Packet 4.14.25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Appeal Application No. 2025-01 for Revocation of LUC No. 2003-03 – Money For Cans (2610 W. Edinger Avenue) April 14, 2025 Page 5 4 9 0 6 asphalt/parking lot surface is unmaintained, covered with "sticky stains, markings, cracks, and splatter," creating an unsanitary and hazardous condition. These conditions can harbor bacteria and pathogens, contributing to unsanitary conditions and potential environmental contamination through soil and groundwater. These deficiencies demonstrate a disregard for public safety and community well-being, necessitating urgent action to protect public health and maintain community integrity. 3.Operational Non-Compliance: The facility repeatedly violated SAMC Section 41- 1253, exceeding the allowable 500 square feet of operation by using the east side yard for uncovered and unattended trash bins. The latter standard is to prevent breeding grounds for disease-carrying pests, foul odors, and increased risk of environmental contamination. The facility's close proximity to residential properties (within 5 feet) amplifies these issues, exposing residents to health risks and endangering their safety. These violations demonstrate the business's failure to adhere to basic operational standards for small collection facilities, significantly impacting the surrounding area. Addressing these issues is a public necessity to protect nearby residents' health and safety. The PBA Director's LUC revocation was based on substantial evidence of non- compliance with specific violations of the standards outlined in SAMC Section 41-1253, which are designed to prevent nuisances and protect the public health, safety, and welfare. The facility poses potential for noise disturbance, significant hazards, including improper waste storage and electrical risks, and fails to maintain a clean and safe environment. Its proximity to residential areas, within five feet, violates regulations designed to minimize impacts on nearby communities. Operational non-compliance, such as exceeding size limits and violating setback requirements, further supports the revocation. The cumulative effect of these violations creates a situation detrimental to the surrounding community, effectively constituting a nuisance as defined by the operational standards for small collection facilities. The Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence to refute these findings or demonstrate permanent correction of the violations. Therefore, revocation is necessary to protect the community. Issue 3: The Appellant expresses the opinion that “…even if Money for Cans is to be held by the current Santa Ana Municipal Code, such violations have been cured, as will be presented at the appeal hearing.” Response 3: The Appellant's claim that violations have been cured is not supported by the evidence. The facility's location violates SAMC with respect to operational non- compliance, property maintenance deficiencies, and potential electrical hazards. During the December 12, 2024, hearing, the Appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to refute these findings or demonstrate permanent correction of the violations. During a recent site visit in late March 2025, staff did not see any exterior bins outside the facility at closing time, which suggests some improvement in how recycling material is handled. However, since the visit was at closing time, staff could not definitively confirm if uncovered and unattended trash bins might be present at other times. While the immediate