HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 01-07; Seaside Bistro Zone Change; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (5)the City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application complete date: August 20, 2003
P.C. AGENDA OF: January 21,2004 Project Planner: Scott Donne11
Project Engineer: David Rick
SUBJECT: GPA 01-04LCPA Ol-O7/CUP 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD
& STEAKHOUSE - Request for approval of (1) amendments to the General
Plan and Local Coastal Program to change the current residential land use
designation to a commercial designation suitable for a restaurant; (2) a conditional
use permit for an existing restaurant at 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard; and (3) a coastal
development permit to allow proposed outdoor dining at the restaurant.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5549, 5550 and
5551 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of GPA 01-04, LCPA 01-07, and CUP 02-19 based
upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolution No. 5552 RECOMMENDING DENIAL of CDP 02-34 based upon the
findings therein.
11. PROJECT INTRODUCTION AND DESCRIPTION
This project involves the concurrent review of General Plan and Local Coastal Program
amendments, a conditional use permit, and a coastal development permit. These applications
affect the restaurant and property known as “Vigilucci’s Seafood and Steakhouse.” The
restaurant is located at the corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and T.amarack Avenue in the beach
area. No significant changes to the business’ operations, buildings, or grounds are being
proposed as part of this project.
Associated with this project are three key issues. A description and summary of each issue
follow:
A. Land Use - The Vigilucci property has an incompatible C-2 (General Commercial)
zoning and RH (High Density Residential) General Plan designation. In 2001, the City
Council, based in part on Planning Commission input, directed that the City consider
designating the property for commercial uses. Accordingly, staff has responded to the
Council’s direction and has proposed to fix the inconsistency by changing the General
Plan designation to T-R (TraveVRecreation Commercial) and the zoning to C-T (Tourist
Commercial). For reasons explained below, staff proposes only a General Plan
amendment at this time.
To change the land use designation, staff, and not Mr. Vigilucci, has filed applications to
amend both the General Plan and local coastal program, The filing of these applications
by staff is consistent with the previously mentioned Council direction.
GPA 01-04LCPA 01-07/CcIp 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SbAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 2 1,2004
Page 2
B. Operating Issues - City and neighborhood concerns stemming fiom the operations of a
previous restaurant (the Sandbar) on the Vigilucci property contributed to the signing of
an agreement between Mr. Vigilucci and the City. Based on the agreement, Mr.
Vigilucci has submitted the conditional use permit that is one of the applications of this
project. This permit is important because if approved it will enable the City to regulate a
restaurant that is in a residential area.
Through the conditional use permit, the applicant proposes minor site and building
improvements, including a trash enclosure, a small amount of landscaping, and an
awning. Because the awning would extend into the right-of-way, it will require approval
of an encroachment agreement by the City Engineering Department.
Under the property’s current C-2 zoning, a conditional use permit is not required for a
restaurant with incidental serving of alcohol. Additionally, a conditional use permit is
ordinarily subject to Planning Commission review and approval. However, when the
City Council directed in 2001 that the City consider designating the property for
commercial purposes, it also directed that the prior owner (Jim DiMaggio) of the
restaurant (at that time the Seaside Bistro), to submit a conditional use permit, to which
Mr. DiMaggio agreed. Furthermore, the City Council directed that it would retain
authority to review the conditional use permit and all related discretionary actions.
Through the current agreement with Mr. Vigilucci, the requirement for Council review
and the conditional use permit has been maintained.
C. Parking - The restaurant severely lacks adequate on-site parking. Through the
conditional use permit, the applicant has proposed a valet parking plan that will provide
28 parking spaces, the most achievable on the small site (as compared to the 21 spaces
achievable at most under self-parking). However, the Zoning Ordinance requires 57
parking spaces. Under any General Plan and zoning combination that supports retaining
the current structure and use, parking will remain nonconforming. The City must accept
this lack of parking, which can be approved through the conditional use permit, or pursue
an alternative land use solution.
Furthermore, the applicant has requested a coastal development pennit to seek approval
of proposed outdoor dining. This outdoor dining would be located along the fiont of the
restaurant but in the public right-of-way along Carlsbad Boulevard. Staff does not
support the outdoor dining request as it would exacerbate an existing parking problem
and may create noise concerns.
A long, complicated history surrounds this property and the events leading up to the presently
proposed actions. In the following section, staff provides a complete explanation of the relevant
history and events.
GPA 01-04hCPA 01-07/C:LJP 02-191CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S YkAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 2 1,2004
Page 3
111. PROJECT BACKGROUND
Setting
The Vigilucci’s Seafood Lk Steakhouse property, located at 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard, is
approximately 14,000 square feet, or about 1/3 of an acre. The property features a small parking
lot and a 4,816 square foot building. The L-shaped building has no setback along its north (rear)
and east (side) property lines. Along its C&lsbad Boulevard fiontage, the restaurant has only an
approximately six to eighteen inch setback fiom the property line/public right-of-way. Along this
portion of Carlsbad Boulevard, the right-of-way extends about 20-feet back of the street curb.
Thus, the planters and concrete patio in front of the restaurant are actually in the right-of-way.
The parking lot, accessed fiom Tamarack Avenue, has 21 striped parking spaces, less than half
the number required by the Zoning Ordinance for a restaurant.
The property has a C-2 (General Commercial) zoning and a RH (High Density Residential)
General Plan designation. The Local Coastal Program zoning and land use designation are also
C-2 and RH.
Except for Tamarack State Beach to the west, the neighborhood surrounding Vigilucci’s is
entirely residential and consists of condominiums, older apartments, and single-family detached
homes. An application for a single-family home is currently under review for the vacant lot
immediately to the north of the restaurant and along Carlsbad Boulevard. The attached location
map shows the streets and properties in the neighborhood.
The General Plan designation for the entire area, except for the beach, is RH. The neighborhood
is also entirely in the Beach Area Overlay Zone and features an underlying zoning of either R-3
(Multiple-Family Residential) or RD-M (Residential Density-Multiple). The Local Coastal
Program zoning and land use designation are the same. The nearest commercial properties to the
site are about ?4 mile to either the north at Carlsbad Boulevard and Walnut Avenue or east at
Tamarack Avenue and Jefferson Street.
EarIy History and Ownership
Since at least 1956, the property has been commercially zoned. The 1956 zoning map indicates
the property’s zoning as C-1, which at that time stood for “service commercial.” Further, staff
research indicates that in 1970 uses on the property consisted of an eatery, likely a hamburger
stand, a parking lot, and a detached home. In 1975, the small home was demolished and the
hamburger stand expanded to become the Captain’s Anchorage, a steak and seafood restaurant.
That same year, the restaurant received (1) city approval of a zone change from C-1
(Neighborhood Commercial) to the current C-2 zone to permit alcohol sales and (2) State
Department of Alcoholic and Beverage Control (ABC) approval of a liquor license. A restaurant
with incidental serving of alcohol is permitted anywhere in the C-2 zone regardless of proximity
to a residential area.
Several years later, in the mid-l980s, the Captain’s Anchorage was renamed the Sandbar. In
1989, the City issued a business license to the new owners of the Sandbar. In 1999, the
restaurant business only was sold, along with the alcohol license, and the restaurant name was a$
GPA 01-04lLCPA 01-07/CLJP 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 2 1,2004
changed to the Seaside Bistro. In early 2002, the restaurant business, property and the alcohol
license were sold to the current owner.
Events Leading to Resolution of Intent to Rezone the Property to Residential
In the early 1990~~ the City received numerous complaints from residents living‘near the then
Sandbar restaurant about its operations and patrons. Sometime before this period, staff believes
the business changed from a restaurant with incidental serving of alcohol to predominantly a bar
with live music and dancing. Neighbors complained about noise fiom the live music and
inebriated or boisterous patrons who would leave the bar and yell, fight, litter, deface property,
and generally disturb the peace. Adding to the problem was the business’s limited on-site
parking, which caused some Sandbar patrons to park on nearby streets and thus carry their
negative behavior into the neighborhood.
To curb or eliminate late night noise and other complaints, the City met with the Sandbar owner
in 1995 to seek a voluntary reduction in its business hours. Although the Sandbar apparentIy had
implemented other voluntary measures in response to the complaints about its operations, such as
hiring additional security and making noise-attenuating building improvements, the owner would
not agree to alter the Sandbar’s business hours. Despite the measure taken by the owner,
problems related to its operations and patrons continued.
Other city efforts to address complaints included a 1996 draft ordinance that established noise
limits for businesses serving alcohol and providing entertainment. However, the City Council
took no action on the ordinance, with some Council members noting the ordinance did not hlly
address the issue of compatibility between such an establishment and its nearby residential uses.
Furthermore, the ordinance failed to address customer-parking impacts in surrounding residential
neighborhoods, a significant concern with the Sandbar. .
An action to deal with the problems at the Sandbar came about with the passage of Resolution of
Intention (ROI) 96-168 on May 21, 1996. By passing this resolution, the Council declared its
intent to change the Sandbar property zone from commercial to residential to be consistent with
the General Plan and Local Coastal Program and directed staff to begin the necessary rezoning
process. By rezoning the property to residential, the restaurant use would become
nonconforming and subject to abatement within a designated amortization period.
ROI 96-168 also identified the Council’s objective to similarly rezone the two lots just north of
the Sandbar. These lots include the small, vacant property next to the restaurant (on which an
application for a home is now proposed), and the adjacent lot at the comer of Carlsbad
Boulevard and Redwood Avenue. At the time, Mr. Charles Ledgerwood operated a small seed
business in the small house on the corner property. Both lots had a C-1 (Neighborhood
Commercial) zoning and a residential General Plan and Local Coastal Program land use
designation.
At the same time the city was receiving and responding to complaints about the Sandbar, the
State Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) was also monitoring the situation.
Eventually, the ABC revoked the Sandbar’s alcohol license in 1997. However, this revocation
was stayed for two years upon the restaurant demonstrating compliance with a number of aq
GPA Ol-O4/LCPA 01-07/CLJP 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 21,2004
conditions. These conditions, imposed on the license, prohibited, among other things, live
entertainment and alcohol after midnight on the weekends and entertainment noise audible
beyond the Sandbar parking lot. The stayed revocation and the conditions became effective in
March 1999. Staff believes the conditions may still be applicable to the current owner. .
Efforts to Implement tlre Council Resolution of Intention
Complaints regarding the Sandbar generally ceased beginning in 1997. In 1999, the Sandbar
restaurant business onlv was purchased from the owner, while she maintained ownership of the
property. Renaming the restaurant “Seaside Bistro,” the new owner indicated his intent was to
operate the business as a restaurant and not a nightclub with late hours and entertainment.
In 2000, city staff began its efforts to implement the Council ROI by notifying the Seaside Bistro
and Ledgerwood property owners of the proposed city-initiated rezoning. As expressed in two
Planning Commission public hearings held on the proposal in January 2001, the owner of the
Ledgerwood property, as well as some nearby residents, supported the rezoning of the
Ledgerwood parcels from commercial to residential.
Regarding the Seaside Bistro property, the Planning Commission, the owner of the restaurant,
and several residents all agreed that since the problems which caused the Council to declare its
intention to rezone the property no longer existed, keeping the property as commercial was worth
considering. There was general agreement that leaving the property as commercial could be
desirable, noting its historic use as a restaurant, its unique location in an otherwise all-residential
area, and its ability to serve both the neighborhood and beachgoers, (the nearest food service is ’/z
mile to either the north or east). Furthermore, the Commission, the restaurant owner, and some
residents fbrther recognized that to ensure neighborhood compatibility, the City should have
some means to control the commercial use of the property. To this end, the restaurant owner
noted his willingness to obtain a conditional use permit and relinquish the cabaret license issued
for the restaurant.
Following its second hearing on the zone change in January 2001, the Planning Commission
passed Resolution 4892 (attached). This resolution contains many findings to justifjr the
Commission recommendations on both the Ledgerwood and Seaside Bistro properties. The
recommended action from Resolution 4892 follows:
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
recommends the folIowing:
That both lots owned by the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust ... be
rezoned from C-1 to R-3, BAOZ [Beach Area Overlay Zone]; and
That the City Council not change the zoning on the property
owned by the Mitze H. Eubanks Trust, and, instead, consider
allowing commercial to remain as a conforming use based on the
following findings, and accordingly, direct staff to conduct the
necessary environmental review and process appropriate public
hearing amendments to the General Plan, Local Coastal Program,
and Zoning Ordinance.
1.
2.
GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/c‘LJP 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 2 1 , 2004
At its March 6, 2001, meeting, the City Council heard and considered similar testimony in
support of the rezoning of the Ledgerwood property and retaining of a commercial zoning on the
Seaside Bistro property. Once again, the Seaside Bistro business owner stated he would agree to
obtain a conditional use permit and relinquish the restaurant’s cabaret license if the commercial
use of the property remained in place. In its Resolution 2001-72 (attached), the Council
concurred with the Planning Commission’s recommendation. By so doing, it approved the
rezone of the Ledgerwood property fiom commercial to residential. Concerning the Seaside
Bistro parcel, the Council gave the following direction:
That the City Council is not rezoning the parcel at this time in reliance on the
Seaside Bistro’s representations that it will relinquish its cabaret license and agree
to process a conditional use permit application setting forth the terms and
conditions under which commercial use will continue to exist at this site.
Therefore, the Planning Director is directed to commence the necessary and
appropriate rezoning process forthwith which will require a conditional use permit
or other discretionary permits and to return to the City Council through the
Planning Commission with its report and recommendations. The Seaside Bistro is
directed to apply forthwith for a conditional use permit or other discretionary
permits under the proposed zone so that all discretionary actions will be before
the Council concurrently.
Implementing Council Direction to Consider Keeping the Subject Property as Commercial
Following the Council hearing, staff opened applications to amend the property’s zoning, and its
General Plan and local coastal program designations. Staff also reviewed and discussed permit
requirements and building plans with the restaurant owner. In September 2001, he submitted a
conditional use permit application to redevelop the property with a two-story building featuring a
restaurant and nine hotel units. In December 2001, the application was withdrawn due to the
pending sale of the restaurant business and property (the latter still owned by Ms. Eubanks) to
their current owner, Roberto Vigilucci.
Before the sale of the property, staff had met with Mr. Vigilucci to advise him of the many issues
surrounding the restaurant and the expectations regarding its fbture. Unfortunately, the City
Council’s decision to not rezone the property and its direction to submit a conditional use pennit
were made based on the representations and the agreement of the previous restaurant owner, not
Mr. Vigilucci. Therefore, Mr. Vigilucci was not obligated to comply with the Council directive
or hold up the representations of the Seaside Bistro. Additionally, because of his property’s C-2
zoning, the new owner couId continue to operate the restaurant without the need for a permit or
permission from the City.
In early 2002, Mr. Vigilucci applied for a building permit to make minor improvements to the
restaurant. The improvements included new windows, building stucco, signs, and landscaping,
and floor plan changes. The remodel was generally minor and involved no increase in floor area,
parking demand, or occupancy, and did not require any nonconforming aspects of the building or
site, such as parking or setbacks, to be addressed. However, recognizing the City’s stated
expectations and concerns regarding his property, and in exchange for receiving building
permits, the new owner signed agreements with the City that stipulated his agreement to:
.
a J
.-
GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/c‘LJP 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 2 1,2004
o Assume the former Seaside Bistro owner’s obligation to obtain a CUP for his restaurant
operation and to not have dancing, bands, or loud music;
o Recognize outdoor dining and drinking areas are not possible without adequate parking
and approval of a CUP;
o Propose a solution to the inadequate parking problem that exists on the property through
the CUP process;
o Acknowledge the City may impose requirements and conditions so that the restaurant
operates in a way that is compatible with the homes around it; and
o Acknowledge the City may deny his CUP application and rezone his property to
residential.
The City recorded the agreements with the County Recorder. Only upon final approval of the
CUP may the City release the agreements. In late 2002, Mr. Vigilucci completed the remodeling
that lead to the agreements and opened his seafood and steakhouse about the same time.
As agreed, Mr. Vigilucci has submitted a CUP application. The City determined the application
complete in August 2003. Consistent with the City Council’s direction as expressed in
Resolution 2001-72, staff has grouped the CUP with all other related applications for concurrent
review by the Planning Commission and City Council.
The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances and standards as analyzed
within this section of the staff report:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I. J.
IS.
L.
General Plan;
Loss of Residential Development Potential (Government Code Section 65863);
Existing and Recommended Zoning;
Alternative General Plan and Zoning Considerations;
Local Coastal Program;
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance Development 3 tandards;
Parking Regulations (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2 1.44);
Coastal Development Permit regulations and proposed outdoor dining (Zoning
Ordinance Chapters 21.201 and 2 1.44);
Conditional Use Permit regulations (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.42);
Encroachment Permit and Minor Site Improvements;
Nonconforming Buildings and Structures (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.48); and
Growth Management Ordinance (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1).
Staff developed its project recommendations by determining whether the project was consistent
with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. Therefore, this section will cover the
project’s compliance (or, in the case of the coastal development permit, lack of compliance) with
each of the regulations listed above in the order in which they are presented.
IV. ANALYSIS
A. General Plan
While staff can verify and trace the commercial zoning
determining the history of General Plan designations for of the property to a 1956 zoning map,
the property is less clear. A 1975 staff 32
GPA Ol-04LCPA 01-O7/CUP 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 2 1,2004
report on a zone change for the property fiom C-1 to C-2 notes the property’s General Plan
designation was TS, or Travel Service Commercial. The designation appears to have changed in
the mid-1980s. A 1986 General Plan map and the 1987 Local Facilities Management Plan for
Zone 1 indicate the Vigilucci property had its current designation of RH (High Density
Residential). The adoption of the current land use map, as part of the comprehensive update of
the General Plan in 1994, confirmed this designation. Reasons contributing to the change from
TS to RH are not known; possible factors may have been the difficulty in redeveloping the
property commercially because of its small size and its residential surroundings.
The table below provides a comparison of past and present General Plan and Local Coastal
Program designations and zones for the Vigilucci property.
The current RH General Plan designation does not allow commercial uses. For the City to
consider designating the property for commercial uses, staff must propose an appropriate
commercial land use designation. Staff believes the T-R (Travemecreation Commercial) is
appropriate for the Vigilucci property for the following reasons:
0
0
0
The Vigilucci property location and existing use clearly fit the description of a T-R
designated property according to the General Plan Land Use Element’s definition of
the T-R designation.
This [land use] category addresses commercial uses that provide for visitor
attractions and commercial uses that serve the travel and recreational
needs of tourists, residents, as well as employees of business and industrial
centers. Often such sites are located near major transportation corridors or
recreational and resort areas such as spas, hotels, beaches or lagoons.
Typically, these areas are developed along major roadways and are
accessible to interregional traffic. Tourist-oriented uses such as motels
and hotels: should be coordinated with compatible accessory uses; should
protect the surrounding properties; should ensure safe traffic circulation;
and should promote economically viable tourist-oriented areas of the City.
The four other General Plan commercial land use designations are inappropriate for
the property. The R (Regional Commercial) and L (Local Shopping Center)
designations require a larger area than the approximately one-third acre Vigilucci
property. Moreover, as with the 0 (Office & Related Commercial) designation, they
permit uses inappropriate for a mostly residential area and a beacldtourist location.
The City has applied the fifth city commercial designation, V (Village), only to the
downtown Village.
Designating the property for tourist-commercial uses recognizes a longstanding
commercial presence in an otherwise entirely residential neighborhood. This mix of
uses is somewhat unique when compared to other Carlsbad residential areas. The
GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/CUP 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 21 , 2004
Page 9
application of T-R to the Vigilucci property is consistent with Overall Land Use
Objective B.l, which states, “To create a distinctive sense of place and identity for
each community and neighborhood of the City through the development and
arrangement of various land use components.”
B. Loss of Residential Development Potential (Government Code Section 65863)
Conversion of the property from its high density residential designation to commercial will mean
a loss of potential multi-family housing units, including apartments and condominiums, should
the property ever redevelop. The current RH designation permits 15-23 units/acre and a Growth
Management Control Point (GMCP) of 19 unitdacre. If the property were vacant, it could
possibly accommodate six units at the GMCP.
State Government Code Section 65863 prohibits a city from reducing densities on properties
unless the City makes a finding that the reduction would not prevent the jurisdiction from
meeting its share of the regional housing need. Another Government Code provision, Section
65584, states a city must provide adequate sites and densities to accommodate its “share” of
residential growth projected for a region. The GMCP, as applied to the Vigilucci property and
other residentially designated sites in Carlsbad, was used for calculating the City’s compliance
with its regional share objective under Government Code Section 65584.
Even if the City approves the T-R designation, which does not allow residential uses, the
potential for six homes under the RH designation will not be eliminated but instead will be added
to the City’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. This is consistent with Program 3.8 of the City’s.
Housing Element, which provides that all of the dwelling units that were anticipated toward
achieving the City’s share of the regional housing need and that are not utilized by developers in
approved projects can be deposited in the City’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. In turn, these
excess dwelling units are available for allocation to other projects. Accordingly, there is no net
loss of residential unit capacity and there are adequate properties identified in the Housing
Element allowing residential development with a unit capacity, including second dwelling units,
adequate to satisfy the City’s share of the regional housing need. These facts are the basis of the
finding required by Government Code Section 65863, as set out in the proposed resolution
recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment.
C. Existing and Recommended Zoning
State law mandates consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and requires
jurisdictions to make any needed amendments within a reasonable time. The property’s current
C-2 (General Commercial) zoning does not implement its RH General Plan designation.
Because C-2 allows more than just visitor-serving uses, it would also not implement the
proposed T-R (TraveVRecreation Commercial) General Plan designation.
While staff is aware that a Zoning Ordinance Amendment is necessary, it has not proposed one
at this time. This is because of the ongoing General PldZoning Consistency program. This
’ multi-year city work program identifies and corrects inconsistencies between the text and maps
of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. One component of the program is an overhaul of the
City’s C-T, or Commercial Tourist zone. C-T is the zone that implements the T-R designation ?d
GPA 01-04LCPA 01-07/CLJP 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 2 1,2004
Page 10
proposed for the Vigilucci property. Commercial Policy C.12 of the General Plan Land Use
Element states the City shall revise the C-T zone so it more accurately reflects the intent of the
T-R designation. Staff will bring revisions to the C-T zone and the T-R designation, which will
include text and map changes, to public hearing early in 2004.
Proposed changes to the C-T zone include the requirement of a conditional use permit for uses
such as a restaurant, where next to residential zones, and the ability to apply the zone to small
properties. Currently, the C-T zone does not enable the city to apply the C-T zone to areas less
than three acres (The Vigilucci property is 1/3 of an acre.). In light of both the C-T area
limitations and the City’s ongoing efforts to revise the zone, staff recommends delaying the
rezone consideration of the Vigilucci property until and as part of the T-WC-T amendment
project rather than ahead of it. Establishing the proposed General Plan designation of T-R for
the property now will establish the City’s objective for the rezoning to occur.
Until approval of the proposed C-T revisions, the City will not have a zoning requirement for a
conditional use permit, the key land use control planned to enable the City to regulate Vigilucci’s
Seafood and Steakhouse or another restaurant on the property. In the interim, the requirement
for a conditional use permit comes from the recorded agreements signed by Mr. Vigilucci and
the City in 2002. Among other things, these agreements required Mr. Vigilucci to submit the
conditional use permit that is the subject of this staff report.
D. Alternative General Plan and Zoning Considerations
While the staff proposal is to assign the T-R General Plan designation, and ultimately, the C-T
zone to the Vigilucci property, other combinations can be considered. These combinations
include the following:
RWR-3: In lieu of changing the General Plan designation from commercial to residential, the
existing zoning could be changed from C-2 to R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential). The R-3 zone
is clearly consistent with the property’s existing RH General Plan designation? and the W-3
combination matches that of many properties in the beach area. However, this combination
would not allow commercial uses, which goes against the City Council direction to consider
keeping the Vigilucci property available for commercial use. Furthermore, if the property were
rezoned to residential, the restaurant would become a nonconforming use, subject to abatement
and eventual removal. For further information on the nonconforming use aspect, please see the
discussion on Nonconforming Buildings and Uses below.
RH/R-T or R-P: The RH designation potentially could also be combined with either the R-T
(Residential Tourist) or R-P (Residential Professional) zones. The R-P zone permits residential
and office uses. The R-T zone allows homes and, by conditional use permit, hotels and motels,
bed and breakfast uses, and recreation facilities. However, neither zone is primarily a
commercial zone and neither the R-T nor R-P would allow the current restaurant use; staff
believes the application of these zones would be contrary to the City Council’s direction to
consider keeping the Vigilucci property available for commercial use.
T-WC-I: Another consideration is to change the General Plan designation of the property to T-
R, as staff recommends, and to amend the property’s zoning to C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial).
34
GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/CUP 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE
January 2 1,2004
Pane 11
At first glance, this seems to be a very appropriate combination for the subject property. Among
other things, the C-1 zone already requires a conditional use permit for a restaurant with
incidental serving of alcohol. Furthermore, the C-1 zone requires the City to ensure such a use
has adequate parking, does not cause traffic congestion, and is compatible with its surrounding
neighborhood. However, staff does not recommend the application of the C-1 zone to the
Vigilucci property for the following reasons:
o The lack of adequate parking available to serve the restaurant, as discussed in greater
detail below, prevents the restaurant form complying with C-1 zone standards; and
o The C-1 zone allows uses, such as general office and neighborhood convenience that
are not compatible with a visitor-serving land use designation such as the proposed T-
R. Accordingly, staff does not believe the C-1 zone implements T-R. Furthermore,
and for similar reasons, it is unlikely that the Coastal Commission would support a T-
WC-1 combination because of the property’s beach location and the non-tourist
related uses C-1 permits.
T-WC-2: Maintaining the property’s existing C-2 (General Commercial) zone is not a
recommended option. Similar to C-1, the C-2 permits uses that do not implement the T-R
designation. Furthermore, the C-2 zone permits by right uses that &e inappropriate for a
property so close to residential uses, such as auto repair and commercial printing and restaurants
with incidental serving of alcohol.
O/O: Another consideration is an 0 (Office) General Plan designation and zoning for the
property. Although a restaurant is a conditionally permitted use in the 0 zone, the zone is
primarily intended for exclusive office use. Office uses may produce fewer compatibility issues
with nearby residences than commercial uses. However, the property is isolated in terms of
proximity to other office areas or supporting commercial services, and neither the 0 General
Plan designation nor the 0 zone are suited to serve a residential neighborhood and a
beachhourist area.
A diferent General PZm designation than T-R: As previously discussed, none of the other
existing commercial General Plan designations (L, R, or V) is appropriate for the property.
E. Local Coastal Program
The Vigilucci property is in the Mello I1 segment of the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP).
The LCP land use designation for the property is RH. To maintain consistency with the General
Plan as proposed for amendment, staff also proposes to change the Local Coastal Program
designation to T-R.
In its adoption of the Coastal Act in 1976, the state legislature declared that one of the basic
goals of the coastal zone was to maximize public access and recreational opportunities along the
coast. To this end, it adopted Public Resources Code Section 30222, which states:
The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational
facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall
_-
GPA Ol-O4/LCPA 01-07/CUP 02-19KDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 2 1,2004
have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial
development, but not over agricuIture or coastal-dependent industry.
Policy 6-8 of the Mello I1 segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program defines ‘Visitor
serving uses” as including “. . .hotels and motels, recreational facilities, restaurants and bars,
[and] amusement parks ...” Furthennore, at the time of its adoption in 1982, another Mello II
policy called for the establishment of 40 acres of additional visitor-serving uses, specifically
hotel and restaurant uses, While the restaurant on the Vigilucci property was already operating
in 1982, this policy helps underscore the importance of uses that serve tourists in the coastal
zone.
Because the T-R designation’s focus is on meeting the needs of the traveling public, staff
believes it is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. Moreover, unlike the City’s other
commercial General Plan designations, the T-R land use category is not a suitable designation
for offices, general retailers and other such uses that would be inappropriate on a property next to
the beach.
LCP policies regarding public access, visual resources, habitat, and agriculture are not at issue
with the proposed change in land use designation from RH to T-R. The designation change in
and of itself has no bearing on these policies and the Vigilucci property location is not in a
location that affects beach access or views. On the positive side, the proposed designation will
help maintain the public’s ability to access the Vigilucci property that under the existing RH
designation might not be possible in the future.
F. Compliance with Development Standards
As the following list shows, the restaurant building and use are either conforming or
nonconforming with the requirements of the property’s current C-2 zoning and with parking
standards.
o Use: The restaurant use conforms to the list of allowed uses in the C-2 zone.
o Setbacks:
o Front: The restaurant has a 53-foot front setback as measured from Tamarack
Avenue. The C-2 zone does not establish a front setback requirement, unless one
is established by a precise plan. (Though the property has a Carlsbad Boulevard
address, its front property line, by Zoning Ordinance definition, is measured from
Tamarack Avenue.)
o Rear: The restaurant has a 0-foot rear setback as measured from the north
property line. A rear setback in the C-2 zone is only required when the rear
property line borders a residentially zoned lot. Since the adjoining lot to the north
is residentially zoned, a rear setback of 10 feet is required. Before the Council
rezoned the adjoining lot from C-1 to R-3 in 2001 (see the discussion on the
Ledgerwood parcels in the Project Background section above), the restaurant
complied with the C-2 setback requirement.
o Interior side: The building has a 0-foot setback from the east property line. The
C-2 zone establishes no side setback.
‘
GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/CUP 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 21,2004
Page 13
o Street side: The building has only an approximately six to eighteen inch side
setback from the Carlsbad Boulevard right-of-way. The C-2 zone establishes no
street side setback.
The 4,816 square foot building covers about 34 percent of the
approximately 1/3 acre lot. The C-2 zone does not establish a maximum percentage by
which a building may cover a lot.
o Height: At 17-feet and one story, the height of the existing restaurant is well under the
35-foot high, three story limit of the C-2 zone.
o Parking: The 21 on-site parking spaces are inadequate to meet the needs of the
restaurant, which based on its square footage, requires 57 parking spaces.
o Lot Coverage:
Due to the variables among the different zones in the City, it is difficult to summarize how the
existing building would comply with the standards of zones other than C-2. However, regardless
of the zoning, it is likely that the building’s height, lot coverage and front setback would be
considered conforming and the buiIding’s rear setback and in some cases, interior side setback,
since both abut residential property, would be considered nonconforming. While the project
cannot be compared to the standards of the revised C-T zone because the zone is still being
drafted, the restaurant would comply with all of the above development standards of the existing
C-T zone, except for rear and interior side setbacks and parking. Moreover, since parking
standards apply to all zones, the restaurant’s existing parking would also be considered
nonconforming regardless of the zone pursuant to Chapter 2 1.44 of the Zoning Ordinance.
If a rezone to residential were contemplated, the existing building would be nonconforming with
residential zone requirements for intenor side, street side, and rear setbacks. The restaurant use
would also not comply with the uses permitted in a residential zone. If a developer proposed to
convert the building to residential use, such a proposal would require discretionary permits and
would have to comply with all zone requirements, necessitating the demoIition of a portion or all
of the building.
G. Parking Regulations
The availability of parking in and around the property has been a concern for years. The existing
4,816 square foot restaurant requires 57 parking spaces by Code. On-site, however, only 21
parking spaces at most exist, a deficiency of 36 spaces. Additionally, some aspects of the
parking lot are not compliant with city standards. Many of the spaces, for example, are a few
feet short of the 20-foot depth required for a standard stall, and the aisle width for about haIf the
existing spaces is only 21-feet. Standards require an aisle width of 24-feet. It is important to
realize, however, that under the current zoning, a restaurant is a permitted use. Therefore, absent
proposing changes that would increase parking demand, the current owner may occupy the
restaurant building with the parking “as-is.” However, in the agreements the applicant and the
City signed, the applicant has agreed to address the parking problem as part of the conditional
use permit process.
While the existing parking is inadequate for the current restaurant, it might be sufficient for
another commercial use, at least in terms of quantity of spaces. As shown below, a comparison
of Zoning Ordinance parking standards for different commercial uses reveals that other
commercial uses could occupy the building and comply with the number of parking spaces 38
_-
Parking Standard
Forty spaces, plus
one spa450 square
feet (sf) in excess
of 4,000 sf.
One space/250 sf
GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/CUP 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 2 1,2004
Parking Required
57 spaces
20 spaces
required by city standards. Please note the “parking required” column is determined based on a
4,8 16 square foot building, which is the size of the existing restaurant.
Use
Restaurant
I Professional Offices
bdividual retail uses One space/300 sf I 16 spaces
Under the proposed T-R designation, most ofices and many retail uses would not be considered
acceptable unless they expressly served the travel and recreation needs of the public.
Throughout the review of the project, providing adequate parking on-site has been an objective
of both the applicant and staff. Both are aware that the shortage may force some restaurant
patrons to park in surrounding streets, which can create conflicts with residents, and in the
summer, beachgoers. Furthermore, adequate parking in the past might have lessened problems
associated with the Sandbar as more of its patrons could have parked on-site rather than in the
surrounding neighborhood.
The applicant and staff have explored several parking alternatives. These included restriping,
utilizing off-site parking, and valet parking. Because of the small lot size, restriping of the lot
proved no measurable gain, and there are no adjacent or nearby properties on which off-site
customer parking may be located. If available, constructing a parking lot on the vacant lot north
of the restaurant would add no more than ten spaces, and, unless a portion of the restaurant were
demolished, would have no direct access to the restaurant parking lot. And, while demolishing
part of the restaurant would free up space and lessen parking demand at the same time, the
applicant is not proposing this action. The Tamarack Beach public parking lot across Carlsbad
Boulevard is owned by the state. ‘Annually, the City pays money to the state to keep this lot open
free to the public. Staff advised the applicant that the City would not participate in pursuit of
using the public Tamarack lot for commercial purposes. Other public parking in the area,
besides on surrounding residential streets, includes a stretch of parallel parking on Carlsbad
Boulevard, north of the restaurant. This stretch of parking, which is not owned by the state, is
located some distance fiom the restaurant and on the opposite side of Carlsbad Boulevard.
A parking improvement proposed by the applicant and supported by staff is valet parking.
Though in operation for approximately one year at the restaurant, the City has never formally
approved this parking arrangement. The advantages of valet parking include the ability to (1)
control access in and out of the parking lot, and (2) park more cars than achievable by customers
who self-pik. Managed parking by a valet is important because of the small size of the parking
lot. If the lot were not controlled, the applicant and staff believe self-parking at busy times could
be chaotic with cars being forced to use Tamarack Avenue to maneuver if no space could be
GPA 01-04LCPA 01-07/CUP 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SkAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 2 1,2004
found. On the other hand, under a valet arrangement, a valet can inform people that the lot is full
before they enter the lot.
While valet parking is an improvement, it is not a total solution. At best, about 28 cars can be
valet-parked on the site. (Please see the proposed valet parking plan in the attached exhibit C-2.)
This is still almost 30 spaces short of the 57 parking spaces city standards require. Because of
the small lot size and the need to maintain a turnaround and emergency vehicle access on the
property, the maximum number of spaces achievable is far short of the statutory requirement.
Limiting the number of valet spaces and maintaining access is critical not only for emergency
vehicles but for traffic safety and effectiveness as well. On ten different occasions in the spring
and summer of 2003, staff has observed the valet parking operations at the restaurant. At these
times, staff believes the applicant-imposed limit on the numbers of cars that a valet could park in
the lot was 35 to 50. During the daytime and some nighttime observations, no parking issues or
traffic problems were observed as the lot was no more than half full. However, on two Friday
evenings in March and August, very full lots created significant traffic problems. Most notably,
cars waited in the streets, sometimes blocking through traffic, before entering the parking lot.
Further, the cramped parking lot forced valets to use Tamarack Avenue for maneuvering area as
valets would sometimes back into the street or use it to make three-point turns. Additionally, the
crowded conditions caused restaurant customers to leave or enter their cars in the street or at the
driveway rather than in the parking lot. Besides causing queuing of vehicles in the street, they
also may prevent a person with disabilities from being able to conveniently access the restaurant.
. Nevertheless, staff believes the presently proposed valet parking plan is the best way to
effectively provide the maximum number of spaces possible. However, it will not eliminate
parking in the surrounding neighborhood nor parking conflicts on Tamarack Avenue. If the
property is designated for commercial uses, parking impacts to the neighborhood will remain.
These impacts may produce citizen complaints; in 2003, staff received complaints from at least
three individuals about traffic problems due to congestion on Tamarack Avenue caused by
vehicles entering (or attempting to enter) and exiting the restaurant parking lot and about
restaurant customers parking in the streets surrounding Vigilucci’s.
,
During off-peak periods, such as the afternoon when parking demand is low, valet parking is not
necessary. During these periods, the applicant would like the option of not using the valet
parking service and instead allow customers to park their own vehicles. Under a self-parking
plan, customers would use one of the 19 parking spaces.shown on Exhibit “A”, “Existing Site
Plan.” Although 21 parking spaces are available on the site at present, construction of the
proposed trash enclosure will require removal of two parking spaces nearest the northeast comer
of the building; one of these spaces is difficult to access because of existing building
improvements. Staff believes self-parking during off-peak periods is acceptable, and
recommends a condition that allows it as long as the continuous parking demand for the
restaurant does not exceed 19 spaces, or the capacity of the parking lot under self-parking.
During all other times, another condition requires operation of the valet parking plan.
’Because the existing restaurant lacks adequate parking, other commercial uses that occupy the
building will likely continue the parking problem, unless one or a combination of the following
occurs: (1) convenient off-site parking is found nearby, (2) a significant portion of the building 40
GPA 01-04LCPA 01-071CUP 02-191CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 2 1 , 2004
is demolished and not replaced, or (3) a use with a smaller parking demand than a restaurant
occupies the building. For Vigilucci’s and perhaps other businesses that may locate on the
property in the fbture, a parking impact is the tradeoff for keeping this site commercially
designated.
H. Coastal Development Permit Regulations and Proposed Outdoor Dining
The applicant has submitted a coastal development permit for approval of a proposed outdoor
dining area along the west side of his restaurant, facing Carlsbad Boulevard and the beach. The
outdoor dining area would be located on an existing patio, separated from the street and sidewalk
by an existing landscape strip. Since the Carlsbad Boulevard right-of-way extends nearly to the
front of the building, the outdoor dining would be located in the public right-of-way. If the
outdoor dining used all of the patio area north of the restaurant’s front double-door entry facing
the street, it would occupy about 650 square feet.
Although no physical improvements or changes are proposed to accommodate the outdoor
dining, a coastal development permit is required because the outdoor dining is considered a
development in the coastal zone since it represents a potential intensification of an existing use.
In a letter, the applicant states the purpose of the outdoor dining is not to increase the amount of
dining for the restaurant. Instead, Vigilucci proposes that when the weather permits, tables and
chairs from inside the restaurant will be moved outside. The applicant also indicates that no
additional seating will be provided indoors to replace that moved outside. Since it is simply a
relocation of existing seating, the applicant suggests no additional parking demand will result.
For the following reasons, however, staff recommends denial of the outdoor dining request
because it would (1) constitute an intensification of the existing restaurant and, in turn, a
nonconforming use, and (2) trigger the need for more parking:
The Zoning Ordinance counts a restaurant’s entire floor area, including its hallways,
kitchen, dining, and waiting areas, in determining parking requirements;
Inside space not occupied by seating may still be used as an area for customers to wait or
walk through;
An outdoor dining area represents an expansion of the restaurant’s floor or serving area
and therefore counts toward determining parking demand;
Ensuring the indoor space remains unused while outdoor dining occurs would be difficult
for the City to monitor and enforce;
The parking shortage at the restaurant is severe. At 650 square feet, the outdoor dining
creates a demand for 13 additional parking spaces. Under the valet parking scheme, the
restaurant is 29 spaces short of what it needs to provide. With outdoor dining, it is 42
spaces short;
The restaurant is in the Beach Area where parking is already at a premium;
Zoning Ordinance Section 21.48.080 prohibits the expansion, extension, or
intensification of a nonconforming use or building. Since Vigilucci’s does not meet city
setback and parking requirements, it is considered nonconforming; and
GPA OI-O4/LCPA 01-07/CUP 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 2 1,2004
Page 17
o Outdoor dining noise may disturb nearby residents. In particular, noise may bother the
occupants of any future home built on the
restaurant.
Further, the outdoor dining could not be approved
(IODA) standards because (1) it is in the right-of-way
provided.
vacant property just to the north of the
under the incidental outdoor dining area
and (2) adequate on-site parking cannot be
I. Conditional Use Permit Regulations
Because of concerns about parking and other aspects of a business operating in a residential area,
a stipulation of the agreement entered into by the applicant and the City required him to apply for
a conditional use permit. As specified in Zoning Ordinance Section 21.42.030, the permit
enables the City to regulate not only the use itself but also aspects of its operations, such as
business hours, noise, odor, and parking - all in an effort to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare. The City may also place limits on. the time the conditional use permit is valid and
require annual reviews. Furthermore, if upon a review the City finds a conditional use is not
complying with conditions or is negatively affecting its surroundings, it can revoke the permit.
Through a conditional use permit, the City also has flexibility in determining the requirements
for off-street parking. Zoning Ordinance Section 21.42.070 states:
The requirements for provisions of off-street parking applicable to the particular
use shall prevail, unless in the findings and conditions recited in the resolution
dealing with each such matter, specific exemptions are made with respect thereto.
The same flexibility is also enabled by the conditional use permit for front and side setbacks,
building height, and lot area requirements; none of these, however, are an issue for the building
under its current C-2 zoning.
Considering the proximity of the restaurant to homes and its lack of adequate parking, a
conditional use permit is appropriate for Vigilucci’s. In granting a conditional use permit for the
restaurant as recommended, four findings must be made. The findings and reasons to support
them follow:
Finding 1: That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the
community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General
Plan, including, if applicable, the certified local coastal program, and is not detrimental to
existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be
located.
Retaining the commercial use of the property and establishing a conditional use permit
for the existing restaurant are actions: (1) supported by the public as evidenced in the
public hearings for the applications which proposed the rezoning of the property to
residential (ZC 99-08LCPA 00-Ol), and (2) found worthy of consideration by the
Planning Commission (as expressed in Resolution 4892) and City Council (as expressed
in Resolution 200 1-72). 43
GPA 01 -04/LCPA 01-07/CUP 02-19jCDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 2 1,2004
Page IS
Furthermore, as demonstrated earlier in this report, the existing use would be consistent
with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program, under the proposed amendments. To
ensure compatibility with surrounding uses, staff recommends conditions of approval to
include the following:
a. Restrictions on operating hours to not close past midnight (the current closing
time on weekends).
b. Restriction on entertainment noise so at anytime it is not audible beyond the
boundaries of the restaurant property.
c. Prohibition on dancing and dance bands.
d. No outdoor dining.
e. Compliance with the approved valet parking plan and self-parking plans.
f. Annual review of the conditional use permit by the Planning Director and ability
by the City to revoke the permit at any time if warranted and after a public
hearing.
Continual upkeep of the building and grounds.
Installation of a trash enclosure’and landscape screening as proposed.
Operation of the restaurant substantially consistent with the definition of a “bona
fide public eating establishment” which Zoning Ordinance Section 2 1.04.056
defines as follows:
’
g. h.
1.
“Bona fide public eating establishment” means any establishment
at which the primary business is the preparation, service and retail
sale of meals comprising a varied selection of foods and
nonalcoholic beverages prepared, served and consumed on the
premises.
To be classified as a bona fide public eating establishment, an
establishment, which engages in the sale of beer, wine or distilled
spirits for consumption on the premises shall meet the following
requirements:
(1) Be designed and operated in such a way that the sale of
alcoholic beverages is incidental to the primary restaurant
operation;
(2) On any day the restaurant is open to the public for business and
engaged in the incidental sale of alcoholic beverages, restaurant
services shall be available to the public for the evening meal for a
period of not less than five hours, or for not less than four hours, if
the morning or noon meal is also served to the public for a period
of not less than two hours;
(3) Restaurant service shall include, but not be limited to, an
offering of a varied menu of foods or not less than five main
courses with appropriate nonalcoholic beverages, desserts, salads
and other attendant dishes;
(4) The sale of any food prepared for consumption off the premises
shall be occasional only and clearly incidental and subordinate to
the on-premises restaurant operation;
GPA 01-O4ILCPA 01 -07/CUP 02-19XDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 2 1,2004
Page 19
(5) No more than twenty-five percent of the interior area of the
restaurant shall be designed, arranged or devoted to a use
commonly associated with a bar or other establishment primarily
engaged in the on-premises sale of alcoholic beverages. The
interior area shall include only those portions of the establishment
devoted to regular use by the public;
(6) A minimum of twenty percent of the gross floor area of the
establishment shall be used solely for food storage, preparation,
maintenance and storage of eating utensils, dishes and glassware
and shall include refrigeration, cooking, warming and dishwashing
equipment, and any other equipment necessary for a fully equipped
restaurant kitchen;
(7) During the above specified minimum hours for restaurant
services, there shall be not less than one employee per two hundred
and fifty square feet of floor area devoted to food service use. Said
employee or employees shall be on the job during the specified
minimum hours for the restaurant service as described in
subsection (2) of this section.
The City Council may waive the above requirements relating to
hours, menus, alcoholic beverage area, kitchen area, employees
and equipment if they find a proposed restaurant will provide
equivalencies, meets the other requirements of this section and
will, in fact, be operated as a bona fide restaurant.
Uses not specifically named in this section but which are of
substantially the same general type and character and are within
the intent and purpose of this section may be permitted; provided,
however, that the burden of proving the same shall rest with the
person seeking to establish that use.
.
The conditional use permit and recommended conditions will ensure the restaurant is
consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Commercial Policy C10, which states
“encourage commercial recreation or tourist destination facilities, as long as they
protect the residential character of the community.. .”
Finding 2: That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
use.
Vigilucci’s Seafood and Steakhouse is an existing, not an intended, use, and the site
on which it is located is fully developed. The site cannot accommodate the parking
required by the existing use, and the existing parking does not meet all required
dimensional standards. However, the site has lacked adequate, conforming parking
for many years and the current restaurant operation is similar to past restaurant
operations on the site. No opportunities exist to expand the parking lot either on-site,
unless a portion of the building is demolished, or off-site as all adjacent properties are
developed or proposed for residential development. Screening of the parking lot fiom
surrounding uses and streets is adequately achieved by the existing building and
existing and proposed landscaping.
GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/CUP 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SbAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 21,2004
In recognition of the lack of parking, restaurant customers over the years have parked
and will likely continue to park in the surrounding neighborhood. The restaurant also
serves residents in the surrounding neighborhood and beachgoers, some of who walk
instead of drive to the restaurant.
To improve the parking situation, the applicant has proposed to implement a valet
parking plan to maximize the available on-site parking spaces and provide necessary
on-site vehicle maneuvering room and emergency vehicle access. Despite the
improvements achieved through the valet parking plan, the number of on-site parking
will remain inadequate to meet Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Staff believes that even with the parking inadequacy, the restaurant is a use that, with
the control enabled by this conditional use permit, can work adequately to satisfy the
City and the restaurant’s neighbors. This position is supported by the public
testimony and discussion that influenced the City Council to pursue designating the
property for commercial use as contained in Resolution 2001-72. In addition,
conditions of this conditional use permit require compliance with the approved valet
parking plan and prohibit outdoor dining, which would create additional parking
demand. Accordingly, based on Zoning Ordinance Section 2 I .42.070, which allows
flexibility in applying parking standards through the conditional use permit process
and related findings and conditions, and because the CUP can be revoked if the lack
of parking becomes unacceptable, the City can make this finding.
Finding 3: That all of the yards, setbacks, wails, fences, lanclscaping, and other features
necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood
will be provided and maintained.
The rear yard setback of the restaurant complied with zoning standards before the
2001 rezoning from commercial to residential of the property adjacent to the north.
The restaurant complies with all other setback requirements. Further, the few minor
improvements proposed as part of the permit, a trash enclosure and small strip of
landscape screening, adjust the existing use to its surroundings along with
recommended conditions of approval.
Finding 4: That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all
trafic generated by the proposed use.
The use is existing, not proposed. As such, it will generate no new traffic. Based on
recent traffic surveys, the levels of service on Tamarack Avenue and Carlsbad
Boulevard and at the intersection of both streets are acceptable and meet city
requirements. In addition, the average daily traffic on both streets is well below each
street’s design capacity. Furthermore, the proposed valet parking plan incorporates
an on-site vehicle maneuvering area, which should improve the ability of cars
entering and leaving the restaurant parking lot and lessen trafic conflicts and
congestion on Tamarack Avenue. .
49’
GPA 01-OWLCPA 01-07/CLJP 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SLAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 2 1 , 2004
Page 21
J. Encroachment Agreement and Minor Site Improvements
As part of the conditional use permit request, the applicant has proposed to perfom some minor
site and building improvements. One of the planned improvements would be to install an
awning along the west and south-facing sides of his building. Both the existing site plan and
elevation exhibits depict the proposed awning. Because the awning will extend over the right-of-
way along the building’s west side, an encroachment agreement, approved by the City
Engineering Department, will be required. An encroachment agreement is also necessary for
some previously completed landscape work in the right-of-way along Tamarack Avenue and
Carlsbad Boulevard.
Additionally, the applicant proposes to install a trash enclosure in the far northeast corner of the
parking lot, near the back of the building and where the current trash bin is kept. Presently, the
trash bin is not screened. The new masonry enclosure with a solid gate will improve the
appearance of the site. It will also not eliminate opportunities for on-site parking since it is
proposed where a parked car would interfere with the necessary vehicle turnaround area.
Finally, at the southeast comer of the site, a small landscape strip and additional landscaping are
proposed to primarily improve screening of the restaurant’s parking lot fiom Tamarack Avenue.
K Nonconforming Buildings and Structures
As previously discussed, the restaurant building and use are either conforming or nonconforming
with the requirements of the property’s current C-2 zoning and with other Zoning Ordinance
standards. The restaurant use conforms to the list of allowed uses in the C-2 zone, but does not
meet the zone’s rear setback requirement. Additionally, on-site parking for the restaurant does
not comply with Zoning Ordinance quantity and some dimensional standards.
.
Should the City approve the General Plan Amendment from RH to T-R and ultimately a new
commercial zone for the property, the restaurant may remain nonconforming in terms of setbacks
and will remain nonconforming in terms of parking. If the conditional use permit is approved,
the restaurant use likely will be conforming to the recommended new zoning for the property,
which is C-T.
Zoning Ordinance Section 21.48.080 (Nonconforming Buildings and Structures) states that,
under limited exceptions, “. ..a nonconforming use or building shall not be altered, improved,
reconstructed, restored, repaired, intensified, expanded or extended.” One exception allows the
incidental repair of nonconforming building made necessary by ordinary wear and tear. Another
exception (as stated in Section 21.48.090) allows expansions of up to 40% of the existing floor
area if the building is nonconforming only in terms of setbacks. This exclusion would not apply
to Vigilucci’s, however, because of the noncompliant on-site parking. Furthermore, staff
recommends disapproval of the outdoor dining proposal since it represents an intensification of a
nonconforming building and structure.
.
Should Carlsbad not approve the General Plan Amendment fiom RH to T-R and instead decide
‘ to rezone the property to residential (probably R-3) to match its existing RH land use
designation, the restaurant use would also be considered nonconforming with the fiture
residential zone. Section 21.48.060 states that commercial buildings located in a residential zone #6
GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/CUP 02-19iCDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SLAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 21,2004
are to be removed or altered to conform to zoning standards within a period established by the
Planning Commission. This period could last for several years to allow for amortization of the
existing restaurant improvements.
L. Growth Management Ordinance (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1)
The subject property is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. To determine its
existing and future impacts on public facilities, the 1987 Local Facilities Management Plan for
Zone 1 designated the property as commercial. On both the subject and adjacent properties to
the north (with the latter being the previous Ledgenvood properties zoned C-1), the Plan
indicated 5,000 square feet of existing commercial development and the potential for 5,000
square feet more. Since 1987, the restaurant building has remained virtually unchanged.
Further, due to the small size of the Vigilucci property and the redesignation of the former
Ledgenvood properties from commercial to residential, the potential for additional commercial
area is unlikely. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Growth Management Ordinance.
As discussed earlier in the section regarding loss of residential development potential, the change
in General Plan designation from RH (High Density Residential) to T-R (Travel-Recreation
Commercial), if approved, will contribute six dwelling units to the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt fiom the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Applicable CEQA provisions include Guidelines Section 1.530 1, which exempts projects
proposing no or only minor modifications, and Section 15061(b)(3), which exempts projects
where there is certainty of no significant project impacts. With denial of the proposed outdoor
dining as recommended, the project does not represent any change in the operations or
intensification of the existing restaurant use or site.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5549 (GPA)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5550 (LCPA)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5551 (CUP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5552 (CDP)
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Disclosure Statements
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4892
City Council Resolution 2001-72
Reduced Exhibits
Full Size Exhibits “A” - “G” dated January 2 1 2004
SD:bd:mh
47
CURRENT LAND USE: RH
PROPOSED LAND USE: T-R
I
VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE
GPA 01=04/LCPA 01=07/CUP 0249
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/CUP 02-19/CDP 02-34
CASE NAME: Vigilucci's Seafood & Steakhouse
APPLICANT: Roberto Vigilucci
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Apmoval of: (1) General Plan and Local Coastal Promam amendments to urovide a suitable land use desimation for an existing restaurant; (2) a Conditional
Use Permit for the restaurant. and (3) a Coastal Develoument Permit to allow outdoor dining
Restaurant location is 3 878 Carlsbad Boulevard.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 1 of Parcel map No. 3713. in the Citv of Carlsbad. Countv of San
Diego. State of California, filed in the Office of the Countv Recorder of San Diego County. April21,
1975 as File No. 75-092233 of Official Records.
APN: 204-253-20 Acres: 1/3 acre (amrox) Proposed No. of LotsNnits: NIA
GENERAL PLAN AM) ZONING
Existing Land Use Designation:
Density Allowed: 15-24 unitdacre
Existing Zone: C-2
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Proposed Land Use Designation: T-R
Density Proposed: N/A
Proposed Zone: N/A
Zoning General Plan
Site c-2 RH
North R-3, BAOZ RH
South RD-M RH
East R-3 RH
West OS os
Current Land Use
Restaurant
~ Vacant
Condominiums
Apartments
Beach
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): N/A - existing use
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration, issued
0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other, GPA 01-04 & LCPA 01-07: Exempt fiom CEOA Dursuant to CEOA Guidelines
Section 15061(b)(3). CUP 02-19 and CDP 02-34: CateporicalIv Exempt from CEOA
pursuant to Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities)
- City of Carlsbad
-Applicant's statement ordisclosm of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action m the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The following information JWST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your pr0ject.cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note: Person b defined as "Any individual, firm, co-putacrship, joint venture, arsociition, social club, htcnul organization, wrporptiW, estate, kus?, receiver, syndicate, in this and my other county, city d county, City
municipality,
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal - and entity of the applicant and propaty om must be provided below.
or other political snbdivisicm or my other pup or combination acting as unit."
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMpLETE. LEU names and ad&csses of Bw[r persons having a hncial
interest in the application. H the applicant includes a ~ ' include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% 'of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10?4 OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a oybliclvswned c- * include the names, titles, and addresses of the corparatt officers. (A separate page my be attached if
necessary.)
Title Owner Title N/A
pmon Roberto Vigilucci codpa MA
Address 3878 Carlsbad Blvd Address N/A Carlsbad, CA 92008
2. OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Provide the CO- names and addresses of && persons having any owrietship
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (Le,
partnership, tenants h common, non-profit, corpOration, etc.). If the ownaship hcludes 8
pornratton or D~IQ&Q, mclude the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning morc
than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN IOO? OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a
g- include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A SCparate page may be attached if necessary.)
person Roberto Vigilucci corp/Psrt N/A
Title Owner Tide N/A
Adkss 3878 Carlsbad Blvd Addpss N/A Carlsbad, CA 92008
..
1635 Faraday Avenue 0 Carlsbad. CA 02OO8-7314 (760) 6024600. * FAX (760) 602-8559 '6
,
3. NON-PROF“ OLJANLZATION OR TRUST
.. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is g nom rofit orzanizmo noratrus t, list the
names and addresses of person serving as an officcr or director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profiflrust Non Profiflmst
Title Title
A*SS Addrcss
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business tmpacted with my member of City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
yes NO If yes, please indicate personts):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
/I - V
Roberto Viqilucci Roberto Vigilucci
Print or type me of owner print or type me of applicant
--
Kpature of owncr/applicant’s agent if applicablddate . e
Print or type name of owncr/applicant’s agent
HADMIMCOUNTERWISCLOSURE STATEMENT WQS
50 Page 2 of 2