The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCUP 42J; Carlsbad Raceway; Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (26),- MEMORANDUM DATE : February 23, 1983 TO : P1 anning Commission FROM : 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". CUP1s-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 2Sr 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 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 1O:OO 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 1 to the southeast was to modify muc 1, 1979) - This amendment again pertained only 14 acres of the raceway property. The request h 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: 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. PJK : bw 2/15/83 -4-