The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About- - ZA-89-25 and ZA-92-10 Appeal 4 - 9/7/2010Ms. Gabriele McAllister 2010 376 E 18th St. # C jpwww Costa Mesa, CA 92627 �.3 7-A -S9 -a5 �4zA-9a10 - Al 34 1 6�1 6 / 0 Received City of Costa Mesa 73 Development Services Department L�o M� j Lem Isle �� f fah ne.c- AUG .4 Zo o �1: ccvn L3 r J CvN� +i'.A:I. r?a-cd' 1 C 1 l h n -4-W.) --' S,4-, b-e-ev) V\ M rec-j �.6 c&.4 X d,,ea� . 4 1�c -e nee TO, , & � s-eJeY 1Sreresti,l7 U JJ 470 i V) cbmPCL-� flNA-� w Lu\ 4c) ! V -YIP -O w f-�ec r rzsS I Lj " rJ 4o 4 -ate. i �- .� . W� ? V, �r �um 14-� Q rip t'JOV<I'�j ouvic't +�4 V -e -CAA- ro-S& lesp, '4- jc,&� CLh WN -l-,'vtad ,euer inec m A)e 7 o(- kph ro( cot) L,- � rit Soh cere.�� a 1�0 L Lv I b'�' X63 • MILESCHEN LAw GROUP 7 A XI- i/6 �, 2 1 r 1 a- i 9911 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 150 • Irvine, CA 92618 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Phone: 949.788.1425 • Fax (949) 788-1991. i. _. i} J E • E N+ 'J I R 0 IN IA E N T i i T i T L E Ei E T T August 6, 2010 VIA EMAIL (mlee@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us) Planning Commission City of Costa Mesa c/o Mr. Mel Lee Senior Planner P.O. Box 1200 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1200 Re: Conditional Use Permit ZA-92-10, 739 West 19`h Street, Costa Mesa, California Dear Commissioners: First of all, we would like to thank you for agreeing to continue the hearing on the above - referenced matter to August 9, 2010. We have taken the time to thoroughly investigate the matter and to speak to CalRecycle as we indicated. Per Mel Lee's request, we provided him with an update on our public outreach efforts on July 27, 2010 via email (which is incorporated by reference). We have also summarized these efforts below. Moreover, in addition to the issues we raised in our July 12, 2010 letter to the Planning Commission (which is incorporated by reference), we will discuss more issues below which should give this Commission serious pause in moving forward with any revocation proceeding. 1. Public Outreach On July 26, 2010, we met with the community members to discuss the operation of Garcia Recycling Center & Metals, Inc. ("Garcia Recycling") and to determine how Garcia Recycling could improve its operations to be a good neighbor to the community. The individuals who attended the meeting expressed overwhelming support of Garcia Recycling and noted that it is the best recycling facility in the area because it is an efficient operation so the wait time is much less than other facilities, the employees are nice and go out of their way to assist customers, and Garcia Recycling is honest and does not take advantage of its customers. One woman said she specifically drives from Newport Beach to Garcia Recycling because she thinks so highly of the service and she brings her kids to teach them about recycling. Some individuals indicated that they rely on Garcia Recycling for their income. One homeless man said if it weren't for Garcia Recycling, he did not know what he would do. Similarly, another woman said that she had lost her job a few years ago and is dependent on Garcia Recycling for income. Finally, one person aptly pointed out that because of Garcia Recycling, trash is being picked up in the neighborhood and being recycled and that the trash would otherwise be going to landfills. Planning Commission August 6, 2010 Page 2 of 8 We asked the attendees how Garcia Recycling could better improve its operations, particularly visually since that was the predominant concern raised at the last Planning Commission meeting. Many individuals thought it was unfair that Garcia Recycling was being blamed for drunkards loitering in the area when there is a liquor store and soup kitchen for the homeless across the street. We also got suggestions to use synthetic grass instead of sod which gets trampled over time, and to paint a mural on the side of the container. We explained that Garcia Recycling did use synthetic grass in the past but the City asked them to remove it and that the City would unlikely be willing to approve a mural. The most poignant comment came from one of the business owners who opined that the City simply does not like the look of Garcia Recycling and the shopping center because it caters to the Latino community. Costa Mesa used to be known as "Goat Hill" and it was where the Latino community gathered. This shopping center serves as the same kind of gathering place for the Latino community today, yet she believes that the City would like to shut it down beginning with Garcia Recycling. Because we had expected more people to attend, including those who oppose Garcia Recycling's operations, we decided to specifically reach out to those parties who signed the petition submitted to the City. We sent out a letter to those parties on July 27, 2010 to give them an opportunity to voice their concerns to us so that we can address their issues. See Exhibit A. To. date, we have not received any calls. 2. Revocation of Garcia Recycling's Conditional Use Permit is Uniustified and Would Amount to an Abuse of the Planning Commission's Discretion The seminal decision on revocation and modification of use permits ironically involved the City of Costa Mesa - Goat Hill Tavern v. City of Costa Mesa, 6 Cal.AppAth 1519 (1992). This decision involved complaints from residents abutting the parking lot of the bar about noise, trash, and drunken behavior during late hours of operation. Id. at 1524. The Court of Appeal held that a use permit, once issued, becomes a fundamental vested right that cannot be impaired absent a showing of either a failure by the permittee to comply with the reasonable conditions of the permit or a compelling public necessity. (Id. at 1530.) "Once a use permit has been properly issued the power of a municipality to revoke it is limited. Of course, if the permittee does nothing beyond obtaining the permit it may be revoked. Where a permit. has been properly obtained and in reliance thereon the permittee has incurred material expense, he acquires a vested property right to the protection of which he is entitled." Id. Furthermore, "When a permittee has acquired such a vested right it may be revoked if the permittee fails to comply with reasonable terms or conditions expressed in the permit granted [citations] or if there is a compelling public necessity. [Citations.] [P] A compelling public necessity warranting the revocation of a use permit for a lawful business may exist were the conduct of that business constitutes a nuisance." is Planning Commission August 6, 2010 Page 3 of 8 Id. (quoting O'Hagen v. Bd. Of Zoning Adjustment, 19 Cal.App.3d 151, 158 (1971)). In Goat Hill Tavern, the City of Costa Mesa provided extensive evidence through a staff `report that "summarized 19 reported police incidents occurring at the tavern between August 1990 and November 1990. They included incidents in the parking lot and complaints the tavern exceeded its capacity and its patrons were drunk in public." Id. at 1524-25. Notwithstanding the large number of incidents over a four month period, the City of Costa Mesa's preliminary action of limiting the tavern's hours of operation was stayed by the trial court and ultimately the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's grant of a writ of mandate against the City. (Id. at 1523, 1532.) The grant of the writ of mandate against the City of Costa Mesa was largely based on the type of evidence presented at hearing: 1) Several witnesses wrote or testified favorably to Goat Hill Tavern. 2) Police records showing the number of incidents reported at the tavern were less than at most other bars and coffee shops in the vicinity. 3) No showing to distinguish complaints about Goat Hill Tavern from other possible causes, including other bars and other pedestrians that frequented the area. In the present case, the conditional use permit is a fundamental vested right held by Garcia Recycling. There is no dispute that the permit was properly issued by the City and Garcia Recycling has relied on this permit for its 20 years of operation. As such, the power of the City to revoke this permit is limited. See id at 1530. According to the Costa Mesa Municipal Code ("CMMC"): "the planning commission may require the modification or revocation of any planning application and/or pursue other legal remedies as may be deemed appropriate by the city attorney, if the planning commission finds that the use as operated or maintained: a. Constitutes a public nuisance as defined in State Civil Code Sections 3479 and 3480; or b. Does not comply with the conditions of approval." CMMC § 13-29(0)(1). California Civil Code Section 3479 states: "Anything which is injurious to health, including, but not limited to, the illegal sale of controlled substances, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a nuisance." Civil Code Section 3480 states: W Planning Commission August 6, 2010 Page 4 of 8 "A public nuisance is one which affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal." The City appears to be considering revoking Garcia Recycling's permit because its operations may be deemed a public nuisance: "Specifically, the use is not being operated in a manner deemed to be compatible with surrounding properties and uses, the use creates a negative visual impact due to excessive signage and lack of property maintenance, a significant degree of City staff resources has been devoted to the use as a result of complaints related to the use and continual enforcement of noise and property maintenance issues, and issues related to noise, odors, transients, property maintenance, etc. do not appear to be prevalent at other recycling facilities in the City as they are at this location. Staff Report at 12. We believe that the City cannot make a nuisance determination in this case. .,.First of all, the City's findings on their face do not meet the definition of a nuisance as set forth in;Civil Code Section 3479 and 3480. Garcia's Recycling's operations are not injurious to health; it is not an obstruction to the free use of property, nor does it affect an entire community or neighborhood. The purported negative visual impact is based on "excessive signage and lack of property maintenance" which hardly arises to the level of being "indecent or offensive to the senses," particularly where a vested interest is at stake. Aside from the letter petition signed by approximately 35 people citing that the facility's presence "[b]ring (sic) in transients; drunkard asleep all around, urinating, trash odors, unkept (sic) areas, unnecessary noise," there is little in the record to support the City. s findings. As far as we can tell, only two complaints were documented in the last year or so. Both complaints allege excessive noise. The City of Costa Mesa, Development Services Department investigated one of the complaints and visited Garcia Recycling seven times and noted "NO VIOLATION OBSERVED" each time and closed the case on July 17, 2009. See Exhibit B. Contrast the significant evidence of complaints that was presented by the City in Goat Hill Tavern, where the court still found that the City's decision to deny renewal of applicant's permit was not supported by the evidence. See Goat Hill Tavern, 6 CalApp.41h at 1525. As to the transients cited by the City, the City has made no showing to distinguish complaints about Garcia Recycling from other possible causes such as the liquor store and soup kitchen across the street from the shopping center. See Goat Hill Tavern, 6 Cal.App.41h at 1531. Thus, pursuant to Goat Hill Tavern, the City simply has failed to meet its burden to show how revocation is justified. The three complaint letters from residents cited by the City date back to October and November of 1992, prior to Garcia Recycling's relocation from the back of the parking lot to the front. See Attachment 4 to Planning Commission Agenda Report dated July 1, 2010. Also included is a letter from Smart & Final dated June 6, 2000, over 10 years ago. Smart & Final has subsequently communicated with the City regarding Garcia Recycling as discussed below. I _I Planning Commission August 6, 2010 Page 5 of 8 Moreover, we hereby submit the following additional evidence to refute the City's potential nuisance determination. Attached as Exhibits C, D, and E are pictures of the facility from the street.2 First of all,. the signage is barely visible. See Exhibit C. Secondly, the operation is barely visible from the street. See Exhibit D. Furthermore, as discussed above, there is a soup kitchen across the street which serves individuals in need. See Exhibits F and G. As to the noise and odors, the people most directly impacted by the operations, the business owners in the shopping center, have opined that they do not find Garcia Recycling's operation to be offensive. See Exhibit H. Victor Bonilla, the part owner of the shopping center and property manager also indicated that he has not received any complaints about Garcia Recycling. See Exhibit I. As discussed above, we have performed public outreach to those individuals who signed the petition and have not received any responses to date. Finally, we hereby present a petition with over 500 signatures in support of Garcia Recycling by the community members who frequent the shopping center and Garcia Recycling. See Exhibits J and K. These are the individuals who will be most directly affected by the decision of the Planning Commission and their voices cannot be ignored. The Commission simply cannot revoke Garcia Recycling's permit to the detriment of the community because a few individuals who "don't like the look" of Garcia Recycling's operations purportedly complained to the City. 3. Revocation of the Permit is Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") defines a "project" as "an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." Pub. Res. Code § 21065. The CEQA Guidelines further define a "project" as "the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment ...." CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a). The revocation of Garcia Recycling's permit would constitute a "project" under CEQA because it has a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment in that the recycling of beverage containers may be severely reduced thereby resulting in additional tonnage of trash in landfills (which would result in additional vehicle trips for garbage trucks and more greenhouse gas emissions) and an increase in trash on the streets. It is undisputed that Garcia Recycling handles more than double the amount of recyclable beverage containers than any other recycling operation in Costa Mesa. While the City may speculate that the recyclers would simply take their materials to other recyclers, based on the comments we received at the neighborhood meeting, this would not be the case. Many of Garcia Recycling's customers walk to the facility (as evidenced by the pictures we previously submitted) and would not be able to walk to the other recyclers. Moreover, Garcia Recycling is the only facility that is open on Mondays when the volume of material is the heaviest. Garcia 2 During the July 12, 2010 Planning Commission meeting, a commentator and the Commissioners extensively discussed the visual impact from "driving by." As such, we presume that this vantage is the focus of the visual impact. Planning Commission August 6, 2010 Page 6 of 8 Recycling is the largest and most efficient operation (as we learned from our neighborhood meeting, people come to Garcia instead of other facilities because of its efficiency). The other recyclers simply cannot handle the volume of materials that Garcia Recycling handles and as such, it is inevitable that the total volume of beverage containers recycled in the City would decrease and result in an environmental impact. This impact must be analyzed under CEQA. Although the Commission may argue that the revocation of the permit is exempt under the categorical exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15321, an exception to the categorical exemption would apply here, i.e., there is a reasonable possibility of significant effect due to unusual circumstances. See CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(c). "Unusual circumstance" within the meaning of the exception is whether "the circumstances of a particular project (i) differ from the general circumstances of projects covered by a particular categorical exemption, and (ii) those circumstances create an environmental risk that does not exist for the general class of exempt projects." Azusa Land Reclamation Co. V. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, 52 CalApp.41h 1165, 1207 (1997); see also Communities for a Better Environment. v. California Resources Agency, 103 Cal.App.4`h 98, 129 (2002). . This is not a typical case where the Commission is revoking the conditional use permit of a bar or restaurant which would not result in significant impacts to the environment. The Commission is considering revoking the permit of a recycling facility which diverts a significant amount of trash from the landfills. This creates an environmental risk that does not exist for the general class of projects under this exemption. Indeed, the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act aka "The Bottle Bill" (AB 2020) explicitly allows the Department to penalize cities that "prohibit[] the siting of a supermarket site" or "cause[] a supermarket site to close its business." Pub. Res. Code § 14581(a)(5)(F) (emphasis added). We cannot conceive of any other type of use where a city may be subject to a penalty where a conditional use permit is revoked. Clearly, in passing the Bottle Bill, the Legislature felt that cities should subrogate their land use interest for the benefit of recycling: "It is the intent of the Legislature to make redemption and recycling convenient to consumers, and the Legislature hereby urges cities and counties, when exercising their zoning authority, to act favorably on the siting of multimaterial recycling centers, reverse vending machines, mobile recycling units, or other types of recycling opportunities, as necessary for consumer convenience, and the overall success of litter abatement and beverage container recycling in the state." Pub. Res. Code § 14501(e). As discussed above, because Garcia Recycling handles such a high volume of recycled beverage containers, there is certainly a reasonable possibility that closure of the facility would result in a significant effect on the environment. Thus, the exception to the categorical exemption would apply. Planning Commission August 6, 2010 Page 7 of 8 4. There is no Reason to Relocate Garcia Recvclin2 to an Alternate Site We have previously indicated to you that we would work with the City and the Division 'of Recycling in the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (the "Department") to determine whether moving the facility to another site or adding another facility would be in the best interest of the community and the City. Based on our discussions with the community, business owners in the shopping center and Walt Simmons at CalRecycle, we believe that Garcia Recycling is located in the optimum location to serve the community with the least amount of impact to the surrounding environment. Garcia Recycling has been in this location since 1992. It is an integral part of the community. Even Smart & Final recognizes that "it is obvious that a [recycling] center at this location is an absolute necessity" and that "removing [it] would not be good for local businesses." See Attachment 3 to July 28, 2010 Planning Commission Agenda Report. The City asked Garcia Recycling to move to its present location in the parking lot in 1992 because it, too, recognized that this location was optimal. It does not abut residences, nor does it disrupt businesses since Lion's Den, the business closest to Garcia Recycling is only open in the evening. Moving the operation to the back of parking lot as Smart & Final suggests would more directly impact the nearby residences. Thus, Garcia Recycling strongly believes it should not relocate its operations within the parking lot. 5. Garcia Recycling Serves Three Convenience Zones, Two of Which Garcia Recycling Serves Exclusively As detailed in our July 12, 2010 submittal to the Commission, Garcia Recycling is the sole recycling facility serving two convenience zones. The July 28, 2010 Agenda Report asserts that revoking Garcia Recycling's conditional use permit "would not result in an unserved convenience zone because the area would continue to be served by the existing recycling facility at Von's Market." The report cites to CalRecycle's website FAQ page (which is not a binding guidance document) to support this contention notwithstanding the clear language of the statute: "Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, there shall be at least one certified recycling center or location within every convenience zone that accepts and pays the refund value, if any, at one location for all types of empty beverage containers and is open for business during at least 30 hours per week with a minimum of five hours of operation occurring during periods other than from Monday to Friday, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m." Pub. Res. Code § 14571(a) (emphasis added). It is undisputed that Garcia Recycling is the only recycling facility located in the convenience zones for Smart & Final and El Metate. As such, pursuant to the Bottle Bill, if Garcia Recycling were to cease operations, it appears that Smart & Final and El Metate would either need to redeem all empty beverage containers or pay to the Department $100 per day until a recycling location is established. See Pub. Res. Code § 14571.6. In sum, we believe that Garcia Recycling operates a clean and efficient recycling facility and that the community is very much in support of its continued operations. It seems that there Planning Commission August 6, 2010 Page 8 of 8 are a few individuals and Commissioners who may not like the "look" of Garcia Recycling notwithstanding the undisputed benefit Garcia Recycling confers on the community including: • Collecting and facilitating the recycling of beverage containers; • Diverting trash from landfills; • Helping to keep the streets in the community clean by providing an incentive for People to pick up trash, and; • Providing income to individuals; The fact that these individuals are offended by the "look" of Garcia Recycling's operations simply does not justify revoking its conditional use permit. Garcia Recycling will continue to work together with the City to avoid and minimize any potential impact to the surrounding environment that may be caused by its operations. As you can see, there is a long history of Garcia Recycling addressing the concerns raised by C.ity,,staff.. Most recently, Garcia Recycling installed additional landscaping to improve the aesthetics of the facility. See Exhibit L. We request that the Commission allow staff and Garcia Recycling to work out additional mitigation measures that are acceptable not only to Garcia Recycling and the City, but also to the property owner, neighbors, and Smart & Final. For example, we would like to show the City how staging a truck has a far lower impact on the surroundings than having to load and unload a container 2-3 times a day. Furthermore, while Garcia Recycling is open to constructing a wrought iron fence along the easterly property line, the owners of the shopping center are not necessarily supportive of this. We believe these issues must be discussed prior to having conditions imposed on Garcia Recycling. We appreciate your consideration on this matter and look forward to answering any questions at the hearing. Sincerely, Patricia J. Chen cc: Fred N. Canlas, CPA (via email) Jesus Garcia (via email) Rebecca Robins (via email) David Rodriguez (via email) EXHIBIT A MILES .gym LAW GROUP 9911 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 156 • Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949,788.1425 • Fax (949) 788-1991 July 27, 2010 Opponents of Garcia Recycling Re: Garcia Recycling Center Dear Citizens: A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION We represent Garcia Recycling Center located in the parking lot of the El Toro Market at 739 W. 19`h Street, Costa Mesa. Yesterday, July 26, 2010, we held a neighborhood meeting at Costa Brava Restaurant, where we discussed Garcia Recycling and the Planning Commission's perceived complaints about the facility. The businesses in the shopping center had distributed. flyers about the meeting for the last week and over 20 individuals attended the meeting. We ,. received overwhelming support for Garcia Recycling. We understand that you signed a petition indicating your opposition to Garcia Recycling's operation at the site. In the event you did not receive a flyer informing you of the meeting, we wanted to give you an opportunity to voice your concerns to Garcia Recycling so that we can try to address your issues. Please feel free. to email me at pchen@mi1e5-cher corn or call me at (213) 804-8000 to discuss your specific issues. Sincerely, Patricia J. Chen ADDRESSEES Maria Martinez ,713 Center Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Fred Souter Souter Family Trust 703 Center Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Makayla Knalson 711 Weelo Dr. Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Alexandra Sanson 732 Weelo Costa Mesa, CA 92627 James Wolf 702 Center Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Resident 712 Center Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Resident 724 Center Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Resident 411 N. Cedar Street Orange, CA 92868 Residents 724 Center Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Steven Cha 720 Center Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Resident 729 Center Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Carmona Residence 752 Center Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Joyce P. Thomas 762 Center Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Sara Barragan 756 Center Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Monica Van Devsen Mark Haven 757 Center Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Resident 763 Center Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Ashley Barn 769 Center Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Alfonso Salazar 777 Center Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Resident 785 Center Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Resident 788 Center Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Resident 756 W. 191h Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Peggy Krugen 758 W. 191" Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Stephen Kent 973 Oak Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Resident 789 W. 191" Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Resident 742 Weelo Dr. Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Yoshiko Tanaka 1846 Wallace Ave. Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Resident 735 Center Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Resident 1837 Wallace Ave. Costa Mesa, CA 92627 %0 EXHIBIT B C B G HOUSING COMPLAINT INVESTIGA TI OIlli City of Costa Mesa, Development Services Department Assigned to: TS Case No.: CD-09-�� Complaint Address: 719 W 19TH Phone: property Owner: Address: COMPLAINANT Phone: Name' Address: _ • Hotline Date: �61Z9109 Complaint Received By: TS � Time Describe Complaint: RP ALLEGES EXCESSIVE NOISE FROM RECYCLING CENTER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF HIS HONG. 1. Building Exterior Inspection: Violation Observed Yes ❑ No Z if Yes, Detail Action Below 2. Building interior Inspection: Yes ❑ No ® if Yes, Detail Action Below S. Referred to HCD: Yes ❑ No ® if Yes, Date: Numbers 1 and 2 must be completed -- no exceptions! Action: 06/29/09 NO VIOLATION OBSERVED. 06 30 U9 VI TI B E D. T FOR INTEPNAL USE ONLY 2917-30 ONLINE %�9 F� r��F A 4 "�` t � l � } .�� §� y/ .ppe�r rZ�4 S' �. try. ��. � i� ... ..�Y�� Vt;i r J�� EXHIBIT D I �� } t Will, a � ' F j f ,i . t („ t. Vr M` t a 4'".t•�Xl' t,, � : � t EXHIBIT F it, ri C t , ` it. at _ �[Isl r r � s` C EXHIBIT G � ql 1�3 Victor M. Bonilla El Toro Bravo Market 739 W. 19th Street Costa Mesa, California 92627 (949)646-4266 July 21, 2010 Planning Commission City of Costa Mesa c/o Mr. Mel Lee Senior Planner P.O. Box 1200 77 Fair Drive California, CA 92626-1200 Re: Garcia Recycling Dear Commissioners: I am the owner of EI Toro Market, EI Toro Bravo Tortilla Factory, and' Costa Brava Restaurant in the shopping center located at 738 W. 19th Street in Costa Mesa. I am also a part owner of the shopping center and the property manager. I have been a part owner and the property manager for over 30 years. For the last 20 years, Garcia Recycling Center has been a tenant and has operated its mobile recycling facility in our parking lot. During the 20 years, I have not received any complaints about Garcia Recycling's operations. As such, I was very surprised to learn that the Planning Commission decided to review Garcia Recycling's conditional use permit with the intent of potentially revoking its permit. As both the owner of EI Toro Bravo Market and the shopping center, l consider Garcia Recycling an integral part of our community. I know all the tenants and neighbors and we all view Garcia Recycling as providing a very necessary service to the community. Many of my customers use Garcia Recycling and depend on its services for extra income, particularly in this tough economic climate. It is no wonder that Garcia . Recycling is so busy. I have observed Garcia Recycling's activities and I have determined that it currently is in the optimum spot in our parking lot. Garcia Recycling does not disrupt any of the businesses in the center. Moreover, the operation is not visible from the street. attended the Planning Commission meeting on July 12, 2010 and heard an individual complain about seeing Garcia Recycling's "ugly" operations as he drives by, but I respectfully disagree. All that is visible from the street is the front of the truck and the back of an unmarked container, and there is even a tree blocking this view. It is clear to me that there are residents in Costa Mesa who simply do not like the look of this shopping center because it primarily serves the Hispanic community. As the owner of EI Toro Bravo Market, I need Garcia Recycling because it is the only recycling facility in our convenience zone. As such, if it is shut down, we would be required to redeem beverage containers (which we cannot do due to the high volume) or pay $100 per day to the State. We simply cannot afford to pay $100 per day— this would cause my business severe financial hardship. I understand that from reading the complaint letters received by the City (which was given to me at the July 12, 2010 meeting) that some residents are saying that Garcia Recycling bring in homeless people who are drunk and urinate everywhere, trash, odors, unkempt areas, and unnecessary noise. As the property manager who monitors the shopping center every day, I strongly disagree. While there is an occasional homeless person in the shopping center, these individuals are not necessarily brought in by Garcia Recycling. There is a homeless soup kitchen across the street, Someone Cares Kitchen, which serves the homeless. I (or my employees) usually ask them to move along if they have no business in our shopping center. However, we do not turn away such individuals if they are customers, including if they are selling beverage containers to Garcia Recycling. To do so, would be wrong. As for trash, odors, and unkempt areas, Garcia Recycling keeps its facility clean and its employees are constantly sweeping the area and picking up any litter. If Garcia Recycling did not maintain the area, I would certainly have stepped in. l have not had to do so. As for the noise, the operation is fairly noisy if you are near the facility because of the glass containers; however, I and my tenants have not found it to be offensively . noisy given the location of the operation in the parking lot. Garcia Recycling is located in front of Lion's Den which is a bar that is only open at night. As such, the business is not disrupted by Garcia Recycling's operations. Next to Lion's Den is my restaurant, Costa Brava restaurant. My customers have not complained about the noise. It is clear to me that Garcia Recycling does its best to contain its operations to its designated area and minimizes its impact to the surroundings. 195 Once again, as a part owner of the shopping center, owner of the EI Toro Bravo Market and other businesses in the shopping center, and the property manager, I wholeheartedly support Garcia Recycling's continued operations at its current location, and I strongly urge the Planning Commission not to revoke Garcia Recycling's permit. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 116 July 21, 2010 Planning Commission City of Costa Mesa c/o Mr. Mel Lee Senior Planner P.O. Box 1200 77 Fair Drive California, CA 92626-1200 Re: Garcia Recycling Dear Commissioners: We are the businesses in the shopping center at 739 West 19th Street, Costa Mesa, California. It has come to our attention that the Planning Commission is considering revoking Garcia Recycling Center's permit due to complaints about the appearance of the facility, litter, noise, and homeless people resulting from Garcia Recycling's operations. Garcia Recycling has been operating at this location as long as we have been here and our businesses have never been disrupted by its operations. Garcia Recycling runs a clean facility and provides a service which our community very much needs. Our customers regularly bring their beverage containers to Garcia Recycling, and we consider Garcia Recycling part of our community. We are not offended by the appearance of Garcia Recycling's operations, nor have we complained about any noise, litter, or homeless individuals resulting from Garcia Recycling. it seems that the homeless individuals in the area come from Someone Cares Kitchen across the street, where they are provided free or subsidized food. Itis unfair to blame Garcia Recycling for their presence in the area. Nevertheless, we believe that Garcia Recycling helps the underprivileged in our community by allowing them to cash in the beverage containers they collect from city streets. By doing so, Garcia Recycling is helping. to keep our streets clean as well as helping divert trash from our landfills which benefits the environment as a whole. We strongly urge the Planning Commission to allow Garcia Recycling to continue its operations in our shopping center. By: Company: Date: By: Company: Yy .S C (I Date: AS V Date:,r =Z. 0 y; is i '. •� Date: vV6 By:�1- Company: Ale aUL cSQJ1 Date: -!X—c72- "A — S Company: CALk ask�4) Date: By: .eh qkcowy4ex-n- 4;7— Company: e- -S Date: -D-4 - 2 10 Company: Date: Company: Date: 199 EXHIBIT I IlaT Victor M. Bonilla EI Toro Bravo Market 739 W. 19th Street Costa Mesa, California 92627 . (949)646-4266 July 21, 2010 Planning Commission City of Costa Mesa c/o Mr. Mel Lee Senior Planner P.O. Box 1200 77 Fair Drive California, CA 92626-1200 Re: Garcia Recycling Dear Commissioners: I am the owner of EI Toro Market, EI Toro Bravo Tortilla Factory, and Costa Brava Restaurant in the shopping center located at 738 W. 19th Street in Costa Mesa. I am also a part owner of the shopping center and the property manager. I have been a part owner and the property manager for over 30 years. For the last 20 years, Garcia Recycling Center has been a tenant and has operated its mobile recycling facillty in our parking lot. During the 20 years, I have not received any complaints about Garcia Recycling's operations. As such, I was very surprised to learn that the Planning Commission decided to review Garcia Recycling's conditional use permit with the intent of potentially revoking its permit. As both the owner of EI Toro Bravo Market and the shopping center, I consider Garcia Recycling an integral part of our community. I know all the tenants and neighbors and we all view Garcia Recycling as providing a very necessary service to the community. Many of my customers use Garcia Recycling and depend on its services for extra income, particularly in this tough economic climate. It is no wonder that Garcia . Recycling is so busy. �b\ I have observed Garcia Recycling's activities and I have determined that it currently is in the optimum spot in our parking lot. Garcia Recycling does not disrupt any of the businesses in the center. Moreover, the operation is not visible from the street. I attended the Planning Commission meeting on July 12, 2010 and heard an individual complain about seeing Garcia Recycling's "ugly" operations as he drives by, but I respectfully disagree. All that'is visible from the street is the front of the truck and the back of an unmarked container, and there is even a tree blocking this view. It is clear to me that there are residents in Costa Mesa who simply do not like the look of this shopping center because it primarily serves the Hispanic community. As the owner of EI Toro Bravo Market, I need Garcia Recycling because it is the only recycling facility in our convenience zone. As such, if it is shut down, we would be required to redeem beverage containers (which we cannot do due to the high volume) or pay $100 per day to the State. We simply cannot afford to pay $100 per day— this would cause my business severe financial hardship. I understand that from reading the complaint. letters received by the City (which was given to me at the July 12, 2010 meeting) that some residents are saying that Garcia Recycling bring in homeless people who are drunk and urinate everywhere, trash, odors, unkempt areas, and unnecessary noise. As the property manager who monitors the shopping center every day, I strongly disagree. While there is an occasional homeless person in the shopping center, these individuals are not necessarily brought in by Garcia Recycling. There is a homeless soup kitchen across the street, Someone Cares Kitchen, which serves the homeless. I (or my employees) usually ask them to move along if they have no business in our shopping center. However, we do not turn away such individuals if they are customers, including if they are selling beverage containers to Garcia Recycling. To do so, would be wrong. As for trash, odors, and unkempt areas, Garcia Recycling keeps its facility clean and its employees are constantly sweeping the area and picking up any litter. If Garcia Recycling did not maintain the area, I would certainly have stepped in. I have not had to do so. As for the noise, the operation is fairly noisy if you are near the facility because of the glass containers; however, I and my tenants have not found it to be offensively noisy given the location of the operation in the parking lot. Garcia Recycling is located in front of Lion's Den which is a bar that is only open at night. As such, the business is not disrupted by Garcia Recycling's operations. Next to Lion's Den is my restaurant, Costa Brava restaurant. My customers have not complained about the noise. It is clear to me that Garcia Recycling does its best to contain its operations to its designated area and minimizes its impact to the surroundings. Once again, as a part owner of the shopping center, owner of the EI Toro Bravo Market and other businesses in the shopping center, and the property manager, I wholeheartedly support Garcia Recycling's continued operations at its current location, and I strongly urge the Planning Commission not to revoke Garcia Recycling's permit. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, .. Nvz�A A.. EXHIBIT J -ao� On July 9th, 2010, the Costa Mesa Planning Commission called for review of Garcia Recycling's conditional use permit for its operations at 739 W. .1 9th .Street due to purported complaints about its operations from thecommunity. -rhe Planning Commission is 'contemplating either modifying or revoking Garcia Recycling's permit, and the hearing on this. issue is scheduled on August 9, 2010 at 6:00 P.M. We believe that revoking the permit is unduly harsh since we. are providing a much needed service to the community, and in the process we are helping to divert trash from landfills. We believe we run a clean, efficient, recycling operation and we make every effort to minimize our impact to the surrounding neighborhood and businesses by constantly sweeping the area, picking -up any�iitter, and keeping our trucks and containers freshly painted and free of graffiti. We also do our best to serve our customers as quickly ass possible by having a large, well-trained staff. If you agree that Garcia Recycling's service is important to the community and that its operations are not disruptive to the surroundings or aesthetically offensive, please show your support by signing below. 0 CSS Name Address Telephone or email /Lc < �t,�s 4' lea ' 1, >r 1 CM. °i2�� 7 Nam Address 7/1' 6L/ z. '! i%/G� 67KW./9�-"Sr L'.M 3 uJ 3,-� -*y) c /V),?2�CZ7 ( .2 6.7 0 E471 I W.M., Not, IM., Telephone or email (�' 2 � �- --- �� 7*9 - c �7d T,/°l- � 6-6 � ( 4 -3 1, 6 (9 Tqq) . 7W rtLA CAY6 Telephone or email 7 S d -I TAI 55f Name 11 ccs - Pc4Q�c-( r� �ze- - N-Lca�2 Address -7 W allac� Co 6o�- U i c6a � 9�- 1 v C' Telephone or email vq q� — `�S-6 Car - R:� 1, !.. , I - - ff-� DOW �Y963/6t�� 89r- sya r j(1Z4 "93 gNae pyta. �sraC�12 Adm 4 —� 31 t3 , �9. Telephone or email ;�S: -:?C,5 f l A L l A 1' - 091 7-�5 �' ��-F3A Name v Address Telephone or email WIN WATI ONt 373 Rw4amm Az c z-,4 A1e s- ► )d*-) S A4,kl;4,q y< - d1 6 rye/e- /I(fS4 qVI G `Ig -l7 7 9 tA L' ✓ ' �!/ gs1v�%� Name AL ?al�J T `+_ Telephone or email Address zL PIA fi ri S 172 � 1,^fir li S-�R i'Q w 01111111 9 9) Name 444unr c Cc-nt ea SCL - lag Y -0j .�. Dew E it w Address &ticl- cz� fn,�s,7. rf- �s r 0- �'.i� H �Vcz 7" e -c S -Q 1.Y1Ca Cc, _j 4 Poe zx Telephone or email 1 y 9 CZ/ Name 0 " olvol.va Address -/ _66 L oZ Grna iU A/QJ �J',J It �O3 aIL I%r-►ar I��' I Telephone or email V6 Name "I Address Y r, =LA t ism WE MCI ILA NIPAW.- �Mrdlrl -41 MAU Iff LU " t4 1--(ey- C4kcpl )Wl/ C/ 9, 3 e-4n—,Y- may tv7- 2 t, Telephone or email [-7W- kk2,- -MIA 28