The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About- - ZA-89-25 and ZA-92-10 Appeal 6 - 9/7/2010EXHIBIT L 314 aoi ,— Y3 �. a.,. aa` �i.u. s'�li�c'$��s��x�".��.`iu•:!� �'� ,., lT��v"..ii„ { S..-.'.� +J~.'� _.. S ... .. Recycl.*ing G.arceia 11 Planning Commission Meeting August g, Zolo Legal Standards re: Revocation • According to CMMC § 13-29(0)(1): "the planning commission may require the modification or revocation of any planning application and/or pursue ry� other legal remedies as may be deemed appropriate by the y 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." s LTJ Definition of Nuisance • Civ. Code § 3479 states: "Anything which is injurious to health, including, but not limited to, the illegal sale of controlled substances, oris 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." v Definition of Nuisance • Civ. Code § 348o states: "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 maybe unequal:' Legal Standards re: Revocation Goat Hill Tavern v. City of Costa Mesa, 6 Cal.AppAth 1519 (1992) • "Once a use ermit ha en uroverly issued the y cower of a municipality to revoke it is limited. Of � course, if the permittee does nothing beyond obtaining the permit it maybe 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." Legal Standards re: Revocation Goat Hill Tavern v. City of Costa Mesa, 6 Cal.AppAth 1519 (1992) • When a permittee has acquired such a vested right it maybe revoked if the permittee •fails to comply with reasonable terms or conditions expressed in the permit granted; or • if there is a compelling public necessity • `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. Evidence of Nuisance • Letter dated November 17, i99z signed by 7 individuals re: Garcia Recycling complaining of • Depreciation of homes • Transients (drunkards sleep, urinate, and leave trash hidingbeside the trash centers) ) • Odors, unkempt areas, and unnecessary noise and trash Note that this letter was written prior to Garcia Recycling's relocation to the front of the parking lot away from the residents. Evidence of Nuisance • Undated letter signed by approximately 35 individuals urging the City to revolve Garcia Recycling's use permit stating: �, • 18 years since the City ignored their 1992 complaints Q Same complaints are still applicable • Transients (drunkards asleep all around, urinating, trash) • Odors, unkempt areas, unnecessary noise, trash Evidence of Nuisance • Emails from Smart &Final dated July 7-8,2010. Refers to a complaint letter that is not attached. • "The last thin I would want is all of the transients walking through our store with recycling leaking and causing a mess, and causing security issues. • "I wanted to take some pictures and send in to show the amount of recycling this center does on a daily basis. • "As you can see, it is a very busy center and removing it would not be good for local businesses." • ". . . it is obvious that a center at this location is an absolute necessity." Evidence of Nuisance • Testimony of individual at july][2,201OPlanning Commission meeting complaining of the "look" of Garcia Recycling Counter -evidence of Nuisance • Letter from Victor Bonilla dated July Zi, aoio, part owner and property manager of shopping center housing Garcia Recycling stating: • He has not received complaints re: Garcia Recycling operations • 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" • Garcia Recycling does not bring in transients, there is a soup kitchen across the street • Garcia Recycling keeps its facility clean and its employees are constantly sweeping the area and picking up any litter Counter -Evidence of Nuisance • He and his- tenants have not found .the noise to be offensive given the location of the operation in the parking lot.. He has not received complaints about noise from his customers. •Garcia Recycling is located in an area of the parking lot that does not cause a disruption to customers or the neighboring businesses Counter -Evidence of Nuisance • Letter from neighboring businesses datedjUly 21, .2010 stating: • Garcia Recycling has not disrupted their businesses •They are not offended by the appearance of Garcia `r Recycling's operations, nor have they complained about any noise, litter, or homeless individuals • Unfair to blame Garcia Recycling for homeless when there is a soup kitchen across the street Counter -Evidence of Nuisance • Petition signed by over Soo individuals indicating support for Garcia Recycling and agreeing that • Garcia Recycling's operations are not disruptive to the � surroundings or aesthetically offensive � •Garcia Recycling's services are important to the community 0 Photos —Garcia Recycling View from street driving by Photos —Garcia Recycling View from street driving by Photos —Garcia Recycling View from street driving by Photos —Garcia Recycling Side view of -til---ice- A-- u i`' u _ ��.2 � _ � - -�, _ f��.. ,�`�"+, 9 ��i/✓../Y�. � r : �' � . %' /%-''l; / r�/ z r r r r / ; r�/ r r 104/ri'`�i qy 1 S;Ia .6r l ®j CC y � r f Photos — Garcia Recycling Residents walking to Garcia Recycling Photos — NexCycle/Microsite Photos — NexCycle/Microsite Photos - Earthwize Photos - Earthw'ize '&e) C, Carroll'' Ro D oice Lc gcrL'.C"orrrzytie!' "m .40"J') :nz e 219 4n, �:'mb_ 66.�l ,i A� 1, n District August d"9`40t, %j,201=C. p I "a' n", � n", M, g C-l'o rn,-"M. ISSlotj 01"ity, of C-b-gta Mesa: 71 Fair Drive: Costa Mesa, CA 926`26 Dear , "ornmissibners- t.hio..d,isR'Qs'ffi'Qn of C"O,,gt mbsar68�i'ents:waste, the= t ID.1 , indeed. resident's Gosta Mesa;�$an i Distract doe, waste and the materials are ivOrtpofrom . landfills.Th, qfI owing i8.,.the *- pr6**c*'.e"s'.s'-,,, The District'stra, h"h' 1" Z 'R: R the..materials.an collection dayand .,the ,materialstaken ,'-l i,rectiy,to; the .!,ke n.i,-"- -' ." l _0do' I Reb6V&y"Facility MRF)166dtdd hS_an Stanton Iieiy- rocycIab1esare sorted by' h d ihthbnseparated by type; 0 OP on apprPpri, if ')Y' a;3he market:; 14"open . hAvle.'. additional Jtidhai O*U.d8'tl'o**h'"§" to contact MO. Address Costa y2b�7 2126- W, Oity of Costa Mega DevelOPMent Seivices DOPOrtment AUG 1.8201a' CITY OF COSTA MESA Department of Public Services / Engineering INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Patrick Bauer, Associate Engineer DATE: August 27, 2010 SUBJECT: GARCIA RECYCLING — 739 W. 19TH STREET, COSTA MESA A meeting was held on August 18, 2010, by Development Services and Public Services staff, with Commissioners Jim Fitzpatrick and Stephen Mensinger to discuss concerns expressed by Commissioner Fitzpatrick relative to potential water quality violations at the above location. At the meeting the Commissioners requested staff to provide the following information outlining findings of staff's investigation regarding the Garcia Recycling operations and practices as they pertain to water quality requirements. Garcia Recycling operates a collection facility for plastic bottles, aluminum cans and glass bottles in the parking lot at 739 W. 19tH Street. This business has operated at this location since November 6 1989. To prepare this report, staff reviewed complaint history and. visited the location on various occasions to observe their ongoing practice. During staffs visits it was observed that recyclable materials at this facility are unloaded by customers into mesh bins. Once weighed, the material is separated into barrels and loaded into a truck or a container that remains permanently at the location. As recyclable materials were placed in the mesh bins small amounts of residue were allowed to fall on the ground and were subsequently swept and collected in plastic containers lined with plastic bags. Rubber squeegees were used by Garcia's staff to collect spilled materials and to contain it in the immediate area of the mesh bins. Staff also inspected the equipment, namely a truck used. to remove some of the recyclables.. at the... end... of .the ..day,. _and _a. permanent. storage- container ...ke.pt.....on ..site. Staff found there were no leaks, or evidence of previous leaks of liquid residues or ,engine fluids from either the truck or the permanent container. Staff canvassed the entire area of operation, and found no evidence of any discharge of materials or putrescible waste leaving the site. No evidence was found of any liquids from this operation reaching the gutters on 19th Street. Current Best Management Practices (BMPs) being utilized at the location by the operator include: • The collection site is continuously swept of any solid debris or waste. • All bins, scales and containers used -during the day are placed into the onsite container or in the truck that is removed from the site at the end of the shift. • The collection, area is., cleaned with approximately 5 gallons of water and Lemon Scent Simple Green to assist in cleaning and removal of any dried liquids that may, 1 accumulate, on the ground. The : collection area is then scrubbed with a stiff bristled broom. • Waste water, resulting form the cleaning operation is collected utilizing a rubber squeegee, and it is then collected in a waste barrel lined with a plastic bag,. and subsequently removed from the location. See Attachment "A" for a sequence of photos portraying the clean up methods. Costa Mesa Municipal Code,: Tile VIII, Chapter 3, Section 8-30 (t); (Attachment "B") Definition of a Prohibited Discharge states: Prohibited discharge shall mean any discharge which contains any pollutant from public or private property to: . (i) the stormwater drainage system; any upstream flow, which is tributary to the stormwater drainage system; any groundwater, river, stream, creek, wash or dry weather arroyo, wetlands area, marsh, coastal slough, or (iv) any coastal harbor, bay, or the Pacific Ocean.. The term prohibited discharge shall not include discharges allowable under the discharge exception. A historical analysis of the location indicated no reports or observations of discharges of. liquids into the public right-of-way over the last 5 years. There is no history of water' quality complaints received over the same period of time; and there is no history of water quality violations on record for this operation Attachment A: Cleaning Process Photos Attachment B:'.. Costa Mesa Municipal Code, Title VIII, Chapter 3, Section 8-30 (t) c Allan Roeder; City Manager Kim Barlow, City Attorney Peter Naghavi, Director, Department of Public Services Kim Brandt, Director, Development Services Department Ernesto Munoz, City Engineer N :r:1 al I a to Process Photc Niru a �{pllI . 7w Y � l Y i ,y� � t � � �� .v� �• '9��. st4fr;lll�i��l'JI�OIIHr� 1 ,: j � � Costa Mesa Municipal Code, Title VIII, Chapter 3, Section 8-30 (t)Prohibited discharge shall mean any discharge which contains any pollutant, from public or private property to (i) the stormwater drainage system; (ii) any upstream flow, which is tributary to the stormwater drainage system; (iii) any groundwater, river, stream, creek, wash or dry weather arroyo, wetlands area, marsh, coastal slough, or (iv) any coastal harbor, bay, or the Pacific Ocean. The term prohibited discharge shall not include discharges allowable under the discharge exception. ii `�`�1 Attachment B