The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About13) 10A Discussion regarding recycling center at 9470 Las Tunas DrAGENDA ITEM 10.A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: August 2, 2016 TO: The Honorable City Counci l FROM: Bryan Cook, City Manager By: Michael D. Forbes , Community Development Director ~ SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING RECYCLING CENTER AT 9470 LAS TUNAS DRIVE (RALPHS MARKET) RECOMMENDATION : The City Council is requested to receive and file this report . BACKGROUND: 1. In 1986, California's beverage con tain er recycling program was enacted through the adoption of Assembly Bill (AB) 2020 , common ly known as the "Bottle Bill." AB 2020 established a requirement for a network of recycling centers for the public to recycle beverage conta in ers. 2 . In 1990, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 89-1030 and Zone Variance 89 -1029 to approve an expansio n of an existing Ralphs market at 9470 Las Tunas Drive with 220 parking spaces in lieu of the 265 spaces required by the Zoning Code . 3. Sometime prior t o August 2000, a recycling center began operating in the parking lot of the Ralphs market at 9470 Las Tunas Drive , without permits or approvals from th e City . 4 . In August 2000, as a result of City code enforcement action, the operator of the recycling center applied for a conditional use permit modification and zone variance to legal ize the recycling center. 5. In September 2000 , the Fast Track Modification Committee approved Zone V ariance 00-1430 and a modification to Conditional U se Permit 89-1 030 to "re- establ ish " two recycling conta in e rs as part of a "new" automated recycling center in the Ralphs parking lot. City Council August 2 , 2016 Page 2 of 4 6. In September 2000 , the City issued a building permit and electrical permit for the center. ANALYSIS: Establishment of Recycling Center AB 2020 established a requirement for a network of recycling centers based on "convenience zones." Convenience zones are circles with a half-mile radius centered on every supermarket. Every convenience z one must contain at least one recycling center where people can redeem all types of empty beverage containers for their redemption value . In other words , a recycling center must be located within one-half mile of every supermarket. If a recycling center is located within one-half m i le of two supermarkets , it may serve both convenience zones . The City does not have a record of when the subject recycling center first began operating. The center began operating sometime prior to August 2000 without any permits or approvals from the City. As a result of City code enforcement efforts , the recycling center operator appl ied in August 2000 for City approval to "re-establish " two recycling containers as part of a "new" automated recycling center . In September 2000 , the Fast Track Modification Committee (consisting of the City Manager, City Attorney , and Chair of the Planning Commission) approved the request through a zone variance and modification to the conditional use permit that was previously approved for the expans ion of the Ralphs market. The Fast Track Modification Committee approved the zone var iance and cond itional use permit modification without any conditions of approval other than that the center be situated consistent with the approved site plan and that all necessary perm its be obtained . There were no conditions placed on the operations of the recycling center. As such there are no restr ictions on hours of operation , prohibitions on loitering , or any other such operational requirements. State law requires that recycling centers be open at least 30 hours per week , with at least five hours occurring outside of the period of 9 :00am to 5:00pm Monday through Friday. Complaints and Enforcement Community Preservation has addressed several complaints over the years related to bags of recyclables piling up next to the center. The operators of the center have generally been responsive and quickly acted to remove the recyclables when contacted by staff. Staff has also received general complaints from res idents about the center attracting transients to the area , but this is not a code violation or issue that can be addressed by Community Preservation. City Council Augu st 2 , 2016 Pag e 3 of 4 It has been suggested by some res id e nts th at the Ci ty require the recycling center to close or move to a diffe ren t location . Th e City approved a co nd itional use permit and varian ce for the recycling center to operate, which mean s th at th e operator now has a vested right to ope rat e at this locati o n pursuant to those entitleme nts . In order to revoke those entitlem ents , the City would have to demonstrate that o ne or more of the circ um stances for revocation has occurred . T emple City M uni cipa l Code Section 9-1 F- 40 sets forth the circumstances unde r which a conditiona l use permit or zone variance may be revoked , as follows : A. That the varian ce or perm it wa s obtained by fraud ; or B . That the use for which such a pproval was granted has ceased to exist, o r has been s uspe nd ed , for a perio d of six months or more ; or C . That the permit or variance granted is being, or has been , exercised contrary to the terms a nd conditions of such approval or in violation of a ny law; or D. That th e use for which th e a pproval was gran ted is being exercised so as to be detrimental to the pub lic health or safety , or as to const itute a nuisance. The ci rcumstances d escribed in A and B are not applicable in this situation . Th e ci rcumstan ce described in C is also not applicab le because there were no conditions of approval placed upon the center , a nd the City is not aware of a ny laws being violated in co nju nction with the center's operation , aside from minor property maintenance issues that have been quickly abated by the operator. As suc h , the on ly remaining provision for revoking th e recycling center's app rov als would be as described in D, that th e cente r is operating in a ma nner that is detrimental to the public health or safety , o r as to co nstitute a nuisance. Staff has previous ly looked into e nforcement option s in response to comp la ints regarding the presence of transients around the center. The presence of transients or other i ndividuals loite rin g around th e recycl ing center does not in a nd of itself co nstitute a publi c nuisance , and is not necessari ly detrimental t o th e public hea lth and safety . Furth er, as the property owner, Ralphs would be the party responsible for addressing loite rin g or trespassi ng issues on its own property. For the City to a ddress this issue through the cente r's entitlements, evidence would need to be provided demonstrating that th e impa cts or activities of the tran sient population , or othe r aspects of the center's operation , are detrimental to the public health or safety or constituting a nui sa nce . AB 2020 Compliance Even if the City w ere successful in gathering evidence to revoke the recycling cente r's entitlements , it is un clear what impa ct suc h a n action would hav e on th e City's compliance with State law. This recycling center is the only one in Temple Ci ty according to the CaiRecycle web s ite , and th e o nly one loca ted in th e con veni ence r City Counci l August 2 , 2016 Page 4 of 4 zone for Ralphs market. If the City forced this ce nter to close , the co nvenience zone would be out of compliance with the Bottle Bill , and th e City may hav e to he lp fin d another location for th e center with in the half-mil e radius from Ralphs . Staff is not aware of a more desirab le or practical l ocation for the ce nter within a half-mile of Ralphs . Furth er, State law provides that if a city takes action to close a re cycl ing center located at a supe rmarket or ot herwise restricts or prohib its a center from locating at a supermarket, the city may lose its el igibility to receive funding from the State Beverage Container Recycl i ng Fund . CITY STRATEGIC GOALS: This report furthers th e City Strategic Goa l of Citizen Education and Communication . FISCAL IMPACT : This matter has no impact on the Fiscal Year 2016-17 City Budget. ATTACHMENTS : None