The National City Planning Commission on Oct. 20, 2025, voted to deny a conditional use permit for a mobile recycling center proposed for 1240 East Plaza Boulevard behind the Smart & Final shopping center. The final vote on a motion to deny carried 4-2-1.

Staff presented the project as a mobile recycling operation consisting of two 18-by-8-foot and one 8-by-5-foot prefabricated steel containers, to operate Monday–Saturday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., with an on-site operator, cash payments for California Redemption Value (CRV) items, and routine emptying of containers. Assistant planner Sophia Depew told the commission the site is in an “unserved convenience zone” under state law and that the proposal met local land-use criteria for recycling facilities, subject to conditions intended to reduce trash, noise and nuisance behavior.

The project drew opposition from residents who live on the hill above the proposed site. Amada Rojas, a longtime resident at 1221 K Avenue, told the commission the alley and parking area behind Smart & Final already experience overnight police activity, loitering, loud vehicle noise and trash. “Introducing a mobile recycling operation would worsen these problems, increasing noise, traffic, litter, and potential safety concerns for families who live immediately adjacent to the area,” Rojas said.

Applicant representatives, Anthony St. John and Anthony St. John Jr., said their business operates multiple sites in the region and that security cameras, daily sweeping and routine container removal reduce nuisance behavior at their locations. The applicant said containers would be locked when not in use, emptied once or twice weekly once volumes grow, and that signage and on-site staff would discourage use of shopping carts and other nonmotorized hauling devices.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant about circulation, queuing and parking. Commissioners asked about the number of on-site employees (the applicant said one to start, possibly expanding to two or three), trash and grease dumpster use (the applicant said they would coordinate with the property owner and use existing store dumpsters), and power/utility questions (the applicant said cameras and a small register/DVR would be battery-powered and a truck-mounted pressure washer would be used when necessary and water collected). Staff noted the project was treated as a temporary, roll-on/roll-off collection facility under the municipal code and that a 5-year lease with options had been reported by the applicant.

Commission discussion reflected competing concerns: commissioners who supported the applicant cited state law that encourages recycling in unserved convenience zones and staff findings of land-use consistency; commissioners who opposed cited likely increases in litter, loitering and traffic problems that they concluded would be “injurious or detrimental to public health, safety, convenience or welfare.” An initial motion to approve the permit (moved by Commissioner Valenzuela) failed in a 4–2–1 vote, after which Commissioner Armenta moved to deny the permit (seconded by Vice Chair Castle). The motion to deny passed 4 yes, 2 no, 1 absent.

The commission’s denial means the applicant may appeal the decision to the City Council; staff noted the typical 30-day appeal period and that, if violations related to a similar operation occur in the future, code enforcement and conditional-use-permit revocation processes are available.

Commissioners and staff said they would refer existing circulation and safety concerns at the larger shopping center to the city’s engineering and public works divisions for follow-up beyond the CUP decision.

Details recorded during the hearing include the proposed container sizes (two 18×8 and one 8×5), operating hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m., Monday–Saturday), planned emptying cadence (about once or twice per week when volumes warrant), a reported five‑year lease with options, an initial staffing plan of one employee with potential to expand, and use of battery/DVR-powered security cameras. The planning commission closed the public hearing the same evening and adopted a denial motion based on findings related to public safety, traffic and litter.