Food Fight

SAN CLEMENTE â€”  Battles over parking spaces can sometimes turn ugly, but this one could end up costing San Clemente $5 million.

For two years the dispute has delayed the city’s plans to develop its prime oceanfront property, including the 70-year-old Casa Romantica, home of the city’s founder.

And it has pushed back plans by a restaurateur to expand his popular eatery on the municipal pier.

This week, the city is in court against that restaurateur, Hal Griffith, who was once its partner in the revitalization of the Pier Bowl, the area of shops and restaurants next to the pier. A jury is expected to decide whether the city must pay Griffith about $5 million in damages--all over parking.

In the 15 years since Griffith opened The Fisherman’s Restaurant & Bar on the pier, the neighborhood has changed from a crime-ridden slum to the jewel of the city.

“It was an area that citizens were afraid to go to,� Griffith said, but “it was potentially the best part of town.�

He claims the city saw the success of his restaurant and wanted a piece of the action. It planned to restore Casa Romantica, which sits on a bluff overlooking the pier, turn it into a restaurant and build a tram that would reach the parking lot below.

It’s a 140-space, city-owned lot. But Griffith says his lease with San Clemente prevents the city from using the lot for a restaurant of its own.

“The city didn’t understand that by doing that, they’d substantially hurt us,� he said.

But City Manager Michael W. Parness said it’s simply a case of Griffith trying to squelch competition for his restaurant. “We disagree with his analysis that a competing restaurant is going to hurt his business,� he said.

Parness said the restaurant at the Casa, a planned beach trail, improvements to a nearby park and some time-share lodging the city wants to construct on Alameda Lane will draw more people to the area and increase business for everyone.

The tram to the parking lot, according to Parness, is just meant to let people walk down to the beach, not steal parking spaces from the lot used by Griffith’s customers.

In spring 1995, the city embarked on its plans to turn the Casa Romantica into a restaurant.

Griffith’s lease with San Clemente designated an area in which the city couldn’t operate a competing restaurant, but a dispute arose over how big that area was--500 feet or 800 feet from his property.

If it was 800 feet, the area would have included the Casa, throwing into question whether the city could rightfully open its restaurant there.

Griffith insists he never opposed the city opening a restaurant at the Casa, but maintains the city couldn’t use the parking lot below and siphon off his customers and available spaces.

To settle the boundary and parking issues, the city took Griffith to court in the fall of 1995.

At the same time, Griffith wanted to expand his restaurant and needed the city to renew a conditional-use permit to do it.

In what Superior Court Judge James P. Gray later called a case of “civil extortion,� the city told Griffith it wouldn’t renew his permit unless he backed off his position on the boundary issue.

Griffith countersued to get his permit, and the dispute dragged on until Feb. 28, when Gray ordered San Clemente to approve Griffith’s permit.

*

A month later, he ruled on the exclusivity--saying the distance didn’t really matter and that the city couldn’t use the parking lot for its own restaurant.

Parness and City Atty. Jeffrey M. Oderman declared a victory, saying the ruling allowed the city to go ahead with its plans for a restaurant at the Casa. Griffith maintains the city could have done that all along, if only it hadn’t tried to take his parking spaces.

“We took a blighted, run-down area that was in the pits and turned it around with the understanding that the city wouldn’t capitalize on our success,� he said.

Parness countered, “Hal Griffith didn’t save the Pier Bowl. It’s not like the city didn’t invest in the area.�

He said the city’s plans for the Casa include an area for meetings and weddings--for which it is already a popular site--and a small upscale restaurant. It wouldn’t be any bigger than can be supported by the parking on-site, and the city never intended to use the parking lot below, he said.

After two rounds of court hearings, the trial began this week to determine if the city must pay Griffith damage.

Griffith said his attorneys’ fees will be about $2.8 million by the time the legal battle is over. He figures he’s lost more than $2 million in revenue because he hasn’t been able to expand his restaurant for three summers.

Parness said the city’s legal expenses are about $700,000 so far, which the city’s Redevelopment Agency is paying.

The two sides have been unable to reach a settlement. But they do agree on one thing: The dispute has gone on too long.

“The only people benefiting at this point are the attorneys,� Parness said.