Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 01-07; Seaside Bistro Zone Change; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (7)April 14, 2004 California Coastal Commission San Diego District Ste 103 7575 Metropolitan Dr San Diego CA 92108-4402 APPLICATION FOR LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT 1. II. 111. IV. V. VI. J U Rl SDl CTlON CITY OF CARLSBAD - LCPA 01 -07 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE SEGMENT? Mello II seament TYPE OF AMENDMENT SUBMllTAL (check) A) LUP w 6) ZONING 0 C) LCP (Land Use & Zoning) 0 LCP STATUS Y/N, DATE A) LUP CERTIFIED Y. 1981 6) ZONING CERTIFIED Y. 1996 N N C) ZONING OF COMM. ACTION ON - D) PRIOR COMMISSION ACTION ON THIS - SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS SUBMITTAL? SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT PROPOSAL The proposal would change the property’s land use designation from Residential High Density (RH) to Travel/Recreation Commercial (T-R). The proposed designation would support the property’s existing restaurant use. COMMISSION OFFICE USE ONLY: AMENDMENT # DATE RECEIVED DATE FILED COMM. HEARING AGENDA COMMISSION ACTION: A: I AWM , D Date PROJECT PLANNER For information regarding this application, please contact Scott Donnell, Associate Plan- ner, at (760) 602-4618. LCPA SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS -- CHECKLIST 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Council Resolution - signed and dated indicating City intends to administer LCP consistent with the Coastal Act and indicating date LCPA will take ef- fect. Provided (see Attachment 1) NOTE: All amendments take effect immediately upon Coastal Commission approval unless otherwise stated. A reproducible copy of Council adopted LCPA 0 If new text, indicate where it fits into certified text. c] If revised text, clearly indicate using strikeouts and/or underlines showing modifications. If map change, submit replacement map. Provided (see Attachment 21 A discussion of amendment’s relationship to and effect on other sections of the previously certified Provided (see Attachment 31 LCP. Zoning measures that will implement the LCPA. Provided (see Attachment 4) Affect on public access (only for area between first public road and the Coast). Provided (see Attachment 51 An analysis of potentially significant adverse cumu- lative impacts on coastal resources. Provided (see Attachment 6) Provided (see Attachment 7) Provided (see Attachment 8) Copies of environmental review documents. Summary of measures to ensure both public and agency participation. List of public hearing dates Notice of interested parties w Mailing list w Comments 0 Responses to comments All staff reports plus attachments. Provided (see Attachment 9) Attachment 1 - Adopted Council Resolution No. 2004-082 approving LCPA 01 -07 Attachment 2 - Council-adopted LCPA (Attached is the map showing the LCPA map change from Planning Commission Reso- lution 5550, approved as part of adopted City Council Resolution 2004-082) Attachment 3 - Discussion of the LCPA’s relationship to and af- fect on other sections of the previously certif.ied LCP The only change LCPA 01-07 proposes is to the land use designation of the subject property. The subject property is completely developed and contains no coastal re- sources. The LCPA does not propose any other changes that would affect other properties or other sections of the City’s certified LCP. Attachment 4 - Zoning Measures to implement the LCPA 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) Local Coastal Program designation. While city 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 Plan/Zoning Consistency program. This multi-year city work program identifies and corrects in- consistencies between the text and maps of the General Plan and Zoning Ordi- nance. One component of the program is an overhaul of the City’s C-T, or Commer- cial Tourist zone. C-T is the zone that implements the T-R designation proposed for the Vigilucci property. Commercial Policy C.12 of the General Plan Land Use Ele- ment states the City shall revise the C-T zone so it more accurately reflects the in- tent of the T-R designation. Staff will bring text revisions to the C-T zone and the T- R designation to public hearing in 2004. Thereafter, staff will propose General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map changes to apply the C-T zone to various properties, including the subject property. Attachment 5 - Affect on public access The subject property is not located between the coast and Carlsbad Boulevard, which is the first public road paralleling the coast. The property is located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard, directly across the street from Tamarack Beach. A restaurant has operated on the property for decades. The proposed TraveVRecreation Commercial land use designation will help maintain the public’s ability to access the project site that under the current Residential High Density land use designation might not be possible in the future. Attachment 6 - Analysis of potentially significant adverse cumu- lative impacts on coastal resources The proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and all applicable policies of the Mello II segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program not being amended by this amendment, in that: Chapter 3 (Section 30222) states that private lands suitable for visitor- serving commercial uses have priority over private residential uses; Policy 6-8 of the Mello II segment includes restaurants in its definition of visitor-serving commercial uses. The existing use on the property is a res- taurant, and this use is not proposed to change; The subject property location is ideally suited for visitor-serving commer- cial uses given its location next to the beach and along major streets; and The designation change does not conflict with coastal policies on public access, visual resources, habitat, or agriculture and the fully developed Vigilucci property is not in a location that affects beach access or views. (1) (2) (3) (4) Attachment 7 - Environmental Review The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Applicable CEQA provisions include Guidelines Section 15301, which ex- empts projects proposing no or only minor modifications, and Section 15061 (b)(3), which exempts projects where there is certainty of no significant project impacts. Attachment 8 - Summary of measures to ensure both public and agency participation 1. Six week public notice of proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA a. Notice was published in the North County Times and Coast News on No- vember 13,2003. b. Notice was posted in various public city facilities and the Coastal Commis- sion’s San Diego office c. Notice was mailed to all interested parties (see attached notice and list) d. Publishing and mailing of Notice began a six-week public review period, which ended December 25,2003. 0 1 -07) 2. Public hearing notices a. Notice of public hearing for the January 21, 2004, Planning Commission meeting at which review of LCPA 01-07 occurred was published in the North County Times on January 8,2004 (see attached notice). b. Notice of public hearing for the March 9, 2004, City Council meeting at which review of LCPA 01-07 occurred was published in the North County Times on February 27, 2004 (see attached notice). c. Public hearing notices for both the Planning Commission and City Council meetings were: i. Posted on the City’s website and in various public city facilities. ii. Mailed to all property owners within a 600-foot radius of the project property, all occupants within a 100-foot radius of the project prop- erty, and all interested parties (see attached mailing list) 3. Comments received/Responses to comments In response to the public hearing notices, the City received comments both in writing and verbally at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Please refer to the meeting minutes and the attached letters received. Mr. Scott Donnell, City Plannar City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Re: APN -204-253-20 Public Hearing on 1/21/2004 We are Ruben and Ann Cerecedes and reside 8 3875 Garfield I one (1) block East of Vigilucci's Rcstaunmt, the applicant in th County. we are not ab10 to anend tonights meeting; however, n record. As fi Aeen (I 5) year residents of this area we are SUTviv~ of \ such, we wen initially pleased to learn that a mpcctcd bines building. However, we are now having second thoughts, mc negative incidents regarding Viilucci's staff parking and the c its Valet Parking. Based on the aforementioned pblans With Vigilicci's, we arc additional seating. Our CMC~ am based on the folkwing 1) On a daily basis, particularly during the summcrmonths, w available parking to restaurant staff. I pcroonally have seen 5 sb proximity, thereby elimiting parking fbr guam or relarives fa appears that more than one (1) shift is involved as whm one m park in the same area!i attillm andalsomollopolizethe space f work truck was the culprit. This occurs on a daily basis, most nf 2) Aaotbct set of events that has &come even more pobkmati by the establishment. On a daily basis, again during the summa operating the Val& Parking service wm parking cars on Garth tham on several occasions askiug if they wcm using our sbset a the affirmptive and continued abwtthtirbusiaeu. We now hd staff for parking, but with .nother bustwss as well. As turpayio rights to Live in a paceful, residentid community, which inclru Bicnds and nlativeo is bemg imged upon by a busii mort a good neighbor. I have attempted to discuss die matter with the DWIICI, or mlmq nothing they cauld do ngardmg the Valet Parking bscauss it wi with them. How could this be the care? Would &cy, CQUM they regarding their business protocol. Regding the empIoyse parl staff would be smcturcd on not parking in areas that would in11 change bas everb#a noted. In summary, beb additionat resting is avcrrpprmcd, would issues. particularly in view of the fact thas ~otha Summa Vala Parking Mnmning throughout thc neigbahood, drivlni compating with residents who live here and who are tax paying become a liability in the manner taey conduct tkir business. Tl gcady overflowing during the summer months for thore vieil point will on@ pupmate the problem Your considemtion to o P. 02 EXHIBIT 4 January 19,2004 carlsbad, Ca 92008. We arc located nabter. Due to job restmints in Riverside est that this letter be read into the public 1iCn"s pdccessor, the sand Bar. As ;tabliishmcnt would be occupying the rly having experienced some very blishment 's appamrt $bcontracting 06 - mmantly opposed to tbeir nquest to add c residents on Garfield sweet lope park in fiont of our home or in close pproxfmately 8 hours during the day. It S born. On one ocasirn, Vii's sbly during summer months. yce leave& thert ltrt others that come, t that of the Vdet Parking being utilized onh and Holiday season, the stag Stre& at will. The undersigned spoke to verflow Valet Perking They stnswd in compete not only with the Vigilucci sridsnta of this City, it sams as if our tbe opportunity to preide paking for warned about making proths, than bsmg however, was told that that then was rot their business, they only contracted t hsve dctcnnined the guidelines g, I have penonally been told thatihc t midento; however, no significant ty officials please address tbe parking ~esslyu they have in the piut, m be upon us. We can ill afhl haviog utitwnts and who m essence have mch parking lot below Vigilucci's is ; w beaches. Additional seating at lhis 'quest would be greatly appreciated. H&e phone 729-4382k. To: Planning Commission RE: APN # 204-253-20 Public Htating on 1/21/2004 1/10/20w We we not able to sttend the meeting tonight and ask that this letter be read into the public record. We are Bill and Diane Lantz, residing at I44 Redwood Ave, Carlsbad, Ca We live around the corner fiom Vigilucci's Restaurant, the applicant. I fvst want to state that wc arc not opposed to the change to commercial designation for the property. Roberto has done a good job and his restaurant is much better than what has been there in the past. What we ar0 concmed about is the additional seating being asked for, not the fict of outside dining but in regards to the parking issue. The parking issue with us is: a Employee's and Patrons for the restaurant that park on our street, and have a right to use the streed, stan of problem, 0 Some patrons DO NOT use the valet Service at Vigilucci's because it costs 52.00 and because of this arc oonstantly driving up and down Redwood, Oarfield and the surrounding streets looking for places to park. Increased impact on the RESTDENTIAL neighborhood. 0 VALET SERVICE CONTRACTED BY VIGILUCCI'S, On most summer weekends, the valet service used at Vigilucci's is trying to desperately park cars anywhere. We have witnessed them RACING up and down the RESIDENTfAL streets, driving backwards fast and competing with the residents and beachgoers fbr parking, Theie are young clii1dren"thaf pUy aiS%iin---- this street (Redwood Ave) and for the most part the valets are a bit unaware of the pedestrians. We have seen them block driveways and the street while they arc moving the parked car's around. Wc discussed parking issues with the manager at Vigilucci's and were told by the manager that he had no control over the valet service that they contracted with. Why not? They contracted with them. 0 My understanding from the original negotiations and conversations with Mr. Vigilucci were that utilbhg the parking lot at Tamarack Beach. I would have imagined that this woutd be on IL NO Charge basis so the patrons wodd gladly us8 the service and lessen the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. What happened to this agreement? lfthe agreement was fix the city to have parking available as it does in the village with the public lots then why doesn't the city rwwc parking spaces fbr Vigilucci's in the Tamarack lot on busy weekend's? 0 Summer time brings on additional parking issues. As the beach gets busier every summer, availability for Vigilucci's valet use of the Tamarack lot lessens and then Vigiluoci's parking overflows onto the residential streets. 0 in regards to parking at Vigilucci's, they were going to provide valet parking . The Beach overlay zoqe is,already overly impacted with regards to parking for residents and beachgows. The additional stress that the pkking issue with Vigilucci's has put on our neighborhood daes not help. I do support Roberto but before you approve additional dinning seats I feel that the parking issuts need to be addressed. Anywhere else in the city them are strict requirements for parking spaces per table. In the village this is a big issue and it needs to be here also. Until Roberto and the city can find a way to solve the parking issue I feel that the coastal permit request for outside dinning be denied. TOT# P.02 Attachment 9 - Staff reports with all attachments