The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-12-01; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 303; Request for a Parking Agreement; I_ _- cIs+&ErJ 1 0 HOUSING Ad REDEVELOPMENT COMMbSION -AGENDA BlLljq$ AB# 303 TITLE: DEPT. HD. 6% MTG. 12/l/98 Request for a Parking Agreement between Redevelopment CITY ATTY. ‘&- DEPT. H/RED Agency and Old World Center to satisfy parking obligation. CITY MGR> I RECOMMENDED ACTION: ADOPT Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 30.3 , to deny request for a parking agreement with the City of Carlsbad/Redevelopment Agency to satisfy the additional parking obligation of 11 spaces for restaurant space within Old World Center as recommended by the Design Review Board. ITEM EXPLANATION: Background On February 7, 1996, the Design Review Board took action to revoke a previous Planning Commission approval to grant joint use parking and a 15% reduction in the parking requirement for Old World Center and Roosevelt/Jazzercise Center to allow the addition of a restaurant use to the Old World Center. The action to revoke the previous approval was taken because Old World Center was not complying with the terms of the original approval. Revocation of the previous approvals resulted in a requirement for Roosevelt/Jazzercise Center and Old World Center to individually comply with City parking requirements for uses existing or proposed in the centers in the future. Mr. Michael Murphy filed an appeal of the Design Review Board’s decision. The appeal was subsequently denied by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission; the decision of the Board was upheld by the Commission. Parking and Usage of the Restaurant Space Since the date of revocation of the parking approvals, Old World Center has met its parking requirement because the existing restaurant space has been vacant. However, the owner of Old World Center now has a restaurant tenant. The restaurant has recently opened as Tom Giblen’s Irish Pub. Due to the action to revoke the previously reduced parking and joint use approvals, the owner of Old World Center is not able to lease the entire 4200 square feet of restaurant space. , The restaurant use is currently limited to 3100 square feet until additional parking is provided. . m 5 z 2 5 .- % .- : 00 To allow the entire 4200 square feet of restaurant to be used, an additional 11 parking spaces must be provided. This is the reason Mr. Michael Murphy is now requesting approval of an agreement with the Redevelopment Agency which would allow him to pay a monthly fee to provide for public parking which will be used to satisfy the additional parking obligation for Old World Center. A more detailed parking analysis is provided within the Design Review Board Staff Report which is attached for review. In order to use the existing restaurant space (3100 sf), the property owner was required to complete tenant improvements to ensure that 1100 square feet of floor space within the existing restaurant is made “not usable”, which means that walls (no doors) were to be constructed to prevent use of, and access to, the subject space. In addition to the required tenant improvements, the property owner was required to enter into an agreement which accordingly AB # -3fl.3 Page 2 restricts the use of the property. The tenant improvements were completed and the agreement was executed and subsequently recorded by the City. As a result, the Irish Pub was permitted to open as a 3100 square foot restaurant. The property owner, Michael Murphy, does not wish to have a limit on the amount of leased restaurant space. Also, the tenant would eventually like to enlarge the restaurant to the full 4200 square feet. However, to lease the additional space, the property owner must provide a solution to the parking issue. Mr. Murphy has proposed a parking agreement to resolve the parking issue. Parking Agreement Mr. Murphy has submitted a request (see attached letter) which indicates that he would like to satisfy his additional parking obligation of eleven (11) spaces by entering into an agreement with the City of CarlsbadIRedevelopment Agency which would allow him to make a monthly payment towards maintaining existing public parking spaces in the lot located on Roosevelt Street, south of Old World Center and within 600 feet of the property. While the proposed type of agreement has been previously used to satisfy parking requirements for two other restaurants within the Village Redevelopment Area, the last agreement for the Carlsbad Brewery, now known as Pizza Port, was approved with specific instructions from the Commission to cease this practice until action could be taken on the development and implementation of a Vi//age Parking /n-Lieu Fee Program. Staff is currently completing the development phase of the subject program and intends to present the new Program to the City Council for action within the next few months. If the new Parking In-Lieu Fee Program is ultimately approved by the City Council/Housing and Redevelopment Commission, the property owner at Old World Center would be eligible to pay a one-time fee to the Agency to satisfy the obligation for the 11 additional parking spaces required for the restaurant. Staff is currently in the process of developing a recommendation on the one-time fee amount. Since staff has nearly completed the program description and related fee recommendations for the Parking /n-Lieu Fee Program, staff recommended denial of the request until the Housing and Redevelopment Commission has had the opportunity to review the new In Lieu Fee Program and take action on it. The Design Review Board took action to recommend denial of the request on September 28, 1998. Attached for review is a copy of the minutes from the subject Design Review Board meeting. Also attached is a copy of a letter from Mr. Nick Banche, attorney for Roosevelt/Jazzercise Center, encouraging denial of the request as recommended by Staff and the Design Review Board. The recommendation for denial was based on the following: 1) there is currently no legal authority to grant approval of the agreement within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual or City Ordinances; 2) a Parking In-Lieu Fee Program is currently under development and is preferred to a monthly fee agreement for use of public parking spaces; 3) these type of agreements are problematical, especially in cases where the monthly payment is not made; 4) the applicant failed to comply with his previous approvals for a parking alternative. 2 AB# ,903 Page 3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission take action to deny the request for a parking agreement as recommended by the Design Review Board. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Because the recommendation is for denial of the subject request for a parking agreement, there has been no environmental review completed for the project. If the Commission would like to approve the request, the project will need to be returned to staff for completion of the appropriate environmental review and related approving resolution. FISCAL IMPACT With the recommended action, the Redevelopment Agency will receive no payments from Old World Center for parking. The estimated impact is a loss of approximately $880 to $1100 per month (or more) depending on the rate set per required parking space If this amount were paid by the applicant, this would amount to approximately $10,560 to $13,200 per year. EXHIBITS: 1. 2. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 303, denying the request for a parking agreement between Old World Center and Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency. Design Review Board Resolution No. 262 recommending denial of the proposed parking agreement. 3. Location Map/Site Plan. 4. Correspondence received August 4, 1998 from Mr. Michael Murphy, Old World Center. 5. Correspondence dated October 20, 1998 from Mr. Nick Banche, Roosevelt/Jazzercise Center. 6. Design Review Board Staff Report, dated September 28, 1998. 7. Minutes from Design Review Board meeting of September 28, 1998. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.. 303 A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DENYING A REQUEST TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER OF OLD WORLD CENTER TO PAY A MONTHLY FEE FOR THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC PARKING TO SATISFY A PARKING OBLIGATION OF 11 PARKING SPACES FOR THE EXISTING RESTAURANT SPACE AT OLD WORLD CENTER LOCATED AT 630 GRAND AVENUE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA. CASE NAME: OLD WORLD CENTER PARKING APN: 203-301-05 AND 203-302-01 WHEREAS, Michael Murphy “Applicant” has filed a request with the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Applicant, known as Old World Center and described as Lots 1,2,3,4, 13, 14, 15 and 16 in Block 37, City of Car&bad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Seaside Lands Map No. 1722 on file in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County; and Lot 1 in Block 50, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the Seaside Lands Map No. 1722 on tile in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego (“the property”); and WHEREAS, on September 24, 1980, the applicant originally received approval of a joint use parking facility agreement with the adjoining Wilson Retail (Roosevelt) Center and a 15% reduction in the parking requirement to allow the addition of a 4200 square foot restaurant within the Old World Retail Center; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 1996, the Design Review Board revoked the previous approval to allow the joint use parking and 15% parking reduction due to the fact that the applicant was not complying with the conditions of the previous approval; and WHEREAS, the applicant has a need to provide additional parking which amounts to eleven (11) parking spaces total to allow for full use of the existing 4200 square foot restaurant space; and WHEREAS, said request for a parking agreement is in response to the need by the Applicant to meet the subject parking obligation of eleven (11) spaces; 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, the Design Review Board did, on the 28th day of September, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request and subsequently adopted ~ Design Review Board Resolution No. 262, recommending to the Housing and Redevelopment ~ Commission that the request for a parking agreement be denied; and WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendations and heard all persons interested in or opposed to the subject request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to said request for a parking agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 2. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, and hearing arguments of Council, and after careful consideration of the matter, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission does hereby DENY without prejudice the request for an agreement with the City of Carlsbad./Redevelopment Agency to allow for the Applicant to pay a monthly fee for eleven (11) public parking spaces to satisfy the off-street parking obligation for restaurant space within the Old World Center building located at 630 Grand Avenue, provided, however, the applicant may reapply for reconsideration of its application if the Housing and Redevelopment Commission has not considered the village parking in-lieu fee program within six (6) months of this action. 3. The findings set forth in Design Review Board Resolution No. 262 adopted on September 28, 1998, are incorporated by reference and become the findings of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission supporting its action. 4. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. The provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits on Judicial Review” shall apply. 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 “NOTICE TO APPLICANT” This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The provision of Chapter 1 .16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply: “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 become 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 proceedings shall be tiled with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008 .” PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of December, 1998, by the following vote to wit: Ams: Commissioners Lewis, Nygaard, Finnila C Kulchin NOES: Commissioner Hall ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None AT-TEST: 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 - EXHIBIT 2 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 262 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMhlENDING DENIAL OF A REQUEST TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER OF OLD WORLD CENTER TO PAY A MONTHLY FEE FOR THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC PARKING TO SATISFY A PARKING OBLIGATION OF 11 PARKING SPACES FOR THE EXISTING RESTAURANT SPACE AT OLD WORLD CENTER LOCATED AT 630 GRAND AVENUE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE. VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA. CASE NAME: OLD WORLD CENTER PARKING APN: 203-301-05 AND 203-302-01 WHEREAS, Michael Murphy “Applicant” has filed a request with the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Applicant, known as Old World Center and described as Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14, 15 and 16 in Block 37, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Seaside Lands Map No. 1722 on file in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County; and Lot 1 in Block 50, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the Seaside Lands Map No. 1722 on file in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego (“the property); and WHEREAS, on September 24, 1980, the applicant originally received approval of a joint use parking facility agreement with the adjoining Wilson Retail (Roosevelt) Center and a 15 % reduction in the parking requirement to allow the addition of a 4200 square foot restaurant within the Old World Retail Center; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 1996, the Design Review Board revoked the previous approval to allow the joint use parking and 15% parking reduction due to the fact that the applicant was not complying with the conditions of the previous approval; 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 DRB Resolution No. 262 Page 2 WHEREAS, the applicant has a need to provide additional parking which amounts to eleven (11) parking spaces total to allow for full use of the existing 4200 square foot restaurant space; and WHEREAS, said request is in response to the need by the Applicant to meet the subject parking obligation of eleven (11) spaces; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did, on the 28th day of September, 1998, hoid a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to said request for a parking agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review Board RECOMMENDS DENIAL of the request for an agreement with the City of Carlsbad/Redevelopment Agency to allow for the Applicant to pay a monthly fee for the provision of 11 public parking spaces to satisfy the off-street parking obligation for restaurant space withih the Old World Center building located at 630 Grand Avenue. FINDINGS: The Design Review Board finds that the parking agreement proposed by the Applicant is not an acceptable solution at this time to address the parking shortage for Old World Center due to pending actions to implement a new Parking In-Lieu Fee Program for the Village Redevelopment Area. 2. The Design Review Board finds that there are not adequate assurances at this time that the applicant would remain in compliance with the proposed parking agreement in the long term. 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 DRB Resolution No. 262 Page 3 3. The Design Review Board finds that the Applicant has already received approval to lease nearly seventy-five percent (3 100 square feet) of the existing restaurant space within Old World Center without the need for the proposed parking agreement and will not suffer undue hardship as a result of this denial of the request for a parking agreement. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 28th day of September, 1998 by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chairperson Design Review Board ATTEST: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN, Housing and Redevelopment Director EXHIBIT 3 LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT 4 Ms. Debbie Fountain Housing and Redevelopment Director City of Carlsbad 2965 Roosevelt Street. Suite B Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Old World Center Dear Ms. Fountain The City of Carlsbad has currently precluded the Old World Center from leasing approximately 1,100 square feet of restaurant space located at 640 Grand Avenue, Suite A. The basis for this denial is an alleged shortage of parking totaling eleven (11) spaces. I wish to remove this restriction from my property and lease the remaining 1,100 square feet. Pizza Port had a similar parking issue which was satisified by an agreement with the City of Carl&ad. I would sincerely appreciate'the City of Carl&ad considering the Old World Center for the same arrangement. Your expeditious response to this request'is appreciated. Respectfullv Michael Kevin Murphy ' c EXHIBIT 5 LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS C. BANCHE A PROl=ESSlONAL CORPoRATlclN 719 PIER VlEw WAY POST Ol=l=lCe BOX 3Qo OCEANSIDE, CALIMRNLA 82048 October 20, 1998 Debbie Fountain City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department 2985 Roosevelt Drive, Suite B Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: OLD WORLD CENTER Dear Ms. Fountain: As you are no doubt aware, John M. Yelland, owner of the commercial center commonly known as the Jazzercise Center, is in opposition to the request of the above referenced entity to be allowed to reopen its restaurant within the Old World Center without adequate parking. Accordingly, I have been asked to communicate with you, and do so by means of this letter, which I ask that you make a part of the record, and distribute to the agency members who will hear the appeal. Obviously, we are in support of the staff recommendation and of the action taken by the Design Review Board. I need not reiterate the history of the Old World Center, as you have done so most adequately in the staff report. In addition, if anyone desires to be completely bored with ancient history, I include a copy of the transcript of the Carlsbad City Council sitting as the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, at its meeting in the spring of 1998, where the Reciprocal Parking Agreement between the above referenced entity and the Jazzercise Center was revoked. The basis for that revocation was the failure of the applicant to adhere to the provisions of the agreement, and despite express attempts to warn him of his inability to take the very action that he now proposes absent additional parking, we now find ourselves looking at the same deficiencies that manifested themselves in 1980 in connection with applicants attempt to open Dooley’s, initially. 86, Hd 01 t lZ130 avfmw3 93~~13, - . .: Debbie Fountain City of Carlsbad October 20,1998 Page two Obviously, Carlsbad has been very strict, but I might add, very consistent in its requirement of adherence to parking standards, and I ask that you continue to act in like fashion in this case, as to relax the standards would certainly cause major problems in the immediate vicinity of the proposed restaurant. There is an adage to the effect of “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.” I recommend that adage to you and the agency for serious consideration. There is no guarantee that any monthly rent would be paid for deficient spaces and, when the new parking district and fees are put into place, no guarantee that they would be paid. As a matter of absolute fact, based on this applicants past behavior, one can conclude that once he gets what he wants, it is unlikely he will ever honor his commitments. The only safe way to proceed in this matter is to prohibit the issuance of a building permit for the additional 1100 square feet until such time as the district and fee process are in place and the money in hand. Respectfully submitted, cc: John Yelland Yelland Properties, Inc. Roosevelt Center 13 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPhdENT COMh4ISSION CARLSBAD, CALIFORMA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING APRIL9,1996 TIuNscRLPr OF AB #283 - APPEAL - WILSON/MURPHY JOINT USE PARKING LOT /- -.. ) I ?XEFOLLOWINGXNDMDUALSSPOKEDURING‘THE-INGS: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: STAFF: OTHER SPEAKERS: ClaudeALcwiqMayor Julie Nygaard, Mayor Pro Tem Ann Kulchin, Council Member RamonaFii CouncilMember hdatt Hall, council Member Ray Pat&et& City Manager Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Michael Murphy Nick Ban&c, Attorney rcpresdng Wilson 15 : lTEM NUMBER 3 IS AN APPEAL BY MR. MICHAEL MURPHY =fiJOmSE PARKING LOT. WILL 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 OF~JO~NT-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 lF WE COULD HAVE THE LIGHTS PLEASE. THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE LOCATION Oi 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 LllTLE 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 hTY ALLOWED A 15 PERCENT P KING REDUCTION FOR BOTH OF THE CENTERS BECAUSE OF THE FACT %Ei%iL THEY DID SHARE THE JOINT-USE PARKING. BOTH VALS WERE CONDITIONED UPON ENTERING INTO A JOINT-USE HAD 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 IN BY THE OWNERS OF THE TWO CENTERS DID NOT INCLUDE THIS 6klAmde 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 lT 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 i- . . -3 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 AU 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, NElTHER ONE OF THEM CAN MEET A MINIMUM 181 SPACES. IT TAKES AU 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 RECOURSlk 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. LtsdIS : LEAVE THE LIGHTS OFF, PLEASE. WOULD YOU GO BACK t Smti THt NUMBERS AGAIN FOR THE. . . : MR. WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME IS THAT t WILSON ctmtH 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? : THAT’S CORRECT. h;t:(c.AAR\] : OKAY. : IF THE VACANT SPACE IN THE OLD WORLD CENTER WAS PHtmUSLY FOR RESTAURANT. : SO THERE IS NO WAY THAT THE MURPHY CENTER AT RESTAURANT WITHOUT THE 15 PERCENT REDUCTION. f-kczm ILL& : WITHOUT THE SHARED PARKING.. . : WITHOUT THE SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT AND 15 /vlA Zc.R 1, FUJI> l pjf<C XLlLCrld. . LILl h, (3’+Ad#i&dk QUt5TiON . THANK YOU, MAYOR. FOLLOWING UP ON MRS. IF-WE DO REVOKE THE SHARED PARKING AND LATER ON DOWN MR. MURPHY bECIDES HE IS GOING TO PUT A RESTAURANT IN THERE, WOULD HE HAVE TO THEN COME BACK BEFORE THE DESlGN REVIEW BOARD AND THE COUNCIL? 17 *- 2. . \ _- I zm ILLi-R : THAT’S CORRECT. & ~ROJ6~ : AND HE WOULD HAVE TO 439 THE PROCESS ALL OVER RIGHT, AND THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME WAY QUIREMENT. NOW, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT dlvm5ETrc’r NT 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 d 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. %; FOLLOW-UP TO My QUESTION IF I CAN HAVE TO CONTACT MR. WliSON AND ING AGAIN, IS THAT CORRECT? : THAT,MA Y j3i c NC Or’ ME... KC( cihrrj : I MEAN, THAT IS ONE OF THE OPTIONS, THAT IS ONE OF t ALmtS . !fct7N1JLICrc : YES. I;u ccl4 Ihl : OKAY. m &ff&LELJr$ : ONCE AGAIN, GETTING BACK TO THE COMMENTS OF OLLtAbitS II- WE REVOKE THIS, IT WOULD FAU BACK ON THE PRIVATE PARTIES TO RENEGOTIATE TO MAKE THE RESTAURANT WORK. IS THAT CORRECT? -JrcAi J-rfrp HA& p R&f~TIATt: : THAT’S CORRECT. ACTUALLY, AS INDICATED IN THE FUR’TS THE REASON THE REOUEST WAS MADE FOR THE S SitAPt Htl -.---, _..- _--- _--.- .__- .____ --. .~. -- .~~ ~--~ JOINT-USE/SHARED PARKING WAS TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT USE TO LOCATE THERE, TO ALLOW DOOLEY MCCLUSKEY’: CENTER. THE OLD WORLD C --- _- _-- ___._.- - -~ _-_ -. .- _ 3 TO GO IN, BECAUSE THE MURPHY -- -iENTER, DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH PARKING ON ITS OWN OWNERSHIP, ITS OWN PROPERTY TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT FOR 7I-IEfi RESTAURANT. Cc fifi[F &3wL d,G ops . ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONSf AU RIGHT, IF WE : PLEASE? MR. MURPHY. I s+ MR* : THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I AM MICHAEL MURPHY, I LlVE 0 ’ THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. I WOULD LIKE To BEGIN AND STATE A SALIENT issUE2.00~~ 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 -To 7 .IC . 3 IB : A 1 . . CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IN 1980. THE CITY, THE STAFF, THE AlTORNEYS 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? FlVE DAYS, TEN PAIRS OF EYES? THIRTY DAYS, 20 PAIRS OF EYES? NO, 192 MONTHS, lQ2 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 lT. 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 AU THE PARKING SPACES. IN A STAFF lf:CUMENT, THEY SPEAK OF 181 SPACES. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SPACES -ce BUT I ASK YOU, AND I ENJOIN AU 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 lT, MURPHY SIGNED IT. BOTH REPRESENTED BY : BEFORE YOU PROCEED, MR. MURPHY, I GOT TO. . Nm . .I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. . .YOU ARE 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? IM Lt lq (‘l-4 v : THAT’S CORRECT. : YOU ARE TELLING ME THAT lT WAS TOTALLY EXCLUDED? rnLAG!RPh Y : THAT’S CORRECT, SIR. Iw3:‘K C&iIS : OKAY, GO AHEAD PLEASE. : AND THAT CAN BE EVIDENCED IN THE DOCUMENT, IN G LOT 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 HANDED 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 l&YEAR.. .16-YEAR DELAY OF A CORRECTION OF AN ACTION IS UNCONSCIONABLE, UNREASONABLE, 4 INEXPLICABLE, AND%XCUSABLE AND I ENJOIN YOU PLEASE TO k F REVOCATION OF T IT IS PARKING COT AGREEMENT. WHEREUPON REVOKE THE 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 CIIY IS IMMUNE FROM WHAT THEY CLAIM IS A MISTAKE, AND THEY ARE IMMUNE FROM ANY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. fVI A Yo/2 k.drJ : QUESTIONS? ma. d6tio- rJ%AARQ : MR. MURPHY, lT WAS POINTED OUT THAT YOU HAVE FT. HOW RECENTLY HAVE YOU POSTED THAT PARKING LOT WITH THE CERTIFICATE ONLY? huAPtlY : I THINt&2. Icr %AfbUn : AND WHY DID YOU DO THAT AFTER 13 OR 14 YEARS? U/WHY : THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE WE -SAW THAT Ht Wt DID iiJ0-1 HAVE USE OF THAT PARKING SPACE. THE JAZZERCISE-+ WHICH’fHi CITY COUNCIL DID NOT CONTEMPLATE THE REPLETENESS OF CARS. . .r 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. /v\c\foh! LEJilS : ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I THANK YOU, SIR. k~UQfUY : THANK YOU. MAYCR LLJI E : NEXT PLEASE. pJ~~L * MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I AM NICK-BANK& I AM A LAWYER. IS AT 810 @ON AVENUE, SUITE 200, IN OCEANSIDE, AND I REPRESENT THE OWNERS OF THE. . .THE SUCCESSORS OF INTEREST TO THE WILSON CENTER. -- . ANK $‘ll$&+d’& COULD YOU PULL THAT SPEAKER TOWARDS . . : THE REASON THAT THE ISSUE NEVER CAME UP WAS I lT WAS N-0 UNTIL LAST YEAR. THAT WAS THE GRAND EVENT THAT GAVE EVERYBODY NOTICE THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM. I HAVE A LElTER HERE DATED DECEMBER 4.1978, AND IT HAS AN EXHIBlT. .I AM GOING TO PASS lT AROUND AND ASK THAT IT BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD. WHAT THAT LETTER SAYS, AND I-I-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 ,& zJ E!cFF A CONTESTED HEARING YOU CAN PRESUMABLY MAKE EVERYBODY .EVERYBODY HAPPY THAT IS INTELLECTUAUY HONEST, AT LEAST. THE ONLY iViY 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 MURPHYS < tef THOUGHT WAS HAPPENING. BUT YOU CAN’T GET TO 181 SPACES WITHOUT THE +Oe +#RPH% CORNER. NOW, THE THOUGHT MAY CROSS YOUR MIND, WHY ON EARTH WOULD WILSON, WHO HAD AU 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 AGREEMENTjSOUNDED 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 THAI-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 CIL? OKAY. THE APPUCANT DOES HAVE A CHANCE TO A - - $,ttz&REBUTTAL OR ANY CONCERNS HE MAY ASK, ADDRESS THE COUNCIL IFHE . : THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE NUMBERS THAT MICHAEL tD IO mU 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, WEU THE REASON WHY, lT 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 ?!iEs HAD REVIEWED THE DOCUMENT, HE WOULD EASILY HAVE FOUND OUT THAT ARKING 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. MR. MURPHY, DO YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THIS Iwu Rfd \( : SURE. mAYca L Csrl\ : AND YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE WILSON. . . rv\u RPH \/ : MAY I SEE THAT SECOND PAGE, SIR? : YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE WILSON AGREEMENT. . tD Ym PARKING SPACES? : THIS MAP RIGHT HERE, THIS MAP RIGHT HERE, I DON’T tDGt OF. I RECEIVED THIS FROM THE STAFF PRIOR TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. THIS MAP WAS NOT MADE PART OF THE AGREEMENT. F 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 ANClLlARY DOCUMENT IN 1996 TO ME. pG : ONE OTHER QUESTION. -0 I DO REMEMBER THAT YOb I WAS ON THE COUNCIL SETTING THIS THING bP DID SUPPORT THE IDEA OF SPACES FROM THE NEIGHBORS TO THE WEST, AND YO $ FATHER AT THAT TIME IN BTA1 NG #I SOME PARKlffi TELL E NOW THAT.. AND THIS WAS ONE OF THE BIG DlSCUSSlON.iWE 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 ADDlTlONAL FROM THOSE 6 FOLKS TO THE WEST. AND NOW YOU ARE TELLING ME THAT THIS JOINT AGREEMENT DOES NOT HOLD UP BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU? WHY WOULD HE SIGN THAT DOCUMENT TO ALLOW. . .TO GIVE YOU THE ?;------- ,-AS A RESTAURANT IF HE THOUGHT ~~~~UBLE? m-d& oFO~.MG r* : WHEN YOU ARE REFERRING TO ‘I-IE”, SIR, YOU ARE : WILSON. : OKAY. IT WAS ANTlCIPATED THAT WILSON WAS GOING JAutHm CENTER, AND IT WAS ALSO ANTlClPATED 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 WAScJTT 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 NIGH-I-I-IME, BECAUSE DOOLEY’S WAS A NIGHTTIME USE. -fi.4~ob~ ,%..~lr : DID YOU NEED HIM MORE THAN HE NEEDED YOU? t-&,uf?fl+p : YES. . .WE DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT PARKING SPACES. . . MAYCR C’currJ : HOW MANY WERE YOU SHORT? c*\ q ,??H t’ : WE WERE SHORT, SIR. /-nil yo Q r&+lls : HOW MANY? . I THINK WE WERE SHORT ABOUT. D I WE HAVE ABOUT 51 OR 52 NOW, AND I THINK LIKE 70. SO I itiiNK 18 SPACES WE WERE SHY. tblAYJ.4 AEkuIJ : OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.. . MUr:PpjU : HOWEVER, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN MADE UP, WHICH t HAD ImtD m UO SO, TO THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, WHICH WAS WILSO6’ 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 WILL SHOW THE MAP. . .IF I MAY I SHOW THAT? 7m+T *LZ*IGL~& . . F YFR; TIiE$?fICt (IOES HAVE A COPY OF THATEI zr’3 IT’S IN THE PACKAG tit t ALREAb : $3iGl~~ . f+LZn?,r* F/7 :~p.gArEJ r\fi)aCR L&&, ! l4LL Ratrrr. ss -rwlF*tz A&Y . . . ml?s tJJ\/GAIIR~. : MR. MURPHY, WHY IS IT THAT. . .I GUESS I WASN’T HERE ttMtNT WAS STRUCK, SO WHY Is THAT YOU WERE GIVEN THE 15 : 161 ANK 5OU VERY MUCH FOR ASKING THAT. 4&l 17, WE WERE GRANTED A CERTIFICATE d! 7 OCCUPANCY, AND THAT’S IN 1980, FEBRUARY &h/E WERE GRANTED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, DQOLEY’S OPENED FOR BUSINESS. SEVEN MONTHS LATER, SEVEN MONTHS LATER, WILSON HAD REQUESTED A 15 PERCENT PARKING REDUCTION, BECAUSE HE WAS ANTICIPATING JAZZERCISE OPENING. SO HE ASKED FOR A 15 PERCENT PARKING REDUCTION SO HE, THEREFORE, COULD HAVE MORE PARKING TO SATISFY THE JAZZERCISE CLIENTELE. AND IT WAS GRANTED TO HIM, AND I BELIEVE IN SEPTEMBER 1980, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND I PRESUME A SUBSEQUENT.. .SUBSEQUENTLY BY THE CITY COUNCIL. ?i$% ~%$~T~Z%%BE~%~?%RE PRESENTED t THt Om WHO NEEDS THE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES IF YOU WANT ‘TO OCCUPY YOUR VACANT BUILDING. YOU NEED THE 15 PERCENT REDUCTION TO MAKE YOUR BUILDING WORK, NOT.. . : NO, I DON’T NECESSARILY NEED THE 15 PERCENT I NEED THOSE 18 SPACES WHICH WE BELIEVE WHEN THE bb NT y:: %-titERALLY SIGNED EXECUTEb AND REVIEWED Bl; THE CITY, AS2 YOlJ%.OOK AT THAT DOCUMENT: YOU WILL ilND 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. m/l vuc\ LEdIS. eyu v’, ndz. HULL ! H’ALL : YOU AGREED WITH THE 181 NUMBER, CORRECT? : I DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHETHER WE AGREED OT ALL WE KNOW IS THAT WE WANTED TO OPEN DOOLEY’S, AND WE NEEDED 18 PARKING SPACES, I PRESUME. THEREFORE, WE ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH WILSON. : SO, IF YOU TOOK THE NUMBER THAT WILSON NEEDED, tR WOU NEEDED, WHAT WOULD THAT TOTAL UP TO? : WELL, IF YOU TOOK WHATEVER. . .I DON’T REALLY HOW MANY SPACES HE HAD AT THAT TIME. BECAUSE WE, WE WERE. . HAT AGREEMENT WAS THAT WE WERE GOING TO REMODEL THE PARKING LOT, WE WERE GOING TO RESTRIPE IT. 2 0 I REALLY DON’T KNOW, NOW, AT THAT TIME EXACTLY HOW MANY PARKING SPA ES HE HAD. DID HE. . .WAS HE 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. I=- BIrn, : I THINK WE RELIED ON THEM UP UNTIL ABOUT TWO 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 ACOLLECTION.. $6 /‘ficKr*;6 rP4c;Z ’ * : I UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT’S RIGHT, THAT HAD TO BE . : THAT’S CORRECT, AND IT WAS PRODUCED. BUT IT DID SAY hHtHt IN l#lE DOCUMENT, AND THE DOCUMENT IS THE ONLY LIVING 23 AGENT WE HAVE OF THIS ISSUE. I MEAN, IT IS NOT A FALSE DOCUMENT. lT’S A LIVING DOCUMEN~is +tClQma l.WlS ! F,NLI,CIII . : MR. MURPHY, WHAT YEAR DID YOU ANTICIPATE OPENING : FEBRUARY 17, 1980. mmNCY, AND WE WERE GRANTED A I BELIEVE, THE DAY OR -IWO DAYS BEFORE. AND PRECEDENT TO THAT, THE CITY STAFF, THE ClTY ATTORNEYS, REVIEWED THE VERY DOCUMENT THAT THEY WERE CONDITIONING m CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCYsod. . WE HAVE%hNNi~G COMMISSION NOTES FROM WtiH IS AFTER FEBRUARY OF 1980 OF COURSE AND IT HAS REFERRED TO AU ThREE PARCELS FOR THE 15 PERCEkT REDUCTldN AND WITH THE 2.66 ACRES ON ONE ‘PARCEL, THE .69 ACRES ON ANOTHER PARCEL, AND IT SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED THE .16 ACRE LOT ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MADISON AND GRAND. AND THAT W OUT IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOC ASRPyEClFlCALLY SPELLED . QM.OO..I ME. ln IARPrlY : -W&k I DON7 UNDERSTAND-A’T jitrs @ltir W*Clr tt.cr PRf$~,~d, . fd.LING YOU 7 HmiS I’M NOT ASKING YOU A QUESTION I AM SAYING. . .&%kF WAS IN A WRITTEN DOCUMENT ‘IN 1980, RIGHT AFTER YOU APPLIED FOR YOUR RESTAURANT IN FEBRUARY OF 1960. SO.. . : AND THAT PARKING LOT WAS OUT. IT DOES NOT A~~OUY tLSE. AND THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PARKING LOT AGREEMENT. E-INN ,I-# : WELL.. MLIRPH : I MEAN, WE CAN. . .YOU KNOW. . .IT IS 16 YEARS AGO. i=ltJ,IJ,LA : I REALIZE THAT. THANK YOU. - eta. ) s /q(yn;=‘A’= : OKAY, THANK YOU. MR. MURPHY.‘ALL RIGHT THEN, HE IS I DID CALL HIM BACK. I AM ASSUMING THERE IS NO ONE EISE - ,&s TO AbDRESS THE COUNCIL. (JJnfJ ’ ’ I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. AND JUST*COMMENT$. . .SINCE I AM THE ONLY ONE THAT-REAtkY WAS THERE AT THE COUNCIL.. . AffPR~Ji-Ly~ : THE ONLY ONE. I WAS NOT WITH YOU ON THIS ONE, ,Tw7 (MRS. fwJJP& PJN ,d@) COMMISSION, WHIC THE THOUGHTS TH WORKED VERY HARD * .,. 1 A.,” .& . . : WELL, I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS ONE POINT AND lT STAFF HAD MADE A MISTAKE AND ALL OF A SUDDEN DECIDED THAT AFTER SO MUCH TIME HAD ELAPSED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO REOPEN AN ISSUE. lT WASNT STAFF THAT REOPENED E ISSUE, IT WAS ONE OF THE PARTNERS SAW THAT WHAT THEY THOUGHT W Ad& AGREEMENT WAS BEING VIOLATED. THEY THOUGHT UNDER THEIR EXISTING AGREEMENT THAT THEY HAD THE USE OF ALL THREE LOTS. AND COME TO FIND OUT WHEN. . .THAT THE OTHER PARTNER DID NOT AGREE WITH THAT. SO STAFF HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH BRINGING THE ISSUE TO A HEAD. SINCE. . .AS YOU POINTED OUT, MAYOR, SINCE NONE OF US WERE ON COUNCIL WHEN YOU WERE AND WHEN THIS lSSUE# SURFACQALL WE CAN DO IS GO BACK TO WHAT IS WRITTEN, AND WHAT IS WRI-T-I-EN HAS CONVlNCEq ME IN 1978 EVEN, IN DECEMBER OF 1978, THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED&OINT USE OF 181 SPACES. THAT IS WRITTEN.- ALSO, AS I SAID BEFORE, IN SEPTEMBER OF 1980, THE PLANNING. . .THE STAFF REPORT REFERRED TO AU THREE PARCELS IN THE DISCUSSION. SO, I DON’T SEE WHERE MR. MURPHY. . .I DON’T SEE WHERE HE CAN SAY THAT WE HAVE LEFT HIM yLlS$DVANTAGED AND DEFENSELESS AS HE HAS INDICATED IN HIS LETTER. . -2. L&as ; r--C,. t+ Act j, It i\LC : REALLY, I THINK THAT RAMONA SUMMED IT UP PRETTY MPLt I t IT’S HAHU REALLY TO ANALYZE THIS. I MEAN THERE IS A NEED FOR PARKING Aidb’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. MAY’LIZ L t-t.1 JL.AY. t-C\ k&Lcti ad < : I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT COUNCIL MEMBER MHS DESIGN REVIEW iw SAID AND I CERTAINLY CAN SUPPORT THE mP+-I-.t c.s-*., MC\ uwJ.r.4c3~ Pdb; r-- tuti tL,% : YEAH, I TOO. . .IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR TO ME THAT HCkN C HtL)U~ION 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-l3l31’C4 Al- &,Tj ‘_ ‘ : MAY I HAVE A MOTION, PLEASE? * MR. MAYOR, BEFORE. . .ONE OF THE FIRST QUESTIONS MWHY Am-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’IHA~ 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 ElTHER 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 WHAT PROVISIONS OF THE PRIVATE PARTY AGREEMENT THAT ARE IN PLACE WILL REMA IN PLACE, TO WHAT EFFECT THEY HAVE, IT IS BETWEEN THE PRIVATE PARTIES. f WHAT WE ARE DOING IS REVOKING THE GOVERNMENTAL APPROVAL OF THOSE PRIVATE PARN AGREEMENTS. tflf, 10 25 : OKAY. THEN I WOULD MOVE DENIAL OF THE APPEAL OF FEBRUARY 7,i996, Y As RELATED TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION OF PH~LDING THE REVOCATION 0~ THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF JOINT PARKING AN PERCENT REDUCTION OF COMMON PARKING FACILITIES. : SECOND. : #&%++E, PLEASE? NOTE THAT THE COUNCIL HAS APPROVED THE bRTH BY STAFF THE HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT COMMISS I &DJOURN MILL so S~tm5D ov mRj. N)‘GAA’-. 11 CERTIFICATION I, Aletha L. Rautenkranq City Clerk of the City of Carlsbad, do hereby certfi 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: && I Il. rqT1p City Clerk 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad. California 92008-1989 * (619) 434-2808 @ 27 - EXHW 6 6% K City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Application Complete Date: Not Applicable Environmental Review: Not Apdicable Staff: Debbie Fountain DATE: September 28, 1998 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PARKING AGREEMENT - OLD WORLD CENTER - Consider a request for a parking agreement requiring applicant to pay a fee for use of public parking spaces to satisfy outstanding parking obligation for restaurant space within the project known as Old World Center located on property at 630 Grand Avenue in the Village Redevelopment Zone/Land Use District 1. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Design Review Board APPROVE Design Review Board Resolution No. 262 recommending DENIAL of property owner request for a parking agreement with the City of Carlsbad/Redevelopment Agency to satisfy the additional parking obligation of 11 spaces for restaurant space within Old World Center. II. BACKGROUND On December 13, 1978, the Planning Commission approved a request from the Murphy Family, developers of the then proposed Old World Retail Center, to allow a joint use parking facility with the adjoining Wilson Retail (Roosevelt) Center. The request was made under Section 21.44.050(a)(4) (then Section 21.4.160) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code in order to allow the Old World Center project to be built. By itself the Old World Center project did not meet the minimum parking requirements particularly because a restaurant use was being requested as part of the project. The existing Wilson Retail Center (now known as Jazzercise Center) had a surplus of parking and was willing to enter into an agreement to share their parking with the proposed Old World Center. The conditions of approval required a minimum joint use parking facility of 181 spaces which included a smaller proposed parking lot located on the northeast corner of Madison and Grand, which was to be owned and maintained by the Murphy family. 28 I . Old World Center - DRB September 28, 1998 Page 2 On September 24, 1980, the Planning Commission approved a request from Mr. Wilson to change one of the uses in his existing center from a furniture store to the Jazzercise Center which required more parking. Because this would increase the required parking for the joint use facility above the 181 spaces previously required, the approval allowed for a 15% reduction per Section 21.44.050(5) (previously Section 21.44.160(5)) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Again, this approval was conditioned on providing at least a minimum of 181 parking spaces within the parking lots provided by both Centers. In 1996, the Design Review Board considered a recommendation by staff to revoke the previous approval of the Joint Use Parking and 15% parking reduction for common parking facilities for the two commercial centers because a determination was made that the Murphy Family was not complying with the terms of the agreement. The City was made aware of the default by the new owners of the Wilson/Roosevelt Center. The smaller parking lot at the northeast corner of Madison and Grand was not being made available for joint parking. The Murphy Family had installed signs reserving the parking for Old World Center patrons and employees only. The signs threatened that vehicles owned by employees or customers of the Roosevelt Center would be towed. The City agreed with the owners of Wilson/Roosevelt Center that the Murphy Family was violating the previously approved joint use agreement and initiated the process to revoke the prior approval after a few years and numerous attempts to gain compliance. On February 7, 1996, the Design Review Board considered the revocation of approval previously given by the Planning Commission to allow the joint use parking and 15% parking reduction. The Design Review Board took action to revoke the previous approval. Revocation of the previous parking approvals resulted in a requirement for the two subject commercial centers to individually comply with City parking requirements for uses existing or proposed in the centers in the future. Mr. Michael Murphy filed an appeal of the Design Review Board’s decision, The appeal was subsequently denied by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission; the decision of the Board was upheld by the Commission. Since the date of revocation of the parking approvals, Old World Center has met its parking requirement because the existing restaurant space has been vacant. However, the owner of Old World Center now has a tenant interested in opening a 4200 square foot restaurant within the Center. Due to the action to revoke the previously reduced parking and joint use approvals, the owner of Old World Center is not able to lease the entire 4200 square feet of restaurant space until additional parking can be provided. This is the reason Mr. Michael Murphy is now requesting approval of an agreement with the Redevelopment Agency which will allow him to pay a monthly fee to provide for public parking which will be used to satisfy the additional parking obligation for Old . Old World Center - DRB September 28, 1998 Page 3 World Center to allow for full use of the existing restaurant space. A more detailed parking analysis is provided below. Ill. PARKING ANALYSIS Old World Center currently has a total of 58 off-street parking spaces which are provided on two lots owned by Mr. Michael Murphy and the Murphy Family Trust. These two lots are identified as parcel numbers 203-301-05 and 203-302-01. Please see site plan provided as an exhibit to this report. The total off-street parking requirement for the Old World Center is 69 parking spaces which allows for 9,463 square feet of office or retail and 4200 square feet of restaurant space. As noted above, the Center currently provides for only 58 off-street parking spaces. Therefore, the Center has an eleven (11) space parking shortage. Due to this shortage in parking, the Old World Center would be allowed to lease a maximum of 3100 square feet of restaurant space. The remaining 1100 square feet of restaurant space would be required to remain vacant and inaccessible until additional parking is provided and approved by the Redevelopment Agency. Staff has indicated to the Murphy Family that a restaurant will be allowed to occupy the existing space as soon as tenant improvements are completed to ensure that 1100 square feet of floor space within the existing restaurant is made “not usable”, which means that walls (no doors) must be constructed that prevent use of, and access to, the subject space. In addition to the required tenant improvements, the property owner must enter into, and record, an agreement which accordingly restricts the use of the property. The property owner, Michael Murphy, does not wish to limit the amount of restaurant space to 3100 square feet within Old World Center. He would like to be able to lease the entire 4200 square feet to a rest&rant owner who has recently expressed an interest in the space. However, to lease the space, the property owner must provide a solution to the parking issue. The proposed solution is described below. IV. PARKING AGREEMENT Mr. Michael Murphy has submitted a request (see attached letter) which indicates that he would like to satisfy his additional parking obligation of eleven (11) spaces by entering into an agreement with the City of Carlsbad/Redevelopment Agency which would allow him to make a monthly payment towards maintaining existing public parking spaces in the lot located on Roosevelt Street, south of Old World Center and within 600 feet of the property. Old World Center - DRB September 28, 1998 Page 4 While the proposed type of agreement has been previously used to satisfy parking requirements for two other restaurants within the Village Redevelopment Area, the last agreement for the Carlsbad Brewery, now known as Pizza Port, was approved with specific instructions from the Commission to cease this practice until action could be taken on the development and implementation of a Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. Staff is currently completing the development phase of the subject program and intends to present the new Program to the City Council for action within the next few months. If the new Parking /n-Lieu Fee Program is ultimately approved by the City Council/Housing and Redevelopment Commission, the property owner at Old World Center would be eligible to pay a one-time fee to the Agency to satisfy the obligation for the 11 additional parking spaces required for the restaurant. Staff is currently in the process of developing a recommendation on the one-time fee amount. Since staff has nearly completed the program description and related fee recommendations for the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program, staff is not recommending approval of the request submitted by Mr. Murphy. It is staffs recommendation that action on Mr. Murphy’s request be denied until the City Council, acting as the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, has had the opportunity to review the new In Lieu Fee Program and take action on it. As currently proposed, the new Parking In-Lieu Fee Program will require that payment of a one-time fee be made to the Agency for the provision of public parking, prior to release of building permits and/or business licenses for the related business establishment. This will ensure that the Agency receives the entire fee before a restaurant (or other business establishment) begins operation within an existing or new building. The type of agreement proposed by Mr. Murphy allows for a monthly fee to be paid for the provision of public parking afierthe restaurant has begun operation. Once the restaurant is in operation, the Agency loses its leverage to obtain the required parking payments. If the monthly parking payments are not made, the Agency must declare the property and/or business owner in default of the agreement and take action to cease operations of the restaurant/business establishment, This is a much less desirable position for the City. With the tenant improvements noted previously and execution/recordation of the agreement to restrict the use of the property, Mr. Murphy would be permitted to lease a maximum of 3100 square feet within the existing restaurant space at this time. Once the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program is made effective by the Commission, Mr. Murphy could then apply to participate in the program to satisfy the remaining parking obligation. If approved for participation, he would be allowed to lease the remaining 1100 square feet of restaurant space within Old World Center at that time. Old World Center - DRB September 28, 1998 Page 5 V. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS Neither the Carlsbad Municipal Code nor the Village Master Plan and Design Manual allow the type of parking agreement requested by Mr. Murphy. Therefore, they require Housing and Redevelopment Commission approval as an alternative to providing on- site parking, which is in effect a type of variance. Although these type of agreements have been used previously in very limited circumstances, they are not the preferred solution to parking shortage issues due to the difficulty in enforcement. Staff is currently working on a parking program which would allow property or business owners to pay an in-lieu fee to meet a portion of an on-site parking requirement. As proposed, this new program would allow the applicant to pay a full fee at the front end of a project, rather than over time., The applicant’s request is submitted at this time for a recommendation from the Design Review Board. The Board recommendation will be presented to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission for final action. The Design Review Board is asked to hold a public hearing on the request presented by Mr. Murphy, consider the public testimony and staffs recommendation on the request, discuss the request and then take action to recommend approval or denial of the request. At this time, staff is recommending denial of the request for a parking agreement with the Redevelopment Agency. Therefore, if the Design Review Board decides to recommend approval of the agreement, the application will need to be returned to staff for environmental review and preparation of the appropriate approving documents. If the Board decides to recommend denial of the request as recommended by staff, approval of Design Review Board Resolution No. 262 appropriately documents the action. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Because staff is recommending denial of the subject request for a parking agreement, there has been no environmental review completed for the project. If the Design Review Board would like to recommend approval of the request, the project will need to be returned to staff for completion of the appropriate environmental review and related approving resolution, VII. CONCLUSION Staff is recommending denial of the subject request for the following reasons: 1) there is currently no legal authority to grant approval of the agreement within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual or City Ordinances; 2) a Parking In-Lieu Old World Center - DRB September 28, 1998 Page 6 Fee Program is currently under development and is preferred to a monthly fee agreement for use of public parking spaces; 3) these type of agreements are problematical, especially in cases where the monthly payment is not made; 4) the applicant failed to comply with his previous approvals for a parking alternative. Enforcement of these type of agreements become quite difficult once the restaurant is in operation. Staff would prefer to enter into an agreement once the Parking In-Lieu fee Program is established and requires payment of a fee before a restaurant (or other business establishment) begins its operations. EXHIBITS: 1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 262. 2. Location Map/Site Plan. 3. Correspondence received August 4, 1998 from Mr. Michael Murphy, Old World Center. 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, Michael Murphy “Applicant” has filed a request with the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Applicant, known as Old World Center and described as Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14, 15 and 16 in Block 37, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Seaside Lands Map No. 1722 on file in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County; and II Lot Seaside Lands Map No. 1722 on file in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego (“the property); and approval of a joint use parking facility agreement with the adjoining Wilson Retail (Roosevelt) Center and a 15% reduction in the parking requirement to allow the addition of a 4200 square foot restaurant within the Old World Retail Center; and previous approval to allow ‘the joint use parking and 15% parking reduction due to the fact that the applicant was not complying with the conditions of the previous approval; and . . . . . . . . . . . . DESIGNREVIEWBOARDRESOLUTIONNO. 262 ARESOLUTIONOFTHEDESIGNREVIEWBOARDOFTHECITYOF CARLSBAD,CALIFORNIA~C~I\/IME~INGDENIALOFA REQUESTTOALLOWTHEPROPERTYOVVNEROFOLDVVORLD CENTERTOPAYAMONTHLYFEEFORTHEPROVISIONOF PUBLICPARKINGTOSATIsFYAPARKINGOBLIGATIONOF11 PARKINGSPACESFORTHEEXISTINGRESTAURANTSPACEAT OLDWORLDCENTERLoCATEDAT630GRANDA~NUEINLAND USEDISTRICTlOFTHE.VILLAGEREDEVELOPMENTAREA. CASENAME:OLDWORLDCENTERPARKING APN:203-301-05 AND203-302-01 in Block 50, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the WHEREAS, on September 24, 1980, the applicant originally received WHEREAS, on February 7, 1996, the Design Review Board revoked the 1 z 2 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DRB Resolution No. 262 Page 2 .I parking which WHEXEAS, the applicant has a need to provide additiona amounts to eleven (11) parking spaces total to allow for full use of the exi: restaurant space; and sting 4200 square foot WHEREAS, said request is in response to the need by the Applicant to meet the subject parking obligation of eleven (11) spaces; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did, on the 28th day of September, 1998, hoid a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to said request for a parking agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review Board RECOMMENDS DENIAL of the request for an agreement with the City of Carlsbad/Redevelopment Agency to allow for the Applicant to pay a monthly fee for the provision of 11 public parking spaces to satisfy the off-street parking obligation for restaurant space within the Old WorId Center building located at 630 Grand Avenue. FINDINGS: 1. The Design Review Board finds that the parking agreement proposed by the Applicant is not an acceptable solution at this time to address the parking shortage for Old World Center due to pending actions to implement a new Parking In-Lieu Fee Program for the Village Redevelopment Area. 2. The Design Review Board finds that there are not adequate assurances at this time that the applicant would remain in compliance with the proposed parking agreement in the long term. . . 1 2 I 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 DRB Resolution No. 262 Page 3 3. The Design Review Board finds that the Applicant has already received approval to lease nearly seventy-five percent (3 100 square feet) of the existing restaurant space within Old World Center without the need for the proposed parking agreement and will not suffer undue hardship as a result of this denial of the request for a parking agreement. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 28th day of September, 1998 by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chairperson Design Review Board ATTEST: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN, Housing and Redevelopment Director : . . . . i : . . . * . 1 . - : ,’ ‘- . . . ’ . . . - * i , . ‘. . : . . . . . ,* ,. . . . i . * : I 1 . . . * : . . : . . . .+, . * * . . . * . . ‘. : .’ *’ -- - wA~s~XHIBIT 2 sTPECl’- s?&ll A - “ma-*J sp3 - nrwtu spco I Sdcn B 1.J hf: b Is tee +th: S ~II,tiu*rrr~anhvt, , ‘C~Spxn s.aian c 1.1 ?.id*b-j I1 M I -Rwb SPrn St&m D ’ 5 l ‘de by Ia f.-a rich 2.J fi hnls~l.: ahng ----J .C~S,, SCrliCn 9 1.J rfdc b I J Rn 4 trrtior F ‘SWrbl16frr( hh?.JRIanis;ryce.~rk~c,, 13 i * ccmrw :*Y¶ Smivfl It 1.1 -id*+ II fm 6 . Rqda SpYen Smlm 7 1.1 -+kS ta &I rtlb :.I n Itimlur.clrrhrng .- 1 . ncph spm 6.1 6dc by :a rm 6 TOTAL PARKING SP,\CES !G . ..-...-.- arfOFcA.NJOhO ba.¶CO ~!afmaxPwD-~ k! k--“” cL4M.a [ s=ul m. ,- ----A ---.___ i?Amm!L uwr/ SITE. Fuw OLD ;‘?muD CZ~\~~ 630 Gl-dd ~47~. C;lrtsbxl CA PiW3 7cLGt4s51 ?.Gxed Ulo -F&c 3pac.a - R@E & zbdd Cti~al ~lJXcr!J~l:r:~~~~JF~nd 1977 P9h~C4ila-AICiqCc& 1967 -8A- Ms. Debbie Fountain Housing and Redevelopment Director City of Carlsbad 2965 Roosevelt Street. Suite B Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Old World Center Dear Ms. Fountain The City of Carlsbad has currently precluded the Old World Center from leasing approximately 1,100 square feet of restaurant space located at 640 Grand Avenue, Suite A. The basis for this denial is an alleged shortage of parking totaling eleven (11) spaces. I wish to remove this restriction from my property and lease the remaining 1,100 square feet. Pizza Port had a similar parking issue which was aatisified by an agreement with the City of Carlabad. I would sincerely appreciate' the City of Carlsbad considering the Old World Center for the same arrangement. Your expeditious response to this request is appreciated. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD September 28,1998 Minutes of: Time of Meeting: Date of Meeting: Place of Meeting: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 6:00 P.M. September 28,1998 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS - EXHIBIT 7 Page 1 DRAFT CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Compas called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Board Member Savary. ROLL CALL: Present: Acting Chairperson Compas, Members Savary, Marquez, Forsyth, and Marois Absent: None Staff Present: Debbie Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Director Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney Lori Rosenstein, Management Analyst APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Motion by Acting Chairperson Compas, and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of the meeting of February 23,1998, as presented. 3-O-2 Compas, Savary, and Marquez None Forsyth and Marois COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA: There were no comments from the audience. NEW BUSINESS: 1. REQUEST FOR PARKING AGREEMENT - OLD WORLD CENTER - To consider a request for a parking agreement requiring applicant to pay a fee for use of public parking spaces to satisfy outstanding parking obligation for restaurant space within the project known as Old World Center located on property at 630 Grand Avenue, in the Village Redevelopment Zone/Land Use District 1. Housing and Redevelopment Director, Debbie Fountain, presented a brief history of the project and summarized the project as follows: This is a request for a parking agreement, for the Old World Center, located on Grand Avenue bebeen Roosevelt Street and Madison Street. On 12/l 3/7 8, the Planning Commission originally approved a request from the Murphy family, for a joint use parking facility permit with the Roosevelt Center. The joint use permit was approved, then, because there was no Redevelopment Area at that time. In September of 1980, the Planning Commission approved another action which allowed a 15% reduction in parking, for the Old World Center and the Jazzercize Center. Dooley McClusky’s Restaurant was located in the Old World Center for a number of years, until 1996. Unfortunately, in 1996 there was action that had to be taken that revoked the prior parking approvals and eliminated the lS”h reduction and the joint use facility because of some non-compliance with the original agreement. As a result of that action, the Old World Center is currently not able to lease out the entire 4,200 square feet of DESIGN REVIEW BOARD September 28,1998 Page 2 restaurant space left vacant by Dooley McClusky’s. Subsequently, the center has been able to meet their parking requirement because the restaurant space has remained vacant. However, they now have a tenant that wishes to open a restaurant in the old restaurant space and they are currently trying to figure out how to meet the parking requirement. In order to use the entire 4,200 square feet of restaurant space, they must provide an additional 11 parking spaces. The currently have 58 spaces that are acceptable to the City, and would allow the restaurant to occupy 3,100 square feet of the 4,200 square foot space. In order to expand their occupancy to the full 4,200 square feet, they will have to provide those 11 extra spaces by either building them somewhere in close proximity to the facility or perhaps lease those spaces from another private property owner. In any case, they will have to take some type of action to acquire the extra parking spaces. Housing and Redevelopment has suggested that the new tenant can open their restaurant in 3,100 square feet (of the total 4,200) and keep the remaining 1,100 square feet completely vacant and totally inaccessible. They may not even use it for storage and they will be required to put up partitions to completely close off that space, until they can provide the required additional parking. Staff has recommended that the restaurant open with 3,100 square feet of space and the existing 58 parking spaces, until the new parking “in-lieu fee program” is in place. The City hopes to have that program approved and in effect by the end of 1998. With the “in-lieu fee program” in place, a property owner that is having difficulty providing the required on-site parking would be eligible to pay a one-time fee, paid before their business license is issued, to ensure that the Cii has the money to eventually invest in the construction and operation of public parking structures or to maintain the-public parking now in existence. In this case, the owner of the Old World Center is choosing not to wait for the in-lieu program and instead is requesting to enter into a parking agreement, similar to that of the Piia Port, whereby they would be allowed to lease spaces in a public parking lot. However, staff does not recommend that such an agreement be entered into because; 1) the parking “in-lieu fee program”, with it’s one- time fee, is close to fruition and would eliminate enforcement issues and lease payment collections by the City; and, 2) there has been an enforcement problem with the prior parking agreement connected with this property, and staff does not feel thii is an appropriate solution to the problem, especially since they already have a way to use a major portion of the existing restaurant space. Staff is recommending denial of the request for a parking agreement and the documents are set up to recommend denial to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. However, if the Design Review Board chooses to recommend approval of this request, staff would have to do the Environmental Review before bringing the project before the Housing and Redevelopment Commission with a recommendation for approval. Because this is not a specific permit, and the Master Plan does not specifically allow this type of agreement, staff believes that this is an action that has to have final approval or denial by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. Regardless of whether the Design Review Board chooses to deny or approve, this item will move forward to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. Also, the applicant will not be required to appeal and decision, either way, as the item will move forward, automatically. Board Member Marquez asked if there is any way to anticipate the introduction of the parking “in-lieu fee” program. Ms. Fountain replied that there is no specific date set, as yet, but staff is still researching the proposal in an effort to determine the fee amount and putting together all of the other details of the program. She further stated that it is hoped that, by the end of 1998, staff will have a recommendation for the City Council so they will be in a position to take action on the program around the first of 1999. Acting Chairperson Compas asked what the estimated probability is that the program will be implemented shortly after the first of the year. Ms. Fountain replied that because there are so many people working on this item, it has been very difficult to coordinate and to schedule meetings that everyone is available to attend. However, there is going to be a staff meeting on November 5,1998, to finish the details of the program and coordinate a recommendation. She added that if everything goes well at that meeting, they should be in a position to present their recommendation to Council by the end of the year. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD September 28,1998 Page 3 Acting Chairperson Compas asked how long it would take to prepare an EIR, in the event that this Board voted to approve the applicant’s request to lease spaces on a public parking lot. Ms. Fountain replied that the EIR could possibly be ready to bring back to the board by the end of October. Clarence Schlehuber, Attorney for the applicant, 2720 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, presented some examples of shared or mixed use parking facilities approved within the past four years. He stated that there is a big advantage, to the applicant, to get the approval to lease public parking spaces, in that there is no specific date for the implementation of the parking “in-lieu fee program”. They have a restauranteur, ready to open the restaurant in the entire 4,200 square feet, and they see the project as a win-win situation both for the applicant and the City. Mr. Schlehuber stated that they are only asking for what other businesses have already received, and that is fairness. He pointed out that Piia Port leases public parking spaces and appears to have the following three options: 1) to continue to lease the public parking spaces and not get into the “in-lieu” program; 2) to stop the lease and pay into the “in-lieu” program, once it is implemented; or, 3) obtain their own property for parking, thereby not participating in a lease or the ‘in-lieu” program. Mr. Schlehuber pointed out that he has not been able to find any indication that the Council has given directions not to enter into any more public parking leases or that they will not approve the applicants request for such a lease. Additionally, Mr. Schlehuber stated that the Council has never made any kind of an announcement that after a specified date, there will be no more leases for public parking approved. Also, he stated that there are no assurances as to when the “in-lieu” program will be implemented. Mr. Schlehuber indicated that this is an fairness issue and the applicant should have the same consideration as those businesses mentioned in the examples given earlier. Mr. Schlehuber stated that there are answers to the enforcement issue, such as a bond, letters of credit, statements that can be designed to ensure attorney’s fees, and other methods of enforcement. Mr. Schlehuber concluded by urging the board to approve the applicants request to lease public parking spaces. Board Member Forsyth stated that it is his understanding that there has been a prior joint use agreement, in connection with the Old World Center, and asked why that agreement has been allowed to terminate. Mr. Schlehuber replied that there was a prior joint agreement and because there were ambiguities, in that people had differences as to what several meanings meant. It was a civil matter and no one pursued the issue. He also pointed out that when the Dooley McClusky’s Restaurant left, Mr. Murphy had no interest in keeping the joint agreement in tact, and let it go. Board Member Savary asked if the new restaurant is also going to be named Dooley McClusky’s. Mr. Schlehuber replied that it will not carry the McClusky’s name but will be called Giblin’s Irish Pub. Acting Chairperson Compas asked if the applicant is willing to pay a monthly fee if he is given the same consideration as those businesses referred to in Mr. Schlehuber’s examples. Mr. Schlehuber replied that the applicant is most certainly prepared to pay a monthly fee. Acting Chairperson Compas stated that, according to the newspaper, the new restaurant owner is already building the partitions to seal off 1 ,100 square feet of the available space, in order to meet the parking requirement, and asked Mr. Schlehuber if the newspaper report was correct. Mr. Schlehuber replied that the report was correct and stated that the City has approved their business license application for the 3,200 square feet and has required that the partitions be in place before the restaurant can be opened. He went on the say that the City has stated that when the “in-lieu” program is in place, then the applicant can buy into the program. However, Mr. Schlehuber pointed out, the other businesses that are now leasing their parking spaces will have the right to continue leasing (if they consider the fee to be too high) or to buy property for parking. He went on to point out that the same is not true for this project because without the same agreement as the others, hi client will be forced to pay the ‘in-lieu” fee, regardless of the amount. Also, he pointed out that once DESIGN REVIEW BOARD September 28,1998 Page 4 the fee is paid, he doubts the Cii will refund all or any part of the fee if the applicant obtains private property for the Old World Center parking. Mr. Schlehuber also stated that if the fee is much higher than the monthly lease payment, then it would be to the advantage of the applicant to continue the lease. Member Forsyth asked if all of the existing parking, for the Old World Center, is now in use and how the loss of 25% of the 4,200 square feet will affect the profitability of the tenant. Mr. Schlehuber replied that all the of the available parking is in use. Regarding the loss of the 25% of the restaurant space, the tenant is willing to go into the center, on the premise that the problem will be solved and they will be able to open up the additional 1,100 square feet within a short period of time. He added that if the tenant is never allowed to use that 1,100 square feet, the project is likely to fail. Member Maquez asked how many tables could be placed in the 1 ,100 square feet of the currently unusable space. After consulting with the applicant, Mr. Schlehuber stated the neither he not the applicant have the information needed to answer Member Marquez’s question. Acting Chairperson Compas opened Public Testimony and extended the invitation to speak. John Yelland, Manager Partner of the Roosevelt Center, located across the parking lot from the Old World Center, stated that the reason that the joint-use parking agreement is no longer in existence is quite simple; 1) the agreement required the Murphys to pay their proportionate share of the landscape costs which they refused to pay; 2) the Murphys were having Roosevett Center customers’ cars towed away, leaving the Roosevelt Center no option other than to pursue the issue resulting in excess of $30,000 in legal fees; and, 3) there were many infractions by the Murphys, one of which was the exclusion (in the document phase of the original City approval) of the corner parking lot that was part of the original approval for the joint use parking agreement. Mr. Yelland also stated that the Murphys are very uncooperative neighbors. He went on to point out that Roosevelt Center is impacted by the total separation of the comer parking lot and the fact that the two driveways onto the lot are not very visible, causing patrons to park in any available space closer to the Old World Center. Also, the fact that the main 150 space parking lot is easily accessible, people tend to park there most frequently. Mr. Yelland further stated that with the new restaurant going it, hi center will have no other option other than to put in a guard gate, with a security guard, and charge a fee for parking. Mr. Yelland also pointed out that the parking on Old World Center property is inadequate and unsatisfactory and will not be utilized because of the way the lot is configured. Consequently, he pointed out, the Roosevelt Center lot will be the recipient of most of the cars belonging to the new restaurant’s customers and will cost the center a lot of money to remedy the problem. In response to a question from Acting Chairperson Compas, Mr. Yelland replied that he is very much against a lease agreement for parking and that they should never be allowed to use the 1 ,100 square foot space that is now being required to be left vacant and inaccessible. He added that no matter how the Old World Center satisfies the parking requirement, whether it is the “in-lieu” program or they buy and develop property for a parking lot, people will still park in the Roosevelt Center lot because it is the most convenient. Mr. Yelland stated that the cost of installing a gate will run between $30,000 and $40,000 dollars in addition to the cost of hiring guards, just so the parking spaces will be available for the tenants and customer of the Roosevelt Center. Acting Chairperson Compas asked Mr. Yelland if the office of Housing and Redevelopment is aware of this latest problem and Mr. Yelland replied that many letters have been written and many discussions held, for the past fifteen years, but he has told Housing and Redevelopment that a gate and security guard will be a necessity. Mr. Schlehuber stated that the conflict between the Old World Center and the Roosevelt Center came as a result of the off-site parking lot on the corner of Madison Street and Grand Avenue. He further stated that when Mr. Murphy was advised by counsel that the comer parking lot was not a part of the joint-use agreement, he went to the Cii Council and stated that he wished to back out of the joint-use agreement because he wanted the corner parking lot for his own use. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD September 28,1998 Page 5 Mr. Schlehuber stated that they understand that many customers from all of the surrounding businesses use Mr. Yelland’s parking lot, but that is not the issue. The issue is equity between this applicant and the other businesses in the city and the fact that there is no official cut-off date for leased parking agreement approvals. Member Forsyth stated that he went by the above referenced corner parking lot (which has been chained oft) and asked if it is currently in use. Mr. Schlehuber replied that it is not currently in use because it is not needed for the current uses of the Old World Center. However, that lot is being slightly redesigned and once the new restaurant is opened, that lot will be re- opened. Member Forsyth asked if he is correct in hi assessment that Old World Center wantsthe same opportunity to lease parking, on a month-to-month basis, as has been given to other businesses in the Cii. Mr. Schlehuber replied affirmatively and repeated his original request for equity. Member Forsyth asked who is responsible for guaranteeing that the lease payments will be made to the City. Mr. Schlehuber replied that it is obvious that it is the Center’s owner who will have that responsibility and that he certainly is not going to fail to,make the payments which would result in his center being closed. Alternatively, if he did miss payments, the City could take Mr. Murphy to Small Claims Court and/or file a judgement lien against his property or the City could require a bond. Acting Chairperson Compas asked if the applicant would actually be willing to enter into a bond to secure the lease payments, if this Board and the Cii Council were to take your position. Mr. Schlehuber replied that his client would be willing to work out and enter into a small bond or some other arrangement such as a letter of credit. Member Savary asked if he means to secure the monthly payment until the “in-lieu” program is implemented. Mr. Schlehuber replied that they want the option and flexibility to have a lease agreement continue if they are not satisfied that it is in their best interest to enter into the ‘in-lieu” program. Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Acting Chairperson Compas closed Public Testimony. For clarification, Ms. Fountain stated as follows: lt is true that Fish House Vera Cruz and Pizza Port do have the type of agreement that Mr. Schlehuber described. However, the Schilling project does not have that type of agreement. One of the conditions of approval is that they must participate in the ‘in-lieu” fee program and cannot build their project until the program is in place. Schilling was not give the opportunity to enter into a lease agreement for parking. As for the Fish House Vera Cruz and Pizza Port, those two projects were approved prior to the City finalizing the Master Plan document, where a policy decision was made that lease agreements for parking is not what the City wants in its future and that the “in-lieu” program will be required. The “in-lieu” program will give the City the fee money, up front, giving them the ability to plan for what needs to be built in the future. Although Mr. Schlehuber is correct about two of the above mentioned projects, the applicant’s request is not something that staff is recommending. That does not mean that the Design Review Board cannot make a recommendation to pursue the issue. Staff believes that the Master Plan document has given a number of options that allow some flexibility in meeting the parking requirement. Before the Master Plan document, there were no options other than providing the parking on-site. The City tried to get somewhat creative with Fish House Vera Cruz and Pizza Port, in order to get those projects going, because that was long before the City tried to work through the issue of how to deal with the parking. Now there are other options; 1) they can pursue leases with other private property owners; 2) they can build the parking at another off-site location within 600 feet of their site; or, 3) they can enter into the “in-lieu” fee program. Regarding Mr. Yelland’s comments regarding outside customers using his parking lot, that is an on-going problem DESIGN REVIEW BOARD September 28,1998 Page 6 almost everywhere in the downtown area. lt is symptomatic of problems throughout small downtown areas because most people are not willing to park in a public parking lot even a short distance away from their destination and they, therefore use any parking facilitythat is nearby. The City has conducted counts on the public parking lots and have found that none of them are used more than 50% of their capacity. Public parking is available if people will only choose to use them. The Cii is trying to wme up with a marketing program to let people know that it is o.k. to park in public parking lots and encourage people to walk around the village by letting them know it is safe to do so. The implementation of such a marketing program will certainly help with some of the issues that Mr. Yelland and other property owners are facing. The Cii realizes that there is not enough parking in the downtown area and that is because it is an older area. The intent of the “in-lieu” fee program is to help to alleviate some of the parking problems and allow property owners to make full use of their properties. Member Savary asked if the Car&ad Municipal Code have a plan whereby the City can accommodate and collect the monthly rental payments for parking. Assistant City Attorney, Rich Rudolf, stated that he is unaware of such a plan. He further stated that this situation is peculiar to the redevelopment area and is covered by the Master Plan and wouldn’t be covered by the Code unless the Master Plan incorporated the Code by reference. Mr. Rudolf also stated that he could not think of any provision in the parking ordinance that would provide for the collection of monthly payments. Wti regard to Mr. Schlehuber’s statement that the City is not being fair, Acting Chairperson Compas asked if the Board would be acting fairly if they denied recommendation of this request. Ms. Fountain replied that the issue of fairness comes up quite often and stated that the two businesses that have lease agreements are constantly trying to find ways out of the agreement and to find other options in order to solve their parking requirement because, in the long run, it is considerably more expensive (over time) than the “in-lieu” program will be. Acting Chairperson Compas asked ifthose people were allowed that option and Ms. Fountain stated that they were given that option at a time when there were no other options. The groundwork has been laid for other options but the details still must be worked out. Ms. Fountain stated that she understands that Old World Center feels that they should be allowed to have a lease agreement but that her concern is that they still want an arrangement that they get to choose whether or not they participate in the ongoing monthly fee or in the “in-lieu” program. The Cii does not want any more of the monthly parking agreements and at some point has to say that monthly lease agreements must stop. Once the ‘in-lieu” fee program is activated, there will be no more monthly payment agreements. Acting Chairperson Compas pointed out that the applicant believes they have beat the deadline for the end of monthly payment agreements. Ms. Fountain responded by stating that there is actually no deadline but, in her opinion, when the Master Plan was approved, that is when the policy decision was made that there would no longer be any monthly lease agreements approved and that the preferred policy route is the “in-lieu” program. Mr. Rudolf stated that it is also fair to point out that the Master Plan Design Manual does incorporate the other provisions that are in the Municipal Code with regard to other alternatives; that is, shared parking and joint parking agreements, such as was in place in thii precise circumstance and the applicant chose to terminate that agreement. He further stated that that is a point that should be taken into consideration when looking at the overall fairness of the situation. That was one of the options and it was in place. Acting Chairperson Compas asked if the question of fairness really applies in this instance, because of the Master Plan Design Manual. In her opinion, Ms. Fountain stated that she does not think there is a fairness issue because it is still reasonable that the applicant can still lease the major portion of their restaurant space. It would be very unfair to say that they DESIGN REVIEW BOARD September 28,1998 Page 7 cannot lease any of that space because they are 11 parking spaces short of the requirement. The Cii has reasonably accommodated them by allowing them to block off the 1 ,100 square foot portion of the space, which is a very uncommon practice, thereby giving them a phasing approach that maintains the fairness and an accommodation that was not available to the other two restaurants. Member Marois asked Ms. Fountain to clarify the reason for the Schilling property not being allowed to enter into a monthly lease agreement. Ms. Fountain replied that there is not a public parking lot close to their property (Fish House Vera Cruz and Pizza Port each have one very close by) and since they were going to be 4 or 5 space short of the requirement, the requirement for participation in the ‘in-lieu” program was made a condition of approval. Member Marois asked Ms. Fountain if the Schilling project is currently paying a monthly parking fee. Ms. Fountain replied that the project is not yet constructed. Even if the project had been completed, before they could obtain a Certificate of Occupancy, they would have to pay the parking “in-lieu” fee. As mentioned earlier, payment of the “in-lieu” fee is a condition of approval for the Schilling project. Acting Chairperson Compas asked Ms. Fountain to state her position on the possibility of allowing Old World Center to proceed with a monthly fee agreement with the requirement that they must participate in the “in-lieu” program, once it is in place. Mr. Fountain replied that she would instruct staff to recommend against any monthly fee agreement. Member Forsyth asked what the hours of operation will be for the restaurant. Mr. Schlehuber stated that those hours will be from 1l:OO a.m. to 12:00 Midnight. Member Marquez stated two years ago, thii Board informed the applicant that he could no longer lease out the restaurant space in the Center. The applicant was not in conformance with the conditions placed on his operation and was well aware of the consequences of failing to keep the joint-use parking agreement with the Roosevelt Center. Ms. Marquez also stated that the public parking lot, on the corner of Roosevelt and Carlsbad Village Drive is probably too far away and people will probably not patronize the new restaurant as a result. She suggested that the applicant make an attempt to make amends with the Roosevelt Center and re-enter a joint-use agreement. Ms. Marquez pointed out that it was by the joint-use parking agreement with the Roosevelt Center that his entire project was allowed to be constructed. Additionally, she continued, the line must be drawn somewhere, requiring the enforcement of the parking “in-lieu” fee and the elimination of all monthly parking fee agreements. Therefore, Member Marquez stated that she agrees with staff and will support staffs recommendation to deny the request of the applicant. Member Savary agreed with Member Marquez and added that she would like to see a certified parking plan. Member Forsyth stated that he feels that even if the restaurant opens in the limited space of 3,100 square feet, parking will still be a challenge. He pointed out that the opening of the Pub will bring many people back to the area creating even more parking problems. However, he stated that he will support staffs recommendation to deny the request. Member Marois stated that she is inclined to allow the applicant to have a monthly rental agreement (with a securii bond) until such time as the “in-lieu” program is in place, at which time the monthly payment program should cease and the applicant be required to participate in the program. Acting Chairperson Compas stated that his is in agreement with Member Marois. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD September 28,1998 Page 8 MAIN MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Member Marquez, and duly seconded, to adopt Design .Review Board Resolution No. 262, recommending denial of property owner’s request for a, parking agreement with the City of Carlsbad/Redevelopment Agency to satisfy the additional parking obligation of 11 spaces for restaurant space within Old World Center. AMENDMENT TO MAIN MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Member Marois, and duly seconded, to amend the main motion, to partially deny the recommendation of staff and recommend approval of a short term agreement, with the possibilii of bond or other security requirement and that the agreement must terminate upon the enactment of the fee and the coming to life of the parking “in-lieu” fee program. Member Marquez, for clarification, asked if this motion intends to allow the applicant to remove the partitions and open up the additional 1,100 square feet and satisfy the additional 11 space parking requirement through a monthly payment agreement. Member Marois answered affirmatively and added that the monthly agreement would continue until the parking “in- lieu” fee program commences, at which time the monthly fee agreement will terminate and the applicant then required to participate in the “in-lieu” program. Member Marquez disagreed with the amendment. Member Savary asked Counsel if this Board has the authority to require participation in the parking ‘in-lieu” program. Mr. Rudolf stated that the applicant is asking that the Board to make a recommendation to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission to approve an agreement by which the applicant will be allowed to pay a monthly parking fee. Mr. Rudolf added that that agreement would contain the terms that state that “as soon as the parking “in-lieu” program is established, this agreement will terminate and the applicant shall participate in the “in-lieu” program.” Mr. Rudolf suggested that the Board ask the applicant if he is interested in the terms of the proposed amendment. Member Marois asked if all applicants will be required to participate in the ‘in-lieu” program, once it begins. Ms. Fountain replied that the program will be only one of the options and re-stated the other options as mentioned earlier in the meeting. Acting Chairperson Compas re-opened Public Testimony and asked the applicant if the proposed amendment is an option they would consider. Mr. Schlehuber replied that it is not what they are asking for but if the Board wishes to give the applicant more flexibility, they will accept it. Acting Chairperson Compas closed the Public Testimony. VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: 2-3 (Motion failed) Compas and Marois Savary, Marquez, and Forsyth 46 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD September 28,1998 Page 9 VOTE ON MAlN MOTION: VOTE: 4-l AYES: Savary, Marquez, Forsyth, and Marois NOES: Compas Acting Chairperson Compas closed the Public Hearing. 2. NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF 1999 NEW CHAlRPERSON AND VICE-CHAIRPERSON.. Board Member Compas was nominated for the position of Chairperson of the Design Review Board by Board Member Savary, seconded by Board Member Marquez. There were no other nominations for Chairperson. VOTE: AYES: 5-o Savary, Marquez, Forsyth, Marois, and Compas Board Member Savary was nominated for the position of Vice-Chairperson of the Design Review Board by Board Member Marquez. Board Member Savary declined the nomination. Board Member Marquez was nominated for the position of Vice-Chairperson of the Design Review Board by Board Member Savary, seconded by Board Member Forsyth. There were no other nominations for Vice-Chairperson. VOTE: AYES: 5-o Savary, Marquez, Forsyth, Marois, and Compas ANNOUNCEMENTS: Housing and Redevelopment Director, Debbie Fountain, introduced Management Analyst, Lori Rosenstein, the newest member of the Housing and Redevelopment staff. Welcomes were extended to Ms. Rosenstein. Ms. Fountain also announced that Frank Bench, from the Cii Manager’s Office, will be joining the staff at Housing and Redevelopment on Monday, October 51998, and will be administering the CDBG programs. Ms. Fountain announced that there will be a Special Meeting of the Design Review Board on Thursday, October 8, 1998, at 530 p.m., in the Cii Council Chambers, to consider the permit for the demolition of the Split Pavilion. This is a Public Hearing item. CHAlRPERSON REPORT: None ASSISTANT CITY AlTORNEY REPORT: None ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of September 28,1998, was adjourned at 7:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Director of Housing and Redevelopment MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRIT-l-EN MINUTES ARE APPROVED. v - PROOF OF PUBLk ,-ION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Nov. 21, 1998 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. San Marcos Dated at California, this 23x-d day Nov. 1998 of NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising _A This space i. jr the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of - California, under the dates of June 30, 1989 (Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times- Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen) and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate) for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach and the North County Judicial District; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: Proof of Publication of Public hearing I ------____---------------- TheDesignReiverrBOardandstanhsvo~cknWd~’~.~-~O( U7erammmsnda~fcudsnialdUm~lhsmh8sbasnrv~ mmpiatsd for the projmt. cop4asdthestaffrapmlwlaba avaW4aonandaftarNovambsr25. CARLSBAD~~ REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION u)cATKMIw. Legal6CC184Novemtmr21,1@98 November 3, 1998 TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice REQUEST FOR PARKING AGREEMENT FOR OLD WORLD CENTER for a public hearing before the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. Please notice the item for the regular Housing and Redevelopment Commission meeting on as directed bv Citv Manaqer’s Office. Thank you. (oyq&&-. ,/(%-&yJy Community De~menfhec.&J DATE CITY OF CARLSBAD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FOR PARKING AGREEMENT OLD WORLD CENTER NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, to consider a request for a parking agreement. The Parking Agreement proposes to allow the applicant to pay a fee for use of public parking spaces to satisfy the outstanding parking obligation for a restaurant space within the project known as the Old World Center, located on property at 630 Grand Avenue in the Village Redevelopment Zone/Land Use District 1. The Design Review Board has recommended denial of the request. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after . If you have any questions or would like a copy of the staff report for the project, please contact Debbie Fountain in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at JfS$I 434-2815. 7b 0 Because staff and the Design Review Board have recommended denial of the subject request for a parking agreement, there has been no environmental review completed for the project. If you challenge the decision on the Parking Agreement in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, at or prior to the public hearing. Case Name: Old World Center Parking Agreement ‘~%?y$$ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FOR PARKING AGREEMENT FOR OLD WORLD CENTER NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, to consider a request for approval of a Parking Agreement. The Parking Agreement would allow the applicant to pay a fee for use of public parking spaces to satisfy the outstanding parking obligation for a restaurant space within the project known as the Old World Center, located on property at 630 Grand Avenue in the Village Redevelopment Zone/Land Use District 1. The Design Review Board and staff have recommended denial of this request. Because of the recommendations for denial of the request, there has been no environmental review completed for the project. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after November 25,1998. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Debbie Fountain in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-2815. If you challenge the decision regarding the Parking Agreement in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, City Clerk’s Office at, or prior to, the public hearing. APPLICANT: Michael Murphy for Old World Center PUBLISH: November 21,1998 CARLSBAD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION LOCATION MAP Sn>-am 1 ISS8 KFC NATIONAL MANAGEMENT CO PO BOX 970 T#O WICHITA KS 67201-0970 l~ll~~lwl,,l,lll ‘,,,,,llll,,,l,l,,l,,1111,,,l,,,lll,,,,,,lll &x3’ RAP--% - f’RoPERTi OM Labels THATCHERCHARLGTTEL PO BOX 52085 PHOENIX AZ 85072-2085 FREDERICK T WOOD PO BOX 2794 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90213-2794 ll,l,,ll,,,,,l,l,,,ll,,ll,,,l,ll,,,ll,l,,,l,,ll,l,,,l,,lll,,,l EDMOND T SHBHAB 6321 ESPLANADE PLAYA DEL REY CA 90293-7581 ll,l,,ll,,,,,l,ll,l,,,,ll,l,,,l~l~l~l~~l~,~,ll,,l,l,,,ll,,ll,l -. - ___--.-. toss 234 25TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90402-2520 ll,l,,ll,,,,l,,lll~~~~~l~l,,l,l~l,l,,,l,lll,,,,,ll,,l,,ll,l,,l _. JAMES R DAVIS PO BOX 189 WHITTIER CA 90608-0189 ll,l,,ll,,,,ll,,ll,,,l,,l,ll,,,,,,lll,,l~l~l~~l~~l,l,l,,,,l,ll _. ---~~--~. WARD 945 S ORANGE GROVE BLVD D PASADENA CA 91105-1193 ll~l~~,~~ll,,,llll~~~~l~l,,,,lll,,,11,1,,,,ll,,l,,l,l,l,,l,l,l GREAT WESTERNBANK 9200 OAKDALE N1121 AVE M/S CHATSWORTH CA 91311-6519 HOME SAVINGS & LOAN ASSN 4900 RIVERGRADE RD 550 IRWINDALE CA 91706-1404 ll,l,,,,,lll,,,lll,,,,ll,,,,,ll,l,,lll,,,,l,,lll,,,ll,,,l,,l,l DONALD K & LAEL DEWHURST PATERSON 3425 SEACREST DR 2727 ROOSEVELT ST A CARLSBAD CA 92008-2038 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1617 ,-- ISOKAZU TABATA 4929 PARK DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-3825 -. ..-.--- TOMMY J &GLADYS HARRIS 722 ARBUCKLE PL CARLSBAD CA 92008-1701 ll,l,,,,l,lll,,,ll,,,l,,l,,,,lll,,,lll,,,,,,ll,,l,l,,l,ll,,l,l RICHARD S & LESI&LANDRETH 725 ARBUCKLE PL CARLSBAD CA 92008-1702 ll,l,,,,l,lll,,,ll,,,l,,l,,,,lll~~~lll,,~~,l,l,,l,l,l~l,,l,,ll BRENT W & JENNIFER BEAZLEY 16844 CLARK ST ENCINO CA 91436-1066 JOHN M & NINA GORDON PO BOX 1055 CARDIFF BY THE SEA CA 92007-7055 11,1,,1,1,111,,,11,,,1,,,11,,,111,,,,1,1,,l,l,,l,l,,l,l,,l,l,l ALLEN BRUCE 0 EST OF 2737 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92009-1728 ll~l~‘~~l~lll~~~ll~~~l~~l~~~~lll,,,l,,l,ll,,l,,,ll,l,,,l,,ll,l CHARLES A YATES ..-. ----- . 2753 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92006-1704 JACK D PHILLIPS 2667 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2238 ll,l#,,A,lll II I I I I I I II I I II I I II,1 III 111 II Ill I II I II I II II I, 111 II - -. - STEVEN M & C TAGUE HUSTON H TUCKER 2801 JEFFERSON ST 2810 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-1720 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1733 JEANENE ENTERPRISES INC 2879 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA -92008-1720 DONALD K &LAEL DEWHURST 3425 SEACREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2038 DCNALDK&LAELDEWHURST 3425 SEACREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2038 ll,l,,,,l,llll,lll,,,ll,l,,,l,lll,lllllllllllllllllllll,,,,lll -.. .- W S ROGERS 2715 MORNING GLORY LN CARLSBAD CA 92008-1035 DUNHAM 4028 PARK DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2619 - MARITAL HOWARD- JONES 2785 RCXXEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-1617 DONALDK & LAELDEWBURST 3425 SEACRFST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2038 ll,l,,,,l,lll,,llllllllllllllllll,,,1,111,,,,,11~llll~~~l~l~l~llllllll __ ROBERT H & BERNADE TOMKINSON 2892 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-1719 ll,ll,,,l,lll,llllllll,,l,,,,lllll,l,,,lll,l,,l,llll,l,llll,ll ABEL C GARCIA 2960 STATE ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2336 ll,l,l,ll,lll,,,ll,,,ll,lllll,llllllllll,,ll,,,ll,llll,l,,,lll ' . ___-- LEO & DIAN-NA PACHECO 2100 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2718 lllllllll,lll,llll,l,ll~l,l,l,llllll,,llll,,lllll,,ll,,,l,ll,l CAROL A ANDERSON 4783 FLYING CLOUD WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008-3785 ll,l,llllllll,,,lllllll,l,,,llll,,lllllllllll,lllllllllllll,ll MARVIN S & IDELLA HUMPHRF.YS 140 ACACIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-3204 lllll,lll,lll,,~ll,,ll,,l,l,lll,lllllllll,l,lllll,lll,lll,,l,l _ WILLIAMS THELMA B EST OF CARLSBAD EQUITY PROPERTIES 3162 CARLSBAD BLVD 2965 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2908 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2335 ll,l,,,,lllll,,,ll,,,l,,l,llllllll,,llll~l~lll~ll~~~~lllllllll ll~ll,~~llllllllll~~~l~~l~~~llll,ll,,11,,,11,ll,l,lll,lllll,l~~lll BETZ JEANENB ENTERPRISES INC 3240 DONNA DR 2879 JEFFERSON ST J CARLSBAD CA 92008-1124 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1720 llll,,lllllllll,ll,l,ll,l,l,,ll,,,lllllllllllllllllll,,,l,l,ll lllll‘lllllll~~llllllll~l~~llllll,,ll,llllll,,llllll,lllllll,l .~. __ --.. ~~~. GENE S & MARGARET RAY 2959 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2333 ll~lll~~llllllllll,,,l,ll,l,l,l,llllllll,lllllllllllllllllllll PACKARD BUILDING PARTNERSHIP 725 GRAND AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2331 lllll,,,l,lll II I I I I II II II I I I I I I I II1 111 II Ill I II Ill ,111 II I I I II I I _ _ --- CHIN L & YU TSAI 2958 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2359 lllll,l~l,lll II I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I II, Ill II 111 I II II I I I Ill I I II I I II I - ~_. _----- -.-..- .- __ .-. WALKER-GILBERT 4350 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-4225 ll,l,,Alll,llll I I I I I I I I I I I I II II, ,I II II II I II I I I II I I II111 II,1 PARKER 3215 MAEZEL IN CARLSBAD CA 92008-1131 PAUL & TERI RAPPAPORT 2910 LANCASTER RD CARLSBAD CA 92008-6568 ll,ll,lllllllllllll,ll,lllllllllllllllll*lllll,,llllllllllllll PARKER 3215 MABZEL LN CARLSBAD CA 92008-1131 ll,l,,~~lllll,,,llllllllllll,ll,,,lllllllllllllllllll,l,lll,ll .- -.---~ SIMS 2820 WILSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-1531 ll~l~~~~l~llll~lll~~~llllll~~ll,l,l,,,lll,lllll,l,lllllll,l,,l .~ -. LINDA MEISSNER JOHNH&MARYGRANT 755 GRAND AVE 2945 HARDING ST 111 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2331 cARLsaAD ai 92008-ima lllllllllllll,,llllllll~l~l~l~llllllllllllllll~l~l~lllll,lllll lllllllllllllll~lll,llllll~~~llllll,,1,,,,1llllll,l,,l,llllllllll SCANLON 7306 BORLA PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-7802 ll,lll,llllll,,lllll,l,l,lllllll,ll,lll,~~ll~llllllllllll~l~ll JOBNHGRANT 7173 OBELISCO CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-6522 ll,l,,lJllll II I I II I I I I I II I ll,llJ,l Ill I11 I 111 II, I 111 I II I 111 II _____ ---... - HAROLD V & CATHERINE CLARKE 824 CAMINITO DEL REPOSO CARLSBAD CA 92009-2403 lllllll,l,llll,,llllllllllllllllllllll,,111,,~l~lllllllllll*l,lllll 1 i , MICHAEL KMURPHY 400 N LA COSTA DR CARLSBAD CA 92009-5002 ll,lllllllllllllll,l,l,lll~l~l,ll,l,ll,,,11,,ll~l~lllllllllllllllll MICHAEL KMURPHY 400 N LA COSTA DR CARLSBAD CA 92009-5002 ll,l,,,,l,llll,,ll,,,l,l,,,l,l,ll,,,lllll~~l~lll~~~ll~llllllll ,. -.~- ____ .~ - .-. CARLSBAD VILLAGE PARTNERS 7752 ANILLO WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009-8101 lllllllllllll,,,ll,,,lllllll,l,lllllll,lllllll,lllll,l,lllll~l SCANLON 7306 BORLA PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-7802 lllllllllllll,,lllllllll,,l,llllllllllllllll,lll,lllll,ll~~~ll FRANCES L SMITH PO BOX 064 CARLSBAD CA 92018-0864 llll,llAllllullll lll,#llll,,lllll,lllllll,lllllI,,lB,l,lllll FRANCES L SMITH PO BOX a64 CARLSBAD CA 92018-0864 lllllllA,lll,,ml lllllllllllll,,l,,ll,1,1,,1,11,,llIllll JOSEPHINE R KINGSTON PO BOX 004 CARLSBAD CA 92018-0884 lllllllll,lll,,,,,l llllll,ll,,,lllllll,lllll,llllll,l,,lll~l~l KIM W MARVIN PO BOX 2670 CARLSBAD CA 92018-2670 ll,l,,,llllllll,,,, 111,,1,,,1,1,11,,1,,,111,,,1,,,111,,,1,1lll __-.. ..-- CARLSBADHOUSING Es REDEVELOPMENT PUBLIC AGENCY CARLSBAD CA 92018-0535 ll,l,,,ll,lllll,,,, lllllllll,l,,llllllllAJJ~llJB~llll~l - MARKT &MARYGOMBAR PHYLLIS E NORMAN PO BOX 1667 PO BOX 1395 CARLSBAD CA 92018-1667 CARLSBAD CA 92018-1395 SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK < PO BOX 230926 ENCINITAS CA 92023-0926 DONALD J MACDONALD 2016 SHERIDAN RD ENCINITAS CA 92024-1144 ~. _- WALTER A DEWHURST 5646 RUTGERS RD LA JOLLA CA 92037-7826 ll,l,,,,l,lll,,,,,ll,l,,,ll,*,ll,,l~~~l,l~ll,,,l~~l~ll,~‘ll,*l ~~~ .-. .- --- _.~ _~ PGP CARLSBAD SENIORS LTD II 1120 SILVERADO ST LA JOLLA CA 92037-4524 11,1,~~,1,111~,,~,11~1,,,1,1,,1,1,1,,,1,l,l,,l,,l,lll,,,,,l,ll MISSION SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER 1691 CAMINITO ALIVIADO IA JOLLA CA 92037-7132 ll~l,,,,l,lll,,,,,ll,l,,,ll,,,l,,,ll,,ll,,~l,ll~l~~,,,ll*ll,,l RALPH A STRAESSER 1518 AVOCADO RD OCEANSIDE CA 92054-5706 ll~l~~~,l~lll~,~~l~l~,l~,l,l,l,l~~~lll,,,,ll,,,,,lll,,l,,,ll,l .- - - ~~ .-.. -- -_ -.. .-_ -~ .._ -. OPHELIA G GARCIA BOYERNANCY L 1438 LEMON ST 602 S PACIFIC ST OCEANSIDE CA 92054-2617 OCEANSIDE CA 92054-3910 ll~l,,,~l,lll,,,,l,l,,l,,l,,l,l,ll,,,,,lll,,,l,,ll,l,,l,,,ll,l ll,l~~‘,l~lll~,,,l~l~,l,,l,,ll,l,l,,,,,llll,,,ll,,,,,l,l,l,l,l BOYER NANCY L 602 S PACIFIC ST OCEANSIDE CA 92054-3910 ll,l,,,,l~lll,,,~l,l,,l,,l,,ll,l,l,,,,,llll,,,ll,,~,,l,l,l,l,l -_ .-___ DANIEL R SWEM 4807 ELM TREE DR OCEANSIDE CA 92056-3570 ll,l,,,,l,lll,,,,l~l,,ll,,,,ll,,l,l,l,,,lll,,,ll,,,l,,,l,ll,,l GRAND GCARLSBAD PO BOX 8193 RANCH0 SANTA FE CA 92067-8193 ll,l,11,l,lll,,,,ll,11,,,ll,,l,,,,lll,l,,,,ll,l,l,~,,ll,,~ll,l PEARSON 1296 RUE SAINT MARTIN SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5286 11,1,~,,1,111 II I I I I I II I II I I II I I I ,111 II I 111 I 11, I I, II II I 111 II ,I I .-. .- - -.-- SATTERLY RANCH0 VISTA NATIONAL BANK 1349 MELROSE WAY 1381 E VISTA WAY VISTA CA 92083-6509 VISTA CA 92084-4041 ll,l,,.,l,lll,,,l,,l,,,ll,,ll,,,l,l,ll,,,l,l,,,l,,ll,l,,,l,l,l ll,l,,,,l,lll,,,l,,l,,l~,l,l,,lll,~,‘l,,1,,l~,,lll~,l~~~~lll~l~~l - S I FINANCIAL CORP PO BOX 825 FALLBROOK CA 92088-0825 ll,l,,,,l,lll,,,l,,l,l,,l,ll,,,l,,l,,,l,l,l,l,,,l,l,l,l,,,,lll - ~~ - -- -- - ~ _-- .- - -- -~-.. - - .-. CLARK R & SHELLEY KNAPP 215 W PALM ST SAN DIEGO CA 92103-5522 ll,l,,,,l,l,~,llll,~1,,ll~~l,l,,l,l,,,l,l~,l~l~~~ll~l‘l~~l*l~l - - -. - ~- ---- --_ STUART C & MARILYN WILSON SABINO F MAZZILLI 4920 COLLINGWOOD DR 7040 ARILLO ST SAN DIEGO CA 92109-2243 SAN DIEGO CA 92111-4828 ll,l,,,~l,l,,,llll,,,l,l,,,,l,l,,l,l,l,,l,,ll*,,l,lll,,,,ll,,l ll,l,,,,l,l,,,ll,,,ll,,111,1,,ll,,l,,,l,ll,~l~~l~~lll~~~ll‘~~l SOOHOO 2905 NATIONAL AVE SAN DIEGO CA 92113-2419 ll~l~~~~l~l,,,ll,,,ll,,ll,,,l,l‘l,,l,,,lll,l,,ll,,,,l,l,,,ll,l EHSINVESTMENTSCO 5553 TRINITY WAY SAN DIEGO CA 92120-4503 ll~l~~~~l~l,1~ll,,l,lll,,,,l,,l,l,l,ll,,,,,ll,,l,l,,,ll,,ll,,l ---~~ SWYS CORP 8787 COMPLEX DR 100 SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1419 ll,l,,,,l,l,,,ll.,l,l,,ll,,,,ll,l,,l,,,lll,l,,l,,l,l,,,l,,ll,l MARKJNOLAN PO BOX 7045 SAN DIEGO CA 92167-0045 ll,l,,,,l,l,,,ll,ll,,l,,‘lll,,,ll,,,,l,~l,l,l,,l,,l,l,l,l,,,ll LLOYD A & RAE DAVIES 1067 SANDALWOOD DR EL CENTRO CA 92243-3825 ll,l,,,,l,l,,l,l,l,,l,,ll,,,ll,l,,l,,,l,l,l,l,,ll,,l,,,ll,l,,l JAMES A & LANA BESAW PO BOX 3928 DANA POINT CA 92629-8928 ll,l,,,,l,l,ll,,,,l,ll,l,,l,,l,l,l,,,,l,ll,,l,,,l,ll,,l,,l,l,l PETER A & GEORGETTE ROCK 2421 S EL CAMINO REAL SAN CLEMENTE CA 92672-3351 ll,l,,,,l,l,ll,,l,,,l,,l,l,,ll,,,ll,,l,l,,,,ll,,l,l,,,lll,l,,l - - .-. LEOR & OPHIRA LAKRITZ 1308 WAKBHAM AVE SANTA ANA CA 92705-4145 ll,l,,,,l,ll,,,lll,,,,l,l,,l,,l,,,ll,l,,l,l,l,ll,,,l,,l,,l,l,l GOLL FAMILY 860 MORNINGSIDE DR C222 FULLERTON CA 92835-3552 ll,l,,,,l,ll,,l,,,ll,,1,1,,,ll,,l,l,,l,l,,,l,l,ll,,ll,,,,,l,ll ~~~ ___~ .-- - .------~ CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC AGENCY - MELVILLE W HONE 826 ORANGE AVE 601 CORONADO CA 92118-2619 ll~l~,,,l,l,,,ll~~~lll,,l,,,l,l,ll,,,,,lll,l,,,,l,l,ll,,,,ll,l ESTER AHRONEE 4440 CATHER AVE SAN DIEGO CA 92122-2614 II I I I II I I I I I I II II I I I I 1111 I 111 II I II I II I I 11111 I I, I ,I lll,,,l,,,ll GARY KVERMILYEA 11620 KISMET RD SAN DIEGO CA 92128-5024 II I I I II I II I I I II I I I I I lll,,,ll,lll I Ill1 I 111 II I II II I I 1111, , I I, I, I DANIEL J & ERNESTINE CERDA 1743 LOTUS AVE EL CENTRO CA 92243-9505 llll,l,,l,l,,l,l,llllllllll,l,llllllll,llllll,,l,,l,,ll,llllll ROOSEVELT TAMARACK INVESTMENTS L 6 VENTURE 215 IRVINE CA 92618-3316 lllllllll,l,ll,~~~~lll,,l,llll,,11,,,11,,,,1l~ll,lll~,,,ll,,,l~l~l ~--__ ~ -.. .- BANK OF CALIFORNIA 1 CIVIC PLZ 290 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-5934 ll,l,,,,l,l,ll,l~lllllllll,l,l,llllll,ll,,llllll,,,,,,ll,l,lll -- __ PETER A & GEORGETTE ROCK 2421 S EL CAMINO REAL SAN CLEMENTE CA 92672-3351 llll,,,ll,l,ll,~l,,lllll,l,,ll,,,lllll,llllllllllll,l,lllll~~l JOHNSON 1440 S GILBUCK ST ANAHEIM CA 92802-2118 ll,l,,,,l,ll,,llll,,lllllllllll,,1,1,,lllllllllllllll,,l,ll~l BANK OF AMERICA NT ti SA PO BOX 37000 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94137-0001 ll,l,,,l,lllllll~~ll,l,,lllllllll,,,llll~~llllll~~,lllll,lllll CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC AGENCY CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC AGENCY CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC AGENCY CARLSBAD HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT PUBLIC AGENCY CARLSBAD CA 92008