HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-20; Planning Commission; ; CUP 02-19A - VIGILUCCI'S SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE• le City of Carlsbad Planning Departmen, •
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
P.C. AGENDA OF: October 20, 2004
ItemNo.@
Application complete date: NIA
Project Planner. Scott Donnell
Project Engineer: David Rick
SUBJECT: CUP 02-19(A) -VIGILUCCl'S SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE -Public
hearing review of the restaurant's Conditional Use Pemnt as directed by the
Planning Commission to determine if (I) all conditions have been met and (2) the
restaurant is not having a substantial negative effect on the neighborhood or the
public health and welfare.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Plaiming Commission ADOPT Resolution 5763, APPROVING CUP 02-19(A), ,\·hich
an1ends the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Pem1it CUP 02-19 as specified in
Plamnng Commission Resolution No. 5551 to require additional public hearing and notification
of the Conditional Use Pernnt and add conditions addressing storn1 water pollution.
II. INTRODUCTION
On March 9. 2004, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Vigilucci's
Seafood and Steakhouse at 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard. The Council's action followed a positive
project recommendation from the Planning Conmnssion, which considered the item at two
public hearings on January 21, 2004 and February 4, 2004. As part of its action, the Commission
recommended review of the CUP at a Planning Comnnssion public hearing within seven months
of the CUP approval by the City Council. The City Council concurred with this
recommendation. Staff has prepared this report in response to that recommendation. Based on
its review of the project over the past several months, staff recommends adding new conditions
to the CUP.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5551 contains the original conditions of approval for the
CUP. As stated in condition 8 of the resolution, the purpose of the Planning Commission's
review is ""to deternnne if all conditions of this pernnt have been met and that the use does not
have a substantial negative effect on surrounding properties or the public health and welfare:'
To assist the Commission with its review, staff has attached Resolution No. 5551 and the
relevant Planning Commission and City Council minutes.
Ill. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A1'1D BACKGROUND
The actions taken by the Planning Commission and City Council at the beginning of this year
represent the culmination of efforts to establish a restaurant compatible with its surroundings and
an appropriate permit (the CUP) to enable the City to monitor and regulate the use.
0
CUP 02-19(A)-V--ucfs SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE
October 20, 2004
Pa e2
• •
In 1996, in an effort to deal with problems associated with the Sandbar, the restaurant then
operating on the property, the City Council passed a resolution of intention to rezone the
property to residential. Problems included noise, loitering, public drunkenness, and other
undesirable activities that were disruptive to the neighborhood. Upon consideration of the zone
change in 2001, the City Council instead agreed to consider keeping the property commercially
zoned, partly because restaurant ownership had changed and problems associated with the
Sandbar had ceased. At that tin1e, the owner of the restaurant committed to submit a CUP.
Following :Mr. Vigilucci's purchase of the restaurant and property in 2002, :Mr. Vigilucci agreed
to keep the conm1itment to submit a CUP and did so later that year. After extensive work with
the applicant on issues regarding parking and operations, the CUP came to hearing early this
year.
The CUP fom1ally approYed outdoor dining and Yalet parking and required a few minor site
improvements, such as a trash enclosure and a striped pathway across the parking lot to aid
exiting from the building in emergencies. The CUP approval also included several conditions to
regulate business operations, such as placing limits on outdoor dining. hours of operation, noise
and entertainment, and establishing a ma.ximum number of seats, among other things. Because
the City approved seats for outdoor dining as part of the total seating permitted for the restaurant,
outdoor dining was not considered an intensification of the existing restaurant and, therefore, a
Coastal Development Permit was not required.
Per condition 7 of Resolution No. 5551, the City granted the CUP for a period of five years,
making it valid until i\,Iarch S, 2009. The condition also states the Plruming Conmrission may
grant an unlimited number of extensions to the permit, each not exceeding five years, subject to
public notice and hearing and a finding that there are no substantial negative effects on the
surrounding land uses or the public health and welfare. Further, the adopted resolution requires
staff to monitor the CUP annually to determine compliance with conditions and assess the
compatibility ofVigilucci's Seafood and Steakhouse with its neighborhood.
Along with its motion to approye the CUP, the Planning Commission also recommended, and the
Council approved, both General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments to change the land
use designations for the Vigilucci property from RH (High Density Residential) to T-R (Travel/
Recreation Commercial). Cmmcil approved the amendments so the land use designations would
be consistent with the existing restaurant use. Though the Local Coastal Program Amendment
(LCP A) is still pending before the California Coastal Commission, the approval of the CUP is
not contingent upon approval of the LCPA. Instead, Resolution No. 5551 intentionally made the
CUP effective upon Council approval to recognize that the restaurant would remain and the City
would need a CUP to regulate it even if the Coastal Conunission de1ried the LCPA.
Staff proposes to change the zoning of the project site, currently C-2 (General Conm1ercial), to
C-T tTourist Commercial) to implement the property's T-R General Plan land use designation.
Staff intends to process a zone map amendment for the Vigilucci's property as a future part of
the General Plan/Zoning Consistency program currently unden·•;ay.
CUP 02-19(A)-V.ucfs SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE
October :w, 2004
Pa e3
IV. ANALYSIS
Staff Review and Monitoring Efforts
•
To determine if the applicant has met all conditions of this permit and the restaurant has operated
in a desirable manner, staff has:
□ Reviewed conditions to determine applicant compliance.
□ Monitored restaurant operations, parking, and site conditions in the day and
evening.
□ Checked with Code Enforcement, the Fire Department, and the Police Department
to learn of any concerns and citizen complaints.
The applicant has not requested any changes to the conditions or approYed plans including the
Yalet parking plan.
Compliance with Conditions (Note: All conditions listed are per Planning Commission
Resolution No. 5551. Only those conditions that require Yerification of compliance are
discussed here.)
Required Plans and Notices
Condition Requirement Compliance? number
6 Submit plans reflecting all conditions as
approved by City Council.
10 File a notice of restriction that City has
issued a CUP on property. Yes.
Submit floor plan (1) showing a total of Applicant has completed these items.
125 seats in restaurant, bar. and outdoor
12 dining area. and (2) stating that the total
number of seats in those areas shall not
exceed 125.
Required Site Improvements
Condition Requirement Compliance? number
11 Construct a trash enclosure in the northeast
corner of parking lot.
10 Install landscaping in the southeast comer
of parking lot. Yes. Paint a 60-inch wide pedestrian pathway
14 from the building and across the parking
lot to Tamarack A venue.
17,20 Install and construct dramage
improvements and pollutant filters.
CUP 02-19(A)-V .. UC~S SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE
October 20, 2004 • •
Paoe4
I
Condition
number
15a.
15b.
15c.
Condition
number
1.
11.
lll.
General Operations, Outdoor Dining, and Site Appearance
Requirement (compliance required at all Compliance? times)
Operate as a .. bona fide public eating Staff believes the applicant has complied
establishment;" comply with approved with this condition based on several day
floor plan; business hours no later than and night obsen'ations. A phone call to the
midnight; provide entertainment inside restaurant and a check of its website
only: no loud noise or dancing. indicate Vigilucci's closes no later than
midnight.
Outdoor dining limited to specified area of The applicant indicates outdoor dining has
patio: no outdoor seating of customers occurred only once since approval of the
after 10 p.m. encroachment agreement in August. Staff
has yet to obsen·e any outdoor dining.
All aspects of the property shall be kept Yes.
neat and clean; landscapmg shall be kept Applicant has complied \\ith this
healthy and conform substantially to condition.
approved plans
Parkin2 and Access (Condition 15d.)
Requirement ( compliance required at all
times)
Valet parking shall occur as shown on the
appro,·ed plan. Maintain an unobstructed
vehicle aisleway (14-feet wide) and a
,·ehicle turnaround.
Self-parking may occur during non-peak
periods when parking demand is low.
For people with disabilities. maintain
accessible parking, loading areas. and
building access.
Compliance?
No.
The approved plan shows parking for 28
cars maximum under valet conditions: staff
has obsen'ed on two weekends:
o At least 30 parked cars on-site:
o Parked cars in an arrangement
different than sho\\n on the
approved plan;
o Parked cars blocking the required
aisleway and turnaround;
o Valets using Tamarack A,·enue to
maneuver cars in and out of the
parking lot.
Yes.
However. staff believes Vigilucci · s
generally offers valet parking at all times.
Staff believes this condition is bemg met
during non-peak times. However, on
weekends, staff believes an accessible path
from the parking lot to the building is not
consistently maintained because the
applicant does not always comply with the
approved ,·alet parking plan based on staff
observations.
CUP 02-19(A)-vAucfs SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE
October 20, 2004 •
Pae 5
Parking and Access (Condition 15d.) continued
Condition Requirement ( compliance required at all Compliance? number times)
Keep the required 60-inch wide pedestrian Staff has not obser\'ed valet parking
pathway unobstructed. operations since the applicant striped the
pathway. However, staff's weekend
IV. checks of on-site valet parking conducted
before the pathway was striped showed
that parked cars covered at least parts of
the approved pathway's location.
City Department Comments -The Code Enforcement, Fire, and Police departments have not
received any citizen complaints about Vigilucci's. Furthermore, the departments have not
expressed any concerns or issues with the restaurant.
Encroachment Agreemem
In August. the City approved an encroachment agreement that allows the applicant. among other
things, to use the patio along Carlsbad Boulevard for outdoor dining. An encroachment
agreement was required because the patio is in the public right-of-way. While the City approved
outdoor dining in this location through the CUP, serving of meals on the patio could not occur
without City approval of the agreement as stipulated by the CUP.
Since the City's approval of the CUP in l\1arch, staff has not observed any outdoor dining.
Alcohol Sales on the Outdoor Patio
The applicant has filed a request with the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
(ABC) to serve alcohol on the outdoor patio. The ABC is currently processing this request and
has sent notices of the proposal to nearby residents for comment.
The City's CUP addresses the serving of alcohol through condition 15a.i. This condition
requires the applicant to operate a ··bona fide public eating establishment," which by definition
limits the sale of alcohol to an incidental part of restaurant operations.
Summary and Recomme11datio11
To summarize staff's review and observations:
□ The applicant has completed conditions requmng the filing of plans or
infommtion or the installation of site improvements.
:J Restaurant operations. excluding valet parking, appear to be acceptable to the
neighborhood and in compliance with conditions of approval.
:::i Repeated use of the patio for outdoor dining has yet to occur. Further, staff has
not obsen-ed any outdoor dining.
:J Restaurant parking only appears to be an issue at peak times -on Friday nights
and during the weekend.
CUP 02-19(A) -vAuc~s SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE
October 20, 2004
Pa e6
-•
□ Valet-parking of customer cars in the restaurant parking lot is not always
conducted per approved plan. Staff has observed parked cars blocking the
required vehicle aisleway and turnaround and the approved location of the striped
pedestrian pathway. Non-compliance with the approved plan contributes to
congestion on Tamarack Avenue and the valets' use of the street for maneuvering
area.
Recommendation
Parking will ljkely remain an issue for a popular restaurant that has very limited parking and is
located in a beach.side residential area. However, the parking impacts associated with
Vigilucci's do not rise to the level of having a ""substantial negative effect on the neighborhood
or the public health and \Yelfare" as the CUP conditions of approval require the City to
determine. Nevertheless. staff believes the City should continue to monitor parking and
restaurant operations to detem1ine compliance with the conditions of approval and provide the
opportu11ity for any public comment at a noticed hearing. Accordingly, staff recommends adding
the follmving condition to the applicant's CUP:
□ The Planning Commission sha11 review the CUP no later than :May 2005 at a noticed
public hearing.
In addition, the City's Stonn \Vater Protection Division recommends new conditions to ensure
the applicant takes appropriate actions to properly manage waste that may contribute to storm
water pollution. The Division has had difficulty in obtaining applicant compliance in this area.
The suggested conditions require the applicant to keep the trash enclosure area clean, provide
secondary containment (e.g., bem1s) for any outdoor grease storage. train employees about
responding to spills and proper waste disposal, and maintain stormwater devices, such as filters,
that capture and filter pollutants.
Review of the CUP by l\,fay will enable staff to ( 1) obsen'e and report on outdoor dining. and (2)
recommend any condition changes prior to the busy summer season.
V. ENVIR01'~1ENTAL REVIE\V
Staff detemrined that the original Vigilucci' s Seafood and Steakhouse project is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based on CEQA Guidelines Section 15301,
wlrich exempts projects proposing no or only minor modifications. This exemption still applies
to the current action since the applicant has proposed no changes to the approved project.
ATTACHl\lENTS:
1. Plaiming Commission Resolution No. 5763 (CUP Amendment)
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5551
4. Excerpts of Planning Commission minutes for January 21. 2004 and February 4, 2004
5. Excerpts of City Council minutes for March 9, 2004
6. Reduced Exhibits
SITE
• --•
VIGILUCCl'S SEAFOOD
& STEAKHOUSE
CUP 02-19(A)
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.: CUP02-19
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, ffled 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, VIGILUCCl'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 prescnoed 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
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of VIGILUCCl'S SEAFOOD & STEAK-
HOUSE -CUP 02-19, based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
That the requested use, which is an existing restaurant, is necessary or desirable for the
development of the community, is essentially in hannony 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.
b.
c.
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
(Travel/Recreation 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 "ith General Plan Land Use Element
Commercial Policy ClO, which states, "encourage commercial recreation or
tourist destination facilities, as long as they protect the residential character
of the community ••• "
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 RESO NO. 5551 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3.
4.
5.
• --•
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.
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.
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 senice 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.
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 invol,ing 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) 'ftithin 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 further 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 RESO NO. 5551 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
. 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
• --•
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 from 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 oflaw.
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, from 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 limitatio~ 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 .
7. 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 prior 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 RESO NO. 5551 -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
8.
9.
10.
11.
• --•
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.
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.
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 and/or resolution
and this project becomes subject to a linkage fee pursuant to said ordinance and/or
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.
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.
The Developer shall construct a trash receptacle enclosed by a six-foot high masomy 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
Door 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 RESO 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.
• --•
The Developer shall install the landscaping in the southeast comer of the parking lot
as shown on the landscape plan approved as part of this conditional use permit.
14. 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.
15. At all tim~ the Developer shall comply with the following conditions:
a. 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 audfble beyond .the boundaries of the
restaurant property.
vii. No dancing or dance bands shall be allowed.
b. Outdoor dining
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
nortll.
ii. No customers shall be seated for outdoor dining after 10 p.m.
c. Appearance
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.
d. Parking and Access
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 u11obstructed 14-foot wide vehicle aisleway
and the vehicle turnaround as shown on the approved exhibit.
ii. Self-parking is permitted in lieu or valet parking daring non-peak
restaurant periods (e.g. daring the afternoon) when continuous
PC RESO NO. 5551 -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
•
Engineering
Geaeral
--•
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
"~" 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.
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.
Fees/Agreements
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.
Dedications/Improvements
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 comer and for any other
encroachment deemed necessary due to the size, duration and/or nature of the
encroachment.
PC RESO 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. 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.
23. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
24. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 18.04.320.
25. 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 fees/exactions
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 fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PC RESO NO. 5551 -8-
I
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
• --•
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, Califomi~ 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 WIDTE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
lrv\.Jl;no~ MICHAELJ.~
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5551 -9-
• --• Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 2004 Page3
ball field lighting and electrical system at Chase Field, located at the southwest corner of Harding
Street and Chestnut Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
Mr. Neu stated that agenda Items 2 through 6 are nonnally heard in a public hearing context, however,
these projects are minor and routine in nature with no outstanding issues and Staff recommends
approval. He recommended that the public hearing be opened and closed, and that the Commission
proceed with a vote as consent Items including the errata sheets. If the Commission or someone from
the public wishes to pull an Item, Staff would be available to respond to questions.
Chairperson White asked the Commissioners if anyone wished to pull an Item and asked the public if
anyone wished to comment on an Item. Seeing none, Chairperson White called for a motion.
MOTION
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
Motion by Commissioner Whitton, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission approve Items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
7-0
Baker, Dominguez, Heineman. Montgomery, Segall, White, and Whitton
None
Chairperson White asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next Item.
7. GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/CUP 02-19/CDP 02-34 -VlGILUCCl'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 er 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. lt 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,
Travel/Recreation Commercial. The Conditional Use Pennit would be a use permit to regulate the
existing restaurant use. Finally, there is a Coastal Development Pennit 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 discretlonary permit process
involves four permits, Conditional Use Permit, General Plan Amendment, Coastal Development Permit.
and a Local Coastal Program Amendment. Typically, the Conditionat 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
• --• Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 2004 Page4
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 1990s, 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,
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 designatlon. 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 Traver/Recreation 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 (Commercial/Tourist}, 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 Pennit 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
• -e. • Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 2004 Pages
outdoors rather than add chairs. Staff recommends denial of the outdoor dining. The restaurant tacks
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 Vigi!ucci'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 thelr 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.
Donnel! 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.
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 particuJar. 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 Vigi!ucci'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 wourd 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 iust 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
• --• Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 2004 Page6
The next street to the north is Redwood Avenue and parking was allowed on both sides there. On
Car1sbad 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
Vlgilucci, 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
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.
• -• Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 2004 Page7
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 lt 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 polic:es 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 wtio 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
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 dld 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 woufd 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
• --• Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 2004 Pages
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
sel'\led reached a maximum. Mr. Vigilucci explained that it was a scheduling challenge to know how
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 Vigi!ucci'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. Mr. Vigi!ucci stated that on Friday night they might
have 150 people in the restaurant and another 30 waiting at the bar. They grab a beer, a cocktail then
walk out. He stated is not always easy to monitor everyone of them. 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 Vigi!ucci's the prior Saturday at 3:00 p.m. and saw four
different parties sitting out on the patio at four different tables. Mr. Vigi!ucci 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
~ose 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 poss;b!e 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, 111 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
• --• Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 2004 Page9
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 2:00 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 ln fact zoned as
a public right-of-way. Those that violate the law and then ask permission to conUnue 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 condttions 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
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. /:my 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 VigHucci'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. Vigilucci's, however, makes a heavy impact on that neighborhood. 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 4:00 p.m. untll 11:00 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.
Al 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 comer 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
• --• Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 2004 Page 10
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. Vlgilucci 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
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 and/or 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 recommendat'on 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
• -• Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 2004 Page 11
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 finn 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
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 10:00 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 heanng 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.
• -• Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 2004 Page 12
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.
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 10:00 p.m.
Mr. Neu stated that if the Planning Commi~sion 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 Pennit approval. At the
same time modifications could be made to the Conditional Use Pem1it to reflect this discussion and then
• -• Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 2004 Page 13
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:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
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.
7--0
Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, White, and Whitton
None
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.
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. Donnell and Mr. Rick and the Staff who
worked on the report.
RECESS:
Chairperson White called for a ten-minute recess at 8:28 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER:
Chairperson White called the meeting back to order at 8:38 p.m. with all Commissioners present except
Commissioner Segall who had to leave at 8:30 p.m.
Chairperson White asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next Item.
8. General Plan lmplementatlon Status Report
Mr. Neu introduced Item 8 and stated that Associate Planner, Jennifer Coon, would make the
presentation.
Associate Planner, Jennifer Coon presented the General Plan Implementation Status Report to the
Planning Commission.
Chairperson White asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next Item.
9. Annual Housing Production Report
Mr. Neu introduced Item 9 and stated that Associate Planner, Scott Donnell, would make the
presentation.
Associate Planner, Scott Donnell, presented the Annual Housing Production Report to the Planning
Commission.
Chairperson White thanked Staff and closed the public hearing.
• --• Planning Commission Minutes February 4, 2004 Page2
Chairperson White asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next Item.
3. CUP 229x3 -CHRIST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH -Request for approval of a ten-year
retroactive extension (from June 8, 2003 to June 7, 2013) of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
allowing the continued operation of a church, day care center, and Sunday school on a 3.54 acre
property located at 7807 Cantella Street in Local Facilities Management Zone 6.
4. CUP 03-31/SDP 03-20 -PARKS MAINTENANCE BUILDING -Request for a Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Plan to allow the replacement of an existing modular building with a
new modular building for Parks Maintenance staff, within the Parks Department maintenance
yard, located at the northwest comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Pio Pico Drive, in Local
Facilities Management Zone 1.
Mr. Neu stated that agenda Items 2 through 5 are nonnally heard in a public hearing context, however,
these projects are minor and routine in nature with no outstanding issues and Staff recommends
approval. He recommended that the public hearing be opened and closed, and that the Commission
proceed with a vote as consent Items including the errata sheets. If the Commission or someone from
the public wishes to pull an Item, Staff would be available to respond to questions.
Chairperson White asked the Commissioners if anyone wished to pull an Item and asked the public if
anyone wished to comment on an Item.
Commissioner Dominguez asked Staff if there was a representative from the State present to discuss
Item 5. Mr. Munoz stated that he had been told a representative would be present for the hearing.
Commissioner Dominguez asked that Item 5 be pulled.
Commissioner Whitton asked that Item 2 be pulled.
Chairperson White called for a motion.
MOTION
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
Motion by Commissioner Whitton, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission approve Items 3 and 4.
7-0
Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, White, and Whitton
None
Chairperson White asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next Item.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
1. GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/CUP 02-19-VIGILUCCl'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
• -• Planning Commission Minutes February 4, 2004 Page3
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 prolect 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 p!an 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 9:00 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
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 ts 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
• --• Planning Commission Minutes February 4, 2004 Page4
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
Vigi!ucci'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 10:00 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 10:00 pm. He asked why that was changed. Mr. Donnell stated
that he understood the intention was to stop serving at 10:00 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
10:00 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 10:00 p.m.
Commissioner Heineman stated that he had the same understanding that it would be to stop serving at
10:00p.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 10:00 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 10:00 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 10:00 p.m., then
people would finish their dinners as late as midnight
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 enforcing 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.
• --• Planning Commission Minutes February 4, 2004 Pages
NOTION
ACTION:
DISCUSSION
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.
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 tor a vote.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
6-1
Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, and White
Whitton
Chairperson White closed the public hearing and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next Item.
2. CUP 98-18x1 -LA POSADA DE GUADALUPE DE CARLSBAD -Request to reconsider the
extension of CUP 98-18 from five years to seven years for a temporary homeless shelter located
at 2478 Impala Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
Mr. Neu introduced Item 2 and stated that Senior Planner, Van Lynch, would be making the presentation.
Senior Planner, Van Lynch, asked the Commission if they wanted a presentation on this Item that had
been pulled or if they wanted specific questions answered.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if there had been any changes in this Jtem from the last public hearing
other than the expiration date of the permit. Mr. Lynch confinned that that was the only change.
Commissioner Whitton stated that although he supports the objective of la Posada to provide temporary
emergency shelter for the homeless males, like the last CUP, he cannot support this CUP due to the fact
that public funds are being utilized to provide shelter, and other services, for 8-12, more or less, illegal
aliens per month according to the Director. He stated he could and would support the requested
extension of the CUP if the resolution is conditioned to say, in effect, that emergency shelter and other
services are to be provided only to legal residents of the United States and to those who have appropriate
documentation authorizing their presence here.
Chairperson White invited the applicant to make a presentation.
Edgardo Elias Preciado, Department Director, Homeless Men's Services, 8687 Saint Georges Street.
Spring Valley, stated that they could require that everyone must have a California I.D. to be in La Posada
de Guadalupe. He stated that they could also ask for a Green Card as a second picture I.D. as proof of
legal status. He stated that they were not an employment agency, and a California 1.0. and a Social
Security card is what the law requires for someone to apply for a job. He stated that they could put up a
sign that no one would be allowed to stay at La Posada if they did not have a legal status in the country.
Commissioner Whitton stated that he would like the Resolution so conditioned.
•
March 9, 2004
ACTION:
AYES:
NOES:
-•
Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page5
On a motion by Mayor Pro Tern Finnila, Council adopted
ORDINANCE NO. NS-697, amending Section 21.05.030 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code by an amendment to the Zoning Map and
Local Coastal Program Map to grant a Zone Change, ZC 03-01
and a Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 03-01, from R-1-
30,000 to R-1-1-30,000 and open space on property generally
located north of Faraday Avenue at the southern terminus of Twain
Avenue, in local Facilities Management Zone 8.
Lewis, Finnila, Kutchin, Hall and Packard.
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
John Byrom, 1745 Fire Mountain Drive, Oceanside, CA 92054, of the North Coastal
Prevention Coalition (NCPC) presented his organization's "5 Year Drug Free
Communities Report" to Council.
Mayor Lewis asked that Mr. Byrom give the phone number of the NCPC in the event
that someone would like to contact the organization.
Mr. Byrom stated the phone number is (760} 407-1220 x149.
Larry Tucker, One Upper Newport Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660, of Grant Tucker
Properties came forward to address Council. Mr. Tucker stated his appreciation for the
support that they had received over the years in the development of La Costa Plaza,
which is located at the northeast corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
12. AB #17,539 -VIGILUCCl'S SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE -GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-
07/CUP 02-19.
Scott Donnell, Associate Planner presented the staff report and reviewed a Power Point
Presentation (on file in the City Clerk's office}. Mr. Donnell gave a history of previous
conditions as well as existing conditions of the restaurant. He explained the proposed
seating limitations and the proposed requirements for provision of valet parking, when
self parking capacity is exceeded.
Mayor Pro Tern Finnila asked if the City maintains the hedge that is in front of the
establishment
David Rick, Assistant Engineer stated that the restaurant maintains the patio and
landscaping around it.
Council Member Hall confirmed with staff that the establishment has a maximum total
seating of 125, including inside and outside seating areas.
• -•
March 9, 2004 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page6
Mayor Pro Tern Finnila inquired if there are any other restaurants in the Village that
have patron seating in the public right-of-way, and serve alcohol there.
Mr. Donnell stated that there are some restaurants that do, and that various provisions,
such as additional liability insurance, must be followed to allow restaurants in the
Village to serve alcohol in the public right-of-way.
Mayor Lewis inquired if any police reports had been filed as a result of public
intoxication in the nearby residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Donnell responded that he is not aware of any complaints regarding this restaurant.
Jack Henthorn, 5365 Avenida Encinas Suite A, Carlsbad, representative for the
applicant, came forward to address Council. Mr. Henthorn stated that Mr. Vigilucci
regrets being unable to attend the meeting, but that he is in full support of the staff
recommendation and conditions of approval.
Mayor Pro Tern Finnila asked if Mr. Vigilucci's staff would be able to keep track of the
number of patrons during crowded times to ensure that the 125 maximum seating
capacity is not exceded.
Mr. Henthorn responded that Mr. Vigilucci has a very capable manager on site and that
the need to ensure adherence to the 125 maximum occupancy limitation has been
discussed with the manager.
Mayor Pro Tern Finnila asked if Mr. Vigilucci intends to use the same valet company
that he has currently been using.
Mr. Henthorn stated that they have met with the valet company and addressed some of
the concerns that were heard during the Planning Commission hearing.
Mayor Pro Tern Finnila recommended that the hedge should remain as a noise buffer.
Council Member Kulchin expressed concerns regarding the valet parking service as it
relates to the home owners complaints.
Mr. Henthorn reassured Council that his client will be working closely with the valet
company to ensure that they will be more responsive to the residents in the nearby
neighborhoods.
Council Member Kulchin asked if a survey was ever done to determine how many
people walk to the restaurant instead of driving to it.
Mr. Henthorn responded that a survey was done, which showed that quite a few people
walk to the restaurant, however he stated he could not recall the percentages.
Council Member Hall commented that the applicant will still need to go through the
process for encroachment and landscaping approvals.
• --•
March 9, 2004 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page 7
Mayor Lewis opened the duly noticed public hearing at 7:07 p.m. and asked if anyone
would like to speak.
Bill Lantz, 144 Redwood Avenue, Carlsbad, came forward to address Council. Mr.
Lantz voiced his concerns regarding valet and customer parking issues within the
nearby residential community.
Ruben Cerecedes, 3875 Garfield, Carlsbad, came forward to address Council. Mr.
Cerecedes voiced concerns regarding employee and valet parking in and around the
homes in the residential community.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Lewis closed the duly noticed public
hearing at 7:18 p.m.
Mayor Pro Tern Finnila asked if the restaurant has a reservation system for lunch.
Mr. Henthorn responded that he did not think so.
Council Member Packard asked what the restaurant's policy is regarding employee
parking.
Mr. Henthorn stated that the owner of the restaurant established a policy encouraging
car pooling, parking at remote locations and utilizing public parking lots.
Mayor Lewis asked if there are signs on site explaining beach area parking being
available to the patrons.
Mr. Henthorn stated that there is a sign posted during peak periods.
Council Member Packard asked staff if they are comfortable with their ability to monitor
and verify compliance with the parking and seating issues.
Mr. Donnell responded that they do have a plan in place to ensure that compliance is
monitored.
ACTION:
AYES:
NOES:
On a motion by Mayor Pro Tern Finnila, Council adopted
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~ and incorporating a
change to Condition 15, of Planning Commission Resolution No.
5551 to correct the number of self-parking spaces that would be
available after construction of a trash enclosure from 21 to 19 ..
Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall and Packard.
None.