Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout- - ZA-89-25 & ZA-92-10 (9) - 10/19/2010ATTACHMENT 6 MINUTE EXCERPTS e?,(5 07-12-10 Approved Planning Commission Minute Excerpt for ZA-89-25 & ZA-92-10 4. Application No.: ZA-89-25 and ZA-92-10 Site Address: 739 W. 19th Street Applicant: Jesse Garcia Zone: C1 Environmental Determination: Exempt Description: Review, modification, and/or revocation of Minor Conditional Use Permit ZA-92-10 for a recycling center with a maximum of two containers in a commercial shopping center. The Chair announced that the public could speak on this item tonight or at the continued meeting date of August 9, but not at both meetings. He asked Senior Planner Mel Lee to review the item. Mr. Lee briefly reviewed the information in the staff report and noted receipt of a request for continuance to the meeting of August 9. The Chair opened the public hearing. Edward Carmona, Center Street, Costa Mesa, opposed the recycling center stating that the containers with cans and trash destroy the City and this recycling center does not belong there. The Chair explained that the Planning Commissioners received calls on this item and Commissioner Mensinger brought this item up for review. Patricia Chen, attorney for applicant, said she requested a continuance to allow time for her to speak with Cal Recycle and poll the customers. She said the applicant is willing to do whatever is necessary to keep this recycling center in business. MOTION: Continue to the Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 2010. Moved by Commissioner Colin McCarthy, seconded by Commissioner Jim Fitzpatrick. Commissioner Mensinger supported the motion and Commissioner McCarthy suggested that the applicant talk with their neighbors. Commissioner Fitzpatrick also suggested that the applicant focus on neighbors' concerns and be site specific. Commissioner Mensinger reiterated that he brought this item up for review and asked the applicant to focus on best practices for this use. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Chair James Righeimer, Vice Chair Sam Clark, Commissioner Jim Fitzpatrick, Commissioner Colin McCarthy, and Commissioner Stephen Mensinger Noes: None. Absent: None. 08-09-10 PC Minute Excerpt for ZA-89-25 and ZA-92-10 Unofficial Until Approved 3. Application No.: ZA-89-25 and ZA-92-10 Site Address: 739 W. 19th Street Applicant: Jesse Garcia Zone: C1 Proi. Planner: Mel Lee Environmental Determination: Exempt Description: From the meetina of July 12. 2010. review. modification. and/or revocation of Minor Conditional Use Permit ZA-92-10 for a recycling center with a maximum of two containers in a commercial shoaaina center. The Chair confirmed with Senior Planner Mel Lee for the record that the applicant received a copy of Costa Mesa Sanitary District's letter dated August 9, 2010. Regarding ex parte communications, Commissioner McCarthy said he spoke to neighbors in the area and the Chair, Commissioner Fitzpatrick, and Commissioner Mensinger said they received e-mails. Steven Miles and Patricia Chen from Miles + Chen Law Group, representing Garcia Recycling, gave presentations. Mr. Miles stated for the record that the photographs provided during staff's review of the agenda report were outdated and do not reflect what is current. Jesse Garcia, property owner, provided some additional information. Franca Carmona, Center Street resident, noted her only objection was the location of the recycling center. Claudette Mekalian, Newport Beach; supported the recycling center and the jobs it provides. Vince Panico, Huntington Beach, spoke in. support of the recycling center and said he has been a customer of this business for over 10 years. Chuck Perry, Costa Mesa, expressed concerns regarding the growth of this business and spilled liquids. Eric Larsen, Costa Mesa, supported the recycling center. ,q LaVonn Larsen, Costa Mesa, spoke in favor of the recycling center and its employees and said this business provides her income. MOTION: Revoke Zoning Applications ZA-89-25 and ZA-92-10, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution PC -10-25, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit "A" of the supplemental memo dated August 4, 2010, with modifications to Findings "A", "A.7", and the addition of a new finding "A.8", adopted as follows: FINDINGS A. Revocation of ZA-89-25 and ZA-92-10 was initiated because the operation of the use (a recycling facility) was determined to constitute a public nuisance pursuant to Municipal Code Section 13-29(o) (Enforcement Authority). Based on the evidence submitted into the public record, -the use is not being operated in compliance with the conditions of.approval for ZA-89-25 and ZA-92-10, specifically: 7. If the minor conditional use permits are revoked, the City will remain in compliance with all applicable provisions of State Law as it pertains: to recycling and waste management. Specifically, revocation would not result,; in an unserved "convenience zone" at defined by State Law because the . area would continue to be served by the existing recycling facility at Von 's Market. Additionally, per the letter submitted into the public record by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District dated August 9, 2010, revocation of the minor conditional use permits would not compromise the Integrated Waste Management Plan because the City's Sanitary District separates recyclables from regular trash to comply with the applicable beverage container diversion goals. 8. 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 739 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. Moved by Commissioner Stephen Mensinger, seconded by Commissioner Jim Fitzpatrick. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Receive and file. Moved by Vice Chair Sam Clark, seconded by Commissioner Colin McCarthy. _a�� During discussion on the substitute motion, Commissioner McCarthy withdrew his second and the motion died. The Chair called a recess at 8:23 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 8:32 p.m. The Chair asked that an additional finding be included regarding the scale and intensity of use and Mr. Lee agreed to incorporate the finding. The maker and seconder of the original motion also agreed. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Revoke Zoning Application ZA-89-25 and modify Zoning Application ZA-92-10, by adoption of Planning Commission resolution, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit "A" on handwritten Page 8, subject to modified conditions in Exhibit "B" on handwritten Pages 9 and 10. Moved by Vice Chair Clark. The motion died for lack of a second. The Chair called for a vote on the original motion. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Chair James Righeimer, Commissioner Jim Fitzpatrick, Commissioner Colin McCarthy, and Commissioner Stephen Mensinger Noes: Vice Chair Sam Clark Absent: None. The Chair explained the appeal process. i ATTACHMENT7 CORRESPONDENCE IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER TO PRESENT October 5, 1992 Costa Mesa Zoning Administration P.O. Box 7-200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Sirs: �r I�OCT 91992 SIL; This letter is in response to your notice sent to the Wallace Woods Apartments located at 759 W. 19th Street, Costa Mesa, regarding the zoning ZA-92-10 for Russell E. Pang "for a minor conditional permit for the relocation .and expansion of an existing _recycling center... located at 739 W. 19th Street in a Cl zone." As a representative of the owners of the Wallace Woods Apartments and their residents, I would like to voice my complaint and urge you NOT to allow this expansion. I am as much an environmentalist as the next person and believe that recycling is a must, and we should do all we can to promote this in our society. Unfortunately, without proper planning, the good we try to do can sometimes be more damaging to the environment. This area, as you know, is already plagued with crime, graffiti, loitering, etc. As the property owner's representative, I do all I can for the beautification of my property and its surroundings. We have just recently painted the building. We pick up trash in front on Wallace and on 19th Street. ..three times daily! The expansion of this recycling center will create ,an 1)neasv appearance in our neighborhood, in addition to a terrible odor. It is directly across the street and is currently an eye sore. The bar across the street next to the recycling center is also a huge problem. The clientele of the recycling center often frequent this bar with their new found wealth and thus create a nuisance in the neighborhood (i.e., shoot- outs weekly). The last thing we need is more of the same. If you allow this expansion, not only will it affect the appearance, but it could possible raise the crime rate in this area. L'ABRI MANAGEMENT INC. 8141 EAST 2ND STREET • SUITE 500 • DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA 90241 • (310) 861-9294 • (714) 739-1742 _.aa Costa Mesa Zoning Administration October 5, 1992 Page Two I urge you to relocate this on an area with less traffic. A "grossly populated residential area is NOT the place for a recycling center! Sincerely, I Kenneth Bo Treiger Property Supervisor KBT:ds cc: R. Kolar J. Harris A 75Z G5�v rm �G7-a,Od ffIJM//Ul5Tg4-Fnz G/T'Y 1 A-5 ,r�vr�EaLvtlS ��" 7-5 L 46 -AJ V AMS, Pr ??yW,5 o6JFoT 57',pE,tlU�Ycv�l 4CM ©!� VlJ 71 %FT / Z)1417 /1A) Ii�TD T/f� � u1 ,SWC PEr"A,'WGL. y �R J l/,Q/i,44 T/N6 v PUS/� fir ?b 7P6 R�GYGG/N� �Nr� C2F4T/ivG !N/Bv �� � c �o�L ODoRS LY 7"b 7tf� 77107- 7 �R.4VD lSKlN LDT AJD 7ffpT zoN� i�iJQir4,oe Sf�G L.D ��,cJD�/GY�T D covrrNY/oUs y � W5 Nd / vL ydU,r�S . - : NOV 28 1992►. J NOVEMBER 17, 1992 Tr �.+�_::.✓ COSTA MESA ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF COSTA MESA P.O. BOX 1200 COSTA MESA, CA 92628-1200 RE: ZONING ACTION ZA-92-10 FOR JESUS GARCIA TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: WE ARE:.S.1.lBM.ITTING WRITTEN COMMENTS REGARDING THE ABOVE APPLICATION. •FIT WILL FURTHER DEPRECIATE OUR HDME AND THE EXISTING HOMES IN THE AREA. THIS.AREA IS ALREADY STRUGGLING WITH A.NUMBER OF _ PROBLEMS. THIS WILL CAUSE US TO RECONSIDER HOME IMPROVEMEhITS! *IT WILL BRING IN 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. (EX: 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 HEARD ON BOTH SIDES OF THE 700 CENTER ST. WHAT WOULD THE MOVING THE. CENTER 100 .YRDS, DO?) WE ARE ANGRY! THIS WILL NOT BE TOLLERATED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, / - • ' f ,� 1 �c ------ ---_ r , Ll cl�)t= �Iwllell- i i N-0 v 2 3 i 4 I NOVEMBER 17, 1992 __.._._.._---------- COSTA MESA ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. CITY OF COSTA MESA P.O. BOX 1200 COSTA MESA, CA 92628-1.200 RE: ZONING ACTION 2A-92-10 FOR JESUS GARCIA TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: WE ARE SUBMITTING WRITTEN COMMENTS REGARDING THE ABOVE APPLICATION: *IT WILL FURTHER DEPRECIATE OUR HOME AND THE EXISTING MES IN THE AREA. THIS AREA IS ALREADY STRUGGLING WITH A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS. THIS WILL CAUSE US TO RECONSIDER HOME IMPROVEMENTS! *IT WILL BRING IN 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. (EX: ORANGE COAST COLLEGE, STATER BROS. 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 HEARD ON BOTH SIDES OF THE 700 CENTER ST. WHAT WOULD THE MOVING THE CENTER 100 YRDS. DO?) WE ARE ANGRY! THIS WILL NOT BE TOLLERATED'IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. CITY OF COSTA MESA CALIFORNIA 92628.1200 P.O. BOX 1200 �xeanwweera�ae DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT May 22, 2000 CERTIFIED MAIL Mr. Jesus Garcia 1306 S. Shawnee Drive Santa Ana, CA 92704 RE: MINOR CONDITIONAL USE ZA-92-10 739 WEST 19TH STREET, COSTA MESA Dear Mr. Garcia: The City has received many complaints regarding your recycling business at the subject property. Complaints include generation of trash and debris around the facility, the attraction and congregation of transients, and -the harassment of customers going into Smart and Final, all of which are detrimental. to other businesses in the area. Your business is operating under a minor conditional use permit (MCUP), which you obtained in 1989 and modified in 1992. However, the .findings used to justify the MCUP can no longer be made, and the conditions of approval are not being consistently complied with; therefore, the recycling use needs to be discontinued. A MCUP is approved when it .can be shown that the proposed use is compatible with other uses in the. area and that it is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public. However, recent complaints indicate that the recycling use is not compatible with the area and is detrimental to the public. Additionally, one of the conditions of approval required that the area surrounding the containers be kept free of debris; many complaints have been received regarding the amount of debris in the area of the recycling center. These matters have been pending for some time now. I understand that Code Enforcement has made repeated attempts to gain compliance with the conditions of both MCUPs without success, therefore, the recycling center needs to be removed as soon as possible. By June 2, 2000, i will need written verification of the date you will be removing the recycling center, and you will have until June 16, 2000 to vacate the premises. Failure to do so may result in legal action. 1 77 FAIR DRIVE Building Division (714) 7645273 Code Enforcement (714) 754-6623 Planning Division (714) 754-5245 FAX (714) 754-4856 TDD (714) 754.5244 I am sorry these issues were not settled, but a resolution to this matter is essential. If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at (714) 754-5153; the best time to reach me is between 8 a.m. and 12 noon, Monday through Friday. Sincerely,��— �Wi�LW--� WIL ATOUWENS-KILLEEN —Senior Planner Cc: Sandra Benson, Chief of Code Enforcement Ron Johnson, Code Enforcement Officer Dr. Russell Pange 1831 Orange Avenue, Unit E Costa Mesa, CA 92627 i iL•Gt:.IVlvt. DrVILWPfn-,E 'f 9F(iVIGE.0 D;:PARTty EN_ Food• Supplies •Businr:sr•Hornr: w ou we- - -- June 6, 2000 AM pal Smart&T!niJStvrm,Corporatiem tl ! n , • : , ., .:., : •� 4 ,, i r l P.U. Box 512377 Mr. Ron Johnson t l.na Ant;ale,, California 9Q051.O:S' Code Enforcement 123-869.7,506 Costa Mesa City Hall www smattmdfinal.rnm Via Facsimile (714) 754-41356 Re: Recycling Center at 19th Street ' Dear Mr. Johnson: As Director of Property Management for the Smart and Final stores, I oversee all issues, .which affect the value of the real estate we occupy. One such property is located in your City at 707 West 191h Street. It has come to my attention that the recycling center located at; the property next to ours has a permit, .which .is... ..... about to be renewed. I strongly oppose this re -issuance of this permit for the following reasons:, I believe the original permit was issued for the recycling center to be at the back of the property.. Due to noise, smell, etc. The adjacent neighbors complained and it was moved to the front of the center right on 19'" street, - I do not believe the center next -to us -has enough parking to accommodate this -use -in front.of the center, The recycling center is a visual eyesore - especially when the city is trying to rejuvenate 19th street. When the recycling customers come, they park in the Smart and Final Lot and cut over to the adjacent property which does not have enough parking to accommodate the Tenants and the recycling center: Due to the parking space the recycling area takes, customers who want to shop in that center have to park their cars in the Smart and Final parking lot and cross over. The customers cutting across have damaged the plants and grass. We have has numerous complaints about the smell associated with the empty beer bottles, etc. The element the recycling center has attracted includes transients panhandling in our parking lot which has scared many of our shoppers and who have subsequently have refused to shop at this store. Based on the above and more, I have looked into placing a permanent fence at our property line to resolve the problem. Ultimately, It would be best if the recycling center was eliminated. Certainly, there are several other sites much more conducive to this use rather than street front on this busy thoroughfare. I would beg the City to seriously consider the overall effect they will have not only for Smart and Final but the other businesses in the .area In renewing this permit. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (323) 869-7597 Respectf andi Martin, RPA Director of Property Management iii 'd �6bi1J *6PI NdgZ'c 000Th '"t August 3, 2009 CITY OF COSTA MESA P.O. BOX 1200 • 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT GARCIA RECYCLING CENTER & METALS INC c/o Jesus Garcia 1115 S Elliott Place Santa Ana, CA 92704 RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ZA-92-10 739 WEST 19" STREET Dear Mr. Garcia: In November 1992, the Zoning Administrator approved ZA-92-10, which allowed a recycling center at the above property; approval was subject to several -conditions of approval and code requirements. Occasionally, Planning staff visits the property to ensure the use is operated in compliance with the conditions and requirements. Recently, it was noticed that a truck has been staged at the property throughout the day, business was being conducted outside the containers, and a cashiers unit was placed at the site. To allow for compliance with your minor conditional use permit, the truck and cashiers unit must be removed from the site and all activities for the recycling center must be located inside the container(s). To allow for a timely resolution to this matter, I would like to establish a deadline of August 17, 2009 for complying with the conditions of approval and code requirements. Additionally, the minor conditional use permit was approved for a maximum of two containers to be located on the property. Should you wish to add a second container to the property, a site plan must be submitted and approved by the Planning Division prior to installation. I look forward to your cooperation. If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at 714.754.5609 or email me at rrobbins(a�_ci.costa-mesa.ca.us. Sincerely, REBECCA ROBBINS Assistant Planner cc: Tim Sun, Code Enforcement Officer I�W Building Division (714) 754-5273 • Code Enforcement (714) Toa -5623 • Planning Division (714) 754-5245 FAX (714) 754-4856 • TDD (714) 754-5244 • w%&w ci.costa-mesa.ca.us 9911 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 150 - Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949.788.1425 - Fax (949) 788-1991 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION-, L AIS F E V4.POhlv,. RebolVdidc I City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department AUG 212009 August 19, 2009 VIA FACSIMILE ((714)7544856) AND U.S. MAIL Rebecca Robbins City of Costa Mesa Development Services, Department P.O: Box 1200 77 Fair Drive California, CA 92626-1200 Re: Conditional use Permit ZA-92-10, 739 West 19t" Street, Costa Mesa, California - Dear Ms. Robbins: We write on behalf of Garcia -Recycling Center & Metals, Inc. ("Garcia Recycling") in response to your letter dated August 3, 2009 regarding Garcia Recycling's facility located at 739 West 19"' Street. We understand from your letter and a conversation between Fred Canlas, CPA, Garcia Recycling's representative, and Timothy Sun; Code Enforcement Officer, on August 4, 2009, that the City has requested that Garcia Recycling take the following actions: 1. Remove the truck staged at the facility and install a container that is the same size and same color as the existing trailer to be in harmony with the surrounding buildings' color. 2. install new signs on the containers with Planning Department's approval 3. Remove the cashier area from the landscape. 4. Ensure that all staging and materials, trash cans, etc. is contained inside the containers. While Garcia Recycling does not believe that it is in violation of its Minor Conditional Use Permit, it is willing to comply with Items #24 As for Item 41, due to the large volume of materials that the facility receives (the facility serves approximately 300 people per day) the facility cannot retain the amount of recyclables it receives in the container and must load the truck throughout the day. A second container would not be sufficient to hold all the recyclables Ms. Rebecca Robbins 'F August 19, 2009 Page 2 of 2 received daily at the facility. As you may know, Garcia Recycling is the only recycling facility within a half mile radius and this is likely the reason for the high volume of recyclables at the facility. We would be happy to meet with the City to discuss potential solutions. By way of background, Garcia Recycling has been in business for over 20 years and it operates four recycling collection centers (including the subject facility) in the cities of Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Costa Mesa. All facilities are California Collection Centers Certified by the State of California Conservation Department. Garcia Recycling has never been cited for any violations whensoever in its 20 years of operation. It puts a premium on safety and cleanliness at its facilities and is more than willing to work with the City and the community to alleviate any potential issues caused by its operations. I will be contacting you to set up a meeting shortly. Should you have any questions in the meantime, please feel free to contact me. cc: Fred N. Canlas, CPA Patricia I Chen -1 - ND� ' March 18, 2010 CITY OF COSTA MESA P.O. BOX 1200 - 77 FAIR DRIVE - CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT GARCIA RECYCLING CENTER & METALS INC c/o Jesus Garcia 1115 S Elliott Place Santa Ana, CA 92704 RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ZA-92-10 739 WEST 19th STREET Dear Mr.Garcia: In November 1992, the Zoning Administrator approved Minor Conditional Use Permit ZA-92-10 (MCUP), which allows a recycling center at the above -property; approval -was - subject to several conditions of approval and code requirements. It was observed in mid 2009 that the business .was being conducted outside the containers, a cashiers unit was placed next to the containers, and a landscaped island was paved. In several meetings with you since, we have discussed these issues as well as different locations on the property for your business, given the high traffic volume, to minimize noise impacts to the abutting residential properties. I haven't heard from you in a while. and we need to resolve this matter. To allow a timely resolution to this matter, I would like to establish a deadline of April 15, 2010 for complying with the conditions of approval and code requirements -(by conducting all business inside the containers, removing the cashiers unit, and replacing the landscaping) or applying for an amendment to the previously approved MCUP. If the deadline above in not met, the matter will be forwarded to Code Enforcement for further action. I look forward to your cooperation. If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at 714.754.5609 or email me at rrobbins(aD-ci.costa- mesa.ca.us. Sincerely, REBECCA ROBBINS Assistant Planner cc: Tim Sun, Code Enforcement Officer Building Division (714) 754-5273 - Code En(orcemenl (714) 754-5623 • Planning Division (714) 754-5245 FAX (714) 754-4856 • TDD (714) 754-5244 • vnvw ci.costa-mesa.ca.us Attachments: Letter to Planning Commission re Garcia Recycling 071210.pdf; Attachment 1.pdf; Attachment 2.pdf; Attachment 3.pdf; Attachment 4.pdf; ATTACHMENT 5 v2.doc Froin: Patricia J. Chen [mailto:pchen@miles-chen.com] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 1:55 PM To: LEE, MEL Cc: ROBBINS, REBECCA; david.rodriguez@conservation.ca.gov; 'Garcia Recycling'; fredcanlas@aol.com Subject: FW: Garcia Recycling - Item 4 - Planning Commission Meeting tonight I apologize for the repeat email. I reduced the size of Attachment 5 (it kept getting bounced) and I wanted to resend with all the documents. Thanks for your patience. Pat From: Patricia J. Chen [mailto:pchen@miles-chen.com] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 1:19 PM To, 'mlee@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us' Cc: 'rrobbins@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us'; 'david.rodriguez@conservation.ca.gov'; 'Garcia Recycling'; . 'fredcanlas@aol.com' Subject: Garcia Recycling - Item 4 - Planning Commission Meeting tonight Mel, Please find the attached correspondence for the Planning Commission. Please let me know if you have any difficulty opening any of the documents. I understand that you will provide a copy of our correspondence to each of the commissioners for the meeting tonight. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. Pat Patricia J. Chen, Esq., LEED AP 9911 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 150 1 Irvine, CA 92618 1 (213) 804-8000 0 cid:6DF99365-4CF1-4BD4-8B6B-. 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. 01% Uq 07/12/2010 MIL Fla CHENLAw O Irvine Center Drive, Suite 150 • Irvine, CA 92618 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Phone: 949.788.1425 • Fax (949} 788-1991 = •• " .. ° July 12, 2010 VIA EMAIL (mlee@ci.costa-mesa.c&us) 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: Conditional Use Permit ZA-92-10; 739 West 19`h Street, Costa Mesa, .California -Dear Gentlepersons We understand from Mr. Lee that the Planning Commission cannot continue the hearing without a hearing on our request for a continuance. As such, in the interest of providing the Planning Commission with as information concerning the operation of Garcia Recycling Center & Metals, Inc. ("Garcia Recycling") prior to the hearing, we hereby submit our preliminary response to the issues raised in, the staff report. Given the short time frame, we respectfully reserve the right to supplement our response both at the hearing and following the hearing. We would reiterate that in order to preserve.Garcia Recycling's due process rights, particularly where a vested right may be extinguished, a continuance of the hearing to allow Garcia Recycling to make a proper presentation to the Commission is merited. As a threshold matter, we believe it is important for the Commission to contextualize the operations of Garcia Recycling. Garcia Recycling has been in business for over 20 years and it operates four recycling collection centers (including the subject facility) in the cities of Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Costa Mesa. All facilities are California Collection Centers Certified by the State of California Conservation Department. In 1986, the Legislature passed the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act aka "The Bottle Bill" (AB 2020). The intent of the bill was to encourage increased, and more convenient, beverage container redemption opportunities for all consumers to meet the goal of recycling 80 percent of all beverage containers. See Pub. Res. Code § 14501. "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 Planning Commission July 12, 2010 Page 2 of 4 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). Furthermore, in 1989, Legislature passed the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 ("AB 939"). This bill created the California Integrated Waste Management Board ("CIWMB") and set up a new mandate for local jurisdictions to meet diversion goals. AB 939 mandated local jurisdictions to meet solid waste diversion goals of 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000. The CIWMB would determine this diversion by looking at the base -year solid waste generation (waste normally disposed of into landfills) to determine the amount of solid waste diverted. To help in the increase of diversion rates, each jurisdiction was required to create an Integrated Waste Management Plan that looked at recycling programs, purchasing of recycled products and waste minimization. The Bottle.Bill-helps local jurisdictions meet the diversion goals set forth in AB 939 by• assisting consumers in diverting beverage containers from landfills to recycling facilities. The Bottle Bill requires that "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 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m." Pub. Res. Code § 14571(a). The City of Costa Mesa has been quite successful in meeting its diversion rate•targets in part because of the recycling facilities that serve the City. In 2008, the City exceeded its diversion target by 2.4 lbs/person/day. See Attachment 1. In 2008, Garcia Recycling contributed to this diversion by purchasing a total of 4,158,721 pounds of beverage containers at its facility in Costa Mesa. See Attachment 2. At this facility, Garcia Recycling believes it handles more than twice the volume of any other recycling facility in the City. This is because Garcia Recycling serves three convenience zones, 1372, 1373, and 5314, and for convenience zones 1372 and 1373, it is the only recycling facility in those zones. See Attachment 3. Thus, if the Commission revokes Garcia Recycling's permit, two convenience zones will be in violation of the Bottle Bill. It is also located in the center of the Hispanic community in Costa Mesa and because this community has been hit especially hard by the economy, more residents are recycling. 1 We have not had the opportunity to examine the City's Integrated Waste Management Plan. However, to the extent Garcia Recycling is included in the non -disposal element (or any other element) of the Plan, if Garcia Recycling is forced to cease operations, the loss of beverage container diversion may compromise the Plan. ado Planning Commission July 12, 2010 Page 3 of 4 Garcia Recycling has been working with the City staff to address the issues resulting from this high volume traffic at the facility since August 2009. As recognized by staff, Garcia Recycling (1) removed the cashiers unit; (2) installed landscaping; (3) painted the containers and cleaned up the signage; and (4) attempted to replace the staged truck with a second container.. With respect to the staged truck, Garcia Recycling believes that the original minor use permit (ZA-89-25) was approved with a staged truck. See Staff Report at 20 ("My plan is .to park. at the , location above 1 tone (sic) truck to buy aluminum cans, plastic [bottles] and glass bottles."); Letter from City of Costa Mesa to Dr. Russell Pang dated December 3, 1991 ("It is my understanding that the business owner has expanded from the one truck originally. approved (that would cover one parking space) to two truck trailers as well as the original truck.") attached as Attachment 4. Notwithstanding this, Garcia Recycling has been working with the City to address its concerns about the staged truck. It tried using another container, but since the containers must be loaded onto a truck a minimum of twice a day, it believes. that the, loading and.: unloading of containers is actually more disruptive than simply staging a truck which departs . when the container: is full. In sum, staff has identified two remaining issues: (1) business being conducted outside containers and (2) truck is still staging at the site. Garcia Recycling acknowledges that some business is conducted outside the containers, but we believe it is the only way it can operate since the containers are extremely hot inside, especially during the summer. In fact, all recycling facilities in the vicinity operate in this manner. See Attachment 5 (pictures of other recycling. facilities in the area demonstrating that bags and bins of beverage containers are inevitably staged outside of the containers). As such, Garcia Recycling believes it is being unfairly treated by the City on this issue. With respect to the truck being staged at the site, Garcia Recycling is willing to use the second container once again if this is what the City desires, despite the impacts of the loading and unloading of the containers. We understand that staff has given you two options with respect to the zoning applications and we strongly urge you modify Garcia Recycling's minor conditional use permit rather than revoke it. The record simply does not contain enough evidence to justify revoking the permit. Moreover, we have reviewed the proposed modifications and Garcia Recycling is willing to agree to all the conditions set forth in the staff report (pp. 5-6), including constructing a iron fence along the easterly property line if the owner of the adjacent properties agree to it and the City approves it. In our opinion, Smart and Final benefits from Garcia Recycling customers many of who visit Smart and Final after selling their beverage containers. However, Garcia Recycling's foremost priority is to maintain its good relationship with the community and the City. It is clear that the issue here is one of NIMBY — while the facility is indisputably necessary and benefits the environment; no one wants it in his/her backyard. Garcia Recycling's high volume of customers is both a blessing and a curse. While recycling so many beverage containers is certainly good for the environment as a whole, it inevitably impacts the neighboring Planning Commission July 12, 2010 Page 4 of 4 surroundings. Garcia Recycling has made every effort (and will continue to make every effort) to minimize these impacts by operating a clean, efficient recycling facility. Furthermore, Garcia Recycling is more than willing to work with the City and the Division of Recycling in the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (the "Department") to determine whether moving the facility to another site or adding another facility would be in the best interest of the community and the City. With the support of the City and the Department, Garcia Recycling is willing to move and/or add an additional facility. 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) -2 Sincerely, Patricia J. Chen ATTACHMENTI 1 f,A Patricia J. Chen From: Knapp, Christine [OCWR] [Christine. Knapp@ocwr.ocgov.com] Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 12:21 PM To: pchen@miles-chen.com Subject: Attachment B - Diversion Rates by Jurisdiction 2007-08 January 6 2010 REVISED.xIs Attachments: Attachment B - Diversion Rates by Jurisdiction 2007-08 January 6 2010 REVISED.xls '?AfJ Attachment 'B Orange County Diversion Rates by Jurisdiction from 2007 through 2008 Countywide *Diversion Results in pounds per person per day *Note: Anegative Number means that the tons per person per day was higher than the target. Milli in 1 HW Aliso Viejo 0.8 3.3 2.2 1.1 Cypress 91 7.11 1.9 9 6.91 2.1 L Huntington Beach 10.4 5.5 4.9 10.41 5.31 5.1 5 Laguna Beach 12.7 10.51 2.2 12.71 8.81 3.9 5 Laguna Hills 5.21 0.6 0 Los Alamitos 10.81 8.61 2.2 10.8 8.1 2.7 A Orange -Unincorporated -5.9 5.7 0.2 5.9 5.6 0.3 !6 Rancho Santa Margarita 4.81 4.3 015 4.8 3.6 1;2. 18 San Juan Capistrano 11.8 8.5 3.3 11.9 6.6 5.2 341Westminste 6.3 4.7 1.6 6.3 3.7 2.6 351Yorba Linda Countywide *Diversion Results in pounds per person per day *Note: Anegative Number means that the tons per person per day was higher than the target. ATTACHMENT 2 J W �a My LiJ CL z_Z co U). 0 VN ZwccQ LL 00 LU W w J Q M UwQ 0 U) W .1 Q o Lin 000 qr � LLCY O LO co Cf) O T M N 0�0' to W II m J 00 C7 (0 i- co 00 0) �. b N oN Z m 'ct CV M co C7 OD ti m N N O CD r m m !D Ln LO N M LO N T co F- W 4A m J N M Lf) Lo L7 O r Cfl N N CO T(o r V OD LO O O °' - o T O M L1Q J T +� CD O LO m N ONr T M Nt ..� m cM LLQ o o U T N 0) N Q m co 0) � M C4 t N LO T o0 LO Cl O N LL Q m 00 N co N I�� tr t0 0c 0 CO to N r MCO Q m O M ti r N LLI LL EDW N M N co N Ln d Lin r- 0 O c o y J N Cry T N t!1 z H J D J Q a z ON a VA X4 eITU - W. 1 1 1 IIAT� Ln O N � C E N z C 0 Qi 75 N_ �- 4- U m N O a) r o-CC(D CO) N > U) r a) ca cis ®0U o O -s- U Q) O (n O V/ m O N NNO N N N�N N a� 0) Cl) CD O CO - - N M c0 c0 00 00 t0 N co CO r- L` CO M O p OD 00 co r L` co OD ti co r - C) O O O O O O (3) O O O M O O co O O 0 0 M O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 Cl N N N N C-4 N N r = N N r r Z, 0 _ W N f aU 8 25 8 0) O m \ OD 1 O OOO O) `r O M `N O" y N — n Cb �� N O r r M co r CD O N N (D O LLI O) a) m m Ca m m y TUU m m 'COV) 3a Q,'m Q,ca m an d >> C= m o - o c o c o o "rJ a) O O O` O` O O E O y 0 w .0 E N Q rU � N N mo) ca 2 �m w (n>>ca LL CL d ca >.• .mUcn UU �� a r C)C) >r0 M M co M (D O 0 0 N O O N O O .0 LO T-- r V' V" M M N r r N O r O O r N m r NN V' d Mm d d O O m m 0 m V• m LL co N N M M Ll h M co M Cl) M Cl) d M M M c c N m m m N ((aa N tti6 z a a a a) a) a s m a m CL a) a) 0 a) n a X X m X X X X X LL 000 zz 00 Q o- z0zzzzF-F- Ln 00 CO co CO dr n. N00 COD IONO rO r N COD It U) tV 000 00 C~7 m M co co M 1` (O O) t` co M r CO CO co M 0 0 V' M M M It M M V' M M r 0) r r r O T r O T r m U U U U U 00 U UU U U O D U U U m m w QfLrT-�T- Elf �fy_ r r CO N M [n 1� d' O O O to CO W N CD O w M M M Lf) CO w O M M O W LO M O N0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • O d d LO V O 0O O O LO M M Cl) M M M M Ln M M LO � LO Ln I[) Ln I- L- n t` ti >` ti L- N LO n to LO LO Ln M O CO Ln U) tp 0 to LID to Ln LO M LO d d d d d d d d d d V' d d d d d d It IT V' V d d d d d d d rn rn o) rn rn rn rn O rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn� rn 0 > > m Z7 m a a) Q1 m N -O m(D O j 7 a m .O a� rn � a)Q ¢ mQ > > Q� aAi a a�Q a+tpm� m cm>mm�'c CO> QQ v—>.�Cn O> > o m m a aNi ¢ L m m rn¢ QQ o Y o oo > Q o� m fl m 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 = m o o c m 0 rn cl 3 aEi a° w v o c ca Li 'y E E o c '� E E c m ��� m o c d CD o (D=am �M CO w ami m m LL LL_ ¢ mLL�LL LL (L� W ca (t) (nmtn�Ot-(nf-CA Co.4 UOU W.a. a'OhCn U� o0��r rOr i t 2 f1 L� r C) d O Cl O LO V' O r OD N M LO N M O O O O d N O r N d LO M O O cn m r N tO r N M O T N 0 LO LO d LO O M CO r N M O V' M O 'fid•' CO r h O d O 0— N CO r2 M co CO N N N r r CN�L M Mr N r LO N M N C`7 'q' CNS! ti ff 'tea' M LLD C') (m C`O') M M M It t M m d' Ya) m a) N O m C o m N m a) m i m a) m CO m m o rn E c L L "(] L G 3 O L G L ca L L 2 G L L ,^ V 0 z 0 a) w rn 0 m rn 0� y w°CO) L m w o a) �' ° C° V�'C a) Ln m CL a m m O 0 LL O m O 0 0 U O U O y O L U (>6 O QCO L- fn 0 O O >+ "' -7 >, _ >,,U >'LL .V .v T .V O A *" L —2 U >, >1 U �, >, m L "" co O m U) m m c m c c m c L, L m U m L C m m Cn L c [� m °tS (a fn m (n m 0 c 3> aa) 3= 3 o a) m o 0 3 o a) C7 >, v m 3 3 z (D m >, 3 C 3 >, a> >, 2 .0 .�' 'O L v 'II r°1 'O p ,� U o: .�' Y- a U all- ca C 'N O O N V N C C m O L m 0 m c (D c C m c L (a L d) m m m L M M m E m O O wenJhcnz(nam�QQ(n<000U)—ia�rn(ncna--rnJU)coU)LL -i N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O r r cl N t0 r M V CD t` COO CD r [} U) M M d O m CD M O r N M CD D O O M U) d N d O r r r r r r r r r r 0 't d r V W d t0 V O r r— r r r r N M"T r O O r T r c- r r r r r N CD O) O r r V' M O C M U) CO O 10 to M U) LO LO V' to N M d 0 N W W W W m m m m a) m m m m m m m >, > >. > > > > > >, > > > > a s 'o -o -0 _0 m a) m m w m m a) a) > 0 0 c c c c 0 0 C c c 0 0 0 o c� c a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C' N a) m a) a) a) a) a) N L L L > m m Co m Ca m Y L w w 'w ti N N m S n 5 E E E E 2 E E E E E E 0- E a)a)ma)mma)ma)mmmm�00EE22222�'22m�'2 c� QQ¢¢:Fc QQmmmmmmmmmUUUUoo0wWLLLLLLLLU-LLL.LLLLLU-LL QQQQQQ¢gang-j -j gg�ga�a�Q_j _j_j QQQQQQQ O J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J U Q G Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q<< Q Q Q G Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q o rn oo rn o Cl) m 0) rn rn005o0 rn0CD r r Nr N N r N r r (I- N r N r N r r N r N r r r T a a ? , ry m CD o C0 tIJ cn U) cn Cf) (3D: n � T' 'ca v > _ LL W W> W W o Lc1coLo0)co L rnLO TI- OD — M M M OO M m N r N r r r r r- 0) 0) r W L L CD U U U U w 0) 0) _ •U U U N O X X•tUe. ,L . X •L X 0 co a) Ca caQ zwzCDC9 z r t0 t0 O CO to U'C> 0) LO 0) LO .. O Qi r 0) M T 0) U UUUU(-) U V U m cocncflcflrrrrrrcosflI—ter s N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Vl CD O [O CD O CO 0 O O O 0 m C0 C0 QD N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q U 4 m _0 U) a al m�a —m' 0�Q -n O 0 L �. L .� N O 'C == w :. Y CO 2r � 0) C .a (� r r CU S m N n' N r r r O 7 r r r m m m m zw�� =a.��w N O 11- M f0 LU w O r r 0O LO O O LO r r 0 O co r M O r O M M d' s!' N r N N M r N M r W N N O M M N U N U Y UCCS N CO fl. Y Y m Co m 0 m c`o ° Y .N Y U C .0 !n to to Cp co M cc c co cc — O CD It O L C O �N N E : ro [O .� tA>> Q�F-k-� N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N � W WW fnmmCgm W W W (n U1CfJ (O CO CD CO CD CO r r r r L1J r r r OD M M M M M M M M M LD 0 r M M M r r r r r r T T r V 'b' to tf j LO LO ' m m ro ro ro m m ro m ro ro m ro m ro N U] to to (n N to Ill 1p [� to N U1 fD N ' N N N CU Ill tll tll N N N (O tll N N N :E :�i 22 2 M oa z U) Ill to (A to to 0 to N N N N 0 N U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U Q Q Q Q Q¢< Q Q Q Q Q Q Q �D�o:C�m01-Ix(7-1 =CC== 000000000000000 D�(_ r Qi Ql m 0-