Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCUP 9; South Coast Asphalt; Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (27)*. . .*:‘, MEMORANDUM . 8’ .-. + --F January 26, 1977 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT : REVIEW OF SOUTH COAST ASPHALT CONDITIONAL USE PERYIT - CUP-#9 I. INTRODUCTION In 1961 The City issued a Conditional Use Permit for operation of the South Coast Aspha.lt Plant, located on the south side of Highway 78, at the easterly extreme of the Carlsbad City Limits. The approving resolution for that CUP (City Council Resolution #737) contains no provisions for periodic review of the CUP, nor does it regulate hours of operation or noise levels. Recently, the City has received numerous complaints from residents of the Costa Serena Subdivision in Oceanside alleging that the South Coast Asphalt Plant creates excessive noise and dust, and causes structural damage to nearby residences These complaints were forward- ed to the City Council, who instructed staff to investigate the p1aWc”r operations and forward a report to the Pianning Commission. This report contains the results of that investigation. It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will forward this report, along with a recommendation for what action should be taken, if any, to the City Council. 11. Summary of Fi’ndings: The South Coast Asphalt Plant appears to meet the requirements of City Council Resolution #737, approving a Conditional Use Permit‘ for that property. The City must consider, however, whether the initial - findings that the plant would not create excessive noise. dust, smoke, vibration and other hazards are still valid. . .- - .. c Staff analyzes various aspects of the plant’s operations in this report. The Planning Commission and City Council must determine whether the degree of annoyance to surrounding properties resulting from the operation in Carlsbad is significant enough to warrant re- consideration of the CUP. 111. RECOMMENDATION:. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review this investigation and report its findings to the City Council. The commission may find any of the following: -1- That the operation at the South'Coast Asphalt Plant is in compliance with the CUP., which was issued in 1961 (see City Council Resolution #737 which is attached)., That the findings of compatibility with surrounding uses due to dust, noise and vibration have changed since the permit was issued in 1961 and therefore public hearings should be re-opened. The City may consider the following actions in re-opening the public hearings : . _I Revocation of the CUP; Limitations on the hours of operation; Application of an expiration date to the CUP, (perhaps to coincide with depletion of onsite rock); Provisions for periodic review of the CUP; Changes to operating conditions. , March 25, 1961 April 11, 1961 April 15, 1951 May 2, 1961 May 16, 1961 June 6, 1961 'I . . .. <. .I- -, .- IV. History: - Application made for CUP - Planning Commission approved CUP to allow the South Coast Asphalt operation, by Resolution #204. - Appeal filed with City Clerk by a group of nearby property owners. - City Council held public hearing on appeal. Hearing . was closed and continued for two weeks. - City Council denied appeal and referred matter back to Planning Commission for study on conditions of approval. 1 - City Council passed Resolution #737 (see attached), denying the appeal-and amending the Planning Com- mission's Recommendation. In granting the CUP, the Council found that the factors of noise, smoke,,dust, vibration and other hazards would not be detrimental to surroundi ng properties . . June 6, 1961 - Writ of Mandamus and subpoenas issued t,o Council by the appellants. Our records do not show the outcome of this action. June 8, 1975 - Letter received from Mrs. M.J. Korbacher of Oceanside asking if anything could be done about dust, noise and earthshaking from blasting at the plant site. Mrs. Korbacher was informed that: -2- .. 'I ' , .. 'I .- - ../ ? .' 1) The blasting occurs withCn the Oceanside city limits; 2) The applicant appears 'to meet the conditions of the existing CUP; and, c 3) That if she-desired the City Council to re-open hearing on the CUP, she should so request. October 16, 1975 - Letter sent from the Carlsbad Planning Director to the Oceanside Planning Director concerning th2 Plants operations in Oceanside. ' October 29, 1975 - Letter received from Oceanside Planning Director in- dicating that: 1) The Oceanside General Plan envisions both residential low density 2) Mining has been extended into the Oceanside city limits, in t apparent violation of permit requirements; (0-7 du/acre) and commercial u.ses in the vicinity o.f the plant; 3) Oceanside had, at that time, re,ceived only minor complaints re- 4) The City of Oceanside had never been notified in advance of blasti'ng. garding the plant's operations; October 5, 1976 - Letter received from Mr. C. Techmeyer complaining about noise and dust from the daily operations of the plant. complaint was being forward to the City Council. idents requesting that the City Council take action . to stop the noise emanating from the plant. the plant's operations to the Planning Commission. I October 13, 1976 - Planning Director notified Mr. Techmeyer that his j October 20, 1976 - City received petition signed by 54 Oceanside res- 1 October 26, 1976 - City Council instructed staff to submit a report on 11. Results of Investigation: In order to investigate the operations of the South Coast Asphalt Plant, Staff contacted representatives from the City of Oceanside, the San Diego County APCD, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, the San Diego County Noise Abatement Division, as well as representatives from the South Coast Asphalt Company. results of the staff's investigation. The following summarizes the -3- A. General Description: r Considering the nature of the.operation, the -South Coast Asphalt Plant appeared clean and well maintained. The portion of the operation within Carlsbad City Limits is restricted to rock crushing, asphalt production, transportation of rock products, equipment storage and ad- ministrative offices. The actual mining and blasting is done within Oceansi de City Limits. The site is transversed by Buena Vista Creek, which is dammed onsite to provide water for dust control (approximately 4000 gallons per day is used for this purpose). The creek also supplies,water onsite rest- room facilities. Rock processing and asphalt production is accomplished by a "dry" process. Dust within the two asphalt plants are captured by a series of cloth filters, known as "bag houses". The plant operates primary, secondary and tertiary rock crushers. Rock is excavated after blasting and transported to the primary crusher by truck. Crushed rock is transported to secondary and tertiary crushers by underground conveyor belts. Production varies according to seasonal demand; ann'ual production figures for the past 5 years are as follows: 1976 437,790 TONS (est) 1975 336,544 TONS 1974 633,524 . TONS 1973 792,440 TONS 1972 716,470 TONS More than 60% of the crushed rock is used in the production of asphalt. SCAPCO is the third largest producer of crushed rock in the County; however, production at the Carlsbad facility is probably the largest for any single facility in the County. e Products produced at the plant are: decomposed granite, crusher base (a mixture used as a base for paved surfaces), crushed rock of varying sizes,.asphalt concrete, portland cement concrete, and rip rap. Ac,cording to the company's representatives, there is approximately 13,489,000 tons of rock reserves on the Oceanside portion of the prop- erty. There are no mineable reserves left on the Carlsbad portion of the site. The company has estimated that the existing reserves could last 15 years but this is highly speculative, since changes in pro- duction could cause the reserves to be depleted earlier or later than projected. At such time the onsite rock is depleted, it is the company's desire to restore the Oceanside property to a usable state and to import rock to the Carlsbad portion of the site for use in asphalt production. SCAPCO presently owns four parcels south of Highway 78, two of which (totaling 63.75 ac.) are within the City of Oceanside. site of the original C.U.P is approximately one-third developed or mined. In addition, SCAPCO recently purchased a 57 acre parcel located south west of the plant site. According to the Company's represent- atives, theproperty in Carlsbad is not suited for future mining; the additional property was purchased as a .buffer and for possible future recreational use. The 95 acre -4- v 8. Complaints: The complaints received by City Staff include: 1) 2) Noise occurs during the early morning hours and also at night. .I The plant creates excessive noise during blasting and also duri,ng normal operation. 3) Blasting causes significant-am,ounts of dust and creates structural damage in nearby dwellings. C. Water Quality: Up until November, 1974 the :;outh Coast Asphalt Products Company had a permit to discharge up to I50 gallons of treated waste water per minute into the Buena Vista Creek Channel. This waste water was used in ''wet" smoke and dust control facilities. In 1974, the "wet" system was replaced by a more efficient dry system ("baghouse") for dust control. The Regional Water Quality Control Board rescinded their per- mit to discharge wastes into Buena Vis$a.Creek because of this new in- stallation. The. plant still uses '4000 gallonslday from Buena Vista Creek fo'r dust control and in plant restroom facilities. Staff inspected the plant the morning after a rain storm. The creek was heavily silted and large mounds of detergent suds were trapped in rocky areas. The suds are evidence of significant pollution, the cause of which is undetermined. {Two possibilities are that the pollution is caused by direct dumping of contaminants into the creek, or by leakage of septic tanks upstream). Staff has no evidence on the causes of the siltation of Buena Vista . Creek. However, the problem is severe enough that periodic clearance , of the downstream creek channel is required. The Water Quality Control Board Staff has stated that they have no control over siltation of water bodies and also stated that they no longer inspect the Soqth Coast facility since no waste water is dumped into the creek. D.. Noise: Staff has made inspections around the plant during operation of all rock crushing and asphalt production machinery. This equipment was not audible at the northwestern edge of the Mira Mesa subdivision, located south of Highway 78. The Costa Serena subdivision on the north side of Highway 78 is sevewly impacted by traffic noise; therefore, it was hard to discern what noise enamated from the rock crushers and as halt plant, and what noise was attributable to freeway traffic. The SCAPCO Plant was from drilling conducted on the Oceanside portion of the property. on f y noise which was directly identifiable as emanating from the The representative from SCAPCO stated that equipment at the site is operated only from 6 'A.M. to 6 P.M., *except in cases of emergency. Equipment is repaired and maintained at night, but that maintenance involves only limited operation of the equipment, without any prqducts being processed. *Please see attached letter stating that operations have been temporarily extended to 8 P.M. -5- I E. Sei smol ogy: Y To date, no claims against,the plant have been filed concerning structural damage caused by blasting. Local residents have compl2ined, however, that they fear that groundshaking caused by the blasting may be causing unseen damage to their homes. Recent seismological tests were performed at the plant at the request of California Drilling and Blasting Company., which conducts all drilling and blasting at the site. (Note: The only drilling done onsite is to create holes in which explosives are placed). The results of this seismological investigation are attached. It should be pointed out ' that these seismographic readings are well within the safe blasting limit recommended by the United States Bureau of Mines, but are, at the same time, discernible to nearby residents. F. Air Qual i ty: There are three main sources of air contiminants at the plant: 1) Dust caused by blasting; 2) Dust caused by the transport and processing of rock products; 3) Hydrocarbon emissions from the asphalt batch plants. The blasting comes under the San Diego'County Air Pollution Control District's rules on "visual opacity of particulates". Under this rule, a 20% or greater opacity ~ay not exceed three minutes. Since the blast is essentially instantaneous, ,with dust settling quickly, it does not exceed the three minute limit. The plant has a number of methods for control fordust during rock crush- ing. and transport. There are water jets which control dust at various locations on the site. The asphalt plants, as mentioned previously, are equipped with dry dust control systems known as "baghouses". According to the manufacturer's specifications, these filters, whet: properly maintained, are 99% effective in controlling dust emissions. The APCD has informed staff that hydrocarbon emissions from non- volatile sources such as the asphalt plant are not monitored since the hydrocarbon emissions are much less than for volatile sources. G. Energy Consumption: . The plant is a significant local consumer of, natural gas, electricity 'and fuels for motor vehicles. Staff has not analyzed whether a re- duction of'energy consumption is possible for the plant. However, . should the granitic material used in the plant's operation cease to be mined locally, additional energy would be consumed in transporting rock to the Carlsbad site. \- H. Blasting: The blasting operations are conducted approximately twice a month. All blasting is done on the portion of the property within Oceanside City Y , . t -6- *. . .* \ I x ., - b ' .' Limits. All impacted residences and businesses (with the exception of one house) are in Oceanside. I I. Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975: The State Legislature in 1975 enacted a.law requiring preparation of a reclamation plan for all mining operations conducted after January 1, ' 1976. Staff's preliminary determination is that a reclamation plan will be required for the portion of the operation in Oceanside, but not in Carlsbad. J. - Coordination with Oceanside: . An important aspect of the Conditional Use Permit is the coordination of permit requirements wi.th the City of Oceanside. Oceanside is in the process of considering a C U P , for the portion of the operation within that City. Staff has been and will continue to be in close contact with Oceanside staff to ensure that permit requirements are consistent and compatible. K. Zoninq, and General Plan: The portion of the property for whi.ch Carlsbad issued a C U P is zoned M (Manufacturing), with approximately one third of that area also covered by the Floodplain Overlay Zone. The General Plan shows the property as Residential Low Medium Density (0-4 d.u./acre), Special Treatment Area. L. Compliance to Other Code Requirements: The South Coast Asphalt plant appears to be in violation of two code sections: 1) There are two trailers onsite. Thgse are. in'bpparent violation of Section 5.24.145 which states that temporary -offices are allowed only in Commercial Zones for a maximum of one year, by Conditional Use Permit. I .Z) The signs onsite are in apparent violation of the following re- . quirements: a) Total allowable sign area; I b) Number of allowable free-standing signs; c) Allowable height of free-standing signs. I 111. Discussion: State Law and the Municipal Code require certain findings to be made in issuing a Conditional Use Permit. The City must find, for instance, that factors such as noise, smoke, dust, vibration and traffic will not be detrimental to sourrounding properties. This report has established the fact that the South Coast Aspha?t Plant is responsible for varying amounts of noise, smoke, dust, vibration and traffic. The question the -7- , .-. *I .* -- %. .- .. CIty must answer is whether the degree of annoyance is significant enough to warrant termination of the use or restriction of its oper- ations. , The City should recognize the substantial investment in facilities which SCAPCO has made (estimated at $10 million). The City cannot arbitrarily terminate the CUP, unless it can prove that the terms . of the initial CUP have not been met and cannot be met. The City must also recognize that, to a large extent, the complaints which have been generated because of the SCAPCO operation emanate from the operations (blasting, drilling and excavation) conducted .in Oceanside. The City has no real authority over Oceanside's permit, except that it may comment at the public hearing to'be conducted in Oceanside. . DHW: ar Attachments ; City Council Resolution #737 Seismological Investigation by Evans, Goffman & McCormick. Letter from-SCAPCO, dated December 28, 1976. .. -8-