Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-07-13; Planning Commission; ; CUP 42J - CARLSBAD RACEWAY CORPORATION. ., DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF REPORT July 13, 1983 Planning Commission Land use Planning Office SUBJECT: CUP-42(J) -CITY OF CARLSBAD -Amendment to Carlsbad Raceway Conditional Use Permit to update conditions. I. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE the Negative Declaration filed by the Land Use Planning Manager and ADOPT Resolution No. 2151, APPFOVING CUP-42(J), based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND At the February 23, 1983 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed an informational report on the background and status of the numerous Carlsbad Raceway CUP's, and directed staff to recommend revised and updated conditions to take to public hearing. Complaints had been received regarding the level of noise generated during the Saturday night drag races which prompted this action. The Planning Commission requested staff to investigate this issue and report their results. Carlsbad Raceway has been in existence since 1963. It can be divided into three main parts, the motocross course, the drag strip, and a 14 acre children's recreation area at the entrance to the site. This children's area has served as a water-slide, skateboard park, catfishing park, etc. and is presently utilized as a bicycle motocross. Staff believes that CUP-42(G) adequately covers the children's area and does not recommend any changes in this CUP. This report covers the remainder of the Raceway property, including the motocross course, drag strip, and related bleachers, parking, etc. Raceway Management presently runs two weekly regularly scheduled events, Saturday night drag races and Sunday Day motocross races. In addition, up to five special events are conducted per year. These special events include the International Motocross Race and the International Superbike Race. Our off ice has received complaints from re··sidents in this area, primarily the Meadowlark Community in San Marcos, regarding excess noise being generated by the dragsters on Saturday night. No complaints have been received concerning the Sunday or Special event races. It should be noted that, to date, complaints have numbered less than 10 persons, while those in the area indicating noise is not a problem is well in excess of 200 persons. Noise Monitoring A review of CUP files on the raceway reveals no conditions that effectively regulate noise generation. Recent noise studies, including sound monitoring, have been conducted regarding these Saturday night noise impacts. Sound monitoring by Bioaccoustical Engineering, in 1981, for the Rancho Carillo EIR, concluded that "the Saturday night dragsters produce a very limited noise impact", and is less significant than "motor vehicle traffic along Palomar Airport Road". A noise assessment by Envirosystems, Inc., in 1983, for the Meadowlark Farms EIR in San Marcos, concluded that the drag races "do not produce noise levels which are excessive or incompatible" with residential development. A 1982 study conducted by San Diego County as a result of noise complaints, did not conclude that a significant problem exists. In 1983, our staff monitored the site and arrived at a similar conclusion. Since the City of Carlsbad has no maximum noise standards, we use the County Noise Ordinance as a guideline. This ordinance sets hourly average noise limits which vary during different times of the day. This Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is based on a sound energy average which weights loud noises logarithmically heavier than soft ones. The scale for sound from the drag races allows a CNEL of 50 dB up to 10:00 P. M., and 45 dB after this time. The Saturday night races usually average approximately 60 runs (two vehicles at a time) down the quarter mile drag strip during the three and a half hours of operation. Generally ten of these runs involve louder, modified vehicles that are not street- legal.The amount of noise generated varies from vehicle to vehicle but each noise period lasts approximately 5 to 10 seconds. Discussions with sound experts have led staff to conclude that the CNEL formula for measuring noise generation is an accurate and appropriate method of measurement. Loud sounds, of a short duration, such as the 5-10 second races, are recorded as an SEL (single event level), and influence the meter heavily. Based on this formula, staff has recommended the inclusion of a condition which would regulate the SEL, and, as a result, the CNEL. This condition can easily be enforced by regualr monitoring. The raceway owner has indicated his full cooperation in barring vehicles which exceed this standard from racing. Racers will be notified that loud dragsters will jeopardize the raceway permit. In addition, staff is recommending an earlier (10:30 P.M.) Saturday night race time limitation, and the planting of a dense landscape barrier along the section of the drag strip adjacent to the Rancho Carillo Valley. Sound does reverberate down this valley to the area where complaints have originated. Staff believes that the inclusion of these conditions will help the noise problem. -2- - Site Improvements It is important to recognize the fact that the raceway is not an ultimate use for the site. The general plan has recently been changed, at the request of the property owners, to Planned Industrial and Office Uses. Staff has had considerable discussions regarding development of the site. As a result, while staff recommends certain on-site maintenance improvements, it would be counterproductive to ask the operator to expend large sums of money on a temporary use. The improvements recommended include the repair and maintenance of the perimeter fence, and refurbishing the entrance (ticket booth) area. Future Review Due to the ambiguity of the several previous CUP's on the raceway, legitimate questions have arisen as to the expiration date for its operation. Our office recommends that the CUP be reviewed in three years, with an annual review thereafter, and a five year expiration date. While the raceway is presently in a rural area, all signs indicate the fact that development, including residential uses to the south and east are beginning to, and will continue to, surround the raceway. As such, this land use will become increasingly incompatible. Staff believes that review for the purpose of determining continued land use compatibility is appropriate in three years. In summary, staff recommends approval of the attached resolution and conditions to regulate the future operation of the raceway. Staff has studied the issue carefully, read literally hundreds of letters, spoken with scores of residents, discussed the issue with noise experts, and personally inspected the site. Land use and noise data from San Marcos, the County, and Carlsbad was analyzed. Based on this information, staff believes that the Raceway, subject to these conditions, can co-exist in harmony with the land uses that presently exist, and those that will develop in the next few years. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Land Use Planning Manager has determined that this project will not have a significant impact upon the environment, and, therefore, issued a Negative Declaration on June 16, 1983. ATTACHMENTS 1) Planning Commission Resolution No. 2151 2) Location Map 3) Memo to Planning Commission, dated February 23, 1983 4) Environmental Documents PJK:bw 7/1/83 -3- DATE: TO: FROM: MEMORANDUM February 23, 1983 Planning Commission Land Use Planning Office SUBJECT: INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON CARLSBAD RACEWAY The City has recently recieved complaints from residents of the Meadowlark Community in the San Marcos area concerning noise generated by Carlsbad Raceway. They believe that the drag races held on Saturday nights often violate the conditions of the Raceway CUP. The purpose of this report is to update the Commission on the status of the raceway CUP's, in particular, conditions relating directly or indirectly to noise. It also will consider issues such as information on recent complaints, noise monitoring, and the CUP expiration date. CUP BACKGROUND The operation of the raceway (CUP-15) was originally approved by the City Council on appeal, December 17, 1963. There have since been eight (three denied) amendments to this permit. The following is a short chronology of the CUP's: CUP-15 (December 17, 1963) -On appeal, the City Council approved a CUP allowing the construction of a drag strip and appurtenant facilities on the raceway property. A finding of approval was "That because of this topography, some of the noises and nuisances which may result may be minimized or confined within this area". CUP-42(A) (March 23, 1965) -It is unclear why an amendment to CUP-15 became CUP-42(A), however, this entitlement allowed an expansion of allowable racing event types to all except jet vehicles and destruction or jalopy races. This resolution included a finding "That this use in terms of potential noise factors would be no more objectionable than racing on the lagoon, or railway trains, or the use of the airport". CUP's-42(B) and 42(C) -These amendments requested a time extension and beer sales, respectively. Both were denied by the Planning Commission. CUP-42(D} (April 25, 1972} -This resolution allowed a time extension of ten years for operation of the raceway. The CUP was thus extended until April 25, 1982. Condition No. 8 states, "At the end of such 10-year period, there shall be an annual 6H review period to establish further continuance". Condition No. 11 of this CUP reads, "Major drag races (those where competitors use _fuel burning blown engines) shall be limited to one event per month and conducted between the hours of 9:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. of the same day". CUP-42(E) (January 14, 1976) -This amendment allowed the development of a youth recreation park, including skateboard facilities, on a 14-acre portion at the south-east corner of the 150-acre site. This permit was conditioned so that it, too, expired on April 25, 1982. CUP-42(F) (August 9, 1978) -An amendment which allowed the addition of a fiberglass sled run on the 14-acre recreation area. Similar to the other CUP's this amendment expired on April 25, 1982. CUP-42(G) (July 11, 1979) -This amendment again pertained only to the southeast 14 acres of the raceway property. The request was to modify much of the recreation facilities in this area by the addition of a fishing pond, etc. Condition No. 6 sets 10- year expiration date from this resolution. Also, Condition No. 3 states that this amendment revokes and supersedes all other CUP's. CUP-42(H) (April 22, 1981) -This amendment, requested by the Chamber of Commerce, to allow the sale of beer, was denied. NOISE CONDITIONS A thorough review of each of these documents reveals only two findings and one condition relating to noise. CUP-15 and CUP- 42(A) both contain a finding that raceway noise will not be significant. Since the CUP's were granted based on a finding that noise was not a problem, if it has now become a problem, this review seems appropriate. The condition of CUP-42(D) allowing the racing of "fuel burning blown engines" only once per month appears to be noise-related. There is some question, however, as to what exactly a "fuel burning blown engine" is. Evidently this is an old term no longer used by mechanics. Auto Business magazine indicates that this would be a "supercharged" engine. Questioning race fans and mechanics at the raceway on Saturday nights gives conflicting information as to whether individual cars are "supercharged" or not. Raceway owner, Larry Grismer, has indicated that he has not run a "fuel burning blown engine" on Saturday night since 1967. His definition of such racers are those that are "Double- A" class. He further states that the climate on a single night is more determinant of noise level than type of vehicle, with the reverberation off a solid, low overcast increasing the noise level. In summary, staff has been unable to determine that the raceway is violating this condition. -2- RECENT COMPLAINTS A survey of Planning files on the raceway has shown less noise complaints in the past two years than in previous years. In the last two years, only two residents have complained to our office (several times). Police files indicate they have received no complaints on the matter during this time. There is evidence that additional residents of the Meadowlark Community are inconvenienced by the noise but have not formally complained. NOISE MONITORING As a result of these complaints Saturday night raceway noise has been monitored on two occasions, June 12, 1982 and January 8, 1983. A sophisticated sound-level meter, with read-out, was used to monitor the sound on both occasions. The first reading was conducted by a Noise Control Officer for the County of San Diego Department of Health Services. His results did not conclude that a significant problem exists and he felt that a case could not be made for a violation of County Noise Ordinances. He did say that further monitoring would be necessary to reach a definite conclusion. The second monitoring session was conducted by the Land use Planning Staff which also did not conclude that a noise problem exists. Evidence exists, however-indicating that the noise level on that particular night was lower than usual. CUP EXPIRATION DATE Condition No. 8 of CUP-42(D) allowed a raceway time extension until April 25, 1982, allowing for an annual review of its continuance thereafter. This report before you would seem in line with this review time table. CUP-42(G), however, sets an expiration date of July 11, 1989 for recreational uses on the 14- acre piece, and goes further to state that this amendment revokes and supersedes all previous ones. It is unclear whether this means on the entire 150-acre raceway property, or only the 14-acre portion. Because of this uncertainty, the Planning Commission needs to make a determination as to which expiration date applies to the raceway. No matter when the expiration date is, allowance has been made, to allow the review and reconsideration of all the conditions of approval by both the Planning Director and Planning Commission at any time within the ten year period. -3- - SUMMARY Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff to take the CUP to public hearing to address the following issues, for the following reasons: PJK:bw 2/15/83 a} Update conditions of approval -certain conditions are obsolete and unenforceable. b) Set a definite standard for noise control -since noise appears to be the problem, a condition regulating noise levels should be established. c) Initiate a program of periodic noise monitoring - the raceway should be aware that they are being monitored to assure compliance. d) Establish expiration date -due to the present ambiguity of this date the Commission should establish such a date. -4- DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE ~ttp of ~arl~bab NEGATIVE DECIARATION 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-1989 (619) 438-5591 PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATICN: carlsbad Raceway, 2 miles east of El Camino Real on Palanar Airport Road PROJECT DESCRIPTICN: Amerrlment to Corrlitional Use Permit to update corrlitions of approval, set noise starrlards, arrl establish expiration date. '!he City of Carlsbad has corrlucted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act arrl the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Larrl use Planning Office. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supi:ortive docwnents is on file in the Larrl Use Planning Office, City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, CA. 92008. Comments fran the public are invited. Please suhnit canments in writing to the Larrl Use Planning Office within ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATED: June 16, 1983 CASE NO: a.JP 42(J) APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad PUBLISH DATE: June 18, 1983 ND-4 5/81 .,,._ Carlsbad Journal Decreed a Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County 3138 ROOSEVELT ST. • P.O. BOX 248 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • 729-2345 Proof of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circulation, published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned hod and still hos a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and which newspaper has been established and published at regular intervals in the said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next preceding the date of publication of the notice hereinafter referred to; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: ..................... June .18 .... 19 .8~. 19 .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .... I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California oi,....83 the 18th day of June .L ':J ~ ~ Ct cierk of the Printer