent Jessee Office Building RP 02-02”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
follows:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Kent Jessee Office Building RP 02-
02, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
1. The Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the
State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment,
and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of
environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an
in-fill development project on a site of less than five acres in an urbanized area that has
no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities. In making this determination, the
Planning Director has found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the state CEQA
Guidelines do not apply to this project.
2. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein and with the
findings contained herein for a rear yard setback variance, a height variance, and
findings to grant participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program, is in conformance
with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment
Plan, and the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual based on the
facts set forth in the staff report dated February 24, 2003 including, but not limited to the
following:
a.
b.
C.
d.
The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village,
as outlined within the General Plan, because it provides for a commercial office
project in an appropriate location within the Village. The project provides
greater employment opportunities, enhances the pedestrian orientation of the
area, and retains the Village character and pedestrian scale through adherence
to the land use regulations and design guidelines set forth for the area.
The project is consistent with Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
Manual in that the proposed commercial project assists in satisfying the goals
and objectives set forth for Land Use District 7 through the following actions: 1)
the project provides permitted professional office space in a new structure; 2)
the building is designed in a manner that compliments nearby residential uses by
incorporating many of a same architectural elements found in residential
projects; and 3) the project consists of an individual building set back from the
street and surrounded by landscaping.
The project as designed is consistent with the development standards for Land
Use District 7, the Village Design Guidelines and other applicable regulations set
forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, with the exception of the
requested variances.
The existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3.
public right-of-way has been or will be dedicated and has been or will be
improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation have
been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking. Pedestrian
circulation is provided through pedestrian-oriented building design,
landscaping, and hardscape. Public facilities have been or will be constructed to
serve the proposed project. The project has been conditioned to develop and
implement a program of “best management practices” for the elimination and
reduction of pollutants which enter into and/or are transported within storm
drainage facilities.
e. The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space within
the surrounding area. The project is consistent with the Open Space
requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area and
the City’s Landscape Manual.
The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow for a variance for a rear yard
setback that exceeds the standard range:
a.
b.
C.
That the application of certain provisions of this chapter will result in practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent
with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan, in
that due to the excessive depth of the property (201 feet), strict adherence to the
setback standards on both the front and rear of the property makes it impossible
to provide required on-site parking. By providing a substantial setback on the
rear of the building a majority of the required parking can be provided under
the building and between the back of the building and the rear property line,
both of which are preferable site design strategies set forth in the Carlsbad
Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual.
That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the
proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or
developments which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls, in that the
property has an unusual width to depth ratio. A majority of the lots in the area
that are of similar width (i.e. 65 feet wide) have a smaller depth (i.e. less than 201
feet). The subject property would have to be wider to accommodate the
necessary parking if the building were built to both the front and rear yard
setback standards.
That the granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the
public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area, in that the
increased setback on the rear of the property will allow the front of the property
to be developed at a setback that is consistent with neighboring properties while
providing a greater setback from neighboring residential properties along the
rear of the parcel. The 71-foot setback on the rear of the property serves to
protect the livability of existing nearby residential development by creating a
buffer between them and the office building.
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
d. That the granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual, in that the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible
in order to encourage diversity and variety of development and to take into
consideration the unique conditions associated with many of the properties in
the redevelopment area. In this case, the narrow width of the subject property
compared to the excessive depth necessitates the need for an increased rear yard
setback to allow for maximum on-site parking. The design of the building
maximizes on-site parking opportunities by providing parking below and in
back of the proposed building, both of which are consistent with the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual’s goal of making parking visually subordinate
in the downtown area.
e. An increased setback on the rear of the property is justified because the
property abuts a single-family residence and a 16-unit apartment building to the
west and a single-family residence to the south. While the single-family
residential uses are considered nonconforming uses in District 7, they will
remain until such time as the lots are redeveloped into commercial office uses
(permitted uses) or perhaps multifamily residential uses (provisional uses). The
mixture of existing uses in the immediate vicinity and the subject property’s
close proximity to multiple land use districts are evidence that this is an area in
the process of transitioning from what was originally a single-family
neighborhood to the commercial office district envisioned in the Village Master
Plan. The 71-foot setback on the rear of the property serves to protect the
livability of existing nearby residential development by creating a buffer
between them and the office building.
4. The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow for an increase in maximum height
from 35’”’’ to 38’-6”:
a.
b.
That the application of certain provisions of this chapter will result in practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent
with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan, in
that the combination of the property’s width to depth ratio and its restricted
vehicular access to a single public street dictate a site design with parking on the
lower level and usable floor area above in order to achieve a feasible amount of
onsite parking. However, construction of a three-story structure within the 35-
foot height limit precludes the inclusion of the required 512 roof pitch. In order
to develop the subject property in a manner that is consistent with the purpose
and intent of the Carlsbad Area Redevelopment Plan, a portion of the roofline
will exceed the maximum height of 35 feet.
That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the
proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or
developments which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls, in that the
subject property’s width to depth ratio (65’ x 201’) and its restricted vehicular
access to a single public street (Jefferson Street) make development of the site
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C.
d.
e.
f.
€5
h.
....
difficult to achieve. This condition is not typical of lots in the surrounding area.
That the granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the
public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area, in that the
additional height will be located in the center of the building and is necessary to
achieve the required 512 roof pitch. The additional roof height will not
negatively impact the livability of nearby residential units.
That the granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual, in that the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible
in order to encourage redevelopment of underutilized properties and to take into
consideration the unique conditions associated with many of the properties in
the redevelopment area. In the case of the subject property, many factors affect
the feasible development of the site including, the lot’s width to depth ratio, its
limited frontage on Jefferson Street, the need to maximize onsite parking, and
the desire to design a building that is consistent with the design guidelines set
forth for the area. The steeper roof pitch is a dominant and consistent
architectural feature within the Village. Strict adherence to the 35-foot height
limit on this project precludes the incorporation of this significant design feature
on the building and would therefore contradict the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
While a majority of the buildings in the area are either one or two stories in
height, the proposed structure is comparable to and visually compatible with
Jefferson House Senior Apartments located immediately east of the subject
property. The senior apartment project is three-stories and 35 feet in height.
The proposed project is also comparable in height to other commercial office
buildings located further south on Jefferson Street.
The increased height will not unduly impact nearby residential uses because the
proposed project provides sufficient setbacks from all adjacent property lines
and sits 3 feet lower than the elevation of adjacent properties.
The taller project will not adversely impact views in the area because the project
is not located near any designated view corridors.
The project will maintain a scale and character compatible with the Village and
the guidelines contained in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The
Village contains a variety of building types and sizes. This is considered
desirable per the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The height of the
building is consistent with others in the Village Area. For instance, for that
portion of Jefferson Street that falls within Land Use District 2, the maximum
building height for a similar structure is 45 feet. The boundary for District 2 is 3
lots south of the subject property.
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5.
i. The project provides for exceptional design quality through the incorporation of
several architectural features and details including; multiple roof elements with
the required 512 roof pitch, various sized multi-paned windows with decorative
trim and complimentary colored mullions, a two-story arched entryway with
multiple panes of glass, rounded balconies on the second and third stories on the
front and rear of the building, and open rail balconies/decks on the second and
third stories on both sides of the building. The overall design of the building is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Area.
The Design Review Board finds that the Developer/Property owner qualifies to
participate in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program and participation in the program will
satisfy the parlung requirements for the project. Justification for participation in the
Parking In-Lieu Fee Program is contained in the following findings:
a. The project is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan because it provides for
a commercial office use in an appropriate location within the Village. The
project provides greater employment opportunities, enhances the pedestrian
orientation of the area, and retains the Village character and pedestrian scale
through adherence to the land use regulations and design guidelines set forth for
the area.
b. The project is consistent with Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
Manual in that the project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives set forth
for Land Use District 7 through the following actions: Staff believes that the
proposed commercial project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives set
forth for Land Use District 7 through the following actions: 1) the project
provides permitted professional office space in a new structure; 2) the building is
designed in a manner that compliments nearby residential uses by incorporating
many of a same architectural elements found in residential projects; and 3) the
project consists of an individual building set back from the street and
surrounded by landscaping.
c. Adequate parking is available within the Village to accommodate the project’s
parking demands. The last utilization counts of the Village public parking lots,
conducted in August of 2002, indicate a 79% average utilization rate, which is
less than the 85% threshold for maximum utilization set by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission.
d. The In-Lieu Fee Program has not been suspended or terminated by the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FINDINGS:
6. The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or
provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a
and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational
facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the
project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need.
Specifically,
a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service
is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service
remains available and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of
the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they
apply to sewer service for this project.
b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
c. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will
be collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
NOLLAN/DOLAN FINDING:
7. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
building permits.
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City/Agency shall have the
right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance
of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of
occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute
litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their
violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the
City’s/Agency’s approval of this Major Redevelopment Permit.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Major Redevelopment Permit documents, as necessary to
make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws
and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the project
without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body
members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all
liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and
attorney’s fees incurred by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency’s
approval and issuance of this Major Redevelopment Permit, (b) Agency’s approval or
issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in
connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation
and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all
liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other
energy waves or emissions.
The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a
reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the Major Redevelopment Permit reflecting the
conditions approved by the final decision malung body.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24” x 36” blueline drawing
format.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the Carlsbad School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to
provide school facilities.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that
Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the
time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
Landscape Conditions:
11. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12.
and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan
and the City’s Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install all
landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a
healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the
landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
Noticing Conditions:
13. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice
of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction
of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, notifying all interested parties and
successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Major Redevelopment
Permit by Resolution No. 291 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice
of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete
project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions
specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Housing and Redevelopment
Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which
modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or
successor in interest.
On-site Conditions:
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Outdoor storage of material shall not occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and
Housing and Redevelopment Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter
comply with the approved plan.
The Developer shall submit and obtain Housing & Redevelopment Director approval of
an exterior lighting plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect
downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 31 parking spaces, as shown on
Exhibit “A ”.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and Housing and Redevelopment.
All signs proposed for this development shall be consistent with the sign plan
approved as part of this project as shown on Exhibits “A & C”. Any changes to the
sign plan shall require review and approval of the Housing and Redevelopment
Director prior to installation of such signs.
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the Developer shall enter into a Parking In-
Lieu Fee Participation Agreement and pay the established Parking In-Lieu Fee for
four (4) parking spaces. The fee shall be the sum total of the fee per parking space
in effect at the time of the building permit issuance times the number of parking
spaces needed to satisfy the project’s parking requirement (4 spaces total).
20. Solid masonry walls shall be installed along all common lot lines that adjoin an
existing residential use.
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS
Note: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the
approval of this proposed redevelopment, must be met prior to approval of a building or
grading permit whichever occurs first.
General:
1. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer
for the proposed haul route.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of
the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is
formally established by the City.
FeeslA Preemen t s :
4. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall
cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area
shown within the boundaries of the subject property into the existing City of Carlsbad
Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer.
GradinP:
5. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of this approval unless
Developer obtains, records and submits a recorded copy to the City Engineer a grading or
slope easement or agreement from the owners of the affected properties. If Developer is
unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be
issued. In that case Developer must either apply for and obtain an amendment of this
approval or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project and apply for
and obtain a finding of substantial conformance from both the City Engineer and
Housing and Redevelopment Director.
6. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site
plan and preliminary grading plan, a grading permit for this project is required.
Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to
issuance of a building permit for the project.
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -10-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, a reproducible 24" x 36", photo mylar of the
site plan and preliminary grading plan reflecting the conditions as approved by the final
decision making body. The reproducible shall be submitted to the City Engineer,
reviewed and, if acceptable, signed by the City's project engineer and project planner
prior to submittal of the building plans, final map, improvement or grading plans,
whichever occurs first.
DedicationdImprovements:
8. Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit, latest version. Developer shall provide
improvements constructed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the
"California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook'' to reduce surface
pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such
improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of
the following:
a. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with established
disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous waste
products.
b. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze,
solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not be
discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water
conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides,
insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State,
County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective containers.
c. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
9. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
Developer shall submit for City approval a "Storm Water Manangement Plan
(SWMP)". The SWMP shall be in compliance with current requirements and
provisions established by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad Requirements. The SWMP shall
address measures to reduce, to the maximum extent practicable, storm water
pollutant runoff at both construction and post-construction stages of the project.
The SWMP shall:
a. Identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants.
b. Recommend source control and structural Best Management Practices to filter
said pollutants.
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -1 1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c. Establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special
considerations and effort shall be applied to employee education on the proper
procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants.
d. Ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity.
STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following code requirements.
- Fees:
1. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy
#17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable
Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such
taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxedfees and not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
The Developer shall pay a landscape plan'check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
2.
General:
3. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are'not issued for this
project within 18 months from the date of final project approval.
4. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
5. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
Engineering:
6. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion 'control shall be provided in accordance
with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
...
...
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -12-
1
1
-
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE
Please take OTICE tllat approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“feeskxac ti ons. ”
You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 24‘h day of February 2003 by the
following vote to wit:
AYES: Marquez, Heineman, Baker, Paulsen
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Lawson
W DESIGN REVIEW BMD
ATTEST: n
e c_ DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -13-