Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCUP 9; South Coast Asphalt; Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (8)DATE : June 13, 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM : Planning Staff RE: NOISE NUISANCE AT SOUTH COAST ASPHALT -CUP 9 Complaints have been received regarding late night noise at the South Coast Asphalt Plant. This has been an on-going problem for a number of years (see brief history attached). In the past such noise could not be verified by staff, and the representatives of South Coast Asphalt indicated that their operations generally begin at 6:OO A.M., and did not go after 7:OO P.M. The plant was approved by CUP 9 (CUP 9 does not contain conditions to control noise or hours of operation). The City felt that there was no need to reopen the CUP for complaints that could not be verified and felt that the applicant's stated hours of operation were satisfactory. Citizens in the area were never satisfied with this determination. They are now renewing this complaint and indicating that the opera- tion is continuing until 9:00 P.M. (see attached letters). Staff contacted representatives of the company and requested conformance with the agreed upon hours of operation. It was explained to the City that the company had notified the City of late evening operations by letter. However, the letter in our file is dated October 30, 1978, and it indicates that the operation will last for several weeks. One of the letters received is addressed to the City Council. CUPs and zone violations are normally the purview of the Planning Com- mission. Therefore this matter is being forwarded to you for your action. The first resolution approving CUP 9 (Resolution 138) does not contain conditions of operation. A later amendment (Resolution 204) does have some conditions on dust control. There are no conditions however for such matters as noise control, hours of operation, review periods, etc. that the Planning Commission gen- erally considers on CUPs today. Like all CUPs, the Planning Commission may reopen the case and set conditions of operation providing they are reasonable and desirable to protect the health, safety and welfare of the commu- nity. Conditions of approval may be useful to establish known parameters of operations. Presently staff has no guidance to inform citizens or the plant operator if a certain operation is acceptable or not. Reopening the hearing will allow citizens in the area to voice their grievances and explain what action they prefer. demands on their operation. Hopefully from this an equitable solution can be reached. It also allows the company to explain their position and -- A Planning Commission - CUP 9 June 13, 1979 Page 2 More than likely no solution will be satisfactory to all concerns. The nature of the operation is noisy and unsightly. the plant must operate to meet immediate demands. The site is zoned M (industrial). The General Plan however indicates Residential (0-4 DU per ac.) with a special treatment overlay. extraction caused by the plant. inconsistent with the General Plan presently, the residential cate- gory was placed on the property as the ultimate buildout. It may be many years before extraction is complete and the property is suitable for residential. In addition This overlay was placed on the property because of the Although the zone and use is When the original CUP was granted the Code provided for mineral extraction in any zone by CUP, but that section was subsequently deleted. Presently a CUP is required for extraction in the M zone by Section 21.32.010 (32) which indicates a CUP is required for manufacturing uses not specifically listed. In approving a CUP a finding must be made that the use is in harmony with the various elements of the General Plan. Staff believes this finding can be made since the use is existing and the General Plan guides ultimate development, and with proper mitigating measure the operation will have minimal effect on presently existing nearby uses. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission reopen the hearing on CUP 9 to determine the extent of the problems caused by the plant, the demands the company must meet, and to establish conditions of operation to mitigate adverse impacts of the operation. EXHIBITS Memo from James Hagaman on brief history of South Coast Asphalt Letters from Mrs. Mary Blackburn dated May 9, and Messrs. Held, Fry Planning Commission Resolution 204 Planning Commission Resolution 138 Noise Complaints. and Jones dated May 10, 1979 BP:jd 5/31/79