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 7 4 9 0 6 ongoing risks to public health, welfare, and safety, and necessitates immediate action to protect the community's well-being. A review of the original application and the SAMC regulations in place at the time indicate likelihood that Planning staff issued the LUC for the facility in 2003 in error, failing to account for its close proximity to residential areas and its non-compliance with SAMC Section 41- 1253 subsections 3 and 11, which requires a minimum setback of 50 feet from the street and 100 feet from property zoned or occupied for residential use. As such, the permit is invalid. This error further underscores the need for revocation as a cure to the ongoing issues resulting from the issuance of this LUC, as the facility should not have been approved at this location in the first place. California courts have found that permits issued in violation of zoning laws are void from inception and cannot confer vested rights. (See City Attorney’s Memo, attached as Exhibit 9).The need to correct zoning mistakes, particularly in land use cases involving public health, safety, and welfare, outweighs any argument that the facility should be allowed to continue operating based on the permit being issued in error. Moreover, the lack of substantial investments by the Appellant, limited to a shipping container and commercial trash cans, further undermines a claim of a vested right to continue operations. As valid permits are essential for vested rights claims, and the minimal investments here do not demonstrate significant reliance on the invalid permit. These factors collectively reinforce the justification for revocation, aligning with California courts' consistent stance that protecting public welfare through proper zoning enforcement takes precedence over maintaining erroneously issued permits. Revocation of the LUC is more appropriate than suspension pursuant to SAMC Section 41- 650.5 due to the property's ongoing non-compliance with city regulations, operations functioning outside of and in violation of the permitted use and conditions, and the significant risks posed to public well-being. The persistence of these violations, combined with the need to protect public health and safety, necessitates a more definitive action than temporary suspension. Revocation will ensure a complete cessation of non- compliant activities and effectively address the ongoing issues. Where temporary measures may fall short, revocation will decisively uphold community standards and regulations and address persistent violations. Limitations on Establishing Small Collection Facility Use The business is not eligible for a small collection facility LUC because it exceeds the maximum size limit of 500 square feet. Even if the facility were reduced in size, obtaining a new LUC is not be possible, as SAMC Section 41-1253 permits only one small collection facility per convenience zone—a one-mile radius centered around a supermarket—and multiple facilities already exist within this zone. General Plan Consistency Revocation of LUC No. 2003-03 is consistent with and upholds multiple goals and policies outlined in the General Plan. These include: