Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Council upholds zoning board in Hobart Recycling revocation after neighbors’ complaints
Loading...
Summary
The City Council sustained a Board of Zoning Appeals revocation of operations at a Hobart Recycling site after neighbors documented ongoing noise, trash and vermin. Hobart’s attorney said constructing an enclosure was financially and physically infeasible; the council found required alternatives were not submitted and approved the committee report 11–0.
The Los Angeles City Council on May 1999 upheld a zoning administrator and Board of Zoning Appeals decision to sustain a revocation action against Hobart Recycling for nuisance conditions at a site adjacent to residences and a restaurant. The council approved a modified committee report, adopting findings that the owner had failed to submit the practical alternatives and enclosure plans required by prior conditions.
The motion to adopt the committee report was made by Council Member Misakowski and seconded by Council Member Goldberg. Misakowski said the revocation follows “previous hearings, previous complaints, and a set of conditions that had been imposed in 1996 requiring a plan approval and an enclosure” and asked the council to approve the committee’s modified report. The roll call recorded 11 ayes and the action was approved.
Neighbors described persistent problems that led to the administrative action. Carolyn McIntosh, identifying herself as a neighbor and member of a neighborhood group, said the facility had generated “noise, trash, the smell, graffiti, shopping carts being left with junk in the area, and repeated nuisance activities,” and noted the site’s proximity to a family restaurant and large apartment buildings.
Attorney Farian Andrew Ophifi, speaking for Hobart Recycling, argued the enclosure condition was infeasible for his lessee client. “In order to surround a 7,000 square foot property … you have to put a full enclosed building with concrete blocks to support the foundations,” Ophifi said, estimating costs “in the several $100,000 range” and noting the lessee’s rent is $1,700 a month. He said his clients had not been given the opportunity to pursue less burdensome alternatives and offered to discuss options such as partial enclosures or time-of-day operational limits.
Council Member Goldberg, addressing the record, said the committee’s substitute motion found that although the applicant testified enclosure was unfeasible, “practical alternatives and plans could have been, but were not submitted as requested to the zoning administrator under a plan approval condition.” Goldberg urged sustaining the BZA’s action on the basis of the missing alternatives and the ongoing nuisance.
The council’s approval sustains the zoning-related conditions previously imposed and denies the appeal. The council did not specify a timetable for compliance beyond the findings adopted; Hobart had asked to be heard but the appeal was denied. The item recorded as approved will be implemented through the city’s zoning enforcement and any further administrative steps required by the BZA’s order.
The council also heard legal and factual summaries from staff during the committee phase and noted the matter’s prior administrative history dating to 1995–1996.
