Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 94-07; Carlsbad Brewery & Public House; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (3)Citv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department September 6, 1995 BRETT REDMAYNE-TITLEY 571 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 RE: CARLSBAD VILLAGE MICROBREWERY AND PUBUC HOUSE Dear Brett: This letter is forwarded to you to confirm our telephone conversation on the moming of September 6, 1995. I contacted you and we discussed two (2) issues - revised plans for the amendment to your redevelopment permit and the parking lease payments for tiie Brewery and Public House project. The first issue was a request for an update on your progress on preparing the plans needed to amend your major redevelopment permit for the Carlsbad Village Microbrewery and Public House project to include the grain silo installed on the site. You indicated that you are still waiting for structural calculations from the silo manufacturer and expect to receive them by fax by the end of the day on September 6, 1995. Once you have received the subject calculations, it is my understanding that you should be able to complete your plans for the required amendment to your permit. Please note again that you must submit complete revised site plans and elevations which clearly identify the location and design of the grain silo. This means that the same plans you submitted for your original permit must be amended to show the silo, including all appropriate dimensions for the silo and all related improvements (i.e., landscaping, partial screening, etc.). The strucmral calculations and foundation specifications are required for the building permit. You will not be able to obtain a building permit, however, until the amended redevelopment permit is approved. Therefore, it is important to submit the revised site plan and elevations for the entire microbrewery and public house project as soon as possible so that staff may begin preparing the necessary reports for consideration by the Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. The second issue was related to payment of your monthly lease payment on your parking agreement with the City/Redevelopment Agency. The City's Finance Department has forwarded payment requests to you for the months of July (to be prorated), August and September. We have not received payment to date on your lease agreement. The Agreement indicates that the lease payment requirement begins with the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy; this means that your temporary Certificate of Occupancy or conditional approval to open from the Building Department initiated the requirement to make the parking lease payment(s). 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 ® B. REDMAYNE-TITLEY September 6, 1995 Page 2 The noted lease payment requests were forwarded to the address indicated within the agreement which is 1002 Tait Street in Oceanside. Per our telephone conversation, the Finance Department has been notified that you would like for the lease payment requests to be forwarded to the brewery/public house site dkectiy at 571 Carlsbad Village Drive. The agreement, however, requires written notice of a change in address. Therefore, please forward a letter to the City's Finance Department indicating your desire to designate a different address for all notices related to the subject parking lease agreement. Thank you for your attention to the above noted issues. If you have any questions or comments regarding this correspondence, please contact my office at 434-2935. Sincerely, DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Senior Management Analyst Principal Building Inspector, Pat Kelley Finance Department Housing and Redevelopment Director August 21, 1995 TO: CARLSBAD MICROBREWERY AND PUBUC HOUSE FILE FROM: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISCUSSION WITH BRETT REDMAYNE-TriLEY REGARDING AMENDMENT TO MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMTI On this moming, I spoke with Brett Redmayne-Titley regarding my letter to him dated August 9, 1995 regarding how Redevelopment Agency support could be received for processing an amendment to the major redevelopment permit issued for the Carlsbad Micro- Brewery and Public House project for the grain silo which was installed on the site without appropriate approvals. In my letter of August 9th, I indicated to Brett that the Agency expected to see his revised plans by August 17, 1995 in order to proceed with the amendment in a timely fashion. Brett stated that he had not yet had time to have the drawings completed and the stmctural engineering work completed by the company who delivered the silo. He stated that he would need approximately one (1) more week to provide the full set of plans/information to my office. I told Brett that the sooner he had the plans in the better for amendment timing purposes. However, it is not a problem to take another week to tum those plans into my office. I told him that as long as my office was aware that he was progressing that we would be satisfied with his efforts. • Citv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department August 9, 1995 BREIT REDMAYNE-TITLEY CARLSBAD VILLAGE BREWERY AND PUBUC HOUSE 571 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 RE: NEW GRAIN SILO AT SITE OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE BREWERY AND PUBUC HOUSE Dear Brett: This correspondence is provided as a follow-up to our discussion regarding the options presented in my letter to you dated July 25, 1995 regarding the grain silo installed at the site of the Carlsbad Village Brewery and Public House. It is my understanding that you and your partners are now considering requesting an amendment to your previously approved redevelopment permit to allow the silo to remain without complete screening from the public. Before you proceed with the request to amend the permit, you wanted feedback from the Redevelopment Office as to whether or not staff would be willing to support approval of the silo. Redevelopment staff is willing to support an amendment to the previously approved redevelopment permit to allow the silo to remain without complete screening under the following conditions: 1. The height of the silo must be reduced. The silo shall not be taller than the building. 2. The silo must be relocated towards the center of the building (west of its current location). 3. Expand the landscape area and add one or more palm trees to the landscape area; this landscape area is proposed for east and south of the new, desired location for the silo. 4. Add 6 foot (tall) lattice fencing (color to match stucco color of building) around the bottom of the silo. Add flowering vines to the lattice work to create additional landscaping and some screening of silo. Enclosed is a copy of the previously approved site plan with additional staff drawings/comments which are intended to demonstrate the conditions noted above. If the 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 ^ B. REDMAYNE-TITLEY|^ August 9, 1995 Page 2 conditions noted are reflected in a revised site plan and elevations, Redevelopment Staff will prepare a report for review by the Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission which supports approval of die silo addition to the Carlsbad Brewery and Public House. Once approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, you would then obtain a building permit for appropriate installation of the silo. As Staff has indicated previously, every effort will be made to process the permit expeditiously. However, until the amended permit is approved, you will not be allowed to use the silo. If you decide to pursue amendment to the original redevelopment permit, staff has suggested that a temporary grain storage container be installed on the site for use until the silo is approved. It was suggested that this temporary container be stored in the handicap space nearest the trash enclosure until the new silo is approved for use by the Redevelopment Agency and the City's Building Department. To process the amended permit, you will need to submit a revised site plan and elevations which clearly identify the location and design of the grain silo. You must include all appropriate dimensions for the silo and related improvements. When you submit for your building permit, you will need to provide stmctural calculations/foundation specifications for the silo. A fmal Certificate of Occupancy will be issued for the brewery and restaurant once the amended redevelopment permit has been approved and the Building Department has approved installation of the silo. Staff would expect to receive the revised plans as soon as possible. My previous letter indicated that plans should be submitted within thirty (30) days of the meeting held on July 17, 1995 (no later than August 17, 1995). However, the sooner the plans are submitted, the sooner the process can begin to approve the amended permit. A public hearing will be required before the Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. Although the fee normally charged for an amendment to the redevelopment permit will be waived, it is expected at this time that you will reimburse the Redevelopment Agency for the costs related to the required legal notices for the public hearings. If you have any additional questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact my office at 434-2935. Sincerely, DEBBIE FOUNTAD^ Senior Management Analyst c: Community Development Director Housing and Redevelopment Director Principal Building Inspector Citv of Carisbad Housing & Redevelopment Department July 25, 1995 BRETT REDMAYNE-TITLEY CARLSBAD VILLAGE BREWERY AND PUBLIC HOUSE 571 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 RE: NEW GRAIN SILO AT SITE OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE BREWERY AND PUBLIC HOUSE Dear Brett: This correspondence is provided as a follow-up to the meeting that was held on Monday, July 17, 1995 regarding the grain silo which was delivered and installed at the site of Carlsbad Village Brewery and Public House on the moming of July 13, 1995. As we discussed, until you contacted the Community Development Department on July 10, 1995, neither the City nor the Redevelopment Agency was aware of the plans to install the silo which now appears on the site. Neither the design nor the location of the new silo were approved as part of the redevelopment and coastal development permits for the project. Based on this fact, staff determined that the project was not in substantial conformance with the approved plans due to installation of the new silo on the site. In an effort to work through the problem, Marty Orenyak, Evan Becker, Pat Kelley and I met with you on Monday, July 17, 1995 to discuss the silo. During the meeting, the following two (2) options were identified to resolve the problem: Option 1. Process an amendment to the major redevelopment and coastal development permit(s) to allow the silo as a significant architectural feature and functional component of the brewery in its current location and design. Once approved, you would then obtain a building permit for appropriate installation of the silo. Since the project was approved following public hearings, staff felt that a public hearing must be held again before the Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission to approve the silo as a significant architectural feature via an amendment to the permit. Staff indicated that every effort would be made to process the permit expeditiously. However, under this option, the silo could not be used until it is approved through the formal public review process. If you selected Option 1, staff suggested that a temporary grain storage container be installed on the site for use until the silo is approved. The brewery and restaurant could then continue operations until the new silo was approved and installed in a manner acceptable to the City. 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 B. REDMAYNE-TITLEY July 25; 1995 Page 2 Option 2. Shorten the silo to a height which is not taller than the building and relocate it towards the center of the building (west of its current location) and then fully screen it from public view with a stucco wall similar to the existing building and add landscaping to break up the screeing wall. We agreed that a stucco wall with a height equal to the height of the building was acceptable. We also agreed that the silo did not need to be completely enclosed; a wall extension on the west and south side of the silo are all that are required. Staff requested that your architect design a screening wall which would appear to be an extension of the existing rear wall. With selection of Option 2, you would not be required to obtain approval of an amendment to the project permits through the public hearing process because staff could make a determination of "substantial conformance" with the existing approved plans. Based on July 17th meeting, it was staff's understanding that Option 2 was acceptable to you and would be pursued in an expeditious manner. Staff instmcted you to submit plans for approval by Housing and Redevelopment and Building staff which reflected the design of the screening for the silo and the stmctural calculations/foundation specifications for the silo. Once these plans are approved by staff and constmction has begun on the screening wall, the final Certificate of Occupancy will be issued for the brewery and restaurant. Staff would expect to receive these plans and have them approved within thirty (30) days of the subject meeting (no later than August 17, 1995). If you decide you do not wish to continue with the option of screening the silo, please let me know as soon as possible so that we can advise you as to how to proceed with amending your major redevelopment permit to allow the silo without screening. If you have any additional questions or comments regarding this matter, please let me know. Sincerely, DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Senior Management Analyst c: Community Development Director City Manager City Attorney Principal Building Inspector July 20, 1995 TO: CITY MANAGER VIA: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VILLAGE BREWERY AND PUBLIC HOUSE - NEW GRAIN SILO The following report is provided to outline the issues related to the new silo which was recently installed at the site of the new Village Brewery and Public House. On July 10, 1995, the owners of the new Village Brewery and Public House contacted the Community Development Department and indicated that they had changed their plans related to the containers to store grain for the brewery. Rather than installing four (4) containers at the rear of the building, they decided to install one large "silo" and it was to be delivered by July 14, 1995. The original four (4) containers noted on the plans, and approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, were two and one half feet in diameter. They were to be installed at the rear of the building and not to be taller than the building. Although staff was concemed about the decision made to change the size and shape of the grain containers, we decided to withhold judgement until we had an opportunity to view the silo and determine whether or not it was a significant change to their approved plans. Based on staff's site visit on July 13, 1995, we determined that the silo did represent a significant change to the design of the building which requires public review and approval of an amendment to the major redevelopment permit. Neither the design nor fhe location of the new silo were approved as part of the redevelopment permit. Based on this fact, staff determined that the project was not in substantial conformance with the approved plans. In an effort to work through the problem, staff met with Brett Redmayne-Titley on Monday, July 17, 1995. Staff identified the following two (2) options to resolve the problem: 1. An amendment to the major redevelopment and coastal development permit(s) for the project would be processed to allow the silo as an architectural feature and functional component of the brewery in its current location and design. Once approved, the owners would then obtain a building permit for appropriate installation of the silo. Since the project was approved following public hearings, staff felt that a public hearing must be held again before the Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission to approve the amendment to the permit. Staff indicated to the owner that every effort would be made to process the permit expeditiously. However, under this option, the owner could not use the silo until it is approved through the process. t City Manager July 20, 1995 Page 2 If the owner selected this option, staff suggested that they install a temporary grain storage container on the site for use until the silo is approved. The brewery and restaurant could then still open for business. 2. Shorten the silo to a height which is not taller than the building and relocate it towards the center of the building (west of its current location) and fully screen it from public view with a stucco wall similar to the existing building and additional landscaping. The owner would then not be required to obtain approval of an amendment to the project permits through the public hearing process. In the Industrial Area where silos are most commonly used, the business owner is required to locate the silo so that it is not visible to the public or is fiilly screened from view. Unless the silo is approved as an architectural feamre of the project through the review process, this is the only option which allows staff to make a determination that the project is in substantial conformance with the approved plans. Based on the subject meeting with Mr. Redmayne-Titley, it was staff's understanding that Option 2 was acceptable and would be pursued. Staff told Mr. Redmayne-Titley that he must submit plans for approval by staff which reflected the design of the screening for the silo and the stmctural calculations/foundation specifications for the silo. Once these plans are approved by staff and constmction had begun on the screening wall, the Certificate of Occupancy will be issued for the brewery and restaurant. Staff does not believe that the silo currently on the site is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village Master Plan. The site is a key focal point for the entrance to the Barrio Carlsbad Area and staff does not believe that the silo presents a desirable, or appropriate, architectural feature for this entryway. However, regardless of staff's opinion regarding the design of the silo, there remains a processing issue. Significant architecmral feamres require approval through the redevelopment permit process. If Mr. Redmayne-Titley does not wish to screen the silo, staff believes the only option is to take the issue back through the hearing process to ensure that the public has received adequate opportunity to comment on the design and location. If you have any additional questions or comments regarding this matter, please let me know. DEBBIE FOUNTAIN % % July 15, 1996 TO: FINANCE DEPARTMENT - CAROL PIERSON FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEBBIE FOUNTAIN CARLSBAD VILLAGE BREWERY AND PUBLIC HOUSE Attached for your records is a copy of the letter I forwarded to the Brewery regarding their delinquent parking sublease payments. I noticed on the payment notice that we are still mailing the payment requests to Brett Redmayne-Titley at 1002 8. Tait, Oceanside, Ca. 92054. So, I am assuming that Brett did not foHA^ard you a letter indicating that the billing notice should be sent directly to the restaurant. Therefore, please accept this memo as formal notice to change the billing address for the Carlsbad Village Microbrewery and Public House to the following: Brett Redmayne-Titley Carlsbad Brewery and Public House 571 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at X 2935. Citv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department July 15, 1996 BRETT REDMAYNE-TITLEY 571 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 RE: CARLSBAD VILLAGE MICROBREWERY AND PUBLIC HOUSE Dear Brett: According to the City's Finance Department, you have outstanding bills related to the sublease agreement with the Redevelopment Agency for parking for your restaurant. As of the date of this correspondence, the sublease payments for February, March, April, May, June and July, 1996 have not been remitted to the Finance Department. These payments need to be made immediately in order for you to remain in compliance with your redevelopment and coastal development permits. As a reminder, the rent, according to our approved agreement, is payable in advance and due on the first day of each calendar month. The purpose of this correspondence is to put you on notice that the Carlsbad Brewery and Public House is not in compliance with Its approved Redevelopment and Coastal Development Permits due to the fact that six (6) monthly payments for parking are overdue. If you do not resolve this matter within ten (10) days of the date of this letter, we will be required to take action to begin the revocation ofyour permits. If you have any questions regarding the outstanding payments, please contact the Finance Department directly at 434-2867. If you have questions regarding your permit, you may contact my office at 434-2935. Sincerely, DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Senior Management Analyst 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 ^ September 12, 1995 ^ TO: ASSISTANT CITY ENGESIEER FROM: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT CURB CUTS AT SITE OF NEW BREWERY AND PUBUC HOUSE - CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE & ROOSEVELT STREET As requested, this memorandum is forwarded to you to confirm that the Housing and Redevelopment Department agreed to satisfy the following two conditions of approval as related to RP 94-07/CDP 94-07 for the Carlsbad Village Brewery and Public House: (a) removal of the existing driveway apron on Carlsbad Village Drive and replacement with sidewalk to match the existing sidewalk improvements; and, (b) removal of the two existing driveways on Roosevelt Street and replacement with sidewalk. Satisfaction of the above two conditions will be completed as part of the proposed Roosevelt Street Enhancement/Improvement Project. Staff has asked the Village Master Plan Consultant to complete a concepmal drawing of the proposed improvement project; the consultant is currently working on this drawing. Following approval of the concepmal drawing by staff and the community, a consultant will be hired to work with the City/Redevelopment Agency to complete the improvement plans and submit them to Council/Commission for approval. The goal is to complete the plans and have them approved by Council/Commission by the end of the year (December, 1995). Hopefully, the improvements will be completed by the spring of 1996. The improvement plans will include removal of the subject driveways and replacement of the sidewalk. The justification for the Agency agreeing to complete the required improvements is as follows: 1. In all faimess, the driveway on Carlsbad Village Drive should have been removed as part of the streetscape project. It is highly doubtful that the City/Agency would have allowed the use of this driveway at any time in the fumre. If we had removed it as part of streetscape, the Brewery would not have been required to incur the cost for the removal. So, it seemed fair for the Agency to agree to remove it as part of the proposed Roosevelt Street Enhancement Project. 2. As part of the Roosevelt Street project, it is anticipated at this time that the sidewalks along Roosevelt Street will receive some special treatment. Therefore, it is anticipated that the sidewalks will be reconstmcted in the near fiimre. Based on this fact, we agreed to satisfy the condition so that the area would not be tom up twice. Our office confirmed this verbally during plan check but I forgot to formalize the agreement by forwarding a memorandum to your office. I hope this memorandum will resolve any . L-Gonfusion over the matter. If you need additional information, please let me know. ^ \ ^ HDESBIE FOUNTAIN Citv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department July 14, 1995 BRETT REDMAYNE-TITLEY CARLSBAD VILLAGE BREWERY AND PUBLIC HOUSE 571 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 RE: NEW GRAIN SILO AT SITE OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE BREWERY AND PUBLIC HOUSE Dear Brett: This correspondence is provided to you in regard to the large grain silo which was delivered and installed at the site of Carlsbad Village Brewery and Public House on the moming of July 13, 1995. Until you contacted the Community Development Department on July 10, 1995, neither the City nor the Redevelopment Agency was aware of the plans to install the silo which now appears on the site. We had no prior indication that a decision had been made to change the type of "grain display container" to be used on the site. Although we had concems on July 10th, we decided to reserve judgement until we had the opportunity to view the silo and determine whether or not it was a significant change to the plans which were approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission for the project on March 28, 1995. On July 13th, staff members from the Planning, Redevelopment and Building Departments made a site visit to view the subject grain silo. Based on our site visit and review of the approved plans for the project, it is staffs determination that the silo is a significant change to the design of the building which requires public review and action by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. Neither the design nor the location of the large grain silo was approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission as part of the Major Redevelopment Permit or Coastal Development Permit for this project. The project plans approved by the Commission identified four (4) "grain display containers" with a diameter of five feet (5') each. The grain silo installed was not, and has not been, shown on any exhibit or elevation presented to the City or Agency staff for review to date. Staff would not have recommended approval of the existing design of the silo. In the industrial area of the City where these silos are most commonly used, the business owner is required to fee fully screen the silo or locate it so that it is not visible from the street. All stmcmres in the Village Redevelopment Area which impact the exterior design of the site or building must be approved by the Design Review Board and/or Housing and Redevelopment Coinmission prior to installation or constmction. The grain silo you have installed is a very significant design feamre which should have been disclosed by you via the approved project site plan and elevations reviewed during the public hearing for this item. 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 Until the grain silo has b^^lpproved through the formal discreti^l^ review process, it may not be used as part of the brewery operations. An amendment to the major redeveiopment and coastal development permits issued for the project will be required. This means that a staff recommendation and a public hearing is again required before the Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. For your information, staff is not supportive of the current design or location of the grain silo. We believe that it needs to be much smaller and less obtmsive. The current silo stmcmre is not consistent with the goals and objectives established for the Village Master Plan. This is a key focal point for entrance to the Barrio Carlsbad area and we do not believe that the silo is a desirable architecmral feamre. In terms of the building issues, the silo stmcmre requires a separate building permit following approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the amendment to the redevelopment permit. Therefore, you will need to provide complete engineered plans for review by the Building Department. The plans must include a foundation design to accommodate seismic or wind loads, depending upon the most restrictive condition. Please design the stmcmre to stand alone, not attached to the building. If you do not wish to pursue an amendment to the Major Redevelopment and Coastal Development permits issued for the project, then you must remove the existing grain silo from the site and install the four (4) round "grain display containers" indicated on your approved plans. If you are going to pursue the amendment to the permits, the silo may remain on the site but may not be used in any way for brewery or restaurant operations. You must then submit the following plans for review by the City and Agency: 1. Complete set of revised site plans and elevations which reflect the location and design of the grain silo. The plans must include the dimensions of the grain silo and any additional design feamres which may be used to screen the grain silo from public view. These plans will be reviewed formally by staff before they are presented to the Design Review Board or Housing and Redevelopment Commission for consideration. 2. Complete engineered plans must be submitted to the Building Department for review and approval as part of the building permit process. As indicated above, these plans must provide information on foundation design. Again unless you remove the existing "silo" and install the "grain display containers" as indicated on your approved plans, staff has no option but to require the above action(s). If you need to discuss design or location issues further, contact our offices at 434-2935 (Debbie) or 438-1161 X4503 (Pat). DEBBIE FOUNTAEV PAT KELLEY Senior Management Analyst Prinicpal Building Inspector Housing and Redevelopment Department Building Department c: Conimunity Development Director City Manager City Attomey RCU BY:XEROX TELECOPIER 7010 ; 3- 1-95 12:18FM ; CCITT 03^ iU mR-01-95 WED 12:18 CITY it CARLSBAD COm DE FAX NO. 438(M1 P.02 1^ CARLSBAD COm DE FAX NO. 438||1 March 1, 1995 TO: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT FROM: Kenneth Quon, Associate Engineer CONDITION FOR POLLUTANT MITIGATION The following is the standard condition used by the Engineering Department on projects requiring pollutant mitigation: The applicant shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shail be approved by the City Engineer prior to Issuance of grading or building permit, whichever occurs first. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 4380. May 8, 1995 TO: ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST PARKEVG LEASE FOR CARLSBAD VILLAGE BREWERY AND PUBLIC HOUSE The following comments are provided in response to your E-Mail message to the Housing and Redevelopment Director on May 1, 1995 regarding the microbrewery lease and agenda bill: 1. The Housing and Redevelopment Department does not wish to provide exclusive or semi-exclusive parking spaces to the microbrewery within the public parking lot. The proposed "Parking In-Lieu Fee Program" for the Village Redevelopment Area has been designed under the concept that private property owners/developers will assist in the provision of public parking facilities within the Village Redevelopment Area through payment of fees; they will not have exclusive rights to specifically designated parking spaces within the public parking lots. The microbrewery lease was created with this same concept in mind. As currently written, the microbrewery lease will be consistent with the proposed In-Lieu Fee Program. So, we would like to leave the agreement as written regarding this point. Additionally, when the parking sublease was approved for the Fish House Vera Cmz project, the Council made it very clear that they did not want parking spaces within the public lot to be exclusively assigned to Fish House. They wanted all of the parking spaces to be available to the general public at all times but they were willing to allow the satisfaction of a portion of the parking requirement for Fish House within the public parking lot. Consequently, the microbrewery agreement was developed in the same manner as the Fish House agreement in light of the previous direction provided by the Council. 2. As stated above, we basically used the same agreement that the City Attomey's Office helped us to develop for the Fish House Vera Cmz project in developing the parking lease agreement for the microbrewery. I can make the changes you outlined for clarification purposes but I will need some "language" from you as noted below: • If possible, we thought that maybe the lease payments paid could be credited towards the "In-Lieu" Fee if the program is established. If this is acceptable, any rent paid at the time the fee program is adopted would be credited toward the fee payment. Then there would be no need to address what happens to the rent upon early termination of the agreement. If you have any ideas on how to word the agreement to reflect this option, please let me know. If the applicant chooses to continue leasing rather than pay the In-Lieu Parking Fee, we should probably pro-rate the rent for "portions" of a month. I will revise the agreement to include this language. • We need "language" help on the "termination process". The language in the current lease was developed by the City Attomey's Office. So, we need help • \ to revise it. Do you have some standard language from another agreement that you would like us to use? I believe the Agency, or lessor, should determine ^ whether or not the parking is required because we would need to approve any QyCy ^ ^ . other parking arrangement for the microbrewery. If the microbrewe^restaurant ^ ^-A ^^^)p goes out of business, they would be allowed to terminate the lease. Any new ^ (j^J\ owner would be required to enter into a new agreement with the Agency. We ^^2^ ^> may need some additional language from your office as well on these last two ^ terms if you do not believe they are adequately addressed within the ^ ^ agreement. • Section 10.1 will be removed from the agreement. Thanks for your help on this agreement. You can E-Mail me your proposed language for the "termination process" and any other language changes and I will incorporate them into the agreement. DEBBIE FOUNTAIN MAY 1, 1995 TO: RAY PATCHETT VIA: MARIANNE ARCIDIACONO JEFF RASAK (STERLING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION) Hello Ray. Jeff Rasak, the Wonderbread Building developer, is contacting you because he has the Sonny's Automotive property in an escrow that expires tomorrow. May 2. It was his plan (not ours) to use financial assistance from the City to the Wonderbread Building/Microbrewery project to make his downpayment and close on the Sonny's transaction. Thus, he wants to know the status of the financial assistance matter. We had told him repeatedly not to tie the financial assistance proposal to his dealings on Sonny's. As explained in our April 26 memorandum, we have real problems with Rasak's actions. The trouble with his proforma numbers was compounded by a bad check (written for city fees). He has deliberately handled the Sonny's transaction to put us in an awkward position. We really like the Wonderbread project, including the concept of the agency loan, but after a lot of soul-searching, Debbie and I agreed that we've lost faith in Rasak's credibility. We are recommending that we not provide the financial assistance. I talked to Rasak on Friday (April 28) and told him that some of his actions had become major credibility issues. I stopped short of telling him "no" on the assistance, because you, Marty and Jim had not seen our recommendation yet. I'm ready to give him the final decision if you concur. To? DFOUN From: Evan Becker Subject: Microbrewery Lease Date: 5/01/95 Time: 5:14p Originated by: RRUDO @ CHADMIN Forwarded by: EBECK § HREDEV 5/01/95 10:28a 5/01/95 5:14p (UNCHANGED) ORIGINAL MESSAGE FOLLOWS 1. Why aren't the spaces specifically designated and semi-exclusive? In other cases where we allow off-site spaces to satisfy parking requirements, don't we require an agreement showing true availability of the spaces, i.e., the right to exclusive use? Here we could allow semi-exclusive for exclusive use during specified hours only, and so make the spaces. This would also help with administration of the maintenance, indemnity and insurance clauses. How can we know if their use damaged the premises if they aren't at least semi-exclusive? 2. Term is for five years. Or is it really month-to-month, or annual? Paragraph 3.1 should be expressed in terms of a minimum ANNUAL rental, payab e in monthly increments. Paragraph 9.2 doesn't say what happens to paid rent upon early termination; is there a pro-rata refund, or do we keep the money? 3. Termination process is not very clear. The lease ends upon expiration of the five years, but also upon either expiration or earlier revocation of the Major Redevelopment Permit, or if the Microbrewery "is no longer required to use the Premises in satisfaction " of the parking requirements. Who decides whether the spaces are no longer required, lessor or lessee? Don't use governmental passive voice, but specify who the actor is and set out a process of notice, determination, and notice of determination, so the parties have a clear understanding before the event occurs, and don't create the need for litigation to resolve a dispute as to what we meant. 4. Clarification of the termination process should include the manner in which the in lieu payment process would work. If the City (or Redevelopment Agency?) allows in lieu payment, and lessee makes such payment during the term of the lease, we need to be clear about its effective date and effect on refund, if any, of rent already paid. 5. The second sentence in paragraph 10.1 is appropriate to the Permit, but not to this lease. If you delete, the remaining provisions all relate to normal compliance, and could be combined into a single section. 6. If the spaces are exclusive or semi-exclusive, they may be picked up by the Assessor as taxable possessory interests, and we may be liable for the t ax if we don't give the notice required by Revenue & Taxation Code section 107.6. If you don't have a boilerplate clause, I'll make one for you. April 26, 1995 TO: CITY MANAGER VIA: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE/INCENTIVE FOR CARLSBAD VILLAGE BREWERY AND PUBLIC HOUSE PROJECT As you are aware, one of the new property owners (Jeff Rasak) of the old Wonderbread site, soon to be the new Carlsbad Village Brewery and Public House, requested financial assistance from the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency to help in redevelopment of the site into a restaurant. With the significant investment (approximately $1 million) needed to acquire the property and rehabilitate it, including seismic retrofitting and remediation of asbestos and contaminated soil, the property owner indicated that it was difficult to raise the cash needed to pay for all of the upfront costs for the project, specifically payment of the fees related to a new restaurant. In considering the financial assistance request from the property owner, it became apparent that a formal policy was needed which outlined the criteria to be used in evaluating proposals or requests for assistance to redevelopment projects and the types of assistance which might be considered by the Agency. Our office has been working with the Financial Management Director to develop this policy and prepare an agenda bill to be presented to the City Council for approval. This policy and agenda bill will soon be forwarded to your office for review. The Carlsbad Village Brewery and Public House project meets all of the criteria established within the draft policy for considering financial assistance for redevelopment projects and it is an excellent example of the type of project the Redevelopment Agency would like to assist. In fact. Agency staff did originally recommend fmancial assistance for the project. However, in light of questionable actions recently taken by Mr. Jeff Rasak as related to the subject project, staff is now recommending that financial assistance be denied to the property owner based on the following: • Mr. Rasak initially presented a project proforma which was flawed. Staff was willing to work with him to correct the proforma. However, Mr. Rasak gave very poor explanations to staff in response to the inquires made regarding the flaws in the initial report and then presented a second proforma which was also questionable. Even though staff was not basing its fmancial assistance recommendation solely on a proforma justification, this experience was disconcerting. J. Rasak memo April 26, 1995 Page 2 • To prevent a delay in initiating the project, Mr. Rasak agreed to pay the fees required to allow the issuance of the building permits for the project. He was going to do this by obtaining a short term loan (or in some other manner) that could be repaid with the assistance requested from the Redevelopment Agency. A check was written for the fees and presented to the City. However, the check was written on a "closed account" which indicates that Mr. Rasak knew (or should have known) that the check could not be cashed by the City. Although Mr. Rasak ultimately paid the fees via a cashier's check, the initial action, at best, lacked judgement and, at the worst, was a deliberate attempt to deceive the City. The above experiences raise issues of tmst and credibility which leave Agency staff uncomfortable at this time with the proposed agency/developer financing relationship. We continue to believe that the project itself is deserving of assistance or incentive funding because it does meet the criteria which have been drafted for evaluating requests/proposals for fmancial assistance from the Redevelopment Agency. However, in this particular case, staff does not believe it would be appropriate to establish a financial relationship with Mr. Rasak. If you agree with staffs recommendation, I will contact Mr. Rasak and indicate that the Agency has denied his request for financial assistance. If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact me at X2815. EVAN E. BECKER Financial Management Director City Attomey Principal Building Inspector April 24, 1995 To: From: Housing and Redevelopment Director Principal Building Inspector Carlsbad Brewery Permit Fees On Friday I issued a Stop Work Order to the tenant improvement work being done at the brewery. A check for part of the permit fees had not cleared because the account had been closed. Mr. Rasak made good on the check within one hour of the stop notice being posted. The tenant was immediately advised that he could begin work again. The permit was issued on 4-5-95 for an approximate total of $71,500. Some of that money was paid by each party, Rasak and his partner paying the major share. Rasak's partner. Dr. Robert Peters evidently wrote his check on an account that had been closed (see attached copy) which is a more serious concem that if an "insufficient fund" remm had occurred which occasionally happens with 72 hour bank holds on large checks. Brett Titley advised us after the permit was issued that the check wouldn't clear. That was on the Bth or 14th. We received a courtesy call from our bank. First Interstate, on the 18th that the account was closed and we left instmctions for clearing the matter on Brett's answering machine that day. He called on the 19th and assured us that the check would be made good by the 20th. When that did not occur, we stopped the job on the 21st. When Rasak was notified that the job had been stopped, he called me and said he understood the time deadline to be the 21st. As a mle, we stop work on jobs when checks bounce immediately. In any case, the fees are all current now. PAT KELLEY Principal Building Inspector c: City Manager Community Development Director April 10, 1995 >T0: CITY MANAGER FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTO MICROBREWERY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROPOSAL Based on our last discussion on the proposal to provide financial assistance, via the Redevelopment Agency, to the Carlsbad Village Brewery and Public House project and the questions that were generated at that time, staff discussed the proposal further with the property owner and completed some additional analysis of the assistance proposal. The following points are provided for your review and consideration: • I discussed the development proforma with Jeff Rasak of Sterling Development and requested revisions that eliminated the development costs of his tenant/lessee frora his return calculations. I also told him to revise any other cost figures as appropriate. As you will recall from our discussions, we did not feel that correcting the flaw in his numbers would change our recommendation, but it was agreed that we should still have an accurate picture of the deal, regardless of the reason that we are recommending assistance. • As requested, the new proforma eliminated the costs which are not being incurred by Jeff Rasak/Sterling Development. In fact, the "hard cost" category was eliminated completely from the proforma which is appropriate considering the fact that the tenant/lessee is incurring all of these costs. Other costs within the revised proforma were adjusted as well, mostly upward. Some of the revised costs which were adjusted upward are legitimate because the developer now has either incurred the actual costs and can state them or has a better estimate of the cost. For those costs which were increased by the developer but were not considered to be very realistic by staff, a discounting of the costs has been provided within my analysis. • The attached chart was completed as part of my additional analysis of the proforma. It shows several sets of returns for the developer. The first is directly from Sterling's revised proforma of April 3, 1995. This proforma shows a 12.3 0% return on total cost and a 12.52% return on cash equity (cash on cash). As expected, this is somewhat higher than the 10.09% and 8.68% reflected within the original (first) proforma because the total investment has been reduced while income is essentially unchanged. The second set of returns, as noted within the attached chart, discounts the cost estimates further by about $60,000. I completed this analysis by looking at each line item and making some judgements about what seemed excessive or unrealistic. These returns are 13.27% and 15.76%, respectively and ,again, reflect an increase because the cost base has been reduced. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROPOSAL - MICROBREWERY PAGE 2 April 10, 1995 The third set of returns, as indicated within the chart, reflects the impact of a $70,000 loan to the developer at a 6% interest rate, repaid over 5 years. For the 5-year period of the loan, the returns are 13.27% and 11.94%. When the City loan is paid off, the return on equity increases to 19.5% reflecting the reduction in debt service. SUMMARY In conclusion, I believe the additional analysis of the financial assistance proposal continues to support Agency staff's initial recommendation. The revised proforma does indicate that the developer returns are, in fact, higher ^based on a more accurate and conservative estimate of the developer's costs. However, while the returns may demonstrate project feasibility without the need for "gap" financing from the Redevelopment Agency, they do not appear to be excessive for a redevelopment project. Keyser Marston stated that returns on cost of 10-12% and returns on equity of up to 20% would not be out of line. Return on cash equity is a more difficult standard to gauge given today's difficulty in obtaining conventional loans. Also, higher returns can be expected in cases where there is substantially more risk due to leases which involve something other that the strongest "credit tenant" as is the case with the Wonder Bread project. RECOMMENDATION Agency staff continues to recommend that the developer be given a loan (from tax increment) in the amount of $70,000 with deferred payments for one (1) year with a five year amortization schedule of principal and interest (to be accrued at 6%). The justification for this assistance is based on the extraordinary investment being made by the developer and tenant as well as the economic benefit to the Village and/or City to be derived from the project. The use is very desirable and a blighting influence within the Village is being eliminated. Staff's justification is consistent with the criteria to be evaluated as outlined in the draft of the financial assistance policy statement for the Agency. Based on comments made by Jim Elliott regarding the complexity of staff's original proposal to reduce the loan principal due based the percentage by which the actual revenue generated by the project exceeds original projections, I agree that it may be best to provide a simple loan to the developer. The original Agenda Bill has been revised to reflect this further analysis and staff's revised recommendation. With your approval, we will forward the revised Agenda Bill to your office for processing, together with the Agenda Bill for the parking sublease agreement, for action by the City Council. c (D CO (D O O o 3 O O 3 o m c •I- _ c ^ fl> 9c H D O O 3 o o z o O 3 ® H O O (D 0) ® i o' (D O 3 D (D o- tfi (D i o' •u a < O" a ^ ® CO o 5 (0 6a ^ O •o (D —T 3 (Q 3 O O 3 ® m ro (D 3 (A (D (/) O J3 II m © IQ CL o o o o 2. % p w D (D < (D O •D 3 (D 3 03 O ;» O o 0) S 0) =1 3 a a O o % (0 a> 00 ro ro Ol o CO ro CO o CO io ro CO CO o 00 CO Ol <o IO 00 CJl ro O) —k —A. CO ">l o o o CJl ro 00 o CD CO b CO ro CO ro 00 CJl CO .(^ CO CO CJ) CO CO •M O b o> 00 CO o o o o >l 00 b 00 bl CO ro 0) 00 —»• CO CJl CO o ro ro CJl >4 00 CJl 00 CJ) o o o 88 ro 00 IO —*• CJl CJl CO CO CO CO CO —* CJl Qi O CJl Qi O b 8 —*• —L CJl ro IO Qi o o CO ro Qi o o >l 00 IO 00 o o 00 00 bl CO b b b b CO —J. Qi 00 o o o o —*• CO Ol CO o o o o o Ol Qi O b 8 ro ised 'ofom 4/3/ 0) i 03 CO CJI 33 ,m go in 2 c ni ]< oa m 3 2 m 133 !-< CO CO bl CO io ro >i -A CJl •>i CO Qi Qi lo Ol ro CO ro CO 4^ CJl Qi 00 o CO o o 00 CO —i. CJl ro •>i IO o CO ro 0) o 00 IO 00 o o bl CO b b b b Qi 00 o o o o CJl CO o o o o o <A CJl Qi O b 8 33 « CD a B> (Jl STERLING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION April 3, 1995 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Mr. Evan E. Becker Housing & Redevelopment Director lH 'itSnS^^^ S City of Carlsbad ^/ Housing & Redevelopment Department 1??/ ^ 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B ^^^sz\ft^ Carlsbad, CA 92208-2389 Re: Carlsbad Brewery & Public House swe of Carlsbad Village Drive & Roosevelt Street Carlsbad, California Dear Evan: With reference to the above captioned project and as follow up to our recent telephone conversations, enclosed please find a revised Development/Operating Proforma for your review. Please note that all project costs paid for by the Tenant (Carlsbad Brewery & Public House) have been removed from the Development Proforma. While the project achieves an acceptable first year return on cost (12.30%), the first year income available for distribution is only $1,281. Since our Lease Agreement with the Tenant does not provide for annual rent escalations, the net income available for distribution actually decreases over the ten (10) year lease term (see line 74). Also, please note from the Sales Analysis on line 88, the profit from a first year sale, assuming an 11% capitalization rate, would only yield a 5.07% return or $40,626. A sale in the sixth year of operations would yield an 11.80% profit or $96,822. Based upon these below market returns and the significant benefits to the City of Carlsbad from this redevelopment project, we believe there are compelling reasons for some form of public assistance. At your request, we have restructured our request for assistance to a fully securitized loan in the amount of $69,462, personally guaranteed by Dr. Robert E. Peters and Jeffrey C. Rasak and repaid, with interest, within seven (7) years. CORPORATE OFFICE 505 N. TUSTIN AVENUE, SUITE 282 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705 (714) 479-1037 FAX (714) 972-8321 Mr. Evan E. Becker Housing & Redevelopment Director City of Carlsbad April 3, 1995 Page 2 The requested loan will not only allow the Carlsbad Brewery & Public House redevelopment project to proceed successfully, but will also allow Sterling Development Companies to acquire and redevelop the contiguous property at 561 Carlsbad Village Drive, more commonly known as Sonny's Automotive. I am please to report that we have entered into a binding Purchase and Sale Agreement with Sonny Sims and are currently "in escrow" to acquire the property. Based upon the foregoing, and as a result of our expedited closing schedule for Sonny's, we respectfully request that this matter be voted on by City Council no later than Tuesday, April 25, 1995. Towards that end, we have previously provided you with a complete set of proposed loan documents. Please feel free to call me or our attorney, Richard Arfa if you have any questions or need additional information. Very tin J^p:ey C. Rasak resident JCR/rmI Enclosures CC: Richard S. Arfa, Esq. Dr. Robert E. Peters Kim M. Rasak CARLSBAD VILLAGE PARTNERS WONDER BREAD BAKERY BUILDING 2-Apr-95 car4 HififiBfflA DEVELOPMENT PROFORMA SITE DATA Unit Unit Costs Cost Parcel (.38 Acres) 16,500 sq. ft. 10 ACQUISITION COSTS 11 Land Cost 16,500 $33.33 $550,000 12 Non Applicable Option Payments $10,000 13 TOTAL ACQUISITION COSTS $560,000 14 15 HARD COSTS 16 Building Interior Renovation $0 17 Building Exterior Renovation $0 18 Tenant Improvennents $0 19 On Site Improvements 20 Hard Cost Contingency $0 $0 21 TOTAL HARD COSTS $0 22 23 SOFT COSTS 24 Architecture and Engineering 4,247 $0.25 $1,062 25 A/E Reimbursement 26 ALTA Survey/As Built Plans 27 Testing and Inspection $350 $3,500 $3,000 28 Soils Report/Hazardous Matter, Survey 29 Building Permits 30 Capital and Impact Fees $3,000 $0^ $69,462 31 Lender's Inspection and Review $2,500 32 Lenders Legal 33 Legal Fees - General & Leasing $5,000 $15,000 34 Appraisals $4,000 35 Real Estate Taxes 10 Months $5,935 36 Insurance $3,500 37 Title and Closing 38 Marketing and Promotion $1,500 $3,000 39 Leasing Commission 4,247 $3.00 $12,741 40 Mortgage Broker Fee (Construction Loan) 1.00% $5,739 41 Construction Lender Fee 2.00% $11,479 42 Equity Placement Fee $12,500 43 Interim Interest (From Draw Schedule) 10 Months 10.00% $45,510 44 Construction Management and Accounting 45 46 General and Administration Soft Cost Contingency 5.00% 47 TOTAL SOFT COSTS 48 49 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS 50 EQUITY (30%) $3,600 $40,000 $7,538 $259,916 $819,916 $245,975 51 52 AMOUNT TO BE FINANCED Page 1 $573,941 u KAXE, BAELME:R SC BERKMAN .'uRPAY o -<ANE: = =5UCE • 3AL:.MER ;_£NN F .VASSERMAN ; 3RUCE TEMPER. -R. ,ATHRYN REIMANN CSEPH W PANNONE ;OYCE K, JONES PRINCiPALS A LAW CORPORATION 354 SOUTH SPRING STREET. SUITE 4-20 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90013 -ELEPHONE (213) e\7-0^aO TELECOPIER (213) 625-093I March 24, 1995 To: Debbie Fountain ROBERT P BERKMAN =5 ETl R E D r..£CErvt;L°' MAR 2 7 1995 Cl I Y or CAr;«_w.- w CITY ATTORNEY EUGENE a JACOBS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION From: Glenn Wasserman Re: Proposed Loan Agreement for Microbrewery At your request, I have reviewed the proposed loan agreement that you transmitted on March 20, 1995, which was drafted by Richard Arfa, the owners' attorney. The background material that you transmitted indicates that the Agency wishes to assist the owners in financing the rehabilitating the property, as part of the redevelopment of the Village Redevelopment Project area, and has agreed to provide funding for a portion of the development costs, equal to the sewer, water and traffic fees (approximately $70,000). However, the proposed loan agreement fails to address any aspect of the rehabilitation of the property, other than payment of $70,000 by the Agency to the owners, and the repayment provisions relating to the loan. That is, there is no obligation for the owners to actually rehabilitate the property, no description of the work to be done, no schedule of performance, no requirement that the owners demonstrate their ability to finance the rehabilitation before the Agency disburses its funds, etc,. The proposed agreement provides simply that on or before the issuance of the building permit for worK to be done on the Property, the Agency will disburse the funds. The Note describes the terms of repayment. In addition, all other standard redevelopment provisions are missing: there is no requirement that the owners obtain insurance naming the Agency as an additional insured, no indemnity to the Agency, no default provisions other than failure to repay the loan, etc. In addition, the statutory nondiscrimination provision is missing. I also believe that the formula for calculating the property tax increment is incorrect: Section 4. A. of the Note -1- defines property tax increment as the amount in excess of two times the assessed value of the property in the defined Base Year. I also believe that the Agreement should be with and the Note should be for the benefit of the Redevelopment Agency, not the City of Carlsbad. I suggest rewriting the agreement in its entirety, to include the provisions that are universally included in redevelopment documents for the benefit and protection of the redevelopment agency, in addition to the provisions relating to repayment of the loan. I am enclosing for your review a redacted draft of a rehabilitation loan agreement which I recently drafted for another redevelopment agency. This document could provide a basis for preparing a thorough agreement to document the microbrewery transaction. Let me know if you want me to prepare a loan agreement based on the enclosed document, or if there is something else you would like me to do regarding this transaction. KANE, BAL;-MER & BERKMAN By: - . . Glenry F. Wasserman cc: Ronald Ball, Esq., City Attorney -2- MARCH 16, 1995 TO: CITY MANAGER FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTOR FROM: Housing and Redevelopment Director MICROBREWERY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROPOSAL In our initial discussions with Sterling Development, the redevelopers of the Wonder Bread Building, a request for financial assistance was made for the project. Staff indicated that we would consider such a proposal. The developer primarily needs assistance with payment of the with sewer, water and traffic fees for the proposed restaurant/microbrewery project which will amount to approximately $70,000. In the attached proposal, the developer justifies the assistance based on 1) an extraordinary investment (approximately $1 million) in acquiring and rehabilitating a significant structure, including seismic retrofitting and remediation of asbestos and contamination problems, 2) the need for "gap financing" in order to bring the potential return on investment to a reasonable level, and 3) the economic benefits of the project to the City, including sales and property tax increment and jobs. Housing and Redevelopment staff evaluated the proposal and also sought comments from Keyser-Marston Associates who are experienced in redevelopment finance. We did this somewhat informally since we did not think a proposal of this size would justify a significant consultant cost. Both staff and KMA agreed that while it was questionable whether the project justified '"gap financing" for project feasibility purposes, it was appropriate to structure some assistance based on the level of investment and the economic benefits of the project to the City and the Village. Staff is recommending that assistance be provided to the developer in the form of a loan which is deferred for a period of time and then repaid. Built into this loan is a feature that allows for the loan principal to be reduced if the project exceeds projections in terms of sales tax revenue and property tax increment. In taking this approach we are lending to the project as opposed to providing an unrecoverable subsidy. Another consideration which is less quantifiable but still important is the need to establish the "tone" of being supportive of good projects. The redevelopment agency has not had this type of involvement with projects in the past, and it is our goal to begin doing so where it pays dividends as in this case. MARCH 16, 1995 'PAGE 2 The purpose of this memorandum is to obtain your preliminary feedback on this matter. Our next step will be to prepare an agenda bill for consideration of this assistance by the Housing & Redevelopment Commission. We would like to present this assistance proposal to the Commission at the same meeting or immediately following the meeting that action is taken on the redevelopment permit for the restaurant/microbrewery. If desired, I will schedule a meeting to discuss this proposal and staff's recommendation. EVAN E. BECKER Housing & Redevelopment Director arb Attachments CARLSBAD BREWERV FINANCIAL PROPOSAL 1. The Agency would make a loan in the approximate amount of S"70.000, with principal repayment deferred for 2 years. Interest would accrue at the City's investment rate from time of disbursement, but also be deferred for 2 years. The loan principal plus accrued Interest would then be amortized over a 5 year repayment period. To illustrate, a S"78,'40D loan Creflecting accrued interest] amortized over the 5 year period would require payments of about SIB.DOO per year. 2. In addition to deferring loan payments, the Agency would offer an additional incentive tied to the tax revenue generation of the project. Each year for the entire period during which the loan obligation is outstanding, the Agency will annually reduce the loan principal by the amount that property and sales tax generation exceeds initial projections. To illustrate, if the total tax generation projected for the first year is $15,000. and this is actually exceeded by 20°/Q each year for 5 years, there would be a S15,000 reduction in loan principal. 3. The Agency loan would be secured by the property and personal guarantees. A. Structuring this type of transaction would be subject to requirements governing the funding source we choose which would likely be tax increment. 5. Redevelopment Counsel and the City Attorney would review and approve loan documents including a Loan Agreement, Promissory Note, Deed of Trust and Guaranty. March 1, 1995 TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Staff is proposing that the following revisions and/or deletions/corrections be made to Design Review Board Resolution No. 221 prior to approval: 1. Finding #1 shall be revised to remove all references to the Master Environmental Impact Review (MEIR) for the "General Plan". The finding will reference the EIR for the Redevelopment Plan only. 2. Condition #20 shall be revised to read as follows: "The first submittal of landscape and irrigation plans shall include building plans." 3. Condition #32 shall be deleted and replaced with the following: "The applicant shall obtain an Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) license and maintain the license in good standing at all times for continued operation of the bar and microbrewery. 4. Conditions #36 shall be revised to delete the reference to a grading permit. 5. Condition #37 shall be deleted and replaced with the following condition: "The applicant shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. February 23, 1995 TO: CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT FOR CARLSBAD MICROBREWERY AND RESTAURANT On March 1, 1995, the Design Review Board is scheduled to review the proposal for converting the retail bakery (Wonder Bread building) at 571 Carlsbad Village Drive to the Carlsbad Village Brewery and Public House. Staff prepared the report for Design Review Board and has distributed it. This report is provided for your information on how the parking issue was fmally addressed. Redevelopment staff identified a method for calculating the parking requirement for the project which results in a total parking requirement of 41 spaces. The method for this calculation is as follows: 1. A mixed-use parking ratio was applied as permitted by the Parking Ordinance for two uses within the building - restaurant (3800 square feet) and microbrewery (712 square feet). 2. The restaurant portion of the building was parked at the standard restaurant ratio of 1 space per 100 square feet of gross floor space; this resulted in a requirement of 38 parking spaces. 3. There is currently no specific classification or parking standard for a microbrewery. So, as the parking ordinance allows, staff proposed using a parking requirement of a comparable use which is listed in the Code. Staff determined that the microbrewery is most similar to other uses listed in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The code allows a use to be classified under this zone if it is "a similar establishment catering directly to the consumer." We believe the appropriate fmdings can be made to classify the microbrewery under the "neighborhood commercial" category and then appropriately park it at retail ratio of 1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor space; this results in a parking requirement of 3 additional parking spaces for the microbrewery. 4. The total parking requirement based on the above identification of uses is 41 spaces. The parking ordinance requires the parking to be provided on-site or within 300 feet of the building. The site can accommodate 34 spaces and staff is recommending that the remaining 7 parking spaces be provided within the public parking lot on the southeast comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Roosevelt Street through a sublease arrangement (similar to Fish House Vera Cruz). Febmary 23, 1995 Page 2 Redevelopment staff believes that the above proposal not only assists the project but is in compliance with the Village Design Manual and the Carlsbad Parking Ordinance. However, it should be noted that upon completing his review of the subject staff report, the Assistant City Attomey expressed concem with the proposal to separate the microbrewery use from the restaurant use for the purposes of applying parking requirements. It is his opinion that the microbrewery should simply be considered a part of the uses associated with restaurant operations. He is not convinced that the separation of the two uses is appropriate based on how we treat other restaurants in the City. If the entire project (including the microbrewery) is parked at the restaurant ratio, the parking requirement would be 51 spaces rather than 41 spaces. Redevelopment staff does not believe that it is reasonable to apply the restaurant parking ratio to the entire project because the microbrewery itself will generate no, or a very minimal, need for parking. A microbrewery requires the use of large vats which are used for cooking, fermenting and aging hand-crafted beers. No other restaurant in Carlsbad has this type of use associated with normal operations. Redevelopment staff strongly believes that the parking ordinance allows the flexibility needed to take the above actions and that they are completely appropriate for the proposed project. Therefore, we are proceeding with this matter as originally intended and will present the project to the Design Review Board for a recommendation of approval on March 1, 1995. It is anticipated that die project will then be immediately submitted for review by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact my office at X2815. EVAN E. BECKER Assistant City Attomey Citv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department Redevelopment Division Febmary 15, 1995 JEFFREY C. RASAK STERLING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 505 N. TUSTIN AVENUE, SUITE 282 SANTA ANA, CA. 92705 RE: New business development, Southwest Corner of Roosevelt Street and Carlsbad VUlage Drive, Carlsbad, California Dear Jeff: Per our telephone conversation, this correspondence provides an outline of the type of financial assistance proposal that I would be prepared to recommend as a part of Carlsbad Brewery and Public House Project to be located on your property at the southwest comer of Roosevelt Street and Carlsbad Village Drive within the City of Carlsbad. • The Agency would make a loan to you in the approximate amount of $70,000, with principal repayment deferred for two (2) years. Interest on the outstanding loan Would accme from time of disbursement of the funds, but payment would also be deferred for two (2) years. The loan principal plus accmed interest would then be amortized over a three (3) year repayment period. To illustrate, a $77,000 loan amortized over the 3-year period would require monthly payments of about $2,300 or $27,600 per year. • In addition to deferring loan and interest payments for two (2) years, the Agency would offer an additional incentive tied to the tax revenue generation of the project. Each year for the entire period during which the loan obligation is outstanding, the Agency will annually reduce the loan principal by the amount that property and sales tax generation exceeds initial projections. To illustrate, if the total tax generation projected for the first five years of the business is $15,000 annually and this is actually exceeded by 20% each year for the 5 years, there would be a $15,000 total reduction in the loan principal. You would then be obligated to repay a loan in the amount of $62,000 plus interest rather than the full $77,000 loan noted in the previous illustration. 2965 Roosevelt St. • Suite B • Carlsbad, CA 92008 • (619) 434-2811 • Telefax 720-2037 J, Rasifk Febmary 15, 1995 Page 2 • The Agency would expect the loan to be secured by the property and personal guarantees. • The actual stmcture of this type of transaction still remains under consideration. We have not made a fmal decision on the funding source for the loan. The source of funding may dictate additional details regarding the stmcture for the transaction. Please review the above outline and then contact me with your thoughts and comments on the proposed transaction. I will be out of the office on Wednesday, Febmary 15, 1995 but will be back in on Thursday, Febmary 16, 1995. I can be reached at (619) 434-2815. Sincerely, EVAN E. BECKER Housing and Redevelopment Director APPUCATA COMPLETE DATE: JANUARY 11. 1995 STAFFPIANNER: BIUANHUNIER MEMO DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 1995 TO: REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: RP 94-07/CDP 94-08 • CARLSBAD VILLAGE BREWERY AND PUBLIC HOUSE - Request for a Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow a use change from retail to restaurant for a 4,512 square foot building on the southwest comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Roosevelt Street in Sub-area 1 of the Village Redevelopment Zone. The site proposed for the project is known as the Wonder Bread building. It was constructed in 1932 as an automobile dealership and converted to a retail bakeiy use in 1951 (personal communication; John Jones, Carlsbad Historic Preservation Commission, January 9, 1995). The project proposes to remodel the facade, new brick detailing over the side window, new canvas canopies over the entrances, and an open wood trellis over the courtyard adjacent to the west. Site work will include the creation of 34 parking spaces, 22% landscaping, and the removal of three driveways. Compliance with the "Unreenforced Masoniy Building Code" has been submitted to the City. Planning and engineering staff have produced two issues letters, dated December 1, 1994 and Januaiy 11, 1995, which identify areas of concem. Both the Engineering Department and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District have provided conditions of approval, dated Januaiy 24,1995. Staff has also received comments from the Fire and Police Departments. The project proposal was taken to the Historic Preservation Cominission for comments on Januaiy 9, 1995. Positive remarks were received and no conflict between the proposed development and the existing historic building were identified. The project is subject to review for conformance with the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program, the Village Redevelopment Plan, the Village Design Manual, the 2^ning Ordinance, and the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. Planning staffs detennination is that the project qualifies as a bona fide public eating establishment as defined in Section 21.04.056, rather than a bar or brewery. There has been discussion that the space devoted to brewing should be parked at the manufacturing ratio of 1:400. However using a separate parking ratio for the brewing would force the use of the 1:50 parking ratio for the area of the restaurant devoted to the bar. Further, the logical conclusion of parking a use at a manufacturing ratio is that the use is manufecturing. Manufacturing is not an allowed use in Sub-Area 1. RP 94-07/CDP 94-08 C/^RLSBAD VILLAGE BREWERY & PUBLIC HOUSE JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 2 Section 21.44.020 Parking Spaces Required states that restaurants over 4,000 square feet require 40 spaces plus one space/fifty square feet in excess of four thousand square feet. At a meeting with the applicant and architect it was detennined that the gross floor area of the building was 4,512 square feet. As such 51 parking spaces are required. It is Planning staffs understanding that it is the Housing and Redevelopment Department's intention to lease spaces in the public parking lot across Carlsbad Village Drive to the applicant to meet the on site shortage of 17 spaces. Parking is allowed to be sited up to three hundred feet from the building it is required to serve (CMC 21.44.050(a)(2)(C). Redevelopment staff may want to review the on and off street parking that was associated with Streetscape II to ensure that parking is available within 300 fl. Attached are suggested conditions of approval from the Planning Department or if unsuitable to your needs please do not hesitate to contact me regarding same at 438-1161, extension 4457. BRIAN HUNTER Senior Planner BH/b ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings and conditions 2. Notice of hearing 3. Notice of Prior Compliance RP 94-07/CDP 94-08 - CARLSBAD BREWERY/PUBLIC HOUSE Findings: CALIFORNU ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 1. The Design Review Board finds that, based on the EIA Part II, this Subsequent Project was described in the MEIR 93-01 as within its scope; AND there will be no additional significant effect AND no new or additional mitigation measures or altematives required; AND that therefore this Subsequent Project is within the scope of the prior EIR, and no new environmental document nor Public Resources Code 21081 findings are required. GROWTH MANAGEMENT 2a). The Design Review Board has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this project, ensured building permits will not be issued for the project unless the Qfy Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the Planning Commission is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facihties Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project. b) All necessaiy public improvements have been provided or will be required as conditions of approval. c) The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the General Plan. d) Assurances have been given that adequate sewer for the project will be provided by the City of Carlsbad. 3) The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new constmction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by a Local FaciHties Management Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project. 4) This project is consistent with the City's Growth Management Ordinance as it has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1 . STANDARD CONDITIONS Maps & Exhibits 1) Approval is granted for RP/CDP 94-07. as shown on Exhibit(s) "A"-"G". dated Januaiy 10, 1995, incorporated by reference and on file in the Redevelopment Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions^ aitd aj]|)r€)ve<l ^ tbe Redevfiilaj>ineiit l3^neiclor m Qfy Bu^e^i; Facilities & Services 2) a This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. b This project is approved upon the express condition that building pennits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. 3) 1 This project is also approved under the express condition that the apphcant pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1987 (amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from time to time, and any development fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 ofthe Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth management system of facilities and improvement plan and to fiilfill the subdivider's agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated November 9.1994. a copy of which is on file with the City Qerk and is incorporated by this reference. If tiie fees are not paid this application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will be void. b This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which may be required as part of the Zx)ne 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. Genera! Planning and Legal Conditions 4) If any condition for constmction 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 Govemment Code Section MHI ^ ^ such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. 5) Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sections of the 2k>ning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance. 6) This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within 18 months from the date of prpject approval. 7) Approval of RP 94-07 is granted subject to the approval of CDP 94-07 . S) Hie im^jecsl i^aB comp]^'Wfl& Hie ktesi ti«»i-'j^eiid[<leja1lal iMbled m&m i^tiltmeiits pursuant to Hile ^^4 ot Ibe Siaf« BuHdiNg Code. Specific Onsite Conditions: 9) Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot high masoniy wall with gates pursuant to City standards. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the Redevelopment Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to the satisfaction of the Redevelopment Director. 10) 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 Redeyelopment and Building. 11) The project is classified as a bona fide public eating establishment and to be classified as a bona fide public eating establishment, an establishment which engages in the sale of beer, wine or distilled spirits for consumption on the premises shall meet the following requirements: (1) Be designed and operated in such a way that the sale of alcoholic beverages is incidental to the primary restaurant operation; (2) On any day the restaurant is open to the public for business and engaged in the incidental sale of alcoholic beverages, restaurant services shall be available to the public for the evening meal for a period of not less than five hours, or for not less than four hours, if the moming or noon meal is also served to the public for a period of not less than two hours (3) Restaurant service shall include, but not be limited to, an offering of a varied menu of foods or not less than five main courses with appropriate nonalcoholic beverages, desserts, salads, and other attendant dishes; (4) The sale of any food prepared for consumption off the premises shall be occasional only and clearly incidental and subordinate to the on-premises restaurant operation; (5) No more than twenty-five percent of the interior area of the restaurant shall be designed, arranged, or devoted to a use commonly associated with a bar or other establishment primarily engaged in the on-premise sale of alcoholic beverages. The interior area shall include only those portions of the establishment devoted to regular use by the public; (6) A minimum of 20% of the gross fioor area of the establishment shall be used solely for food storage, preparation, maintenance and storage of eating utensils, dishes and glassware and shall include refrigeration, cooking, warming and dishwashing equipment, and any other equipment necessary for a fully equipped restaurant kitchen; (7) During the above specified minimum hours for restaurant services, there shall be not less than one employee per two hundred and fifiy square feet of fioor area devoted to food service use. Said employees shall be on thejob during the specified minimum hours for the restaurant service as described in subsection (2) of this condition. (8)Failure to meet the requirements of these subsections relating to the definition of bonafide public eating establishment (CMC 21.04.056) results in a land use classification of bar or cocktail lounge (CMC 21.04.041). 12) An exterior hghting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Redevelopment Director approval. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property. 13) No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire C!hief In such instance a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief and the Redevelopment Director. Landscape 14) The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which shall be submitted to and approved by the Redevelopment Director prior to the approval of grading or building plans, whichever occurs first. ^ All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. ^ All landscape iit%atiOSi plans shall be prepared to conform with the Guidelines Lanyis<;a|9ie Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning Department. 17) The apphcant shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The first submittal set of landscape and irrigation plans submitted shall include building plans, improvement plans and grading plans. Signs and Identification 49) Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Redevelopment Director prior to installation of such signs. 30) A uniform sign program for this development shall be submitted to the Redevelopment Director for his review and approval prior to occupancy of any building. 21) Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identification and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color. 22) The applicant is aware that the City is preparing a non-residential housing impact fee (linkage fee) consistent with Program 4.1 of the Housing Element. The apphcant is further aware that the City may determine that certain non-residential projects may have to pay a linkage fee, in order to be found consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan. If a hnkage fee is estabhshed by City CJouncO ordinance and/or resolution and this project becomes subject to a linkage fee pursuant to said ordinance and/or resolution, then the apphcant for this project, or his/her/their successor(s) in interest shall pay the hnkage fee. The linkage fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of building pennits, except for projects involving a request for a non- residential planned development for an existing development, in which case, the fee shall be paid on approval of the final map, parcel map or certificate of compliance, required to process the non-residential PUD, whichever pertains. If linkage fees are required for this project, and they are not paid, this project will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will become null and void. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WtLSGN. Govwnor DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL 3810 ROSIN COURT. SUITE 150, SACRAMENTO. CA 95834 {^]o) 263-6687 January 26, 1995 J. Jones 3044 State Street Carlsbaa, CA 92008 Dear Protestant(s): GRAIN TO GREEN, INC. REDMAYNETITLEY, Brett A. Carlsbad Brewery & Public House 571 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 File 301977 The protest against the above application has been received, and a copy has been sent to the applicant. Consider the protest as formally accepted unless we notify you that it has been rejected. Generally, the only protests the Department may reject are those which lack legal grounds or are false, vexatious, or without reasonable or probable cause. if your protest is rejected for any reason, you will be notified and given an opportunity to file a protest-accusation after the license is issued. If the Department approves issuance of the license, a hearing on your protest will be scheduled before an Administrative Law Judge of the Office of Aommistrative Hearings. If the Department does not approve issuance of the license and if the applicant requests a hearing, the hearing on your protest will be held at the same time. On the other hand, if the applicant does not request a hearing, you will receive no further notice from the Department. If there is to be a hearing, you will be notified of the date, time and place. You will be expected to attend the hearing and to testify regarding your protest. If you are unable to attend the hearing, you may appoint someone of your choice to represent you at the hearing. Failure to do so will result m tne aismissal of your protest by the Administrative Law Judge. If you cannot, or choose not to, attend the hearing, please notify the District Office shown below as soon as possible. Sincerely, Sandra J. Meek Supervisor, Hearing and Legal SJM:dh cc: San Marcos District Office Applicant w/enclosure City of Carlsbad 94280 Fire Department Plan Review: Requirements Category: Fire Conditions Date of Report: Thursday. January 26.1995 Reviewed by Contact Name BRIAN HUNTER Bureau of Prevention Address City, State _CA BIdg. Dept. No. 94-1467 Planning No. Job Name Carlsbad VIg Brewery Job Address 563 Carlsbad Village Ste. or BIdg. No. Kl Approved - The item you have submitted for review has been approved. The approval is based on plans; information and/or specifications provided in your submittal; therefore any changes to these items after this date, including field modifica- tions, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes. Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to construct or install improvements. • Disapproved - Please see the attached report of deficiencies. Please make corrections to plans or specifications necessary to indicate compliance with applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review. For Fire Department Use Only Review 1st 2nd 3rd Other Agency ID CFD Job# 94280 File# 2560 Orion Way Carlsbad, California 92008 (619) 931-2121 Date: January 24, 1995 To: Planning Department From: Police Department/Crime Prevention Subject: Plan Review # RP 94-7/CDP 94-8 The area of concern to the Police Department with this plan is: General building security. General security for employees and patrons. Plan review recommendations Lighting- Aisles, passageways, and recesses related to and within the building complex shall be illuminated with an intensity of at least twenty-five one hundredths (.25) footcandles at the ground level during the hours of darkness. Lighting devices shall be protected by weather and vandalism-resistant covers. Open parking lots shall be provided with a maintained minimum of one (1) footcandle of light on the parking surface during the hours of darkness. Lighting devices shall be protected by weather and vandalism covers. The main entry and rear dock area shall be given additional lighting during hours of darkness. All exterior lights shall be of the vandal resistant type. Landscaping- The exterior landscaping should be kept at a minimal height and fullness giving police, security services and the general public surveillance capabilities of the area. Landscaping shall be designed to not detract from lighting. There shall be an adequate distance between the lower branches of trees and the top of bushes. Landscaping in parking areas, entrance ways and in front of vulnerable windows shall be kept to a minimum. Storage Bins- Storage or disposal bins should be located away from the area of any loading or receiving area. Doors- Wood doors shall be of solid core construction with a minimum thickness of one and three fourths inches. Hollow steel doors shall have a minimum sixteen U.S. gauge and have sufficient reinforcement to maintain the designed thickness of the door when any locking device is installed. Glass doors shall have fully tempered glass or rated burglary resistant glazing. All swinging exterior wood and steel doors shall be equipped with a dead bolt. All doors shall be equipped with an astragal constructed of steel a minimum of .125 inch thick which will cover the opening between the door and frame or other door. The astragal shall be attached to the outside by means of welding or with non-removable bolts spaced apart on not more than ten inch centers. The jamb on all aluminum frame swinging doors shall be so constructed or protected to withstand 1600 pounds of pressure in both a vertical distance of three inches and horizontal distance of one inch each side of the strike, so as to prevent violation of the strike. Roll-up doors shall be equipped with security hardware to prevent the door from being forced to rise. Panic hardware shall be installed whenever it is required by the Uniform Building Code. Roofs- All roof openings shall be secured. Windows- All operable windows shall be installed with security devices. Electronic Security-It is recommended a electronic security system be installed to deter commercial burglary. It is also recommended that this security system include a glass breakage detection device. By, Jodeene R. Sasway Crime Prevention Specialist (619)931-2195 January 24, 1995 Carlsbad Municipal Water District 5950 El Cannino Real, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Engineering: (619) 438-3367 Administration: (619) 438-2722 Fax: (619) 431-1601 City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 TO: BRIAN HUNTER FROM: Jerry Whitley SUBJECT: CARLSBAD BREWERY RESTAURANT, RP 94-7/CDP 94-8, S.W. CORNER ROOSEVELT AND CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE - CMWD PROJECT NO. 95-C.427 In response to your inquiry of January 16, 1995, the District has reviewed subject project and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District conditions for potable water, reclaimed water and sewer systems are as follows: 1. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be collected before and /or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for meter installation. 2. Sequentially, the Developers Engineer shall do the following: A. Meet with the City Fire Marshall and establish the fire protection requirements. Also obtain G.P.M. demand for domestic and irrigational needs from appropriate parties. B. Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the Planning Department for processing and approval. "Serving Carlsbad for over 35 years" Page 2 Brian Hunter, City Planning Department January 24, 1995 C. Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water improvement plans, a meeting must be scheduled with the District Engineer for review, comment and approval of the preliminary system layouts and usages (ie - GPM - EDU). 3. This project is approved upon the expressed condition that building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving the development determines that adequate water service and sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such water service and sewer permits will continue to be available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the final map. 4. District anticipates the installation of a minimum 6" fire service to sprinkle the building and possible installation of a new water service to meet minimum requirements. All new connections shall be made off of Roosevelt Street. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, F. JERRY WHITLI Associate Engineer FJW:jm January 23, 1995 TO: BRIAN HUNTER, SENIOR PLANNER FROM: Associate Engineer VIA: Assistant City Engineer PROJECT REPORT AND CONDITIONS TRANSMITTAL CARLSBAD BREWERY, RP 94-07 The Engineering Department has completed its review of the subject project. The Engineering Department is recommending that the project be approved subject to the following conditions: 34. Unless a standards variance has been issued, no variance from City Standards is authorized by virtue of approval of this site plan. 35. The applicant shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the project. 36. The applicant shall be responsible for coordination with S.D.G.&E., Pacific Bell Telephone, and Cable TV authorities. 45A. Prior to grading or building permit issuance, the applicant shall pay all current fees and deposits required. 47. Prior to approval of the grading or building permit, the owner of the subject property shall execute an agreement holding the City harmless regarding drainage across the adjacent property. 57. Prior to hauling dirt or constmction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, the applicant shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer forthe proposed haul route. The applicant shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation. 72. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for ali public improvements shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of building permit in accordance with City Standards, the applicant shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, improvements shown on the site plan and the following improvements: a. Removal of the the existing driveway apron on Carlsbad Village Drive and and replacement with sidewalk to match the existing sidewalk improvements. b. Removal of the two existing driveways on Roosevelt Street and replacement with sidewalk. PROJECT REPORT AND CONDITIONS TRANSMITTAL CARLSBAD BREWERY, RP 94-07 Page 2 c. Installation of a new driveway apron on Roosevelt Street. Also attached is a final Land Use Review project report for inclusion in the staff report for this project. If you have questions regarding any of the comments above, please contact me at extension 4380. KENNETH W. QUON Associate Engineer LAND USE REVIEW DIVISION PROJECT REPORT PROJECT ID: RP 94-07 PREPARED BY: Kenneth Quon PROJECT NAME: Carlsbad Brewery APPROVED BY: LOCATION: Southwest corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Roosevelt Street BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Site and building remodel for a restaurant and brewery. ENGINEERING ISSUES AND DISCUSSION TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 435 ADT Traffic Study Performed by: ADT based on current SANDAG vehicular traffic generation rates. The projected traffic volunne of 435 ADT will have no significant effects to the existing traffic system in the surrounding area of the project site. Onsite improvements to the project will include a 34-space parking lot located behind both the restaurant building and an existing adjacent building. Vehicular access to the parking lot wili be off Roosevelt Street on the east side of the project, and from the existing alley on the west side of the parking lot iDoundary. Pedestrians will be able to access the restaurant from the parking iot through a new walkway area between the two buildings. The existing entrance to the building facing Carlsbad Village Drive will also be used as a public entrance. The sen/ice entrance to the restaurant will be in the rear, facing the parking lot. The parking lot will include a loading zone area for delivery trucks, and it is anticipated that deliveries will be made during offpeak business hours. SEWER Sewer District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District Sewer EDU's Required: 2.67 + 1 EDU/ 7 seats 2.67 + 94 seats/7 = 16.10 EDU's The existing sewer is adequate to serve this project. The kitchen plans call for provision of a grease trap. WATER Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District EDU's Required: 220 GPD/EDU x 16.-^ EDU's = 3,542 GPD The existing water improvements are adequate to sen/e this project. GRADING Quantities: Cut: 0 cy Fill: 0 cy Export/Import: 0 cy Permit Required: No Offsite Approval required/obtained: N/A Hillside Grading Requirennents met: N/A Grading of the project site will l^e limited to clearing of debris from the parking lot area and fine grading in preparation for paving the parking lot as well as to allow for proper drainage. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL Erosion Potential: Low The parking lot will be graded so that half the area will drain in a westerly direction towards an existing concrete swale in the alley, and the other half will drain in an easterly direction towards Roosevelt Street. The drainage slopes will vary from 1% to 3%. LAND TITLE Conflicts wKh existing easennent: No Easennents dedication required: No Site boundary coincides with Land Title: Yes There are no land title issues on this project. IMPROVEMENTS Offsite improvennents: Yes Standard Variance Required: No Access to the parking lot from Roosevelt Street will require rennoval and replacement with sidewalk of two existing driveway aprons, and construction of a new driveway apron. Additbnally, the existing driveway apron fronting the buikling will be rennoved and replaced to nnatch the sidewalk improvennents on Carlsbad Village Drive. These improvennents will be included in the conditions of approval for the project. To: Marty Orenyak From: Debbie Fountain Subject: Restaurant/Microbrewery Date: 1/19/95 Time: 6:52p As you requested, I contacted San Marcos to find out how they parked the new microbrewery in the Old California Restaurant Center. It was parked at restaurant completely: 4 0 spaces plus one space for each square foot of gross floor space over 4 000 and 1 space per employee. But, I understand that this was a new building constructed on a vacant piece of property. They were not retrofitting an existing building with site constraints like Wonderbread building. I also checked with Solana Beach regarding the Pizza Port Restaurant and Microbrewery. They did not require any additional parking when the microbrewery was added to the existing Pizza Port Restaurant. The site apparently does not have any parking anyway. The microbrewery was actually built underground (in something like a basement). This below ground "storage" was not counted as added square footage. Their parking for restaurants is basically the same as Carlsbad. Evan will be in on Friday if you have any other questions. I am off (but hav Jury Duty). 9 City of Carlsbad Planning [Department January 11, 1995 Brett Redmayne Titley 571 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad CA 92008 SUBJECT: RP 94-07/CDP 94-07 - CARLSBAD BREWERY & PUBLIC HOUSE Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit, appHcation nos. RP 94-07, CDP 94-07, as to its completeness for processing. The items requested from you earlier to make your Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit, application nos. RP 94-07, CDP 94-07 complete have been received and reviewed by the Planning Department. It has been determined that the application is now complete for processing. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this communication. Please note that although the application is now considered complete, there may be issues that could be discovered during project review and/or environmental review. Any issues should be resolved prior to scheduling the project for public hearing. In addition, the City may request, in the course of processing the application, that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise, supplement the basic information required for the application. Please contact your staff planner, Brian Hunter, at (619) 438-1161, extension 4457, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:BH:lh c: Gary Wayne Bobbie Hoder Bob Wojcik File Copy Data Entry Marjorie/Rich 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad. California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 ^ ISSUES OF CONCERN RP 94-07/CDP 94-07 - CARLSBAD BREWERY & PUBLIC HOUSE Planning: 1. Parking; as square footage agreed upon is 4,512, if parked as restaurant exclusively 51 spaces required. 46 space requirement previously listed was based on approximate 4,200 square foot restaurant. Whether parking is provided via agreement with redevelopment and/or via exemption/exception and at what ratio to park the proposed use remain issues of concem. January 10, 1995 TO: BRIAN HUNTER, SENIOR PLANNER FROM: Associate Engineer VIA: Principal Civil Engineer PROJECT ISSUES STATEMENT CARLSBAD BREWERY, RP 94-07 The Engineering Department has completed its review of the resubmitted project application for completeness and/or engineering issues. The project application is now complete for the purpose of continued engineering review. The project application does contain some engineering issues or concerns which remain to be resolved by the applicant. All engineering issues should be fully resolved or addressed prior to resubmittal of the project for our review. The outstanding engineering issues or concerns are as follows: 1. The steel pipe bollards proposed for the front of the building are unacceptable. The applicant should remove ali references to these bollards and instead, note on the site plan the removal of the driveway apron and replacing it with sidewalk improvements similar to the existing sidewalk in front of the building. 2. The site plan should note that the two existing driveways on Roosevelt Street are to be replaced with sidewalk. The above noted issues are of normal concern and may be transmitted to the applicant without the benefit of a project meeting. Attached is a redlined check print set of the project. Please fonA/ard this plan set to the applicant for corrections and changes as noted. The applicant must return this plan set with the corrected plans to assist us in our continued review. If you have questions regarding any of the comments above, please contact me at extension 4380. KENNETH W. QUON Associate Engineer H:\LIBRARY\ENG\WPDATA\C1U0N\BREWERY2.MEM January 10, 1995 TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTO CARLSBAD VILLAGE BREWERY AND PUBLIC HOUSE As we have discussed previously, an application is currently being processed to rehabilitate the old wonder bread site located at 570 Carlsbad Village Drive and to change the land use from retail to a restaurant/micro-brewery, to be called the Carlsbad Village Brewery and Public House. As in ahnost every redevelopment project, however, parking is once again an issue for land use review purposes. We have discussed this matter in some detail to date. The following information is provided in an effort to further consider the parking issue and a solution to the problem. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Based on Plamiing Staff's final review of the site plans for the project, the total building coverage provides for approximately 4500 square feet of gross floor space which is used to calculate a standard restaurant parking requirement of 45 spaces (1 space per 100 square feet of gross floor space). The fmal proposed site plan indicates that a total of approx. 34 spaces can be accommodated on the site. This leaves a shortage of 11 on-site parking spaces. Redevelopment Staff recommends the option of applying the manufacturing parking ratio (1:400 square feet of gross floor space) to the designated brewery portion of the proposed restaurant. Since the brewery area would occupy 712 square feet, the total parking requirement for the proposed use/building would be reduced to 40 spaces. This would create a parking deficiency of only six (6) spaces rather than 11 spaces noted above. Redevelopment Staff then proposes that the applicant be allowed to sublease six (6) public parking spaces from the Agency to meet their on-site parking requirement. Based on our previous discussions, it is my understanding that the sublease of parking spaces seemed to be acceptable but that the "mixed parking ratio" could not be supported because 1) "manufacturing is not allowed in the subarea", and 2) this type of "mixed parking ratio" is not consistent with past practices for applying the parking standards. ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSED MIXED PARKING RATIO Redevelopment staff would like to request further consideration of the proposed "mixed parking ratio" based on the following facts: • The brewery space will not be used for restaurant seating or food preparation; the only activity within this area is the "manufacturing" and bottling of beer. Therefore, the brewery space does not create, in itself, a demand for parking. The Redevelopment Permit could stipulate that the brewery area could not be eliminated, reduced or expanded without an amendment to the permit. Also, any increase in restaurant seating could also initiate an amendment to the redevelopment permit. The applicant has applied for a "wholesale" beer license from the Alcohol Beverage Control Board which, if approved, would support the idea of applying a "manufacturing" or "retail" parking standard to the brewery portion of the restaurant only. The brewery section within the proposed restaurant will represent only 17% of the total gross floor space within the building. Therefore, it would not represent a "manufacturing use"; we would only use the parking ratio for manufacturing to calculate a small portion of the parking requirement. The bulk of the parking requirement will be based on 3,788 square feet of restaurant floor space. The City used a similar "mixed parking ratio" to calculate the parking required for the Fish House Vera Cruz Restaurant. The parking requirement of 26 spaces total was based on 2158 square feet of restaurant space (22 spaces) and 1188 square feet of retail space (4 spaces). ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF SUBLEASE OF SPACES Redevelopment proposes to allow the applicant to sublease public parking spaces, or pay an in-lieu parking fee, to meet the on-site parking requirement for the new restaurant based^ on the following reasons: • The Master Plan Advisory Committee has supported the concept for the "Parking In- Lieu Fee Program" which would allow a property owner/developer to purchase parking credits from the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency to meet on-site parking requirements. The parking credits would be available for purchase as long as adequate public parking is available; an annual parking survey would determine the adequacy of the parking. This program will be recommended for approval by staff and the Advisory Committee. The applicant for the micro-brewery/restaurant would be required to pay a one-time fee related to a total of six (6) parking spaces under the scenario presented above. The fee would be based on a portion of the cost of constructing a parking space. Conceptually, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission implemented this program on a limited basis by allowing Fish House Vera Cruz to lease eleven (11) public parking spaces within a public parking lot to meet their on-site parking requirement. Under the new proposed program, Fish House would only be required to pay a one- time fee rather than make monthly lease payments. There are a total of 55 spaces within 300 feet and approximately 110 public parking spaces within 600 feet of the site which are available for overflow parking for the proposed project. To contmue with the elimination of blight within the Village Redevelopment Area, it is important to address highly visible properties such as the Wonder Bread Site. This property is currently an eyesore. The proposed project combines our major redevelopment objectives. It will result in complete rehabilitation of the building, bringing an exciting, new attraction to the Village and it will bring substantial tax increment benefits. These are very good incentives for assisting the project through an innovative approach to the parking situation as well as perhaps other fmancial assistance to the project. "INNOVATIVE" PARKING SOLUTION There seems to be a real concem that the parking solution proposed by Redevelopment will not be acceptable to the Coastal Commission, without their separate approval, and/or that a dangerous precedent may be set. Based on a thorough review of the Village Design Manual and the related parking ordinance (Section 21.44), it does not appear that we are proposing anything "mnovative" or "unique". The Village Design Manual does, in fact, state that "within the coastal zone, innovative means of fulfilling offstreet parking requirements may be permitted; however, such innovative arrangements must be approved by the Coastal Commission....as an amendment to the Local Coastal Program." However, "innovative" implies an action such as exempting a project from required parking spaces or taking some other type of action which is not speciflcally permitted within the City's parking ordinance. The parking ordinance allows for both mixed use parking requirements and off-site parking to meet on-site parking requirements. Under Section 21.44.050 (General Requirements) for parking standards, the location of the parking spaces are specified for various uses. For a restaurant use, the Muncipal Code states that the off-street parking parking facilities shall be located "not over three hundred (300) feet from the building they are required to serve." If the Agency subleases parking spaces to the restaurant, it will be providing "permanently maintained" parking spaces within 300 feet of the restaurant which appears to meet the parking code. Section 21.44.050 of the parking code also allows for "mixed occupancies in a building." The code states "in the case of mixed uses in a building or on a lot, the total requirements for off-street parking facilities shall be the sum of the requu-ements for the various uses computed separately." Since the City's Parking Ordinance is used to regulate the off-street parking requirements for land uses witiiin the Village Redevelopment Area, it would appear that as long as the parking proposal is consistent with the parking ordinance that there should not be a concem about setting precedent or permitting an "innovative" parking approach which would require Coastal Commission approval. EXAMPLES OF OTHER PROJECTS WITH SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS The following desirable projects were approved as a result of City flexibility combined with allowances permitted by the Parking Ordinance: • Fish House Vera Cruz. Mixed restaurant/retail parking ratio used with permission to sublease 11 public parking spaces from the Agency to meet the on-site parking requirement. The mixed ratio used to calculate the parking requirement was stmcture very liberally and effectively reduced the number of required parking spaces by nine (9) total. Ten (10) of the parking spaces were provided on-site, five (5) were provided in the public parking lot to the west (in the railroad right-of-way), and eleven (11) public parking spaces were subleased from the Redevelopment Agency in the parking lot to the south of the restaurant. No separate Coastal Commission approval provided for project. • Village Faire. Given relief from regular parking standards. The zoning ordinance required 1 space per 200 square feet of gross floor space; the project was approved at 1 space per 250 square feet. Also, a 15% mixed use credit was given for common usage which reduced the overall parking requirement by another 56 parking spaces. Nine (9) spaces in front of Neimans were deleted from plan to allow for better pedestrian access and landscaping. These 9 spaces were then subtracted from the parking requirement for the project. If straight parking standards had been applied to this project, the overall parking requirement would have been approximately 340 parking spaces. The more flexible approach effectively reduced the required parking spaces to 297 spaces - a reduction of 35 spaces total. The parking was provided as follows: 204 on-site spaces, 63 spaces on Grand Avenue (which were within 300 feet of the site) and 30 non-leased spaces public spaces on Washington (but adjacent to the property on the east side). When the Coastal Development Permit was issued for this project, staff was concemed that a Local Coastal Plan Amendment would be required. So, discussions were held with the San Diego Regional Director for the Coastal Commission. He made the determination that the parking concessions granted to the proposed project were permitted through provisions in the City's Zoning Ordinance and indicated that a Local Coastal Plan Amendment was not requked. He further stated that there was "lack of clarity" in the Coastal Plan regarding what constituted a "parking reduction". So, the Coastal Development Permit for the project was approved with no further action by the Coastal Commission. • Union Oil. Received approval for improvements to die gas station with the condition that the "applicant shall be responsible for entering into an agreement to provide four (4) offsite parking spaces to the sadsfaction of the Design Review Board." The Design Review Board stated that they wanted Union Oil to participate in a parking district once one was established; Union Oil agreed to do so. There is no indication within the file that this parking arrangement was approved by the Coastal Commission. SUMMARY Based on the information provided above, Redevelopment Staff would like to request your reconsideration for using a "mixed" manufacturing and restaurant space parking requirement for the proposed Carlsbad Village Brewery and Public House. The use of a "mixed" parking ratio would establish an on-site parking requirement of 40 spaces (rather than 45) for the project. To meet the required parking, the applicant would provide 34 on- site parking spaces and then lease and/or pay a parking in-lieu fee for a total of six (6) spaces in the public parking lot across the street from the site on the northeast comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Roosevelt Street. As we have said before and have supported with these additional arguments, these are not dangerous or even new precedents, and in fact, present no negative impact in our opinion. Also as stated previously, Redevelopment staff strongly believes that the proposed project will be an asset to the Village Redevelopment Area and we would like to assist in its development. In addition to fmding a solution to the parking issue, staff is currently considering a proposal to provide some financial assistance to the project. Redevelopment staff has asked Keyser Marston and Associates to review the project proforma and submit a financial assistance recommendation to our office as soon as possible. Due to the Council's expressed support for redevelopment of the Wonder Bread site and the beneficial nature of the proposed use, we believe it is critical for staff to work out an acceptable solution to the parking problem and seriously consider other financial assistance to ensure the success of redeveloping this site. EVAN E. BECKER c: Planning Director Assistant Planning Director January 10, 1995 TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTO CARLSBAD VILLAGE BREWERY AND PUBLIC HOUSE As we have discussed previously, an application is currently being processed to rehabilitate the old wonder bread site located at 570 Carlsbad Village Drive and to change the land use from retail to a restaurant/micro-brewery, to be called the Carlsbad Village Brewery and Public House. As in almost every redevelopment project, however, parking is once again an issue for land use review purposes. We have discussed this matter in some detail to date. The following information is provided in an effort to further consider the parking issue and a solution to the problem. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Based on Planning Staff's final review of the site plans for the project, the total building coverage provides for approximately 4500 square feet of gross floor space which is used to calculate a standard restaurant parking requirement of 45 spaces (1 space per 100 square feet of gross floor space). The final proposed site plan indicates that a total of approx. 34 spaces can be accommodated on the site. This leaves a shortage of 11 on-site parking spaces. Redevelopment Staff recommends the option of applying the manufacturing parking ratio (1:400 square feet of gross floor space) to the designated brewery portion of the proposed restaurant. Since the brewery area would occupy 712 square feet, the total parking requirement for the proposed use/building would be reduced to 40 spaces. This would create a parking deficiency of only six (6) spaces rather than 11 spaces noted above. Redevelopment Staff then proposes that the applicant be allowed to sublease six (6) public parking spaces from the Agency to meet their on-site parking requirement. Based on our previous discussions, it is my understanding that the sublease of parking spaces seemed to be acceptable but that the "mixed parking ratio" could not be supported because 1) "manufacturing is not allowed in the subarea", and 2) this type of "mixed parking ratio" is not consistent with past practices for applying the parking standards. ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSED MIXED PARKING RATIO Redevelopment staff would like to request further consideration of the proposed "mixed parking ratio" based on the following facts: • The brewery space will not be used for restaurant seating or food preparation; the only activity within this area is the "manufacturing" and bottling of beer. Therefore, the brewery space does not create, in itself, a demand for parking. The Redevelopment Permit could stipulate that the brewery area could not be eliminated, reduced or expanded without an amendment to the permit. Also, any increase in restaurant seating could also initiate an amendment to the redevelopment permit. The applicant has applied for a "wholesale" beer license from the Alcohol Beverage Control Board which, if approved, would support the idea of applying a "manufacturing" or "retail" parking standard to the brewery portion of the restaurant only. The brewery section within the proposed restaurant will represent only 17% of the total gross floor space within the building. Therefore, it would not represent a "manufacturing use"; we would only use the parking ratio for manufacturing to calculate a small portion of the parking requirement. The bulk of the parking requirement will be based on 3,788 square feet of restaurant floor space. The City used a similar "mixed parking ratio" to calculate the parking required for the Fish House Vera Cmz Restaurant. The parking requirement of 26 spaces total was based on 2158 square feet of restaurant space (22 spaces) and 1188 square feet of retail space (4 spaces). ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF SUBLEASE OF SPACES Redevelopment proposes to allow the applicant to sublease public parking spaces, or pay an in-lieu parking fee, to meet the on-site parking requirement for the new restaurant based on the following reasons: • The Master Plan Advisory Committee has supported the concept for the "Parking In- Lieu Fee Program" which would allow a property owner/developer to purchase parking credits from the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency to meet on-site parking requirements. The parking credits would be available for purchase as long as adequate public parking is available; an annual parking survey would determine the adequacy of the parking. This program will be recommended for approval by staff and the Advisory Committee. The applicant for the micro-brewery/restaurant would be required to pay a one-time fee related to a total of six (6) parking spaces under the scenario presented above. The fee would be based on a portion of the cost of constmcting a parking space. Conceptually, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission implemented this program on a limited basis by allowing Fish House Vera Cmz to lease eleven (11) public parking spaces within a public parking lot to meet their on-site parking requirement. Under the new proposed program, Fish House would only be required to pay a one- time fee rather than make monthly lease payments. There are a total of 55 spaces within 300 feet and approximately 110 public parking spaces within 600 feet of the site which are available for overflow parking for the proposed project. To continue with the elimination of blight within the Village Redevelopment Area, it is important to address highly visible properties such as the Wonder Bread Site. This property is currently an eyesore. The proposed project combines our major redevelopment objectives. It will result in complete rehabilitation of the building, bringing an exciting, new attraction to the Village and it will bring substantial tax increment benefits. These are very good incentives for assisting the project through an innovative approach to the parking situation as well as perhaps other financial assistance to the project. "INNOVATIVE" PARKING SOLUTION There seems to be a real concem that the parking solution proposed by Redevelopment will not be acceptable to the Coastal Commission, without their separate approval, and/or that a dangerous precedent may be set. Based on a thorough review of the Village Design Manual and the related parking ordinance (Section 21.44), it does not appear that we are proposing anything "innovative" or "unique". The Village Design Manual does, in fact, state that "within the coastal zone, imiovative means of fulfilling offstreet parking requirements may be permitted; however, such innovative arrangements must be approved by the Coastal Commission....as an amendment to the Local Coastal Program." However, "innovative" implies an action such as exempting a project from required parking spaces or taking some other type of action which is not specifically permitted within the City's parking ordinance. The parking ordinance allows for both mixed use parking requirements and off-site parking to meet on-site parking requirements. Under Section 21.44.050 (General Requirements) for parking standards, the location of the parking spaces are specified for various uses. For a restaurant use, the Muncipal Code states that the off-street parking parking facilities shall be located "not over three hundred (300) feet from the building they are required to serve." If the Agency subleases parking spaces to the restaurant, it will be providing "permanently maintained" parking spaces within 300 feet of the restaurant which appears to meet the parking code. Section 21.44.050 of the parking code also allows for "mixed occupancies in a building." The code states "in the case of mixed uses in a building or on a lot, the total requirements for off-street parking facilities shall be the sum of the requirements for the various uses computed separately." Since the City's Parking Ordinance is used to regulate the off-street parking requirements for land uses within the Village Redevelopment Area, it would appear that as long as the parking proposal is consistent with the parking ordinance that there should not be a concem about setting precedent or permitting an "innovative" parking approach which would require Coastal Commission approval. EXAMPLES OF OTHER PROJECTS WITH SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS The following desirable projects were approved as a result of City flexibility combined with allowances permitted by the Parking Ordinance: • Fish House Vera Cruz. Mixed restaurant/retail parking ratio used with permission to sublease 11 public parking spaces from the Agency to meet the on-site parking requirement. The mixed ratio used to calculate the parking requirement was stmcture very liberally and effectively reduced the number of required parking spaces by nine (9) total. Ten (10) of the parking spaces were provided on-site, five (5) were provided in the public parking lot to the west (in the railroad right-of-way), and eleven (11) public parking spaces were subleased from the Redevelopment Agency in the parking lot to the south of the restaurant. No separate Coastal Commission approval provided for project. • Village Faire. Given relief from regular parking standards. The zoning ordinance required 1 space per 200 square feet of gross floor space; the project was approved at 1 space per 250 square feet. Also, a 15% mixed use credit was given for common usage which reduced the overall parking requirement by another 56 parking spaces. Nine (9) spaces in front of Neimans were deleted from plan to allow for better pedestrian access and landscaping. These 9 spaces were then subtracted from the parking requirement for the project. If straight parking standards had been applied to this project, the overall parking requirement would have been approximately 340 parking spaces. The more flexible approach effectively reduced the required parking spaces to 297 spaces - a reduction of 35 spaces total. The parking was provided as follows: 204 on-site spaces, 63 spaces on Grand Avenue (which were within 300 feet of the site) and 30 non-leased spaces public spaces on Washington (but adjacent to the property on the east side). When the Coastal Development Permit was issued for this project, staff was concerned that a Local Coastal Plan Amendment would be required. So, discussions were held with the San Diego Regional Director for the Coastal Commission. He made the determination that the parking concessions granted to the proposed project were permitted through provisions in the City's Zoning Ordinance and indicated that a Local Coastal Plan Amendment was not required. He further stated that there was "lack of clarity" in the Coastal Plan regarding what constituted a "parking reduction". So, the Coastal Development Permit for the project was approved with no further action by the Coastal Commission. • Union Oil. Received approval for improvements to the gas station with the condition that the "applicant shall be responsible for entering into an agreement to provide four (4) offsite parking spaces to the satisfaction of the Design Review Board." The Design Review Board stated that they wanted Union Oil to participate in a parking district once one was established; Union Oil agreed to do so. There is no indication within the file that this parking arrangement was approved by the Coastal Commission. SUMMARY Based on the information provided above. Redevelopment Staff would like to request your reconsideration for using a "mixed" manufacturing and restaurant space parking requirement for the proposed Carlsbad Village Brewery and Public House. The use of a "mixed" parking ratio would establish an on-site parking requirement of 40 spaces (rather than 45) for the project. To meet the required parking, the applicant would provide 34 on- site parking spaces and then lease and/or pay a parking in-lieu fee for a total of six (6) spaces in the public parking lot across the street from the site on the northeast comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Roosevelt Street. As we have said before and have supported with these additional arguments, these are not dangerous or even new precedents, and in fact, present no negative impact in our opinion. Also as stated previously, Redevelopment staff strongly believes that the proposed project will be an asset to the Village Redevelopment Area and we would like to assist in its development. In addition to finding a solution to the parking issue, staff is currently considering a proposal to provide some financial assistance to the project. Redevelopment staff has asked Keyser Marston and Associates to review the project proforma and submit a financial assistance recommendation to our office as soon as possible. Due to the Council's expressed support for redevelopment of the Wonder Bread site and the beneficial nature of the proposed use, we believe it is critical for staff to work out an acceptable solution to the parking problem and seriously consider other financial assistance to ensure the success of redeveloping this site. EVAN E. BECKER Planning Director Assistant Planning Director Senior Planner - Brian Hunter Citv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department December 28, 1994 BRETT REDMAYNE-TITLEY 571 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 RE: RP 94-07/CDP 94-07 - CARLSBAD BREWERY AND PUBLIC HOUSE Dear Brett: It is my understanding that your application for a redevelopment and coastal development pennit has been deemed complete and accepted for continued processing. This correspondence is forwarded to you to explain the remaining process for obtaining redevelopment and/or building permits for the proposed Carlsbad Brewery and Public House. STEP 1; Once the redevelopment permit application is deemed complete, processing continues through the effort to resolve any outstanding issues with design, site planning, parking, enviromnental, or other project-related matters. The issue of greatest concem at this time is the satisfaction of the on-site parking requirement for the new restaurant/micro-brewery. As we have discussed, you are unable to meet the parking requirement for the restaurant/micro- brewery on-site. Therefore, some type of variance needs to be granted in order for the subject permits to be approved. Intemally, staff must come to agreement on what type of variance can be approved and how it will be implemented. Staff is currently discussing a mixed parking ratio (restaurant/manufacturing or restaurant/retail) combined with approval to pay an in-lieu parking fee or sublease public parking spaces to assist you in meeting the parking requirement. This matter is fairly complicated and will take a few weeks to be completely resolved by city staff. The primary reason that parking becomes a complicated issue is because the property is located within the coastal zone. All "creative" parking solutions become an issue of consideration by the Coastal Commission which adds time to the processing. STEP 2: As soon as the parking issue has been resolved by staff, the project planner (Brian Hunter) may continue processing the application by completing the environmental review documents for the project. It takes approximately thirty (30) days to complete the environmental review process and comply with applicable state and federal regulations. Every effort will be made to complete the envu*onmental review in as timely a fashion as possible. However, the environmental review process can be lengthy depending on the determination made regarding the impact the project will have on the environment. 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 ^ B. REDMAYNE-TITLEY PAGE 2 December 28, 1994 STEP 3: After a environmental determination has been made and appropriate measures have been taken to address any related issues, the project planner will prepare the necessary reports to be presented to the Design Review Board. These reports are prepared by the project planner with comments provided by staff within the Redevelopment, Engineering, Fure and/or Police Departments and include a staff recommended action (approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval). Once the reports are completed and reviewed by all appropriate staff members, the project application will be scheduled for a public hearing before the Design Review Board. From the date the project planner submits the fmal reports for review, it takes approximately six (6) weeks to complete the processing and schedule the public hearing before the Design Review Board. The public hearing must be noticed to all property owners within 600 feet of the project site at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. STEP 4; At the public hearmg, the Design Review Board will decide to recommend approval or deny the project. If the project application is denied, the process will discontinue unless you appeal the Board's decision within ten (10) calendar days. If the Board recommends approval (or a denial is appealed), the application is forwarded to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission with all appropriate reports, exhibits, etc. It takes approximately four (4) to six (6) weeks to schedule a public hearing before the Housing and Redevelopment Commission; this second hearing will not be scheduled until the Design Review Board has taken action on the application. The public hearing before the Housing and Redevelopment Coinmission must also be noticed to all property owners within 600 feet of the project site at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. STEP 5: After action has been taken to approve (or disapprove) the redevelopment/coastal development permit, the building permit(s) can be issued. Although you have been allowed to process your building permit concurrently with the Redevelopment permits, the building permit will not be issued until action has been taken on the redevelopment permits. It is possible that the redevelopment permit could be approved with conditions that require changes to the building permits. The buildmg permit will be held until all other approvals have been received and the formal plan check process has been completed. SUMMARY: If all goes well and all outstanding issues can be resolved quickly, final action by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on the redevelopment permits for your project can B. REDMAYNE-TITLEY PAGE 3 December 28, 1994 probably be completed by the end of April, 1995. I realize that this may appear to be an unreasonable time frame but I can assure you that every effort is being made to complete the processing of your application as quickly as possible. Redevelopment staff will monitor progress on your application closely and will provide processing assistance as necessary. You can assist in the process by continuing to promptly respond to, and quickly resolve, any issues raised by staff. Thank you for your patience as we process your redevelopment permit/coastal development applications. If you would like to meet with me to discuss the continued processing of your application in more detail or have questions about this correspondence, please contact my office at 434-2935. Smcerely, DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Senior Management Analyst Jeff Rasak, Property Owner Brian Hunter, Project Planner December 20, 1994 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CARLSBAD VILLAGE BREWERY AND PUBLIC HOUSE Due to the fact that the Carlsbad Village Brewery and Public House proposed for the old Wonderbread site on the southwest comer of Roosevelt and Carlsbad Village Drive has generated a considerable amount of interest lately, staff has prepared the following summary of actions which have been taken and need to be taken on the proposal. The property owner and tenant of the building submitted a redevelopment permit application on November 9, 1994 to change the use of the Wonderbread building from retail to a restaurant/micro-brewery. This is an exciting project proposal which combines the benefits of blight elimination with a unique land use which has the potential to provide a major attraction for the Village Redevelopment Area. The proposed use is basically a restaurant with a bar, which will be incidental to the restaurant use. The restaurant will offer a lunch and dinner menu with quality grill foods, gourmet cheese cakes and pies for dessert. The only alcohol beverages planned to be served are select local beers and ales which will be brewed at the site; there will be no hard liquor served on the site. The operators of the restaurant/micro-brewery will consist of Brett Redmayne-Titley, a local entrepeneur, and the owners of Pizza Port/Solana Beach Brewery. The owners of Pizza Port have operated a successful pizza restaurant/micro-brewery in Solana Beach for several years. The following actions have taken place or will take place within the next few months: • Restaurant/Micro-Brewery operators have applied for a license from Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC). The license is being processed according to routine ABC procedures. Carlsbad Police Department has responded to the application with standard city conditions for approving the license. • Major Redevelopment Permit application is being processed according to normal city procedures. The project is currently undergoing enviromnental review which will take approximately 30 days to complete. • Upon completion of environmental review and resolution of any outstanding project issues, the redevelopment permit application will be presented to Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission for consideration following a public hearing. CARLSBAD BREWERY December 20, 1994 Page 2 • No significant work will be completed to the exterior of the building until the redevelopment permit has been approved. • The property owner and tenant are currently working with the Building Department to complete some interior improvements to the building; these improvements primarily include clean-up and/or demolition work. Also, some work is being completed to brmg the building into compliance with appropriate seismic retrofitting standards. All interior work is being completed under the guidance of the City's Building Department. No interior work is being pennitted which would not be normally allowed by the City for other buildings within the area. • Staff is currently reviewing a request from the property owner to provide some type of fmancial assistance to the project to ensure the rehabilitation of the building and initiation of the restaurant operation in a more timely fashion. To continue with the elimination of blight within the Village Redevelopment Area, it is important to address highly visible properties such as the Wonderbread Site. This property is currently an eyesore. For these reasons, this site was identified as a key project development opportunity within both the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and the Spending Strategy for the 1993 Tax Allocation Bond Proceeds. The proposed project will result in complete rehabilitation of the building as well as bring an exciting, new attraction to the Village. Redevelopment staff strongly believes that the proposed project will be an asset to the Village Redevelopment Area and we would like to assist in its development. If you would like any additional information on the proposed restaurant/micro-brewery, please contact my office at X2815. EVAN E. BECKER c: Community Development Director BY: XEROX TELECOPIER 753lO ; 12-19-94 5:03PM J ;ITT G3- DEC-19-94 flON 17:02 CARLSM P.D. POL CHIEF 1 FAX NO. 6199i|g473 p. 02 City of Office Of the Chief of Police December 19. 1994 Leslie Corona District Supervisor Alcoholic Beverage Control 334 Via Vera Cruz Suite 204 San Marcos, CA 92069 sDear Ms, Corona: The Carlsbad Police Department wishes to protest the issuance of a Type 47 (on-sale general) to Carlsbad Brewery & Public House, located at 571 Carlsbad Village Drive. Carlsbad. California 92008. on the ground that it will aggravate existing law enforcement problems. However, we may withdraw this protest In consideration of agreed upon conditions. Tne conditions are as follows; 1. No dancing shall be permitted on the licensed premises. 2. There shall be no audible music or noise emitting from the premises which could disturb the neighboring tenants, 3. With the excepUon of doors onto the patio, rear and side doors of the premises shall be kept closed at all times during business hours, except for loading and unloading of supplies. 4. There shall be no more than two pool tables and no more than four game machines permitted on the licensed premises. 5. The gross quarterly annual sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the quarterly annual sales of food for the same period. B. Vales CHtef of Police 2560 Orion Way • Carlsbad, California 92008-7280 • (619) 931-2100 • FAX (619) 931-8473 DECEMBER 12, 1994 TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: Housing fit Redevelopment Director KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES EVALUATION OF MICRO BREWERY PROPOSAL The attached letter agreement for your signature is to have Keyser Marston give us an evaluation of the Wonder Bread/Micro Brewery proposal. It isn't a complicated proposal, but I think it's advisable to have some third party advice. Let me know if you have any questions. EVAN BECKER Housing St Redevelopment Director arb Attachment December 1, 1994 TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTO CARLSBAD VILLAGE BREWERY AND PUBLIC HOUSE An application has been received and is currently being processed to rehabilitate the old wonder bread site located at 570 Carlsbad Village Drive and to change the land use from retail to a restaurant/micro-brewery, to be called the Carlsbad Village Brewery and Public House. This is an exciting project proposal which combmes the benefits of blight elimination with a unique land use which can provide a major attraction for the Village Redevelopment Area. As in almost every redevelopment project, however, parking is once again an issue for land use review purposes. The building provides 4196 square feet of gross floor space which is used to calculate a standard restaurant parking requirement of 42 spaces (1 space per 100 square feet of gross floor space, rounded up). The final proposed site plan indicates that a total of 34 spaces can be accommodated on the site. This leaves a shortage of 8 on-site parking spaces. In August, 1994, Redevelopment Staff requested that Planning Staff consider the option of applying the manufacturing parking ratio (1:400 square feet of gross floor space) to the designated brewery portion of the proposed restaurant because this had been supported previously for a micro-brewery proposed on Carlsbad Boulevard. Since the brewery would occupy 712 square feet, the total parking requirement for t^Tproposed use^ would Be~Te3iic^3SL37 spac^. This would create a parking deficiency of only spaces rather than 8 spaces. It is my understanding that Planning staff could not su^ application of tneonamifacturing parking ratio to the brewery section of the restaurant because 1) "manufacturing is not allowed in the subarea", and 2) this type of "mixed parking ratio" is not consistent with past practices for applying the parking standards. Although Planning Staff has indicated that they are unable to support an "innovative" approach to addressing the parking issue for the proposed restaurant, Redevelopment staff would like to request further consideration of this matter based on the following facts: • The brewery space will not be used for restaurant seating or food preparation; the only activity within this area is the "manufacturing" and bottling of beer. Therefore, the brewery space does not create, in itself, a demand for parking. The Redevelopment Permit could stipulate that the brewery area could not be eliminated, reduced or expanded without an amendment to the permit. Also, any increase in restaurant seating could also initiate an Amendment to the redevelopment permit. M. ORENYAK December 1, 1994 Page 2 The brewery section within the proposed restaurant will represent only 17% of the total gross floor space within the building. Therefore, it would not represent a "manufacturing use"; we would only use the parking ratio for manufacmring to calculate a small portion of the parkmg requirement. The bulk of the parking requirement will be based on 3,434 square feet of restaurant floor space. The Master Plan Advisory Committee has supported the concept for the "Parking In- Lieu Fee Program" which would allow a property owner/developer to purchase parking credits from the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency to meet on-site parking requkements. The parking credits would be available for purchase as long as adequate public parking is available; an annual parking survey would determine the adequacy of the parking. This program will be recommended for approval by staff and the Advisory Committee. The applicant for the micro-brewery/restaurant would be required to pay a one-time fee related to a total of three (3) parking spaces under the scenario presented above. The fee would be based on a portion of the cost of constmcting a parking space. Conceptually, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission implemented this program on a very limited basis by allowing Fish House Vera Cruz to lease eleven (11) public parking spaces within a public parking lot to meet their on-site parking requirement. Under the new proposed program, Fish House would only be required to pay a one- time fee rather than make monthly lease payments. The City used a similar "mixed parking ratio" to calculate the parking required for the Fish House Vera Cmz Restaurant. The parking requirement of 26 spaces total was based on 2158 square feet of restaurant space (22 spaces) and 1188 square feet of retail space (4 spaces). There are a total of approximately UO public parking spaces within 600 feet of the site which are available for overflow parking for the proposed project. To continue with the elimination of blight within the Village Redevelopment Area, it is important to address highly visible properties such as the Wonder Bread Site. This property is currently an eyesore. The proposed project will result in complete rehabilitation of the building as well as bring an exciting, new attraction to the Village. These are both very good incentives for assisting the project through an innovative approach to the parking situation as well as perhaps other financial assistance to the project. M. ORENYAK December 1, 1994 Page 3 Based on the information provided above. Redevelopment Staff would like to request full consideration for using a "mixed" manufacturing and restaurant space parking requirement for the proposed Carlsbad Village Brewery and Public House. The use of a "mixed" parkmg ratio would establish an on-site parking requirement of 37 spaces (rather than 42) for the project. To meet the required parking, the applicant would provide 34 on-site parking spaces and then lease and/or pay a parking in-lieu fee for a total of 3 spaces in the public parking lot across the street from the site on the northeast comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Roosevelt Street. These are not dangerous or even new precedents, and in fact, present no negative impact in our opinion. As state previously. Redevelopment staff strongly believes that the proposed project will be an asset to the Village Redevelopment Area and we would like to assist in its development. In addition to fmding a solution to the parking issue, staff is currently considering a proposal to provide some fmancial assistance to the project. Redevelopment staff has asked Keyser Marston and Associates to review the project proforma and submit a financial assistance recommendation to our office within the next week or so. Due to the Council's expressed support for redevelopment of the wonder bread site and the beneficial nature of the proposed use, it is critical for staff to work out an acceptable solution to the parking problem and seriously consider other fmancial assistance to ensure the success of redeveloping this site. EVAN E. BECKER 1. City of Carlsbad Planning Department December 1, 1994 Brett Redmayne Titley 571 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: RP 94-07/CDP 94-07 - CARLSBAD BREWERY AND PUBLIC HOUSE Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Redevelopment Peimit and Coastal Development Permit, application no. RP 94-07 and CDP 94-07, as to its completeness for processing. The application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is information which must be submitted to complete your application. This list of iteins must be submitted directly to vour staff plamier by appointment. All list items must be submitted simultaneouslv and a COPY of this list must be included with vour submittals. No processmg of your application can occur until the application is detennined to be complete. The second list is issues of concem to staff. When all required materials are submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the application was initiallv filed, November 9, 1994, to either resubmit the application or submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted. Please contact your staff planner, Brian Hunter, at (619) 438-1161 extension 4457, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:BH:vd c: Gary Wayne Bobbie Hoder Debbie Fountain Bob Wojcik File Copy Data Entry Marjorie/Rich 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 ® LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE APPLICATION: No. RP 94-07/CDP 94-07 - CARLSBAD BREWERY & PUBLIC HOUSE PLANNING: 1. Please complete Public Facility Fee Agreement enclosed for properties outside of the boundaries of the Community Facilities District. Submitted agreement should not include non-signing General Partner on signature page 6. Developer is required to sign identical to printed name as well as name attested to by notary (submitted signature does not meet this requirement). 2. Gross floor area on page one (4167) does not match gross floor area measured from plans on page four (approximately 4520), nor does it match building square footage on page one (4196). The reason for making this a completeness item is its relationship to determination of parking requurement. ENGINEERING: 1. Show typical street cross section for Carlsbad Village Drive and for Roosevelt Street. 2. Plot tmck tuming radii on the site plan to demonstrate that a 42' tmck can circulate within the parking lot. 3. Show the location of fire hydrants within 300 feet of the site. ISSUES OF CONCERN PLANNING: 1. Parking; to include, but not be limited to, number of spaces (46 required if parked as exclusively restaurant; please note any irmovative arrangement in satisfying this requirement requires an amendment to the Local Coastal Program approved by the Coastal Commission or its executive director per the Village Design Manual), aisle width (24' requhed), amount and adequacy of landscaping of paridng area (10% required with no landscaped area less than 30" in width, exclusive of protective curbing), wheel stops shall be installed on each parking stall which is adjacent to an exterior lot line, dimension of handicapped parking space number 1 should be 14' x 20', and appearance of fencing and gating of parking area. 2. The City strongly recommends that cultural resource surveys be conducted for the purpose of providing input during the planning stage of a development rather than as a reaction to an existing project plan. The result of the cultural resource survey can be used as constraint information which can aid in designing a project, thereby providing protection for, rather than the destmction of, the cultural resource. In this way, preservation of the resource becomes a more economically feasible altemative, as the project has not been engineered such that the resource is an impediment to development. Site should be surveyed using City of Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines criteria to allow detennination of significance and mitigation, if necessaiy, to preclude the necessity of an Envu-onmental Impact Report. 3. Signage is not part of the pennit. Please remove from elevation on page 6, as well as not on page 2. 4. Plans show 3 different project addresses (517, 570, 571). Please correct. ENGINEERING: 1. As noted in red on the site plan, the layout of the two handicapped parking stalls and the one standard parking stall is awkward and creates maneuvering difficulties for vehicles. The loadmg zone map be acceptable if sufficient assurance can be given that no conflicts with the parking will occur. The City requires a minimum 24' aisle width for vehicles to maneuver within a parking lot. 2. Please note on the site plan the removal of the driveway apron in front of the building on Carlsbad Village Drive and replacing it with sidewalk. 3. Please provide additional spot elevations on the site plan to demonstrate that the parking lot will be constmcted with its desired drainage pattem and that the elevations will fit with the topography of the existmg surroundmg lots and improvements. t C - 1 -4 7 p ri 02 CARLSBAD BREWERY & PUBLIC HOUSE 571 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR. CARLSBAD, CA 92008 Mi, Brian lam ter 2075 Las Pahnas Dr. Carlsbad, ( A. 92008 Dear Mr, Hunter, It is the intention of'The Carlsbad Brewery & Public House" to provide handcrafted beer, as well as, a selection of fine wines and soft drinks, in an attractive restaurant setting in downtown Carisbad. Locally known as, "The Old Wonder Bread Building", the site of our new business is on the Southwest corner of the intersection ofCarisbad Village Dr. and Roosevelt St. We consider this site perfect for our uses since, it already has an old fashioned brick look that will fit our brewpub concept. As such we will maintain the existing look ofthe buiiding. The site consists of the exiting building (approx. 4,200 sq. ft.) and parking lot (ai.-prox. 12 000 sq. ft.). Within this combination we plan to improve the property without doing any significant exterior or structural changes, since it substantially suits our plans as is. Exterior improvements to the property include; new storefront glass and entryway; new awning over entiyway; clearing and upgrade of the Brick Facade; retexturing three sides ofthe building; renovation of existing side entryway; renovation of side area to patio; complete resuiface ofthe parking lot and the installation of light standards. Addhionally, the stmctural integrity ofthe building will be brought up to current unreinforced masonry (U R.M.) codes. Interior changes will bring the stmctural, electrical and plumbing infi-astmctures up to the needs of our utilization, i.e. restaurant, bar, kitchen, restrooms, etc. All of these imi 'rovement s will enhance the existing look of the building and property. Although the building will undergo an extensive renovation, all work will be done wita the empha.sis on improving the existing look of an already beautifiil building. It has been a local landmark for many years and maintaining the current overall appearance will enhance the location dramatically. We feel that the combination of tliis location and our brewpub concept will be a strong asset to an already vibrant downtown commumty, Brett Redmayne-thley I Citv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department November 30, 1994 Mr. Robert J. Wetmore Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 12555 High Bluff Drive, Suite 160 San Diego, CA 92130 This letter will serve as an agreement between Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. ("Consultant") and the City of Carlsbad ("City") for consulting services. Your letter, dated November 22, 1994, (attached as Exhibit "A"), outlined the scope of work to be completed vvithin two (02) weeks of the notice to proceed at a cost not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000); payment to be made within thirty (30) days of invoice date, billed monthly. The requirement for liability insurance is waived; however, a City of Carisbad business license is required. This agreement may be modified by the City or the Consultant. Any change shall be in writing with a statement of estimated changes in charges or time schedule. The City or the Consultant may terminate the agreement at any time after a discussion, and written notice to the other party. The City will pay consultant's costs for services delivered up to the time of termination, if the services have been delivered in accordance with the agreement. To indicate acceptance of the agreement, please sign in the space provided below and return to City of Carlsbad, Housing and Redevelopment Department, 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B, Carisbad, California 92008-1989. Community Development Director 12. Date Date 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 November 29, 1994 TO: BRIAN HUNTER, SENIOR PLANNER FROM: Associate Engineer VIA: Assistant City Engineer /^QL^ COMPLETENESS REVIEW AND INITIAL ISSUES STATEMENT CARLSBAD BREWERY, RP 94-07 The Engineering Department has completed its 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: 1. Show typical street cross sections for Carlsbad Village Drive and for Roosevelt Street. 2. Plot truck turning radii on the site plan to demonstrate that a 42' truck can circulate within the parking lot. 3. Show the location of fire hydrants within 300 feet of the site. In addition, the Engineering Department made a preliminary review of the project for Engineering issues. Engineering issues which need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to conditioning of the project are as follows: 1. As noted in red on the site plan, the layout of the two handicapped parking stalls and the one standard^^kjngsfall is awkwajd|nd yeates maneuvering difficyltiesji^r vehicles^JThe loadine, _ stft^^^^SSarttiQQ^yJtSe City requires a minimum 24' aisle width for vehicles to maneuver within ^ 7:^^r~ a parking lot. — "TL^^^J- — " ^yy^ 2. Please note on the site plan the removal of the driveway apron in front of the building on "^^^ Carlsbad Village Drive and replacing it with sidewalk. -c^ 3. Please provide additional spot elevations on the site plan to demonstrate that the parking lot will be constructed with its desired drainage pattern and that the elevations will fit with the topography of the existing surrounding lots and improvements. Attached is a redlined check print set of the project. Please forward this plan set to the applicant for corrections and changes as noted. The applicant must return this plan set with the corrected plans to assist us in our continued review. If you have questions regarding any of the comments above, please contact me at extension 4380. CL y/^OY- ' KENNETH W. QUON Associate Engineer H:\LIBRARY\ENG\WPDATA\QU0N\BREWERY1.MEM STERLING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION October 26, 1994 Mr. Evan E. Becker Housing and Redevelopment Director CITY OF CARLSBAD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 2965 Roosevelt Street Suite B Carlsbad, California 92208-2389 Re: Wonder Bread Bakery Redevelopment Project swe of Carlsbad Village Drive and Roosevelt Street Carlsbad, California Dear Evan: I very much appreciate the time you and Debbie Fountain have taken in discussing the renovation program we have planned for the former Wonder Bread Bakery Building in downtown Carlsbad. Carlsbad Village Partners, a California General Partnership, has now closed on the property and is ready to go forward with its redevelopment project and make the necessary tenant improvements for the Carlsbad Brewery & Public House to take occupancy. DEVELOPMENT PROJECT As you know, redevelopment of the subject site is a high priority for both the City of Carlsbad and the Housing and Redevelopment Department. In the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Implementation Strategy prepared by the Cannon Design Group, Keyser Marsten Associates, John B. Dykstra & Associates and JHK & Associates, the site is identified as having "the most significant short-term potential" in the Village for redevelopment as a "theme project", both because of its strategic location within the Village and its potential as a major attraction to serve all segments of the Carlsbad Village market, including Carlsbad residents. Village residents, regional visitors and tourists. Consistent with the City's long range redevelopment objectives, our proposal is to renovate the existing historical structure on the property and open a micro brewery and full service restaurant called the "Carlsbad Brewery & Public House". As you know, micro breweries have become extremely popular tenants in downtown areas, where Cities are endeavoring to promote evening uses, entertainment components and other amenities to revitalize the downtown area. That revitalization has occurred in San Diego in the Gaslamp Quarter and many other locations around the County, including San Marcos and Solano Beach, where micro breweries have opened and are Or- Zz 505 N. TL.•ST^^ AVE^JUE. SL SANI'A ANA, CAUFORNIA ^27C5 FAX - "Ml 9"":-r32' Mr. Evan E. Becke... October 26, 1994 Page 2 thriving. The proposed micro brewery in Carlsbad will accommodate seating for approximately 100 persons and will have a full service restaurant as well as a pub area which emphasizes the micro brewery and its extensive stainless steel brewing equipment. The schematic plans and renderings for the project are provided herewith as Attachment "A". DEVELOPMENT VALUE For your information and review, we have attached the Development and Operating Proformas for the project as Attachment "B". As you can see, Carlsbad Village Partners expect to spend in excess of $1 million on the project, including the land acquisition costs, the structural improvements, the hazardous waste remediation and other hard and soft costs as shown in the Proforma. Following redevelopment of the property, when the San Diego County Assessor places the project on the tax rolls, they will most likely ask us to provide them with the attached Development Proforma. Since the building will be occupied by a single tenant, the County Assessor will be able to easily estab- lish the "market value of the property" by capitalizing our net operating income ("NOI"). Assuming the Assessor uses a ten percent (10%) capitalization rate, our proforma projections attached hereto would result in the same value as that determined by the San Diego County Assessor. TAX GENERATION 1. Tax Increment The property is currently on the tax rolls at $345,629.00. The tax generation spreadsheets, provided herewith as Attachment "C", show the assessed value for each of the parcels included in the project. When the existing value is deducted from the projected value, the net new assessed value is projected to be $677,763.00. We understand from our prior discussions with you and Debbie that there are no pass through agreements in this Redevelopment Project Area, only the required twenty percent (20%) set aside for housing. Given those assumptions, the tax increment from the project will be $5,4 22.00 in the first year, increasing to $5,986.00 in the fifth year and $6,480.00 in the tenth year. The cumulative tax increment from the project for the first 10 years is estimated at $59,370.00. Mr. Evan E. Becke. October 26, 1994 Page 3 2. Sales Taxes No sales taxes are currently being generated by the property. We have been advised by the operators of the micro brewery that they expect to do $100,000.00 in sales per month. That sales volume equates to approximately $280.00 per square foot in annual sales, which is conservative for a use of this type, especially given the strong demand for a micro brewery in the Village. As such, we are confident that the Carlsbad Brewery & Public House will achieve or exceed the projected sales they have provided to us. Based on these sales projections, the estimated annual sales taxes to the City of Carlsbad are $12,000.00 in the first year, increasing to $14,586.00 in the fifth year and $18,616.00 by the tenth year. The cumulative new sales taxes from the project for the first 10 years are projected to be $150,935.00. 3. Combined Taxes Based upon the foregoing and our fiscal impact analysis, we project the combined taxes will be $17,422.00 in the first year, increasing to $20,572.00 in the fifth year and $25,096.00 in the tenth year. The projected cumulative taxes over the first 10 years is $210,305.00. JOB GENERATION/ANNUAL PAYROLL The operator of the Carlsbad Brewery & Public House has indicated that 19 new positions will be created at the facility, with an associated annual payroll of approximately $285,000. These employees can be expected to spend a reasonable amount of their earnings in the City of Carlsbad and more particularly, in the village. The micro brewery is also expected to generate secondary jobs from its vendors and suppliers, as well as from the spending of its employees, all of which will create added benefit to the City of Carlsbad. NEED FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE The existing building on the property is an unreinforced masonry building and meets none of the current seismic safety require- ments pursuant to Chapter 12.2 of Division 1 of Title 2 of the California Government Code. Additionally, it has been determined that there exists petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil which re- quire remediation under the direction of the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health Services. The building also contains certain quantities of asbestos and lead which must be Mr. Evan E. Beckt October 26, 1994 Page 4 removed in accordance with stringent requirements during the renovation of the building and prior to occupancy thereof. Those remediation costs as well as the major structural reinforcement required for the building have increased the project costs and have rendered the economics to be at a level which makes the project infeasible without public assistance. The attached Proforma which shows the project without public assistance, indicates that the first year return on cost is only 10.09%, the cash on cash return on equity is 8.68%, the loan to value is 69% and the debt coverage ratio is 1.35. Those economic indicators do not meet the underwriting requirements of lenders and investors today and without public assistance, threaten the economic viability of the project. While we have, in fact, secured favorable equity financing for the project, we require assistance to secure acceptable construction and/or permanent financing. PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROPOSAL While we have not had the opportunity to discuss with you the various alternatives or approaches to securing assistance for the project, we are prepared to consider whatever forms of deal structure you may offer. We have, however, established the level of need at $80,000. With that level of assistance, the return on costs reaches 11%, which is the minimum benchmark required for the project to go forward with conventional debt and equity -ju'^ financing. The cash on cash return also increases to ^^^\/jX^' approximately 11.65%, the loan to value goes to 61% and the debt ^^^4/^ coverage ratio is 1.53. Given the type and size of this project, we believe our debt lenders will not go much beyond a 60% loan to value. We believe the 61% achieved with the requested public assistance is close enough to meet their underwriting requirements. Therefore, the public assistance requested above would bring the project economics to the levels required by both the equity investor (11% return on cost) and the lender (60% loan to value). How the use of any such public funds are characterized is a matter we would like to discuss with you. The same is true regarding the manner in which the Redevelopment Agency provides the assistance to the project. Preliminarily, however, we propose that the Agency advance the funds necessary to pay the City required Traffic Impact Fee, Sewer Fee and Water Fee for the project which totals $69,462.00. The additional amount of $10,538, which would be needed in order to reach the $80,000 level of required assistance, could be characterized however you think most appropriate based on the objectives of the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Evan E. Becke. October 26, 1994 Page 5 Please note that the total assistance of $80,000 which we are requesting is returned to the Agency in 13 years, which is clearly within the range for the Agency to recapture the amount provided. The City would still receive all of the additional benefit, including the tax increment from years 13 on, as well as the sales taxes, job generation and associated payroll therefrom. We look forward to meeting with you to discuss this approach and to begin working through the details of securing such public assistance. Finally, you should be aware that the proposed redevelopment project is ready to proceed. This is not a speculative proposal by a developer who hopes to acquire the property and secure a user or tenant for the project. We have already acquired the property, executed a binding Lease Agreement with the Carlsbad Brewery & Public House, and taken the project to the point that it is ready to be completed and occupied. The Agency can proceed knowing that the redevelopment of this strategic gateway location, identified in your own studies as having the "most significant short term potential" in the Village, can and will go forward in an expeditious manner. We are prepared to work with you, your staff and/or the City Council as we develop this important public-private partnership for redeveloping the gateway to the village of Carlsbad. On behalf of Carlsbad Village Partners, we thank you in advance for yoyr-^consideration and look forward to your response. ly yours. J^frey C. Rasak President and Chief Executive Officer JCR/tc Attachments (sterling/projects/carlsbad/beckerl) s O U z o o u z > A B C D 1 CARLSBAD VILLAGE PARTNERS 2 WONDER BREAD BAKERY BUILDING 3 October 25,1994 DEVELOPMENT PROFORMA 4 car4 WITHOUT PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 5 i 6 7 SITE DATA Unit Unit Costs Cost 8 Parcel (.38 Acres) 16,500 sq. ft. ! 9 NET SITE AREA FOR DEVELOPMENT 16,500 sq. ft. 10 11 LAND COSTS 12 Total Site 16,500 $33.33 $550,000 13 Non Applicable Option Payments $0 14 TOTAL LAND COSTS $550,000 15 16 HARD COSTS 17 Building interior Renovation 4,247 $11.77 $50,000 18 Building Exterior Renovation 4,247 $21.19 $90,000 19 Tenant Improvements 4,247 $29.43 $125,000 20 On-Site Improvements 16,500 $0.61 $10,000 21 Hard Cost Contingency 4.00% $11,000 22 TOTAL HARD COSTS $286,000 23 24 SOFT COSTS 25 Architecture and Engineering 4,247 $1.25 $5,309 26 A/E Reimbursement 5.00% $265 27 ALTA Survey/As Built Plans $2,750 28 Testing and Inspection $2,800 29 Soils Report/Hazardous Matter, Survey $5,000 30 Building Permits $2,500 31 Capital and Impact Fees $69,462 32 Lender's Inspection and Review $500 33 Lender's Legal $1,000 34 Legal Fees - General & Leasing $7,500 35 Appraisals $2,500 36 Real Estate Taxes 6 Months 1.15% $3,163 37 Insurance $3,500 38 Title and Closing $1,250 39 Marketing/Promotion/Signage $3,000 40 Leasing Commission 4,247 $2.00 $8,494 41 Mortgage Broker Fee (Construction Loan) 0.50% $3,551 42 Construction Lender Fee 1.50% $10,654 43 Interim Interest (From Draw Schedule) 6 Months 9.50% $20,213 44 Construction Management $2,500 45 General and Administration 4.00% $15,860 46 Soft Cost Contingency 4.00% $6,871 47 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $178,642 48 49 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS | I $1,014,642 50 LESS EQUITY (30%) 1 $304,392 51 TOTAL LOAN NEEDED FOR PROJECT ^-agen^ i $710,249 00 (0 n 00 <s in OJ in in '«> «> 0)1ooj n! co ; .— ^, ""I n » d' (M"| CM «> 0> ^ o in 0) n in CO in oo o U) •.• (D 0) V n. in O : «N O O'O o' o q o CM* CM s <0 rv IU c cc CO CO 0!0 OIO in lo v>- i «>• CO in (O CO co" 00 CO <0 Ui CO Vi tn < z < o Zl < o m Z' « < u c o E « a. c ,0 Q. O = io M (A *^ O 0) "D "O C c o « _J -J fM ro N N 83. ™! Oi .iS! <o c i E E o, oi c 2 c Oi e c o CM fO » 0) in (D N fM CO A B C D 1 CARLSBAD VILLAGE PARTNERS 2 WONDER BREAD BAKERY BUILDING 3 October 25,1994 DEVELOPMENT PROFORMA 4 car5 WITH PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 5 6 7 SITE DATA Unit Unit Costs Cost 8 Parcel (.38 Acres) 16.500 sq. ft. 9 NET SITE AREA FOR DEVELOPMENT 16,500 sq. ft. 10 11 LAND COSTS 12 Total Site 16.500 $33.33 $550,000 13 Non Applicable Option Payments $0 14 TOTAL LAND COSTS $550,000 15 16 HARD COSTS 17 Buiiding Interior Renovation 4,247 $11.77 $50,000 18 Building Exterior Renovation 4.247 $21.19 $90,000 19 Tenant Improvements 4,247 $29.43 $125,000 20 On-Site Improvements 16,500 $0.61 $10,000 21 Hard Cost Contingency 4.00% $11,000 22 TOTAL HARD COSTS $286,000 23 24 SOFT COSTS 25 Architecture and Engineering 4.247 $1.25 $5,309 26 A/E Reimbursement 5.00% $265 27 ALTA Survey/As Built Plans $2,750 28 Testing and inspection $2,800 29 Soils Report/Hazardous Matter, Survey $5,000 30 Building Permits $2,500 31 Capital and Impact Fees $69,462 32 Lender's inspection and Review $500 33 Lender's Legal $1,000 34 Legal Fees - General & Leasing $7,500 35 Appraisals $2,500 36 Real Estate Taxes 6 Months 1.15% $3,163 37 Insurance $3,500 38 Title and Closing $1,250 39 Marketing/Promotion/Signage $3,000 40 Leasing Commission 4,247 $2.00 $8,494 41 Mortgage Broker Fee (Construction Loan) 0.50% $3,135 42 Construction Lender Fee 1.50% $9,405 43 Interim Interest (From Draw Schedule) 6 Months 9.50% $17,413 44 Construction Management $2,500 45 General and Administration 4.00% $15,860 46 Soft Cost Contingency 4.00% $6,692 47 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $173,998 48 49 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $1,009,998 50 LESS EQUITY (30%) $302,999 51 LESS PUBLIC ASSISTANCE Paae 1 1 $80,000 52 TOTAL LOAN NEEDED FOR PROJECT $626,999 s o Ml LU » o O' r 0 o OjO 01 o o'lio OjCM <A .- o o) v> I O CO O OlO O' o o •> *»•»>••»>• CO CO ^ I in lm 0>ifO|0 00 C0lO> (O c o 2 CM in JC c o 2 UJ CD O) CO^ « O <0 CO CO 00 o 0> < o >- —I I z o c o CO CM in in CM M in in CM CM X c o CM CO CO fv CM 3 0) (/) O O —i < o m in in o OICO O o Itir- in CM CO 00 CO 00 «»' <» «> CM O (Oi <2 < z <I oi z CO < rv o 3 O X 3 a. o CO z Ul 5 0. O Ui > UJ i -J < o _K N O 13 3 O UJ Z o ec O Zi < o s (0 is JD < Q c tc o Z c O CO (0 00 0) > oc •o c o c o u °- O £1^1 (0 M I o (J O l-B E Oj Oi'D O O o 5 c _ o U 5 5 0. o