HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-23; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 284; Wilson/Murphy Joint Use Parking Facility“:/’ [ ( t” ) t- .’
HOUSING AND YDEVEL~WENT ConmMIss~N - AGENDA SILL
AB#d78 TITLE: WILSON/MURPHY JOINT USE PARKING DEPT. HD.
MT& 4/23/96 FACILITY AND 15% REDUCTION FOR
DEPT.~.A COMMON PARKING FACILITIES
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
If the Housing and Redevelopment Commission concurs your action is adopt Housing and
Redevelopment Resolution No. & r? b denying the appeal and revoking approval of a
Joint Use Parking Agreement and 15% reduction for common parking facilities.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The Housing and Redevelopment Commission, at your meeting of April 9, 1996, denied
the appeal and revoked approval of the Joint Use Parking Agreement and 15% reduction
for common parking facilities without prejudice. The formal document memorializing this
decision is attached. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission should satisfy itself
that the findings and conditions accurately reflect your intentions in the matter.
EXHIBIT:
Resolution No. &I78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 278
A.RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DENYING THE APPEAL AND REVOKING APPROVAL OF JOINT USE PARKING AGREEMENT AND A 15% REDUCTION FOR COMMON PARKING FACILITIES FOR TWO EXISTING RETAIL COMMERCIAL CENTERS LOCATED NORTH OF GRAND AVENUE BETWEEN ROOSEVELT STREET AND MADISON STREET IN THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA. APPLICANT: WILSON/MURPHY JOINT PARKING FACILITY CASE NO: APN: 203-301-5, 203-302-1, 203-182-4
WHEREAS, staff has referred a request to the Design
Review Board to consider revocation of a previous approval of
Joint Use Parking and a 15% parking reduction for common parking
facilities for two existing commercial centers located between
Grand Avenue and Madison and Roosevelt Streets; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, the Design Review Board, on the 7th day of
February, 1996, did hold a duly noticed public hearing to
consider said request on property described as:
Lots 33, 34 and 35 of Seaside Lands, Map 1722
and Portions of Blocks 27 and 50 of Map 775 (and as further described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto).
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons
desiring to be heard, said Design Review Board considered all
factors relating to the revocation of the Wilson/Murphy Joint Use
Parking Facility; and
WHEREAS the Design Review Board did adopt Resolution
No. 245 on February 6, 1996 revoking the previous approval of the
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Joint Use Parking; and
WHEREAS, the project is a minor project as described in
Chapter 21.35 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the decision set
forth in Resolution No. 245 was final, except for appeal to the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission; and
WHEREAS, on the 20th day of February 1996 the property
owner of the Murphy Center (hereinafter "appellant") appealed
said decision to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission; and
WHEREAS, the conditions of approval of the Joint Use
Parking and the 15% parking reduction for the two commercial
centers required the provision of a minimum of 181 parking spaces
for joint-use parking; and
WHEREAS, the conditions of approval also require the
recordation of an agreement between the two property owners for
the two centers for joint parking and reciprocal parking
easements providing a minimum of 181 spaces; and
WHEREAS, a joint use parking facility which would
provide a minimum of 181 spaces required the inclusion of
appellant's smaller parking lot located at the northeast corner
of Madison Street and Grand Avenue; and
WHEREAS, until 1992 through 1994 the City was not aware
that such joint use parking agreement was not functioning as
envisioned due to the failure to include the lot at the northeast
corner of Madison and Grand Avenue, said failure being as a
result of neglect, inadvertence or excusable neglect; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, until 1992 through 1994 the City was not aware
that such joint use parking agreement was not functioning as
envisioned; and
WHEREAS, appellant engaged in activities inconsistent
with the joint-use of these 181 parking spaces and would not
allow joint use of the smaller parking lot on the northeast
corner of Madison and Grand; and
WHEREAS, the City was not aware of this problem until
such inconsistent position was expressed; and
WHEREAS, the occupancy of the Murphy center has been
reduced by the vacant restaurant site; and
WHEREAS, the Murphy center has adequate parking for
existing occupied spaces but will need to apply to the City for
permits for changes in occupancy and must provide proof of
adequate parking at that time; and
WHEREAS, despite numerous efforts by the City, the
property owner of the smaller parking lot is not willing to
correct the Joint Use Parking Agreement to include it,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and
correct.
2. That based on the evidence presented at the public
hearings before the Design Review Board and the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission, the Housing and Redevelopment
3
1 Commission hereby revokes the previous approval of the Joint Use
2 Parking and 15% parking reduction for common parking facilities
3 for the two existing retail commercial centers located north of
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Grand Avenue between Roosevelt Street and Madison Street.
3. That this action is final the date this resolution
is adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. The
provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time
Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply:
"NOTICE TO APPLICANT"
"The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the . proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk; City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008."
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad
1 on the 23rd day of APRIL 1996, by the following vote,
2 to wit:
3 AYES: Commissioners Lewis, Nygaard, Kulchin, Finnila, Hall
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11 \,
12
9 O1 mu% Yr 2 pg 13
iLLLo 0) 3045 14
&gZ
s 002 15 +Kj WOO i?,z&- 16 04 E 0s
aW2 c-0" l7 G 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
-
Legal DescrLptLon For: . Date:
Murphy/Wilson Parkinq Lot July ?b, 1978
Commencing at the Lntexsectfon of the Northwest line of said Lot 3S’idth the East line ‘of Second Street (Roosevelt Street, 25.00 foot half width) as sbwn on said Map No, 1722; thence along said Northwest line North 55°27tOO” East, 8.00 feat to an intersection with the East Line of Roosevelt Street (33.00 foot half width); thence, a-long aai.d East line South 34’33’00” East, 65.0 feet more or less to’ the True Point of Begin- nin
01 !I ; thence leaving said East 1Lne North SS”27’OO” East, 24.0 feat more ess; thence South 34 33'00" East, 20.0 feet .more or less; thence North 55O27’00” East, 20.0 feet more or ldss; thence South 34O33’00” East, 96,s feet more or less; thence North 55°27tOO't East, 98.0 feet more or less; thence South 34o33'00" East, 18.0 feet .pore or less; thence North 5S027’OO” East, 185.5 feet more or less to an intersection with the West line of Madfson Street (70.00 feet wide); thence along said West line South 34°33'00" East, 205.5 feet more or less to the beginning of a tangent 25.00 foot radius curve concave Northwesterly; thence Southeasterly, Southerly and Southwesterly along the arc of safd curve through a central angle of 75O44'07" a distance of 33.05 feet to an intersection with the. North line of Craad Avenue (100.00 feet wide) as shown on said Map No. ‘535, a radial line to said intersection bears South 48O48’53” East; thence leaving said curve along said North line South 55°27'OO't West, 136.5 feet more or less; thence leaving said North line North 34O33’00” ‘;ic,s;isz9,0 feet more or &es:; thence South S5°27!OO" West, 79.0 feet more ; thence North 34 33 00” West, 43.0 feet more or less; thence South 55o27'03" West,93.0 feet more or less co an intersection with the Last line of Roosevelt Street (33.00 foot half width); thence along said East line North 34O33’00” West’ 263.5 feet more or less to the True Point of Beginnfng.
April 25, 1996
TO: City Clerk
FROM: City Attorney
WILSON/MURPHY JOINT USE PARKING FACILITY - HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT RESOLUTION NO. 278
Please be kind enough to record the above referenced resolution and send a
conformed copy to Nick Banche for his files. I appreciate your prompt attention to this
matter.
RONALD R. BALL
City Attorney
rmh
c: Nick Banche
May 3, 1996
Mr. Michael Kevin Murphy
630 Grand Avenue
Suite I
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Wilson/Murphy Joint Use Parking Facility
The Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Commission, at its meeting
of April 23, 1996, adopted Resolution No. 278, denying the appeal and revoking approval of a Joint Use Parking Agreement and 15% reduction for common parking facilities.
Enclosed is a copy of Housing & Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 278 for your files.
KRR:ijp
Enclosure
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 - (619) 434-2808
May 3, 1996
Gregory J. Smith
San Diego County Recorder
Post Office Box 1750
San Diego, CA 92112-4147
Enclosed for recordation is the following described document:
Certified copy of Housing & Redevelopment Commission
Resolution No. 278.
Wilson/Murphy Joint Use Parking Facility
Also enclosed are instructions on how the city is to be billed
for the recordation fees incurred.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Assistant City Clerk
Enclosures
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 - (619) 434-2808
* .
I
.
C
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
WHEN RECORDED SEND TO:
City Clerk's Office
City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008
505
CERTIFIED COPY OF HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 278 DENYING THE APPEAL AND REVOKING APPROVAL OF JOINT USE PARKING AGREEMENT AND A 15% REDUCTION FOR COMMON PARKING FACILITIES FOR TWO EXISTING RETAIL
COMMERCIAL CENTERS LOCATED NORTH OF GRAND
AVENUE BETWEEN ROOSEVELT STREET AND MADISON
STREET IN THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i
. . -
506 RESOLUTION NO. 278
A-RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DENYING THE APPEAL AND REVOKING APPROVAL OF JOINT USE PARKING AGREEMENT AND A 15% REDUCTION FOR COMMON PARKING FACILITIES FOR TWO EXISTING RETAIL COMMERCIAL CENTERS LOCATED NORTH OF GRAND AVENUE BETWEEN ROOSEVELT STREET AND MADISON STREET IN THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA. APPLICANT: WILSON/MURPHY JOINT PARKING FACILITY. CASE NO: APN: 203-301-5, 203-302-1, 203-182-4
WHEREAS, staff has referred a request to the Design
Review Board to consider revocation of a previous approval of
Joint Use Parking and a 15% parking reduction for common parking
facilities for two existing commercial centers located between
Grand Avenue and Madison and Roosevelt Streets; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, the Design Review Board, on the 7th day of
February, 1996, did hold a duly noticed public hearing to
consider said request on property described as:
Lots 33, 34 and 35 of Seaside Lands, Map 1722 and Portions of Blocks 27 and 50 of Map 775 (and as further described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto).
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons -r-t..
desiring to be heard, said Design Review Board considered all
factors relating to the revocation of the Wilson/Murphy Joint Use
Parking Facility; and
WHEREAS the Design Review Board did adopt Resolution
No. 245 on February 6, 1996 revoking the previous approval of the
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c- V--
Joint Use Parking; and
WHEREAS, the project is a minor project as described in
Chapter 21.35 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the decision set
forth in Resolution No. 245 was final, except for appeal to the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission; and
WHEREAS, on the 20th day of February 1996 the property
owner of the Murphy Center (hereinafter "appellant") appealed
said decision to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission; and
WHEREAS, the conditions of approval of the Joint Use
Parking and the 15% parking reduction for the two commercial
centers required the provision of a minimum of 181 parking spaces
for joint-use parking; and
WHEREAS, the conditions of approval also require the
recordation of an agreement between the two property owners for
the two centers for joint parking and reciprocal parking
easements providing a minimum of 181 spaces; and
WHEREAS, a joint use parking facility which would
provide a minimum of 181 spaces required the inclusion of
appellant's smaller parking lot located at the northeast corner
of Madison Street and Grand Avenue; and
WHEREAS, until 1992 through 1994 the City was not aware
that such joint use parking agreement was not functioning as
envisioned due to the failure to include the lot at the northeast
corner of Madison and Grand Avenue, said failure being as a
result of neglect, inadvertence or excusable neglect; and
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
/ i - c-
508
WHEREAS, until 1992 through 1994 the City was not aware
that such joint use parking agreement was not functioning as
envisioned; and
WHEREAS, appellant engaged in activities inconsistent
with the joint-use of these 181 parking spaces and would not
allow joint use of the smaller parking lot on the northeast
corner of Madison and Grand; and
WHEREAS, the City was not aware of this problem until
such inconsistent position was expressed; and
WHEREAS, the occupancy of the Murphy center has been
reduced by the vacant restaurant site; and
WHEREAS, the Murphy center has adequate parking for
existing occupied spaces but will need to apply to the City for
permits for changes in occupancy and must provide proof of
adequate parking at that time; and
WHEREAS, despite numerous efforts by the City, the
property owner of the smaller parking lot is not willing to
correct the Joint Use Parking Agreement to include it,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and
correct.
2. That based on the evidence presented at the public
hearings before the Design Review Board and the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission, the Housing and Redevelopment
3
5: g mwm (?r7 980 8 0lug.j dLc!l aOua m,iz ticsa
s voB a,22
$g!w. aaag p 2
as?
C-4 G v
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Commission hereby revokes the previous approval of the Joint Use
Parking and 15% parking reduction for common parking facilities
for the two existing retail commercial centers located north of
Grand Avenue between Roosevelt Street and Madison Street.
3. That this action is final the date this resolution
is adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. The
provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time
Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply:
"NOTICE TO APPLICANT"
"The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or
mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk; City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008."
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
on the 23rd day of APRIL 1996, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Lewis, Nygaard, Kulchin, Finnila, Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
. ’ / -
r. A- ,
, .
f - 511
Legal Description For: ’ Date:
Murphy/Wilson Parking Lot +ly 26, 1978
Comencing at the intersection of the Northwest line of said Lot 35’with the East line ‘of Second Street (Roosevelt Street, 25.00 foot half width)
as sbwn on said Map No, 1722; thence alang safd Northwest line North S5°27’OO“ East, 8.00 feet to an intersection with the East Line of Roosevelt Street (33.00 foot half wfdth); thence, along said East line South 34°33aOO” East, 65.0 feet more or less to -the True Point of Begln- nin
Or H ; thence leaving said East line North 5S027’OO” East, 24.0 feet more ess ; thence South 34 33’00” East, 20.0 feet.more or less; thence North SS’27’00” East, 20.0 feet more or less; thence South 34’33’00” East, 96.S feet more or less; thence North 5S027’OO” East, 98.0 feet more or less; thence South 34°33’OO” East, 18.0 feet more or less; thence North 55°27’OO” East, 185.5 feet more or less to an intersection with the West line of Madfson Street (70.00 feet wide); thence along said West line South 34°33’OO” East , 205.5 feet more or less to the beginning of a fangent 25.00 foot radius curve concave Nurthwestcrly; thence Southeasterly, Southerly and Southwesterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 75’44’07” a distance of 33.05 feet to an intersection with the. North line of Grand Avenue (100.00 feet wide) as shown on said Map No. 535, a radial line to said intersection bears South 48’48’53” East; thence leaving said curve along said North line South 55O27’00” West, 136.5 feet more or less; thence leaving said North line North 34’33’00” West, 59.0 feet more or less; thence South 55’27’00” West, 79.0 feet more or less; thence North 34’33’00” West, 43.0 feet more or less; thence So:~:h 55°27’03” West.93.0 feet more or less to an intersection with the Fast line of Roosevelt Street (33.00 foot half width); thence along said East line North 34O33’00” West, 263.5 feet more or less to the True Point of Beginning.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )Es.
I, Karen R. Kundtz. CMC , Assistant City Clerk of the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, hereby certi$ that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original Resolution No.
278 passed and adopted by said Housing and Redevelopment Commission, at a sPecial meeting thereof,
at the time and by the vote therein stated, which original Resolution No. 278 is now on file in my office:
that the same contains a full, true and correct transcript therefrom and of the whole thereof.
Witness my hand and the seal of said City of Carlsbad, this 25th day of June. 1996 .
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive 1143
Carlsbad, CA 92008
WHEN RECORDED SEND TO:
City Clerk's Office City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008
LT-T +I# 199Hl233431 08~MAY-1996 09=35 fit7
OFFICIAL RECORDS SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER’S OFFICE GREGORY SMTH 3 Ff$TY RECORDER : 0.00
CERTIFIED COPY OF RESOLUTION NO. 96-28 SUMMARILY VACATING PORTIONS OF LA COSTA BOULEVARD BETWEEN CARLSBAD BOULEVARD AND THE SAN DIEGO NORTHERN RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 278
A.RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DENYING THE APPEAL AND REVOKING APPROVAL OF JOINT USE PARKING AGREEMENT AND A 15% REDUCTION FOR COMMON PARKING FACILITIES FOR TWO EXISTING RETAIL COMMERCIAL CENTERS LOCATED NORTH OF GRAND AVENUE BETWEEN ROOSEVELT STREET AND MADISON STREET IN THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA. APPLICANT: WILSON/MURPHY JOINT PARKING FACILITY CASE NO: APN: 203-301-5, 203-302-1, 203-182-4
WHEREAS, staff has referred a request to the Design
Review Board to consider revocation of a previous approval of
Joint Use Parking and a 15% parking reduction for common parking
facilities for two existing commercial centers located between
Grand Avenue and Madison and Roosevelt Streets; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, the Design Review Board, on the 7th day of
February, 1996, did hold a duly noticed public hearing to
consider said request on property described as:
Lots 33, 34 and 35 of Seaside Lands, Map 1722 and Portions of Blocks 27 and 50 of Map 775 (and as further described in Exhibit \‘A" attached hereto).
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons
desiring to be heard, said Design Review Board considered all
factors relating to the revocation of the Wilson/Murphy Joint Use
Parking Facility; and
WHEREAS the Design Review Board did adopt Resolution
No. 245 on February 6, 1996 revoking the previous approval of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.
Joint Use Parking; and
WHEREAS, the project is a minor project as described in
Chapter 21.35 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the decision set
forth in Resolution No. 245 was final, except for appeal to the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission; and
WHEREAS, on the 20th day of February 1996 the property
owner of the Murphy Center (hereinafter "appellant") appealed
said decision to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission; and
WHEREAS, the conditions of approval of the Joint Use
Parking and the 15% parking reduction for the two commercial
centers required the provision of a minimum of 181 parking spaces
for joint-use parking; and
WHEREAS, the conditions of approval also require the
recordation of an agreement between the two property owners for
the two centers for joint parking and reciprocal parking
easements providing a minimum of 181 spaces; and
WHEREAS, a joint use parking facility which would
provide a minimum of.181 spaces required the inclusion of
appellant's smaller parking lot located at the northeast corner
of Madison Street and Grand Avenue; and
WHEREAS, until 1992 through 1994 the City was not aware
that such joint use parking agreement was not functioning as
envisioned due to the failure to include the lot at the northeast
corner of Madison and Grand Avenue, said failure being as a
result of neglect, inadvertence or excusable neglect; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, until 1992 through 1994 the City was no,t aware
that such joint use parking agreement was not functioning as
envisioned; and
WHEREAS, appellant engaged in activities inconsistent
with the joint-use of these 181 parking spaces and would not
allow joint use of the smaller parking lot on the northeast
corner of Madison and Grand; and
WHEREAS, the City was not aware of this problem until
such inconsistent position was expressed; and
WHEREAS, the occupancy of the Murphy center has been
reduced by the vacant restaurant site; and
WHEREAS, the Murphy center has adequate parking for
existing occupied spaces but will need to apply to the City for
permits for changes in occupancy and must provide proof of
adequate parking at that time; and
WHEREAS, despite numerous efforts by the City, the
property owner of the smaller parking lot is not willing to
correct the Joint Use Parking Agreement to include it,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and
correct.
2. That based on the evidence presented at the public
hearings before the Design Review Board and the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission, the Housing and Redevelopment
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 9 8 mwm '327 rrng 13
Si& du,
$!zg
14
9 'I$ 15
s&g<
222: 16 oga L m a:: c-5 l7 c5
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Commission hereby revokes the previous app,roval of the Joint Use
Parking and 15% parking reduction for common parking facilities
for the two existing retail commercial centers located north of
Grand Avenue between Roosevelt Street and Madison Street.
3. That this action is final the date this resolution
is adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. The
provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time
Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply:
"NOTICE TO APPLICANT"
'*The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008."
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 2 oI mw8 ys-7 uug 13
400 OW8 riuu
$O--J4 14
&gh
9 OOB 15
a;sz
ZWUI”
8:&,- 16 034:
I= m a:;
c-5 l7
G 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
on the 23rd day of APRIL 1996, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Lewis, Nygaard, Kulchin, Finnila, Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
!iiJisk . - y- -.y
Secretary
I
Legal Description For:
Murphy/Wilson Parking Lot
Commncing at th,e intersection of the Northwest line of the East line bf Second Street (Roosevelt Street, 25.00
Date:
July 26, 1978
said Lot 35’Gith foot half width) as sbmn on said Map No. 1722; thence along said Northwest line North 55°27’OO“ East, 8.00 feet to an intersection with the East Line of Roosevelt Street (33.00 foot half width); thence. a-long sai.d East line South 34°33sOO” East, 65.0 feet more or less to’ ythe True Point of Begin- nLn
01: H ; thence leaving sai.g East lfne North 5S027’OO” East, 24.0 feet more ess; thence South 34 33’00” East, 20.0 feet .more or less; thence North 55"27'OO" East, 20.0 feet more or less; thence South 34O33’00”
East, 96.5 feet more or less; thence North 55°2?'OO" East, 98.0 feet more
or Less; thence South 34033'00" East, 18.0 feet more or less; thence North
5S027'OO" East, 185.5 feet more or less to an intersection with the West line of Madison Street (70.00 feet wide); thence along safd West line South 34033’00” East, 205.5 feet more or less to the beginnIng of a tangent 25.00 foot radfus curve concave Northwesterly; thence Southeasterly, Southerly and Southwesterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 75’44’07” a distance of 33.05 feet to an intersection with the. North line of Grand Avenue (100.00 feet wide) as shown on said Map No. 535, a radial line to safd intersecti.on bears Sbuth 48’48’53” East; thence leaving said curve along said North line South 5S027’OO” West,
136.5 feet more or less; thence leaving said North line North 34’33’00” ';l~,s;;~~9.0 feet more or iess; thence South 55’27!00” West, 79.0 feet more ; thence North 34 33’00” West, 43.0 feet more or less; thence Eo:J~!l 55O27'03" West,93.0 feet more or less to an intersection with the East line of Roosevelt Street (33.00 foot half width); thence along said East line North 34O33'00" West, 263.5 feet more or ‘less to the True Point of Beginnfng.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO $s.
I, Karen R. Kundtz. CMC , Assistant City Clerk of the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original Resolution No.
meeting thereof, 278 passed and adopted by said Housing and Redevelopment Commission, at a sxcial
at the time and by the vote therein stated, which original Resolution No. 278 is now on file in my office:
that the same contains a full, true and correct transcript therefrom and of the whole thereof.
Witness my hand and the seal of said City of Carlsbad, this 3rd day of Mav, 1996 .
July 24, 1996
\
. a
Nicholas C. Banche, Esq.
Post Office Box 390
Oceanside, CA 92049
Re: Wilson/Murphy Joint Use Parking Lot
The Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Commission, at its meeting of April 23, 1996,
adopted Resolution No. 278, denying the appeal and revoking approval of Joint Use
Parking Agreement and a 15% reduction for common parking facilities for two existing
retail commercial centers located north of Grand Avenue between Roosevelt Street and
Madison Street in the Village Redevelopment Area.
Enclosed is a recorded copy of Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No.
278 for your files.
Assistant City Clerk
KRKijp
Enclosures
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 - (619) 434-2808 @
RONALD R. BALL
CITY ATTORNEY
D. RICHARD RUDOLF
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
JANE MOBALDI
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-1989 (619) 434-2891
FAX: (619) 434-8367
July 15, 1996
Nicholas C. Banche, Esq.
P. 0. Box 390
Oceanside, CA 92049
RE: WILSON/MURPHY JOINT USE PARKING LOT
Dear Mr. Banche:
Enclosed, for your files, is a copy of the “transcript” of the appeal hearing before
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission which the City Clerk has certified
and which was provided to Mr. Murphy per his request.
Very truly yours,
D. RICHARD RUDOLF c)
Assistant City Attorney
rmh
enclosure /
c: City Cler Id
.
July 11, 1996
TO: RON BALL, CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: Lee Rautenkranz, City Clerk
WILSON/MURPHY JOINT USE PARKING LOT
I have had numerous conversations with Mr. Michael Murphy, and I talked with Rich at
the beginning. However, I wanted to let your office know what’s happening with that
situation.
I provided Mr. Murphy with a tape of the appeal hearing before the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission. He had an individual type the verbatim transcript from that
tape. I then listened to the tape and corrected the transcript in red ink, and certified it as a
correct transcript with my corrections, and am returning that original to him.
During our telephone conversation, Mr. Murphy asked me about the timing for filing for
judicial review. I looked at the Municipal Code, and read the section to him about the 90
days. I then looked up the date of the adoption of the Resolution, which was April 23,
1996, and told him that 90 days from April 23’d was July 22”d .
I have attached a copy of that transcript for your information, and if you have any
questions regarding what has transpired, I’ll be happy to explain.
City Clerk
lr
Attachment
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 9,1996
TRANSCRIPT
OF
AB #283 - APPEAL - WILSON/MURPHY JOINT USE PARKING LOT
THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS SPOKE DURING THE PROCEEDINGS:
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
STAFF:
OTHER SPEAKERS:
Claude A. Lewis, Mayor
Julie Nygaard, Mayor Pro Tern
Ann Kulchin, Council Member
Ramona Finnila, Council Member
Matt Hall, Council Member
Ray Patchett, City Manager
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
Michael Murphy
Nick Banche, Attorney representing Wilson
P UT--cf+.En+ : ITEM NUMBER 3 IS AN APPEAL BY MR. MICHAEL MURPHY HUING TI=lE JOlNl=%SE PARKING LOT. HdLTrMlLLER WIL: DO THE STAFF REPORT. PLANNING DIRECTOR MICHAEL
: MAYOR AND COUNCIL THIS IS AN ITEM TO CONSIDER AN EVIEW BOARD DECISION TO REVOKE A PREVIOUS CITY APPROVAL OFRtiJOINT-USE PARKING FACILITY AND A 15 PERCENT PARKING REDUCTION FOR TWO EXISTING COMMERCIAL CENTERS IN THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA. I DO HAVE A FEW SLIDES TO AID IN THE PRESENTATION, SO IF WE COULD HAVE THE LIGHTS PLEASE. THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE LOCATION OF THE TWO SUBJECT CENTERS. THEY ARE LOCATED NORTH OF GRAND AVENUE BETWEEN ROOSEVELT AND MADISON STREETS. THEY CONSIST OF THE OLD WORLD CENTER AND THE ROOSEVELT CENTER. THE OLD WORLD CENTER IS SHOWN IN THIS SLIDE; IT WAS FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE MURPHY CENTER, WHEN THE PREVIOUS APPROVALS WERE GIVEN. THIS IS A SLIDE OF THE ROOSEVELT,
CENTER, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS THE WILSON SHOPPING CENTER WHEN APPROVALS WERE GIVEN BACK IN ‘78 AND ‘80. IN TERMS OF A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, IN 1978 THE CITY DID APPROVE A REQUEST TO ALLOW SHARED, OR JOINT USE, PARKING BETWEEN THE TWO CENTERS. THEN IN 1980 THE CITY ALLOWED A 15 PERCENT-P KING REDUCTION FOR BOTH OF THE CENTERS BECAUSE OF THE FACT &.&!g THEY DID SHARE THE JOINT-USE PARKING. BOTH OF THESEAPJ?f!iQVALS WERE CONDITIONED UPON ENTERING INTO A JOINT-USE PARKING AGREEMmHAD TO PROVIDE FOR A MINIMUM OF 181 PARKING SPACES.
IN ORDER TO PROVIDE 181 PARKING SPACES, IT WAS NECESSARY TO INCLUDE A SMALLER LOT THAT WAS LOCATED ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE TWO CENTERS, ACROSS MADISON STREET, AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MADISON AND GRAND, IN ORDER TO HAVE ENOUGH PARKING SPACES TO HAVE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 181, PER THE AGREEMENT. THIS IS THE SMALLER PARKING LOT THAT WAS INCLUDED THAT WAS OWNED BY MR. MURPHY. AGAIN, IT WAS
NECESSARY TO COUNT THE PARKING SPACES IN THE SMALLER LOT IN ORDER TO HAVE AT LEAST 181 AND MEET THE CONDITIONS FOR THE JOINT-USE PARKING AND THE 15 PERCENT PARKING REDUCTION. SOME TIME AGO, STAFF WAS MADE AWARE
THAT THE REQUIRED JOINT-USE PARKING AGREEMENT THAT WAS ENTERED INT BY THE OWNERS OF THE TWO CENTERS DID NOT INCLUDE THIS d PARKING LOT AND THAT IN FACT CUSTOMERS OF THE ROOSEVELT CENTER WERE BEING PROHIBITED FROM PARKING IN THE SMALLER LOT. AS INDICATED ON THIS SLIDE, THE PARKING IS RESERVED FOR THE OLD WORLD CENTER ONLY, REQUIRES DECALS IN ORDER TO PARK IN THERE. THE CITY HAS TRIED ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS TO TRY TO GET THE PRIVATE PARTIES TO WORK THIS OUT TO HAVE THE JOINT-USE AGREEMENT AMENDED SO THAT IT DOES INCLUDE THIS SMALLER LOT, BUT THE CITY HAS NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN DOING THAT. IN ADDITION, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MURPHY OLD WORLD CENTER HAVE ALSO TOLD STAFF ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS THAT THEY HAVE NO INTENTION AT THIS TIME OF AMENDING THE AGREEMENT OR ALLOWING THE ROOSEVELT CENTER TO USE THE PARKING IN THE SMALLER LOT. IN TERMS OF THE EXISTING PARKING SITUATION, AND WHAT IS PROVIDED IN THE TWO CENTERS, THIS CHART SHOWS THE PARKING BREAKDOWN. IN THE WILSON, OR ROOSEVELT CENTER, THERE ARE PRESENTLY 141 PARKING SPACES THAT ARE PROVIDED ON THE CENTER’S OWNERSHIP. THEY ARE REQUIRED FOR THE USES THAT THEY HAVE IN THE CENTER RIGHT NOW TO HAVE 135.8 PARKING SPACES, SO IN FACT THEY INDIVIDUALLY OR SEPARATELY MEET THEIR PRESENT PARKING REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT NEED FOR THE JOINT-USE PARKING FACILITY. IN TERMS OF THE MURPHY CENTER, THERE IS A TOTAL OF 51 PARKING SPACES THAT ARE PRESENTLY PROVIDED ON THAT OWNERSHIP. THERE ARE 37 IN THE MAIN LOT, WHICH IS RIGHT NEXT TO THE RESTAURANT THAT IS VACANT RIGHT NOW THAT USED TO BE DOOLEY MCCLUSKEY’S, AND THEN 14
PARKING SPACES IN THE SMALLER LOT ACROSS THE STREET, WHICH WE JUST
SHOWED IN THE SLIDES. IN TERMS OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED, IF THE VACANT RESTAURANT SPACE WAS TO BE USED ENTIRELY FOR RESTAURANT AS IT
1
PREVIOUSLY WAS, THE EXISTING PARKING REQUIREMENT WOULD BE 70.4 SPACES.
SO, IN FACT, FOR THE MURPHY CENTER INDIVIDUALLY THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO MEET PARKING REQUIREMENTS IF IN FACT THE VACANT BUILDING WAS TO BE USED 100 PERCENT FOR RESTAURANT USE. SO, IN TERMS OF TOTALS PROVIDED IN ALL OF THE PARKING AREAS ON BOTH OF THE OWNERSHIPS IN ALL THREE OF THE LOTS,
THERE ARE 192, WHICH DOES EXCEED THE 181 MINIMUM THAT WAS REQUIRED BY THE CITY’S APPROVALS, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, IN EITHER CENTER, THERE ARE NOT 181. SO, INDIVIDUALLY, NEITHER ONE OF THEM CAN MEET A MINIMUM 181 SPACES. IT TAKES ALL OF THE PARKING IN ALL THREE OF THE LOTS TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. BASED UPON THE FACT THAT CITY STAFF HAS NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN TRYING TO GET THE PRIVATE PARTIES TO WORK THIS OUT AND AMEND THE AGREEMENT AND INCLUDE THE SMALLER LOT OR COME UP SOME WAY WITH THE MINIMUM OF 181 SPACES IT IS STAFF’S BELIEF THAT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE CITY HAS NO RECOURSi BUT TO REVOKE THE PREVIOUS APPROVALS FOR THE SHARED USE PARKING AND THE 15 PERCENT PARKING REDUCTION. THE CONDITIONS ARE NOT BEING COMPLIED WITH. THIS WAS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, AND THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, AFTER HEARING THIS, UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED REVOCATION AND THAT IS WHAT MR. MURPHY IS APPEALING, THAT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION. IF THE COUNCIL DENIES THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDS THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, WHAT THAT WILL BASICALLY MEAN IS THAT EACH CENTER THEN WOULD HAVE TO MEET ITS OWN PARKING REQUIREMENT ON ITS OWN OWNERSHIP AND IF ANY USES ARE NEW USES OR ADDITIONAL USES OR EXPANDED USES ARE PROPOSED IN THE FUTURE IN EITHER ONE OF THE CENTERS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT PARKING REQUIREMENT. SO THAT DOES CONCLUDE STAFF’S PRESENTATION, AND AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
R YOE LELJIS : LEAVE THE LIGHTS OFF, PLEASE. WOULD YOU GO BACK I Ht SHOWING I Ht NUMBERS AGAIN FOR THE.. .
/vL4#Rr> : MR. WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME IS THAT THt WILSON CtNltH CAN S TODAY WITH OR WITHOUT THE 15 PERCENT REDUCTION, AND THE MURPHY CENTER, IF THEY WERE TO OPEN UP THE RESTAURANT. COULD NOT STAND ALONE, EVEN. . .IF THE 15 PERCENT WENT AWAY. IS THAT CORRECT?
& :6%‘$k t%tV&LY FOR RESTAURANT. IF THE VACANT SPACE IN THE OLD WORLD CENTER WAS
THAT’S CORRECT.
OKAY.
: SO THERE IS NO WAY THAT THE MURPHY CENTER Ol-‘tN UP I-HA I HtSTAURANT WITHOUT THE 15 PERCENT REDUCTION.
f-bLcm ILL&? : WITHOUT THE SHARED PARKING.. .
/q&i/? \J : WITHOUT THE SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT AND 15
yjy$yN ’ - YOKAY. 2-d-R L., (:-J/J f /rJgy XL/LCti1d.
CLI I < b/ ,fJ r)‘+~~fl&kGAl+f$S QUESnDN THANK YOU, MAYOR. FOLLOWING UP ON MRS. IF-WE DO REVOKE THE SHARED PARKING AND LATER ON DowN MR. MURPHY DECIDES HE is GOING ~0 PUT A RESTAURANT IN THERE, WOULD HE HAVE TO THEN COME BACK BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AND THE COUNCIL?
m LL . .
/k- u LCH,hj .
AGAIN?
THAT’S CORRECT. Lo ~t/ROd~~
AND HE WOULD HAVE TO -E@ THE PROCESS
/
ALL OVER
: RIGHT, AND THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME WAY &4Jl-mwclt7 QUIREMENT. NOW, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT NOT MEAN THAT ACANT SPACE CANNOT BE USED FOR SOMETHING, AS LONG AS IT MEETS THE PARKING REQUIREMENT, BUT WE ARE PUTTING THEM ON NOTICE AND WE HAVE INDICA ED THIS IN THE MEETINGS THAT WE HAVE HAD WITH THEM IS THAT BECAUSE rtd RESTAURANT USE HAS A HIGHER PARKING REQUIREMENT, THAT IN ORDER TO USE THE VACATED RESTAURANT 100 PERCENT FOR RESTAURANT, IT WOULD NOT MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENT AND SO STAFF COULD NOT APPROVE A BUSINESS LICENSE TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT TO GO IN THERE. THEY WOULD THEN HAVE TO COME FORWARD, IF THEY DESIRED TO HAVE THE RESTAURANT, COME TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND TRY TO FIND SOME OTHER WAY TO MEET PARKING OR TO ASK TO BE PART OF A PARKING DISTRICT OR COUNT ON-STREET PARKING OR GET A VARIANCE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO, IF IT IS REVOKED, THE POSITION THAT IT PUTS THEM IN NOW IS THAT THERE IS NO WAY THAT STAFF WOULD BE ABLE TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT USE TO GO IN THERE TOTALLY FOR 100 PERCENT OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, THE VACANT SQUARE FOOTAGE, BECAUSE INDEPENDENTLY THEY
WOULD NOT MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR A RESTAURANT.
MH MUH&Y & . AND %!*3A FOLLOW-UP TO MY QUESTION IF I CAN WOULD HAVE TO CONTACT MR. WliSON AND SHAkED PARilNG AGAIN, IS THAT CORRECT?
: THAT,,m/?Y )3i ON< of 'TtiEl..
Y L( Lclid : I MEAN, THAT IS ONE OF THE OPTIONS, THAT IS ONE OF I Ht AL I tHNA I IVtS.
jiOP~h7ILLt;PR : YES.
ku /.-CH Id : OKAY.
: ONCE AGAIN, GETTING BACK TO THE COMMENTS OF LLtAGUtS It WE REVOKE THIS, IT WOULD FALL BACK ON THE PRIVATE PARTIES TO RENEGOTlkTE,TO MAKE THE RESTAURANT WORK. IS THAT CORRECT? LJn4i rtt#s’L’ ffflyc -pJ R&sJ&rtdrrt:
HoLZrn ICLE.R : THAT’S CORRECT. ACTUALLY, AS INDICATED IN THE PHtVloUS SI Att HttWt-i I S, THE REASON THE REQUEST WAS MADE FOR THE JOINT-USE/SHARED PARKING WAS TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT USE TO LOCATE
THERE, TO ALLOW DOOLEY MCCLUSKEY’S TO GO- IN,- BECAUSE THE MURPHY CENTER, THE OLD WORLD CENTER, DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH PARKING ON ITS OWN OWNERSHIP, ITS OWN PROPERTY TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT FOR =l=ttEfi RESTAURANT. T--+- & q.Tfiij= @EFsK de OP;.~@~ ‘)
A 2 4 6 : ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONSf‘ALL RIGHT, IF WE ;jc*““ t 1 Ht APmAN I, PLEASE? MR. MURPHY.
s&L frlPR*
I : THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I AM MICHAEL MURPHY, I LIVE 0 1 THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. I WOULD LIKE To BEGIN AND STATE A SALIENT ISSUE.X~.DOES THE CITY HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO REVOKE A PRIVATE PARTY AGREEMENT 16 YEARS, 16 YEARS AFTER THIS AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED AND RECORDED, WHEREUPON THIS AGREEMENT WAS A CONDITION OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. WE WERE GRANTED A
3
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IN 1980. THE CITY, THE STAFF, THE ATTORNEYS HAD THE RESPONSIBILITY, THEY HAD THE DUTY, AND THEY EXERCISED IT, TO REVIEW, TO CONTROVERT, THIS DOCUMENT. WE WERE GRANTED THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. I WOULD LIKE.. .PERHAPS SOMEONE COULD INFORM ME AS TO HOW MANY PAIRS OF EYES, HOW MANY DAYS, HOW MANY MONTHS, DOES IT TAKE FOR A CITY TO REVIEW A DOCUMENT BEFORE THEY CAN CLAIM IT IS A MISTAKE? FIVE DAYS, TEN PAIRS OF EYES? THIRTY DAYS, 20 PAIRS OF EYES? NO, 192 MONTHS, 192 MONTHS IT TOOK THE CITY TO RECOGNIZE THEY HAVE CLAIMED THEY MADE AN ERROR. THE ONLY LIVING AND BREATHING SINEW OF THIS ISSUE IS THIS PARKING LOT AGREEMENT. IT WAS SIGNED BY TWO PARTIES. EACH PARTY HAD COUNSEL. EACH COUNSEL RECOGNIZED, THEY APPROVED IT. AND THE PARTIES, THE PROPERTY OWNERS, SIGNED IT. THE CITY REVIEWED IT. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT, AT WHAT POINT IN TIME, CAN A CITY BE ESTOPPED FROM
CLAIMING THERE WAS A MISTAKE? I SUGGEST WHAT THE STAFF IS INCULCATING
TO YOU, CITY COUNCIL, IS THAT THEY WERE INCOMPETENT IN 1980. THAT THE PEOPLE WHO REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTS IN 1980 WERE NON COMPOS MENTIS. WERE BLIND. TO THE CONTRARY, THEY ARE NO LESS COMPETENT TODAY AS THEY WERE IN 1980. THEY REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTS, THEY SAW THEM, THEY HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO REDRAFT, TO AMEND THEM, BUT THEY DID NOT. THEY RETURNED THE AGREEMENT TO US AND THEN WE RECORDED IT. WE RECEIVED A
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND DOOLEY MCCLUSKEY’S WAS OPENED FOR BUSINESS. I THINK ALL OF THIS RHETORIC ABOUT PARKING SPACES. . .WELL THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT ALL THE PARKING SPACES. IN A STAFF
DOCUMENT, THEY SPEAK OF 181 SPACES. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SPACES #‘#&J&b& 181. BUT I ASK YOU, AND I ENJOIN ALL OF YOU, TO PLEASE LOOK AT THE
DOCUMENT. LOOK AT THE BREATHING DOCUMENT. IN FIVE AREAS, NARY. . .NARY A
WORD OF THAT NORTHEASTERLY PARKING LOT, THE MADISON PARKING LOT. THE MAP, NOT A MENTION OF IT. THE A MENTION OF IT. THE DESCRIPTION, NOT A MENTION SIGNED IT, MURPHY SIGNED IT. BOTH REPRESENTED BY
fJYo,& LcEdi5 : BEFORE YOU PROCEED, MR. MURPHY, I GOT TO. . AUSt Ot MY NOI tS . . . I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. . .YOU ARE TELLING ME THAT IN ORDER FOR THE MURPHY’S TO OPEN, AND IN ORDER FOR THE OLD WORLD CENTER AND THE WILSON OPERATION TO OCCUR, THAT THE USE OF JOINT-USE ON THAT PARKING LOT. . .ON THE MADISON PARKING LOT. . .WAS NOT PART OF THE DEAL?
/M Lt c: OM Y’ : THAT’S CORRECT.
MP yol? L_g.Ld, !i : YOU ARE TELLING ME THAT IT WAS TOTALLY EXCLUDED?
nIti PIi Y : THAT’S CORRECT, SIR.
rwyof? ClrL-J^irS : OKAY, GO AHEAD PLEASE.
: AND THAT CAN BE EVIDENCED IN THE DOCUMENT, IN
G LOI AGHttMENT, THERE IS NOT A PAGE, THE ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS DO NOT REFLECT THAT SINGLE PARKING LOT. WILSON SIGNED IT. HE WAS COUNSELED BY AN ATTORNEY. THE CITY REViEWED IT AGAIN. THEY HANbED
IT BACK TO US, AND WE THEREFORE OPENED WITH A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. IF THE TAXPAYERS RECOGNIZE THAT THEY HAVE TO FINANCE THIS ISSUE TO GO TO COURT, AND TO DEFEND THIS ISSUE, AND THEY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A FATUOUS EXERCISE, WILL THEY SUPPORT THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS IN THE FUTURE? HOW WOULD EACH ONE OF YOU VOTE IF YOU WERE OBLIGATED TO WITHDRAW FUNDS FROM YOUR OWN BANK ACCOUNT TO SUPPORT THIS ISSUE IN COURT? I BELIEVE THE CONDUCT OF THE CITY IN THIS 16-YEAR. . .16-YEAR DELAY OF A CORRECTION OF AN ACTION IS UNCONSCIONABLE, UNREASONABLE,
4
F
INEXPLICABLE, ANDUdEXCUSABLE. AND I ENJOIN YOU PLEASE TO REVOKE THE
REVOCATION OF T tF IS PARFING LOT AGREEMENT. WHEREUPON k THIS IS NOT DONE, THIS WILL IMPERIL A PROPERTY OWNER, TO WHERE HE HAS RELIED ON A DOCUMENT FOR 16 YEARS, ONLY TO KNOW THAT THE CITY IS IMMUNE FROM WHAT THEY CLAIM IS A MISTAKE, AND THEY ARE IMMUNE FROM ANY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
PIA YoR l-@-is : QUESTIONS? YMfls. dydAftRo.
IJ'r'GAARO : MR. MURPHY, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT YOU HAVE POSTEDTHE. HOW RECENTLY HAVE YOU POSTED THAT PARKING LOT WITH THE CERTIFICATE ONLY?
huRPilY : I THlNK%2.
ti’r’6dRRn : AND WHY DID YOU DO THAT AFTER 13 OR 14 YEARS?
m LA RPlf Y : THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE WE WERE-SAW THAT
I HtHt Wt UIU NOI HAVE USE OF THAT PARKING SPACE. THE JAZZERCISEkl”d~ WHICH-T-H-E CITY COUNCIL DID NOT CONTEMPLATE THE REPLETENESS OF CARS. . .I THINK THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT STATED, I THINK, THREE PEOPLE PER CAR, 90 CARS TOTAL PER CLASS. I THINK THERE WAS AN OVERABUNDANCE OF CARS THAT PARKED THERE, NOT ALLOWING US TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARK THERE OURSELVES. SO, THEREFORE, I HAD PLACED THE SIGNS UP.
mAfOR 4tdiS : ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I THANK YOU, SIR.
hURPt/Y : THANK YOU.
M;ZYCR I-.t“LJl( : NEXT PLEASE.
R
&QJLKi.
L’ d c H F, : MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I AM NICK-, I AM A LAWYER. OttIC;t IS Al 810 MIS~ON AVENUE, SUITE 200, IN OCEANSIDE, AND I REPRESENT THE OWNERS OF THE.. .THE SUCCESSORS OF INTEREST TO THE WILSON CENTER. e
p v’2, ,f< 1 t’ QJ IS U A LI I I Lt BIT. I HANK IM&‘$$-, COULD YOU PULL THAT SPEAKER TOWARDS
fhKt4 c : THE REASON THAT THE ISSUE NEVER CAME UP WAS
mD UNTIL LAST YEAR. THAT WAS THE GRAND EVENT THAT GAVE EVERYBODY NOTICE THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM. I HAVE A LETTER HERE DATED DECEMBER 4,1978, AND IT HAS AN EXHIBIT. ,I AM GOING TO PASS IT AROUND AND ASK THAT IT BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD. WHAT THAT LETTER SAYS, AND
IT’S FROM A REPRESENTATIVE WHO WAS REPRESENTING BOTH THE MURPHY’S AND WILSON, AND SAYING. . .ASKING THE CITY TO CONSIDER A JOINT PARKING AGREEMENT AND MENTIONING BY THE EXHIBIT WHAT WOULD BE INCLUDED. AND CLEARLY INCLUDED IN THAT EXHIBIT WAS THE NORTHEAST CORNER. THE OTHER
THING, AND THIS IS FAIRLY SIMPLE, AND IT IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE FEW TIMES
uJ?@ d - A CONTESTED HEARING YOU CAN PRESUMABLY MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY. . -EVERYBODY HAPPY THAT IS INTELLECTUALLY HONEST, AT LEAST. THE
ONLY WAY YOU CAN GET TO 181 PARKING PLACES, IS TO INCLUDE THAT LOT. THAT IS WHAT WILSON THOUGHT WAS HAPPENING, THAT IS WHAT THE CITY THOUGHT WAS HAPPENING, AND THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN WHAT THE MURPHY’S THOUGHT WAS HAPPENING. BUT YOU CAN’T GET TO 181 SPACES WITHOUT THE
4 ’ &f +jF#+h% CORNER. NOW, THE THOUGHT MAY CROSS YOUR MIND, WHY ON EARTH
IJ WOULD WILSON, WHO HAD ALL THE PARKING HE NEEDED ENTER INTO A RECIPROCAL AGREEMENT WITH MURPHY TO SOLVE MURPHY’S PROBLEM? I DON’T KNOW. WILSON HAD EXPANSION PLANS, AND I GUESS HE THOUGHT. . .THIS WAS IN
5
THE DAYS BEFORE YOU HAD PUBLIC PARKING AND % RECIPROCAL PARKING
AGREEMENGSOUNDED LIKE A GOOD IDEA TO SOLVE PARKING PROBLEMS IN THE
DOWNTOWN AREA. WILSON HAD EXPANSION PLANS, AND I GUESS HE THOUGHT
HE’D CAST BREAD ON THE WATER THINKING THAT HE MIGHT INGRATIATE HIMSELF. OBVIOUSLY, HE NEVER READ LYNDON JOHNSON’S BOOK, WHERE THE LATE PRESIDENT OBSERVED EVERY TIME I CAST BREAD ON THE WATER, SOME SHARK
EATS IT. THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED HERE. SO, MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY. WE DON’T WANT TO BE A PART OF THIS AGREEMENT WITH THE OLD WORLD CENTER, THEY OBVIOUSLY DON’T WANT TO BE A PART OF THE AGREEMENT. MR. MURPHY SAYS IT WAS NEVER IN OUR MIND TO INCLUDE THAT LOT. IF THAT’S THE CASE, THERE NEVER WAS A MEETING OF THE MINDS.. .SEND US ON OUR WAY. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
: QUESTIONS? OKAY. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO OKAY. THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE A CHANCE TO A CONCERNS HE MAY ASK, ADDRESS THE COUNCIL IF HE
: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE NUMBERS THAT MICHAEL OUUCtU IO YOU ON THE SCREEN. . .THOSE NUMBERS ARE CORRECT FOR MURPHY, THEY ARE CURRENT FOR MURPHY. THOSE NUMBERS THAT HE WAS SHOWING FOR WILSON, THOSE ARE AMENDED NUMBERS THAT ARE CURRENT TODAY, NOT CURRENT AS OF 1980. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WHY DID WILSON SIGN THE AGREEMENT, WELL THE REASON WHY, IT WAS. . .BEING A RECIPROCAL PARKING LOT AGREEMENT, IS THAT WILSON NEEDED PARKING SPACES DURING THE DAY, MURPHY NEEDED PARKING SPACES AT NIGHT. THEREFORE, THE QUID PRO QUO. IF WILSON’S ATT0 HAVE FOUND OUT THAT YE HAD REVIEWED THE DOCUMENT, HE WOULD EASILY PARKING LOT WAS NOT INCLUDED. THEY HAD AN OPTION AT THAT TIME TO TALK TO THE CITY AND SAY THIS IS NOT WHAT WAS INTENDED, WE WANT THAT EXTRA PARKING LOT.
LZdJl5 MR. MURPHY, DO YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THIS ATION , I AM ASSU-fvI ING?
N\LclcRP,i Y : SURE.
mqwc:c /- E.N(\ : AND YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE WILSON. . .
ML.ff?PtfY : MAY I SEE THAT SECOND PAGE, SIR?
: YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE WILSON AGREEMENT. . YOm PARKING SPACES?
m\lP.rkt); : THIS MAP RIGHT HERE, THIS MAP RIGHT HERE, I DON’T >F. I RECEIVED THIS FROM THE STAFF PRIOR TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. THIS MAP WAS NOT MADE PART OF THE AGREEMENT. IF WE LOOK AT THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT, AND I HAVE THE AGREEMENT WITH ME, I CAN
SHOW YOU THE ACTUAL MAP THAT WILSON INITIALED AT THE BOTTOM, AS WELL AS
THROUGH THE TEXT, DID NOT INCLUDE THIS PARKING LOT. THIS CAME AS AN
ANCILLARY DOCUMENT IN 1996 TO ME. pQ.E-
ONE OTHER QUESTION. . .I WAS ON THE COUNCIL L D I DO REMEMBER THAT YOU SETTING THIS THING bP DID SUPPORT THE IDEA OF FATHER AT THAT TIME IN
9 BTAINING SPACES FROM THE NEIGHBORS TO THE WEST, AND YOU TELl%lE SOME PARKING NOW THAT.. .AND THIS WAS ONE OF THE BIG DlSCUSSlOl$WE HAD AT THE TIME BECAUSE IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, IT HAS BEEN A LONG TIME, THAT YOU HAVE OPENED THAT AS A RESTAURANT UNLESS YOU HAD ADDITIONAL ING SPACES FROM THOSE
6
FOLKS TO THE WEST. AND NOW YOU ARE TELLING ME THAT THIS JOINT 1 AGREEMENT DOES NOT HOLD UP BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU? WHY WOULD HE SIGN THAT DOCUMENT TO ALLOW. . .TO GIVE YOU THE “\r------- +04PEf+AS A RESTAURANT IF HE THOUGHT m TROUBLE? t-IL ‘JJfis bl.JGro go =A/ @?-J-@=s& 0FafYdl~ l-t+-
: WHEN YOU ARE REFERRING TO “HE”, SIR, YOU ARE 1U WILmNB 0~ ~ukPlrY?
I’W AYOn c&d& : WILSON.
: OKAY. IT WAS ANTICIPATED THAT WILSON WAS GOING OPtNH A JA.utRCFSE CENTER, AND IT WAS ALSO ANTICIPATED THAT THE CITY HAD ALLOWED THREE PEOPLE PER CAR.. .I THINK THEY WERE ALLOWING 90 PEOPLE PER CLASS. WELL THE ESTIMATE WAS INCORRECT, AND IT WAS LESS THAN WHAT WAS ANTICIPATED. HOWEVER, THE REASON WHY WILSON SIGNED THAT, WAS THAT HE KNEW THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE. . .THE PARKING SPACES WERE GOING TO BE REPLETE WITH CARS, THERE WAS GOING TO BE EXCESS CARS THAT WASdT ANTICIPATED BY THE CITY, THEREFORE HE SIGNED THE AGREEMENT SO HE COULD HAVE USE OF OUR PARKING SPACES IN THE OLD WORLD CENTER, AS WELL AS WE COULD HAVE USE OF THEIR PARKING SPACES AT NIGHTTIME, BECAUSE DOOLEY’S
WAS A NIGHTTIME USE.
~fvl~oi,R LGJ,rS :
~,LlRPI+~’ . . .
MAYOl;! l-Ed/r\ .
MtiRRPHY .
/nflyo’? I.&Jr>
. I THINK WE WERE SHORT ABOUT. . .WHAT I
K tiE HAVE ABOUT 51 OR 52 NOW, AND I THINK WE NEEDED SPACES WE WERE SHY.
DID YOU NEED HIM MORE THAN HE NEEDED YOU?
YES. . .WE DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT PARKING SPACES..
HOW MANY WERE YOU SHORT?
WE WERE SHORT, SIR.
HOW MANY?
tv\AcJR LEdurS : OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.. .
rnURP v : HOWEVER, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN MADE UP, WHICH t HAL;, w SO, TO THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, WHICH WAS WILSOti’ AND IF I COULD SHOW YOU, IF ANY OF YOU DO HAVE IT, IF I COULD SHOW YOU THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT, WILL SHOW WHAT EVERYBODY LOOKED AT, AND IT WILLSHOW THE MAP. . .IF I MAY I SHOW THAT?
37-N-- : MAYOR, THE COUNCIL DOES HAVE A COPY OF THAT~Z’J ‘s-r’5 fAG!T Ot- TffE lj&Zunfi FILL.
: $3GAHvTE’ t ALHtAD IT’S IN THE PACKAGEgIGHT HERE. . .IT’S IN THE
l-bLZ,.n,, LCfi : ~p~~~wgftJ
p-t A‘/I;R LE.411 i/. htC,,T. ES 7 TH.F~/Z -fi~-‘y . . . m/75 tiYL~fJfi3 I
: MR. MURPHY, WHY IS IT THAT. . .I GUESS I WASN’T HERE GHttMtNl WAS STRUCK, SO WHY IS THAT YOU WERE GIVEN THE 15
. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ASKING THAT. * 16-%R 17:“ WE WERE GRANTED A CERTIFICATE d!
7
OCCUPANCY AND THAT’S IN 1980 FEBRUARY 1 f!WE WERE GRANTED A CERTIFICATE
OF OCCUPAhCY, DOOLEY’S OP’ENED FOR BUSINESS. SEVEN MONTHS LATER,
SEVEN MONTHS LATER, WILSON HAD REQUESTED A 15 PERCENT PARKING
REDUCTION, BECAUSE HE WAS ANTICIPATING JAZZERCISE OPENING. SO HE ASKED FOR A 15 PERCENT PARKING REDUCTION SO HE, THEREFORE, COULD HAVE MORE PARKING TO SATISFY THE JAZZERCISE CLIENTELE. AND IT WAS GRANTED TO HIM, AND I BELIEVE IN SEPTEMBER 1980, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND I PRESUME A SUBSEQUENT. . .SUBSEQUENTLY BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
SUST L&T ME !%CLod my LOGiC aLO+% -% YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBERS THAT WERE PRESENTED . ARt THt ON-l? WHO NEEDS THE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES IF YOU CCUPY YOUR VACANT BUILDING. YOU NEED THE 15 PERCENT REDUCTION TO MAKE YOUR BUILDING WORK, NOT.. .
: NO, I DON’T NECESSARILY NEED THE 15 PERCENT
WHAl I Nt I NEED THOSE 18 SPACES WHICH WE BELIEVE
WHEN THE DC~CUMENT. $2 lgSiLb;iERALLy SIGNED EXECUTES AND REVIEWED ~\i THE CITY, AS.> Y~U’~~OOK AT THAT DOCUMENT: YOU WILL i’iND THAT THERE Is NO MENTION OF. . .EVERYBODY ACCEPTED IT. . .THE 181 SPACES THAT MICHAEL IS
TALKING ABOUT, IS A COLLECTION OF SPACES. HOWEVER, THAT WHICH IS GOING TO BE RECIPROCALLY USED WAS IN THIS AGREEMENT. mflt’oC\ CEJIS .’ OEA )J, fw. tf-lclLL !
HALL- : YOU AGREED WITH THE 181 NUMBER, CORRECT?
: I DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHETHER WE AGREED
I H IHt 181 OH NOT ALL WE KNOW IS THAT WE WANTED TO OPEN DOOLEY’S, AND WE NEEDED 18 PAkKlNG SPACES, I PRESUME. THEREFORE, WE ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH WILSON.
i%4cc : SO, IF YOU TOOK THE NUMBER THAT WILSON NEEDED, IHt NUMBtH I HA’ YOU NEEDED, WHAT WOULD THAT TOTAL UP TO?
WELL, IF YOU TOOK WHATEVER. . .I DON’T REALLY ACES HE HAD AT THAT TIME. BECAUSE WE, WE WERE. . NT WAS THAT WE WERE GOING TO REMODEL THE PARKING LOT, WE WERE GOING TO RESTRIPE IT. 0 I REALLY DON’T KNOW, NOW, AT THAT TIME EXACTLY HOW MANY PARKING SPA ES HE HAD. DID HE. . .WAS HE 1 PLANNING TO HAVE ‘X” NUMBER OF SPACES PLU, OUR SPACES EQUALS 181? I DON’T REMEMBER RIGHT NOW. ALL I KNOW IS TH FOR US TO OPEN DOOLEY’S,
THE CITY HAD RECOMMENDED WE ENTER INTO A PA KING LOT AGREEMENT. AND
*F_ WE DID. AND THE CITY REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTS. AND WE RELIED ON THOSE DOCUMENTS FOR 16 YEARS. PR t+rn,
rL : I THINK WE RELIED ON THEM UP UNTIL ABOUT TWO
S AGO AND I HtN ALL OF A SUDDEN THINGS BECAME QUESTIONABLE. AND I THINK THAT IF WE ADDED THE NUMBERS THAT YOU HAVE JUST SPOKEN TO, AND WE CAN COUNT THEM UP ON THIS DOCUMENT HERE OF WHAT WILSON WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE, I THINK YOU’LL PROBABLY COME TO 181. I THINK THAT NUMBER IS PRETTY WELL ESTABLISHED.
: THE 181, SIR, IS A COLLECTION. . .tif pfli!K(G’6 saA‘k-S s
& : I UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT’S RIGHT, THAT HAD TO BE
MtiRf ” : THAT’S CORRECT, AND IT WAS PRODUCED. BUT IT DID 01 SAY A%tHk IN ‘fiE DOCUMENT, AND THE DOCUMENT IS THE ONLY LIVING
8
AGENT WE HAVE OF THIS ISSUE. I MEAN, IT IS NOT A FALSE DOCUMENT. IT’S A LIVING DOCUMENT. 2 p+,~tbR l&JlS : MRS. f=ltiri 11’ *
: MR. MURPHY, WHAT YEAR DID YOU ANTICIPATE OPENING DOOLtY’S?
: FEBRUARY 17, 1980. AND WE WERE GRANTED A
Tt ot OmNCY, I BELIEVE, THE DAY OR TWO DAYS BEFORE. AND PRECEDENT TO THAT, THE CITY STAFF, THE CITY ATTORNEYS, REVIEWED THE VERY
DOCUMENT THAT THEY WERE CONDITIONING m CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCYpod e
WE HAVE%??NI;;;G COMMISSION NOTES FROM ut m80 WtiH IS AFTER FEBRUARY OF 1980 OF COURSE, AND IT HAS REFERRED TO ALL TiiREE PARCELS FOR THE 15 PERCErjT REDUCTION AND WITH THE 2.66 ACRES ON ONE PARCEL, THE .69 ACRES ON ANOTHER PARCEL, AND IT SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED THE .16 ACRE LOT ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MADISON AND GRAND. AND T 0, SPECIFICALLY SPELLED OUT IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOCUMENT. p#?ooJ ME.
TV\ IARPtly : -W43+ I DON’T UNDERSTAND-AT -fti’* PorrJT WHRT ‘+u PR5sr,~~,
Flt+J,LA I I’M NOT ASKING YOU A QUESTION, I AM SAYING. . .k&kF IS WAS IN A WRITTEN DOCUMENT IN 1980, RIGHT AFTER YOU APPLIED FOR YOUR RESTAURANT IN FEBRUARY OF 1980. SO.. .
~WuqkY : AND THAT PARKING LOT WAS OUT. IT DOES NOT tLONG 10 ANYmY tLSE. AND THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PARKING LOT AGREEMENT.
FfrJrJILt4 : WELL.. .
rnC( nmtj : I MEAN, WE CAN. . ,YOU KNOW. . .IT IS 16 YEARS AGO.
I=//JrJlLA : I REALIZE THAT. THANK YOU. z Rf’ffl@~Art WfPT.
: OKAY, THANK YOU, MR. MURPHY.‘%LL RIGHT THEN, HE IS ICAN’ I UIU CALL HIM BACK. I AM ASSUMING THERE IS NO ONE ELSE
&++fTl”‘6 m TO AbDRESS THE COUNCIL. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. AND JUSTmCOMMENT$. . .SINCE I AM THE ONLY ONE THATaEAtW WAS THERE AT
THE COUNCIL. . . a twwd T‘~~’
: THE ONLY ONE. I WAS NOT WITH YOU ON THIS ONE,
,T@T &Js. FwJJ,LA mw 7,0+
: BUT I DO. . .WE ALL WAITED V ND MR. MURPHY TO OPEN THAT ALKING TO STAFF, AS MENTIONED, LOTS WERE INCLUDED TO MAKE BOTH CENTERS WORK, AND I ALSO FELT THAT IT WOULD BE A JOINT-USE VENTURE BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE USAGE OF SE ARE MY RECOLLECTIONS AND OF COURSE THE REFLECT WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE PLANNING gIT$S THAT I HAD WHICH RECALL SOME OF fl
----- fi ‘-OJL -p 6J-F pg -----__ _a- _-a -- BUT THE COUNCIL ,c PHY’S, ALONG WITH TAFF, TO MAKE SURE ,p BECAUSE WE WANT THAT+HICH WAS A 6#f AND I JUST WANT
USE AT THAT TIME WE
MAKE SURE THAT//51 B@-“JO~
ALONG WITH THE ThL(5
ALL THE LOTS WOULD BOTH PARTIES.
9
v&3 IdJIlL : WELL, I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS ONE POINT AND IT t-k&kNCtU I HAI STAFF HAD MADE A MISTAKE AND ALL OF A SUDDEN DECIDED THAT AFTER SO MUCH TIME HAD ELAPSED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO REOPEN AN ISSUE. IT WASN’T STAFF THAT REOPENED T E ISSUE, IT WAS ONE OF THE PARTNERS SAW THAT WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS & AGREEMENT WAS BEING VIOLATED. THEY THOUGHT UNDER THEIR EXISTING AGREEMENT THAT THEY HAD THE USE OF ALL THREE LOTS. AND COME TO FIND OUT WHEN. . .THAT THE OTHER PARTNER DID NOT AGREE WITH THAT. SO STAFF HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH BRINGING THE ISSUE TO A HEAD. SINCE. . .AS YOU POINTED OUT, MAYOR, SINCE NONE OF US WERE ON COUNCIL WHEN YOU WERE AND WHEN THIS lSSUE# SURFACEPALL WE CAN DO IS GO BACK TO WHAT IS WRITTEN, AND WHAT IS
COMMISSION APPR~vED$~JOINT USE 0~ 181 SPACES. THAT is WRITTEN. ALSO, WRITTEN HAS CONVlNCE$ &lE IN 1978 EVEN, IN DECEMBER OF 1978, THE PLANNING
AS I SAID BEFORE, IN SEPTEMBER OF 1980, THE PLANNING. . .THE STAFF REPORT REFERRED TO ALL THREE PARCELS IN THE DISCUSSION. SO, I DON’T SEE WHERE MR. MURPHY. . .I DON’T SEE WHERE HE CAN SAY THAT WE HAVE LEFT HIM DISISDVANTAGED AND DEFENSELESS AS HE HAS INDICATED IN HIS LETTER. .2 L &A> t-c,. IlRCL
I-1 i\cc : REALLY, I THINK THAT RAMONA SUMMED IT UP PRETTY OMPLt I t II 5 HAHD HEALLY TO ANALYZE THIS. I MEAN THERE is A NEED FOR PARKING AND-A NEED FOR THE TWO PEOPLE TO WORK TOGETHER. IT’S AMAZING TO ME THAT IT’S AT THIS POINT, AND IT’S. . .THEY’LL BE WORKING TOGETHER AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE IF THEY EVER WANT TO GO BACK AND DO ANYTHING WITH THAT BUILDING, SO IT’S. . .TO ME IT SOMEWHAT FRUSTRATING THAT WE ARE AT THIS POINT, BUT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION AND WE ARE HERE TO DO THAT. M A ?,a 2 c 2 -J‘> QrPy’. IyI0.s k4LC.O ,rJ <
L\L-c\J IFJ : I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT COUNCIL MEMBER ALL AND MRS ---+A0 SAID AND I CERTAINLY CAN SUPPORT THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARDS \~ECI~I~N. 1 InLlL z.i l-z .a.\ MO.\ NYW4lL3! j-i t-l b c IL- frdti cc;?-
hi Y C-2 AR i3 : YEAH, I TOO. . .IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR TO ME THAT 15 P%HCtN r HtUmlON WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN GIVEN IF THERE HADN’T BEEN AN AGREEMENT STRUCK BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH SPACES TO MAKE BOTH OF THOSE PROPERTIES WORK. SO, I HAVE NO TROUBLE SUPPORTING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S DECISION.
k-hr??cf, ACdjiS : MAY I HAVE A MOTION, PLEASE?
(7ifiLI- : MR. MAYOR, BEFORE. . .ONE OF THE FIRST QUESTIONS H MUHPHY ASKtti WAS WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY HAD THE LEGAL POWER TO REVdKE THE PRIVATE PARTY AGREEMENT, AND THAT REALLY MISSTATES THE THRUST OF THE WHAT WE ARE DOING THIS EVENING, AND THAT IS WE ARE
REVOKING THE APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT, AND THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF THE
PARKING PROVISIONS TO ALLOW RECIPROCAL AGREEMENTS WHEN THOSE USES
WOULD BE COMPATIBLE. AND AS MR. MURPHY SAID, THE DAY AND THE NIGHT KINDS OF SHARING, AND THAT WOULD ENTITLE THE JOINT USERS TO A 15 PERCENT~~~A~ REDUCTION. AND SO I THINK IN FAIRNESS TO THE CITY, IT ASSUMED THAT-
WORKING UP UNTIL RECENTLY. AND SO, IT IS NOT 16 YEARS AGO, BUT IT’S EITHER ONE YEAR OR FOUR YEARS, DEPENDING ON WHO’S VERSION OF THE FACTS YOU RELATE TO. BUT IN EITHER CASE IT IS NOT 16 YEARS, AND THE PRIVATE PARTY AGREEMENT THAT ARE IN PLACE WILL IN PLACE, TO WHAT EFFECT THEY HAVE, IT IS BETWEEN THE PRIVATE DOING IS REVOKING THE GOVERNMENTAL APPROVAL OF PRIVATE PARTY AGREEMENTS. -tH!5
10
_-
PaMm : OKAY. THEN I WOULD MOVE DENIAL OF THE APPEAL OF
FEBRUARY 7,1996, AS RELATED TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION OF PHOLDING THE REVOCATION OF THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF JOINT PARKING AN K $.$ PERCENT REDUCTION OF COMMON PARKING FACILITIES.
flucf r&l : SECOND.
und\(oR LF.fAlL~ : d&V’o”;;. PLEASE?
. NOTE THAT THE COUNCIL HAS APPROVED THE ~RTH BY STAFF THE HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT COMMISS I &DJOURN WI t-l-
,qs so S-r-m-5D D t/
p.lGs &&4ARL
11
CERTIFICATION
I, Aletha L. Rautenkranz, City Clerk of the City of Carlsbad, do hereby certifjr that the foregoing
transcript, as corrected in red ink, is a verbatim transcript of the April 9, 1996 hearing before the
Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Commission concerning the item identified on the Agenda
as Agenda Bill #283 - APPEAL - WILSON/MURPHY JOINT USE PARKING LOT .
DATE:
ALETHAL. RAUTENKR#Z
City Clerk
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008- 1989 - (619) 434-2808
@