HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-09; City Council; 17539; Vigilucci's Seafood & SteakhouseCITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
Project applications
GPA 01-04
LCPA 01 -07
CUP 02-19
17,539
3/9/04
AB#
MTG.
DEPT. PLN@
Administrative Reviewed by and To be Reviewed -
Approvals Final at Planning Commission Final at Council
X
X
X
-
CITY DEPT-HD. ATTY. SW
CITY MGR a
TITLE:
VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE
GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07lCUP 02-19
Project applications
GPA 01-04
LCPA 0 1-07
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Purpose
Change land use designation from RH (High Density
Residential) to T-R (Travel Recreation Commercial)
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2004-082 , APPROVING General
Plan Amendment GPA 01-04, Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 01-07, and Conditional Use
Permit CUP 02-19 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The three project applications are for property at 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard, the location of Vigilucci’s
Seafood and Steakhouse. The table below shows the purpose of each of the project applications:
I CUP 02-19 I Establish a conditional use permit for the existing restaurant I
The review of this project involves the following unique aspects:
1. Application and review requirements are based on Council direction. In 2001, the City
Council considered a city-initiated proposal to rezone the property from commercial to
residential to match its General Plan designation. Instead, the City Council, based in part
on public testimony and assurances from the former restaurant owner (Jim
DiMaggiolSeaside Bistro), directed staff to evaluate retaining the property for commercial
purposes. Council Resolution 2001 -72 directed that all applications necessary for
consideration of keeping the property commercial, including a conditional use permit, be
brought to the City Council for final action following Planning Commission review and
recommendation.
2. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required by agreement, not by zone. The property’s
current C-2 (General Commercial) zone permits a restaurant by right. Resolution 2001 -72
directed the former restaurant owner to file a CUP, an action that he had already offered.
Subsequently, the restaurant and property were sold to the current owner, Mr. Roberto
Vigilucci. Through recorded agreements with the City, Mr. Vigilucci has taken on the
obligation to submit a CUP.
3. The effective date of the CUP is not contingent on GPA or LCPA approval. Planning
Commission Resolution 5551 states the CUP shall become effective upon its approval by
City Council rather than upon approval of the GPA or LCPA. Staff has intentionally written
the resolution in this way to (1) recognize the fact that the restaurant will remain even if
the City Council or Coastal Commission denies the GPA or LCPA, respectively, and (2)
enable the City to regulate the restaurant while it continues to operate.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. l7, 539
4. Staffproposes no zone change at this time. The existing C-2 zone does not implement
the recommended T-R (TraveVRecreation Commercial) or the existing RH general plan
designations for the property. Staff will propose to rezone the property C-T (Commercial
Tourist) since this zone directly implements the T-R designation. However, the proposed
rezoning will not occur until after completion of current efforts to revise the C-T zone so it
more accurately reflects the T-R designation’s intent. C-T zone revisions are part of the
comprehensive General Plan/Zoning Consistency project, a multi-year city work program
involving map and text changes that should be brought forward to the City Council this
summer.
The Planning Commission considered the project applications at its January 21 and February 4,
2004, meetings. At the January meeting, Commissioners had significant discussions about the
proposed outdoor dining, maximum restaurant occupancy, and parking. Three residents who live
near the restaurant spoke on various issues, including restaurant parking impacts on the
neighborhood, outdoor dining, and designating the property for commercial uses. The Commission
also received a letter from a Garfield Street resident expressing concern about restaurant parking on
his street. Commissioners continued the project to the February 4 meeting and directed staff to
return with findings and conditions for a CUP to allow outdoor dining.
On February 4, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 (Whitton) to recommend to the City Council
approval of the project applications.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Applicable CEQA provisions include Guidelines Section 15301, 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.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff has identified no fiscal impacts.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS:
The 1987 Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1 examined the property as commercial. Since
then, the property has remained virtually unchanged. No change to the existing use is proposed, and
the potential for additional commercial on the property, given its small size, is unlikely. Therefore, the
project is consistent with the Growth Management Ordinance.
If approved, the recommended General Plan designation change from RH to T-R will contribute six
dwelling units to the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank.
EXHIBITS:
I. City Council Resolution No. 2004-082
2. Location Map
3.
4.
5.
6.
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5549, 5550, and 5551
January 19, 2004, letter to the Planning Commission
Planning Commission Staff Reports, dated February 4,2004, and January 21 , 2004
Draft Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated February 4, 2004, and Excerpts of
Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 21 , 2004.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Scott Donnell, (760) 602-461 8, sdonn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-082
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE
GENERAL PLAN AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM MAPS BY
CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM “RH” (HIGH
COMMERCIAL) AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
OPERATE AN EXISTING RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY AT
3878 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1
CASE NAME:
DE N S I TY RES I D E NTI AL) TO “T-R” (TRAVE URE C RE AT1 0 N
VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE
CASE NO.: GPA 01-04/LCPA OI-O7/CUP 02-19
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission, on January 21, 2004, and February 4, 2004, held a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law to consider a General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program, and
Conditional Use Permit and recommended their approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 9th day of
March , 2004, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said General Plan
Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment, and Conditional Use Permit and at that time
received recommendations, objections, protests, comments of all persons interested in or
opposed to GPA 01-04, LCPA 01-07, and CUP 02-19; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council approves City Council Resolution No. 2004 - 087
and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 5549, 5550 and 5551, on file with the City Clerk and made a part
hereof by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
3. That the application for a General Plan Amendment from “RH” to “T-R on
property at 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5549, is
hereby accepted, approved in concept, and shall be formally approved with GPA Batch No. 1
comprised of GPA 01-03, GPA 02-01, GPA 03-01, GPA 03-04 , GPA 03-09 and GPA 03-12.
3 ..
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 d
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 9th day of March 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall, and Packard AYES:
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Resolution No. 2004-082 page 2
-2-
EXHIBIT 2
SITE
CURRENT LAND USE: RH
PROPOSED LAND USE: T-R
VIGILUCCI'S SEAFOOD
& STEAKHOUSE
GPA 01 -04/LCPA 01 -07/CUP 02-1 9 5
1
n L
3
4
5
c
7
E
S
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5549
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM “RH” (HIGH DENSITY
MERCIAL) ON PROPERTY AT 3878 CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 1.
CASE NAME:
CASE NO: GPA 0 1-04
RESIDENTIAL) TO “T-R, (TRAVELMECREATION COM-
VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE
WHEREAS, the Planning Director, “Applicant,” as directed by City Council
Resolution No. 2001-72, has filed a verified application regarding property owned by Roberto
Vigilucci, “Owner,” described as
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 3713, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, April 21, 1975 as File No. 75-
092233 of Official Records
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan
Amendment as shown on Exhibit “GPA 01-04” dated January 21,2004, attached hereto and on
file in the Planning Department VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE - GPA 01-04
as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.160 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 21st day of January 2004 and
on the 4th day of February 2004 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the General Plan Amendment.
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
HOUSE - GPA 01-04, based on the following findings and condition:
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD & STEAK-
Findings:
1. The subject property’s location next to the beach and along major roads 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.
2.
3.
4.
The application of T-R to the subject property, which has long served the adjacent
beach and residential areas with eating establishments, is consistent with the
General Plan, including the following parts of the Land Use Element:
a. 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. Commercial Goal A.4, whic,h states, “A City that promotes recreational and
tourist-oriented land uses which serve visitors, employees of the industrial
and business centers, as well as residents of the city.”
The proposed T-R land use designation is in conformance with the Circulation
Element in that it would be applied to property that is already fully developed with
an existing restaurant use that is appropriate under the T-R designation and for
which a conditional use permit is being sought. Therefore, no additional traffic
impacts to surrounding streets would result from the project. In addition, the
proposed valet parking plan, compared to self-parking, increases on-site
maneuverability and the number of available parking spaces and provides
controlled regulation of vehicles entering and leaving the property.
The proposed change to the commercial T-R designation is in conformance with the
Housing Element in that the change will not conflict with objectives to provide
adequate housing to accommodate projected growth in the City. Since the T-R
designation does not allow residential uses, the six homes that potentially could be
built on the property under the existing RH designation and at the Growth
Management Control Point (GMCP) of 19 du/ac will be added to the City’s Excess
Dwelling Unit Bank. The GMCP was used for calculating the City’s compliance
with Government Code Section 65584. However, consistent with Program 3.8 of the
City’s Housing Element, all of the dwelling units which were anticipated toward
achieving the City’s share of the regional housing need that are not utilized by
developers in approved projects are deposited in the City’s Excess Dwelling Unit
Bank. 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 rl PC RES0 NO. 5549 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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.
5. That the Planning Director has determined that it can be seen with certainty that there is
no possibility that the project may have a significant effect on the environment in that the
proposed T-R designation would be applied to property that is already fully
developed with an existing restaurant use and only minor modifications are being
made.
Condition:
1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of LCPA 01-07 by the California
Coastal Commission.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of February 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, and Segall
NOES: Commissioner Whitton
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. NLZMKLER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5549 -3-
GENERAL PLAN MAP CHANGE
G.P. Map Designation Change
Property: From: To:
204-253-20 RH T-R
GPA: 01-04
Approvals
Council Approval Date:
Resolution No:
Effective Date:
Signature:
draft 0 final 0
Project Name: VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE I Related Case File No(s): LCPA 01-07/CUP02-19
Property/Legal Description(s):
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 3713, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, April 21, 1975
as File No. 75-092233 of Official Records.
Attach ddditional pages if necessary I
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5550
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) TO CHANGE THE LCP
LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM “RH” (HIGH DENSITY
MERCIAL) THEREBY BRINGING THE DESIGNATIONS ON
THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND GENERAL PLAN
MAPS INTO CONFORMANCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT
3878 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD.
CASE NAME:
RESIDENTIAL) TO “T-R” (TRAVELRECREATION COM-
VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE
CASE NO: LCPA 01-07
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program,
General Plan, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in conformance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director, “Applicant,” as directed by City Council
Resolution No. 2001-72, has filed a verified application for an amendment to the Local Coastal
Program designations regarding property owned by Roberto Vigilucci, “Owner”, described as
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 3713, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, April 21, 1975 as File No. 75-
092233 of Official Records
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
Program Amendment as shown on Exhibit “LCPA 01-07’’ dated January 21, 2004, attached
hereto, as provided in Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of Subchapter 8,
Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations of the California
Coastal Commission Administrative Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of January 2004 and
on the 4th day of February 2004 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider said request; and
...
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment; and
WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period
for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on November
13, 2003, and ending on December 25, 2003, staff shall present to the City
Council a summary of the comments received.
C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
HOUSE - LCPA 01-07 based on the following findings and condition:
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD & STEAK-
FindinPs:
1. That 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 I1 segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program not being amended by
this amendment, in that (a) Chapter 3 (Section 30222) states that private lands
suitable for visitor-serving commercial uses have priority over private residential
uses; (b) Policy 6-8 of the Mello I1 segment includes restaurants in its definition of
visitor-serving commercial uses; (c) the subject property location is ideally suited
for visitor-serving commercial uses given its location next to the beach and along
major streets, and (d) 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.
2. The proposed T-R designation will help maintain opportunities for public access
and use in the beach area that under the existing RH designation might be
eliminated if the property were to redevelop residentially.
3. That the proposed amendment to the Mello I1 segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal
Program is required to bring it into consistency with the proposed General Plan Land
Use designation of T-R.
That the Planning Director has determined that it can be seen with certainty that there is
no possibility that the project may have a significant effect on the environment in that the
proposed T-R designation would be applied to property that is already fully
4.
PC RES0 NO. 5550 -2- /I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
developed with an existing restaurant use that is appropriate under the T-R
designation and for which a conditional use permit is being sought.
Condition:
1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of GPA 01-04.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 4th day of February 2004, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, and Segall
NOES: Commissioner Whitton
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
lJ{,&@y$&&& -1 MICHAEL J. HO-MILL~R
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5550 -3- a
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
Property:
204-253-20
LCPA: 01-07
From: To:
RH T-R
draft 0 finat 0
Project Name: VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE I Related Case File No(s): GPA 01-04/CUP02-19
Property/Legal Description(s):
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 3713, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, April 21, 1975
as File No. 75-092233 of Official Records.
Attach additional pages if necessary
Amrovals
Council Approval Date:
Resolution No:
Effective Date:
Signature:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5551
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
OPERATE AN EXISTING RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED AT 3878 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD
IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1
CASE NAME: VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE
CASE NO.: CUP 02- 19
WHEREAS, Roberto Vigilucci, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as:
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 3713, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of
the County Recorder of San Diego County, April 21, 1975 as
File No. 75-092233 of Official Records
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use
Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “G” dated January 21, 2004, on file in the Carlsbad
Planning Department, VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE - CUP 02-19, as
provided by Chapter 21.42 and/or 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 21st day of January 2004, and
on the 4th day of February 2004 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, to
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the CUP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the-City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
HOUSE - CUP 02-19, based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD & STEAK-
Findines:
1. That the requested use, which is an existing restaurant, is necessary or desirable for the
development of the community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and
objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses specifically
permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is located, in that:
a. 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 Zone Change 99-08 and Local Coastal
Program Amendment 00-01, and (2) found worthy of consideration by the
Planning Commission (as expressed in Resolution 4892) and City Council (as
expressed in Resolution 2001-72);
The use and property on which it is located are compatible with the T-R
(TraveYRecreation Commercial) General Plan designation proposed to be
assigned to the property as part of GPA 01-04 and LCPA 01-07, considering
the property’s location along major streets and proximity to the beach, and;
The conditional use permit and recommended conditions will ensure the
restaurant use operates consistently 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.. .”
b.
c.
2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that Vigilucci’s Seafood and Steakhouse is an existing 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, Zoning
Ordinance Section 21.42.070 allows flexibility in applying parking standards in such
cases through the conditional use permit process and related findings and
conditions. Furthermore, the approved outdoor dining does not create additional
parking demand as it will add no additional restaurant seating. A condition of
approval establishes a maximum number of 125 seats for the restaurant, bar and
outdoor dining. This is the same seating maximum established for previous
restaurants on the property.
Restaurant customers over the years have parked and can continue to park in the
surrounding neighborhood. Also, the restaurant serves residents in the surrounding
neighborhood and beachgoers, some of whom walk instead of drive to the
restaurant.
PC RES0 NO. 5551 -2- I5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A valet parking plan conditioned by this permit will maximize the available on-site
parking spaces and provide necessary on-site vehicle maneuvering room and
emergency vehicle access.
Screening of the parking lot from surrounding uses and streets is adequately
achieved by the existing building and existing and proposed landscaping.
3. That all the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to
adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be
provided and maintained, in that a trash enclosure and small area of landscape
screening are adequate to adjust the existing use to its surroundings. Further, the
restaurant’s front and side setbacks comply with zoning requirements and its rear
setback was in conformance with zoning requirements before the adjacent property
to the north was rezoned from commercial to residential in 2001.
4. That the street system serving the existing use for which the conditional use permit is
requested is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the existing use. Based
on recent traffic surveys conducted between 2000-2003, 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
conditioned 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 traffic conflicts and congestion on Tamarack Avenue.
5. That the Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects
that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the
environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the
preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15301 - (permitting of
existing private structures involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that
existing at the time of the Planning Director’s determination) of the state CEQA
Guidelines.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to one of the
following, whichever occurs first: (1) issuance of a building permit, (2) approval of
an encroachment agreement for the installation of any private improvements in the
public right-of-way, or (3) within seven months of the effective date of this approval.
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or hrther condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
PC RES0 NO. 5551 -3- 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Conditional Use Permit.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Conditional Use Permit documents, as necessary to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development
shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development
different fiom this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and
regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with
all requirements of law.
Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, fiom and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Conditional Use Permit, (b)
City’s approval or issuance of any permit or, action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c)
Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including
without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of
electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until
all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City’s approval is not
validated.
Developer shall submit to Planning Department reproducible 24” x 36” mylar copies of
exhibits “A” - “G”, reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making
body.
This Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period of five (5) years from the date this
approval becomes effective, which shall be the date this Conditional Use Permit is
approved by the City Council. This permit may be revoked at any time after a public
hearing, if it is found that the use has a substantial detrimental effect on surrounding land
uses and the public’s health and welfare, or the conditions imposed herein have not been
met. This permit may be extended by the Planning Commission for a reasonable period
of time not to exceed five (5) years upon written application of the permittee made no less
than 90 days pnor to the expiration date. The Planning Commission may not grant such
extension, unless it finds that there are no substantial negative effects on surrounding land
uses or the public’s health and welfare. If a substantial negative effect on surrounding
land uses or the public’s health and welfare is found, the extension shall be denied or
granted with conditions, which will eliminate or substantially reduce such effects. There
PC RES0 NO. 5551 -4- 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
is no limit to the number of extensions the City Council may grant. Any extension of this
Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to public notice and hearing.
8. This Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director, and a report
made to the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing within seven (7)
months of the effective date of this approval, and shall be reviewed annually
thereafter, to determine if all conditions of this permit have been met and that the use
does not have a substantial negative effect on surrounding properties or the public health
and welfare. If the Planning Director determines that the use has such substantial
negative effects, the Planning Director shall recommend that the Planning Commission,
after providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard, add additional conditions to
reduce or eliminate the substantial negative effects.
9. Developer is aware that the City is preparing a non-residential housing impact fee
(linkage fee) consistent with Program 4.1 of the Housing Element. The applicant is
further aware that the City may determine that certain non-residential projects may have
to pay a linkage fee, in order to be found consistent with the Housing Element of the
General Plan. If a linkage fee is established by City Council ordinance andor resolution
and this project becomes subject to a linkage fee pursuant to said ordinance andor
resolution, then the Developer, or his/her/their successor(s) in interest shall pay the
linkage fee. The linkage fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of building permits,
except for projects involving a request for a non-residential planned development for an
existing development, in which case, the fee shall be paid on approval of the final map,
parcel map or certificate of compliance, required to process the non-residential PUD,
whichever pertains. If linkage fees are required for this project, and they are not paid, this
project will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will
become null and void.
10. The Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of
the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, notifying all
interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a
Conditional Use Permit, by Resolution No. 5551, on the property. Said Notice of
Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete
project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions
specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Planning Director has the
authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice, which modifies or terminates
said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest.
1 1. The Developer shall construct a trash receptacle enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall
with gates pursuant to City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter
21.105. Location of said receptacle shall be approved by the Planning Director.
Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the building to the satisfaction of
the Planning Director.
12. Within two weeks of the effective date of this approval, the developer shall submit a
floor plan (1) showing a total 125 seats in the restaurant, bar, and outdoor dining
area and (2) stating that at all times the total number of seats in the restaurant, bar,
and outdoor dining area shall not exceed 125.
PC RES0 NO. 5551 -5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13.
14.
15.
The Developer shall install the landscaping in the southeast corner of the parking lot
as shown on the landscape plan approved as part of this conditional use permit.
The Developer shall paint on the parking lot a 60-inch wide pedestrian pathway,
demarcated by three-inch wide stripes painted “safety yellow,” from the building
exits near the north end of the parking lot and from the sidewalk between the
building and adjacent handicap parking space (as shown on the approved site plan)
to the sidewalk along Tamarack Avenue. The pathway shall be located so as not to
cross any parking space for valet or self-parking.
At all times, the Developer shall comply with the following conditions:
a.
b.
C.
d.
General Operations
i. The restaurant shall substantially comply with the definition of a
“bona fide public eating establishment,” as defined in Zoning
Ordinance Section 21.04.056.
ii. The total number of seats in the restaurant, bar, and outdoor dining
area shall not exceed 125.
iii. Location of dining areas, whether indoors or out, and bar seating
areas shall comply with these conditions of approval and shall
substantially comply with the locations indicated on the approved
floor plan. Furthermore, the covered patio area adjacent to the
restrooms shall not be used as a dining area.
iv. The restaurant and bar shall close no later than midnight on any day.
v. Any entertainment provided shall be provided within the building
and not outdoors.
vi. Entertainment noise shall not be audible beyond the boundaries of the
restaurant property.
vii. No dancing or dance bands shall be allowed.
i. The outdoor dining area shall be limited to the existing patio space on
the west side of the building that is bordered by the restaurant entry
to the south, existing planter to the west, and existing planter to the
north.
ii. No customers shall be seated for outdoor dining after 10 p.m.
i. All landscaping shall be kept healthy and neat and in a manner
substantially conforming with the plant materials and locations shown
on Exhibit “F,” the “Existing and Proposed Planting” plan.
ii. The building, parking lot and other portions of the property shall be
kept clean and in a neat appearance.
i. On-site parking shall substantially comply with the valet parking plan
as shown on approved Exhibit “G,” the “Valet Parking Plan.” This
includes maintaining an unobstructed 14-foot wide vehicle aisleway
and the vehicle turnaround as shown on the approved exhibit.
ii. Self-parking is permitted in lieu of valet parking during non-peak
restaurant periods (e.g. during the afternoon) when continuous
Outdoor dining
Appearance
Parking and Access
PC RES0 NO. 5551 -6-
1
2
3
4
z
c
5
E
S
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
demand for parking does not exceed 21 spaces, the maximum parking
achievable under self-parking conditions. Self-parking shall occur in
a manner substantially consistent with the parking plan on Exhibit
“A,” the “Existing Site Plan.”
iii. Accessible parking and loading areas and an accessible route to the
building shall be maintained regardless of whether self- or valet
parking is occurring.
iv. The 60-inch wide painted pedestrian pathway from the building exits
to the Tamarack Avenue sidewalk shall be kept unobstructed.
Engineering
General
16. Developer shall comply with the requirements of the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall
treatments if and when such a program is formally established by the City.
17. Developer shall install rain gutters to convey roof drainage to an approved drainage
course or street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
18. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance
with Engineering Standards.
FeedAgreements
19. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation the City’s standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding
drainage across the adjacent property.
Dedicationsflmprovements
20. Within seven months of the effective date of this approval, developer shall have
constructed the necessary Best Management Practices (BMP) measures necessary to
capture and filter the anticipated pollutants of concern associated with the project in
accordance with the Storm Water Maintenance Plan (SWMP) on file with the City
and the latest California National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit.
21. Prior to installing any private improvements within the public right-of-way, the
applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City subject to the City
Engineer’s approval. More specifically, the property owner shall enter into an
encroachment agreement for the proposed outdoor dining building awning, the
existing landscaping and wood railing located near the street corner and for any other
encroachment deemed necessary due to the size, duration and/or nature of the
encroachment.
PC RES0 NO. 5551 -7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Code Reminders
22.
23.
24.
25.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 18.04.320.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance
with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning
Director prior to installation of such signs.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this,. or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
...
.I
...
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 5551 -8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
It
li
1E
15
2c
21
2;
2:
21
22
2t
2:
21
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of February 2004 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson mte, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, and Segall
NOES: Commissioner Whitton
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
\ h4&4,d& I\
MICHAEL J. % ZMIL-LER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5551 -9-
JHN-LU-LUU4 I Ut IL: 13 I‘ll KIV GNIY I‘KUH IkMkLULA tAX NU, YW 6UU 6280 Pa 02
EXHIBIT 4
Mr. Scott Donnell, City Planner
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission
Re: APN -204-253-20 Public Hearing on 1/21/2004
We are Ruben and Ann Cerecedes and reside at 3875 Garfield $
one (1) block East of Vigilucci’s Restaurant, the applicant in thi
County, we are not able to attend tonights meeting; however, r(
record.
As fifteen (1 5) year residents of this area, we are survivors of V
such, we were initialiy pleased to learn that a respected busines!
building. However, we are now having second thoughts, particr
negative incidents regarding Vigilucci’s staff parking and the e
its Valet Parking.
Based on the aforementioned problems with Vigilicci’s, we are
additional seating . Our concerns are based on the following:
1 ) On a daily basis, particularly during the summer months, we
available parking to restaurant staff. I personally have seen 5 sb
proximity, thereby eliminating parking for guests or relatives fo
appears that more than one (1) shift is involved as when one em
park m the same areas at times and also moaopolize the space fr
work truck was the culprit. This occurs on a daily basis, most m
2) Another set of events that has become even more problematic
by the establishment. On a daily basis, again durmg the summa
operating the Valet Parking service were parking cars on Garfie
them on several occasions asking if they were using our met a
the affirmative and continued about their business. We now had
staff for parking, but with another business as well. As taxpayiu
rights to Live in a peaceful, residential community, which inch
friends and relatives is bemg infringed upon by a business more
a good neighbor.
I have attempted to discuss t& matter with the owner, OT manag nothing they could do regarding the Valet Parking because it w with hem. How could this be the case? Would they, could they
regarding their business protocol. Regarding the employee parl
staff would be shuctured on not parking in areas that would imf
change has ever been noted.
In summary, before additional seating is ever approved, would issues, particularly in view of the fact thet another Summer will Valet Parking staffrunnmg throughout the neigborhood, driviq
competing with residents who live here and who are tax paying
become a liability in the manner they conduct their business. Th
generally overflowing during the summer months for those visit point will only perpetuate the problem. Your consideration to 01
January 19,2004
et, Carlsbad, Ca 92008. We are located iatteT. Due to job restraints in Riverside
est that this letter be read into the public
licci’s predecessor, the Sand Bar. As
ltablishment wouid be occupying the
ply having experienced some very
blishrnent ‘s apparent s.@xontracting 06 ”
unantly opposed to their request to add
residents on Meld street lose park in front of our home or in close
3proximately 8 hours during the day. It
iyee leaves, there are others that come,
1 hours. On one occasion, Vigilucci’s
lbly during summer months.
that of the Valet Parking being utilized
mths and Holiday season, the staff
Street at will. The undersigned spoke to
verflow Valet Parking. They answered in
compctc not only with the Vigilwi
ssidents of this City, it seems as if our
the opportunity to projide parking for
ncerned about making profits, than being
however, was told that that there was
lot their business, they only contracted
t bave determined the guidelines
g, I have personally been told that the
t residents; however, no significant
y officials please address the perkins
m be upon us. We am ill ffird having
cklessly as they have in the past,
Istituents and who in essence have
each parking lot below Vigilucci’s is
our beaches. Additional seating at this
’quest would be greatly appreciated.
Home phone 729-43821
23
le City of Carlsbad Planning Departmei EXHIBIT 5
P.C. AGENDA OF: February 4,2004
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
~
Application complete date: August 20, 2003
Project Planner: Scott Donne11
Project Engineer: David Rick
Item No. @
SUBJECT: GPA 01-04LCPA 01-07/CUP 02-19 - 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; and (2) a conditional use permit for an
existing restaurant and to allow proposed outdoor dining at that restaurant at 3878
Carlsbad Boulevard.
RECOMMENDATION ACTION
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
BACKGROUND
At its meeting of January 21, 2004, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to continue the above item to
the February 4 meeting and directed staff to return with findings and conditions for a conditional use
permit (CUP) to allow outdoor dining.
If an outdoor dining proposal intensifies an existing use, Zoning Ordinance Section 21.04.107
considers the proposal as development that requires a coastal development permit. If an outdoor
dining request does not represent intensification, then no coastal development permit is needed. Staff
believes that the applicant’s outdoor dining proposal, as proposed and recommended to be conditioned,
does not represent an intensification of the restaurant or create a demand for more parking.
Accordingly, no coastal development permit is required and the Planning Commission does not need to
take action on a resolution recommending approval of such a permit.
On the other hand, without the recommended conditions, staff believes the applicant’s request would
represent an intensification of the existing restaurant. Any intensification of the restaurant cannot be
approved based on Zoning Ordinance Section 21.48.080, which prohibits the intensification of a
nonconforming use or building. Vigilucci’s Seafood and Steakhouse is nonconforming both in terms
of its rear setback and in terms of parking.
Staff has spoken with the City Building Department to confirm the maximum occupancy for the
restaurant. The occupancy limit for the restaurant, which the City had established previously for the
Sandbar, is 125 seats. The applicant concurs with this maximum. Staff has incorporated this limit
into the conditions of approval so that at all times there can be no more than 125 total seats at the
restaurant, bar, and outdoor patio.
GPA 0 1 -04LCPA 0 1 -07/CUP U2-19 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD & S’I BAKHOUSE
FEBRUARY 4,2004
Page 2
Besides establishing the maximum number of seats for the restaurant, other conditions either added or
revised to regulate outdoor dining include the following:
1. Requiring a floor plan that clearly shows the maximum allowable number of seats, and
requiring the locations of dining areas, whether indoors or out, to substantially comply with the
locations indicated on the floor plan.
2. Defining the limits of where the outdoor dining can occur.
3. Establishing 9 p.m. as the limit for seating customers at the outdoor tables.
4. Restricting any entertainment to occur inside the restaurant only.
Furthermore, staff has revised Condition 7 that calls for the annual review of the CUP, to state that
Staff will return to the Commission in seven months at a noticed public hearing to review and report on
compliance with the imposed conditions. This revision should enable the Planning Commission to
have the benefit of reviewing the permit following a full summer of operation. Staff has also revised
the condition to require public notice and hearing of any CUP extension.
If approved by the City Council, the conditional use permit will become effective immediately upon
the Council’s action. However, the CUP resolution stipulates that the approval will become void if the
associated general plan amendment and local coastal program amendment do not receive final approval
from the City Council and California Coastal Commission, respectively.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5549
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5550
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5551
4. Staff Report dated January 21, 1004, with attachments
24
the City of Carlsbad Planning Department
P.C. AGENDA OF: January 21,2004
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application complete date: August 20, 2003
Project Planner: Scott Donne11
Project Engineer: David Rick
SUBJECT: GPA 01-041LCPA 01-071CUP 02-191CDP 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 pennit 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 Tamarack 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 01-04/LCPA 01-07/Cclp 02-1 9/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SkiAFOOD &
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 permit to seek approval
of proposed outdoor dining. This outdoor dining would be located along the front 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.
27
GPA 01 -04/LCPA 01 -07/C: UP 02- 19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SkAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 2 1,2004
Page 3
111. PROJECT BACKGROUND
Setting
The Vigilucci’s Seafood & 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,s 16 square foot building. The L-shaped building has no setback along its north (rear)
and east (side) property lines. Along its Carlsbad Boulevard frontage, the restaurant has only an
approximately six to eighteen inch setback from 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 from 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 % mile to either the north at Carlsbad Boulevard and Walnut Avenue or east at
Tamarack Avenue and Jefferson Street.
Early History and Owrzersliip
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 Ol-O4/LCPA 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 199Os, 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 from 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 apparently 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 fully
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 Ledgenvood 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 a9
GPA Ol-O4/LCPA 01-07/CLJP 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 21 , 2004
Page 5
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 the Council Resolution of Inteiition
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 %
mile to either the north or east). Furthermore, the Commission, the restaurant owner, and some
residents further 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 justify 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 following:
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 Ol-O4/LCPA 01-07/c‘cTp 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 2 1,2004
Page 6
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 Ledgenvood property from 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 future. Unfortunately, the City
Council’s decision to not rezone the property and its direction to submit a conditional use permit
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 could 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:
GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/c'cTp 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI'S SEAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 21,2004
Page 7
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;
Recognize outdoor dining and drinking areas are not possible without adequate parking
and approval of a CUP;
Propose a solution to the inadequate parking problem that exists on the property through
the CUP process;
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
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.
K.
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 Standards;
Parking Regulations (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2 1.44);
Coastal Development Permit regulations and proposed outdoor dining (Zoning
Ordinance Chapters 21.201 and 21.44);
Conditional Use Permit regulations (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2 1.42);
Encroachment Permit and Minor Site Improvements;
Nonconforming Buildings and Structures (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2 1.48); 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 of the property to a 1956 zoning map,
~~ determining the history of General Plan designations for the property is less clear. A 1975 staff
GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/CCJP 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD &L
STEAKHOUSE
January 2 1,2004
1956 1975 1986
General Plan N/A TS RH
Tmcal Coastal Prnm-am NIA NIA RH
Zoning c- 1 c-2 c-2
report on a zone change for the property from 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.
1994 Present
c-2 c-2
RH RH
RH RH
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 (TraveVRecreation Commercial) is
appropriate for the Vigilucci property for the following reasons:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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 33
GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/CLTp 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. 1, 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 unitdacre and a Growth
Management Control Point (GMCP) of 19 units/acre. 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 (Travemecreation 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 PladZoning 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 34
GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/CcrP 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:
RH/R-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 RWR-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/CW 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 2 1,2004
Page 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-
R/C-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 are inappropriate for a
property so close to residential uses, such as auto repair and commercial printing and restaurants
with incidental serving of alcohol.
010: 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 different General Plan 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 01-04/LCPA 01-07/CUP 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 2 1 , 2004
Page 12
have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial
development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry.
Policy 6-8 of the Mello 11 segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program defines ”visitor
serving uses” as including “. . .hotels and motels, recreational facilities, restaurants and bars,
[and] amusement parks ...” Furthermore, at the time of its adoption in 1982, another Mello I1
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.
37
GPA Ol-O4/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.
Lot Coverage: 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.
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.
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.
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 building’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 interior 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 demolition 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 half 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
GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/CUP 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 2 1,2004
Professional Offices
required by city standards. Please note the “parking required” column is determined based on a
4,816 square foot building, which is the size of the existing restaurant.
One space/250 sf
I Use I Parking Standard I Parking Required
I
Individual retail uses
Forty spaces, plus
one space/50 square
feet (sf) in excess 57 spaces Restaurant
One space/300 sf 16 spaces
of 4,000 sf.
20 spaces
Under the proposed T-R designation, most offices 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 ths 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 from 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-p&k. 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 37
GPA 01-04LCPA 01-07/CL.JP 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SkAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 21,2004
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 parkmg 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 01-04/LCPA 01-07/CUP 02-19/CDP 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 future, 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 2 1.48.080 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 0 1 -04/LCPA 01 -07/CuP 02- 19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD &:
STEAKHOUSE
January 2 1,2004
o Outdoor dining noise may disturb nearby residents. In particular, noise may bother the
occupants of any future home built on the vacant property just to the north of the
restaurant.
Further, the outdoor dining could not be approved under the incidental outdoor dining area
(IODA) standards because (1) it is in the right-of-way and (2) adequate on-site parking cannot be
provided.
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 2 1.42.070 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 necessaly 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 99-08/LCPA 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). 42
GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/CuP 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 21,2004
Page 18
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;
43
GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/CUP 02-19/CDP 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 C 10, which states
“encourage commercial recreation or tourist destination facilities, as long as they
protect the residential character of the community.. . YY
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 from
surrounding uses and streets is adequately achieved by the existing building and
existing and proposed landscaping. 4f
GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/CUP 02-19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 2 1,2004
Page 20
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 1.42.070, 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, walls, fences, landscaping, 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 traffic conflicts and
congestion on Tamarack Avenue.
GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/CIJP 02-191CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SJiAFOOD &
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 perform 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 comer 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 from 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 from 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 future
residential zone. Section 21.48.060 states that commercial buildings located in a residential zone #6
GPA 0 1 -04/LCPA 01 -07/CLTP 02- 19/CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI’S SkAFOOD &
STEAKHOUSE
January 2 1 , 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 Ledgerwood properties zoned C-l), 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
Ledgerwood 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 from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Applicable CEQA provisions include Guidelines Section 15301, 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 21 , 2004
SD:bd:mh
47
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: GPA 0 1 -04/LCPA 0 l-O7/CUP 02-1 9/CDP 02-34
CASE NAME:
APPLICANT: Roberto Vipilucci
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Approval of: (1) General Plan and Local Coastal Promam
amendments to provide a suitable land use designation 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 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 1 of Parcel map No. 3713, in the City of Carlsbad. Countv of San
Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, Auril 21,
1975 as File No. 75-092233 of Official Records.
APN: 204-253-20 Acres: 1/3 acre (apurox) Proposed No. of LotsKJnits: N/A
Vigilucci’s Seafood & Steakhouse
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Existing Land Use Designation: RH
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 Current Land Use
Site c-2 RH Restaurant
North R-3, BAOZ RH Vacant
South RD-M RH Condominiums
East R-3 RH Apartments
West os os Beach
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): N/A - existing use
0
0
IXI
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration, issued
Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other, GPA 01-04 & LCPA 01-07: Exempt from CEOA uursuant to CEOA Guidelines
Section 15061(bM3). CUP 02-19 and CDP 02-34: Cateporicallv Exempt from CEOA
pursuant to Guidelines Section 1530 1 (Existing Facilities)
- City of Carlsbad
Applicant’s statement ur disclosure of ccrtain ownership interests on all applications whch will require
discretionary action m the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your projectannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defined as “Any individual, firm, co-pmbemh~~, joint venture, association, social club, htcmal organization, corporatiOn, estate, truss receiver, syndicstc, m this and any other county, city and county, city
municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other pup or combination acting as a unit.”
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal xime and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEG4 names and addresses of && persons having a financial include the
names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% ‘of the shs. IF NO
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a won or D- *
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publiclv-owned cmrat~ ’QIL include the names, titles, &d addresses of the corporate
necessary.)
person Roberto Vigilucci
Title Owner
Address 3878 Carlsbad Blvd
Carlsbad, CA 92008
officers. (A separate page may bc attached if
2. OWNER (Not the owner’s agent) Provide the names and addresses of & persons having any ownershrp
interest in the propcrty involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e,
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
comoratlo n or D~U~IIC~S hip, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDNIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a dliclv-
pwned cQIporati~z~ include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
Address 3878 Carlsbad Blvd Address N/A Carlsbad, CA 92008
4?
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 (760) 6024600 FAX (760) 602-8559 @
,
3. NON-PROFIT O~JANLZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is 9 nonmofit oreanization or a trust, list the
names and addresses of person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profit/Trust Non Profiflrust
Title Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff,
Boar&, Commissions, Committees and/or Council wib the past twelve (12) months? 0 Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
J
Roberto Vigilucci Roberto Vigilucci
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
Signature of owner/applicant’s agent if applicablc/date
Print or type name of ownedapplicant’s agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTERU)ISCLOSURE STATEMENT S198
5/0 Page 2 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- Attachment 8 -
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4892
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE
CITY COUNCIL: (1) CHANGE THE ZONING FROM C-1
(NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) TO R-3 (MULTIPLE
FAMILY RESIDENTTAL) AND BAOZ (BEACH AREA
OVERLAY ZONE) ON THE TWO LOTS OWNED BY THE
CHARLES B. LEDGERWOOD TRUST, AND; (2) NOT
CHANGE THE ZONTNG ON THE LOT OWNED BY THE
MITZE H. EUBANKS TRUST AT THIS TIME AND INSTEAD
CONSIDER ALLOWING COMMERCIAL TO REMAIN AS A
CONFORMING USE AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECT STAFF
TO PROCESS APPROPRIATE LAND USE AMENDMENTS AND CONDUCT NECESSARY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
THE THREE LOTS AFFECTED ARE ON THE EAST SIDE OF
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, BETWEEN TAMARACK
AVENUE AND REDWOOD AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK
ZONE CHANGE
CASE NO: ZC 99-08
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has filed a verified application to change the
zoning of property owned by the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust and property owned by the
Mitze H. Eubanks Trust, “Owners”, described as
Lots 1 and 2 in Block ‘G’ of Palisades in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map
thereof No. 1747, filed in the Office of the Recorder of said San
Diego County, February 5,1923. (property owned by Charles B.
Ledgerwood Trust)
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 3713, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County on April 21, 1975 as file/Page
No. 75-092233 of Official Records. (property owned by Mitze H.
Eubanks Trust)
(“the Properties”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on
the draft ordinance Exhibit “X” attached hereto and made a part hereof, dated January 17,
2001, and on file in the Planning Department, CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ZONE CHANGE, ZC 99-08, as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of January, 2001,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, which was subsequently continued to
the 17th day of January, 2001, to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to a Zone Change; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
€3) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS the following:
1. That both lots owned by the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust bordered by Redwood
Avenue on the north and Carlsbad Boulevard on the west be rezoned from C-1 to R-
3, BAOZ based on the folIowing findings;
2. 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.
Findings:
1. That the proposed Zone Change for the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust properties from
C-1 and C-2 to R-3 and Beach Overlay Zone is consistent with the goals and policies of
the various elements of the General Plan, in that the proposed zoning is consistent with
the General Plan Residential Density Land Use Designation applied to the subject
properties and is compatible with adjacent land uses.
2. That the Zone Change for the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust properties from C-1 and C-
- 2 to R-3 and Beach Overlay Zone is consistent with the goals and policies of the various
elements of the General Plan and will provide consistency between the General Plan and
Zoning as mandated by California State law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land
Use Element, in that the Zone Change brings the properties’ zoning designation into
compliance with the General Plan and fulfills a General Plan policy calling for
PC RES0 NO. 4892 -2-
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
inconsistent zoning designations to be brought into conformance with the General
Plan.
That the proposed Zone Change for the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust properties from
C-1 and C-2 to R-3 and Beach Overlay Zone is consistent with the goals and policies of
the various elements of the General Plan and will also provide consistency with the Local
Coastal Program as mandated by California State law for properties in the Coastal Zone
in that the Zone Change brings the properties' zoning designation into conformance
with the Local Coastal Program land use map and the proposed Local Coastal
Program zone change (LCPA 00-01).
That the proposed Zone Change for the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust properties from
C-1 and C-2 to R-3 and Beach Overlay Zone is consistent with the goals and policies of
the various elements of the General Plan, is consistent with the public convenience,
necessity and general welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principles in that it
would implement the subject properties' General Plan designation, would be
compatible with surrounding zoning designations, and would permit land uses the
same as those in the surrounding area.
That the proposed Zone Change for the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust properties from
C-1 and C-2 to R-3 and Beach Overlay Zone is consistent with the goals and policies of
the various elements of the General Plan, which will be applied to the properties as part
of the proposed zone change, in that it provides the City with discretionary review to
ensure development standards are properly applied and beach area concerns, such
as neighborhood compatibility and parking, are adequately addressed.
That for the Mitze Eubanks Trust property, allowing commercial to remain as a
conforming use has the potential, subject to necessary and appropriate
environmental and public hearing review, to be consistent with the goals and
policies of the various elements of the General Plan in that it could provide an
orderly balance of both public and private land uses within convenient and
compatible locations and ensure that such uses serve to protect and enhance the
character and image of the City.
That for the Mitze Eubanks Trust property, allowing commercial to remain as a
conforming use has the potential, subject to necessary and appropriate
environmental and public hearing review, to be consistent with the goals and
policies of the various elements of the General Plan in that it could create a
distinctive sense of place and identity for the surrounding community and
neighborhood of the City through the preservation of existing varied land uses.
That for the Mitze Eubanks Trust property, allowing commercial to remain as a
conforming use has the potential, subject to necessary and appropriate
environmental and public hearing review, to be consistent with the goals and
policies of the various elements of the General Plan in that it could provide for the
social and economic needs of the community.
That for the Mitze Eubanks Trust property, allowing commercial to remain as a
conforming use has the potential, subject to necessary and appropriate
PC RES0 NO. 4892 -3-
5'2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10.
11.
environmental and public hearing review, to be consistent with the goals and
policies of the various elements of the General Plan is consistent with sound
planning principles in that the property has historically been used as a commercial
property and a bona fide eating establishment and thus could be found to be
consistent with the public convenience, necessity, and general welfare.
That for the Mitze Eubanks Trust property, allowing commercial to remain as a
conforming use has the potential, subject to necessary and appropriate
environmental and public hearing review, to be consistent with ’ the goals and
policies of the various elements of the General Plan in that it would allow
continuance of such likewise historical use and thereby preserve the community
identity, character and convenience that the use provides to the public and
surrounding neighborhood.
That for the Mitze Eubanks Trust property, allowing commercial to remain as a
conforming use has the potential, subject to necessary and appropriate
environmental and public hearing review, to be consistent with the goals and
policies of the various elements of the General Plan in that the appkation of
appropriate zoning, use, and development standards will ensure the continued
compatibility of commercial uses with the surrounding neighborhood by addressing
such concerns as traffic flow, parking, noise and architectural compatibility.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 17th day of January 2001, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman,
L’Heureux, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN: 1 1 N. SEGALL, hairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4892 -4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit “X”
January 17,2001
-
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 2 1.05.030
OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AN
AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP TO GRANT A ZONE
BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE Oh’ TWO PROPERTIES
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF REDWOOD AVENUE M
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BOULEVARDiTAMARACK
CHANGE, ZC 99-08, FROM C-l AND C-2 TO R-3 AND
ZONE CHANGE
CASE NO.: ZC 99-08fLCPA 00-01
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Section 21.05.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, being the
zoning map, is amended as shown on the maps marked Exhibit “ZC 99-08” and “LCPA 00-01”
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
SECTION II: That the findings of the Planning Commission as set forth in
Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 4891, 4892, and 4893 constitute the findings of the City
Council.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be
published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation within fifteen days after its
adoption.
//I
Ill
If/
I//
ill
I//
///
b
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
XNTROD
Council held on the -
JCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
- day of ,200 1, and thereafter
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the
day of , 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES :
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2-
5 b
PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE
Zone Change Property: From: To:
A. 204-253-13 C-l R-3, BAOZ'
B. 204-253-14 C-1 R-3. BAOZ
C. 204-253-20 C-2 No change
D.
' 'Beach Area Overlay Zone
ZC: 99-08
Approvals Council Approval Date:
Ordinance No: Effective Date:
Signature:
draft a final c]
Project Name: Carlsbad BlvdfTarnarack Zone Change I Related Case File No@): LCPA 00-01
Legal Description(s):
A.: Lot 2 in Block 'G' of Palisades in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1747, filed in the Office of the Recorder of said San Diego County, February 5, 1923.
8.: Lot 1 in Block 'G' of Palisades in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to
Map thereof No. 1747, filed in the Office of the Recorder of said San Diego County, February 5, 1923.
C.: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 3713, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on April 21, 1975 as filelPage No. 75-092233 of Official Records.
-
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
LCPA Map Designation Change Property From: To:
6.204-253-1 4 c-2 R-3, BAOZ
C. 204-253-20 c-2 No change
A. 204-253-1 3 c-2 R-3, BAOZ'
LCPA: 00-01
draft final c]
Approvals Council Approval Date:
Effective Date: Signature:
Project Name: Carlsbad Blvdflamarack Zone Change
PropertylLegal Description@):
A.: Lot 2 in Block 'C' of Palisades in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1747, filed in the Office of the Recorder of said San Diego County, February 5, 1923.
8.: Lot I in Block 'G' of Palisades in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to
Map thereof No. 1747, filed in the Office of the Recorder of said San Diego County, February 5. 1923. C.: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 3713, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of Sao Diego County on April 21,
1975 as file/Page No. 75-092233 of Official Records.
I Related Case File No(s): ZC 99-08
I I I 'Beach Area Overlay tone I I
REVISED
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Attachment 9
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-72
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, TO (1) APPROVE A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM, ZONE CHANGE, AND
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO REZONE TWO
LOTS OWNED BY THE CHARLES B. LEDGERWOOD TRUST;
AND, (2) MAKE NO CHANGE AT THIS TIME TO THE ZONING
ON THE LOT OWNED BY THE MlTZE H. EUBANKS TRUST;
AND (3) DIRECT STAFF TO PROCESS THE NECESSARY
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND APPROPRIATE
AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM, AND ZONING ORDINANCE AT PUBLIC HEARINGS
TO ENABLE CONSIDERATION OF ALLOWING COMMERCIAL
TO REMAIN AS A CONFORMING USE ON THE LOT OWNED
BY THE MITZE H. EUBANKS TRUST. THE THREE
PROPERTIES AFFECTED ARE ON THE EAST SIDE OF
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, BETWEEN TAMARACK AVENUE
AND REDWOOD AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BUTAMARACK ZONE CHANGE
CASE NO.: ZC 99-08 AND LCPA 00-01
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, on January 3, 2001, the Carlsbad Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing, which was subsequently continued to January 17, 2001, to consider a
proposed Negative Declaration, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to
rezone the two lots owned by the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust from Neighborhood Commercial
(C-1) and General Commercial (C-2) to Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) and Beach Area
Overlay Zone (BAOZ) and rezone the one lot owned by the Mitze H. Eubanks Trust from C-2 to
R-3 and BAOZ; and
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4891, 4892, and 4893 recommending to the City Council that (1)
the Negative Declaration and Addendum, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program
Amendment be approved to change the zoning as proposed on the properties owned by the
Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust, and (2) that the Council make no change at this time to the
existing commercial zoning on the lot owned by the Mike H. Eubanks Trust and instead
consider allowing commercial to remain as a conforming use, and, accordingly direct staff to
3’9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
conduct the necessary environmental review and process appropriate amendments to the
General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Zoning Ordinance at public hearings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 6th day of March
2001 , held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendation and heard all persons
interested in or opposed to ZC 99-08 and LCPA 00-01; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Addendum was prepared for the project and it
was determined that a Negative Declaration could be issued for the project,
NOW THEREFOREl BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1.
2.
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for. (1) The
approval of a Negative Declaration and Addendum, Zone Change 99-08, and Local Coastal
Program Amendment 00-01, and; (2) The retaining of the existing zone on the Mike H. Eubanks
Trust and further study and consideration of an appropriate commercial designation for the
property is approved and that the findings of the Planning Commission contained in Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4891,4892, and 4893, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated
herein by reference, are the findings of the City Council.
3. 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.
4. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council.
The provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial
Review," shall apply:
"The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought
is governed by Code of Civil Procedures, Section 1094.6, which has
been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal
Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial
review must be filed in the appropriate court no later than the ninetieth
day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however,
if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the
record of proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an
amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such
record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is
-2-
I
L
L
A
t
I
5
1(
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
extended to not latter than the thirtieth day following the date on which
the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his
attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation
of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City
of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008."
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carisbad on the 6th day of March 2001 , by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Nygaard and Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ATTEST:
-3-
b
.
? P b
.. -1'. -
I
I
r--- k - '\
Z? s:
3 QQQ QQ@
d
,'
I
I
i ,
I
,
I
il
j!
1 i -I I
'I
I
Planning Commission Minutes EXJ-IIBIT 6 DRAFT Page
February 4, 2004
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
1. GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/CUP 02-19 - 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; and
(2) a Conditional Use Permit for an existing restaurant and to allow proposed outdoor dining at
that restaurant at 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard.
Mr. Neu introduced Item 1 and stated that Associate Planner, Scott Donnell, would make the
presentation.
Chairperson White opened the public hearing on Item 1.
Associate Planner, Scott Donnell, presented the Staff Report stating that this Item involved three
applications. He noted that the previous action taken by the Planning Commission was to hear this Item
on January 21, 2004. At that meeting the Planning Commission continued the Item to February 4, 2004 primarily to allow time for Staff to revise the Conditional Use Permit resolution to allow outdoor dining. By
doing so, Staff has added and modified some conditions in the CUP resolution to both regulate and control outdoor dining in terms of limiting where it can occur and the number of seats allowed. Through
those conditions Staff has determined that the outdoor dining does not represent an intensification of the existing restaurant use. Because there is no, intensification, the requirement for a Coastal Development
Permit has been dropped.
Some of the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, at its January 21st meeting, include parking in the neighborhood by restaurant employees and also by employees of the valet parking service
who park customer’s cars in surrounding residential streets such as on Redwood and Garfield. Concerns by the Planning Commission were also expressed regarding outdoor dining in terms of noise, as well as
how outdoor dining would affect the maximum occupancy of the restaurant. The Planning Commission
expressed a desire for the Conditional Use Permit to become effective immediately so that the City could
regulate the restaurant and the applicant could benefit from immediate guidance through the busy
summer season. In addition, the Planning Commission desired an opportunity to review this project after
the summer season. Based on the Planning Commission’s concerns, the conditions of approval had
been revised. Mr. Donnell reviewed the conditions stating that the CUP would become effective upon City Council approval. In addition, one condition requires that the CUP be reviewed by the Planning
Commission within seven months of the effective date of the City Council’s approval. Assuming that the Item is before the City Council in March, the Planning Commission would review this CUP sometime in
October of 2004. The CUP has a five-year approval term. Any requests to extend that term would
require public notice and hearing. The errata sheet explains the effective date of the CUP and the
severing of the tie between the CUP, the GPA, and the LCPA. The CUP approval, therefore, is not
contingent upon approval of either the GPA or the LCPA because the use is existing and the City
recognizes that even if the LCPA, for example, isn’t approved by the Coastal Commission, the City still
has a restaurant use and by making the CUP separate from the approval of those documents, the City is
still able to regulate the restaurant.
Other recommended conditions have to do with operations and occupancy. Conditions have been
imposed in recognition that the restaurant is in a residential setting. One condition requires the restaurant
to operate in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance definition for a bona fide public eating
establishment, which requires anything that meets that definition to operate as a restaurant and not as a
bar. It also imposes a maximum occupancy of 125 seats throughout the restaurant, which would include
the outdoor patio, the bar area, and the restaurant itself.
There is a new requirement that requires the applicant to submit a floor plan showing how the 125 seats
will be distributed and a condition that requires compliance with that floor plan at all times. There is a
restriction on the type of entertainment as well as on business hours, designed to keep the restaurant
compatible with its neighborhood setting. There are conditions on the outdoor dining that fix the allowable
location as well as the boundaries of the outdoor dining. Another condition states that customers may be seated no later than 900 p.m. There are also conditions pertaining to property appearance requiring the site to be kept neat and clean and that landscaping be kept healthy. Parking conditions require that the
Planning Commission Minutes February 4,2004 Page 4
applicant comply with the approved parking plan, whether it's for valet parking or for self-parking. Another
condition requires that clear access be maintained at all times while parking is occurring. There is a
requirement for a pedestrian pathway to facilitate exiting the restaurant in case of an emergency.
The alcohol license will have the same conditions as imposed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control on the Sand Bar in 1997. Should Mr. Vigilucci or another restaurant owner want to change the
conditions, the ABC's approval would be needed. The public would be noticed about'such a request.
Serving of alcohol on the patio is not currently permitted. The applicant's representative is in concurrence
with all conditions of approval.
Chairperson White acknowledged receipt of the errata sheet.
Commissioner Segall noted that in seven months the Planning Commission would have a hearing to
evaluate and review how well the applicant had complied with the conditions of the CUP. He asked if
another hearing date would need to be set to discuss the CUP if at that time the applicant had not met the
conditions, or if action could be taken at that time. Mr. Donnell stated that the approval term of the CUP
was five years, so the action in seven months would be a review. He stated that the Item would have to
be agendized for a future hearing. Ms. Mobaldi agreed that it would have to be agendized, particularly for
revocation of the CUP. She added that modification of the CUP conditions could occur in the review
hearing.
Commissioner Baker asked if the maximum 125-seat occupancy included people standing in the bar. Mr.
Donnell stated that the maximum occupancy of the restaurant is 126, which would apply to people
seated, and standing, but did not apply to employees.
Jack Henthorne, 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A, Carlsbad, representing Roberto Vigilucci, owner of
Vigilucci's Restaurant, stated that they had reviewed the errata sheet and the modified conditions of approval and they basically concurred, with one exception that related to the restriction on outdoor dining
hours. He asked that the Planning Commission consider changing it from 9:00 p.m. to 1O:OO p.m. to be
consistent with the normal serving operations of the restaurant.
Chairperson White opened public testimony and invited those who would like to speak to the podium.
Seeing none, she closed public'testimony.
Commissioner Segall stated that he believed that the agreement at the previous Planning Commission
meeting was that seating would stop at 1O:OO pm. He asked why that was changed. Mr. Donnell stated
that he understood the intention was to stop serving at 1O:OO p.m., therefore, they would need to stop
seating at 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Segall asked what was customary in such instances. Mr. Donnell stated that he did not know.
Commissioner Montgomery stated that he was in favor of the condition being that they stop serving at
1O:OO p.m. He stated that it would be difficult for the owner to enforce anything earlier than that.
Commissioner Dominguez stated that it was his understanding that there was agreement at the previous
Planning Commission meeting that the last serving would be at 1O:OO p.m.
Commissioner Heineman stated that he had the same understanding that it would be to stop serving at 1O:OO p.m.
Commissioner Dominguez stated that although everyone didn't eat at the same pace, the intent should be clear to the management of the restaurant that service should stop at 1O:OO p.m. and no one should be
seated after that time.
Commissioner Segall stated that the intent would be for the last seating to be allowed at 1O:OO p.m. and if customers were there until midnight, then they were there until midnight, but he didn't think the Planning
Commission could regulate when the restaurant could stop serving.
Chairperson White stated that that was also her understanding, that if seating stopped at 1O:OO p.m., then
people would finish their dinners as late as midnight.
Planning Commission Minutes February 4, 2004 Page 5
Commissioner Whitton stated that he still cannot support the CUP for a number of reasons which he
previously stated, primarily going back to the fact that he doesn’t have a comfort level with regard to the
applicant adhering to some of the conditions. The applicant was required to provide a parking plan and all the Commission has seen is a few lines on a plot plan, showing what the parking plan is. There didn’t
appear to be any attempt to make any agreements with the State for utilization of the Tamarack State Beach parking area. With the few lines on a property diagram to show the parking and then hiring a valet
service, there’s no firm plan that the Commission has been able to review to see how the applicant is
going to park the vehicles around or outside of the neighborhood. Additionally, the applicant had an
agreement with the City, there was to be no serving of food and drinks on the patio, and the service has
been ongoing for a number of months. To approve the CUP at this time is in effect authorizing heretofore-questionable actions in the operation of the restaurant and thereby simply allowing them to
disappear rather than forcing or policing them. The City can regulate the restaurant now under the current conditions rather than approving the Conditional Use Permit and then having to go back and
wrestle with somebody to try and get people to comply with the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. I would rather withhold action on any of this and watch the operation for six or seven months before
approving anything, than to have to reverse our actions later.
Chairperson White called for a motion.
MOTION
ACT1 0 N : Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5549, 5550 and 5551 recommending approval of GPA 01-04, LCPA 01-07, and CUP 01-19 and
incorporating the condition changes as outlined in the errata sheet and with the understanding that seating for outdoor dining, not serving, will stop at 10 in the
evening, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Segall stated that he supported this plan, and although he shared Commissioner Whitton’s
concerns, he believed that the review after seven months would provide everything the Commission needed to review and police this situation. He stated that he hoped Mr. Loomis, Mr. Corbin, and Mr.
Brenzel who attended the previous meeting and expressed their concerns would attend the hearing in seven months and report their experiences with the restaurant. Commissioner Segall reiterated that this
was a piece of history in Carlsbad and he wanted to see it continue and he was looking forward to Mr.
Vigilucci supporting the CUP and abiding by the conditions.
Chairperson White called for a vote.
VOTE: 6-1
AYES:
NOES: Whitton
Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, and White
Planning Commission Minutes January 21,2004 Page 4
7. GPA 01-OWLCPA 01-07/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.
Mr. Neu introduced Item 7 and stated that Associate Planner, Scott Donnell, would make the
presentation.
Chairperson White opened the public hearing on Item 7
Associate Planner, Scott Donnell, presented the Staff Report stating that this Item involved four
applications. He showed a vicinity map for the restaurant. He stated that the restaurant was primarily in
a residential neighborhood and was surrounded on three sides by condominiums, single-family detached
homes, or apartments. The General Plan designation for the properties around Vigilucci’s is R-H,
Residential High Density, and the zoning is R-3, Residential Multiple Zone. The property to the west,
across Carlsbad Boulevard is in the Carlsbad State Beach park system, which has a zoning of Open
Space. Vigilucci’s property is somewhat of an anomaly in terms of zoning. While the area around it has a
Residential General Plan and Zoning Designation, the Vigilucci property has a designation of C-2,
General Commercial. It appears that this property has been used for commercial for quite some time,
perhaps back to the 1940s or 1950s. Typically during that time, a restaurant has operated there. The property, however, has a General Plan Designation of Residential High Density, which is consistent with
the neighborhood, but is inconsistent with the property’s current zoning. It also has a Local Coastal Program designation of Residential High Density, as well. The use of the property is consistent with the
zoning. The proposal is to change the General Plan designation from Residential High Density to T-R,
TraveVRecreation Commercial. The Conditional Use Permit would be a use permit to regulate the
existing restaurant use. Finally, there is a Coastal Development Permit submitted for proposed outdoor
dining which would occupy a space along the front of the restaurant on Carlsbad Boulevard in a concrete
area just north of the double front entry doors that face the street. The discretionary permit process
involves four permits, Conditional Use Permit, General Plan Amendment, Coastal Development Permit,
and a Local Coastal Program Amendment. Typically, the Conditional Use Permit and the Coastal
Development Permit would end with the Planning Commission’s decision being final, however, based on
past City Council direction, the City Council has directed that all four permits be sent through the Planning
Commission to them, so the City Council will have the final approval authority. Mr. Donnell explained why
the City Council retains final authority by reviewing the history of the property. In 1996, the City Council
decided that the best solution to deal with the problems of noise, loitering, etc, of the Sandbar Restaurant
patrons was to rezone the property from C-2, General Commercial, to a residential zone to match the
General Plan designation, which is High Density Residential. Soon after that resolution was passed the
State Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control revoked the Sandbar’s liquor license. That revocation
was stayed to allow the Sandbar’s owner to prove that she could control and ameliorate the problems.
Following the City Council’s resolution of intent to rezone and the ABC revocation of the liquor license,
problems associated with the restaurant ceased and over the next few years the restaurant was sold to
another restaurant operator.
In the late 199Os, the restaurant became the Seaside Bistro. There was still a resolution of intention that the City Council had directed Staff to consider, thus, beginning in 2000, the Staff began looking at
rezoning the property from commercial to residential. In 2001, that resolution of intention to rezone the property went before both the Planning Commission and the City Council. At that time Staff was
proposing that the property be rezoned to High Density Residential to match the General Plan designation. However, because problems with the Sandbar had ceased, there seemed to be general
support from the neighborhood around the restaurant to keep the property with its commercial zoning.
Residents favored that use and the neighborhood influenced the Planning Commission and the City
Council to lead the City Council to pass a resolution in 2001 that directed Staff to bring back for its
consideration a proposal to keep the property commercial. That City Council direction in 2001 was made with the prior restaurant owner, Jim DiMaggio. The agreement was that in exchange for the City Council
considering keeping the property commercial, Mr. DiMaggio would submit both the CUP and relinquish
his cabaret license. Mr. DiMaggio did submit a CUP, however, in late 2002 he sold the property to the
current owner, Mr. Vigilucci. Because the City Council had not made an agreement with Mr. Vigilucci,
Planning Commission Minutes January 21,2004 Page 5
when Mr. Vigilucci approached the City in 2002 about making some minor improvements to the building,
such as restuccoing and redoing the interior, the City saw that as an opportunity to, in exchange for
approving those improvements, have Mr. Vigilucci agree that he would submit a CUP. The City desires a
CUP because it lacked such a tool with the Sandbar Restaurant. A restaurant is a permitted use under
the current zone. A CUP would enable the City to regulate the use. The recorded agreements that were eventually reached with the current applicant resulted in this current project.
One of the key issues with this project is the land use designations. There is an incompatible zone and
General Plan designation. In order to keep with the City Council’s direction to consider changing the
designation and keep it commercial, Staff is proposing to redesignate the property or change its General
Plan designation from High Density Residential to TraveVRecreation Commercial. In addition to that, to
regulate the use, Staff is proposing the Conditional Use Permit.
Another key issue with this project has to do with parking. While the restaurant today provides 21 parking
spaces on site, the number of spaces actually required based on the square footage of the restaurant is
58 parking spaces.
Staff is not recommending changing the property’s C-2 zoning. Staff recommends that eventually the property’s zoning should be changed to C-T (ComrnerciaVTourist), which implements the travel recreation
designation. Currently the City is undertaking a look at revising the C-T zone as well as the T-R designation, and Staff will propose to the Planning Commission to amend the C-T zone and apply it to
certain properties, including the Vigilucci property.
With regard to the operations, Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit, which will
allow the City to regulate parking, among other aspects. If a problem develops with regard to parking or
some operating characteristic, the Conditional Use Permit enables the City to respond to those problems
and revoke the permit, if necessary. Staff has worked with the applicant for quite some time to develop a solution to the parking problem. The best solution appears to be a valet parking plan, which would
maximize the parking on site, adding seven additional spaces. It would also regulate the entering and
exiting of cars onto the property. Under the self-parking proposal there is a concern that the entrance and
parking lot will become congested. Valet parking would control and direct traffic and let the patrons know if the lot is full.
Another aspect of this project is a Coastal Development Permit that has been submitted by the applicant for an outdoor dining proposal. The Coastal Development Permit is needed because the outdoor dining
represents a potential intensification of an existing use. Staff has calculated that the outdoor dining would
necessitate an additional 13 parking spaces. The applicant, however, proposes to move indoor chairs
outdoors rather than add chairs. Staff recommends denial of the outdoor dining. The restaurant lacks
adequate parking and to add any additional parking demand would exacerbate the situation. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance establishes parking requirements based on floor area. Whether a portion of the
inside restaurant is cordoned off or not, it is still floor area and demand for parking still remains according
to the code. In addition to that, the outdoor dining represents an intensification of a nonconforming use.
This building is nonconforming in terms of parking, and because of its rear setback. The property to the
north is zoned Residential, thus Vigilucci’s is required to have a 10-foot setback. It has a zero-foot
setback along that property line. The restaurant is nonconforming both in terms of parking and rear setbacks. The idea of a seating exchange, moreover, Staff feels is problematic. It is difficult to enforce
and monitor. The outdoor dining may also result in some noise concerns.
Commissioner White acknowledged the receipt of an errata sheet from the Fire Department and a letter
from the neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Cerecedes.
Commissioner Montgomery asked about traffic and parking stating that according to the letter from Mr.
and Mrs. Cerecedes, when the valet parking service had filled the lot on site, they continued their valet
parking service within the residential neighborhood on adjacent streets. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the City allowed valet parking from a commercial business onto residentially zoned streets. Mr.
Donnell stated that the Zoning Ordinance did not provide standards for valet parking. It could be considered through permits such as this Conditional Use . Permit and the appropriate findings and
conditions related to valet parking would be developed through the CUP.
73
Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 2004 Page 6
Commissioner Montgomery commented that with regard to the outdoor dining, if indeed there was a
transfer of seats from inside to outside, then in theory there would be no net increase in the parking
requirement. He suggested that the applicant address this issue to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Heineman asked if there was any provision in City statutes that stated that the space in
front of a house, which is a public street, belonged to anyone in particular. Mr. Donnell replied that there
was not. Commissioner Heineman asked that if valet parkers were putting cars in front of homes in the
neighborhood near Vigilucci’s if they were breaking the law. Mr. Rick responded that there was no
provision in the law that specified valet parking was prohibited on public streets.
Commissioner Whitton noted that there was a sign in Vigilucci’s parking lot that indicated there was
additional parking available at the beach. Commissioner Whitton stated that to his knowledge the City
paid the State a fee for the use of that beach parking. Mr. Donnell responded that in the past the City had
paid $36,000 to the State to keep that parking lot free. He added that in the past the State was required
to receive approval from the City in the form of a CUP to operate a parking lot there. While that CUP for
the parking lot was valid, the City paid the State that amount of money, however, the CUP has lapsed.
The last billing from the State of $36,000 was in the late 1990s and no payment has been made since.
Commissioner Whitton noted that the City would potentially have to pay that fee and, in essence, would
be subsidizing Vigilucci’s.
Commissioner Segall asked for clarification regarding the errata sheet and the significance of the
demarcation on the map. Mr. Donnell explained that the Fire Marshal wanted to make sure that there would be adequate emergency access for pedestrians. There are two entrances and exits to the building
on the south side facing Tamarack Avenue. The Fire Marshal would like to see a painted path that leads
from those exits out to Tamarack Avenue. He stated that the Fire Marshal would also like to see a
painted path from the sidewalk that served the entrances out to Tamarack, which would be like putting a
crosswalk through the parking lot. Commissioner Segall noted that the significance of that would be to
keep cars from parking there. He asked what the impact would be from this new condition in terms of lost
parking spaces. Mr. Donnell stated that there wouldn’t be any lost parking spaces as the lot could be
striped for the crosswalk without affecting self or valet parking. Commissioner Segall asked if the
applicant had agreed to these conditions. Mr. Donnell stated that the applicant had just received the
additional condition that evening.
Commissioner Baker asked where street parking was allowed on Carlsbad Boulevard and on Tamarack
Avenue. Mr. Rick replied that street parking was prohibited on Tamarack Avenue on both sides, Carlsbad Boulevard to Garfield Street. He stated that parking was permitted on Garfield Street, located to the east.
The next street to the north is Redwood Avenue and parking was allowed on both sides there. On
Carlsbad Boulevard parking is allowed on the west side, but not on the east side.
Jack Henthorne, 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A, Carlsbad, stated that he was representing Roberto
Vigilucci, owner and operator of Vigilucci’s Restaurant. He discussed the nonconforming issue of the side
yard adjacent to the residential property to the north stating that it was created as a result of the City’s
action of rezoning that property and changing the land use designation when the whole block there was
reconsidered. He noted that Mr. Vigilucci had made no change to his property. He responded to some of
the Commissioners’ comments and questions. He stated that the valet parking off site was an opportunity
for people who would normally use curbside parking or park at the beach to have the opportunity to exit their vehicle at the restaurant. He stated that there was no additional parking impact created by the valet
parking service. With regard to the sign indicating additional parking at the beach, he stated that it was their understanding that that was public parking and they were aware that the CUP had lapsed. He
stated that the intention was to take the burden off of the residential parking. He stated that the Item was before the Planning Commission as a result of Mr. Vigilucci entering into an agreement with the City
whereby he would file a CUP for a use that would normally be permitted in the C-2 zone. By entering into that agreement he pledged to do certain things, some of which involved having no dance bands or loud
noise. He stated that Mr. Vigilucci acknowledged that even though outdoor dining was desirable, it
needed to be approved through a CUP process and the parking needed to be addressed prior to opening
outdoor dining areas. He also had to address the parking issue through the presentation of parking
plans. The current plan added seven parking spaces. In addition he was required to undertake certain other operational restrictions that would make the restaurant more compatible with the surrounding
Planning Commission Minutes January 21,2004 Page 7
residential area and community. That agreement was initially entered into in April, 2002 and amended in
June, 2002. The amended agreement required submittal of a CUP application prior to August 5, 2002.
That application was formally submitted on July 25, 2002. The application included a parking layout and a
proposal for valet parking. He stated that the valet parking service had been in effect for about a year
and the operation had been revised during that time based on comments received from the City. The
number of staff had been increased to keep the traffic moving to avoid traffic jams on Tamarack. He
stated that they had received only a couple of complaints during the one-year period concerning blocked driveways. The application included a request to formalize the outdoor dining, which would be located in
the central part of the building on the west side adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard. The area is immediately
adjacent to some French doors that normally remain open during good weather. There would be 26
tables on the floor plan for that site. The applicant had made it clear to Staff that the number of tables would not increase. His proposal would not increase the parking nonconformity. He acknowledged that
some customers had taken their meals or drinks outdoors and that Mr. Vigilucci reminded them that they
had to go inside as it was not an approved seating area. Mr. Henthorne stated that Mr. Vigilucci instructed servers not to serve food outdoors. Mr. Henthorne concluded his presentation stating that Mr.
Vigilucci concurred with the Staff Report and the errata sheet with the exception of the outdoor dining
issue.
Commissioner Segall stated his concern about the ability to police the outdoor eating area. He stated
that he had been at Vigilucci’s in mid-December for lunch and there were six or eight tables put together
for a large party in a formalized setting outdoors. He stated that if the outdoor dining wasn’t controlled at
present, and if Mr. Vigilucci couldn’t control the employees from allowing it, and if the Planning
Commission allowed outdoor dining as an approved condition, then how would it be policed. Mr.
Henthorne replied that he had been to Vigilucci’s a number of times and had not seen outdoor dining and
added that Mr. Vigilucci rebuked employees who allowed it. He emphasized that Mr. Vigilucci had a standing policy to not allow outdoor dining at present.
Commissioner Segall asked about the letter from the Cerecedes’ that indicated that the restaurant’s staff
had been parking on the street, and asked where the staff parked. Mr. Henthorne stated that the staff
parked in the public parking areas.
Commissioner Baker asked if there were tables outside of the restaurant. Mr. Henthorne stated that there were plastic chairs outside for people who were waiting to be seated as people tended to gravitate
outdoors to wait if they didn’t want to wait in the bar. He stated that there were no dining tables or service offered outdoors.
Commissioner Baker referred to the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Cerecedes recounting that they had tried to
discuss parking problems with the owner and were told that the valet service was a different business that
he didn’t have anything to do with. She stated that if the owner was contracting with the valet service he has everything to do with that and could help alleviate the problems. Mr. Henthorne stated that he did not
know what manager said that, but that if it had been brought to Mr. Vigilucci, he would certainly hold the valet parking service responsible.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if Mr. Vigilucci would continue to use a valet parking contractor. Mr.
Henthorne stated that that was his intention. Commissioner Dominguez stated that he had been in
Vigilucci’s Restaurant once and that it was very nice and an asset to Carlsbad. He stated that he thought
it had become a victim of its own success and that maybe some internal policy changes regarding employee parking and more careful monitoring of the valet parking contractor would alleviate some of the
problems that have occurred. He commented that that area had always been deficient in parking and that the problem was difficult to resolve, especially with the indecisiveness that City policies have taken to this
point. He encouraged Mr. Vigilucci to be proactive in addressing these problems.
Commissioner Whitton stated that he had seen outdoor dining at Vigilucci’s on many occasions with
tables with tablecloths and waiters serving customers. He declared that he didn’t believe that it was
merely the occasional patron who decided to go outdoors. He stated that when there hadn’t been tables
outdoors, people were outdoors drinking. He stressed that the documents stated that the requirement
was that there would be no eating or drinking outdoors. He stated that he had asked one of the
managers at Vigilucci’s if they served drinks outside and was told that they did. He had asked if they served dinner outside and was told “Well, I’m not on in the evening.” He had asked the parking lot
Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 2004 Page 8
attendant where they parked the cars and was told that they used the on-site and off-site parking. He had
asked if they used the beach parking and he received a waffled answer. He observed that that parking lot
varied in the number of parking spaces available because during the day when there was no valet
service, then two spaces were needed for handicapped parking. He noted that as soon as a trash
container would be added that it would diminish the requirement by two spaces. He stated that the way he had seen the parking lot filled often times that it would not be possible for emergency vehicles to get in
there. He stated that he did not feel they had a resolution to the parking issue. He stated that he was
uncomfortable knowing that the CUP was filed in 2002 and yet took so long to come before the Planning
Commission. Mr. Henthorne replied that he had been assured by Mr. Vigilucci that the outdoor dining situation was an oddity although he didn’t deny that it occurred, but had instructed his staff not to seat
people and serve them outdoors. He stated that there was use of the beach parking for overflow parking. He stated that they had conducted a survey and received 20 responses stating that those patrons had
parked and walked up the hill. He stated that they had spent a considerable amount of time with the Fire Marshal and Staff discussing how the parking lot worked and making sure the Fire Marshal was satisfied
with the front parking arrangement and emergency vehicle access. He reiterated that the Fire Marshall
had indicated that that driveway was sufficient for their needs to ensure public safety. With regard to the
CUP taking so long to come before the Planning Commission, Mr. Henthorne stated that the primary
issue that they had was in finding an optimum parking plan. Commissioner Whitton stated that there
were times when the parking lot was full and an emergency vehicle would not be able to get into it. Mr.
Henthorne stated that the CUP would put all of these issues into an enforceable state and that the parking plans had had to be revised to accommodate emergency vehicles.
Commissioner Montgomery asked Mr. Henthorne if he was suggesting that once the CUP was issued that
the applicant would conform exactly to that configuration. Mr. Henthorne stated that there would be no
other option. Commissioner Montgomery asked if there wouldn’t be an overstacking of parking. Mr.
Henthorne stated that there were a number of requirements that would have to be met for the CUP such
as striping spaces and operating it as the lot was designed. He stated that the applicant was aware of
and willing to abide by the conditions of the CUP. Commissioner Montgomery encouraged the owner to
instruct the valet parking service to not use only one area for parking. Mr. Henthorne stated that they
would obtain a full map of the available area for the valet service and encourage them to rotate the areas
used.
Commissioner Montgomery asked what the applicant could do to prove to the Planning Commission that
tables would be moved outside versus adding tables outside considering that tables have been seen
being used outside. Mr. Henthorne stated that the applicant would have to comply with the condition that
the outdoor dining might result in additional seating. He stated that the applicant understood that he had a significant investment there and to protect it he will have to police the situation much better once the
CUP is in effect than is occurring now.
Roberto Vigilucci, 688 Calle Corte, Encinitas, owner of Vigilucci’s, stated that the restaurant had 125
seats available in the restaurant. He suggested that they would put more tables for two outside in the
summer. He stated that they had a private room in the back for meetings. He stated that most people,
however, wanted to sit in the front of the restaurant to enjoy the ocean view. He stated that the 125 seats
would be more spread out, but none would be added.
Commissioner Segall stated that he would like to allow Mr. Vigilucci to serve people outside but that he
had to be convinced that there would not be more people seated inside. He recounted that Mr. Vigilucci stated that he didn’t serve people outside but that that occurred sometimes and it was difficult to manage.
He asked Mr. Vigilucci what assurance he could give the Planning Commission that there would be no more than the allowed 125 seats total. Mr. Vigilucci stated that he had 125-130 chairs total inside the
restaurant and that when they were used, there wouldn’t be any way to add extra tables. He stated that
the space he had could possibly seat 200 people, but that that was not permitted. He noted that the patio
would not always be used.
Commissioner Segall asked about the valet parking service. He noted that the day he went to Vigilucci’s that the valet person was going to prevent him from parking on site but that they weren’t going to park the
car elsewhere. He asked how that situation would be handled when the amount of people that could be
served reached a maximum. Mr. Vigilucci explained that it was a scheduling challenge to know how
Planning Commission Minutes January 21,2004 Page 9
many valet parkers would be needed for any given night. He stated that the parking lot would be closed if
there were only one valet person who could not drive a car off site.
Commissioner Segall asked about the employee and valet parking in the adjacent neighborhoods. He
stated that it seemed to him that people in that area had gone through a lot with past restaurant owners
and the Planning Commission decided a few years ago not to change the zoning but wanted to keep the
restaurant. He stated that people testified that they were pleased with that decision. He stated that he
was concerned about the good neighbor part of doing business under these circumstances with so many cars parked in nearby neighborhoods. He asked how that would be addressed. Mr. Vigilucci stated that
he would have more meetings with his employees and advise them where it would be best to park, most likely at the beach. Mr. Henthorne added that a number of Vigilucci’s employees lived within walking
distance and many took public transportation to work.
Commissioner Baker asked what the capacity of the kitchen was and if the kitchen could handle more than 125 customers at one time. Mr. Vigilucci stated that in a year’s time Vigilucci’s had probably served
between 70,000 to 100,000 customers. Commissioner Baker reassured Mr. Vigilucci that the Planning
Commission wanted his restaurant to succeed, but that they did not want to add any additional burdens to
the neighbors. Mr. Vigilucci stated that the Fire Marshal periodically inspected the restaurant and had
been at the restaurant that day counting the seats. He stated that there was pressure to please the
customers, but that he would keep the seat count below 130.
Chairperson White shared that she had been past Vigilucci’s the prior Saturday at 3:OO p.m. and saw four
different parties sitting out on the patio at four different tables. Mr. Vigilucci stated that he had seven or eight wooden lounge chairs and four or five small tables that were always out on the patio. He stated that
those were there for people waiting to be seated. Chairperson White stated that outdoor dining was pleasant, good advertising for the restaurant, and charming looking from the street, but that the number of
people using the restaurant had to be regulated and the parking issue had to be addressed. She urged
him to work with the valet parking service to put as little stress as possible on the nearby neighborhoods,
especially on Garfield Street.
Chairperson White opened public testimony and invited those who would like to speak to the podium.
Harry Loomis, 11 1 Tamarack Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that there were 18 units where he lived which was
directly across the street from Vigilucci’s. He stated that he was speaking on behalf of all of the residents
in his complex. Just prior to the closure and subsequent sale of the Sand Bar, members of the City
Council were focusing on the General Plan for this area. There was a general agreement that this
neighborhood would continue to remain zoned a residential area. The previous problems of loud noise after 2:OO a.m., drunkenness spilling over into our neighborhood, fights, vandalism, urination, a belligerent
and uncooperative neighbor with a cabaret license had gone. And until this moment a good neighbor is
there instead. To now make an application that leaves our residential neighborhood vulnerable to other
land use designation changes may bring his good neighbor status into question. He is already serving as
many as 25 to 30 guests outside on the front entrance area where no permit exists. It is in fact zoned as
a public right-of-way. Those that violate the law and then ask permission to continue are perhaps no
longer good neighbors. This building has a maximum occupancy of about 124 persons. There are about 21 parking spaces in this parcel. The limited capacity of customers and parking were a known quantity
from the beginning. The neighborhood residential land use designation was known from the beginning.
As neighbors of Vigilucci’s Restaurant, we agree that there are no bad questions, but there are certainly
bad answers. On page 5, the third sentence of the Planning Commission Staff Report it says “Staff believes the conditions may still be applicable to the current owner.” He asked if these conditions are
applicable to the current owner or not. Until this question has been settled in a lawful manner, we feel
that our rear end is hanging out and the City Council should answer this mystery question. I have observed a willingness on the part of Vigilucci’s to push the patience of this City Council by its arbitrary
actions of serving its customers on the City right-of-way. The proposed awning and wood fence validate the unlawful construction of the all-cement front porch. It also becomes only a baby step to come back to
the City Council with another variance request. Commercial rezoning becomes a windfall for a single
proprietor but a continuing uncertainty for the entire neighborhood. What penalties or fines were levied
against the Eubanks’ Trust for building her concrete front porch on a public right-of-way? What
assurance does a neighborhood have that the fully built out status of Vigilucci’s will remain when the
potential to purchase the property directly to the east of the parking lot has the potential to upset the
Planning Commission Minutes January 21,2004 Page 10
residential zoning status of the rest of this neighborhood. Finally, the Planning Commission Staff Report
fails to recognize the fact it was only when this neighborhood banded together and influenced the ABC
that a lawsuit was brought against the Sand Bar. There was no justice for us, only the law. As a
neighborhood we have long felt that without our horsepower the City Council would never have been able
to bring sane behavior to this residential area. As grateful residents of Carlsbad, we continue to participate in this public forum. We respectfully request that the City Council stay sensitive to the
neighborhood’s status designation that has long existed there. One single anomaly has caused more
turbulence than the entire neighborhood. Any further variance on behalf of this single anomaly is simply a
variance on good order itself. Mr. Loomis expressed his appreciation for the Commission’s time.
Chris Brenzel, 159 Redwood Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that he appreciated Vigilucci’s Restaurant. It’s a
nice addition to the neighborhood. He stated that he was a life-long resident of Carlsbad and had seen
the restaurant go through all the changes. He stated he saw the Sand Bar come and go, and was glad to
see it go. It‘s an expensive
neighborhood. People who live there have chosen to live there because of the lifestyle it provides. It’s
quiet, peaceful, and safe. The restaurant has changed the clientele from the previous owner. The
parking, however, has become a huge issue. Employees park their cars from 4:OO p.m. Ontil 11:OO p.m.
on Redwood Avenue. They park their cars impeding into driveways, not blocking them completely. The cars clear out at 11 :00 p.m. Over the last two months he’s noticed a heavy increase in the amount of
parking from the valet service parking on Redwood Avenue. He stated that it was hard for him to have guests over because they are having to park on Garfield or one of the other side streets. He stated that
he saw on New Year’s that there were heat lamps set up outside and that that area has been frequently
exploited for more seating.
Vigilucci’s, however, makes a heavy impact on that neighborhood.
AI Corbin, 3862 Carlsbad Boulevard, 3870 Carlsbad Boulevard, 143 Redwood Avenue, 167 Redwood Avenue, 169 Redwood Avenue, stated that he owned the property right next to Vigilucci’s on the north
side, which is currently a vacant lot and the corner house that used to be Ledgerwood’s house. He stated
that there were a lot of parking problems and that it was still winter. When summer arrives, it’s going to
be a zoo. He stated that he was in favor of the restaurant and that Mr. Vigilucci had done a fantastic job
with the restaurant. He stated that he was concerned about the policing of the parking when Mr. Vigilucci
owned other restaurants as well, especially during the summer when everyone would want to sit outside.
He stated that he was a contractor and would suggest taking out the wall with the French doors and
creating more outdoor seating by remodeling. He stated that the concrete was on public right-of-way that
was an easement that he had to sign off on his property for future widening of Carlsbad Boulevard, so 18 feet of it is part of the City road. He stated that once there was a big party outside with 50 people when
Mr. Vigilucci wasn’t around and that people were mingling around the sidewalk because they couldn’t all
fit on the patio. He stated that that affected him because he was building a house there and his driveway
was right there because he had a zero property line. Whoever in the City allowed that made a mistake
because there is no setback at all. He stated that his property would be five feet away from Vigilucci’s
Restaurant. He noted that there was also a bus stop right there. He stated that there were safety issues
involved.
Chairperson White asked the applicant if he wanted to respond to the public comments.
Mr. Henthorne reiterated that to his knowledge Mr. Vigilucci had done what he could to not seat and serve customers outside. He stated that the public right-of-way had always been associated with the
restaurant. With the occupancy rate of 125, most people would be arriving in a car with two, three, or four
people per car. He stated that they had not received any complaints regarding driveway blockage or
encroachment, but if that was occurring then Mr. Vigilucci would have to speak to his employees. The side yard was made nonconforming by virtue of the land use change that was granted on the adjacent
property. He stated that Mr. Vigilucci had indicated a willingness to work on policing the parking and addressing the issues that have arisen.
Chairperson White closed public testimony and asked Staff to respond to questions.
Mr. Rick confirmed that the concrete patio was indeed in the public right-of-way. He added that there was
also asphalt located in that public right-of-way prior to the current patio that was installed. The current
patio was constructed about three or four years ago through an encroachment agreement. He stated that there was a bus stop located between Vigilucci’s property and Mr. Corbin’s property to the north. He
78
Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 2004 Page 11
stated that sight distance would consider permanent objects versus moving vehicles. He stated that the
NCTD was working with Mr. Corbin to relocate the bus stop on Carlsbad Boulevard south of Tamarack
Avenue.
Commissioner Dominguez asked Mr. Donnell if this application constituted an application for a variance.
Mr. Donnell stated that it was not technically a variance, however, through the CUP the Planning Commission could apply flexibility, for example, in terms of setbacks as well as parking.
Commissioner Dominguez asked when the encroachment permit had been issued for the right-of-way
area, to whom it had been issued, and if it ran with the property. Mr. Rick answered that the permit had
been issued three or four years ago and it did run with the property.
Commissioner Segall asked what the procedure would be on a CUP violation and how it would be
enforced. Mr. Neu stated that historically the Fire Marshal andlor the Code Enforcement Division would
first contact the applicant and try to gain voluntary compliance. If that was not successful, they would
then issue a written letter or violation notice, which would indicate what would need to be done to achieve
compliance. Ultimately, the Code Enforcement Division had a process where they could issue a citation
that resulted in a fine, but if the violations persisted, it would likely escalate to a point of bringing the CUP
back before the Planning Commission to modify or change the outdoor seating condition. He stated that
there would be a fair amount of latitude if it reached that point. Commissioner Segall asked how long that
process would take. Mr. Neu stated that the process was not fast as the City did not have as much
leverage as when they issued the initial permit. Commissioner Segall asked if the Planning Commission
could condition the approval to reexamine it in six months and reevaluate it at that time for compliance.
Mr. Neu stated that that was possible. He noted that a typical CUP was monitored on an annual basis.
Ms. Mobaldi added that the Planning Commission could condition this CUP and ask for a report after six months. She reminded them that this was a recommendation to the City Council and that the final
decision would be made by the City Council.
Commissioner Dominguez asked for clarification on the impacts to the Corbin property, which was
designated commercial. Mr. Donnell confirmed that it was designated commercial. Mr. Donnell stated
that it had been Mr. Ledgerwood’s property until 1999.
Commissioner Segall asked what the true capacity was of Vigilucci’s Restaurant including the bar, back room area, and patio. Mr. Donnell stated that he didn’t know the number, but that the floor plan listed a
total maximum occupancy of 131, but he stated that the Building Department would have to provide
clarification about that.
Commissioner Baker asked if there wasn’t a fire regulation limiting total occupancy. Mr. Henthorne stated
that whatever was shown on the floor plan was the maximum occupancy for the fire or building code and
that number was 131. Commissioner Baker asked how the parking spaces were set. Mr. Donnell stated that parking requirements were set by floor area.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Whitton commented that Mr. Vigilucci had a wonderful restaurant and that the best thing
would probably be to double deck it, but he stated that he could not support any of the resolutions. He
cited the agreement document that was recorded in early 2002 whereby outdoor dining and drinking would not be possible without adequate parking, and a parking solution had been proposed. He stated
that he was not convinced the valet parking service was the right solution; and that the parking spaces on
site were variable because of the required handicapped spaces during the day. He expressed concern
about emergency vehicles being able to get in and out when the parking lot was full. He stated that he
was disturbed by the eating and drinking outside because it broke a previous agreement; that the bus stop was a concern because the traffic on Tamarack was affected by that visually; that the capacity of the
restaurant was hard to determine; that Mr. Donnell and the Staff had done a nice job but that there were
too many unanswered questions and too many violations that had occurred and granting a CUP would
sanction the continuing problems; and that he would like to see a firm resolution to these issues.
Commissioner Heineman stated that he was in complete disagreement with Commissioner Whitton, but
that he did have some misgivings. He said that trying to hold occupancy to 125 in a busy restaurant
Planning Commission Minutes January 21,2004 Page 12
would be virtually impossible, no matter how much Mr. Vigilucci and his employees tried to do so. He
stated that he was in favor of the first two resolutions, but that unless someone changed his mind, he
could not support the outdoor dining.
Commissioner Dominguez reiterated that that area had always had a restaurant and he emphasized that
it had always been deficient in parking. He remarked that the restaurant added character, charm, and attractiveness to the coastal area and stated that he could support the proposal. He stated that he could
support the extension of the utilization of the sidewalk area for dining as he felt it would help Mr. Vigilucci
to manage the misuse that had been occurring. He suggested that the Planning Commission recommend
to the City Council a six-month review on this application to review the progress or lack thereof.
Commissioner Baker stated that she had been on the Planning Commission when they were asked to
change that property from commercial to residential and that it was on the testimony of the neighborhood
that she had been swayed to believe that keeping a restaurant there was a good use of the property. She
stated that there was probably no good way to resolve the parking problem and suggested that the
employees and valets use the beach parking and try to stay out of the neighborhoods to reduce the
frustration of the neighbors. She cautioned that if the neighbors complained to the City about the parking
problems enough that the Planning Commission might have to respond in a way that was not favorable to
the restaurant. She stated that she was on the fence about the outdoor dining but that she was in favor of
a six-month review period to evaluate the outcome; and that outdoor dining or large parties should not be
allowed after 1O:OO p.m.
Commissioner Montgomery stated that he would want to do everything he could to allow that site to
succeed. Keeping in mind that there was an existing encroachment agreement on the right-of-way of Carlsbad Boulevard and that on the site plan that the patio area as well as the landscaping were perfectly
set up for outdoor dining with almost a sidewalk cafe type of feel, that he agreed with Commissioner
Dominguez about the irresistibility of wanting to dine outdoors on nice days. He stated that he believed that if the Planning Commission didn’t approve this, that there would be continued outdoor eating anyway
and that he was trying to be realistic about it. He suggested that the way to control it would be with the total amount of seating. He stated that he supported the CDP as well as hearing about it again in six
months or so; and that he did not believe that the parking problem would improve any over the six-month
period. He implored the applicant to try to employ the good neighbor policy, especially with regard to
employee parking, and try not to saturate certain areas.
Commissioner Segall stated that he supported Commissioner Dominguez’s viewpoints and that of some
of the other Commissioners. He stated that he, too, was on the Planning Commission in 2001 with
Commissioner Baker when the Planning Commission unanimously supported not changing .the
designation in the area to allow the restaurant to continue. He remarked that Carlsbad was lacking
quality restaurants on the ocean. He stated that he though it would be a crime to not allow outdoor
seating in that environment; and that he wanted to see the restaurant succeed and remarked that it was a
quality establishment that was well managed. He added that he was very concerned about the parking
and the good neighbor aspect of the parking, as well as rules being set and then violated. He stated that
the only way he would support this was if it came back to the Planning Commission in six or seven
months. He stated that he would ask Misters Corbin, Loomis, and Brenzel to return at that time to report on the improvements; and that if the same problems existed with no improvements after six months, then
he would have to reconsider the whole issue. He asked to be informed as to the exact capacity of the
restaurant.
Commissioner Heineman added that in view of the unanimity, with the exception of Commissioner
Whitton, of the idea of a check at the end of the summer season to see if the limit on the number of people including outdoor dining, he would approve of the outdoor dining.
Commissioner Dominguez recommended that the review period begin in April so that the whole summer
would be included in the review period.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that the Planning Commission would need to come back with a recommendation of
approval for the Coastal Development Permit because the Resolution was for denial. She clarified that
when the Item was heard again for a recommendation of approval, then the condition could be added to
that resolution.
Planning Commission Minutes January 21,2004 Page 13
Commissioner Dominguez commented that if the review period didn’t include the entire summer that it
wouldn’t provide an accurate picture of the situation.
Chairperson White stated that she agreed with the majority of comments made thus far. She stated that she was concerned about the parking and the relationship of the restaurant with the neighborhood. She
stated that she hoped that Mr. Vigilucci would work very hard and aggressively with his valet staff and
employees to try to be as diplomatic and considerate as possible. She indicated that there was strong
interest on the part of the Planning Commission to disapprove the Staffs recommendation and consider
outdoor dining with monitoring. She suggested asking Staff to schedule a report as an agenda item for
the first meeting in November. She asked Staff if this were the plan if the neighborhood would be notified that there would be a review and a report before the Planning Commission so Staff could solicit their
input. Mr. Neu responded that the annual reviews were the normal process and that they didn’t occur in a public context, but that the Planning Commission could request that for additional input.
Mr. Donnell explained that to approve the outdoor dining that the Resolution for the Coastal Development
Permit would need to be revised to include approval findings as well as some conditions, and then if the
CUP was approved, that approval would not become effective until the Coastal Commission took action
on the LCPA. He stated that that would typically be three months after the City Council heard the item.
Commissioner Heineman asked if that would affect the report on the CUP or if it would delay .matters to
prevent an effect post-summer report. Mr. Donnell stated that a report could be produced based on the
few months after the Coastal Commission approved it.
Commissioner Segall asked when Vigilucci’s could legally begin serving outside. Mr. Donnell replied that
the conditions of the CUP would become effective upon the Coastal Commission’s approval of the LCPA.
Commissioner Baker asked if the Planning Commission wanted to put a condition restricting parties and
serving on the patio after 1O:OO p.m.
Mr. Neu stated that if the Planning Commission wanted to approve the Coastal Development Permit, then
the recommendation would be to direct Staff to return with findings and conditions of approval to have the
Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the Coastal Development Permit approval. At the same time modifications could be made to the Conditional Use Permit to reflect this discussion and then
the Commission could review those documents and determine if what the Commission wanted was properly reflected. Commissioner Heineman asked if that would handle the condition for a report on the
CUP if the Commission did that with findings and conditions. Mr. Neu stated that it would. Chairperson White called for a motion. Ms. Mobaldi interrupted Commissioner Heineman’s motion stating
that she thought that the Planning Commission wanted to continue these actions in order to have the
Staff return with the appropriate Resolutions with the added review conditions to the CUP Resolution. Mr.
Neu added that Staff would want direction to return with findings and conditions of approval for the
Coastal Permit and incorporate modifications to the CUP to reflect this discussion.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission continue Item 7 to the February 4, 2004 meeting and that Staff be directed to return with findings and conditions for a CUP to allow outdoor dining.
VOTE: 7-0 AYES:
NOES: None
Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, White, and Whitton
Chairperson White addressed Mr. Vigilucci stating that the Planning Commission was not an enforcement
agency, but that they would like to remind him that until this permit was resolved by both the City Council
and the Coastal Commission that outdoor dining would not be allowed at the restaurant.
Planning Commission Minutes January 21,2004 Page 14
Chairperson White closed public the public hearing and thanked the applicant for coming, thanked the
members of the public for providing their input, and thanked Mr. Donne11 and Mr. Rick and the Staff who worked on the report.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the
City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers,
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, March 9,
2004, to consider a 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; and (2) a conditional use permit for an
existing restaurant and to allow proposed outdoor dining at that restaurant on property
generally located at 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard and more particularly described as:
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 3713, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, April 21, 1975, as File No. 75-
092233 of Official Records.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the
public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after March 5, 2004.
If you have any questions, please call Scott Donnell in the Planning Department at (760)
602-461 8.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this General Plan Amendment, Local
Coastal Program Amendment and/or Conditional Use Permit, if approved, is established
by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the General Plan
Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment and/or Conditional Use Permit in
court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City
of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or
prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: GPA OI-O4/LCPA OI-O7/CUP 02-19
CASE NAME: VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD AND STEAKHOUSE
PUBLISH: February 27,2004
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
SITE
CURRENT LAND USE: RH
PROPOSED LAND USE: T-R
VI G I LUCCI’S SEAFOOD
& STEAKHOUSE
GPA 01 -04/LCPA 01 -07/CUP 02-1 9
To: Planning Commission RE: AI" # 204-253-20 Public HCWbig on 1/2 1/2004
1 /I 0/2004
We are not able to attend the meeting tonight and ask that this letter be read into the public record. We are Bill and Dianc Lantz, residing .at 144 Redwood Ave, Carlsbad, Ca, We live around the corner from
Vigilucci's Restaurant, the applicant.
I first 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 are concerned about is the additional seating being asked for, not the fact of outside dining
but in regards to the parking issue.
The parking issue with us is:
Employee's and Patrons for the restaurant that park on our street, and have a right to use the
street, Stan of problem.
0 Some patrons DO NOT use the valet service at Vigilucci's because it costs 52.00 and because
of this are constantly driving up and down Redwood, Oarfield and the surrounding streets
looking for places to park. Increased impact on the RESTDENTIAL neighborhood.
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 RESIDENTIAL streets, driving backwards fast and competing with the residents and beachgoers fbr parking, Them arc young children th6T pIay ah3"%Gn'-'+- "i*c
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 are moving the parked car's
around, We discussed parkhg 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.
My understanding fiom the original negotiations and conversations with Mr. Vigilucci were
that
utilihg the parking lot at Tamarack Beach. I would have imagined that this would be on a NO
Charge basis so the patrons would gladly use the service and lessen the impact on the
surrounding neighborhood. What happened to this a~~rnent? If the agreement was for the city to have parking available as it does in the village with the public lots then why doesn't the city
resewe parking spaces for Vigilucci's in the Tamarack lot on busy weekend's?
Summer time brings on additional parking issues. As the beach gets busier every summer,
availability for Vigilucci's valet use of the Tamarack Iot lesserls and then Vigilucci's parking
overflows onto the residential streets,
in regards to parking at Vigilucci's, they were going to provide valet parking
. The Beach overlay mnc isalready overly impacted with regards to parking for residents and
beachgoers. The additional stress that the parking issue with Vigilucci's has put on our neighborhood
does 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 there 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. 1
TOTW P.82
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the
City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers,
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, March 9,
2004, to consider a 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; and (2) a conditional use pennit for an
existing restaurant and to allow proposed outdoor dining at that restaurant on property
generally located at 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard and more particularly described as:
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 3713, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, April 21, 1975, as File No. 75-
092233 of Official Records.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the
public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after March 5, 2004.
If you have any questions, please call Scott Donnell in the Planning Department at (760)
602-461 8.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this General Plan Amendment, Local
Coastal Program Amendment and/or Conditional Use Permit, if approved, is established
by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the General Plan
Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment and/or Conditional Use Permit in
court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City
of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or
prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: GPA 01-04/LCPA 01 -07/CUP 02-1 9
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH: February 27,2004
VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD AND STEAKHOUSE
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY CO U N C I L
SITE
CURRENT LAND USE: RH
PROPOSED LAND USE: T-R
VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE
GPA 01 -041LCPA Ol-O7/CUP 02-1 9
' CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S VULCAN AVE 6225 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054 VISTA CA 92085
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE STE 100
SANDIEGO CA 92123 9174 SKY PARK CT
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SANDIEGO CA 92123
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009 7575 METROPOLITAN DR
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
ROB E RToV I G I L U CC I
3878 CARLSBAD BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
CHRIS BRENZEL
159 REDWOOD AVE
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SANDAG
STE 800
401 BSTREET
SANDIEGO CA 92101
I. P. U .A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
ATTN TED ANASIS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY
PO BOX 82776
SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776
JACKIE EPSTEIN
3965 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
141 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKSlCOMMUNlTY PU BLlC WORKSlENG I NEE RING
DAVID RICK
MUN IC1 PAL WATER DISTRICT
S E RV I CES DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
SCOTT DONNELL
1 Smcoth Feed SheetsTP“
‘
JERRY & ROSANNE ADAMS
APT 121
316 W MISSION AVE
ESCONDIDO CA 92025
KHANNAMAKHACHEV
APT A
130 HEMLOCK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JAMES & KlKl ZATHAS
6384 LOURDES TER
SAN DIEGO CA 92120
SElP TR
213 MESCALITA CT
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
MICHAEL & CAROL ENRIGHT
72 FREMONT PL
LOS ANGELES CA 90005
GARY M & SUSAN DUERST
7084 SEVILLE WAY
RIVERSIDE CA 92504
PURDOM C THOMAS
8101 N 54TH ST
PARADISE VALLEY AZ 85253
THOMAS J GORMAN
3133 E GREENWAY ST
MESA AZ 8521 3
MELTZNER TR
41 536 ARMANAC CT
PALM DESERT CA 92260
ENRIQUE LOPEZ
APT 1
560 N HIGHWAY 101
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
MICHAEL R MCQUAID
5515 E CALLE DEL PAISANO
PHOENIX AZ 8501 8
NANCY C TRAX
1016 OXFORD DR
PLACENTIA CA 92870
CARR TR
APT 12
7240 N DREAMY DRAW DR
PHOENIX AZ 85020
BONNIE R ROLLS
1941 REDESDALE AVE
LOS ANGELES CA 90039
JONATHAN W CAMPBELL
175 JUNIPER AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BOB S & MARY MASUKAWA
2423 CLARKE AVE
FULLERTON CA 92831
CHRISTOPHER R ABRAMS
3721 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLA STlASSNl
3717 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JEFFREY M RIGGS
APT 10
3709 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WILLIAM F WALSH
18234 RAYEN ST
NORTHRIDGE CA 91325
RABBE LINDSTROM
PO BOX 2962
ESCONDIDO CA 92033
ROBERT & LILLIAN COURY
5136 SHORE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RAYMOND & HELEN JORDAN
3474 CARLSBAD BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ALCID 0 LANDRY
3825 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ANTHONY K RICHARDS
3839 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GRlFFlNG TR
2408 SONORA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CAMPBELL W ESPEY
470 36TH AVE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94121
RONALD BALLARD
421 1 BEACH BLUFF RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WILLIAM & DIANE LANTZ
144 REDWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MORONG TR
6747 NEPETA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Address Labels Laser 5 l6OS AVERW
- Smooth Feed SheetsTrd
GREGG DILEO PERRY M NlCASSlO
3955 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
3955 GARFIELD ST
JACK HENTHORN & ASSOC
SUITE A
5365 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
148 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
APT 3
140 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
APT 2
130 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
3862 CARLSBAD BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
APT 105
11 1 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
APT 207
11 1 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
APT 306
11 1 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
APT 1
140 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
APT 4
140 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
APT 3
130 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
143 REDWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
APT 202
11 1 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
APT 303
11 1 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TAMARACK NO
580 BEECH AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
APT 2
140 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
APT 1
130 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
APT 4
130 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
APT 104
11 1 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
APT 203
11 1 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
APT 305
11 1 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
&VERY@ Address Labels
- Smooth Feed SheetsTpvq
” FRANCES S FRONCZAK
APT A
3820 CARLSBAD BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DARIN SLATTENGREN
APT B
3820 CARLSBAD BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROBERT J CLARK
APT D
3820 CARLSBAD BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
STUART/POULSON TR
4724 GUENZA RD
SANTA ROSA CA 95404
GLORIA L ROMBOTIS
325 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CLARENCE H SCHLEHUBER
2720 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KAREN M SETTLEMYER
APT 109
520 WASHINGTON BLVD
MARINA DEL REY CA 90292
NICHOLAS & MARY MELIDEO
159 HEMLOCK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MACDONALD PARTNERSHIP
70 GIRALDA WALK
LONG BEACH CA 90803
ALBERT C GRAMS
15202 TURQUOISE CIR
CHINO HILLS CA 91709
RUBENRCERECEDES
3875 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KEVIN AGNER
3881 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
VAGENAS TR
316 COLORADO ST
ARCADIA CA 91 007
GOLDSTEIN TR
160 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FEARN LLC
6956 BLUE ORCHID LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TIMOTHY A LESTER
460 BEAUMONT DR
VISTA CA 92084
BONNIE K SAKAMOTO
11 101 W SUNSET BLVD
LOS ANGELES CA 90049
ALGIE R CORBIN
167 REDWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BRADLEY J HORWITZ
135 REDWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARY E ROSGEN
151 REDWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARANTZ C MARANTZ
159 REDWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ALGIE R & PAMELA CORBIN
143 REDWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROBERTO VlGlLUCCl
356 SUNSET DR
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
JOE ClVALLERl
151 SYCAMORE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RAYMOND J JORDAN
3474 CARLSBAD BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KING TR
3024 STANFORD AVE
MARINA DEL REY CA 90292
RON & PHlLAlNE LAJOIE
250 REDWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
INGELMAN TR
8347 W MANCHESTER AVE A
PLAYA DEL REY CA 90293
- JANIE L JONES
3630 SURFWOOD DR
MALIBU CA 90265
CHRIS A BUTLER
251 REDWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Laser 5 1608 AWEFYC’ Address La bels
- Smooth Feed SheetsThq
JACEK & TAMARA PERSIDOK
13994 BOQUITA DR
DEL MAR CA 9201 4
SABINA B WILBER
3884 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JOHN ZATHAS
3894 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GERALD P JONES
PO BOX 952
CARLSBAD CA 92018
DAVIDSON TR
144 SEQUOIA AVE 1
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JAMES T HARRIS
144 SEQUOIA AVE 2
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DORIS F ELG
1 12 COSTERO AISLE
IRVINE CA 926 14
DEIRDRE A TRAINOR
5436 PANORAMIC LN
SAN DIEGO CA 92121
PAUL M & DOREEN RYAN
152 SEQUOIA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WILLIAM B SAUNDERS
3032 SKYLINE DR
OCEANSIDE CA 92056
LARRY V TINNERSTET
3941 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JOYCE A JAMES
3931 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LILLIE M BLACK
3921 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JAMES T & SHERYL GOT0
391 1 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
EDWARD & JOAN GOLDEN
4189 KIMBERLY LN
OCEANSIDE CA 92056
FRANK 0 TAYLOR
30502 VIA LA CRESTA
RANCHO PALOS VERDE 90275
ROBERT S GILLINGHAM
2628 WILSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PATRICIA F HAWLEY
11 1 TAMARACK AVE 101
CARLSBAD CA 92008
EVANS TR
11 1 TAMARACK AVE 103
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BERNARD & JANE MAZELSKY
WEST COVINA CA 91791
i23i s HIDDEN VALLEY DR
MAIN TR
6895 GALA ST
HIGHLAND CA 92346
HELEN V ALBRIGHT
1 1 1 TAMARACK AVE El 06
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RON & PHYLLIS HESS
11 1 TAMARACK AVE 107
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GARY R HEINITZ
11 1 TAMARACK AVE G201
CARLSBAD CA 92008
STENSTROM TR
1140 SIERRA LINDA DR
ESCONDIDO CA 92025
ROSE TR
PO BOX 5466
OCEANSIDE CA 92052
BARRY MCDONNELL EST
11 1 TAMARACK AVE 204
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CLIFFORD R PIERCE
11 1 TAMARACK AVE 205
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BARBARA A GORDER
11 1 TAMARACK AVE 206
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DONALD B MCCULLOUGH
1125 COUNTRYWOOD LN
VISTA CA 92083
Laser 5 160@ AWERY@ Address Labels
- Smooth Feed Sheets'."'
LOOMIS TR
11 1 TAMARACK AVE 302
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GASKINS TR
548 N 13TH AVE 304
UPLAND CA 91 786
CONSTANTINE T KUNELIS
11 1 TAMARACK AVE 304
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RUSSELL W STEMPLE
1238 RUE SAINT MARTIN
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
WALSH TR
10781 EQUESTRIAN DR
SANTA ANA CA 92705
HARRISON D EALY
3607 LARK ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92103
SEARLS TR
3912 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROGER D GARNER
721 PASSIFLORA AVE
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CAROL VO NSE I DLlTZ
3930 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARTHA G MCEWEN
924 WAGNON RD
SEBASTOPOL CA 95472
KAREN L LANNING
3950 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WAYNE E MACHA
3960 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
STEPHEN J KUZMACK
3970 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HELEN MCCONNAUGHAY
143 SEQUOIA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
STACY L FOSTER
151 SEQUOIA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GEMINI TR
1520 KING ST
SANTA CRUZ CA 95060
GUY D CLOSSEY
169 SEQUOIA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KOEPKE TR
17271 GRANDEE PL
SAN DIEGO CA 92128
PAUL J DUFOUR
176 CHINQUAPIN AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KYLE DENNING
164 CHINQUAPIN AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PACIFIC LAND CONCEPTS IN
5333 MISSION CENTER RD 3
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
GOLDSTEIN TR
3981 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HOMER L & NINA EATON
300 CARLSBAD VILLAGE 108
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLO J CONlGLlO
56 FLAMINGO ST
NEW ORLEANS LA 70124
GERALD P JONES
PO BOX 952
CARLSBAD CA 92018
EDWARD K NANCE
1408 VISTA DEL MAR DR
FULLERTON CA 92831
ROBERT E SIEMER
11 1 SEQUOIA AVE E
CARLSBAD CA 92008
THOMAS H CHAMBERS
1605 LA TUNA PL SE
ALBUQUERQUE NM 87123
ALI & FARNOOSH HOJREH
11 1 SEQUOIA AVE G
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROGER K BEASLEY
6503 SANTOLINA CV
AUSTIN TX 78731
Laser 5 160@v: AvERW Address Labels
* RANCHO CARLSBAD HOA
RUSS KOHL
5200 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ANTHONY & DICKY BONS
25709 HILLCREST AV
ESCONDIDO CA 92026-8650
REG WATER QUALITY CONTROL BD
STE 100
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMIN WESTERN REG
PO BOX 92007
LOSANGELES CA 90009
BARRY BRAYER, AWP-8
CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
JAN SOBEL
5934 PRIESTLY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CALTRANS DISTRICT 11
BILL FIGGE
MAIL ST 50
P 0 BOX 85406
SAN DIEGO CA 92186-5406
U S FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE
JOHN MARTIN
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
RONALD M JAEGER
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION & HSG AGENCY
PATRICIA W NEAL DEPUTY SEC HOUSING SUPERINTENDENT
STE 2450 1901 SPINNAKER DR
980 NINTH ST SAN BUENA VENTURA CA 93001
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK
~ COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CHAIRMAN
722 JACKSON PL NW
WASHINGTON DC 20006
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
STE 400
611 RYAN PLAZA DR
ARLINGTON TX 7601 1-4005
DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIV
P 0 BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
DOUG WICKIZER, ENVIR COORD
P 0 BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
RM 700
110 WEST A ST
SANDIEGO CA 92101
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
LOS ANGELES DlST ENGINEER PO BOX 271 1
LOSANGELES CA 90053
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
CLIFFORD EMMERLING, DIR
STE 350
901 MARKETST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & AGRICULTURE
STEVE SHAFFER, AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
RM 100
1220 N ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVE
DUNCAN LENT HOWARD, REG ADMIN
450 GOLDEN GATE AV
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RM 5504
1120 N ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
' MARINE RESOURCES REGION, DR & G
ENVl RON MENTAL SERVl CES, SPR
350 GOLDEN SHORE
LONGBEACH CA 90802
NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC
ADMlN OCRM,55MC4
N/ORM - 3
1305 EAST-WEST HWY
SILVER SPRING MD 20910
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
DWIGHT SANDERS
STE 1005
100 HOWE AV
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
MI D- PAC I F I C REG ION
U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
LILY ALYEA
STE 702
333 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-2197
OFFICE OF PLANNING & RESEARCH
OFFICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
PO BOX 3044
SACRAMENTO CA 93044
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION &
DEVMT COMMISSION
BILL TRAVIS
STE 2600
50 CALIFORNIA ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 941 11-4704
U S BUREAU OF LAND MGMT
STE RM W 1834
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
U S FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE
2800 COTTAGE WAY
STE W-2605
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-1 888
USDA - RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPT 4169
430 "GI' ST
DAVIS CA 95616
. WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BD
PO BOX 100
SACRAMENTO CA 95801
TABATA FARMS
PO BOX 1338
CARLSBAD CA 9201 8-1 338
LESLIE ESPOSITO
1893 AMELFI DR
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
LAKESHORE GARDENS
TOM BENSON
7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN LAMB
1446 DEVLIN DR
LOSANGELES CA 90069
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
COMDEV DEPT
505 S VULCAN ALI
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
SANDAG-EXEC DIRECTOR
GARY GALLEGOS
STE 800
1 ST INT'L PLAZA 401 "B" ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
CYRIL/MARY GIBSON
12142 ARGYLE DR
LOS ALAMITOS CA 90702
LANIKAI LANE PARK
SHARP SPACE3
6550 PONTO DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
KIM BLESSANT
101 ASH STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101-
. Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template fs- c:$
* STATE LANDS COMMISSION
MARY GRIGGS
STE 100 S
100 HOWE AV
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
PERRY A LAMB
890 MERE POINT RD
BRUNSWICK ME 04011
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
RICHARD RETECKI
STE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
DALE/DONNA SCHREIBER
7163 ARGONAUTA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCIES
STE 1311
1416 9TH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
COUNTY OF SD SUPERVISOR BILL HORN
ART DANELL
RM 335
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
S D CO PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT
JAON VOKAC
5201 RUFFIN ROAD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
STE 8-5
FLOYD ASHBY
416 LA COSTA AV
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
GEORGE BOLTON
6583 BLACKRAIL RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SANDAG-LAND USE COMMISS
NAN VALERIO
STE 800
401 “B” STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AVERYB Shipping Labels Laser 5163@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
' LENNAR HOMES
CHRISTINE ZORTMAN
STE 320
5780 FLEET ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-4702
AWERW@ Shipping Labels Laser 5163@
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, [DATE], to consider a
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; and (2) a conditional use permit for an existing restaurant and to allow proposed
outdoor dining at that restaurant on property generally located at 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard and
more particularly described as:
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 3713, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, April 21, 1975, as File No. 75-092233 of Official
Records.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after [DATE]. If you have any
questions, please call Scott Donne11 in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4618.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this General Plan Amendment, Local
Coastal Program Amendment and/or Conditional Use Permit, if approved, is established by state
law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the General Plan Amendment,
Local Coastal Program Amendment andor Conditional Use Permit in court, you may be limited
to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public
hearing.
CASE FILE: GPA 0 1 -04/LCPA 0 1 -07/CUP 02- 19
CASE NAME: VIGILUCCI’S SEAFOOD AND STEAKHOUSE
PUBLISH: [DATE]
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
SITE
CURRENT LAND USE: RH
PROPOSED LAND USE: T-R
VI G I LUCC I’S SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE
GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/CUP 02-19
Vigilucci’s Seafood & Steakhouse
Project Proposal!GPA 01-04: !LCPA 01-07:Change land use designation from RH toT-R!CUP 02-19: Establish conditions to regulate the restaurant & allow outdoor dining
Project Site/Location MapSITEO pen S paceR esident ial G P
& Zoning
Property History!50 years of commercial use in a residential area!Captain’s Anchorage!Sandbar !Resolution of Intention 96-168 !Sandbar to Seaside Bistro
Property History (cont’d)!Proposed zone change !Public support for commercial use!Owner agreement to submit CUP!Resolution 2001-72 !Seaside Bistro to Vigilucci’s!Recorded agreements
Implementing Council Direction!Land use designation!Zoning!Conditional Use Permit
Planning Commission Hearing!Restaurant parking in the neighborhood!Outdoor dining!Maximum occupancy!CUP effectiveness date!Opportunity for review
Planning Commission Action!Recommend project approval!Recommend allowing outdoor dining!Recommend conditions to ensure:!Compatibility!Neighborhood input
Recommended Conditions!Conditional Use Permit: !Becomes effective upon City Council approval!Needs Commission review in 7 months!Has a 5-year approval term!Requires public notice and hearing of extension requests
Recommended Conditions (cont’d)!Operations and Occupancy!Operate as “Bona-fide public eating establishment”!Bar size limits, alcohol sales incidental!Restaurant service minimums!Limit total # of seats to 125!Comply with approved floor plan!Restrict entertainment, business hours
Recommended Conditions (cont’d)!Outdoor dining!Fix allowable location and boundaries!Allow seating of customers until 10 p.m.!Requires encroachment permit
Front DoorsOutdoor diningOutdoor Dining
Limits on Outdoor DiningFront doorsPlanter
Recommended Conditions (cont’d)!Property upkeep!Parking!Comply with approved parking plan!Allow self-parking & valet-parking!Maintain clear access at all times
Parking PlanAisle/turnaroundPathway
Pathway
Alcohol License!Sandbar conditions still apply!ABC approval needed to change conditions!Applicant has filed request to serve alcohol on outdoor patio !ABC approval may require public notice
Recommendation!Adopt Resolution 2004-082, approving:!GPA 01-04!LCPA 01-07!CUP 02-19
Floor Plan/Outdoor Dining