HomeMy WebLinkAbout- - ZA-89-25 & ZA-92-10 (3) - 10/19/2010ATTACHMENT 3
CORRESPONDENCE FROM
SEPTEMBER 7, 2010 TO PRESENT
3a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STEPHEN M. MILES (State Bar No. 185596)
PATRICIA J. CHEN (State Bar No. 197719)
MILES e CHEN LAW GROUP
A Professional Corporation
9911 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 150
Irvine, California 92618
Telephone: (949) 788-1425
Facsimile: (949) 788-1991
Attorney for Garcia Recycling Center
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA
In the matter of
Revocation of Zoning Applications
ZA-89-25 and ZA-92-10 by City of
Costa Mesa Planning Commission
I. INTRODUCTION
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
Date of decision: August 9, 2010
The Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa (the "Planning Commission"), has
decided that Appellant Garcia Recycling Center's ("Garcia Recycling") operations on 19`x' Street
must go, notwithstanding the fact that it has lawfully operated therefor over 20 years. On or
about June 9, 2010, Commissioner Mesinger called up for review to the Planning Commission
Garcia Recycling's minor conditional use permits to consider modification or revocation of the
permits for "an existing neighborhood recycling facility (Garcia Recycling) located in the
parking area of a retail shopping center." See City Council Agenda Report dated August 26,
2010 ("Staff Report") at 58.1 Unlike most revocation proceedings, the matter was not raised by
'We received an email from Mel Lee with a link to Staff Report on September 3, 2010. Staff is recommending a
continuance of this item to "provide the appellant with an appropriate amount of time (over 30 calendar days) to
review and respond to the issues discussed in this staff report with regard to the appeal," however, Garcia Recycling
does not want the item continued. Although Garcia Recycling would have appreciated receipt of the Staff Report
well in advance of the September 7, 2010 hearing, pursuant to Section 2-203(2) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code,
MEMORANDUM OF P'S AND A'S IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
1
2
3
4
5
6'
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the City's Planning Staff ("Staff") due to repeated citations. In fact, Staff had been working with
Garcia Recycling, on various issues, none of which arose to a level of nuisance justifying
revocation much less a citation. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission not only decided to
initiate the proceedings without any justification and it also proceeded to revoke Garcia
Recycling's conditional use permit without adequately articulating the reasons for revoking
Garcia Recycling's vested rights. In doing so, it violated Garcia Recycling's due process rights,
the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and the Ralph M. Brown Act (the "Brown
Act").
To add insult to injury, realizing that the record was indeed devoid of any citations or
enforcement actions taken against Garcia Recycling, the City began issuing citations to Garcia
Recycling after the Planning Commission had already voted to revoke Garcia Recycling's
permits. After 20 years of operation without receiving a single citation, the City issued three
citations in the span of 10 days (on August 16th, 20th, and 25th).2 See Staff Report at 35-37. This
is a prime example of post hoc rationalization - a means to attempt to justify its revocation of the
permits.
Continuing their "witch hunt," it appears that Commissioners Fitzpatrick and Mesinger
met with the Development Services and Public Services staff on August 18, 2010 to "discuss
concerns expressed by Commissioner Fitzpatrick relative to potential water quality violations at
[Garcia Recycling]." Staff Report at 268.
"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."
Id. In fact, Staff found that Garcia Recycling was implementing current Best Management
Practices and that "rtlhere is no history of water quality complaints received over the (last five
"the appeal shall be considered at the first regular meeting which follows receipt of the application by ten (10) or
more days, and which allows sufficient time for the giving of notice as required by section 2-308." (emphasis
added). Garcia Recycling invokes its right to have a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision and
submits that the City does not have the authority to unilaterally continue the item pursuant to Section 2-203.
z These citations simply indicate a "violation of conditional use permit," and do not shed any light on what
violations occurred. Garcia Recycling is currently in the process of requesting administrative review of the
citations.
MEMORANDUM OF P'S AND A'S IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
-b�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
yearsl; and there is no history of water quality violations on record for this operation." Id. at 269
(emphasis in original).
Recognizing that Garcia Recycling was justified in pointing out that no one has every
indicated which conditions of approval it has purportedly violated, Staff, has for the first time
indicated which conditions of approval are at issue. See Staff Report at 4. This recitation is too
little too late. Pursuant to the Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 2-303(4)(b), the City Council
is limited to reviewing the "[f]indings, if any, and decision of the person or body whose decision
is being appealed." It cannot consider new findings proposed by Staff. Nor can the City Council
fabricate findings out of thin air where no adequate findings have been established by the
Planning Commission. Neither the Planning Commission resolution, any prior documents, nor
even the recent citations received by Garcia Recycling refer to these conditions of approval.
Thus, nothing in the record supports the finding that Garcia Recycling violated any use permit
condition.
Likewise, there is nothing in the record to support a nuisance finding. Garcia Recycling
went to great lengths to meet with the neighbors at the request of the Planning Commission and
it found that most neighbors (including the neighboring businesses and the property owner and
manager) were in support of Garcia Recycling. See Transcript of July 12, 2010 Planning
Commission Meeting ("July 12th Transcript") at 9-10 (attached as Attachment 1); Staff Report at
140-141 & 168-69. Indeed, Commissioner McCarthy observed, "[t]he concern that I have is
again that I don't know at this point that the record contains enough evidence to find the public
nuisance ... I just don't see enough to go down that path of public nuisance, which is why I
can't support [revocation]." August 9th Transcript at 75. Likewise, Commissioner Clark stated,
"so far I have nothing in the record that gives me the ability to certainly not have a warm and
fuzzy feeling about trying to revoke the permits. We don't have a consistent evidence of
violations of the original CUP.... We have no code enforcement actions. I've got nothing to
base violations on." Id. at 77-78.
It is clear from the record that the Planning Commission was looking for any reason to
revoke Garcia Recycling's permit because it simply does not like the "look" of Garcia Recycling
2
MEMORANDUM OF P'S AND A'S IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
26
a
a z
a �
� o
a
a8
zQ
c)
U
� w
P
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and it blames Garcia Recycling for the homeless problem in the area:
"I did go out there and see this, and I was flabbergasted. It's the first time that
I've lived here that I've been embarrassed to be in Costa Mesa, to drive through
that shopping center and see what's going on there. The parking impacts, the
homelessness and vagrancy that we can blame the soup kitchen all we want, but
there are people carrying cans. So it all falls down on Garcia."
Transcript of the August 9, 2010 hearing before the Planning Commission ("August 9th
Transcript") (attached as Attachment 2) at 75.3 The video of the hearing shows the palpable
nature of Commissioner McCarthy's distain.
After struggling with the lack of evidence in the record of nuisance, Commissioner
Righeimer suddenly pointed to an outdated photo in Planning Staff's presentation as evidence
that Garcia Recycling was violating its permit because it showed customers using the Smart &
Final parking lot. Id. at 81-82. He further asserted that the picture somehow showed that the
truck "does not sit 20 feet back from the front of the property." Id. at 82. He concluded that by
looking at the picture, "[w]hat we have evidence here for is that this cannot be contained on this
property here.... And so it's the amount of volume, based on the fact that it goes over the
property line, and they don't have a CUP to go on the neighboring property." Id. at 82-83.
Appellants submit that the single picture which was shown in a power point presentation by Staff
(and was not otherwise provided to Garcia Recycling) referenced by Commissioner Righeimer
simply could not have and did not show that Garcia Recycling was in violation of the
unidentified use permit conditions, yet the Commissioners jumped on board and voted in favor
of revocation based on the single picture.4
The City Council should not be swayed by the Commissioners' inexplicable visceral
reaction to Garcia Recycling.5 It must base its review on the facts and evidence presented and it
3 The best evidence of the due process violations can be found in the video and transcript of the August 9, 2010
hearing before the Planning Commission which are incorporated by reference. Since we obtained the DVDs of the
Planning Commission hearings (July 12, 2010 and August 9, 2010 hearings) from the City of Costa Mesa, we
assume the City Council has access to the videos of the hearings as they are. part of the record.
4 It is still unclear which picture Commissioner Righeimer was relying on.
5 The tone of the hearing may have been set by Commissioner Mesinger (the same Commissioner who called up
Garcia Recycling's conditional use permit for review). Despite the fact that Mr. Jesus Garcia, owner of Garcia
Recycling, was represented by counsel, Commissioner Mesinger demanded to direct questions to Mr. Garcia. Mr.
Garcia graciously agreed to comply even though he professed that his English was not fluent. The only questions
MEMORANDUM OF P'S AND A'S IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
3G
Z
P
c� a
a
aU
Z¢
U�
W a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
is clear that the record simply does not support revocation of the permits.
H. BACKGROUND
Garcia Recycling has been in business for over 20 years and it operates four recycling
collection centers in the cities of Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Costa Mesa. Garcia Recycling
was the first company to operate a recycling center in the City of Costa Mesa and its facility has
been located in the parking lot of a retail shopping center at 739 West 19`h Street in Costa Mesa,
for over 20 years.
Garcia Recycling has two minor conditional use permits, ZA-89-25 and ZA-92-10. Staff
Report at 19-30. The original permit was issued in 1989 and the second permit was issued
Garcia Recycling in 1992 when it moved its operations from the back of the parking lot to the
front of the parking lot at the request of the City. In the original Preliminary Environmental
Description for the 1989 permit, Mr. Garcia indicated that his plan was to park a "one ton truck,"
and to buy aluminum cans, plastic bottles, and glass bottles. Id. at 22. The 1992 permit
application was "for the relocation and expansion of an existing recycling center." Id. at 25.
Neither permit describes the mobile recycling facility as a "neighborhood recycling facility" or a
"regional recycling facility." In fact, the Planning Commission explicitly acknowledges that the
"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."
Id. at 164.
Aside from the complaints which prompted the City to ask Garcia Recycling to move
from the back of the parking lot to the front of the parking lot in 1992, Garcia Recycling was
unaware of purported complaints of its operations until last summer when it was contacted by
the City regarding its operations. See id. at 32. As the timeline prepared by the City
demonstrates, the City only began raising issues with Garcia Recycling last year. Garcia
Commissioner Mesinger asked Mr. Garcia was "so do you live in Costa Mesa?" and "you're the owner of this
business?" See id. at 39-42. Commissioner Mesinger's motivation for putting Mr. Garcia on the spot remains a
mystery, but we doubt that he has ever subjected other business owners to such treatment during a public hearing.
4
MEMORANDUM OF P'S AND A'S IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
3�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Recycling worked with the City with the issues raised through June 15, 2010 and made
significant progress until its permits were suddenly called for review by the Planning
Commission. Normally, enforcement staff would bring the issue of a recalcitrant applicant to
the Planning Commission's attention. But this was not the case here since as evidenced by the
fact that no citations were ever issued against Garcia Recycling until a ter the Commission
revoked Garcia Recycling's permits.
Garcia Recycling received notice of the hearing scheduled for July 12, 2010 on or about
July 1, 2010 and received the Planning Commission Agenda Report on or about July 6, 2010.
Because of the short time frame and the gravity of the matter, Garcia Recycling requested a
continuance of the hearing which was granted by the Commission at the hearing on July 12,
2010. The hearing was continued to August 9, 2010, and the Commissioners urged Garcia
Recycling to use the time to meet with its neighbors to better understand the complaints against
its operation.
After distributing fliers in English and Spanish, Garcia Recycling did in fact met with the
community members on July 26, 2010 to discuss its operations and to determine how Garcia
Recycling could improve its operations to be a good neighbor to the community. Id. at 142-143.
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 for income. 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.
5
MEMORANDUM OF P'S AND A'S IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
-�,q
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
a 13
D z
14
aa
U 15
z 16
0
17
Wa
Q 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In response to the question about 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. A few people suggested using synthetic grass instead
of sod which gets trampled over time, and to paint a mural on the side of the container. Garcia
Recycling explained that it had used 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 Garcia Recycling had expected more people to attend, including those who had
specifically opposed Garcia Recycling's operations, it decided to specifically reach out to those
parties who signed the petition submitted to the City. Counsel for Garcia Recycling 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, counsel has not received any calls.
Between the July 12, 2010 hearing and the August 9, 2010 hearing, Garcia Recycling
collected over 500 signatures in favor of its operation.6 Staff Report'at 204-240. In addition,
both the property owner/property manager and neighboring businesses sent in letters to the City
indicating their support for Garcia Recycling and the fact that they did not find Garcia
Recycling's operations to be disruptive in any way. Id. at 197 and 201. Victor Bonilla, the
property owner/property manager indicated that he had not received complaints about Garcia
Recycling and that "Garcia Recycling keeps its facility clean and its employees are constantly
6 It has since received even more support. Garcia Recycling will submit another signed petition at the hearing on
September 7, 2010.
6
MEMORANDUM OF P'S AND A'S IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
z
a
aU
z¢
Uco
,Wj a
�Q
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
sweeping the area and picking up any litter." These would be the individuals and businesses
most directly impacted by Garcia Recycling's operations.
Garcia Recycling presented the results of its neighborhood meeting to the Planning
Commission and pointed out all the letters in support of its operation as well as the petition
signed by over 500 individuals. Staff Report at 168. None of this evidence was discussed in any
depth at the August 91h hearing, despite the fact that it was the Commissioners requested that
Garcia Recycling poll its neighbors. Instead, as discussed above, the Commissioners used a
single photo as evidence to revoke Garcia Recycling's permits.
During the hearing, the Commissioners raised the question of whether Garcia Recycling
had approached Smart & Final about issues associated with its operation. Having not done so,
Garcia Recycling reached out to Smart & Final on or about August 25, 2010. Counsel for Smart
& Final indicated that its concerns about Garcia Recycling did not really have to do with
customers parking in the Smart & Final lot. Rather, the real issue is the homeless individuals
loitering in the area who hassle customers. Like the Commissioners, Smart & Final believe that
Garcia Recycling is somehow solely responsible for the presence of these individuals
notwithstanding the fact that there is a soup kitchen and a liquor store directly across the street
from Garcia Recycling.
III. ARGUMENT
A. The Commissioner's Deprived Garcia Recycling of Due Process by Making
Factual Findings and Legal Conclusions Without Allowing Garcia Recycling
to Respond
On or about July 28, 2010, Costa Mesa Planning Staff ("Staff') issued a Planning
Commission Agenda Report ("July 28th Report") which proposed the following findings in the
resolution revoking Garcia Recycling's conditional use permit:
"Revocation of ZA-89-25 and ZA-92-10 was initiated because the operation of
the use was determined to be a public nuisance pursuant to Municipal Code
Section 13-29(o) (Enforcement Authority). 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
7
MEMORANDUM OF P'S AND iA`'S IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
�1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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. Modifications
to ZA-89-25 and ZA-92-10 are not sufficient to address the adverse impacts to
surrounding properties. Revocation will require cessation of the current use and
a similar use cannot be established in the future unless a new Zoning Application
is submitted and approved."
July 28`h Report at 12 (emphasis added). As such, Garcia Recycling understood that the
Planning Commission was contemplating revoking its permit on the grounds that its operations
may be considered a nuisance by the City.
At the hearing on August 9, 2010, however, Garcia Recycling received for the first time
another draft resolution attached to a City of Costa Mesa Inter Office Memorandum dated
August 4, 2010 (August 4`h Resolution) indicating additional findings including "[t]he use is not
being operated in compliance with the conditions of approval for ZA-89-25 and ZA-92-10."
Because Garcia Recycling was not aware that the Commission was considering revoking its
permit on the grounds that its operations violated a condition of approval, Garcia Recycling only
presented evidence refuting the nuisance claim.
Even if Garcia Recycling had the opportunity to respond to the argument that it was in
violation of certain conditions of approval, it would not have been able to intelligibly respond
since at no time, either prior to or during the hearing, did the Commission ever identify which
condition(s) of approval Garcia Recycling violated. Indeed, during the hearing, after admitting
that there were insufficient facts to find a nuisance, the Commissioner Righeiiner put up a
picture of Garcia Recycling (which may have been taken in the Fall of last year) and pronounced
that the picture demonstrated that Garcia Recycling encroached on the neighboring property and
therefore was in violation of its permit. On this flimsy ground, the Commission voted to revoke
the conditional use permit.
Garcia Recycling should have been afforded the opportunity to respond to this new
theory of revocation — that Garcia Recycling violated its conditions of approval - which was
developed by the Commissioners on the fly — after the close of public hearing. Failing to allow
s
MEMORANDUM OF P'S AND A'S IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
"1`
as
�a
00
z¢
U�
w
P4
Q
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Garcia Recycling to meaningfully respond to whether it had violated any use permit condition
resulted in a breach of due process — especially in a quasi -adjudicative proceeding to revoke a
use permit.
B. The Commissioners Failed to Meet the Standards Set Forth by the Costa
Mesa Municipal Code and State Law in Revoking Garcia Recycling's
Conditional Use Permit
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."
Id. (quoting O'Hagen v. Bd. Of Zoning Adjustment, 19 Ca1.App.3d 151, 158
(1971)).
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:
MEMORANDUM OF P'S AND A'S IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
AID,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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:
"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."
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 Goat Hill Tavern, 6 Cal.App.4th at 1530. As the
Deputy City Attorney acknowledged during the August 9th hearing, the standard for revoking an
existing permit is much higher than that of denying a conditional use permit application.
Nevertheless, the Commission completely ignored this heightened standard by making false
findings of fact on the fly in order to justify its predetermined decision, i.e., revocation of
Garcia Recycling's conditional use permits.
As discussed above, the transcripts of both the July 12th and August 9th hearing clearly
reflect a few of the Commissioner's strong feelings towards Garcia Recycling and how they
simply don't like the "look" of the facility, or how they are "embarrassed" by the appearance of
the facility. Notably, they never articulate what it is about the facility that is so offensive. Nor
do they identify which use permit conditions Garcia Recycling violated or what action or
inaction was taken by Garcia Recycling that amounted to a nuisance. As such, the City Council
must reverse the decision of the Planning Commission to revoke Garcia Recycling's permits.
1. The Commissioners Failed to Identify Which Use Permit Condition
Garcia Recycling Violated
io
MEMORANDUM OF P'S AND A'S IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
`1�
z
a0
C7 a
a
a8
a
z
0
U�
,Wj a
2
3
rd
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
During the hearing, after the close of public comment, the Commissioners amended the
August 4th Resolution by adding the following finding which Commissioner Righeimer
developed after a recess:
"The use is not being operated in compliance with the conditions of approval for
ZA-89-25 and ZA-92-10 in that the original approval was for a neighborhood
recycling facility approved to operate within the parking area for the 839 W. 19th
Street property. Based on the evidence submitted into the record, the original
operation has expanded to the scale and intensity of a regional recycling facility,
processing approximately 4.2 million pounds of recyclable materials annually.
This expansion has resulted in a scale and intensity of use beyond the boundaries
of the subject property, requiring the use of the parking area for the adjacent 709
W. 19th Street property for the unloading of recyclable materials by customers."
Staff Report at 83 (Resolution PC -10-25 adopted on August 9, 2010 ("Final Resolution")).
First of all, this finding fails to set forth which specific use permit conditions are being
violated by Garcia Recycling. Furthermore, the finding is completely flawed as follows:
• There is no reference to a "neighborhood recycling facility" in either use permit
(nor is it clear what a "regional recycling facility" is);
• There is no evidence in the record of the baseline volume of recyclable materials
processed in 1992 after Permit ZA-92-10 ("for the relocation and expansion of
an existing recycling center") was issued by the City. Thus, how could the
Commission conclude that there was in fact an unlawful expansion of the scale
and intensity of the use of property?7;
• To conclude that use of the adjacent parking lot means the "expansion has
resulted in a scale and intensity of use beyond the boundaries," is wholly
unsupported by the record. Garcia Recycling clearly stated that Smart &Final
customers also use its adjacent parking lot — the issue is one of convenience.
Applying the same logic, Smart & Final would be in violation of its conditional
use permit as well. Moreover, every co -tenant of any parking lot would be at risk
7 As to the argument that Garcia Recycling is in violation of the permit because the original permit application
indicated that Garcia Recycling would be using a one ton truck as opposed to a three ton truck, this argument
ignores the fact that the 1992 permit explicitly states that the recycling center would be expanded. A substitution of
a three ton truck for the one ton truck is consistent with the stated expansion.
it
MEMORANDUM OF P'S AND A'S IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
�a
1'
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of permit revocation or loss of other entitlement from baseless assertions of
patron use of parking areas. The City has provided no legal basis for why a
patron of both Garcia Recycling and Smart & Final cannot decide where to park.
A more fundamental point is that the City has provided no evidence of the legal
documentation that governs use of the parking lots in question.
Therefore, the Commission erred in finding that Garcia Recycling violated its conditions
of approval and the City Council should reverse the Planning Commission's decision to revoke
Garcia Recycling's permits.
Planning staff now seeks to rectify the findings made by the Planning Commission by
proposing that the City Council make the additional findings set forth in the proposed
Resolution. See Staff Report at 13-14. These findings include in part:
a. The Use is operating off-site (on the adjacent Smart and Final property) in
violation of ZA-89-25 and ZA-92-10, which was approved for the 739 West
19th Street property (subject site) only.
b. The use is in violation f the following Conditions of Approval of Zoning
Application ZA-92-10, Minor Conditional Use Permit for a recycling center:
i. Storage of a commercial truck on the property to serve as additional
storage area in lieu of a container is in violation of Condition of
Approval No. 3 for ZA-92-10: "Any and all containers, with a
maximum of two, shall be located at the northeast corner of the site as
shown on the approved plans, and shall maintain a minimum setback of
twenty (20) feet from the front property line."
ii. Materials kept outside the containers are in violation of Condition of
Approval No. 5 for ZA-92-10: "All materials shall remain inside the
containers."
iii. No keeping the area free of debris, in violation of Condition of
Approval No. 6 for ZA-92-10: "Applicants shall keep the area
surrounding the container(s) free of debris."
As discussed above, CMMC Section 2-303(4)(b), the City Council is limited to
reviewing the "[f]indings, if any, and decision of the person or body whose decision is being
appealed," it cannot and should not consider new findings. Even if the City Council could make
new findings, Garcia Recycling submits that these findings are not supported by the record.
Staff is proposing that the City Council make these findings "based on the photographic
evidence prepared by staff," however, the photographs, in and of themselves, do not support
12
MEMORANDUM OF P'S AND A'S IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
X15
z
C7 0
a
aU
z¢
U�
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
these violations.
First, while the pictures do show the fact that some customers use the Smart & Final
parking lot, there is no condition of approval that restricts the use of Smart & Final parking
spaces (which is why no condition of approval is cited). Moreover, the fact that customers use
the Smart & Final parking lot does not mean that Garcia Recycling is "operating off-site,"
otherwise, Smart & Final would likewise be "operating off-site" since Garcia Recycling's
customers often park in the Garcia Recycling lot and visit Smart & Final.
Second, the fact that Garcia Recycling is using a commercial truck on the property does
not violate the Conditional of Approval No. 3 for ZA-92-10. The language of the condition does
not preclude one of the two approved containers to sit on a truck, especially since Garcia
Recycling had previously used a truck pursuant to ZA-89-25. Indeed, Garcia Recycling used a
truck pursuant to ZA-92-10 for 17 years without incident. After the City raised this issue with
Garcia Recycling, Garcia Recycling tried using a container without the truck in June 2010,
however, Garcia Recycling determined that using a container was much more disruptive to the
parking lot due to loading and unloading of the containers. See Staff Report at 33. Before
Garcia Recycling could discuss this issue with staff, the Planning Commission called up the
permit review. To revoke Garcia Recycling's permit under these circumstances where it was
working with City Staff to address issues (even though Garcia Recycling has never been in
violation of its permit) is patently unfair and in bad faith.
Furthermore, the truck and containers are in fact set back more than 20 feet of the
property line. The pictures simply do not show this violation.
Third, while Condition of Approval No. 5 for ZA-92-10 does require that "[a]ll materials
shall remain inside the containers," the fact that customers are unloading their beverage
containers in the parking lot and are standing in line with their bags of containers does not mean
Garcia Recycling is in violation of the condition. As we have previously pointed out, all
recycling facilities operate in this manner. See Staff Report at 107. The intent of the language is
to prevent Garcia Recycling from storing purchased beverage containers outside of the storage
bins. No such storage occurs on the facility — all purchased beverage containers are immediately
13
MEMORANDUM OF P'S AND A'S IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
146
z
C7 0
3°
R
U
z¢
U�
as
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
deposited in the permitted containers.
Finally, as to Condition of Approval No. 6 for ZA-92-10, none of the pictures show
debris in the area surrounding the containers. In fact, the record reflects just the opposite. For
example, Victor Bonilla, the property owner and manager stated that "Garcia Recycling keeps its
facility clean and its employees are constantly sweeping the area and picking up any litter."
Staff Report at 145. These sentiments were echoed in the neighborhood meeting.
In sum, the Planning Commission was wholly unjustified in finding that Garcia
Recycling violated its conditions of approval without ever identifying the conditions. Even if the
City can make new findings, the record simply does not support the fact that Garcia Recycling
violated its conditions of approval.
2. The Commissioners Failed to Establish Any Nuisance
As acknowledged by the commissioners, the record does not support a nuisance
determination. S At the time of the Planning Commission hearing, there was no record of code
violations, police records, or anything remotely supportive of a nuisance.
Moreover, 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 nothing in the record to support the City's
findings. As far as we can tell, there are only two documented complaints in the last year or so,
both citing excessive noise. The City of Costa Mesa, Development Services Department
8 After finding no evidence of nuisance, the Commissioners focused on violations of the (unarticulated) conditions
of approval. Yet at the end of the meeting, after some confusion, it appears that the deputy City Attorney clarified
that the revocation was based on both violations of the conditions of approval and nuisance even though it was clear
that there were no facts to establish a nuisance finding. Id. at 87-88.
14
MEMORANDUM OF P'S AND A'S IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
�1y
z
U a
a
aU
zQ
z
0
U�
Wa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 Staff Report
at182. 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 CalAppAth 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.AppAth at 1531.
Thus, pursuant to Goat Hill Tavern, the Planning Commission simply failed to meet its burden to
show how revocation is justified.
As discussed above, staff attempts to now bolster the record by issuing three citations
against Garcia Recycling after its permit has already been revoked. The City Council should see
through this transparent attempt to repair the record, and it should reverse the decision of the
Planning Commission.
3. The Commissioners Failed to Address the Plethora of Evidence Supplied
by Garcia Recycling Refuting Any Potential Nuisance Finding
In contrast to the City's anemic evidence of nuisance, Garcia Recycling submitted the
following evidence:
• Recent pictures of the facility showing that the signage is small and unoffensive
and the entire operation is barely visible from the street.
• Pictures of the soup kitchen across the street which serves the homeless
• Letter from the businesses most directly impacted by Garcia Recycling's
operations, the business owners in the shopping center, who opined that they do
not find Garcia Recycling's operation to be offensive.
• Letter from Victor Bonilla, part owner of the shopping center and property
manager, indicating that he has not received any complaints about Garcia
Recycling.
• Public outreach to community members to ascertain the basis of the purported
15
MEMORANDUM OF P'S AND A'S IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
complaints against Garcia Recycling
• Public outreach to those individuals who signed the complaint petition to which
Garcia Recycling received no response.
• Petition with over 500 signatures in support of Garcia Recycling by the
community members who frequent the shopping center and Garcia Recycling.
The Commission completely failed to address this evidence in making its nuisance
determination. Garcia Recycling hereby submits the following additional evidence — Garcia
Recycling recently replaced the landscaping again (on or about August 28, 2010) and added
signs directing its customers not to step on the grass or park in the Smart & Final parking lot.
See Attachment 3.
C. The Commission Failed to Comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act in Revoking Recycling's Conditional Use Permit Without
Environmental Review
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
16
MEMORANDUM OF P'S AND A''Sk SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
a�
�0
3°
aU
Z¢
U�
. 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
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 CalAppAth 1165, 1207 (1997); see also Communities for a Better Environment
v. California Resources Agency, 103 Cal.AppAth 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 that is mandated by state
law and 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 ("The Bottle Bill"
or 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
17
MEMORANDUM OF P'S AND A'S IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
st
a
`2r 0
aU
z
s
U�
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9'
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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.9 Thus, the exception to the categorical
exemption would apply.
D. The Commissioners Violated the Brown Act by Deliberating Outside of the
Public Meeting
Meetings of public bodies must be "open and public," actions may not be secret, and
action taken in violation of open meetings laws may be voided. Govt. Code §§ 54953(a),
54953(c), 54960.1(d). During the August 9th hearing, the Commissioners appeared to reach an
impasse regarding a finding of nuisance and they could not decide whether they wanted to
modify the permits, how they would modify it, or whether to revoke it. See August 9th
Transcript at 83-86. Commissioner Righeimer called for a recess and the Commissioners left the
councils chambers and appeared to deliberate outside of the presence of the public. This is
evidenced by the fact that when Commissioner Righeimer called the meeting back to order he
had "scratch out" proposed language for the finding that Garcia Recycling violated its conditions
of approval which the other commissioners immediately accepted without even examining the
language. See id. at 86-89. The Commissioners drafted the motion language together outside of
the purview of the public in violation of the Brown Act — the classic "seriatim meeting". Thus,
the Commission's decision to revoke Garcia Recycling's permit must be deemed null and void.
9 By characterizing Garcia Recycling as a "regional recycling facility," Staff appears to agree that Garcia Recycling
handles a significant amount of recycled beverage containers.
18
MEMORANDUM OF P'S AND A'S IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we request that the City Council overturn the Planning
Commission's decision to revoke Garcia Recycling's conditional use permits.
Date: September 7, 2010
Respectfully submitted,
MILES • CHEN LAW GROUP, P.C.
By:
Patricia J. Chen
19
MEMORANDUM OF P'S AND A'S IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
6a
ATTACHMENT 1
MILES CHEN LAW GROUP
Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting,
July 12, 2010
5y
1 COSTA MESA PLANNING COMMISSION MTG, JULY 12, 2010
2 [START PC MEETING ITEM 4.MP31
3 MALE VOICE 1: Mr. Chair, the second item
4 was No. 4.
5 MR. RIGHEIMER: No. 4, and I think we did
6 have someone who wanted to speak on Item No. 4.
7 We've got a letter from the applicant. They
8 just brought in an attorney, and they're looking
9 to postpone it. So if we vote to postpone it,
10 if you want to speak on the item, we'll let you
11 speak on it today, but you can't speak on it if
12 it gets postponed to that new date. So you
13 might want to decide which one you want to do on
14 that there.
15 MR. CARMONE: Excuse me, sir.
16 MR. RIGHEIMER: Please.
17 MALE VOICE 2: Have him come up.
18 MR. CARMONE: So either I choose to speak on
19 it --
20 MR. RIGHEIMER: Please come to the
21 microphone. You can choose to speak on it now
22 or if we postpone it then, but you can only
23 speak once.
24 MR. CARMONE: Which would be when?
25 MR. RIGHEIMER: August 9.
Ubiqus Reporting
2222 Martin Street Suite 212, Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: 949-477-4972 FAX 949-553-1302
55
1
COSTA MESA
PLANNING COMMISSION MTG, JULY 12, 2020
2
MR.
CARMONE: If it's postponed to there.
3
MR.
MENSINGER: Mr. Chair?
4
MR.
RIGHEIMER: Well, real quick. Would it
5
be okay,
if this did get postponed, to speak
6
then?
7
MR.
CARMONE: Yes.
8
MR,
RIGHEIMER: Okay.
9
MR.
MENSINGER: Mr. Chair, if he's here
10
tonight,
though, he can speak on it, correct?
11
MR.
RIGHEIMER: He can speak on it tonight,
12
but we're
not going to vote on it.
13
MR.
MENSINGER: So if you don't want to come
14
back and
wait around again, your comments will
\
15
be kept
in the record to reflect your thoughts.
16
MR.
CARMONE: I'll speak on it now.
17
MR.
MENSINGER: So you can speak on it now.
18
I want to make sure you understand that.
19
MR.
RIGHEIMER: Let's go ahead and go
20
forward.
Go ahead and do it the proper way.
21
One second. Let her go first. Let the clerk --
22
go ahead.
23
THE
CLERK: Public hearing Item No. 4.
24
Application No. ZA-89-25 and ZA-92-10. Site
25
address:
739 West 19th St. Applicant: Jesse
Ubiqus Reporting
2222 Martin Street Suite 212, Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: 949-477-4972 FAX 949-553-1302
S6
1 OSTA MESA PLANNING COMMISSION MTG, JULY 12, 2010
2 Garcia. Zone: C1. Environmental
i
3 determination: Exempt. Description: Review,
4 modification, and/or revocation of Minor
5 Conditional Use Permit ZA-92-10 for a recycling
6 center with a maximum of two containers in a
7 commercial shopping center.
8 MR. RIGHEIMER: Mr. Lee.
9 MR. LEE: Yes, Mr. Chairman and
10 commissioners. To just briefly describe in more
11 detail the item. This item has been brought
12 forward for your review for possible
13 modification and/or revocation. Two Minor.
14 Conditional Use Permits, ZA-89-25 and ZA-92-10.
15 This is for Garcia's Recycling, which currently
16 operates at the property, 739 West 19th St. The
17 purpose of bringing this item forward for the
18 Commission's consideration is to either modify
i
19 or revoke the Minor Conditional Use Permits that
20 allow the recycling facility to operate at this
21 location.
22 MR. RIGHEIMER: And we've got a letter from
23 the applicant looking to postpone?
I
24 MR. LEE: We have received the letter from
25 the applicant's representative requesting that
j Ubiqus Reporting
2222 Martin Street Suite 212, Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: 949-477-4972 FAX 949-553-1302
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OSTA MESA PLANNING COMMISSION MTG, JULY 12, 2010
this item be continued to the August 9th
meeting.
MR. RIGHEIMER: Does Stephen have any
problem with that at all?
MR. LEE: No.
MR. RIGHEIMER: Let's see here. How do we
want to do this? Counsel? Open to the public?
MALE VOICE 2: Open to public hearing.
MR. RIGHEIMER: What I'm going to do is go
ahead and open the public hearing on this item.
It will be a little bit out of step from how we
normally do this, because I know the applicant's
looking for a continuance. So I'm going to go
ahead and open the public hearing. Sir?
MR. CARMONE: As I said, my name is Edward
Carmone. I live 752 Center Street on the corner
of Center and Wallace. I come before you again
to oppose it as I did on the initial approval of
this.
First of all, I've lived here for 20 -some
odd years and 19th Street has been beautified.
It's lovely to drive down 19th and see all the
day lilies when they're in bloom and the palms.
It's lovely. And all of a sudden, we come upon
Ubiqus Reporting
2222 Martin Street Suite 212, Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: 949-477-4972 FAX 949-553-1302
5do
1 COSTA MESA PLANNING COMMISSION MTG, JULY 12, 20$0
2 this container that's sitting right out in front
3 of God and everybody with all these cans and
4 people and trash and noise going on. It doesn't
5 enhance anything. It doesn't beautify it. it
6 absolutely destroys what the city has spent a
7 lot of money on in trying to correct. We're
8 trying to build a west side. We're trying to
9 create an environment that is family -friendly,
10 and that certainly is not.
11 And now the applicant is asking for an
12 extension, as I understand this, and possibly a
13 second container. To me, that's ridiculous.
14 It's totally out of place. It doesn't belong
15 there. I have no objection to recycling. I
16 think it's a great idea, but not there. And I'm
17 not saying "not in my backyard"; I'm saying not
18 there. It is right smack in the middle of what
19 you tried to create as far as a pleasant
20 environment. It's terrible. Please do not
21 approve this application. Thank you.
22 MR. RIGHEIMER: Thank you. Just for
23 clarification, this item's actually come up
24 because some planning commissioners have gotten
25 so many calls that the Planning Commission has
Ubiqus Reporting
2222 Martin Street Suite 212, Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: 949-477-4972 FAX 949-553-1302
51
1 COSTA MESA PLANNING COMMISSION MTG, JULY 12, 2010
2 brought this item up. Commissioner Mensinger
3 brought this item up to look at; review, modify,
4 or revoke came from the commission here.
5 MR. CARMONE: Thank you.
6 MR. RIGHEIMER: Is there anybody else from
7 the public?
8 MS. CHEN: Good evening. My name is
9 Patricia Chen. I'm with Miles Chen Law Group.
10 I represent the applicant, Garcia Recycling.
11 Obviously, I don't want to waive my opportunity
12 to speak.
13 MR. RIGHEIMER: As the applicant you don't.
14 It's okay.
15 MS. CHEN: All right. So do you want me to
16 make a presentation as to why --
17 MR. RIGHEIMER: No, I think you just want to
18 tell us you want your extension. We've already
19 seen your letter.
20 MS. CHEN: Okay. Obviously, we had
21 requested an extension so that we can take the
22 time to speak to Cal Recycle, Department of
23 Conservation, and also we'd like to engage the
24 City in further discussions. We plan to use
25 this time to do that and also to poll our
Ubiqus Reporting
2222 Martin Street Suite 212, Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: 949-477-4972 FAX 949-553-1302
(4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OSTA MESA PLANNING COMMISSION MTG, JULY 12, 2010
customers as well to see what might work.
Garcia Recycling has been working with the City.
They will continue to work with the City. They
are open to moving the facility if they have the
support of the City and the Department of
Conservation. So they are trying to be good
citizens here and we reserve our right to make a
more comprehensive presentation at our next
meeting.
MR. RIGHEIMER: Okay. So the applicant's
asked for a continuance. Do I have a motion --
MR. MCCARTHY: Mr. Chair?
MR. RIGHEIMER: Commissioner.
MR. MCCARTHY: I move that we continue Item
No. 4, review of zoning application ZA-89-25 and
ZA-92-10, Minor Conditional Use Permits for
Garcia Recycling Center, 739 West 19th St., to
the meeting of August 9th.
MR. RIGHEIMER: I have a motion.
MALE VOICE 4: Second for discussion.
MR. RIGHEIMER: I have a second. Any other
discussion?
MR. MENSINGER: Mr. Chair, since I'm the
person who brought this up, I'd be more than
Ubiqus Reporting
2222 Martin Street Suite 212, Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: 949-477-4972 FAX 949-553-1302
1 COSTA MESA PLANNING COMMISSION MTG, JULY 12, 2020
2 happy to support that extension.
3 MR. RIGHEIMER: Okay.
4 MR. MCCARTHY: Mr. Chair?
5 MR. RIGHEIMER: Commissioner.
6 MR. MCCARTHY: I have a comment in support.
7 I would suggest to Miss Chen that she talk to
8 the neighbors. One of the things that we see on
9 a lot of these is the applicant, or in this
10 case, the respondent, comes back and says we're
11 working really hard with the city, and we've had
12 all this great dialogue with the city, but
13 nobody's talking to the neighbors and listening
14 to the neighbors' concerns, so I would suggest
15 that you reach out and talk to the folks that
16 are impacted by this to the best degree that you
17 can before the August 9th meeting.
18 MS. CHEN: I understand. I'll relay that.
19 MR. FITZPATRICK: Mr. Chair?
20 MR. RIGHEIMER: Commissioner Fitzpatrick.
21 MR. FITZPATRICK: I'm in support of this as
22 well. There's no need for any rush to judgment
23 here. I think that we should take this
24 opportunity to really have a good dialogue and
25 consider a lot of different options.
Ubiqus Reporting
2222 Martin Street Suite 212, Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: 949-477-4972 FAX 949-553-1302
a
1 COSTA MESA PLANNING COMMISSION MTG, JULY 12, 2010
2 I, too, would suggest that the applicant
3 really focus on understanding what the
4 residents' issues and concerns are, because this
5 has received a tremendous amount of
6 communication on the subject, and see if we
7 can't come up with some solutions here. I've
8 been on the phone with Cal Recycle and other
9 cities to understand best practices, and visited
10 all the locations.
11 I just think that we should use this time as
12 an opportunity to try and figure out, maybe not
13 necessarily site-specific, but also kind of what
14 it is we want our city to look like now and in
15 the future around recycling, because it's such
16 an important issue and it's obviously high
17 demand. I would encourage the applicant to
18 really be looking at what the issues are and
19 what options may be available to solve those
20 issues. Thank you.
21 MR. MENSINGER: Mr. Chair?
22 MR. RIGHEIMER: Commissioner Mensinger.
23 MR. MENSINGER: Since I'm obviously the
24 commissioner that pulled this item, I want to
25 also weigh in and ask the applicant to focus in
Ubiqus Reporting
2222 Martin Street Suite 212, Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: 949-477-4972 FAX 949-553-1302
�3
1 COSTA MESA PLANNING COMMISSION MTG, JULY 12, 2010
2 on the best practices. After receiving a lot of
3 calls over the last seven months, and a lot of
4 discussions with neighbors like the gentleman
5 that just spoke, and then driving to the site
6 myself, the site certainly has a lot of room to
7 grow.
8 Clearly, it hasn't changed much since 1989
9 and we'd like to see recycling centers in the
10 city, and we'd like to see recycling centers
11 conceptually throughout the whole community,
12 because we believe in that. A lot of us,
13 Commissioner Fitzpatrick and myself, are
14 certified green consultants. -The issue is not
15 the recycling, the issue is the condition of the
16 center and the effect on the surrounding
17 neighbors and best practices in the community
18 today. Thank you.
19 MR. RIGHEIMER: Okay. Seeing this is
20 started in 1992, I guess another month won't be
21 much. Call for the question.
22 THE CLERK: Motion carried 5-0.
23 MR. RIGHEIMER: All right. Thank you very
24 much. It'll be August 9.
25 [END PC MEETING ITEM 4.mp3]
Ubiqus Reporting
2222 Martin Street Suite 212, Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: 949-477-4972 FAX 949-553-1302
�4
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, JILL M. RAUSCH, certify that the foregoing
transcript of COSTA MESA PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING, JULY 12, 2010, was prepared using standard
electronic transcription equipment and is a true and
accurate record.
Signature
Date 8-24-10