HomeMy WebLinkAbout- - ZA-89-25 & ZA-92-10 (10) - 10/19/2010ATTACHMENT 4
December 3, 1991
GARCIA RECYCLING
CITY OF cosTA �aa7,q
CAUFORMIA 92s26.1200
P.O. BOX 1200
DEVELOPMENT SEAVJ,M DEPATrrMEAl7
Dr. Russell Pang
1831 orange AVennue
Suite E
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
REQ MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PER=T SA -89.25
nECY•CLINlTG CENTER'
739 IMAM 19TH Bi'ItELT Cos
Dear Dr, pang:
19002/002
It has come to Staff } s attention that the recycling center approved
under ZA--89-25 is not being conducted, as
is my understanding that the business origina�.IY approved. itowner has expanded from the
one truck originally approved (that would cover one
parking space)
to two truck trailers as V611 as the original trucks
the operations have been. Moved to the rear a Additionally,
residentially zoned and developedproperty.a sZ e, adjacent to
p
As this use - and any expansion Or modification
Conditional Use Permit, ,a hew Minor Conditional Use needs a Permit must be
aPPlied or the business, as it is now being conducted, may be
required to be discontinued.
I have enclosed the necessary paperwork.
resolution of this matter In order to allow the
,as soon as Possible
the business be returned to.the state originaill ask that either
Zoning Administrator or that a
December 31, 1991,. new application be V filed by
77 FAIN a�
Bultdtng DEylslon (718) 7543626 o Cads EnfaraementlBusiness Cleanse n,wi 7$4-52M , PlsnnlRg GMBEDh i714j 7$4b2.5
ATTACHMENT
rr
y
Imo", V
Ar
t' , o"& a -�
.�." _."��,�"} :. � xrm � �-. F' '' i.. , •rte. d p,�a
>..r - � �..-",R,+Fr s s� •5" Ss �Ic� �^ � i ��' i ddb ° ;�.L ' y ?n
Ix
.,^_3': ,,• 3£ntliP4'I �ry 'yL•'a '{��n a :LL �L,i,.,y.; 4 q f/ 4- d 2�1� n "'4'" K .
3Fr� x Rill�� _ `£ :'k ar,� 6`t'�fij.ye ;•,,et
r ,.. y.... t .. z •,r �. TM .
x � '
Earthwize Recycling
2180 Newport Blvd.
Garcia Recycling
739 W. 19, Street
� ,$ ��a .
��kl �g '"ci-:�Y't" 3 f 7 v� i ��
d�
t� , �
i,
- a ti'.
cAgf
Y�:
}
�.
�5. =-j -�:
f � k�y1��
S
� '�
�'
x , r. _ .,i,.
r � �
" �}�
"'� 'r
r..�
...�-,—"
� a ''
,`.
r
i{
f., � _
From: Dee Ann Catlin
Sent: Thu 7/8/2010 12:37 PM
To: Jim Fitzpatrick
Cc: 'FLYNN, CLAIRE'; 'NGUYEN, KHANH`; cc389 Costa Mesa; Laura Jimenez
Subject: RE: #389 - Costa Mesa - Recycling
Thank youl Typically in those areas where a Smart & Final is in an unserved zone, we will take in the
recycling at the store. However, having said that, the amount of recycling that those stores actually see is
next to nothing. In those few cases where the amount of recycling is overwhelming (like Store #377 in
San Luis Obispo) we use TOMRA. This would always be our first option for a certified company.
TOMRA always follows through with any complaints or problems associated with their centers. They man
their centers during certain hours and make sure the area is maintained. The other issue that we find to
be a problem is the location of the center in the parking lot. Placing it in an area such as it is here in
Costa Mesa is a problem.
Although these centers if they are not run properly can cause problems such as those we have here in
Costa Mesa, it is obvious that a center at this location is an absolute necessity. Removing the center will
create an "unserved zone" for retails in this area and based on the amount of recycling that this center
generates, it would create a huge labor intense burden on all retails in this zone.
These are my recommendations: (Based on the application I can not tell if the applicant is the property
owner or the recycling company) However, I suggest that additional conditions be imposed on both,
requiring that the center be manned during certain hours of each day (as required by statute) and that the
area be maintained daily, removing all trash. I would also include a condition advising that if the
conditions are not met the city will require that the property owner find another recycling company to take
over the center. If possible I would also move the center from the front of the lot to the back.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Thanks!
mmq/2n10
1E1.4
2A -5 q- a5P-zA -?D- is
Attachments: Recycling center 001.jpg; Recycling center 002.jpg; Recycling center pic 3.jpg
From., Dee Ann Catlin[mailto:Dee.Catlin@smartandfinal.com]
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 9:51 AM'
Tcr Jim Fitzpatrick
Cc, NGUYEN, KHANH; LEE, MEL
-Subject:-FW,-#389 -Costa-Mesa-Recycling
Hi Jim, Here are some pictures of the recycling area that our manager took this morning. As you can
see, it is a very busy center and removing would not.be good for local businesses. However, moving it to
a different area would probably be a better solution.
Let -me know if you have any questions.
Thanks!
From., cc389 Costa Mesa
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 8:06 AM
To: cc389 Costa Mesa; Dee Ann Catlin; Rosie Squieri
Co: Donald Alvarado; Monika Harmon; Laura Jimenez
Subject: FW: #389 - Costa Mesa Recycling
Hello,
I added picture #3
The guys just opened 7:55 am and their is about 25 to 30 people waiting for to start recycling.
Thanks again
Tim
SMARM & MA
CC389
From, cc389 Costa Mesa
Sent. Monday, July 12, 2010 7:56 AM
To: cc389 Costa Mesa; Dee Ann Catlin; Ron Graves; Rosie Squieri
Cc: Donald Alvarado; Monika Harmon; Laura Jimenez
;Subject: RE: #389 - Costa Mesa Recycling
Hello,
I wanted to take some pictures and send in to show the amount of recycling this center does on a daily
basis. These pictures were taken at about 7:30 this morning and every morning we have the same
amount of people waiting for it to open. It would be next to impossible for us to take in this amount of
recycling. This center is usually this busy from open to close and they usually have 4 to 5 employees
manning this bin, and have a Full truck switched out half way through the business day. I will be going
__, -/_,,
on vacation next week and wanted to give everyone a clear picture of how busy this bin is.
Picture 001 shows the line of recyclers and a bicyclist coming up with his recycling to get in line.
Picture 002 shows the line of people and a car waiting to unload when center opens.
Thanks,
Tim
SMART & FINAL.
CC389
From. cc389 Costa Mesa
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 10:54 AM
Too Dee Ann Catlin; Ron Graves; Rosie Squieri
Cee Donald Alvarado; Monika Harmon; Laura Jimenez
Subject. RE: #389 - Costa Mesa Recycling
Hello, Dee Ann
I would agree with the bullet points in this letter 100%. The foreseeable issues we will have is way to
much recycling for our store to handle this recycling center does so much business I am amazed that
there is that much to recycle in Costa Mesa. We have cars, truck wagons, wheel barrels you name it full
everyday heading to this center for recycling. The last thing I would want is all of the transients walking
through our store with recycling leaking and causing a mess, and security issues.
I had this issue at CC418 years ago and it was a hassle. We would recycle at store level give customers
cash back on recycling when you have someone come in with 5 to 6 bags full and you would have to
hand count each can and bottle. We would then have to give them cash back through
credit key, and then we would have to re bag all recycling and then load all recycling
into my car and drive it to a recycling center. I would have to separate and recycle at
center, and get receipt from center go into store (Ralph's and get money from clerk at
register) I then would return to store put money back into register, and closer would
enter moneys into check out so store would balance out on check out.
I feel this would be a huge issue for our store if we had to recycle in store it would be a night mare.
Thanks,
Tim
SMART & FINAL
CC389
From: Dee Ann Catlin
Sent. Wednesday, July 07, 2010 10:23 AM
To- Ron Graves; cc389 Costa Mesa; Rosie Squieri
Ccs Donald Alvarado; Monika Harmon
Subject: FW: #389 - Costa Mesa Recycling
This morning I received a call from Jim FitzpatrickN Mr. Fitzpatrick is a planner at the City
of Costa Mesa. He wanted to advise us that a public hearing is set for Monday July 12, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.
for a review of the recycling center CUP that is issued to the lot adjacent to store #389 Costa Mesa.
Apparently Smart & Final wrote a complaint letter to the city regarding this issue (see attached) and
therefore they wanted to give us an opportunity to appear at the hearing with our concerns. Although I do
understand the many issues and concerns that these types of centers create, it is important to understand
that if this center is removed from the location, this will put store #389 in an "Unserved Zone" and each
-retailer _in_this-zone will -than -be -required -to -take -in -recycling.
Please let me know what your position is regarding this center and also let me know if any of you would
like to attend this hearing so that 1 can let the planner know.
Thanks!
Dee Ann
!11•J /1 11 /11 111 A
:1 4�0410
mmPL---4�wmm
..............
"OVA
silo
z I a -
-------------------------
--------------
:1 4�0410
mmPL---4�wmm
..............
"777f7
"OVA
-------------------------
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
"777f7
� mJIM,
, tey'
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
� mJIM,
, tey'
7w,
tl
00
7w,
_ i�,_ -
i
k,. 4 A.
�vM
.. 4,-'.'+rx�a'fyry^"rme's'g*w �` t ✓ad r�Y .> ? p _ - -
-
� d + rpt
�• I w �.
iy f •;1 v {a'y�y i '�i�at
°*�,� "�„ ...n--� .,.-..-� _" � +• •,� � , ► qtr'
.a� n
w,
CRY of Costa Mesa
Development Services Department
JUL 12 2010
NOVEMBER 17, 1992
COSTA MESO ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
CITY OF COSTA MESA
P.O. BOX 1200
COSTA MESA., CA ' 92628-1200
RE.' ZONING ACT16N•ZA=92-10 FOR JESUS GARCIA.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
WE AR8 SUBMITTING WRITTEN COMMENTS REGARDING THE ABOVE
APPLICATION,
*IT WILL FURTHER DEPRECIATE OUR HOME AND THE EXISTING HOMES
IN THE .AREA. THIS AREA IS ALREADY STRUGGLING. WITH A NUMBER OF
PROBLEMS. THIS'WILL CAUSE US TO RECONSIDER HOME IMPROVEMENTS!
*IT WILL BRING Its TRANSIENTS BRINGING THEIR COLLECTED -GOODS
FOR MONEY-. (DRUNKARDS SLEEP, URINATE, AND LEAVE TRASH HIDING.
BESIDE THE TRASH -CENTERS„)
*THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ALREADY ESTABLISHED RECYCLING
CENTERS IN THE CITY. (EXQ ORANGE COAST COLLEGE, STATER
EROS. MARKET)
*WITH RECYCLED TRASH COMES ODORS, UNKEPT AREAS, AND
UNNECESSARY -NOISE AND TRASH. (WITH THE.PRESENT PLACEMENT OF THE
RECYCLING CENTER NOISE OF THE RECYCLING CENTER CAN BE HEART) ON
BOTH SIDES OF THE 700 CENTER ST, WHAT WOULD THE MOVING THE
CENTER 100 YRDS. DO?)
WE AOE ANGRY! THIS WILL NOT DE TOLLERATED IN OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD,
)Zj b tl�1���_.-
,
2;5ZI-( 6x ��/_ L�n_L .�_% int• /
—----------------
._
-1-__ -___ -r��. _� _SLS'__ ��� �►-------- �.L�_� _- `j' wL,L �---_-____
Costa Mesa Zoning Administrator
City of Costa Mesa
Re: Zoning Action reference ZA-89-25 & ZA-89-25
It has been 18 years since the City of Costa Mesa ignored our 1992 messages imploring the city to deny
or get rid of the Jesus.Garcia Recycling center in the parking lot of the Lion's Den/Smart and Final.
In the 1992, letter, these complaints and concerns were voiced in opposition to the operation's
presence:
Bring in transients; drunkard asleep all around, urinating, trash:
There are alternative recycling destinations available that produce less impact in their locale;
Odors, unkept areas, unnecessary noise, trash.
This nuisance's presence needs to be terminated. 18 years of problems is onerous and oppressive. None
of these conditions are less now than in 1992. Please do not let history repeat itself. WE urge the
facility's operational permissions be permanently revoked as an 18 year period without cure is not
excusable, and continued permission constitutes undue prejudice against those most impacted by the
negative effects of this operation.
City of Costa Mesa Planning commission, please revoke their use permit immediately. Thank you for
your time.
YLC� !�-4rytT- n
-703 v
r'z��C-74, 117
Costa Mesa Zoning Administrator
City of Costa Mesa
Re: Zoning Action reference ZA-89=25 & ZA-89-25
It has been 18 years since the City of Costa Mesa ignored our 1992 messages imploring the city to deny
or get rid of the lesus.Garcia Recycling center in the parking lot of the Lion's Den/Smart and Final.
In the 1992, letter; these complaints and concerns were voiced in opposition to the operation's
presence:
Bring in transients; drunkard asleep all around, urinating, trash:
There are alternative recycling destinations available that produce less impact in their locale;
Odors, unkept areas; unnecessary noise, trash.
This nuisance's presence needs to be terminated. 18 years of problems is onerous and oppressive. None
of these conditions are less now than in 1992. Please do not let history repeat itself. WE urge the
facility's operational permissions be permanently revoked as an 18 year period without cure is not
excusable, and continued permission constitutes undue prejudice against those most impacted by the
negative effects of this operation.
City of Costa Mesa Planning commission, please revoke their use permit immediately. Thank you for
your time.
z6- 7
Costa Mesa Zoning Administrator
City of Costa Mesa
Re: Zoning Action reference ZA-89-25 & ZA-89-25
It has been 18 years since the City of Costa Mesa ignored our 1992 messages imploring the city to deny
or get rid of the Jesus.Garcia Recycling center in the parking lot of the Lion's Den/Smart and Final.
In the 1992, letter, these complaints and concerns were voiced in opposition to the operation's
presence:
Bring in transients; drunkard asleep all around, urinating, trash:
There are alternative recycling destinations available that produce less impact in their locale;
Odors, unkept areas, unnecessary noise, trash.
This nuisance's presence needs to be terminated. 18 years of problems is onerous and oppressive. None
of these conditions are less now than in 1992. Please do not let history repeat itself. WE urge the
facility's operational permissions be permanently revoked as an 18 year period without cure is not
excusable, and continued permission constitutes undue prejudice against those most impacted by the
negative effects of this operation.
City of Costa Mesa Planning commission, please revoke their use permit immediately. Thank you for
your time.
S05
Costa Mesa Zoning Administrator
City of Costa Mesa
Re: Zoning Action reference ZA-89-25 & ZA-89-25
It has been 18 years since the City of Costa Mesa ignored our 1992 messages imploring the city to deny
or get rid of the Jesus.Garcia Recycling center in the parking lot of the Lion's Den/Smart and Final.
In the 1992, letter, these complaints and concerns were voiced in opposition to the operation's
presence:
Bring in transients; drunkard asleep all around, urinating, trash:
There are alternative recycling destinations available that produce less impact in their locale;
Odors, unkept areas, unnecessary noise, trash.
This nuisance's presence needs to be terminated. 18 years of problems is onerous and oppressive. None
of these conditions are less now than in 1992. Please do not let history repeat itself. WE urge the
facility's operational permissions be permanently revoked as an 18 year period without cure is not':
excusable, and continued permission constitutes undue prejudice against those most impacted by the
negative effects of this operation.
City of Costa Mesa Planning commission , please revoke their use permit immediately. Thank you for
yourtime.
�� b
�
7
k- 7 2
Si-,
CQSA-6,
C � �2�
�� b
�
7
Costa Mesa Zoning Administrator
City of Costa Mesa
L
Re: Zoning Action reference ZA-89-25 & ZA-89-25
It has been 18 years since the City of Costa Mesa ignored our 1992 messages imploring the city to deny
or get rid of the Jesus.Garcia Recycling center in the parking lot of the Lion's Den/Smart and Final.
In the 1992, letter, these complaints and concerns were voiced in opposition to the operation's
presence:
Bring in transients; drunkard asleep all around, urinating, trash:
There are alternative recycling destinations available that produce less impact in their locale;
Odors, unkept areas, unnecessary noise, trash.
This nuisance's presence needs to be terminated. 18 years of problems is onerous and oppressive. None
of these conditions are less now than in 1992. Please do not let history repeat itself. WE urge the
facility's operational permissions be permanently revoked as an 18 year period without cure is not
excusable, and continued permission constitutes undue prejudice against those most impacted by the
negative effects of this operation.
City of Costa Mesa Planning commission, please revoke their use permit immediately. Thank you for
your time.
Costa Mesa Zoning Administrator
City of Costa Mesa
Re.. Zoning Action reference ZA-89-25 & ZA-89-25
It has been 18 years since the City of Costa Mesa ignored our 1992 messages imploring the city to deny
or get rid of the Jesus.Garcia Recycling center in the parking lot of the Lion's Den/Smart and Final.
In the 1992, letter, these complaints and concerns were voiced in opposition to the operation's
presence:
Bring in transients; drunkard asleep all around, urinating, trash:
There are alternative recycling destinations available that produce less impact in their locale;
Odors, unkept areas, unnecessary noise, trash.
This nuisance's presence needs to be terminated. 18 years of problems is onerous and oppressive. None
of these conditions are less now than in 1992. Please do not let history repeat itself. WE urge the
facility's operational permissions be permanently revoked as an 18 year period without cure is not
excusable, and continued permission constitutes undue prejudice against those most impacted by the
negative effects of this operation,
City of Costa Mesa Planning commission, please revoke their use permit immediately. Thank you for
your time.
rx?a La 1/7 e vi 4e,/ AJ
262
CM 9ZGZ7
C� I -C, 27
Ew
M:-. V
7-A - S9. -a5 and -zh-9a -1 o
Attachments: Notice re neighborhood meeting.pdf; Spanish Notice of Meeting.pdf; Letter from Victor
Bonilla re Garcia Recycling 072110.pdf; Letter from Businesses re Garcia Recycling
072110.pdf; Signed petition.pdf
Fk6m: Patricia J. Chen [mailto:pchen@miles-chen.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 2:40 PM
To: LEE _MEL
Cc: 'Garcia Recycling'; FREDCANLAS@aol.com; 'Stephen Miles'
Subject: Update on Garcia Recycling
Mel,
Per your request, we would like to update you on our progress to date with respect to Garcia Recycling.
We held a neighborhood meeting yesterday at the Costa Brava Restaurant in the shopping center after
having the business pass out flyers during the preceding week (the two, flyers are attached (Spanish and
English)). More than 20 individuals attended. We explained to the attendees that the City had received
complaints about Garcia Recycling and was debating whether to modify or revoke Garcia Recycling's
conditional use permit. The attendees expressed overwhelming support of Garcia Recycling. They
raised the following points:
• Garcia Recycling is the best recycling facility in the area because the employees are nice, work
really hard, go out of their way to assist customers, and are fast so the wait time is much less.
than other facilities, its operation is the cleanest around, and Garcia Recycling is honest and not
swindlers (in paying for the recyclables).
® The City is using Garcia Recycling as a scapegoat for the homeless who loiter in the area.
Removal of Garcia Recycling would not solve the homeless problem. There is a -liquor store and
soup kitchen across the street which attract the homeless. The City should address the
homeless problem.
• Many people 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. Another woman said that she had lost her
job a few years ago and is dependent on Garcia Recycling for her income.
• Many people walk to the facility and would not be able to recycle at the other facilities if Garcia is
shut down because they are too far
® 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
® Another person indicated 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
• Another person noted that he spends all his cash that he earns at Garcia within a 2-3 block
radius of Garcia Recycling and so Garcia Recycling is good for the City.
We asked how Garcia Recycling could better improve its operations, particularly visually since that was
the predominant concern raised at the last Planning Commission meeting. The responses were as
follows:
One person said the operations really can't be improved visually and that he can't see the
operation from the street. Others agreed.
® Another person suggested using synthetic grass so that the grass doesn't die (we responded
that Garcia Recycling used to have synthetic grass but the City asked to have it removed)
® Another person suggested painting a mural on the side of the container (we responded that the
City would not allow this)
® Some individuals expressed the sentiment that the City just doesn't like having to look at
homeless'people and that it isn't Garcia Recycling's fault
07/28/2010
® One person raised the fact that the City does not like the look of 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.
Because we had expected more people to attend, including those who oppose Garcia Recycling's
operations, we decided that we should specifically reach out to those parties who signed the petition
submitted to the City. We are sending out a letter to those parties today to give them an opportunity to
voice their concerns to us so that we can address their issues. The letter is attached.
Furthermore, we received a letter of support from Victor Bonilla, the part owner of the shopping center
and owner of several businesses in the center including the EI Toro Market, and a letter of support from
the businesses in the shopping center, both are attached. Finally, I have also attached a petition in
support of Garcia Recycling which is growing by the day. I will send you an updated petition closer to the
meeting.
We have been in touch with CalRecycle as well, specifically Walt Simmons, who has given us some
guidance on an alternative site which I will discuss in our submittal. However, from speaking to
community members and businesses in the area, it seems clear that Garcia Recycling should not be
relocated. The community depends on the facility. We do not believe that the complaints that the City
has received warrants relocating Garcia Recycling.
I am in the process of preparing an additional submittal on behalf of Garcia Recycling. I had hoped to get
it to you today for you to include in your agenda package, but I have been sidetracked by other matters
and will get it to you as soon as I can.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Pat
Patricia J. Chen, Esq., LEED AP
9911 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 150 1 Irvine, CA 92618 1 (213) 804-8000
0 cid:6DF99365-4CF1-413D4-8B6B-.
This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of
the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact me and delete all copies.
07/28/2010
TO THE NEIGHBORS AND BUSINESS OWNERS
SURROULADING_GARCIA_REC_Y_CLIN_G -LOCATED AT
739 WEST 19TH STREET, COSTA MESA, CA
On July 9tH, 2010, the Costa Mesa Planning Commission called
for review of Garcia Recycling's conditional use permit due to
purported complaints about its operations from the community.
The Planning Commission is contemplating either: modifying, or,-
revoking
r.: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.
Nevertheless,. Garcia Recycling is very concerned about these
complaints and would like to invite you to voice your opinion about
our recycling facility so that we can better improve our service to
the community.
Please join us on Monday, July 26, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. at Costa
Brava Restaurant located at 727 West 19th Street, Costa
Mesa. Refreshments and snacks will be provided.
A los vecinos y duenos comerciales alrededor
de Garcia Recycling en 739 W. 7th Street, Costa
Mesa, CA:
EI 9 de Julio de 2010, la Comisiori de Planificacion de la ciudad
de Costa Mesa pidio una revision al use conditional del permiso
de Garcia Recycling debido a quejas pretendidas sobre sus
operaciones de la comunidad. La comision de planificacion
contempla a modificar o a revocar el permiso . de Garcia
Recycling. La audiencia en esta cuestion esta programada el 9
de Agosto de 2010 a las 6:00pm. Creemos que se revocan el
permiso es excesivamente contra dictorio ya que proporcionamos
un servicio muy necesario a la comunidad, y en el proceso
ayudamos a desviar la basura del basurero.
Garcia Recycling este preocupada por estas quejas y a la
compania le gustaria invitarles a decir su opinion sobre nuestra
instalacion de reciclaje de modo que podamos mejorar nuestro
servicio a la comunidad.
Por favor acompanenos el tunes, 26 de Julio de 2010 a las
9:30am en el Restaurante La Costa Brava en 727 West 19th
Street, Costa Mesa.
Bebidas y antojitos estaran dispuestas.
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:
Received
City of Costa Mesa
Development Services Department
JUL 2 7 2010
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, 1 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.
gal
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,
J
ff-,$3
.zA` S9 r�6 CAZA-
Received
City of Costa Mesa
Development Services Department
JUL 2 7 2010
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:
Weare 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. It is 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.
2
Company: e,'
Date: 1 --
Company: ` 0.�� �L2.�� ii�Pi'� iflA ( L
Date: —7'r�3 w
0
Company:PO : —�
Date: :7 z Z3 4 Dd C
0
Company: J a 's /
Date:
By: �e1�.�<< 1 �ios -
Compan
D- ' r.
LOW.
By: DC, -n CA Cl Q-�JL?)
Company:
Date: -Oq - 2- � -10 -,
Company:
Date:
By:
Company:
Date:
M
Name
Address
- Vii'/ � �� s�
oz
V -P
MOW=
7400 eL - &az� Ake/. CA
WO MEMPIT "IM
-1 n9' 1 -? 0)
I
.171
-e-AA 10
Y
S
a VT
5-17y 11-5h 91
y a
ssaippv
17�
ry��
awgN
Name
s h
► �� =� � ~
L
Address
L
'lC?tr Ld3,1-a Mt-Sd Ca
v
w �
C
C
(ji
Name
At,�, A L
9a� V o 1 -
Lai"
� i -.Catoll
Address
ev*OAIK 1--U-
Ave
-41
v - c
EM
i
—Forms we ME
s •
Cca
Name Address
g/ &6,�d
�7�'�;..w � ��ii.idari J:� •. !r !�R �►�\lel � � -C
•
M -A V A LFA 5 P ME
ELM=
-
Ir
.1
?z
2 TJAOJUOR big!
PEA
WIT
t'''SIT
Namng/.? Address
�i_/ / :.ter ifs r��•r� :/'f
. r
('7g W. I9 r" Sr
�
�r CO
211
. � R � , rl `� 4 � 1. ��l � � K�• 'f ., l � f ��V
r 2 Y r•" n W
On Jul 9th 2d1d
y , the Costa Mesa Planning Commission called for review of Garcia Recycling's
conditional use permit for its operations at 739 W. 19th Street due to purported complaints about its
operations from the community. The 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
0:00 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 th'e area, picking up
anylitter, and keeping our trucks and containers freshly painted and free of graffiti. We also do our best
to serve our customers as quickly as possible by having a large, well-trained staff. II 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.
Name Address
. 5 - — I / 2 f� 1 6 s k
Telephone or email
C f
r c
M
MU
From: Jim Fitzpatrick
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 3:26 PM
To: LEE, MEL
Cc. NGUYEN, KHANH
Subject: FW: Recycling Center
Mel,
Suggest that this picture also be shared with Planning Commissioners and be considered as part of the
Staff Report.
Jim
Ralph's @ 2555 Eastbluff N6, CA
-MO
no/n)/1)nin
From: - LEE, MEL
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 8:06 AM
To: VIERA, CORRIE
gubject: FW: Newport Beach code on recycling center
- Another -for -the -Commission
Thanks,
Mel
From: Jim Fitzpatrick
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 3:18 PM
To: LEE, MEL
Cc: NGUYEN, KHANH
Subject: RE: Newport Beach code on recycling center
Mel, Can you please send this to all Commissioners so that have this, and consider making it part of the
Staff Report.
Thanks,
Jim
From: Jim Fitzpatrick
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 9:40 AM
To: 'LEE, MEL'
Cc: 'NGUYEN, KHANH'
Subject: FW: Newport Beach code on recycling center
Mel, just wanted to follow up on our meeting, here is the NB vs CM code comparison
on Recycling Centers.
Jim
Following is a brief comparison of the City of Newport Beach's and Costa Mesa's
regulations on recycling facilities. Overall, it appears that the City of Newport Beach
has codified (in other words, specified in their Municipal .Code) specific regulations that
would typically appear as conditions of approval on the use permit application in Costa
Mesa. '
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Differences:
08/02/2010
Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC) does not make a distinction
between small and large recycling facilities. Code requires a MCUP in
primarily all of the commercial and industrial zones, excluding Town Center
zoning district where they are prohibited.
® CMMC does not specify a buffer zone or separation requirement from
residential zones.
® CMMC does not specify that the recycling facility be comprised of
enclosed structures or be screened by a block wall.
® CMMC does specify that the recycling facility be located outside the
required street setback.
® CMMC makes a distinction between what types of materials can be
recycled or collected in terms of being hazardous or nonhazardous
materials.
Similarities:
Costa Mesa has similar requirements through conditions of approval
regarding signage, parking availability, appearance of storage containers,
litter -free environment, prohibition on parking of commercial vehicles (i.e.
box trucks), etc.
Through conditions we can also indicate what types of materials (i.e. only
CRV glass, aluminum, or plastic containers, paper, and other recyclable
items and not scrap metal) can be recycled.
Thanks.
Claire
here is the Title 20 Code from NB
20.48.160 — Recycling Facilities
This Section establishes standards and procedures for the siting and operation of various types
and sizes of commercial recycling facilities.
A. Small collection facilities. A small collection facility shall:
1. Not exceed an area of 350 square feet or 3 parking spaces, not including space
that would be periodically needed for the removal of materials or exchange of
containers;
2. Be set back at least 10 feet from a public right-of-way and shall not obstruct
pedestrian or vehicular circulation;
3. Accept only CRV glass, aluminum, or plastic containers, paper, and other
recyclable items;
4. Not use power -driven processing equipment;
6. Not be located within 50 feet of a lot zoned or occupied for residential use;
08/02/2010
7. Have containers and site fencing that are compatible in color and design and
harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood;
S. Store materials in sturdy containers that are secured and maintained in good
condition. Storage, excluding truck trailers, shall not be visible above the height
of the required screen walls;
9. Be kept clean and free of litter;
10. Have signs as follows:
a.. Identification signs with a maximum area of 15 percent for each side of
the structure or 12 square feet, whichever is less. In the case of a
_wh_ee_led_facility_, the_ side_ shall be measured from the ground to -the top of
the container;
b. Signs that are compatible and harmonious with the character of their
location; and
c. Directional signs, consistent with Chapter 20.42 (Sign Standards) and
without advertising message, installed with the approval of the Director if
found necessary to facilitate traffic circulation or, if the facility is not visible
from the public right-of-way.
11. Not reduce available parking spaces below the minimum number required for the
principal use.
B. Large collection facilities. A large collection facility shall:
1. Not be located within 300 feet of a residential use;
2. Be screened from public rights-of-way by solid masonry walls or located within an
enclosed structure as required by the review authority;
4. Store materials in sturdy containers that are secured and maintained in good
condition. Storage, excluding truck trailers, shall. not be visible above the height
of the required screen walls; and
5. Be kept clean and free of, litter.
08/02/2010
Ms. Gabriele McAllister
2010 376 E 18th St. # C
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
-ff- . 3
7-A -,69 -a5 �. 'zA-9a - 10
Received
City of Costa Mesa
i AU .�. �� Development Services Department
� 20
C /0 1 Lec- �S2V1rs PfQ11Y1er- G 4 10
kre Lee -
:Z ck:vn L3 r ,' 4 lav`` f �� i-�►,�s P .- -� ��( �
Ga�rc (,CIL s pec c f r h nA- W. 19 -� S -- y
q y ,
r1Gtr�/
b -e -em k\q YK 4 r2.L dle- ere -
6 6 s — Tw U oe 9 S lc:�
fo
V e.k C dem O -IAA 4�-e P42rso-hel a S e-�-�reh,, l
e( P �LI , `nee
�0L_Ve S4�JPY� i-�,rd�st is �eV� Y I7�h
�O V) Ck- 0-b VYN FO-ki k Or
Uu\ C)CL-k Vy" coor R (.,t 4r-) J' V-yI frz) LAP P- C' r
I V) cj-V-k-�-cr'-f arcc>s
jr'er'dlo-�Xd
uv+r��
�1 O"V lc)vv� , Also 4e s 3 �l
so Peo GLCP- CL,6
CU \ �I UJA cr��Viael �-2 u A
e'-7 kOLe s . � -
4A"'a' - gcd'-C; CL' s
TY-) c u h olcL s 'bt j , _Z: '4 rec. (l S -e Q-
c�,Y• r�cLSa� wl-t L"tL`( d w
OL
'14 Ur,(, &�&Jo,( kocvp-
q46 Y4 13 6
�c
l"
C, 7 � m
w
V-) «r.,P-I �) )
C� e,, Gc - ��;�d-r� ►::5t- Ck e4,7
01
MILES*
CHEN
ZAAI- a5 y, zfl - qal-10
9911 Irvine Center Drive, Suite ISO • Irvine, CA 92618 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Phone: 949.788.1425 Fax (949) 788-1991t I _ _
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.
-J'1�
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 Un and Would
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.App.4th 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."
i
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-itscapacity 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(o)(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:
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 Ca1.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.
1 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.
3�
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
z 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.4`h 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 "causef] a
supermarket site to close its business." Pub. Res. Code § 1458 1 (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.
�5�
Planning Commission
August 6, 2010
Page 7 of 8
4.. There is no Reason to Relocate Garcia Recycling 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
bestinterest of the community arid—the -City. Based on our discussions with thecommunity,
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 Recyclin
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 City 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.
cc: Fred N. Canlas, CPA (via email)
Jesus Garcia (via email)
Rebecca Robins (via email)
David Rodriguez (via email)
��
Sincerely,
Patricia J. Chen