Agenda packet, regular meeting — South Gate City Council, April 22, 2025 (part 2 of 3)

would remain on site for up to several months while the scrap metal was sorted and processed on-site, and prepared for shipment to a final off-site destination.l In 1988, the City amended its Zoning Code, in part, to require a Conditional Use Permit for recycling facilities. Thereafter, on or about April 28, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2323, which further amended the Zoning Code and changed the zoning classification of the Subject Property to Industrial Flex ("IF") Zone.

Pursuant to the Section 11.21.030 and Table 11.21-3 of the amended Zoning Code, recycling facilities require a Conditional Use Permit - however, the recycling operations at the Subject Property were deemed to be a legal, nonconforming land use that was allowed to continue in accordance with SGMC Chapter 11.55 ("Nonconforming Uses and Buildings").

According to public records and information submitted by AEP and/or its representatives, all metal recycling operations ceased in or around March 2020 and are no longer being conducted at the Site.

AEP has confirmed that around March 2020, Fleet Yards, Inc. commenced utilizing the Site solely for the storage of truck trailers and/or containers as a principal use. Moreover, the structure that was previously utilized to conduct the metal recycling at the Site was demolished.

In July 2020, the City issued approved Fleet Yards, Inc.'s application for a Temporary Use Permit and issued TUP2020-01, authorizing the use of the Subject Property for "truck trailer storage for a one-year period of time with possible extensions up to a maximum period of five years from the date of approval". TUP2020-01 expired on July 16, 2021, without a timely request for renewal from Fleet Yards, Inc.

In December 2022, the undersigned Director advised Fleet Yards, Inc. that several conditions of approval of the TUP had not been adhered to, and, moreover, that the TUP was ineligible for renewal as SGMC §11.51.070(B)(4) sets the maximum duration of Temporary Use Permits to no more than three days in a row or ten working days in any calendar year.2
1 See Section Il.iii (Page 5) of the correspondence from Somos Law Group ("8530 Alameda Street - Demonstration of Legal Nonconforming Use") dated August 17, 2023, submitted on behalf of AEP. 2 After a duly-noticed appeal hearing, on May 2, 2023, the Planning Commission upheld the Director's Determination to deny an extension of the TUP (as set forth in Resolution 2023-05). AEP has filed an appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commission's decision - however, by agreement between AEP and the City, a hearing date has not yet been scheduled. 327
Alameda Engle Properties, LLC
Attn: Alan Engle, Manager
January 21, 2025

Page 3 of 7 ends

Analysis
SGMC Chapter 11.55 ("Nonconforming Uses and Buildings") provides regulations governing the establishment, maintenance, and continuance of uses, structures, and parcels that were lawfully established but no longer conform to current City laws and regulations (commonly called "legal, nonconforming" or "nonconforming" uses and buildings). It further provides regulations for repair, maintenance, alterations, and expansions of legal, nonconforming buildings and uses - as well as grounds and procedures for the termination of legal, nonconforming uses and buildings.

The person claiming the existence of a nonconforming building or use has the burden of proof with regard to that claim.3
Metal Processing/Recycling Operations
Although neither the City nor the Property Owner have been able to locate each annual business license for JECO and/orAEP since 1973, available records (including some business licenses, Certificates of Occupancy, and photographs) document that the use of the Site for metal processing/recycling appears to have been lawfully commenced and continued at the Subject Property as described hereinbelow in greater detail through March 2020.4
The use and storage of the truck trailers has been described by AEP and/or its representatives as an "integral part of metal processing operations" at the Site - and that "metal recycling operations cannot operate without a trucking and logistical component" and that "the metal processing operations cannot function without onsite truck trailer and container storage ." 5 AEP's legal counsel has asserted that at an undisclosed point in time (although presumably prior to March 2020) former Director of Public Works Robert Dickey made recommendations to the Engles regarding the City's Business License Tax based on the Property's use as a "Materials Recycling Facility"'...[and] Although the truck trailer and container storage portion of the operations were open and visibly part of the operations during the tour, the City did not distinguish this use as separate from the legal nonconforming metal processing operations on the Property, or require a separate business license.6
3 SGMC11.55.030.B. Seea/soCityandCountyofSanFranciscov.BoardofPermitAppeals(1989) 207 Cal. App. 3d 1099, 1107.
4 The Director recognizes that although the Certificate of Occupancy issued on July 8, 1977 lists the business type as "Metal Processing", business licenses issued to JECO between 2015 and 2018 reference "outdoor storage". Nonetheless, AEP credibly asserts that metal processing/recycling operations continued at the Site through March 2020.
5 See Section ll.iii (Page 5) of the correspondence from Somos Law Group ("8530 Alameda Street - Demonstration of Legal Nonconforming Use") dated August 17, 2023, submitted on behalf of AEP. 6 See Section ll.iv (Page 6) of the correspondence from Somos Law Group ("8530 Alameda Street - Demonstration of Legal Nonconforming Use") dated August 17, 2023, submitted on behalf of AEP. 328
Alameda Engle Properties, LLC
Attn: Alan Engle, Manager
January 21, 2025

Page 4 of 7 ends

Although AEP has not provided any written record issued by Mr. Dickey with such recommendations, if AEP's assertions that the truck trailer and container storage at the Site was such an integral component of the metal processing/recycling operations, the City would reasonably not have distinguished the truck trailer storage as a separate use nor required a separate business license as such use would have been an aspect of the then legal and licensed metal processing/recycling operations.

SGMC 11.55.040.B provides, in pertinent part:

Any discontinuance of such nonconforming use, as outlined in this chapter, For two consecutive calendar years shall be deemed to constitute an abandonment of any right to continue or maintain such nonconforming use, and any future land use shall conform to provisions of this title. The director may extend, in writing, for no longer than twelve months, the period of discontinuance upon making the findings required by this chapter.

City records and documents submitted by AEP and/or its representatives confirm that the recycling operations terminated at the Site in March 2020 - and, moreover, that the building at the Subject Property used for the indoor portion of the recycling operations was demolished.

South Gate Municipal Code Sectionll.55.040.D provides,in pertinent part:

Any discontinuance of such nonconforming use, as outlined in [Chapter

11.55], for two consecutive calendar years shall be deemed to constitute an abandonment of any right to continue or maintain such nonconforming use, and any future land use shall conform to provisions of [Title II J.

Due to the passage of over four years since the discontinuation of the metal processing/recycling operations at the Site - including the demolition of the structure in which the metal processing/recycling occurred, the Director hereby determines that the metal processing/recyclinq operation - and all inteqral functions/components of that use, has been abandoned
Truck Trailer/Container Storage
Although the City acknowledges that JECO and/or AEP stored truck trailers and/or containers at the site for limited periods of time, public records and other documents submitted to the City by AEP and/or its representatives demonstrate that such storage was an integral component of the recycling operations at the Site - and not an approved principal use unrelated to such operations.

Although AEP has asserted that "draying, freighting, or trucking yards or terminals" were a specifically authorized use of the Subject Property in 1976, AEP has not provided any compelling evidence that either JECO orAEP, in fact, lawfully established such use at the 329
Alameda Engle Properties, LLC
Attn: Alan Engle, Manager
January 2'l, 2025

Page 5 of 7 ends

property nor lawfully continued such use without termination since that time.

Notwithstanding a use being permitted by right, this would not have relieved a property owner or business operator from the need to develop and improve the property being used for such use as otherwise required by applicable law (e.g., paving, landscaping, lighting, screening, and/or parking requirements), nor from the need to obtain all other required business licenses, permits, and/or inspections. No evidence has been submitted by AEP to demonstrate that JECO did, in fact, adhere to any such land-use and/or licensing requirements applicable to a draying, Freighting, or trucking yards or terminals.

AEP has also submitted two appraisal reports prepared by Syn-Mar Associates for the "storage yard located at 8440-8530 South Alameda Street, South Gate, California 90001 ".

An appraisal was prepared on or about July 15, 2015, and the other was prepared on or about May 8, 2017. After careful review and consideration of each of the appraisal reports, the Director has concluded that neither of the reports (jointly or combined) provides satisfactory evidence that the Subject Property was utilized for the storage of truck trailers/containers as a lawful use independent of the recycling facilities.

In this regard, the Director specifically notes that each appraisal report explicitly states "The subject property is utilized as a metal recycling plant/yard."7 Although each of the appraisal reports also refer to the Site as a "storage yard", each report explains that Due to the fact that the subject improvements [consisting of 2 concrete- block industrial buildings and 3 metal industrial buildings, paving, and fencing, as well as sheds, covered structures, and temporary buildings/structures not included in the overall rentable building area] cover only 8% of the site, we have classified the subject as a storage yard.8 The 2015 appraisal report further states that
Storage/rental yard properties are named as such because they are primarily used for onsite storage of vehicles, machinery, supplies, and/or other job-related materials. These sites usually have a smaller amount of building area specific to the needs of the given user (as compared to traditional industrial or office buildings), along with a relatively large yard area. We have found that storage yard properties will sell for more than just land value alone in recognition of the onsite building improvements.9 7 See the cover letter and page 6 of each of the appraisal reports, as well as page 14 of the 2017 appraisal report.
a See the cover letter of each appraisal report.
9 See page 3 of the 2C115 appraisal report.
330
Alameda Engle Properties, LLC
Attn: Alan Engle, Manager
January 21, 2025

Page 6 of 7 ends

It should also be noted that neither of these appraisals were prepared by nor approved by the City of South Gate, and as such, statements contained therein as they relate to the legal status of any use or structure does not bind the City.lo Ultimately, the person claiming the existence of a nonconforming building or use has the burden of proof with regard to that claim.

Due to the lack of any compelling evidence that the storage of truck trailers and/or containers was lawfully established and continued at the Site as a principal use unrelated to a metal processing/recycling facility prior to 2000 when Fleet Yards, Inc. commenced business operations at the Site, the Director hereby determines that such use does not have, nor ever had, a leqal, non-conforming status at the Subiect Property.ll lo AEP asserts that the appraisals confirm that the City has made prior statements that the use of the Subject Property for truck trailer and container storage is a legal, nonconforming use - however, this assertion is not persuasive. As indicated, the City neither prepared nor approved the appraisal reports - and, as such, any statement therein Jacks any binding impact upon the City. On page 19 of the 20al5 appraisal, it attributes the statement that "the subject's zoning was recently changed to [lndustrial Flex] from M2" to an unnamed representative of the City's Planning Department, and further states that "the subject as a storage yard...is reportedly now a pre-existing, legal non-conforming use". Since the use of the term "storage yard" in the appraisal is a result of the limited development of the Site (less than 8oQ and not due to the specific use conducted at the Site (which both appraisal reports conclude was for a "metal recycling plant/yard"), the reference to the storage yard being a legal, nonconforming use may merely be a reference to the metal processing/recycling use that was occurring at the Site - and not a reference to the use of the Subject Property for truck trailer storage independent of the recycling activities. For that matter, neither appraisal report describes any truck trailer storage use of the Site independent of the recycling activities.

Furthermore, the 2015 appraisal only attributes the statement regarding the change in zone to the unnamed City Official - and not the conclusion of any legal, nonconforming status. It should also be noted that the 2017 appraisal report does not contain any reference to the statement that was purportedly made at some unknown time by the unidentified City Official regarding legal, nonconformity - although on page 17, it does repeat the conclusion that the "storage yard" is a legal, nonconforming use. " TheDirectoriscognizantthatonJulyl6,2020,TemporaryUsePermit2020-01wasissuedtoF(eet Yards, Inc. to permit the use of the Site for truck trailer storage for a limited period of time. Specifically, TUP2020-01 authorized truck trailer storage at the Subject Property for a period of one (1) year with possible extensions of up to a maximum of five (5) years, subject to compliance with exp(icit terms and conditions. The Director subsequently concluded that Fleet Yards, Inc. failed to adhere to the Conditions of Approval - including, but not limited to, submitting for a renewal of the TUP at least thirty (30) days prior to expiration (which was scheduled for Juty 16, 2021 ). Moreover, the Director and Ptanning Commission determined thatTUP2020-01 was issued in error as SGMC 11.51.070(B%4) explicitly limits the issuance of Temporary Use Permits to uses that do not exceed three (3) days in a row, or ten (10) working days in any calendar year. The Director has not found or received any compelling evidence that Fleet Yards, Inc., was given any express or implied assurance that the temporary use authorized by TUP2020-01 would exceed the initial 1 -year grant without compliance with the Conditions of Approval - including submitting a timely request for renewal, nor that the temporary use would be allowed to continue beyond a maximum period of 5 years from the initial date of issuance (which was July 16, 2020). Notwithstanding same, a permit that purports to authorize a use in violation of applicable laws is void. 331
Alameda Engle Properties, LLC
Attn: Alan Engle, Manager
January 21, 2025

Page 7 of 7 ends

CONCLUSION
The legal, nonconforming use of the Subject Property For metal processing and/or recycling activities - including the integral truck trailer storage component of those activities, has been determined to be abandoned and can no longer be conducted at the Site unless otherwise in conformity to all current laws and regulations of the City (and applicable governmental agencies).

The use of the Site for truck trailer storage as a principal use unrelated to metal processing/recycling activities is not a legal, nonconforming use - and, as such, must be immediately terminated.

Any interested party (applicant or opponent) may appeal this Determination to the Planning Commission within ten (10) working days of this Determination by filing a written request to appeal with the City Clerk's Office (located at South Gate City Hall - 8650 California Avenue, South Gate) and tendering any applicable fees. Failure to timely file a request to appeal with the City Clerk's Office and to tender all requisite fees shall result in this Determination being deemed final and binding.

If you have any questions or wish to discuss this Determination in greater detail, you may contact the undersigned. However, please note that an appeal may only be requested as set forth hereinabove.

Sincerely,
David M. Crabtree, AICP
Interim Community Development Director
Cc: Fleet Yards, Inc. -Attn: Daniel S. Otting, CEO/CFO / 893 West 1 6'h Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
/Via E-Mail: Dan(QFleetYardslnc.com
Fleet Yards, Inc. -Attn: Brian Davis, Agent for Service / 4340 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 380, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Somos Law Group -Attn: Alred Fraijo, Jr. and Sara Atsbaha /304 South Broadway, Suite 350, Los Angeles, CA 90013 /Via E-Mail: [email protected]
/Via E-Mail: Sara(QSornosGroup.org
Rob Houston, City Manager
Raul Salinas, CityAttorney
James Eckart, City Prosecutor
332

ATTACHMENT C
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341

EXHIBIT A
342

RECORDING REQUESTED
BY:

Alameda Engle Properties LLC
8440 South Alameda Street
Los Angeles, California 90001
WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO:

Department of Toxic Substances tGontrol
9211 Oakdale Avenue
Chatsworth, California 91311
Attention: Sayareh Amirebrahimi
Branch Chief, Cleanup Program

SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER'S USE
LAND USE ClOVENANT AND AGREEMENT
I
ENVIROtMENTAL RESTRICTIONS
County of Los Angeles,IAssessor's Parcel Number: 6202-036-003 Site Na~e: Engle Southern Parcel
Fite Code: 301249
This Land Use Covenant and Agrejement ("Covenant") is made by and between Alameda Engle Properties LLC (thi "Covenantor"), the current owner of property located at 8530 South Alameda s~Jeet, South Gate, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, Assessor's Parcel Number 6202-036-003 (the "Property"), and the Department of Toxic Substances jontrol (the "Department"). Pursuant to Civil Code section 1471, the Department has determined that this Covenant is reasonably necessary to protect present or fut~re human health or safety or the environment as a result of the presence on the land ~f hazardous materials as defined in Health and . I Safety Code sect1on 25260. The 9ovenantor and the Department hereby agree that, pursuant to Civil Code section 147/ and Health and Safety Code section 25355.5, the use of the Property be restricted as set forth in this Covenant and that the Covenant shall conform with the requirement~ of California Code of Regulations, title 22, section 67391 .1.

Page 1 ends

343

ARTICLE I
STl-\TEMENT OF FACTS
I 1 .1. Property Location. Tlhe Property that is subject to this Covenant, totaling approximately 6.8 acres, is more plarticularly described in the attached Exhibit A, "Legal Description", and depicted in Exhitlit B, "Site Location Map." The Property is located in the area now generally bounded b~ Los Angeles County Assessor's Parcel Number 6202-036-004 to the north (the Enble Northern Parcel), a former railroad spur south of I
Santa Fe Avenue to the east, a railroad spur north of Los Angeles County Assessor's Parcel Number 6204-034-002 to t~e south, and a railroad along South Alameda Street to the west. The Property is also i~entified as County of Los Angeles, Assessor's I
Parcel Number 6202-036-003.
1 .2. Investigation of Prop1rty. This Property has been investigated under the Department's ov~rsight. The Depalrtment approved a Site Investigation Workplan and an Addendum to the Workplan in Jccordance with Health and Safety Code, division 20, chapter 6.8. The investigation acti~ities conducted at the Property include soil, soil vapor and ground water testing. ~azardous substances in soil, soil vapor, and groundwater remain at the Propert¥ above levels acceptable for unrestricted use.

Specifically, the following hazardo~s substances have been found: 1) in soil, arsenic up to 205 mg/kg (ppm), 2) in soil vap+ vinyl chloride up to 22.5 ug/L (ppb) and tetrachloroethene up to 248 ug/L, and 3) in groundwater, cis-1 ,2-dichloroethene up to 480 ug/L and vinyl chloride up to+ ug/L.

1.3. Basis for Environmental Restrictions. As a result of the presence of hazardous substances, which are 11so hazardous materials as defined in Health and Safety Code section 25260, at the Property, the Department has concluded that it is reasonably necessary to restrict the use of the Property in order to protect present or future human health or safety or t+ environment, and that this Covenant is required as part of the Department-approved remedy for the Property. The Department has also concluded that the Property, as retediated and when used in compliance with the Environmental Restrictions of this Covenant, does not present an unacceptable risk to present and future human health of safety or the environment.

Page 2 ends

344

ARTICLE II

DEFINITIONS

2.1. Department "Departrent" means the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and includes ils successor agencies, if any.

2.2. Environmental Restribtions. "Environmental Restrictions" means all protective provisions, covenants, r~strictions, requirements, prohibitions, and terms and conditions as set forth in this Covehant

2.3. Improvements. "lmprbvements" includes, but is not limited to buildings, structures, roads, driveways, imprdved parking areas, wells, pipelines, or other utilities.

2.4. Lease. "Lease" rnea~s lease, rental agreement, or any other document that creates a right to use or occu+ any portion of the Property.

2.5. Occupant "Occupant" or "Occupants" means Owner and any person or entity entitled by ownership, leasell old, or other legal relationship to the right to occupy any portion of the Property.

2.6. Owner. "Owner" or "Owners" rneans the Covenantor, and any successor in interest including any heir and a~signee, who at any time holds title to all or any portion of the Property.

I
ARTICLE Ill

GENERAL PROVISIONS
I

3.1. Runs with the Land. This Covenant sets forth Environmental Restrictions that apply to and encumber the PrJperty and every portion thereof no matter how it is improved, held, used, occupied, le1sed, sold, hypothecated, encumbered, or conveyed.

This Covenant: (a) runs with the larl d pursuant to Civil Code section 1471 and Health and Safety Code section 25355.5; b) inures to the benefit of and passes with each and every portion of the Property; (c) is for the benefit of, and is enforceable by the Department; and (d) is imposed upon the entire Property unless expressly stated as applicable only to a specific portion thereof.

3.2. Binding upon Owners/Occupants. This Covenant: (a) binds all Owners of the Property, their heirs, successor
1 b, and assignees; and (b) the agents, employees,
and lessees of the Owners and the Owners' heirs, successors, and assignees.

Page 3 ends

345
Pursuant to Civil Code section 14711, all successive Owners of the Property are expressly bound hereby for the be refit of the Department; this Covenant, however, is binding on all Owners and Occupalnts, and their respective successors and assignees, only during their respective periods of ownership or occupancy except that such Owners or Occupants shall continue to be lliable for any violations of, or non-compliance with, the Environmental Restrictions of this Covenant or any acts or omissions during their ownership or occupancy. l

3.3. Incorporation into De. ds and Leases. This Covenant shall be incorporated by reference in each 1nd every deed and Lease for any portion of the I
Property.

3.4. Conveyance of Prop4rty. The Owner and new Owner shall provide Notice ("Notice" as used herein includes Jny demand or other communication with respect to this Covenant) to the Department 1ot later than 30 calendar days after any conveyance or receipt of any ownership interest in the Property (excluding Leases, and mortgages, liens, and other non-possessory e1cumbrances). The Notice shall include the name and mailing address of the new Owner of the Property and shall reference the site name and site code as listed on page onl of this Covenant. The Notice shall also include the Assessor's Parcel Number(s) noteb on page one. If the new Owner's property has been assigned a different Assessor's Parcel Number, each such Assessor's Parcel Number that covers the Property must be provided. The Department shall not, by reason of this Covenant, have authority to appro~e, disapprove, or otherwise affect proposed conveyance, except as otherwise provided by law or by administrative order.

3.5. Costs of Administeri~g the Covenant to Be Paid by Owner. The Department has already incurred 1nd will in the future incur costs associated with this Covenant. Therefore, the Covenamtor hereby covenants for the Covenantor and for all subsequent Owners that, pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 22, section 67391.1 (h), the Owner agrees to pay the Department's costs in administering, implementing and enforcing this cJvenant.

Page 4 ends

346

ARTICLE IV
RESTRIClliONS AND REQUIREMENTS

4.1. Prohibited Uses. Th~ Property shall not be used for any of the following purposes without prior written app1oval by the Department:
(a) A residence, including any mobile home or factory built housing, constructed or install~d for use as residential human habitation. (b) A hospital for human}.
(c) A public or private school for persons under 18 years of age. (d) A day care center for children.

4.2. Soil Management. Soil management activities at the Property are subject to the following requirements in ad~ition to any other applicable Environmental Restrictions:
(a)
(b)

4.3. Property:

No activities that will ~isturb the soil (e.g., excavation, grading, removal, trenching, filling, earth movement, mining, or drilling) shall be allowed at the Property without k Soil Management Plan pre-approved by the D rt . . . I epa ment m wntmg.

Any soil brought to t~e surface by grading, excavation, trenching or backfilling shall be mrnaged in accordance with all applicable provisions of state and federal law.

Prohibited Activities. I The following activities shall not be conducted at the (a) Drilling for any water,l oil, or gas without prior written approval by the (b)
(c)

4.4. Department.

I
Extraction or removal of groundwater without a Groundwater Management Plan pre-approved bJ the Department in writing.

Activity that may altef, interfere with, or otherwise affect the integrity or effectiveness of, or tHe access to, any investigative, remedial, monitoring, operation or maintenknce system (e.g., cap, vapor extraction system, monitoring system, g~oundwater extraction system) or activity required for the Property without briar written approval of the Department.

Access for Departmelnt. The Department shall have reasonable right of '

Page 5 ends

347
SOMOS

LAW GPO(A)
304 South Broadway, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 900'13
November 15 2023

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Mayor del Pilar Avalos
City of South Gate
8650 California Avenue
Council Chambers
South Gate, CA 90280
Re: Request for Appeal & Determination of Legal Nonconforming Use Dear Mayor del PilarAvalos and Honorable City Councilmembers, Our firm represents Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP"), the owners of real property located at 8530 Alameda Street in City of South Gate ("City"), California (the "Property").

AEP operated a recycling facility on the Property, including storage of truck trailers/containers, starting the early 1 970s. Fleet Yards, Inc. ("Fleet Yards") is the current tenant on the Property, and has been storing truck trailers/containers on the Property since 2020 pursuant to a Temporary Use Permit ("TUP") at the recommendation and requirement of the City's previous Director of Community Development. As noted in our previous correspondence to the Planning Commission, the City Attorneys and to Planning Staff, this use has been a consistent part of the site operations for over 50 years and is a legal nonconforming use. On December 20, 2022, the Current Director of Community Development denied the extension of the TUP on the grounds that the City erred in issuing the TUP, and alleged that the legal nonconforming use had been abandoned. Notwithstanding the City's error in issuing the TUP, the existing truck trailer and container storage use is preserved as legal and nonconforming. On January 26, 2023, AEP submitted a letter appealing the Director's decision to the South Gate City Planning Commission ("CPC").

On April 27, 2023 City Attorney, Craig Hardwick, notified us that the legal nonconforming use issue is not related to the TUP extension, and would not be considered as part of the TUP hearing. However, the current Director of Community Development alleged that the legal nonconforming use had been abandoned in her SOMOS 1

ATTACHMENT D
348
December 20, 2022 correspondence denying the TUP extension. Ms. Elguira made similar statements regarding the legal nonconforming use during the May 2, 2023 appeal hearing before the City Planning Commission ("CPC Hearing"). Thus, the scope of the legal nonconforming use is at the center of this appeal ("Appeal").

During the CPC Hearing, the Planning Commission denied the appeal in a close, 3-2 decision. However, the Commissioners instructed Planning Staff to work together with our clients to resolve the legal nonconforming issue given the decades of successful business operations on the Property.

Our firm sent letters explaining justification for the Appeal on April 27, 2023, and a supplemental letter appealing the CPC's decision on May 16, 2023 (Exhibits A & B, respectively). In a letter dated May 16, 2023, The current Director of Community Development, asserted that an appeal of the TUP decision to the City Council was "not available" notwithstanding the appeal provisions in the South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC"). Ms. Elguira's May 16, 2023 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

Since then, we have been working closely with the City Attorney's office to provide evidence of truck trailer and container storage on the Property dating back to the early 1 970s. After waiting several months for the City's response to our Public Records Act request, our office submitted comprehensive documentation of truck trailer and container storage use over several decades at the property to the City on August 17, 2023, attached hereto as Exhibit D. Ms. Elguira has provided no response to that letter, and has not made a formal determination on the legal nonconforming use issue as required by the SGMC.1
On November 3, 2023, our office received a letter from the City Prosecutor requesting our clients to again submit appeal documentation of the CPC"s May 2, 2023 decision regarding the TUP. In order to preserve our clients' rights, we are writing for a second time to appeal the CPC's determination., and to request that the City:
a. Accept this second appeal of the City Planning Commission's May 2, 2023 denial of our request to extend the TUP;
b. Require that the Director comply with her obligations under the SGMC to issue a determination on the legal nonconforming use; c. Acknowledge that truck trailer and container storage has been a legal nonconforming use on the property, as demonstrated in the August 17 letter and supporting Exhibits; and
d. Allow Fleet Yards to continue its truck trailer/container storage operations pursuant to that use.

I Section 11.55.070 of the SG MC provides that the Director must issue a determination when a specific use has lost its legal nonconforming status. SGMC Ei 11.55.070.A The determination may then be appealed to the City Planning Commission. As of the date of this letter, we have not received any such determination from Ms. Elguira, or a response to our August 17, 2023 letter.

SOMOS 2
349
Justification for these requests is well-documented, as explained in the attached exhibits, and in the appellants' presentation materials dated May 2, 2023, attached hereto as Exhibit E. We reserve the right to submit additional justification prior to the City Council hearing.

Please contact my office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Alfred Fraijo Jr.

Partner
213.592.2966 direct
[email protected]
cc: James Eckart
Raul Salinas
Craig Hardwick
Meredith Elguira
Yalini Siva
Jason Engle
Alan Engle
Dan Otting
Tommy Newcomer
SOMOS 3
350

EXHIBIT A
351
April 27, 2023
SOMOS

LAW GROUP
304 South Broadwey, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90013

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City of South Gate
8650 California Ave
South Gate CA, 90280
Re: 8530 Alameda Street - Appeal of Director's Denial of TOP Extension Dear Chairperson Delgado, and Honorable Members of the City Planning Commission, Our firm represents Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP"), the owners of real property located at 8530 Alameda Street in City of South Gate ("City"), California (the "Property").

The truck trailer storage use has been continuous on the Property during the AEP operations and subsequent Fleet Yards operations. As a family-owned business and longstanding member of the South Gate community, AEP is dedicated to working alongside its neighbors, fellow stakeholders, and the City to amicably resolve the City's concerns regarding historic uses on the Property.

We are writing to clarify the scope and nature of the operations on the Property and respectfully request that:
a. The City acknowledge the existing legal nonconforming use; and b. The City allow Fleet Yards to continue its truck trailer storage operations pursuant to that use; or
c. In the alternative, that the City honor its previous commitments regarding the TUP extensions in light of City staff's error in requiring the TUP.

SOMOS
1 352

1. Backqround
At the recommendation of Joe Perez, the Director of Community Development at the time, on July 16, 2020, Fleet Yards obtained a Temporary Use Permit ("TUP") for truck trailer use on the Property, subject to six conditions. The City made several commitments to AEP and to Fleet Yards during the discussions leading to the TUP, including that the TUP would be extended annually and that the City would consider additional extensions in the future. The purpose of the TUP was to allow the City to explore its priorities for development of education facilities at or around the Property.

We understand that many of these projects have been substantially delayed because of setbacks caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic, changing real estate market conditions, declining attendance for in-person academic programs, and environmental conditions in the Property vicinity. On December 20, 2022, the current Community Development Director informed Fleet Yards that the City would no longer consider the TUP extension because of the City's misapplication of the South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC") and because the conditions of approval have been violated. On January 26, 2023, AEP informed the City that they would be appealing the determination.'

2. Truck Trailer Storaqe is a Leqal & Nonconforminq Llse at the Property a. The City has Authority to Remedy the Previous Administration's Errant Requirements for a TUP.

The SGMC states that "nonconforming industrial uses may continue in use in any zone where they were legally established." SGMC § 1 1.55.030.E. AEP, and later, Fleet Yards have been operating a recycling facility, including truck trailer storage at the Property since the early 1 970s. Fleet Yards obtained a TUP only at the City's direction and recommendations as a demonstration of their good faith efforts to comply with City policies and procedures. The original TUP and TUP extensions were not necessary because the truck trailer storage is an ongoing legal nonconforming use with over 50 years of history between the two operators on the Property. Fleet Yards agreed to the TUP only to demonstrate its willingness to work with the City regarding a shared vision for additional education facilities in South Gate. We understand that the zoning on the Property was only recently changed to "Industrial Flex." We also understand that the City's did not issue certificates of occupancy regularly during the early 1970s when the operations started at the Property. However, we have attached the following documents that establish consistent storage of tractor trailers long before the zone change on the Property:
* A July 1, 2019, Business License to Jack Engle authorizing "outside storage" at 8530 Alameda Street since April 18, 1 977;2 I Please note that the 2022 Rejection Letter failed to disclose the owner's appeal rights and the City's policies and procedures to file the appeal.
2 See Exhibit A.

SOMOS 2
353
* Aerial Photos showing tractor trailers on the site dating back to 201 ;,3 * Documentation of Utility payments dat,ing back to 201 6;4 * A sewerage system connection fee invoice from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District dating back to 2007;
* An invoice from the South Coast Air Quality Management District for operations on the Property dating back to 2011.5
These documents demonstrate that the industrial operations on the Property, including truck trailer storage have been operating consistently for decades. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the City acknowledge that truck trailer storage is a legal nonconforming use on the Property.
b. The Leqal Nonconforminq Use has Not Been Abandoned or Discontinued, and the Riqht to Continue is Protected and Preserved Pursuant to the South Gate Municipal Code.

The SGMC states that a legal nonconforming industrial use is preserved so long as it is not abandoned or discontinued for two consecutive calendar years. SGMC §

11.55.040.B. In determining whether a legal nonconforming use has been abandoned, the Director is to evaluate (i) the apparent intent of the owner to discontinue, (ii) whether furnishings equipment, or personal property have been removed, (iii) whether the use has been discontinued for a period of two years, (iv) whether there is an active business license and State Board of Equalization permit, and (v) whether there are active utilities accounts, including electricity, gas, water, and waste collection. SGMC § 11 .55.040.D.1-2.

The SGMC specifically preserves legal nonconforming uses during transfers of ownership or tenancy. SGMC § 11.55.040.E. Although there are limitations on expansion, the nonconforming use provisions of the SGMC protect all established legaJ nonconforming uses under the code, regardless of the scope of the use.6 There is no language in the SGMC indicating that a portion of a legal nonconforming use is abandoned due to the scope of the use at the time it is established.7 The South Gate General Plan's Community Design Element ("General Plan") specifically anticipates legal nonconforming uses in the South Gate College District given the existing surrounding industrial uses. The General Plan also specifically requires that "[i]ndustrial and manufacturing uses should remain in the area" until such time that the college district expands. 8 (emphasis added).

Here, between the two operations on the Property, truck trailer storage has been a continuous use at the Property since 1973-notwithstanding hardships caused by the 3 See Exhibit El-E-4.
4 See Exhibit C.
5 See Exhibit D.
" SGMC §§ 11 .55.030jl1 .55.040
7 Id. at 11.55.040.
8 South Gate General Plan.' Community Design Element, Policy P.6, pg. 106.

SOMOS 3
354
COVID-19 Pandemic, and by the City's error in requiring a TUP. AEP consistently held business licenses for the entirety of their operations on the Property.9 Similarly, Fleet Yards has held a business license with the City for business operations including outdoor storage transportation, freight and cargo at its primary South Gate address at 4223 Independence Avenue, South Gate, CA 90280, but was informed that it did not need one for the Property. Although the scope and nature of operations for AEP and Fleet Yards were different, neither party ceased the truck trailer storage operations, vacated the premises, or terminated utility service at the Property for the requisite two consecutive year abandonment period. Documentation of consistent utilities payments are attached in Exhibit C. Aerial Photographs dating back to 2012 demonstrate that truck trailer storage has been a continuous use at the Property without substantial interruption.lo In addition, Fleet Yards' intent to continue the legal nonconforming truck trailer storage use has been communicated to the City on multiple occasions, including in connection with the subsequent TUP extension.'l Based solely on this, Director Meredith Elguira's December 20, 2022 ("2022 Rejection Letter") communication that the use had been abandoned is inconsistent with the documents in the record, the open and continuous communications with the City declaring the intent to continue operations. In addition, preserving the legal nonconforming use is consistent with the policies in the General Plan. Truck trailer storage is an existing use on the Property and should not be displaced pursuant to General Plan policies. In addition, the Property is surrounded by industrial uses, and adjacent educational institutions have substantially delayed development plans due to environmental conditions in the Property vicinity, financing considerations, changes in class attendance, real estate market considerations and the COVID-19 Pandemic - indicating that forced changes in use within the South Gate College District at this time is inconsistent with the needs of the community. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the City acknowledge the substantial evidence indicating consistent truck trailer storage at the Property, and preservation of this use as legal and nonconforming. c. Fleet Yards has Maintained an Active Business License with the City of South Gate Since 2014, and Cannot Obtain an Auxiliary Permit Without the City's Cooperation.

The SGMC states that lapse of a business license is one of many factors the City considers in determining whether the legal nonconforming use has been abandoned.

Here, AEP maintained a business license for the entirety of its operations on the Property.l2 Fleet Yards has similarly maintained a business license with the City since 2014. AEP and Fleet Yards have maintained a good faith effort to comply with all City 9 See Exhibit A.
ffl See Exhibit E.
" See January 26, 2023 letter from AEP to Chris Jeffers re TUP Extension, attached hereto as Exhibit F; September 27, 2022 Correspondence between Efren Martinez and Director Meredith Elguira regarding the legal nonconforming use on the Property, attached hereto as Exhibit G. '2 See Exhibit A.

SOMOS 4
355
licensing policies and procedures, in addition to permits from other state and local jurisdictions.'3 However, on December 20, 2022 the City claimed that the business license had lapsed without reference to the existing licenses for the Fleet Yards operations. We understand that the City's position is that Fleet Yards requires a supplemental or auxiliary business license for its operations on the Property. However, to obtain a business license, an applicant must first obtain zoning clearance from the South Gate Planning Department. Based on communications from City staff, including the 2022 Rejection Letter, we understand that the City will not issue a zoning clearance because of the current zoning on the Property, notwithstanding the legal nonconforming use. It is inequitable to claim that the use has been abandoned due to lack of an auxiliary business permit when City staff members have indicated that they would not issue the prerequisite zoning clearance for that auxiliary business permit. For these reasons, in consideration of all of the determinative factors for abandonment, there is substantial evidence that the legal nonconforming use on the Property, including storage of tractor trailers has not been abandoned or discontinued. d. Fleet Yards has Substantially Complied with all of the TUP Conditions.

On December 20, 2022, Director Meredith Elguira a(leged that the TUP could not be extended because the conditions of approval had been violated. However, Fleet Yards has substantially complied with the TUP conditions to the extent feasible. On July 16, 2020, the City approved the TUP subject to the following conditions:

1. That the approved use be restricted to truck trailer storage only;

2. That the temporary use is approved for a term of one year, and that additional one-year extensions must be applied for at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the previous term, for a period of 5 years;

3. That ingress and egress shall be only via Alameda Street;

4. That the number, size and height of truck trailers do not exceed those attached to the original approval;

5. That violations of these conditions or City laws could result in revocation of the TUP; and

6. That the property owner agree to all conditions in the form of a signed affidavit.

As explained above, AEP and later, Fleet Yards have used the Property continuously for truck trailer storage since 1973. Fleet Yards has used the Property Tor truck trailer storage since obtaining the TUP in July, 2020. The size, number, and height of the truck trailers as authorized in the TUP has not changed. Consistent with the requirements of the TUP, ingress and egress is permitted only on Alameda Street. Although the application for the TUP extension was missed in 2021 due to complications from the COVID-19 Pandemic, both AEP and Fleet Yards have been in consistent communication with the City regarding the nonconforming use on the Property. The owner's signed affidavit is attached as Exhibit H. The remaining condition cites 13 1,1
SOMOS 5
356
violations of "City laws". As noted above, the City's cooperation is required to obtain an auxiliary business permit to supplement the active business license. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the City acknowledge that each of these conditions have been met to the extent possible.

3. Terminatinq the Leqal Nonconforminq Use Violates the Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel
The Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel was designed to promote fair and equitable business transactions. The doctrine is based on the principle that a party who has made a promise should be held accountable for it where reliance on the agreement was reasonable, and enforcement of the agreement is necessary to avoid injustice.

Drennan v Star Paving Co. (1958) 51 Cal.2d 409, 412-41 3; Garcia v World Sav & Loan Assn. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1031, 4 037. Here, Fleet Yards only agreed to the TUP as a demonstration of good faith and willingness to work with the City regarding its vision for the community. Based on communications from City staff on July 8, 2020, in addition to the plain language of the TUP, the City was to consider additional extensions of the TUP in addition to the initial five-year term. In addition, both AEP and Fleet Yards agreed to the TUP as a measure of good faith and willingness to work with the City. It is inequitable for the City to renege on this agreement. AEP forwent multiple lucrative opportunities to sell the Property in reliance on the City's communications and the reasonable expectation that the City's permits, licenses, and representations are consistent notwithstanding changes in staff, changes in departmental priorities, and unilateral changes to the zoning code. If the City does not honor its prior commitments, both AEP and Fleet Yards will suffer substantial financial harm. In addition, this inconsistency in City policies discourages investment in our community and is a substantial deviation from the City's treatment of similarly situated legacy businesses.

4. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the equitable path forward is to acknowledge truck trailer storage on the Property as a preserved, legal nonconforming use in light of the substantial evidence supporting this finding, and the requirements of the General Plan.

In the alternative, we respectfully request that the City reverse the Director's denial of the TUP extension. We understand that the City's position is that the TUP was issued in error. However, where, as here, immediately terminating the TUP causes substantial harm to the community, and there is substantial evidence supporting that the use is legal and nonconforming, we urge you to use this opportunity to make it right. As a further demonstration of good faith and willingness to work together, we respectfully request the City share any documentation indicating that the truck trailer storage is not authorized pursuant to the legacy operations on the Property, and procedures for obtaining a business permit zoning clearance where, as here, the use is legal nonconforming.

SOMOS 6
357
Please contact my office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Alfred Fraijo Jr.

Partner
213.592.2966 direct
[email protected]
SOMOS
358

EXHIBIT B
359
Office of the
ith laayke City Clerk
F!LED
SOMOS

LAW GROUP
304 South Broadway, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90013
May 16, 2023

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Maria del PilarAvalos
Mayor, City of South Gate
8650 California Avenue
South Gate, CA 90280
Email:[email protected]
Re: 8530 Alameda Street - Appeal of CPC's Denial of TOP Extension Dear Mayor del PilarAvalos, and Honorable Members of City Council, Our firm represents Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP"), the owners of real property located at 8530 Alameda Street in City of South Gate ("City"), California (the "Property"). AEP operated a recycling Facility on the Property, including storage of truck trailers/containers, since the early 1 970s. Fleet Yards, Inc. ("Fleet Yards") is the current tenant on the Property, and has been storing truck trailers/containers on the Property since 2020 pursuant to a Temporary Use Permit ("TUP") at t'he recommendation and requirement of the City's previous Director of Community Development. On December 20, 2023, the Current Director of Community Development denied the extension on the grounds that the City erred in issuing the TUP, and alleging that the legal nonconforming use had been abandoned. On January 26, 2023, AEP submitted a letter appealing the Director's decision to the South Gate City Planning Commission ("CPC").

Our firm sent a supplemental letter explaining justification for the appeal on April 27, 2023, ("Supplemental Letter") attached hereto as Exhibit A. On April 27, 2023 City Attorney, Craig Hardwick, kindly notified us that the legal nonconforming use issue is not related to the TUP extension. However, the current Director of Community Development alleged that the legal nonconforming use had been abandoned in her December 20, 2023 correspondence denying the TUP extension. Thus, the scope of the lega! nonconforming use is at the center of this appeal ("Appeal"). On May 2, 2023, in a close, 3-2 decision, CPC denied the appeal of the Director's denial of the TUP

SOMOS I
360
extension on the grounds that the TUP was issued in error.' The CPC did not make a determination on truck trailer/container storage as a legal nonconforming use at the Property. Immediately after the CPC hearing our office conferred regarding the path forward for the legal nonconforming use. Since the appeal hearing, we have been working with the City Attorney and the City Manager to reach a resolution.

In the interim, we are writing to appeal to CPC's denial of the TLIP extensio. With regard to the Appeal, we respectfully request that City Council:
a. Acknowledge the existing legal nonconforming use, given the consistent truck trailer storage on the property since 1 973; and b. Allow Fleet Yards to continue its truck trailer/container storage operations pursuant to that use; or
c. In the alternative, postpone the City Council hearing on the appeal until we have had an opportunity to resolve the legal nonconforming use issue with the City Manager and City Attorney, which would moot the need for further appeal.

Justification for these requests is well-documented, as explained in the Supplemental Letter, the supporting exhibits to the Supplemental Letter, and in the appellants' presentation materials dated May 2, 2023. We are working with the City to obtain copies of additional supporting materials, and reserve the right to submit additional justification prior to the City Council hearing.

Please contact my office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Alfred Fraijo Jr.

Partner
2al3.592.2966 direct
[email protected]
' A copy of appellants' presentation materials during the May 2, 2023 CPC hearing are attached as Exhibit B.

SOMOS 2
361
CC:

Yalini Silva
Meredith Elguira
Vice Mayor Gil Hurtado
Councilmember Maria DavilaCouncilmemberAl Rios
Councilmember Joshua BarronRaquel Larios
SOMOS
362
363
April 27, 2023
SOMOS
LAW GPO(fl)
304 South Broadway, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90013

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City of South Gate
8650 California Ave
South Gate CA, 90280
Re: 8530 Alameda Street - Appeal of Director's Denial of TOP Extension Dear Chairperson Delgado, and Honorable Members of the City Planning Commission, Our firm represents Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP"), the owners of realproperty located at 8530 Alameda Street in City of South Gate ("City"), California (the"Property").

AEP historically operated a recycling facility on the Property, including storage oftruck trailers, since the early 1970s. Fleet Yards, Inc. ("Fleet Yards") is the currenttenant on the Property, and has been storing truck trailers on the Property since 2020.The truck trailer storage use has been continuous on the Property during the AEPoperations and subsequent Fleet Yards operations. As a family-owned business andlongstanding member of the South Gate community, AEP is dedicated to workingalongside its neighbors, fellow stakeho(ders, and the City to amicably resolve the City'sconcerns regarding historic uses on the Property.

We are writing to clarify the scope and nature of the operations on the Propertyand respectfully request that:
a. The City acknowledge the existing legal nonconforming use; andb. The City allow Fleet Yards to continue its truck trailer storage operationspursuant to that use; or c. In the alternative, that the City honor its previous commitments regardingthe TUP extensions in light of City staffs error in requiring the TUP.

SOMOS
364

We understand that many of these projects have been substantially delayed because of setbacks caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic, changing reaJ estate market conditions, declining attendance for in-person academic programs, and environmental conditions in the Property vicinity. On December 20, 2022, the current Community Development Director informed Fleet Yards that the City would no longer consider the TUP extension because of the City's misapplication of the South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC") and because the conditions of approval have been violated. On January 26, 2023, AEP informed the City that they would be appealing the determination."

2. Truck Trailer Storaqe is a Leqal & Nonconforminq use at the Property a. TheCityhasAuthoritytoRemedythePreviousAdministration's Errant Requirements for a TUP.

The SGMC states that "nonconforming industrial uses may continue in use in any zone where they were legally established." SGMC § 11.55.030.E. AEP, and later, Fleet Yards have been operating a recycling facility, including truck trailer storage at the Property since the early 1 970s. Fleet Yards obtained a TUP only at the City's direction and recommendations as a demonstration of their good faith efforts to comply with City policies and procedures. The original TUP and TUP extensions were not necessary because the truck trailer storage is an ongoing legal nonconforming use with over 50 years of history between the two operators on the Property. Fleet Yards agreed to the TUP only to demonstrate its willingness to work with the City regarding a shared vision for additional education facilities in South Gate. We understand that the zoning on the Property was only recently changed to "Industrial Flex." We also understand that the City's did not issue certificates of occupancy regularly during the early 1 970s when the operations started at the Property. However, we have attached the following documents that establish consistent storage of tractor trailers long before the zone change on the Property:
* A July 1, 2019, Business License to Jack Engle authorizing "outside storage" at 8530 Alameda Street since April 5 8, 1 9772 ' Please note that the 2022 Rejection Letter failed to disclose the owner's appeal rights and the City's policies and procedures to file the appeal.
2 See Exhibit A.

SOMOS 2
365
* Aerial Photos showing tractor trailers on the site dating back to 20j2;3* DocumentationofUtilitypaymentsdatingbackto2016;" * A sewerage system connection fee invoice from the Los Angeles CountySanitation District dating back to 2007; * An invoice from the South Coast Air Quality Management District foroperations on the Property dating back to 2011.5 These documents demonstrate that the industrial operations on the Property, includingtruck trailer storage have been operating consistently for decades. For these reasons,we respectfully request that the City acknowledge that truck trailer storage is a )egalnonconforming use on the Property. b. The Leqa) Nonconforminq Use has Not Been Abandoned orDiscontinued, and the Riqht to Continue is Protected andPreserved Pursuant to the South Gate Municipal Code.

The SGMC states that a legal nonconforming industrial use is preserved so longas it is not abandoned or discontinued for two consecutive calendar years. SGMC §11.55.040.B. In determining whether a legal nonconforming use has been abandoned,the Director is to evaluate (i) the apparent intent of the owner to discontinue, (ii) whetherfurnishings equipment, or personal property have been removed, (iii) whether the usehas been discontinued for a period of two years, (iv) whether there is an active businesslicense and State Board of Equalization permit, and (v) whether there are active utilitiesaccounts, including electricity, gas, water, and waste collection. SGMC §11.55.040.D.1-2.

The SGMC specifically preserves legal nonconforming uses dvring transfers ofownership or tenancy. SGMC § 41.55.040.E. Although there are limitations onexpansion, the nonconforming use provisions of the SGMC protect all established lega!nonconforming uses under the code, regardless of the scope of the use.6 There is nolanguage in the SGMC indicating that a portion of a legal nonconforming use isabandoned due to the scope of the use at the time it is established." The South GateGeneral Plan's Community Design Element ("General Plan") specifically anticipateslegal nonconforming uses in the South Gate College District given the existingsurrounding industrial uses. The General Plan also specifically requires that"[ilndustrial and manufacturing uses should remain in the area" until such time that thecollege district expands. a (emphasis added).

Here, between the two operations on the Property, truck trailer storage has beena continuous use at the Property since j973-notwithstanding hardships caused by the 3 See Exhibit El-E-4.
4 See Exhibit C.
5 See Exhibit D.
87 S/dGaMtCl !§551.lD4.505.030; 11 .55.040
B South Gate General Plan: Community Design Element, Policy P.6, pg. 106.

SOMOS
3 366
COVID-19 Pandemic, and by the City's error in requiring a TUP. AEP consistently held business licenses for the entirety of their operations on the Property.9 Similarly, Fleet Yards has held a business license with the City for business operations including outdoor storage transportation, freight and cargo at its primary South Gate address at 4223 lndependence Avenue, South Gate, CA 90280, but was informed that it did not need one for the Property. Although the scope and nature of operations forAEP and Fleet Yards were different, neither party ceased the truck trailer storage operations, vacated the premises, or terminated utility service at the Property for the requisite two consecutive year abandonment period. Documentation or consistent utilities payments are attached in Exhibit C. Aerial Photographs dating back to 2012 demonstrate that truck trailer storage has been a continuous use at the Property without substantial interruption.'o In addition, Fleet Yards' intent to continue the legal nonconforming truck trailer storage use has been communicated to the City on multiple occasions, including in connection with the subsequent TUP extension.ll
Based solely on this, Director Meredith Elguira's December 20, 2022 ("2022 Rejection Letter") communication that the use had been abandoned is inconsistent with the documents in the record, the open and continuous communications with the City declaring the intent to continue operations. In addition, preserving the legal nonconforming use is consistent with the policies in the General Plan. Truck trailer storage is an existing use on the Property and should not be displaced pursuant to General Plan policies. In addition, the Property is surrounded by industrial uses, and adjacent educational institutions have substantially delayed development plans due to environmental conditions in the Property vicinity, financing considerations, changes in class attendance, real estate market considerations and the COVID-'19 Pandemic - indicating that forced changes in use within the South Gate College District at this time is inconsistent with the needs of the community. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the City acknowledge the substantial evidence indicating consistent truck trailer storage at the Property, and preservation of this use as legal and nonconforming. c. Fleet Yards has Maintained an Active Business License with the City of South Gate Since 2014, and Cannot Obtain an AuxiliaH Permit Without the City's Cooperation.

The SGMC states that lapse of a business license is one of many factors the City considers in determining whether the legal nonconforming use has been abandoned.

Here, AEP maintained a business license for the entirety of its operations on the Property.l2 Fleet Yards has similarly maintained a business license with the City since 2014. AEP and Fleet Yards have maintained a good faith effort to comply with all City g See Exhibit A.
'o See Exhibit E.
"See January 26, 2023 letter from AEP to Chris Jeffers re TUP Extension, attached hereto as Exhibit F September 27, 2022 Correspondence between Efren Martinez and Director Meredith Elguira regarding the legal nonconforming use on the Property, attached hereto as Exhibit G. '2 See Exhibit A.

SOMOS 4
367
licensing policies and procedures, in addition to permits from other state and local jurisdictions.'3 However, on December 20, 2022 the City claimed that the business license had lapsed without reference to the existing licenses for the Fleet Yards operations. We understand that the City's position is that Fleet Yards requires a supplemental Or auxiliary business license for its operations on the Property. However, to obtain a business license, an applicant must first obtain zoning clearance from the South Gate Planning Department. Based on communications from City staff, including the 2022 Rejection Letter, we understand that the City will not issue a zoning clearance because of the current zoning on the Property, notwithstanding the legal nonconforming use. It is inequitable to claim that the use has been abandoned due to lack of an auxiliary business permit when City staff members have indicated that they would not issue the prerequisite zoning clearance for that auxiliary business permit. For these reasons, in consideration of all of the determinative factors for abandonment, there is substantial evidence that the legal nonconforming use on the Property, including storage of tractor trailers has not been abandoned or discontinued. d. Fleet Yards has Substantially Complied with all of the TUPConditions On December 20, 2022, Director Meredith Elguira alleged that the TUP could not be extended because the conditions of approval had been violated. However, Fleet Yards has substantially complied with the TUP conditions to the extent feasible. On July 16, 2020, the City approved the TUP subject to the following conditions:

1. That the approved use be restricted to truck trailer storage only;2. That the temporary use is approved for a term of one year, and thatadditional one-year extensions must be applied for at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the previous term, for a period of 5 years;3. That ingress and egress shall be only via Alameda Street;4. That the number, size and height of truck trailers do not exceed thoseattached to the original approval;5. That violations of these conditions or City laws could result in revocation of the TUP; and

6. That the property owner agree to all conditioris in the form of a signedaffidavit.

As explained above, AEP and later, Fleet Yards have used the Property continuously for truck trailer storage since 1973. Fleet Yards has used the Property for truck trailer storage since obtaining the TUP in July, 2020. The size, number, and height of the truck trailers as authorized in the TUP has not changed. Consistent with the requirements of the TUP, ingress and egress is permitted only on Alameda Street. Although the application for the TUP extension was missed in 2021 due to complications from the COVID-19 Pandemic, both AEP and Fleet Yards have been in consistentcommunication with the City regarding the nonconforming use on the Property. The owner's signed affidavit is attached as Exhibit H. The remaining condition cites13 Id SOMOS
5 368
violations of "City laws". As noted above, the City's cooperation is required to obtain an auxiliary business permit to supplement the active business license. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the City acknowledge that each of these conditions have been met to the extent possible.

3. Terminatinq the Leqal Nonconforming Llse Violates the Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel
The Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel was designed to promote fair and equitable business transactions. The doctrine is based on the principle that a party who has made a promise should be held accountable for it where reliance on the agreement was reasonable, and enforcement of the agreement is necessary to avoid injustice.

Drennan v. StarPaving Co. (1958) 51 Cal.2d 409, 412-413; Garcia v. World Sav. & Loan Assn. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1037. Here, Fleet Yards only agreed to the TUP as a demonstration of good faith and willingness to work with the City regarding its vision for the community. Based on communications from City staff on July 8, 2020, in addition to the plain language of the TUP, the City was to consider additional extensions of the TUP in addition to the initial five-year term. In addition, both AEP and Fleet Yards agreed to the TUP as a measure of good faith and willingness to work with the City. It is inequitable for the City to renege on this agreement. AEP forwent multiple lucrative opportunities to sell the Property in reliance on the City's communications and the reasonable expectation that the City's permits, licenses, and representations are consistent notwithstanding changes in staff, changes in departmental priorities, and unilateral changes to the zoning code. If the City does not honor its prior commitments, both AEP and Fleet Yards will suffer substantial financial harm. In addition, this inconsistency in City policies discourages investment in our community and is a substantial deviation from the City's treatment of similarly situated legacy businesses.

SOMOS 6
369
Please contact my office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Alfred Fraijo Jr.

Partner
213.592.2966 direct
[email protected]
SOMOS
370
371
8350 Alameda Street

ALAMEDA ENGLE

PROPERTIES, LLC
Appeal of Director's Denial of TUP
Extension for Truck Trailer Storage
; May 2, 2023
,: ritation by Alfred Fraijo Jr.

G
372
SOMOS
ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTI'ES, LLC - TUP DENIAL APPEAL l MAY 02, 2023 G
373
a Pursuant to TUP Condition No. 2 and the City Planning Commission's review authority of the appeal, the Commission can grant a modest 60- day extension of the TUP to permit the Appellant and City to review the legal nonconforming use determination.
- Alternatively, Commission can opt to postpone its determination on the TUP extension until after the Planning Division completes its revtewtng of the legal nonconforming use determination.
003 ALAMEDAENGLEPROPERTIES,LLC-TUPDENIALAPFEAL-MAYO2,2023 374
Alameda Engle Properties, LLC operateda recycling facility on the Property,including storage of truck trailers City approved TLIP for truck traileruse on the Property Appeal of Director's denial of theTUP extension 2020 TO PRESENT
DECEMBER 20, 2022
EARLY 1970S TO 2020
JULY 16, 2020
JANUARY 26, 2023
Tenant Fleet Yards, Inc. operatingtruck trailer storage on the Property Community Development Directorclaims City would no longerconsider the TUP extensions 04 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC - TUP DENIAL APPEAL - MAY 02, 2023 0 SOMO8
375
IV

2. The temporary use is approved for a term of one year. Additional one- year extensions will be considered for approval for up to a maximum of 5 years. Additional extensions will be determined based on compliance with conditions and written verification from owner that they are in the process of developing, selling, and/or working with LACCD or developer on a housing development project

3. 4. Operations shall be limited to the number, size, and height of truck trailers provided in the TLIP

5. Any violations of the conditions or City laws could result in revocation of TUP

6. All conditions shall be agreed to by owner in a signed and notarized affidavit
005 ALAMEDAENGLEPROPERTIES,LLC-TUPDENIALAPPEAL-MAYO2,2023 376
The legal nonconforming use issue is dispositive forthe future uSeS On the P fOrthe TuP and roperty and informs the need
subsequent TUP extensions.

South Gate Municipal Code (SGMC) -
"nonconforming industrial uSeS may continue in uSe
in any zone where they Were legally established."SGMC § 1'l.55.030.E.

Legal nonconforming industrial use is preserved SO
long as it is not abandoned or discontinued for
two consecutive calendar years. SGMC §11.55.040.B.

Truck Trailer Storage
06 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES,
LLC - TUP DENIAL APPEAL - MAY 02, 2023
0 SOMOS
377
2020
2022
07 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC - APPEAL OF TUP DENIAL - MAY 02, 2023 0 SOMOS
378
08 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC - TUP DENIAL APPEAL - MAY 02, 2023 Director Shall Evaluate
A3i of the Following to Determine that a Legal
Nonconforming Use is Abandoned:

1. Owner's mtent

2. Furnishings Equipment
& Personal Property

3. Abandoned 2+ Years

4. Licenses & Permits

5. Utilities
o
379
SOMOS
ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC - TUP DENIAL APPEAL - MAY 02, 2023 G
380
381

APPENDIX
II ALAMEDA ENGLE FROPERTIES, LLC - TUP DENIAL APPEAL - MAY 02, 2023 0 80MO9
382
Business License Compliance
1973-2020
Fleet Yards Auxiliary Permit
?2 ALAMEDAENGLEPROPERTIES,LLC-TUPDENIALAPPEAL-MAYO2,2023 0 SOMO!3
383

EXHIBIT C
384

CENTENNIAL
-IC a' i EA-?'-
May 16, 2023
Mr. Alan Engle
Manager
Alameda Engle Properties LLC
2127 Century Woods Way
Los Angeles, California 900667
Community Development Department
Meredith T. Elguira, Director of Community Development 8650 California Avenue, South Gate, CA 90280-3004
P: (323) 563-9529
www.caityofsouthgate.org
Re: City of South Gate's Denial of Request by Alameda Engle Properties, LLC. for Extension of Temporary use Permit No. TUP 2020-01 for Truck-Trailer Storage at 8530 Alameda Street in South Gate, California Dear Mr. Engle,
On May 2, 2023, the South Gate Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the request by Alameda Engle Properties, LLC's ("AEP") to extend, for a period of one year, the term of Temporary Use Permit No. 2020- 01 (the "TUP"). Such an extension would have allowed the continued storage of trucks and truck-trailers at 8530 Alameda Street (the "Premises") by AEP's tenant, Fleet Yards, Inc. ("Fleet Yards"). At the conclusion of that hearing, the Planning Commission upheld the City's earlier decision to deny the extension and not renew the TUP. AEP has now asked to appeal that decision to the South Gate City Council. For the reasons explained by the City Attorney's Office at the May 2, Planning Commission meeting and reiterated below, an appeal of this matter to the City Council is not available.

As the City has repeatedly advised AEP and Fleet Yards, the TUP was initially issued in error, because it purported to allow a "temporary" use of the Premises for a period of at least one year and possibly as many as five years, far in excess of the limited duration mandated by the Zoning Code. Temporary use permits, as the name implies, are intended to allow only short-term uses of land. Specifically, Section 11.51.070 of the Zoning Code states that the maximum duration of a temporary use permit shall not exceed three days in a row or ten days in any calendar year. It is unfortunate that the TUP was erroneously issued in 2020 for a much longer one- year period and erroneously renewed in 2021 for an additional one-year period. But those earlier errors do not entitle AEP to further extensions of the TUP for periods far in excess of the maximum durations authorized by the Zoning Code. Simply put, there is no authority in the Zoning Code for issuing or renewing a temporary use permit for any period longer than three consecutive days or ten days in any calendar year.

Furthermore, the original issuance of the TUP in violation of the Zoning Code aiso meant that the City was not required to grant AEP a hearing on the matter of renewing the TUP. Again, as publicly stated by the City's legal counsel at the Planning Commission meeting, the City granted that hearing as a matter of courtesy - something that was also explained to AEP in the course of the May 2 meeting. No hearing was required because no decision by the Planning Commission could have resulted in validation and extension of the TUP. Section

11.51.020 of the Zoning Code states that any permit conflicting with the provisions of the Zoning Code "shall be null and void." Both the TUP and the requested one-year extension conflict with the provisions of the Zoning 385
i- ""ii'(i.."'> a
r,
,!! !- 1
\
j rs mlffi2 ri
rtimy v E If a
%"€
Q%
f
CENTENNlAi
Community Development Department
Meredith T. Elguira, Director of Community Development 8650 California Avenue, South Gate, CA 90280-3004
P: (323) 563-9529
www.cityofsouthgate.org
Code. Therefore, regardless of whether the Planning Commission had voted to uphold or overturn the denial of the requested TUP extension, the result would have been the same: no valid permit would exist. A hearing before the City Council would be equally futile, as AEP would still have no valid permit regardtess of whether the Council voted to uphold or overturn the denial of AEP's request to extend the TUP for another year. Therefore, an appeal to the City Council is neither warranted nor available.

AEP and its attorneys contend that Fleet Yard's use of the Premises for the storage of trucks and truck-trailers constitutes a legal non-conforming use which can be continued in the absence of the TUP and despite the fact that such use is not allowed under the current version of the Zoning Code adopted in 2015. Because renewal of the TUP is an impossibility, we recommend that AEP promptly provide the City with evidence supporting that legal non-conforming use argument. Before the City can agree that Fleet Yard's use of the Premises constitutes a legal nonconforming use, AEP and/or Fleet Yards must provide the City with clear evidence which at a minimum establishes two things:

1. That the Premises were used for the storage of trucks and truck trailers since before the 2015 zone change, and that such use has continued from then until now without any interruption longer than two years. Evidence that a truck or trailer was occasionally parked on the Premises for purposes of loading or unloading will not suffice. The City requires evidence that the Premises were being used for the storr:ige of trucks and truck-trailers consistent with the customary legal application of "legal non- conforming" use, not that such trucks or trailers were merely present on the Premises for short periods in the normal course of their travels associated with the primary approved use and the only city licensed business being operated at the location (Metal Recycling Center).

2. That in connection with such storage, a Conditional Use Permit had been issued as required by the former Zoning Code. The City can find no indication that such a CUP was ever issued to AEP, Fleet Yards, or any former occupant of the Premises. Under the former Zoning Code, storage of trucks and truck- trailers without a CUP would not have complied with the Zoning Code and therefore could not be the basis for a claim of legal non-conforming use.

CENTENNIAL
Community Development Department
Meredith T. Elguira, Director of Community Development 8650 California Avenue, South Gate, CA 90280-3004
P: (323) 563-9529
www.cityofsouthgate.org
We urge AEP, as soon as possible, to either provide the evidence requested above or cause Fleet Yards to discontinue its storage of trucks and truck-trailers at the Premises. Failure to do so will result in enforcement action by the City.

Sa ce'r
Meredith T. El
CC: Mr. Chris Jeffers, City Manager
Rail F. Salinas, Esq.

Craig D. Hardwick Esq.
387

EXHIBIT D
388
August 17, 2023
SOMOS
LAW GPOU!)
304 South Broadway, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90013

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Meredith Elguira
Director of Community Development
City of South Gate
8650 California Avenue
South Gate, CA 90280
Email: [email protected]
Re: 8530 Alameda Street - Demonstration of Legal Nonconforminq Use Dear Ms. Elguira,
Our firm represents Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP"), the owners of real property located at 8530 Alameda Street in City of South Gate ("City"), California (the "Property"). We are in receipt of your letter dated May 16, 2023 requesting documentation of truck trailer and container storage at the Property as a legal nonconforming use. Pursuant to City of South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC") Section 1 1.55.070.A, we are applying to request a determination from your office that the onsite uses are legal and nonconforming based on the substantial evidence attached hereto.

While this formal request shall be reviewed de novo pursuant to the Department's authority under Section 11.55.070 and in consideration of the complete application herein, we are also writing to correct the misstatements in the record made about the nature of the historic operations on the Property, which have always included truck trailer and container storage.'
Inaccurate statements about the historic operations on the Property were made during the May 2, 2023 City Planning Commission appeal hearing ("CPC Hearing") on the TUP Extension and in the May 16, 2023 letter from Director of Community Development to Alan Engle. During the CPC Hearing, City staff stated "metal plating" was the only authorized use on the Property. This is incorrect. Our clients are not aware of any history of metal plating at the Property and did not engage in metal plating at the Property at any time during Jack Engle & Company's ("JECO") operations. Fleet Yards' current operations at the Property do not include metal plating. The metal processing operations described in the City's Record of JECO's Business Licenses, the Fleet Yards Business Licenses, and the Certificates of Occupancy regarding metal processing have never included metal plating - even as an ancillary use. In addition, as early as 20al8, the City has issued business licenses for the Property with the business description SOMOS 1
389
As noted in our letter to the City Planning Commission ("CPC") dated April 27, 2023, and during the CPC Hearing, the Engles, for three generations have operated this Family business in the City. Metal recycling, including storage of truck trailers and containers, has been conducted onsite since the early 1 970s. Between 1973 to April 2009, Jack and Rose Engle, as husband and wife, owned the Property at which JECO operated. Then commencing in 2009, Jack and Rose Engle's son Alan Engle acquired the Property under his company AEP to continue the family business until March 2020.

Fleet Yards, Inc. ("Fleet Yards") is the current tenant on the Property and has continued storing truck trailers and containers on the Property since 2020 pursuant to a Temporary Use Permit ("TUP") obtained at the recommendation and requirement of the City's previous Director of Community Development. The CPC denied the appeal of the TUP extension on May 2, 2023. We submitted an appeal to City Council on behalf of the owners on May 18, 2023. The scope and nature of the legal nonconforming use is central to the appeal. The CPC did not make a determination on truck trailer/container storage as a legal nonconforming use at the Property. Since the CPC Hearing, we have been working with City Planning staff, the City Attorney, and the City Manager to gather additional information to reach a resolution on the legal nonconforming use.

If you have any questions about the nature of the historic operations on the Property, including container storage, we would appreciate the opportunity to discuss them with you and with the City Attorney to ensure that this matter is resolved efficiently.

1. BACKGROUND
As you know, at the recommendation of Joe Perez, the Director of Community Development at the time, on July 16, 2020, Fleet Yards obtained a TUP for truck trailer use on the Property, subject to several conditions. The City made multiple commitments to AEP and to Fleet Yards during the discussions leading to the TUP, including that the TUP would be extended annually and that the City would consider additional extensions in the future. The purpose of the TUP was to allow the City to explore its priorities for development of education facilities at or around the Property.

AEP and tenant Fleet Yards reasonably relied on the City's instructions and final action on the TUP when making critical business decisions and investments in the Property, including but not limited to the execution of a long-term lease agreement for Fleet Yards to continue to operate the truck trailer and container storage use onsite. AEP engaged in these negotiations in good faith notwithstanding its position that the longstanding uses on the site, including truck trailer and container storage were vested under the law.

Despite AEP's vested rights and good faith reliance on the City's granted entitlements, on December 20, 2022, the current Community Development Director informed Fleet Yards that the City would no longer consider the TUP extension because of the City's "outside storage only". See, Business License No. 004434. If the City has additional questions about the scope of past or present operations at the Property after reviewing the materials attached to this letter, please contact our office. Our clients have worked with the City of South Gate successfully for over 50 years, and remain committed to working with the City to resolve this matter. By working together, we can avoid any additional misstatements or misinformation made during public hearings.

SOMOS 2
390
misapplication of the SGMC and because the conditions of approval have been violated. On January 26, 2023, AEP informed the City that they would be appealing the determination.2 As noted in our letters to the City dated April 27, 2023 and May 16, 2023, City staff made several misstatements about truck trailer and container storage as a legal nonconforming use on the Property during the CPC Hearing, including, (i) that the use was not legally established, (ii) that the legal nonconforming use doctrine would not apply because the operations "don't look like" the historic photos, and (iii) that the Municipal Code requirements for truck trailer and container storage from the early 1 980s to 2015 apply to the onsite operations instead of the Municipal Code requirements from 1973, when operations on the Property commenced. The CPC did not make a determination on these issues during the CPC Hearing on the TUP extension. Our office filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's determination on May 16, 2023.

Based on subsequent conversations with City Attorney Craig Hardwick, we understand that City Council will not be considering the TUP extension, and that all administrative challenges at the municipal level with regard to the TUP extension have been satisfied. We also understand that the City will be evaluating the legal nonconforming use issue separately from the TUP extension for the purposes of municipal review and exhaustion of administrative remedies.

II. ANALYSIS
A. Truck Trailer and Container Storaqe Is Preserved Leqal and Nonconforminq as a Primary and Active Use on the Property.

The SGMC protects nonconforming industrial uses so long as they are (i) legally established,3 and (ii) the use is not abandoned or discontinued for two consecutive calendar years.4
i. Truck Trailer and Container Storage has Been a Leqally-Established Use on the Property Since 1973 As a Necessary Requirement for Metal Processinq and Manufacturinq Operations.

According to the City's zoning map attached hereto as , as early as 1961, the Property was zoned for "Heavy Manufacturing" or "M-3". "Draying, freighting, or trucking yards or terminals" were specifically authorized as a by-right use in the M-2 and M-3 zones according to the 1976 version" of the SGMC provided by the City, 2 Please note that the 2022 Rejection Letter failed to disclose the owner's appeal rights and the City's policies and procedures to file the appeal.
a3 SGMC § 11 .55.030.E.SGMC § 1l .55.040.B.
5 Pursuant to our Public Records Act Request dated May 17, 2023 ("PRA Request"), the City provided a copy of the municipal code with sections dating between the late 1960's and early 1990's. However, the City's copy is not a complete version for each year or decade. In addition, the City was unable to verify when the applicable provisions of the SGMC were amended. For the purposes of this analysis, we SOMOS 3
391
attached hereto as Exhibit B.6 These terms are not defined in the historic version of the code provided by the City. Our office secured earlier sections of the code from the Los Angeles County Law Library, attached hereto as "." These terms are also not defined in Exhibit C. "Draying" is a form of trucking service that connects intermodal shipping services, such as ground, ocean or air freight typically as a shorter portion of a longer journey.7 As late as 1975, ore reduction, metal foundries, and reclamation of iron, copper, and aluminum were also permitted by right in the M-3 zone.8 As late as 1989, "[m]anufacture, processing, or treatment of articles from previously prepared materials..." specifically including metal was also allowed by right in the M-3 zone.9 This is consistent with the two Certificates of Occupancy ("COO") dated 1977 authorizing "metal processing" on the Property, attached hereto as Exhibit D.'o This is also consistent with the City Record of JECO's Business Licenses ("City Bus. Lic.

Records"), attached hereto as . The City Bus. Lic. Records establish that JECO was operating with a valid business license for "Manufacturing - Metal" between 1977 and 2020.'I For clarity, however, attached as are electronic copies of business licenses issued to JECO for 2015-2018. Each of these business licenses specifically reTerence "Outdoor Storage..." as the description of the site operations.

Similarly, the recent business licenses for Fleet Yards Inc. specifically note the "Special Permit For Outdoor Operations."'2 There is nothing in the historic versions of the zoning code indicating the need for any entitlement, including a conditional use permit ("CUP") for either processing or manufacturing uses in 1977 when the City issued the COOs.l3 "Metal processing" and "metal manufacturing" are not defined in the historic sections of the SGMC.14 However, a plain read of this use describes metal "recycling" without calling it "recycling." Merriam-Webster includes "processing something, such as... glass or cans in order to regain material for human use" in the definition of "recycling."'5 These documents, along with the historic by-right uses in the M-3 zone in Exhibit B, Exhibit C, and Exhibit D clearly demonstrate that the historic metal processing assume that the applicable date for historic sections of the SGMC correlate with the date stamp in the lower right hand corner of each page provided by the City, unless the section is notated with an earlier date reference to the applicable ordinance. We have provided references to the applicable ordinances where appropriate.
6 See Sections 1 1.22.010(1 7);
7 See "What is Drayage and Why is it Important?", Nexttrucking.com, available here. 8 SeeLACountyLawLibrarySGMCCopy-1969-1992,SGMC§ 11.24.010.15-26. 9 See LA County Law Library SGMC Copy -1969-al992, SGMC §§ 1 1.22.010.26; 'o See Exhibit D.
" See Exhibit E. The City provided this summary of JECO's business licenses in response to a Public Records Act request from our office. We understand that the City has been unable to locate business license records between 1973 and 1977. Notwithstanding this missing documentation, we are informed and believe that at the time operations commenced at the Property in 1973, JECO complied with all then- applicable rules, regulations, and ordinances relating to operating its metal processing business. See Declaration of J. Engle,
'2 See Exhibit G.
'3 Based on the City's response to our PRA Request and the similarities between "metal processing" as defined and "metal recycling," the evidence does not suggest that the JECO operations were processed as an "Unclassified Use" pursuant to Section 1L26.010 of the historic provisions of the SGMC. '4 Exhibit B § 11.04 et seq; Exhibit C § 11.04 et seq.
'5 Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "Recycling," July, 2023, available here.

SOMOS 4
392
operations, including related shipping operations and necessary truck yards and terminals, were by right uses at the time JECO expanded operations to the Property in 1973, and after the COOs were issued in 1977. Accordingly, these uses are legally established and preserved pursuant to the SGMC.
ii. The City did not List All Allowable By Riqht and Incidental Uses on its Business Permits.

During the CPC Hearing, City staff stated that truck trailer and container storage "could not" be a legal nonconforming use where there is no separate business permit for that use. This is factually inaccurate. Based on the historic code provisions provided by the City, we understand that the licensure requirement for multiple "business activities" was not enacted until May 25, 1993 with the City's adoption of Ordinance No. 1948, the City's "Business Regulation Ordinance.l6 Accordingly, South Gate's historic business licenses did not list every ancillary or related use because in the early 1 960's and 1 970's, the historic versions of the code are silent-indicating that this was not yet a requirement. This is consistent with the City's own summary of JECO's business license activity.l7 The summary includes only "Manufacturing - Metal" as the listed use, without mention of the many by-right uses specifically authorized in the M3 zone at that time, including freight, drayage, and storage of truck trailers and containers. According to the historic code provisions provided by the City, the City would not have required a separate business license at the time for by-right uses. Once this requirement changed, as described in more detail below, our clients worked together with the City to determine the applicable permitting requirements and fees for the metal processing and recycling operations, and complied with those requirements as directed by the City. In addition, the more recent business licenses issued to both JECO and Fleet Yards specifically reference outdoor storage as the business description.

These documents, along with the historic by-right uses in the M-3 zone in Exhibit B, Exhibit C, and Exhibit D clearly demonstrate that the historic metal processing operations, including related shipping operations and necessary truck yards and terminals, were by right uses at the time JECO expanded operations to the Property in 1973, and after the COOs were issued in 1977. Accordingly, these uses are legally established and preserved pursuant to the SGMC.
'6 See SGMC § 20.10.010 etseq.
'7 See Exhibit E.

SOMOS 5
393
iii. Truck Trailer and Container Storaqe is an Inteqral Part of Metal Processinq Operations.

Your May 4 6, 2023 letter states that the truck trailer and container storage was only "occasional" or "for the purpose of loading and unloading" only.l8 This is factually inaccurate.

As noted in the Declaration of Mr. Jason Engle, Chief Operating Officer at JECO, ("Declaration") the metal processing operations required scrap metal product to be delivered to the Property by truck, with truck trailers and containers in tow. These truck trailers and containers would remain on the site for sorting, processing, and preparation for shipment for up to several months while the scrap metal was being processed and while JECO coordinated shipment logistics. JECO's suppliers and customers would generate between 6 and 11 million pounds of productfor processing every month.l9 The precise storage period for truck trailers and containers could take days, weeks, months, or longer depending on the volume of product, the end destination for the product, and whether the following legs of the product's journey were by ground, air, or sea.2o The processed material would be loaded into an empty container (or the same container) for shipment to its final destination. The shipments for railway or overseas shipping required much larger containers, as depicted in . During the processing and shipment preparation stage, these large containers were stored at the Property, consistent with industry standards and practices. Processed product with a domestic destination would be placed in empty truck trailers or smaller storage containers, which were also stored on the Property. Images of these truck trailers and smaller storage containers are attached hereto as Exhibit K.

Beyond the metal recycler's standard day to day truck trailer and container storage, the storage of truck trailers and containers was so crucial to the metal processing operations on the Property that JEC billed some of its clients for truck trailer and container storage as a separate line item for services rendered.2l JECO had entire departments dedicated within the business that exclusively handled the logistics for truck trailer/container storage and clean/maintenance. These departments employed in total up to six employees at a time. We have provided a copy of the billing log for truck trailer and container storage attached hereto as Exhibit L. Because metal recycling operations cannot operate without a trucking and logistical component or their operations, it is common practice for metal recycling operators to become SCAC- holding members of the National Motor Freight Traffic Association ("NMFTA"). The Standard CarrierAlpha Code ("SCAC") is an identification numbering system for domestic carriers and transporters to track cargo moving within the United States.

During JECO's tenure on the Property, it was a SCAC-holding member of NMFTA. Like many similar operations throughout California and Nationwide, this aspect of the metal processing operations cannot function without onsite truck trailer and container storage. '8 See Exhibit H, pg. 2.
'g Declaration, pg. 1.
2o See JECO Materials Shipping Logs, attached hereto as Exhibit I. 2' See Exhibit L.

SOMOS 6
394
Accordingly, the truck trailer and container storage use at the Property is preserved as part of the metal processing operations as an authorized legal nonconforming use. iv. The City has had Direct and Constructive Notice of the Leqal Nonconforminq Use, Includinq Truck Trailer and Container Storaqe for Decades.

The City has implicitly acknowledged that truck trailer and container storage at the Property is an authorized part of the existing legal nonconforming use for many years. For example, after touring the Property, the Director of Public Works at the time, Robert Dickey, made recommendations to the Engles regarding the City's Business License Tax based on the Property's use as a "Materials Recycling Facility." Although the truck trailer and container storage portion of the operations were open and visibly part of the operations during the tour, the City did not distinguish this use as separate from the legal nonconforming metal processing operations on the Property, or require a separate business license. In addition, the City was a client of JECO's for approximately 17 years,22 during which time City employees would frequently visit the Property. Because JECO's operations were outdoors and in plain sight, the City had several decades of both direct and constructive notice that the JECO operations necessarily included truck trailer and container storage as an integral component of the services offered to the City. The City did not deviate from its position that the uses were interconnected as part of the same legal nonconforming use until recently.

These abrupt changes in City policy, coupled with the City-driven misdirection regarding the need for a TUP create uncertainty for small local businesses, and discourage investment within the City. Municipal consistency and stability, including preservation of legally established nonconforming uses - is a foundational element needed to facilitate the City's vision for future uses within the South Gate College District.
v. No CUP is Required to Demonstrate Leqal Nonconforminq Use Pursuant to the Applicable Version of the SGMC.

In your letter dated May 16, 2023, attached hereto as , you state that:
[U]nder the former Zoning Code, storage of trucks and truck- trailers without a CUP would not have complied with the Zoning Code and therefore could not be the basis for a claim of legal nonconforming use.

This is factually incorrect. As noted above, "metal processing" and "trucking yards or terminals" did not require a CUP at the time that the City authorized the JECO operations on the Property, or in 1977 - the earliest available COOs that were issued to JECO. In addition, the historic versions of the SGMC do not require a CUP for 22 Declaration, pg. 3.

SOMOS 7
395
"recycling" operations until 'l 988 - nearly 15 years after the operations on the Property commenced.23 The SGMC did not include definitions for "recycling" until 1990.24 These definitions did not replace "metal recycling" as an allowed use. Instead, these definitions are for recycling of hazardous materials only - which has never been part of the operations on the Property. Because the metal processing operations on the property, including the necessary truck trailer and container storage was permitted by right in the early 1 970s, no CUP or other entitlement would be required. For this reason, the authorized uses are preserved notwithstanding the lack of CUP. vi. The City Requires that Ancillary and Incidental Uses be Preserved as Leqal Nonconforminq Uses.

Your May 16, 2023 letter implies that ancillary or secondary uses even when lawfully established, are not preserved as legal or nonconforming based on the scope of the use. This is inconsistent with a plain reading of the SGMC. Even assuming arguendo that truck trailer and container storage was only a small portion of the authorized uses on the Property, the SGMC requires that partial uses be afforded the same protections and assumptions as the primary use. The SGMC provides that, "Nonconforming industrial uses may continue in any zone where they were legally established."'-s In addition, "an existing use of any part of a building or property will be assumed to be an existing use throughout that building or property, including outdoor activities."26 (emphasis added).

Here, we have provided substantial evidence of the truck trailer and container storage on the Property pursuant to the historic metal processing operations, including service logs, billing invoices, a declaration describing the day-to-day operations from an industry professional with decades of experience, and photos depicting the types of truck trailers and containers that were used. There is no language in the SGMC indicating that a portion of a legal nonconforming use is abandoned due to the scope of the use at the time it is established.27 Instead, the assumptions for partial uses and structures are consistent with the City's general policy and obligation to preserve legal nonconforming uses where, as here, the use is legally established.28 For this reason, 23 See Exhibit C, § 41.22. 10.22.6 (referencing "Large Collection Facilities" subject to the issuance of a CUP). See also, Ordinance No. 1760, 1988. We assume for the purposes of this analysis that the City's May 1 6'h letter to Alan Engle is referencing this use. However, we note that "metal processing" and "trucking yards or terminals," the uses at issue here, did not require a CUP under the historic versions of the code. For this reason, we assume that the City's May 4 6, 2023 assertion regarding the CUP is based on a misinterpretation of the approved uses, or reference to a subsequent version of the Zoning Code. 24 SGMC § '1 L55.040.E; Ordinance No. 1835 §§ 9-11 (referring exclusively to recycling and recovery of "hazardous materials").
'-5 SGMC §§ 11 .55.030.E.
'-s SGMC §§ 11 .55.030.0.
27 Id. at 4 L55.040.
28 For example, the South Gate General Plan's Community Design Element ("General Plan") specifically anticipates legal nonconforming uses in the South Gate College District given the existing surrounding industrial uses. The General Plan Specifically requires that "[ilndustrial and manufacturing uses should remain in the area" until such time that the college district expands. South Gate General Plan, Community Design Element, Policy P.6., pg. 106.

SOMOS 8
396
based on a plain reading of the zoning code and the evidence above establishing truck trailer and container storage as a legal nonconforming use, truck trailer storage must be considered as an "existing use" for the purpose of the legal nonconforming analysis. vii. Truck Trailer and Container Storaqe Has Not Been Abandoned for the Requisite Two-Year Period.

As noted in our letter to the City dated April 27, 2023 attached hereto as Exhibit Mi the SGMC has mandatory procedures and requirements for finding that an industrial use has been abandoned or discontinued. In determining whether a legal nonconforming use has been abandoned, the Director is required to make a formal finding of discontinuance or abandonment, supported by evidence in consideration of the following factors: (i) the apparent intent of the owner to discontinue, (ii) whether furnishings equipment, or personal property have been removed, (iii) whether the use has been discontinued for a period of two years, (iv) whether there is an active business license and State Board of Equalization permit, and (v) whether there are active utilities accounts, including electricity, gas, water, and waste collection.29 Here, the evidence does not support a finding that the truck trailer or container use has been abandoned. Our office provided substantial evidence attached to our April 27, 2023 letter documenting continuous utility service to the Property for several decades, aerial photographs depicting truck trailer and container storage on the Property, permits and authorizations from state agencies pursuant to ongoing operations on the Property, old business licenses, a description of the tenant operations on the Property over time, an explanation of the recent business license anomaly due to the City's zoning clearance process for business licenses, and the unique operational requirements for a property subject to dueling jurisdictional requirements in the City of South Gate and the County of Los Angeles. Coupled with the substantial volume of additional documentation attached to this letter, including the correct municipal code requirements applicable to the nonconforming use determination, certificates of occupancy, summaries clarifying business operations, business logs and ledgers establishing the crucial nature of truck trailer and container storage to historic operations, and the declarations of industry experts with decades of experience with this specific Property, the City cannot make a good faith determination that truck trailer and container storage onsite was discontinued or abandoned for the requisite two-year period. Any such finding in light of the evidence herein would be an abuse of the City's discretion, and a violation of the City's responsibility to its constituents to fairly and equitably administer the law.

For all of these reasons, the truck trailer and container storage on the Property has been a protected, legal nonconforming use since 1973. "9 SGMC § 11 .55.040.D.1-2.

SOMOS 9
397
B. The City Has Authority to Allow the Legal Nonconforminq Use on the Property.

Our position is that Fleet Yards' current operations are a continuation of the historic truck trailer and container storage on the Property, and are therefore protected as a legal nonconforming use pursuant to the SGMC. However, even if the City does not acknowledge the critical role of truck trailer and container storage for metal processing operations as a part of that use, the code encourages the Director to protect operations that are substantially similar or comparable to the legal nonconforming use.3o The Director is specifically authorized to allow alterations and expansions of industrial legal nonconforming uses on the site where: (i) there is a one-time expansion of up to 1 0% of the existing square footage; (ii) the expansion is of an incidental character and does not constitute a complete remodel; (iii) the expansion will architecturally integrate into the existing structure and not negatively impact the overall site design; (iv) the expansion does not reduce the number of on-site parking spaces or access to the building; (v) the expansion complies with all other provisions of the zoning code.3l Here, there is arguably no expansion of use.

As noted above, the truck trailer and container storage component of the operations on the Property have been consistent since the early 1 970s. JECO, and now Fleet Yards, have operated substantially similar operations on the same site for over 50 years. There is no expansion of the existing square footage. Any perceived "expansion" of the historic and legal nonconforming truck trailer and container storage operations on the Property is negligible, and does not require a "complete remodel".

The current truck trailer and container storage operations are consistent with the existing structures and layout of the Property, and will not require any changes to the site design. In addition, the current operations will not impact the current number of parking spaces or building aCCeSS.a'- Finally, given the legal nonconforming use status of the current operations, allowing the use to continue would not result in a violation of the current SGMC.

This authority to allow comparable uses or minor expansions or alterations of legal nonconforming uses is well established in case law. For example, In Endara v.

City of Culver City ("Endara"), the court allowed a substantially similar legal nonconforming use to be substituted for the original use.33 The Court noted that, "a nonconforming use is not restricted to the identical particular use which was in existence at the time of the enactment of the zoning ordinance but embraces any use ao SGMC § 11 .55.030.J.
31 1,).
32 During the CPC Hearing, City staff raised that the center structure on the Property was demolished without a permit from the City. We can confirm that this structure was in fact demolished on or around August 8, 2020, and that despite best efforts, we have been unable to locate a demolition permit. This fact notwithstanding, the continued truck trailer and container storage on the Property has remained onsite continuously and is a legal nonconforming use for the reasons detailed herein. 33 Endara v. City of Culver City (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 33.

SOMOS 10
398
substantially the same or similar. The adoption of more modern instrumentalities, suitable in carrying on a business should not, in legal contemplation, work a change of use."34 Similarly here, the JECO metal processing operations specifically included truck trailer and container storage as part of its business plan, as documented by the service logs and billing statements for truck trailer and container storage on the Property for prolonged periods of time. Fleet Yards' current operations for truck trailer and container storage are virtually identical, and include storage of truck trailers and containers pursuant to drayage operations for prolonged periods of time. Although the size of the containers and truck trailers were more varied during JECO's tenure on the Property, truck trailer and container storage has been a consistent use onsite since the early 1970s.

For these reasons, under the SGMC and consistent with case law, the City has authority to allow Fleet Yards to continue operating on the Property as a legal nonconforming use, as a substantially similar legal nonconforming use, or as a negligible expansion of an existing legal nonconforming use. Given all of these options for preserving the truck trailer and container storage operations onsite, and the City's policy of preserving legal nonconforming uses when possible, and the substantial amount of evidence establishing truck trailer and container storage on the Property, the City has legal and evidentiary support and authority for preserving the legal nonconforming use at the Property.

Ill CONCLUSION
As longstanding members of South Gate's business community, our clients remain dedicated to preserving a positive legacy of community involvement based on over 50 years of service. As a measure of good faith, our clients have expressed interest in partnering with the City to achieve its broader planning goals for the region as we plan together for future uses and development within the South Gate College District. Based on our conversation with the City Attorney, our clients are open to discussing opportunities for "living walls" or public art installations such as murals in or around the Property to further buffer the legal nonconforming uses from the public right- of-way and to visually enhance the pedestrian realm along the public-facing corridor, subject to the authorization of the Alameda Corridor Transit Authority ("ACTA") as applicable. We look forward to discussing these options in more detail with the City Attorney, and will schedule a follow-up meeting shortly.

For the reasons stated above, the City has substantial evidence, legal authority, and compelling policy incentives to preserve truck trailer and container storage on the Property as a legal nonconforming use. We remain confident that by working together, we can support the City's development goals while preserving local jobs, family businesses, and the Engle's substantial contributions to the local community. 34 Endara at 38.

SOMOS 11
399
If you have any questions about the documentation that we provided or about the scope or nature of the legal nonconforming uses on the Property, please contact me directly.

Thank you,
Alfred Fraijo Jr.

Partner
213.592.2966 direct
[email protected]
CC:

Raul Salinas, City Attorney
Craig Hardwick, CityAttorney
Yalini Silva, Senior Planner
Yodit Glaze, City Clerk
Raquel Larios, Office of the City Clerk
SOMOS
400

EXHIBIT E
401
8350 Alameda Street

ALAMEDA ENGLE

PROPERTIES, LLC
Appeal of Director's Denial of TUP
Extension for Truck Trailer Storage
May 2, 2023
tation by Alfred Fraijo Jr.

SOMOS
402
02 ALAMEDAENGLEPROPERTIES,LLC-TUPDENIALAPPEAL-MAYO2,2023 0 80MOS
403
a Pursuant to TUP Condition No. 2 and the City Planning Commission's review authority of the appeal, the Commission can grant a modest 60- day extension of the TUP to permit the Appellant and City to review the legal nonconforming use determination.
- Alternatively, Commission can opt to postpone its determination on the TUP extension until after the Planning Division completes its reviewing of the legal nonconforming use determination.
03 ALAMEDAENGLEPROPERTIES,LLC-TUPDENIALAPPEAL-MAYO2,2023 80MOS
404
Alameda Engle Properties, LLC operated
a recycling facility on the Property,
including storage of truck trailers
City approved TUP For truck trailer
use on the Property
Appea of Director's denia of the
TUP extension
EARLY 1970S TO 2020
2020 TO PRESENT
JuLY 16, 2020
DECEMBER 20, 2022
JANuARY 26, 2023
Tenant Fleet Yards, Inc. operating
truck trailer storage on the Property
[ )
Community Development Director
claims City would no longer
consider the TUP extensions
04 ALAMEDAENGLEPROPERTIES,LLC-TUPDENIALAPPEAL-MAYO2,2023 0 80MO8
405
0000'@II

1. The approved temporary use for the site is restricted to truck trailer storage only

3. Egress and ingress shall only be via Alameda Street

5. Any violations of the conditions or City laws could result in revocation of TUP
affidavit
05 ALAMEDAENGLEPROPERTIES,LLC-TUPDENIALAPPEAL-MAYO2,2023 SOMOg
406
The legal nonconforming use issue is dispositive for the future uses on the Property and informs the need for the TUP and subsequent TUP extensions.

South Gate Municipal Code (SGMC)
"nonconforming industrial uses may continue in use in any zone where they were legally established." SGMC § ll .55.030.E.

Legal nonconforming industrial use is preserved so long as it is not abandoned or discontinued for
two consecutive calendar years. SGMC §
11 .55.040.B.

Truck Trailer Storage
06 ALAMEDAENGLEPROPERTIES,LLC-TUPDENIALAPPEAL-MAYO2,2023 o 80MO1
407
I Jl -4
,';
d ! /a"y5j'!
2012 2018 2020 2022
07 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC - APPEAL OF TUP DENIAL - MAY 02, 2023 0 SOMOS
408
Director Shall Evaluate
AII of the Following to Determine that a Legal
Nonconforming Use is Abandoned:

1. Owner's Intent

2. Furnishings Equipment
& Personal Property

3. Abandoned 2+ Years

4. Licenses & Permits

5. Utilities
08 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC - TUP DENIAL APPEAL - MAY 02, 2023 o 80MOS
409
09 ALAMEDAENGLEPROPERTIES,LLC-TUPDENIALAPPEAL-MAYO2,2023 0 80MOS1
410
411

APPENDIX
Il ALAMEDAENGLEPROPERTIES,LLC-TUPDENIALAPPEAL-MAYO2,2023 0 SOMOg
412
Business License Compliance
1973 2020
Fleet Yards Auxiliary Permit
12 ALAMEDAENGLEPROPERTIES,LLC-TUPDENIALAPPEAL-MAYO2,2023 o @OMOffi
413
r-'* )
rNm%%la !l
7, 7 '_
a.W._
4ljJ
fil
'flfft

CENTENNIAL
-ICO YEARS-
May 16, 2023
Mr. Alan Engle
Manager
Alameda Engle Properties LLC
2127 Century Woods Way
Los Angeles, California 900667
Community Development Department
Meredith T. Elguira, Director of Community Development 8650 California Avenue, South Gate, CA 90280-3004
P: (323) 563-9529
www.cityofsouthgate.org
Re: City of South Gate's Denial of Request by Alameda Engle Properties, LLC. for Extension of Temporary Use Permit No. TUP 2020-01 for Truck-Trailer Storage at 8530 Alameda Street in South Gate, California Dear Mr. Engle,
On May 2, 2023, the South Gate Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the request by Alameda Engle Properties, LLC's ("AEP") to extend, for a period of one year, the term of Temporary Use Permit No. 2020- 01 (the "TUP"). Such an extension would have allowed the continued storage of trucks and truck-trailers at 8530 Alameda Street (the "Premises") by AEP"s tenant, Fleet Yards, Inc. ("Fleet Yards"). At the conclusion of that hearing, the Planning Commission upheld the City's earlier decision to deny the extension and not renew the TUP. AEP has now asked to appeal that decision to the South Gate City Council. For the reasons explained by the City Attorney's Office at the May 2, Planning Commission meeting and reiterated below, an appeal of this matter to the City Council is not available.

Furthermore, the original issuance of the TUP in violation of the Zoning Code also meant that the City was not required to grant AEP a hearing on the matter of renewing the TUP. Again, as publicly stated by the City's legal counsel at the Planning Commission meeting, the City granted that hearing as a matter of courtesy - something that was also explained to AEP in the course of the May 2 meeting. No hearing was required because no decision by the Planning Commission could have resulted in validation and extension of the TUP. Section

ATTACHMENT E
414
- 'N"ti' -
r
d
-M!.__ i,
P_"
?!! 'f.l B.
p;:J__a. 1. " a:i>
:iaA%ft j1""F%".l:
4i
'sr
Community Development Department
Meredith T. Elguira, Director of Community Development 8650 California Avenue, South Gate, CA 90280-3004
P: (323) 563-9529
www.cityofsouthgate.org

CENTENNIAL
-' Jrl 'rer.h , -
Code. Therefore, regardless of whether the Planning Commission had voted to uphold or overturn the denial of the requested TUP extension, the result would have been the same: no valid permit would exist. A hearing before the City Council would be equally futile, as AEP would still have no valid permit regardless of whether the Council voted to uphold or overturn the denial of AEP"s request to extend the TUP for another year. Therefore, an appeal to the City Council is neither warranted nor available.

1. That the Premises were used for the storage of trucks and truck trailers since before the 2015 zone change, and that such use has continued from then until now without any interruption longer than two years. Evidence that a truck or trailer was occasionally parked on the Premises for purposes of loading or unloading will not suffice. The City requires evidence that the Premises were being used for the storage of trucks and truck-trailers consistent with the customary legal application of "legal non- conforming" use, not that such trucks or trailers were merely present on the Premises for short periods in the normal course of their travels associated with the primary approved use and the only city licensed business being operated at the location (Metal Recycling Center).

Additional to the lack of a CUP, the City does not have a record of any business(s) being licensed for the operation of a storage facility of trucks and/or truck trailers prior to the zone change in 2015 or afterwards. 415
r "= )Pn%Tmrrlffl *
ef?l7= -'- -;7
7!" ffibaM#r;
.MI
i")"/'/ a( l' , I
"-77"4i W'
s
. a'!!!!!lz' -
Community Development Department
Meredith T. Elguira, Director of Community Development 8650 California Avenue, South Gate, CA 90280-3004
P: (323) 563-9529
www.cityofsouthgate.org

CENTENNIAL
-iCO YEAnS-
We urge AEP, as soon as possible, to either provide the evidence requested above or cause Fleet Yards to discontinue its storage of trucks and truck-trailers at the Premises. Failure to do so will result in enforcement action by the City.

Sa cer
Meredith T. El
CC: Mr. Chris Jeffers, City Manager
Rail F. Salinas, Esq.

Craig D. Hardwick Esq.
416
City of South Gate

PLANNING COMMISSION
A CG JENID) A IB3IIJLIL
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S DECISION TO DENY AN EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. 2020-01 FOR TRUCK TRAILER STORAGE AT 8530 ALAMEDA STREET.

PURPOSE: Public hearing to consider an appeal of the Director of Community Development's decision to deny an extension of Temporary Use Pe1mit (TUP) No. 2020-01 for truck-trailer storage at 8530 Alameda Street, South Gate.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. CONDUCT a public heating pursuant to South Gate Municipal Code Table 11.51-1 and Section 11.50.040.B;

2. ACCEPT the dete1mination that this matter is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act;

3. ADOPT the findings as outlined in Resolution No. 2023-02 (Attachment A); and

4. UPHOLD the decision of the Director of Community Development denying an extension of TUP No. 2020- 01 by adopting Resolution No. 2023-05.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: Advertising and notification of the public heating for this item was conducted in compliance with Sections 11.50.020 and 11.50.030 of the South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC"). Notices of the hearing were posted and published in the "South Gate Press" on February 9, April 6 and April 20, 2023.

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), codified at California Public Resources Code§§ 21000 et seq., requires the City to consider the potential environmental impacts of any project which the City is asked to approve. State regulations known as the "CEQA Guidelines", codified at Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, provide a number of "categorical exemptions" for activities which are not deemed to be projects under CEQA or which are otherwise not subject to CEQA. In the present case, the matter before the City Council is exempt from CEQA pursuant to a Class l exemption set forth in Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. Class 1 exemptions apply to the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or fo1mer use.

Here, the Planning Commission is being asked to approve or deny a license to continue the existing or former use of the licensed facility and is therefore a matter covered by the Class l exception.

BACKGROUND: This is an appeal by Jason Engle on behalf of Alameda Engle Properties, LLC, the owner of property located at 8530 Alameda Street. Mr. Engle is appealing the Director of Community Development's decision to deny an extension or renewal of Temporary Use Permit 2020-01. The history of that Temporary Use Permit is as follows:

The City's Business License Department shows business license records (Attachment B) for "Jack Engle Co," which statted business on Ap1il 18, 1977, and closed business on March 27, 2020, at 8530 Alameda Street. This business type was listed as a "Manufacturing - Metal" business with "outside storage only." The appellant and its predecessor had previously been utilizing the property to operate a metal recycling facility, in addition to the ancillary storage of truck containers and truck trailers.

Upon closing that business, the appellant continued to utilize the site by leasing the prope1ty to tenants for the ATTACHMENT F417
outside storage of truck trailers and tiuck containers. In order to do so, the applicant applied for, and received, Temporary Use Permit 2020-01. That permit "permitted the use of truck trailer storage for a one year period with possible one year extensions up to a maximum period of five years from the date of approval, at 8530 Alameda Street," with six conditions of approval. A July 16, 2020 letter from the City's former Director of Community Development, setting forth those conditions of approval for that pertnit, is attached hereto as Attachment C. As of the appeal date, the appellant has failed to comply with the required conditions of approval and has also been operating without a city business license.

The appellant applied for a "renewal" of Temporary Use Permit 2020-01 on July 11, 2022. For the reasons explained below, the City's current Director of Community Development declined to renew the permit. This appeal followed. The City Manager's January 12, 2023 letter to the appellant, and the appellant's January 26, 2023 letter in response, both pertain to that appeal and are attached here to as Attachment D and Attachment E.

ANALYSIS: The renewal application was denied because under the SGMC: (1) the use which is the subject of the Temporary Use Permit is prohibited at 8530 Alameda; and (2) Temporary Use Permits can only allow otherwise unauthorized uses to be conducted for a few days, not for multi-year periods.

Past/Proposed Use of Property is as a "Truck Storage/Terminal": Applicant and its tenant have been using the subject property to store trucks, truck-trailers, and storage containers. Under the SGMC, this use is defined as "truck storage/terminal" use which, pursuant to the SGMC Section 11.60.230 "T" definitions, "means indoor or outdoor site for freight, truck terminals, truck storage yards, or similar commercial facilities." SGMC Prohibits that Use at 8530 Alameda Street: The subject property is zoned Industrial Flex (IF). Table

11.21-3, under SGMC Section 11.21.030 "Land use pernnissions tables", lists allowed land uses within the IF zone. Truck storage/teiminal use is not listed on that Table as an allowed use within the IF zone. SGMC Section

11.21.020 notes that "Any land use that is not specifically listed in the land use tables for the applicable zone shall not be allowed or permitted within the zone." Therefore, the storage of trucks, truck-trailers and containers is a prohibited use in the IF zone.

Temporary Use Pertnits Cannot Authorize Prohibited Uses for Extended Durations. Pursuant to SGMC Section

11.51.070 "Temporary Use Permit," temporary use permits are processed administratively to "allow for short- term activities that warrant individual consideration and are acceptable because of their temporary, short-tertn nature." SGMC Section 11.51.070 (A) "Temporary Uses," also notes that the "provisions of this section shall regulate all special events and temporary land uses as permitted by Table 11.21-3, 11.21-4, or 11.21-5, as applicable to the zone, or as determined by the director." SGMC Section 11.51.010 (B) lists "Mandatory Approval Conditions" for temporary use permits, wherein there are "limits on the maximum duration will be specified in the permit, and shall not exceed three days in a row, or ten working days in any calendar year." Original Issuance of the TUP was Done in Error, and Renewal of the TUP is not authorized by the SGMC. Based on the aforementioned reasoning, the City's current Director of Community Development determined that the City would not grant an extension of TUP 2020-01. That Temporary Use Permit should never have been issued in the first place, since it purported to authorize the subject use for one or more years, far longer than the three- consecutive-day and ten-nonconsecutive-day maximum periods authorized by the SGMC. The Director and the City Manager each communicated that decision to the appellant. Appellant has appealed that decision, which appeal is the subject of the above-referenced hearing. 418
CONCLUSION: Staff believes the Director's decision to deny the applicant's request to extend Tempo rary Use Permit 2020-01 is mandated by the SGMC. Staff recommends that the Planoing Commission uphold the Director's decision and deny the appellant's request.

ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution No. 2023-0 5
B. Business license records
C. Temporary Use Permit 2020-01 approval letter, dated July 16, 2020 D. City Manager's letter, dated January 12, 2023
E. Appellant's letter, dated January 26, 2023

WITHOUT EXHIBITS

WITHOUT ATTACHMENTS
419
304 South Broadway, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Mar
ch 13, 2025
VIA U.S. and ELECTRONIC MAIL
Jennifer Daley
SELA for a Better Tomorrow
PO Box # 13308
Los Angeles, California 90013
Email: [email protected]
Re:

SELA Letter Concerning Alameda Engle Properties, LLC
Dear
Ms. Daley,
We ar
e in receipt of your letter on behalf of SELA for a Better Tomorrow (“SELA”) dated March 6, 2025 (“SELA Letter”). We are writing on behalf of Alameda Engle Properties, LLC (“AEP”) to correct misstatements in the SELA Letter, and to address SELA’s concerns regarding the truck trailer and container storage (“Site Operations”) at 8530 Alameda Street (the “Property”) which straddles the jurisdictions of the City of South Gate (“City”) and Los Angeles County.

Her
ein and with respect to the SELA Letter, we address: (1) the longstanding legal conduct of the Site Operations at the Property; (2) the fact that levels of allegedly elevated arsenic in the City are not affiliated with the Property, the Site Operations, or AEP given the surrounding land uses; and (3) the fact that continuing the Site Operations at the Property until its transition at same to educational and institutional uses is in the best interests of all, including the citizens of South Gate. We appreciate this opportunity to respond directly to SELA’s concerns and look forward to opportunities to meet with you and with SELA’s membership to discuss how our collective concerns and interests regarding the Property can be collaboratively addressed.

As
a threshold matter, we invite SELA’s consideration of the points expressed in AEP’s February 6, 2025 Request for Appeal of Director’s Determination and Noncompliance Notification (“Appeal”) attached for convenience as Exhibit A hereto and incorporated by reference herein. Adding to the points made in our Appeal, AEP specifically addresses the SELA Letter as follows:

ATTACHMENT G
420

304 South Broadway, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90013

I. AEP’s operations are legal and have remained constant since 1973

The SELA Letter suggests that the Site Operations have operated illegally for three years “with no business license, no [Temporary Use Permit (“TUP”)] or Conditional Use Permit….” In fact, the Site Operations have consistently operated in South Gate since 1973 and pre-date the currently applicable zoning at the Property. As such, all aspects of the Site Operations are “legal nonconforming uses,” which are protected and specifically allowed to continue by the South Gate Municipal Code (“SGMC”).1

Legal nonconforming uses are not illegal; they are land uses or structures that were lawful when they were established but no longer comply with the current zoning regulations. Since 1973, Site Operations at the Property have been operating lawfully and with City oversight. The City has issued multiple business licenses specially authorizing outdoor storage – an authorized use on the Property.

With respect to the Temporary Use Permit (“TUP”) issued for the Property, as explained in AEP’s Appeal, AEP was required to obtain the TUP by then Director of Community Development, Joe Perez. The City has acknowledged that requiring a TUP (instead of, for example, a Development Agreement or Conditional Use Permit) was in error. Given the uses of the Property never changed and the legal nonconforming use was maintained, no TUP should have been required in the first place. 2 Since the City’s
acknowledgement that the 2020 TUP was in error, AEP and its tenant (Fleet Yards) have worked diligently to resolve any permitting issues regarding the Property with the City.

II. There is no link between the allegedly elevated local arsenic levels and the Property or AEP’s operations at same

Arsenic is a naturally occurring element with levels that vary by locality. Arsenic is used in lead alloys (e.g., for car batteries), wood preservatives (e.g., railroad ties), and applications in the metallurgical, glass-making, and semiconductor industries. The SELA Letter references a federal Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) study that purportedly found that 83 homes adjacent to the Property exceeded California’s standards for acceptable levels of arsenic.3 From this, the SELA Letter makes the unfounded suggestion that the AEP Operations or Property are responsible for this arsenic. This is wholly unsubstantiated.

1 See SGMC § 11.55, et seq. (Nonconforming Uses and Buildings). 2 AEP has had no aﬃliation with Mr. Eﬀren Martinez since the City’s errant issuance of the TUP . 3 The federal study referenced by SELA is not attached to or referenced by the SELA Letter. 421

304 South Broadway, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90013

AEP has conducted substantial testing of its Property in coordination with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”). AEP continues to work with DTSC to actively monitor the Property, and is in compliance with all DTSC requirements. The results of this testing indicate that any elevated levels of arsenic, which is naturally occurring in soil, is not present at the Property in concentrations above background. On this basis, any elevated levels of arsenic at adjacent properties are not related to AEP, the Site Operations, or the Property. Notably however, the Property is bordered by numerous industrial properties and uses likely to employ arsenic, including railroad tracks, glass manufacturing, and a metallurgical manufacturer.4 In light of these facts, the SELA Letter’s suggestion that AEP, the Site Operations, or the Property are responsible for any locally elevated arsenic levels is unsubstantiated and inaccurate.

III. Continuing the Property’s legal nonconforming use is in the interests of the City, its citizens, and AEP

We appreciate SELA’s acknowledgement that the City’s ongoing consideration of the industrial policies and zoning requires time to carefully study and consider the impacts of same. Despite its right to continue the legal nonconforming use, AEP is actively trying to transition the Property to a use compatible with the Industrial Flex (“IF”) zoning now in place. Permissible uses in the IF zone include civic/institutional facilities, open space, office/research and development and light industrial uses.

Given the industrial nature of the surrounding properties however, both in the City as well as the County of Los Angeles, this transition is anticipated to require time and resources. AEP’s support for this transition is funded by rental income received from the Property’s current tenant, Fleet Yards. In order to minimize disruptions to the redevelopment process and preserve AEP’s support for this transition, the current legally nonconforming use of the Property must continue until such time as a proposal for development of the Property consistent with the IF zone is received, or by 2035, consistent with the requirements of the current General Plan.

Prematurely terminating the currently legal use would not expedite the redevelopment process, invites legal challenges, and would likely cause unnecessary delays. Such delay benefits no one: not SELA; not the City; and certainly not he citizens and business leaders of the South Gate community.

4 The Zoning Map for the City of South Gate is available HERE and attached as Exhibit B hereto. An aerial map of the Property and surrounding uses is available HERE and attached as Exhibit C hereto. 422

304 South Broadway, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90013

IV. Conclusion

AEP remains dedicated to cooperatively working with the City, South Gate community, and SELA in its path forward. AEP is open to feedback on the types of features that SELA and/or its members may have regarding the Property and its use.

We look forward to the opportunity to meet with SELA to review how to address all parties’ concerns regarding the Property and working together towards a community- based solution.

Sincerely,

Alfred Fraijo Jr.

Partner
213.592.2966 direct
[email protected]

cc:

Alan Engle, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC
Jason Engle, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC
Daniel Otting, Fleet Yards
Mayor Maria Davila
Rob Houston, City Manager
Raul Salinas, City Attorney
James Eckart, City Prosecutor
David Crabtree, Interim Community Development Director
John Signo, Planning Manager
Yalini Siva, Senior Planner

423
E
xhibit A
AEP Request for Appeal of Director’s Determination
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433

Exhibit B
City of South Gate Zoning Map
434
435

Exhibit C
Property Map

436

437

March 6, 2025
VIA U.S. MAIL AND EMAIL
Mayor Maria Davila

City of South Gate

8650 California Avenue

South Gate, CA 90280

[email protected]
Re: Immediate Demand for Enforcement of City Codes and
Accountability for Illegal Operations in the City of South Gate
Dear Mayor Davila and City Ofﬁcials,
This letter is submitted on behalf of SELA for a Better Tomorrow, a 501(c)(3) nonproﬁt organization (SELA), and the concerned residents of South Gate who we represent.

You and the City of South Gate (the “City”) have a legal and moral obligation to uphold the City ’s own codes, yet have repeatedly failed to do so, allowing numerous illegal a n d dangerous operations to continue unchecked. If immediate corrective action is not taken, SELA will have no choice but to proceed with legal action, including seeking a writ of mandate for injunctive and declaratory relief to compel the City to enforce its own regulations and protect the health and wellbeing of its residents.

We want to be clear—we are well-funded and have engaged both paid and pro-bono legal counsel to achieve our objectives. We are fully prepared to pursue all necessary legal avenues to ensure compliance with the law and hold you and other City ofﬁcials accountable for their continued negligence.

SELA FOR A BETTER TOMORROW
PO BOX #13308, LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 | 323-510-6433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT H
438
Illegal Operations and the City’s Failure to Act
Numerous properties in South Gate, including but not limited to:
• 8530 Alameda St. (Alameda Engle Properties, LLC);
• 9313 Rayo Ave. (Mr. C’s Towing of South Gate. Inc.); and • 4552 Ardine St. (Titan Terminals and Transport Inc. / J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc.)
are operating without permits, zoning approvals, Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), proper grading, water runoff plans, cleanup systems, trafﬁc studies or infrastructure to mitigate the environmental and public health risks associated with their use. These businesses have been operating for years in direct violation of the City's own codes, with full knowledge of City ofﬁcials, yet no meaningful enforcement action has been taken.

Our investigators have evidence that the Engle truck yard at 8530 Alameda St. was issued a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) in 2020, which expired on July 16, 2021. The City itself has acknowledged that this permit was issued in error, as a TUP is only valid for “three days in a row or ten working days in any calendar year.” Despite this, the truck yard has been operating continuously and illegally for over three years, with no business license, no TUP or Conditional Use Permit in violation of multiple laws and at the expense of the City’s residents and environment. Why has the City allowed a well-known zoning violator to continue to conduct illegal business for years while others are cited?
Similarly, the property at 4552 Ardine St. was illegally converted into a container yard by Titan Terminals over a decade ago. No zoning approvals, permits, or environmental clearances exist for this container yard. The property has been graded, leased, and used for industrial purposes without any standard environmental safeguards, endangering the health and safety of residents.

At 9313 Rayo Ave., Mr. C ’s Towing illegally established a yard on a contaminated EPA Superfund Site (formerly Cooper Drum Co.). The site, known to contain toxic substances, is directly adjacent to the LAUSD ’s Tweedy Learning Center, placing students and staff at serious health risk. The City has allowed this illegal operation to continue without requiring proper permitting, zoning, or environmental review.

SELA FOR A BETTER TOMORROW
PO BOX #13308, LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 | 323-510-6433 [email protected]
439
Failure to Enforce City Codes & Zoning
The City has an obligation to enforce its General Plan and zoning ordinances, which designate these areas as Industrial Flex ( “IF”)—not Heavy Manufacturing (“M3”). The City claims these properties are under administrative review and that they will need to request a zone change, while the City takes no meaningful action, conducts no traf ﬁc or environmental studies and holds no public meetings. The City continues to ignore its own policies, allowing truck yards and industrial operations to persist illegally and at great harm to residents. The proposal to rezone this parcel from IF to M3 and revert back to its previous use is a step backward from South Gate’s goals of sustainability and growth. In addition, this proposal cannot be made by the applicant, Somos Law Group representing Alameda Engle Properties, LLC. An amendment to this zoning code must be initiated by the City, be it the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Manager.

We know the City is in the process of an industrial use study to decide how to move forward with its industrial zones. The Engel property is in an area that's already been rezoned to less intensive uses and if the City decides to limit M3 zones, this request would contradict the City's future plans. The City cannot allow the application to move forward until the industrial study is completed.

Since December 2023, repeated attempts by residents and community leaders, including Felipe Guerrero, to raise these concerns have been dismissed by City ofﬁcials, including City Manager Rob Houston and City Attorney Raul Salinas. Hundreds of residents have signed petitions demanding enforcement, yet their voices are being ignored. This inaction raises serious questions about potential corruption and conﬂicts of interest within City Hall.

Links to Regional Corruption and Negligence
We are aware of the recent criminal investigations into municipal corruption in Huntington Park, where city ofﬁcials were raided by the L.A. County District Attorney’s Bureau of Investigation. One of the individuals under investigation, Efren Martinez, was the consultant responsible for securing the illegitimate TUP at 8530 Alameda St. The parallels between South Gate ’s failure to enforce the law and Huntington Park’s backroom deals are alarming.

SELA FOR A BETTER TOMORROW
PO BOX #13308, LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 | 323-510-6433 [email protected]
440

Furthermore, Fenix Entrepreneur’s Martin Fierro, a key player in Commerce’s truck parking scandal, has made ﬁnancial contributions to South Gate ofﬁcials.

Given that he is under FBI investigation for paying off Commerce ofﬁcials to secure illegal truck storage permits, his ties to South Gate raise signi ﬁcant concerns.

In addition, Michael Welsh, owner of Mr. C’s Towing and Fubar Properties LLC, donates directly to the City and has been penalized by the Fair Political Practices Division for violating campaign contribution laws.

Why is South Gate allowing illegal truck storage operations while accepting donations from individuals involved in such schemes?
Environmental & Public Health Crisis
The Department of Toxic Substances Control ( “DTSC”) has conducted contamination soil and soil vapor testing and has identiﬁed high levels of lead, arsenic and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), like PCE, TCE, PCBs, and benzene at each of these illegal sites. The DTSC states that when VOCs are not properly cleaned up, as in the cases of the above-named properties, they can migrate from soil or water into buildings through a process called vapor intrusion. Vapor intrusion contaminates indoor air quality which can impact the respiratory system and potentially cause cancer over time.

A Federal EPA study of 83 homes adjacent to 8530 Alameda found that all exceeded California’s acceptable arsenic level (0.11 mg/kg), with 5 homes testing at over 15 mg/kg—136 times the safe limit.

Exposure to these contaminants can cause cancer, especially of the bladder, lung, and kidneys, neurological damage, reproductive harm, organ failure, and developmental problems in children. Without proper cleanup, these toxins leach into the air, soil, and water, threatening public health and safety.

SELA FOR A BETTER TOMORROW
PO BOX #13308, LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 | 323-510-6433 [email protected]
441
Safety and Quality of Life for Residents
The City’s failure to enforce the law is destroying the safety and quality of life for the residents of South Gate. Because the truck yards are completely unregulated, they contribute to an increase in trafﬁc accidents, some fatal, pedestrian danger and deaths, excessive traf ﬁc, road damage, reduced parking in residential areas, noise pollution, property damage, decreased property values and homelessness. In choosing to repeatedly ignore the issues of safety and quality of life for South Gate, the City has cultivated mistrust and low morale among residents.

SELA FOR A BETTER TOMORROW
PO BOX #13308, LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 | 323-510-6433 [email protected]
442
Demand for Immediate Action
The City of South Gate must immediately:

1.Issue a cease and desist letter to shut down illegal truck yards and industrial operations at 8530 Alameda St., 9313 Rayo Ave., and 4552 Ardine St. because they have no legal permits to operate.

2.Enforce zoning laws and cease granting unlawful permits t h a t violate the 2015 General Plan Amendment.

3.Investigate potential conﬂicts of interest and corruption regarding political donations and business dealings tied to illegal operations.

4.Hold public hearings on environmental remediation efforts a n d allocate funding for community improvements rather than allowing backroom deals.

5.Work with the EPA and DTSC to ensure proper cleanup o f contaminated sites and prevent further exposure.

The failure of South Gate ofﬁcials to act has already put lives at risk, eroded public trust, and facilitated environmental and economic injustice. We demand that you do your job and enforce the laws for the beneﬁt of residents—not for the proﬁt of your donors and other special interests.

We expect a written response outlining the City’s plan to immediately rectify these violations within ten days of this letter. If the City fails to take corrective action, we will pursue legal action and expose this dereliction of duty in court and in the public eye.

The residents of South Gate deserve transparency, accountability, and leadership that prioritizes their health and safety—not secret deals and political favors. The era of unchecked corruption and environmental destruction must end, and we are prepared to hold those responsible fully accountable.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Daley

SELA for a Better Tomorrow

SELA FOR A BETTER TOMORROW
PO BOX #13308, LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 | 323-510-6433 [email protected]
443
cc: Joshua Barron ([email protected])
Vice Mayor
Maria del Pilar Avalos ([email protected])
Council Member
Gil Hurtado ([email protected])
Council Member
Al Rios ([email protected])
Council Member
David M. Crabtree ([email protected])

Interim Community Development Director
Rob Houston ([email protected])
City Manager
Raul Salinas ([email protected])
City Attorney
James Eckart ([email protected])
City Prosecutor
John F. Signo ([email protected])
Planning Manager

SELA FOR A BETTER TOMORROW
PO BOX #13308, LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 | 323-510-6433 [email protected]
444
Draft Complaint

SELA FOR A BETTER TOMORROW
PO BOX #13308, LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 | 323-510-6433 [email protected]
445
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SELA for a Better Tomorrow

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SELA FOR A BETTER TOMORROW, a
California non-profit corporation,
Petitioner and Plaintiff,
vs.

CITY OF SOUTH GATE, and DOES 1-25,
inclusive,
Respondents and Defendants.

CASE NO.:

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE
AND DECLARATORY RELIEF:

1.WRIT OF MANDATE – CODE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 1085;

2.INJUNC T I V E R E L I E F A S
AUTHORIZED BY LAW;

3.DECLARATORY RELIEF AS

AUTHORIZED BY LAW

- -1

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 446
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Plaintiff/Petitioner SELA For A Better Tomorrow hereby brings this action against Defendant/Respondent, City of South Gate, and Does 1-25 (collectively, “Respondents”), and alleges the following:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff/Petitioner SELA For A Better Tomorrow (“SELA”) is a California nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation. SELA was formed for the purpose of advocating for progressive and environmental causes. Its headquarters are located at PO Box 13308, Los Angeles, California 90013. SELA is entitled to the relief requested below because it and its members are beneficially interested in, and/or adversely affected by, the City’s adoption, implementation and enforcement of the Ordinance’s provisions challenged herein.

2. Defendant/Respondent, City of South Gate (the “City”) is a municipal corporation whose officers, officials an agents are responsible for enacting, implementing and enforcing the Ordinance, including its “no vending” zones and other restrictions challenged herein.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. Jurisdiction over this action is proper in the Superior Court of the State of California because the Court has general subject matter jurisdiction and no statutory exceptions to jurisdiction exist.

4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 394, because each Respondent and Defendant is a city or local agency and is situated in Los Angeles County. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 394 (“An action or proceeding - -2

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 447
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
against a . . . city, or local agency, may be tried in the county . . . in which the city or local agency is situated.”).
///

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5. For many properties particularly, 8530 Alameda St. (Alameda Engle Properties, LLC), 9313 Rayo Ave. (Mr. C’s Towing) and 4552 Ardine St., do not have permits, temporary or conditional use permits, zoning, Environmental Impact Reports, grading, proper water runoff, sufficient cleanup systems, proper infrastructure, or traffic studies for the actual use of these properties for several years.

6. The truck yard at 8530 Alameda St. was operating under a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) that was issued in 2020 and expired on July 16, 2021. The City maintains that the permit was originally issued in error. The City’s position is that the TUP is allowed to be in effect for “3 days in a row or 10 working days in any calendar year,” a regulation that this business violated by operating daily. Since July 16 2021, the truck yard has been operating continuously and illegally, without a TUP or a Conditional Use Permit. A true and correct copy of the City’s notification to Alameda Engle Properties, LLC, owner of 8530 Alameda St., regarding its non-compliance is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “1”.

7. The property at 4552 Ardine St. was purchased by Titan Terminals over a decade ago and converted into a container yard illegally. In fact, there was even a citation for it issued. Titan demolished the building, graded the land and illegally leased it out to JB Hunt, the current tenant onsite, without approval, zoning or permitting for this use. - -3

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 448
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
There are no water run-off plans, asphalt work, proper lighting or screening, and no Environmental Impact Report assessing contaminants.

8. At 9313 Rayo Ave in South Gate, a tow yard was erected illegally. This is a historically contaminated government Superfund Site (on record with the EPA as Cooper Drum Co. at 9316 Atlantic Ave., which is on the same property). The tenant is Mr. C’s towing and this yard was created without proper permitting, zoning or infrastructure for this use. This site is contaminated and located directly next to Tweedy Learning Center, an LAUSD adult continuation school, putting students and staff at risk for contamination.

9. The City is obligated to enforce their own codes, as these properties are not zoned for their current use, including trucking and truck and tractor trailer storage.

10. The City determined years ago by the 2015 General Plan Amendment that this area is to be used for Industrial Flex (IF) not Heavy Manufacturing (M3), specifically for use by the South Gate College District to benefit residents.

11. The City has been violating the law and their own codes since 2021, and the City has ignored residents since they took action and exposed these violations in 2023. SELA and local residents have repeatedly voiced their concerns about these violations and the health hazards at numerous city council meetings and hundreds of residents have signed the petition to shut down the illegal yards. Attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “2” are true and correct copies of citizen complaints and their petition regarding this unlawful conduct.
- -4

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 449
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

12. Felipe Guerrero, a South Gate resident who brought these signatures and complaints from the community to Rob Houston, Raul Salinas, etc. via numerous letters, emails, and meetings since December 2023 (see attached exhibit) has been completely dismissed by the council.

13. SELA’s representatives have interfaced with the community, obtained health and environmental data, and conducted research to determine the connections between City council members and the illegal property owners/tenants to better understand why this urgent issue and residents’ voices are being consistently suppressed without justification.

14. By allowing these sites to continue illegal operations, the properties and their owners have evaded environmental regulations that are designed protect public health.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) provides oversight of these sites with known soil and water.

15. Contamination soil and soil vapor testing have shown high levels of lead arsenic volatile organic compounds (VOCs) like PCE, TCE, PCBs and benzene. VOCs are chemicals used for industrial purposes that emit as gases from solids or liquids and are classified as toxic and dangerous to humans and the environment. They are found in gasoline, diesel fuel, solvents and industrial de-greasers. Exposure to VOCs is through inhalation, skin contact, and ingestion. The DTSC states that when VOCs are not properly cleaned up, as such in the cases of the above named properties, they can migrate from soil or water into buildings through a process called vapor intrusion. Vapor intrusion can affect indoor air quality which can impact the respiratory system and potentially cause cancer over time.
- -5

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 450
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

16. Without a comprehensive and adequate cleanup plan, these contaminants will continue harming the environment and potentially impact the respiratory nervous digestive and reproductive system and cause cancer.

17. A Federal EPA study was conducted on 83 homes adjacent to the Engle property at 8530 Alameda St. (information via Rossmery Zayas at Communities for a Better Environment) for levels of arsenic. California’s acceptable level of arsenic for homes is

0.11mg/kg. All 83 homes tested above the state limit, with 5 out of the 83 testing above 15 mg/kg. That is 136 times the acceptable amount. The long-term effects of arsenic include cancer (especially bladder, lung, and kidney cancer), cardiovascular disease, diabetes, liver and kidney damage, nerve damage and developmental problems in children.

18. In addition to irreparable health and environmental damage, the City’s ongoing failure to enforce the law is destroying the safety and quality of life for the residents of South Gate. These unchecked trucks are causing traffic accidents, some fatal, pedestrian danger, excessive traffic, road damage, a lack of parking, noise pollution, and decreased property values.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Against All Respondents
(Writ of Mandate – Code of Civil Procedure § 1085)

19. Petitioners reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the above paragraphs.

20. The City has a clear and present duty to carry out their regulation, enforcement and oversight of permits, temporary or conditional use permits, zoning, Environmental - -6

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 451
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Impact Reports, grading, water runoff, sufficient cleanup systems, proper infrastructure.

However, the City has fallen woefully short of its duties in this regard, thereby entitling SELA to a writ of mandate under California Civil Procedure Section 1085, directing and requiring the City to comply with its regulations.

21. At all relevant times, Respondents have had the ability to fulfill their duties under the law.

22. At all relevant times, the City has failed to proceed in the manner required by law.

23. Respondents’ actions as alleged herein were arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, and not supported by evidence.

24. Both in writing and otherwise, SELA has objected to the City’s unlawful conduct, and continue to do so up to the present.

25. SELA has a clear and present beneficial and/or pecuniary interest in the issuance of a writ of mandate because, unless this petition is granted, SELA and others similarly situated will be denied the benefits of the City’s zoning regulations.

26. SELA has no plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Unless this Court grants the relief requested, the City will continue to fail and refuse to perform their legal duties. No money damages or other legal remedy could adequately compensate SELA or the public for the injury and hardship attributable to the City’s unlawful conduct.

27. The City, moreover, owes a legal duty to SELA and residents of South Gate to enforce its laws.
- -7

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 452
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

28. Section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that attorneys’ fees may be awarded to a successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest.

SELA is entitled to such an award of attorneys’ fees for the following reasons:
a.SELA is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the general public or a large class of persons has a significant interest in, and will derive a significant benefit from, the relief prayed for herein.
b.The general public will derive a significant benefit from the proper enforcement and application of the law.
c.The general public will derive further significant benefits from this action and the relief prayed for herein, in that such relief will further the State’s goals by eliminating hazardous and toxic conditions.

29. The City’s compliance with its regulations is a matter of great public concern.

The necessity and financial burden of private enforcement by SELA is such to make an award of attorneys’ fees appropriate, and such fees should not, in the interests of justice, be borne by SELA.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Against All Respondents
(Injunctive Relief As Authorized By Law)

30. Petitioners reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the above paragraphs.
- -8

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 453
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

31. SELA has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy for the City’s wrongful conduct in violation its laws. Monetary damages cannot adequately compensate for the irreparable injuries caused thereby.

32. Unless enjoined by this Court, the City will continue to violate its’ code in all of the respects complained of herein.

33. SELA is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting _________________. Absent intervention by the Court, SELA, and others similarly situated, have and will continue to suffer irreparable injuries through the City’s wrongful conduct detailed herein.

34. For the reasons alleged above, Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees under Section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Against All Respondents
(Writ of Mandate – Code of Civil Procedure § 1085)

35. Petitioners reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the above paragraphs.

36. An actual controversy presently exists between SELA and the City concerning the City’s enforcement of its laws because SELA contends that the City has consistently failed to enforce those laws, to the detriment of the community.

37. SELA is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the City denies SELA’s contentions and further deny that they have acted in contravention of the law in any respect.
- -9

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 454
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

38. SELA therefore seeks a judicial determination of the rights and duties of the parties with regard to the City’s failure to enforce its laws concerning permits, temporary or conditional use permits, zoning, Environmental Impact Reports, grading, water runoff, sufficient cleanup systems, proper infrastructure, and traffic studies.

39. Such a declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time so that SELA and the City may ascertain their respective rights, duties and responsibilities in connection with the matters alleged in this Petition.

40. For the reasons alleged above, Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees under Section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, SELA requests that this Court:

1.Issue its alternative writ of mandate and/or order to show cause directing the City to enforce all aspects of its Code, specifically with regard to its laws concerning permits, temporary or conditional use permits, zoning, Environmental Impact Reports, grading, water runoff, sufficient cleanup systems, proper infrastructure, and traffic studies.

2.Upon return of the alternative writ and/or the hearing on the order to show cause or alternatively in the first instance, issue a peremptory writ ordering Respondents to enforce all aspects of its Code, specifically with regard to its laws concerning permits, temporary or conditional use permits, zoning, Environmental Impact Reports, grading, water runoff, sufficient cleanup systems, proper infrastructure, and traffic studies.;

3.Enter such temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and permanent injunctions to prohibit the City from _____________;
- -10

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 455
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

4.Enter injunctive relief against Respondents requiring them to _____________; and

5.Enter as part of the requested (a) writ of mandate, (b) injunctive relief and (c) declaratory judgment, a determination that Respondents are required (i) ______.

SELA For A Better Tomorrow
- -11

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 456
Exhibits

SELA FOR A BETTER TOMORROW
PO BOX #13308, LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 | 323-510-6433 [email protected]
457
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>
Meeting this week?2 messages
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]> Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 6:17 PMTo: [email protected] Hi Rob,
Can we set up an in-person, zoom, or phone meeting with you and anyone else at South Gate who is interested, prior to the next city council meeting on 3/11/25? We are available most days and times from2/26 to 3/10. The sooner the better. What days and times work best for you? The environmental non-profit organization I work with, SELA For a Better Tomorrow, has been offered pro bono legal help in shutting down unpermitted illegal truck yards, especially those operating in SouthGate at or near 8530 Alameda St., 4552 Ardine St., 9313 Rayo Ave, etc. The city council is allowing them to operate without the proper permits or proper zoning, harming residents and the environment. Beforewe go down this legal route, we would appreciate the chance to discuss this with you.

We'd like to address our concerns and points with you to see if we can amicably resolve our issues and protect the South Gate residents and environment.

Please let me know when you are available.

Thank you,
-- Jennifer DaleySELA For a Better Tomorrow
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]> Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 12:29 PMTo: [email protected] Hi Rob, Just confirming you received my email and a request for a meeting. Are you available early next week for a meeting or call? Thanks.[Quoted text hidden]
458
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>
Can we set up a meeting?Jennifer Daley <[email protected]> Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:31 AMTo: [email protected] Hi Josh,
Can we set up an in-person, zoom, or phone meeting with you and anyone else at South Gate who is interested, prior to the next city council meeting on 3/11/25? We are available most days and times from2/26 to 3/10. The sooner the better. What days and times work best for you? The environmental non-profit organization I work with, SELA For a Better Tomorrow, has been offered pro bono legal help in shutting down unpermitted illegal truck yards, especially those operating in SouthGate at or near 8530 Alameda St., 4552 Ardine St., 9313 Rayo Ave, etc. The city council is allowing them to operate without the proper permits or proper zoning, harming residents and the environment. Beforewe go down this legal route, we would appreciate the chance to discuss this with you.

We'd like to address our concerns and points with you to see if we can amicably resolve our issues and protect the South Gate residents and environment.

Please let me know when you are available.

Thank you,
-- Jennifer DaleySELA For a Better Tomorrow
459
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>
Update on Mr. C's and Jack EngelRob Houston <[email protected]> Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 9:57 AMTo: Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>Cc: Pilar Avalos <[email protected]>, Al Rios <[email protected]>, Yodit Glaze <[email protected]> Jennifer,

Thank you for your inquiry. At this point in time I can share with your information on the 9313 Rayo site that you mentioned. This site is now owned by Mr. C’s towing and a portion of theparcel is zoned M3 to legally allow tow yard operations including storage. They are only using the portion zoned for this use (see parcel map below) until they conduct a zoneadjustment process with the Planning Commission for the remainder of the property.

Rob HoustonCity Manager

City of South Gate / City Manager’s Ofﬁce
8650 California Avenue, South Gate, CA 90280
P: (323) 563-9503
E: [email protected]
W: cityofsouthgate.org

From: Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 8:43 AMTo: Rob Houston <[email protected]>; Pilar Avalos <[email protected]>; Al Rios <[email protected]>; Yodit Glaze <[email protected]>Subject: Update on Mr. C's and Jack Engel

This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and attachments [Quoted text hidden]
image002.png9K
460
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>
Update on Mr. C's and Jack EngelJennifer Daley <[email protected]> Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 8:43 AMTo: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Yodit Glaze <[email protected]> Mr. Houston, Mr. Rios and Ms. Avalos,
Thank you for hearing our concerns regarding the illegal and toxic truck yards in South Gate at the South city council meeting on 1/28/25. I and four other community members publicly commented and severalother residents joined us, in hopes that we would get answers from you as to why it's taken so long for the council to protect residents and uphold the law with the illegal yards operating at 8530 Alameda, 9313Rayo and 4552 Ardine.

Mr. Houston, you stated that work is being done behind the scenes that you can't share publicly, which we understand, but there has not been any meaningful response or sign of action by the council since2021.

We need a response as to how and why truck yards are allowed to operate without permits or an EIR, and a timeframe in which changes will be made. What is the date these yards will be required to complywith the law, or be shut down? Or are you expecting your community to wait another four years for any action? Please let me know so I can share info with the hundreds of people who are waiting on you.

Thank you,
--Jennifer Daley
461
To: South Gate City Council
Rob Houston, City Manager
Yodit Glaze, City Clerk
1/28/25
Good evening Mayor and South Gate City Council,
My name is Jennifer Daley and this is the third time I’ve spoken to the council on behalf of concerned residents who oppose the illegal truck yards in South Gate. I am joined by supporters Gabi Gutierrez, Kirby Blanton, Joanne Kim, Dominic Fawcett, and Omar Ruiz and Felipe Guerrero.

For two years, your residents have brought you their concerns about the illegal yards at 8530 Alameda St., 4552 Ardine St., and 9313 Rayo Ave. and you have blatantly ignored them. The yard at 8530 Alameda Ave. has been violating the law and operating without a permit since July 2021.

These were temporary agreements during the pandemic, but almost four years later nothing has been done to ﬁx the problem. At 9313 Rayo Ave., Mr. C’s Towing has a new tow yard established mysteriously without any permits. This is located directly next to the Tweedy Learning Center and is contaminated, subjecting students to cancer-causing chemicals.

Zoning laws and environmental regulations exist to protect the health and safety of residents and to ensure that development is sustainable and beneﬁts the people, not corporations and government ofﬁcials. You have thrown out the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and environmental protections by allowing these properties to operate. The area is a source of extreme toxic pollution, including vapor intrusion and contaminated groundwater, and it’s making people near the site sick.

We have witnessed repeated failures to protect the welfare of your citizens. Are you turning a blind eye to this illegal operation because of ﬁnancial interests? What council members are supporting the illegal operations of these properties and why? Is there anyone on the council opposing them, and supporting the residents?
There’s another question that’s been weighing on many of us: Who are city ofﬁcials receiving donations from, how much are they for, and what do those donations mean for the people? We all know that money has power. Are your donors coming from trucking companies so they can ignore environmental laws and pollute neighborhoods?
Recent news exposing government corruption in neighboring cities like Commerce have to make us think, could this be the case for South Gate as well? Is a ﬁnancial exchange allowing truck yards to operate with impunity? If so, this is not just a failure of governance—it’s theft of resources that should be going into South Gate’s schools, infrastructure, health and safety.

It’s time for the city to uphold the law, enforce environmental protections and shut down these toxic truck yards. It’s time to put people over corporate interests. The residents of South Gate deserve better than to be subjected to cancer-causing pollution and ignored by the very people they elected to protect them.

Jennifer Daley
1/28/25
[email protected]
462
TO: South Gate City Council
Rob Houston, City Manager
Yodit Glaze, City Clerk
1/28/25
Hello South Gate Mayor and City Council,
My name is Gabi Gutierrez and I’m a diver, aquarium educator and ocean advocate. I’m here for the second time on behalf of over 300 residents who signed a petition calling for the immediate shutdown of the illegal truck yards in South Gate, particularly the one at 8530 Alameda Street.

For over two years, your residents have been raising concerns about the dangerous levels of groundwater contamination and vapor intrusion in this area. Despite repeated emails, calls and petitions, your residents have been ignored.

What makes this situation even more troubling is that the truck yard at 8530 Alameda Street was allowed to bypass important environmental processes, like the Environmental Impact Report and the Conditional Use Permit process. These processes are in place to ensure that the impacts on the community—on health, water, and air—are fully evaluated before businesses can operate. Allowing this truck yard to bypass these regulations has put everyone at risk.

These truck yards are a serious threat to public health. Water and air tests show toxic levels of contamination endangering residents living nearby. Lead, arsenic, and VOCs are seeping into groundwater, which is Southeast LA’s drinking water, and draining into the ocean.

As a long-time environmental advocate, I’ve seen the devastating effects of industrial negligence, and I can tell you that this issue will only worsen the longer it’s left unaddressed.

With the devastating ﬁres in Los Angeles, we are seeing the clear effects of climate change, and every city government needs to do their part by enforcing environmental protections to protect future generations.

We understand there are challenges, but the city must prioritize the safety of its people. Shutting down these illegal truck yards and addressing the contamination is not just a request—it’s a responsibility to protect South Gate’s residents. The yards have operated for almost four years without permits, and people can no longer afford to wait. The time to act is now.

We’re asking the city to hold the illegal truck yards accountable and ensure proper cleanup of these areas. The health of the community should never be compromised for the sake of corporate interests.

Thank you for your time.

Gabriela Gutierrez
1/28/25
[email protected]
463
TO: South Gate City Council
Rob Houston, City Manager
Yodit Glaze, City Clerk
1/28/25
Good evening, South Gate Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Kirby Blanton and I work in early education and mental health in Los Angeles. I’m here to speak on the damage being caused by deals the council has made with illegal truck yards in South Gate. I want to raise a serious concern about South Gate's future—one that’s been made clear by the recent scandal in Commerce, where city ofﬁcials were caught accepting bribes, costing taxpayers millions. This corruption often starts with seemingly harmless deals made under pressure, and during the pandemic, many cities like South Gate and Commerce faced ﬁnancial struggles. Some of these rushed agreements with private companies, especially in industries like trucking, need to be examined closely.

Now, years later, we need to ask: Were these deals made to beneﬁt the community, or were they made to beneﬁt corporate interests at the expense of the people who live here? Just as Commerce is now paying the price for their unchecked decisions, we must ensure South Gate doesn’t follow the same path.

Another concern is the growing inﬂuence of donations to local government ofﬁcials. It’s critical to maintain transparency and ensure no external inﬂuence is guiding city decisions. If these donations are shaping policies that harm South Gate residents, that’s a direct conﬂict of interest that we must address.

Most importantly, we must protect the resources that should be beneﬁting our community, especially in education and mental health services. The money that should be directed into our schools, our infrastructure, and our residents’ health is being diverted to serve corporate interests. This is theft—not just of money, but of the future of South Gate’s children, schools, and the vital health support so many people rely on.

It’s time to review these past agreements, ensure they comply with the law, and correct any mistakes made. You need to put South Gate’s future ﬁrst by upholding transparency, enforcing environmental protections, and ensuring that the money meant to serve our community goes toward education, mental health, and public services—not into the pockets of those who break the law.

Thank you.

Kirby Blanton
1/28/25
[email protected]
464
TO: South Gate City Council
Rob Houston, City Manager
Yodit Glaze, City Clerk
1/28/25
Good evening City Council and residents of South Gate,
My name is Joanne Kim, and I’m a sustainable fashion designer and cancer research advocate. I’m here today to speak about a critical health issue affecting our community:
the pollution from illegal truck yards, particularly the one near 8530 Alameda Street.

Recent vapor intrusion testing in this area has revealed alarmingly high levels of lead, arsenic, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in nearby homes. These are toxic substances that directly harm the respiratory, nervous, digestive, and reproductive systems. Long-term exposure to these chemicals can lead to serious health issues, including cancer, which disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, particularly children.

As I’m sure you know, the connection between these environmental toxins and the rise in cancer cases is proven. The levels of contamination found in South Gate are not just a concern—they are a public health crisis that cannot be ignored. These illegal truck yards have been allowed to operate without proper oversight, bypassing critical environmental protections like the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process, which are meant to safeguard the health of our residents.

So, I have to ask: Which City Council members would allow these detrimental truck yards to continue operating unchecked, knowing the health risks they pose? And why? It is unacceptable that this situation has been allowed to persist. The city has the responsibility to uphold the law and protect its residents. Shutting down these illegal, contaminated truck yards and beginning the cleanup process is not just a request—it’s an urgent need.

I urge the city council to take immediate action. Enforce the law, hold these truck yards accountable, and prioritize the health and safety of South Gate residents. This issue cannot wait any longer.

Thank you.

Joanne Kim
1/25/28
[email protected]
465
TO: South Gate City Council
Rob Houston, City Manager
Yodit Glaze, City Clerk
1/28/25
Hello Mayor, City Council Members, and the residents of South Gate, My name is Omar Ruiz, and I am a 20 year old student and lifelong resident of South Gate. My family, friends, and I have been working for the past two years to raise awareness about the dangers, pollution and unsafe roads caused by the illegal truck yards at 8530 Alameda St., 4552 Ardine St., and 9313 Rayo Ave. We've gathered hundreds of signatures and listened to countless residents share their concerns about the worsening conditions in our city.

People in our community are living next to toxic truck yards and dealing with serious health problems. Kids can’t walk home from school or play outside because of dangerous truck trafﬁc and a lack of pedestrian safety. There have been several fatalities caused by truck accidents. The air is polluted, and riding a bike in South Gate is nearly impossible because the roads are overrun by truck trafﬁc. People can’t sleep at night because trucks run overnight on residential streets. The truck companies litter neighborhoods and take up parking.

My family and I are deeply worried about our health and the future of our community.

We’ve tried reaching out to the City Council in every way possible, but you are ignoring us. How are we supposed to trust the city to protect us when corporations are breaking the law and damaging our environment?
It feels as if the City Council hopes we’ll go away if we’re ignored long enough. But we won’t. Our health and safety are too important, and it’s your responsibility to protect them.

We need action now. Please listen to your residents, and make the changes necessary to protect our community.

Thank you for your time.

Omar Ruiz
01/28/25
466
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>
Public Comment - Today4 messages
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]> Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 3:24 PMTo: [email protected] City Council,
I am in need of an update on the illegal truck yards operating at 8530 Alameda Street and 4552 Ardine Street, and a new illegal yard at 9313 Rayo Street. I have not received a response from Ms. Elguira, Mr.Salinas or Mr. Houston to my email requesting answers on 11/25/24.

All of these yards have been operating without proper permits and the council continues to deny knowing about it, or claims to be "looking into it," and then ignores our requests for answers. There is obviouslyillegal business taking place between the truck yards and the council and you are trying to sweep it under the rug.

As a reminder, a Temporary Use Permit was issued in error for 8530 Alameda Street and the Community Development Director declined to renew the TUP on 7/11/22. That was two and a half years ago andthe yard has been operating illegally since then. The city council has said they have been "reaching out to the owner" and "looking into" the problem for over a year.

Your residents are in need of answers and a resolution so their living conditions improve. They are sick of the traffic, unsafe roads, lack of parking, excessive pollution, noise, trash dumping and unsafehomeless camps surrounding the yards.

This has taken far too long and your lack of response and action is unacceptable. I need to provide an update to your residents who have given hundreds of their signatures in opposition of illegal truck yards.They want answers and action.

Thank you for your email regarding public comment for tonight’s meeting. I appreciate your engagement in our community matters.

Rest assured, I have received your comment and will include it with my reading.

If you have any further questions or concerns before the meeting, please feel free to reach out.

Best regards,

Yodit Glaze
City Clerk

From: Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 3:25 PMTo: Yodit Glaze <[email protected]>Subject: Public Comment - Today

This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and attachments [Quoted text hidden]
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]> Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 4:06 PMTo: Karla Tilma <[email protected]>, Elliott Block <[email protected]> [Quoted text hidden]--jennifer daley
[email protected]
jendaley.comIMDbinstagram
Karla Tilma <[email protected]> Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 2:39 PMTo: Jennifer Daley <[email protected]> You are doing a good job but it's them that are ignoring you. [Quoted text hidden] 467
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>
City council mtg - response needed1 message
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]> Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 10:52 PMTo: [email protected], [email protected], Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> City Council,
Below you will find the public comment I submitted for this week's city council meeting on 12/10. I look forward to your timely response. -----City Council,
I am in need of an update on the illegal truck yards operating at 8530 Alameda Street and 4552 Ardine Street, and a new illegal yard at 9313 Rayo Street. I have not received a response from Ms. Elguira, Mr.Salinas or Mr. Houston to my email requesting answers on 11/25/24.

So I ask you: What is the timeline for how long it will take to get the property owners to comply? What action is the council taking to enforce the law and protect your residents? Thank you, --Jennifer DaleyEnvironmental Justice Advocate 468
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>
Illegal truck yards - Update needed1 message
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]> Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 2:16 PMTo: [email protected], [email protected], Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> Hello Meredith, Rob and Raul,
I am writing to get an update on the illegal truck yards operating at 8530 and 8440 Alameda Street. A Temporary Use Permit was issued in error for 8530 Alameda Street and the Community DevelopmentDirector declined to renew the TUP on 7/11/22. The yard has been operating illegally since then and the city council has been reaching out to the owner and "looking into" the problem for over a year.

I am in contact with dozens of your residents who are in need of answers and a resolution so their living conditions improve. They are sick of the traffic, road conditions, lack of parking, excessive pollution andnoise, trash dumped by the truck companies and unsafe homeless camps surrounding the yards.

Meredith is not getting back to me. Can you provide me with a timeline of how long it will take to get the property owner to comply? I would like to provide this update for residents who want answersand have given hundreds of their signatures in opposition of illegal truck yards.

Thank you,
Jennifer [email protected]
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>Date: Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 3:04 PMSubject: Re: 10/22 Meeting - Following upTo: Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> Hi Meredith,
Thank you for the response on November 11. My question remains as to why it has taken so long for the property owner to comply with the city’s municipal code. The fact that this yard has been operatingillegally for many years and has not come into compliance is concerning. Do you know if there is a timeline for compliance or can the property owner drag this on indefinitely? Felipe Guerrero has voiced thisconcern to the city for well over a year to no avail.

Is it the city’s position that anyone can set up an illegal operation and drag out the process of coming into compliance indefinitely? If this is not the case, then the City of South Gate sure makes it seem like itwelcomes illegal truck yards.

Can you provide me with a timeline of how long it will take to get the property owner to comply? I would like to provide this update for residents who want answers.

Thank you,
Jennifer Daley
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 11, 2024, at 10:44 PM, Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Jennifer,

The parcel located at 8440 Alameda St is outside of the City of South Gate’s jurisdiction. The parcel’s address south of 8440 S Alameda is 8530 Alameda St and this parcelis located in the City of South Gate. We are currently working with the property owner to get them comply with the City’s municipal code. The parcel at 4552 Ardine Stcurrently has an active business license is an auxiliary location to Titan Terminal and Transportation Inc. Staff did not see trucks parked at 5767 Imperial Hwy when theyvisited the site, however, there are two container units parked across the front of the property line to prevent public access but I’ve asked staff to inform the owner that thesemust be removed.

The other questions you have regarding public records will need to be addressed by the City Clerk’s Ofﬁce.

From: Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2024 2:59 PMTo: Meredith Elguira <[email protected]>Subject: Re: 10/22 Meeting - Following up

This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and attachments Hi Meredith,
I'm still waiting on your response to my previous email. Can I get an update on my questions outlined below?

Thanks.

469
On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 2:43 AM Jennifer Daley <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Meredith,
I was in attendance at the city council meeting this week on 10/22 and delivered public comment. Can I get responses from you on the following questions I brought to the council?

- What is the status of the truck yards operating at 8440 Alameda St, 4552 Ardine St and 5767 Imperial Highway? Are they operating with legal and current permits or not?

- Why weren't any of the emails, letters and phone calls between Felipe Guerrero and the city council on record? Why weren't the signatures he got from residents on record?

- On 1/8/24 you stated in a letter to Felipe: "The operator filed an appeal against the Planning Commission's decision to uphold the staff's decision, and our attorney is currently reviewingsupporting evidence on the appeal. We have not decided if we will accept and present the appeal. If our staff chooses to take the appeal to the Planning Commission, we will send out a publicnotice to all interested parties, including the petitioners on your list." What has occurred since that statement? Did you present the appeal? What was the outcome?

- Why are we back to square one when Felipe was told this was being worked on in January?

Thank you,

--
jennifer daley

[email protected]

jendaley.com
IMDb
instagram

--
jennifer daley

[email protected]

jendaley.com
IMDb
instagram

--jennifer daley
[email protected]
jendaley.comIMDbinstagram
470
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>
10/22 Meeting - Following upJennifer Daley <[email protected]> Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 3:04 PMTo: Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> Hi Meredith,
Thank you for the response on November 11. My question remains as to why it has taken so long for the property owner to comply with the city’s municipal code. The fact that this yard has been operatingillegally for many years and has not come into compliance is concerning. Do you know if there is a timeline for compliance or can the property owner drag this on indefinitely? Felipe Guerrero has voiced thisconcern to the city for well over a year to no avail.

Is it the city’s position that anyone can set up an illegal operation and drag out the process of coming into compliance indefinitely? If this is not the case, then the City ofSouth Gate sure makes it seem like it welcomes illegal truck yards.

Can you provide me with a timeline of how long it will take to get the property owner to comply? I would like to provide this update for residents who want answers.

Thank you,
Jennifer Daley
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 11, 2024, at 10:44 PM, Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Jennifer,

The other questions you have regarding public records will need to be addressed by the City Clerk’s Ofﬁce.

[Quoted text hidden]
471
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>
10/22 Meeting - Following upJennifer Daley <[email protected]> Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 2:58 PMTo: Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> Hi Meredith, I'm still waiting on your response to my previous email. Can I get an update on my questions outlined below? Thanks.[Quoted text hidden]
472
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>
10/22 Meeting - Following upJennifer Daley <[email protected]> Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 2:43 AMTo: Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> Hi Meredith, I was in attendance at the city council meeting this week on 10/22 and delivered public comment. Can I get responses from you on the following questions I brought to the council? - What is the status of the truck yards operating at 8440 Alameda St, 4552 Ardine St and 5767 Imperial Highway? Are they operating with legal and current permits or not? - Why weren't any of the emails, letters and phone calls between Felipe Guerrero and the city council on record? Why weren't the signatures he got from residents on record? - On 1/8/24 you stated in a letter to Felipe: "The operator filed an appeal against the Planning Commission's decision to uphold the staff's decision, and our attorney is currently reviewing supporting evidenceon the appeal. We have not decided if we will accept and present the appeal. If our staff chooses to take the appeal to the Planning Commission, we will send out a public notice to all interested parties,including the petitioners on your list."What has occurred since that statement? Did you present the appeal? What was the outcome? - Why are we back to square one when Felipe was told this was being worked on in January? Thank you,
--jennifer daley
[email protected]
jendaley.comIMDbinstagram
473
Jennifer Daley
1247 Hyperion Ave.

Los Angeles CA 90029
858-361-1092
Rob Houston
City Manager
City of South Gate
8650 California Ave.

South Gate, CA 90280
October 08, 2024
South Gate City Council,
My name is Jennifer Daley and I’m an environmental activist extremely concerned by the illegal truck yards doing business in South Gate. I was born in Montebello, grew up in Pico Rivera and have lived in Silver Lake for almost 15 years. My uncle was a corporate truck driver all over Southeast LA for his entire career, so I have become familiar with the harmful impact these truck companies can have on the community when they go unchecked.

The truck yard at 8530 Alameda in South Gate is operating under a Temporary Use Permit (TUP). It was issued in 2020 and expired on July 16, 2021. The city maintains that the permit was issued in error. Since July 2021, the trucks have been operating without a TUP and without a Conditional Use Permit. The city's position is that the TUP is allowed to be in eﬀect for "3 days in a row or 10 working days in any calendar year." This un-permitted yard has been operating continuously since July 16, 2021 without a permit.

I’ve spoken to South Gate residents who are dealing with the daily challenges caused by these illegal truck yards: pollution, dangerous roadblocks, deadly collisions, traﬃc, no parking and the disregard and trashing of residential areas. These residents have collected hundreds of signatures to shut down the illegal truck yards, but the city has ignored them and the trucks are running rampant through the neighborhoods. Why is this?
What is a Temporary Use Permit? The Alameda truck yard is still running, so these permits appear to be completely meaningless. Are they legally allowed to operate permanently?
This leads me to another question: are there backroom deals being made here that are granting the truck companies legal immunity? Who does the council represent? These 474
special interests or the people?
Because no action has been taken by the city, we have no other choice but to bring these serious concerns to the press and to other activist groups in protest.

Thank you for your time and consideration in addressing the concerns of your constituents. We look forward to your action on this issue.

Jennifer Daley
475
10/22/24
To: Rob Houston
South Gate City Council
My name is Gabi Gutierrez and I am a resident of Echo Park, Los Angeles. I work in Long Beach with many people from South Gate, so I have become very aware of the trafﬁc and environmental issues in the area, and the mounting concerns of Southeast LA residents.

When I found out how much work the residents here had done to communicate their problems with the illegal truck yards to the council - emails, meetings, phone calls, and even hundreds of signatures - I was shocked that the council had made zero progress on the matter. Why is the council completely ignoring its constituents? Who does the council serve?
Living in Echo Park, I get to witness the beneﬁts and attention paid to residents in the Northeast LA river communities. Safe bike lanes and paths, assistance for growing small businesses, community arts events, and cleaning up the neighborhoods. There is a lack of concern and resources for the communities of Southeast LA that is visibly apparent. The residential neighborhoods are taken over and polluted by trucks operating out of illegal yards, bike safety on the roads is nonexistent, and community arts is ﬂoundering. We have high hopes about the SELA Cultural Center, but there has been no news on that since last December.

I am incredibly concerned that the future of SELA is grim if you don’t take action to prioritize the wellbeing of your residents over corporate interests. Please start by enforcing your own laws, and shutting down the illegal truck yards at 8440 Alameda and 4552 Ardine Street.

Thank you,
Gabriela Gutierrez
[email protected]
476
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>
Re: Illegal Trucking Yards - City Council Meeting AgendaMeredith Elguira <[email protected]> Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 12:56 PMTo: Jennifer Daley <[email protected]> Hello Jennifer,

I’ve asked our code enforcement ofﬁcers to visit the site and get in touch with the owners if there are any unpermitted uses on site. There is a process that we must follow to allow theowner to correct the situation. If there are unpermitted uses on site and they don’t remove or get proper permits, then we can continue building a case against the property owner andhave our city prosecutor step in to bring the property into compliance. This process will need to be exhausted before we take it to the City Council for their decision on the abatementprocess.

This case will not be presented to the City Council this coming Tuesday but it is currently being addressed at the staff level. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best,
[Quoted text hidden]
477
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>
Re: Illegal Trucking Yards - City Council Meeting Agenda4 messages Jennifer Daley <[email protected]> Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 12:19 PMTo: Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> Hi Meredith, I'm following up to confirm that you received the emails between Felipe Guerrero and the city council. I emailed them to you on 10/12. I am also confirming that the city council is addressing the illegal truckyards and is working on a solution to shut them down.

I am working with many SELA residents and activists who are experiencing the negative impact that the truck yards make on the community, and am organizing with bike safety and pollution advocates. Yourcommunity and I want to know how the city council will address this problem at the next meeting.

What can I tell them? Will this be on the agenda at next Tuesday's meeting? We are prepared to do what it takes to get your eyes on the problem and hope you will work with us to shut down the illegal truck yards. We are committed to a path towards resolution and believe we can dothis together. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help get this on the meeting agenda.

Thank you.

Jennifer Daley
[email protected]
On Sat, Oct 12, 2024 at 1:17 PM Jennifer Daley <[email protected]> wrote:Hi Meredith,I've attached email exchanges and letters between South Gate resident Felipe Guerrero and the city council (you, Mr. Houston, Mr. Salinas, Mr. Rios, Mr. Hurtado and Ms. Zaragoza) regarding shutting downdangerous illegal truck yards, including the Jack Engle yard at 8440 Alameda. The emails and letters occurred between December 2023 and June 2024. I have also included Felipe Guerrero's petition with residents' signatures. Please let me know you received this and that it has been recorded.

Lastly, what can I do to ensure that the council addresses the illegal truck yards at the next meeting? Thank you for your help.

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 12:29 PM Jennifer Daley <[email protected]> wrote:Okay thanks. I'm working on gathering that for you and will send soon.

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 12:22 PM Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> wrote:Hello, I don’t have them. Would you mind sharing? Thank you.

Get Outlook for iOS
From: Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 12:19:31 PMTo: Meredith Elguira <[email protected]>Subject: Re: Illegal Trucking Yards This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and attachments Hi Meredith, Do you have the signatures petitioning the truck yards on record? They were collected and delivered to the city council by Felipe Guerrero.

On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 2:19 PM Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> wrote:

Received, thank you.

From: Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 12:30 PMTo: Meredith Elguira <[email protected]>Subject: Re: Illegal Trucking Yards

This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and attachments Hi Meredith,
I've attached the letter I sent to Rob Houston. I mailed it certified on 9/30/24. My letter is new as I've only been involved for a few weeks now, but the family I am working with has been calling, writingand meeting with city council for a year now. They have also collected over 300 signatures of residents opposing the yards.

If you need any additional information please let me know.

Thanks for your help!

On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 8:34 AM Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> wrote:
478
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>
Illegal Trucking Yards - Emails and letters from Felipe Guerrero6 messages Jennifer Daley <[email protected]> Sat, Oct 12, 2024 at 1:17 PMTo: Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> Hi Meredith,I've attached email exchanges and letters between South Gate resident Felipe Guerrero and the city council (you, Mr. Houston, Mr. Salinas, Mr. Rios, Mr. Hurtado and Ms. Zaragoza) regarding shutting downdangerous illegal truck yards, including the Jack Engle yard at 8440 Alameda. The emails and letters occurred between December 2023 and June 2024. I have also included Felipe Guerrero's petition with residents' signatures. Please let me know you received this and that it has been recorded.

Lastly, what can I do to ensure that the council addresses the illegal truck yards at the next meeting? Thank you for your help.

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 12:29 PM Jennifer Daley <[email protected]> wrote:Okay thanks. I'm working on gathering that for you and will send soon.

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 12:22 PM Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> wrote:Hello, I don’t have them. Would you mind sharing? Thank you.

On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 2:19 PM Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> wrote:

Received, thank you.

From: Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 12:30 PMTo: Meredith Elguira <[email protected]>Subject: Re: Illegal Trucking Yards

If you need any additional information please let me know.

Thanks for your help!

On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 8:34 AM Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Jennifer, you mentioned last night at the Council meeting that you had sent letters before. Please send me a copy of those letters for reference. Thank you.

From: Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 7:38 PMTo: Meredith Elguira <[email protected]>Subject: Re: Illegal Trucking Yards - typo correction 479

This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and attachments Hi Meredith,
Thank you so much. I was given an incorrect address that I would like to amend:

8530 Alameda is incorrect.

The correct address is 8440 Alameda.

Thank you!
Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 8, 2024, at 7:19 PM, Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Jennifer,

I am Meredith T. Elguira, Community Development Director. We spoke at the City Council meeting regarding your concerns about illegal truck yards. I am emailing you so that you havemy information as well. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions. You may also call me at 323.563.9566.

Best,
Meredith T. Elguira

--
jennifer daley

[email protected]

jendaley.com
IMDb
instagram

--jennifer daley
[email protected]
jendaley.comIMDbinstagram
--jennifer daley
[email protected]
jendaley.comIMDbinstagram
--jennifer daley
[email protected]
jendaley.comIMDbinstagram
4 attachments
IllegalTruckYards_petition_signatures.pdf902K
IllegalTruckYards_FelipeGuerrero_correspondence02.pdf202K IllegalTruckYards_FelipeGuerrero_correspondence03.pdf276K 480
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>
Re: Illegal Trucking Yards5 messages
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]> Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 12:29 PMTo: Meredith El uira <mel uira so ate.or > Hi Meredith, I've attached the letter I sent to Rob Houston. I mailed it certified on 9/30/24. My letter is new as I've only been involved for a few weeks now, but the family I am working with has been calling, writing andmeeting with city council for a year now. They have also collected over 300 signatures of residents opposing the yards.

If you need any additional information please let me know.

Thanks for your help!
On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 8:34 AM Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Jennifer, you mentioned last night at the Council meeting that you had sent letters before. Please send me a copy of those letters for reference. Thank you.

From: Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 7:38 PMTo: Meredith Elguira <[email protected]>Subject: Re: Illegal Trucking Yards - typo correction

This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and attachments Hi Meredith,
Thank you so much. I was given an incorrect address that I would like to amend:

8530 Alameda is incorrect.

The correct address is 8440 Alameda.

Thank you!
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 8, 2024, at 7:19 PM, Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Jennifer,

I am Meredith T. Elguira, Community Development Director. We spoke at the City Council meeting regarding your concerns about illegal truck yards. I am emailing you so that you have myinformation as well. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions. You may also call me at 323.563.9566.

Best,
Meredith T. Elguira

--jennifer daley
[email protected]
jendaley.comIMDbinstagram
JenniferDaley-Letter-RobHouston-093024.pdf23K
Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 2:19 PMTo: Jennifer Daley <[email protected]> Received, thank you.
481

From: Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 12:30 PMTo: Meredith Elguira <[email protected]>Subject: Re: Illegal Trucking Yards

This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and attachments [Quoted text hidden]
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]> Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 12:19 PMTo: Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> Hi Meredith, Do you have the signatures petitioning the truck yards on record? They were collected and delivered to the city council by Felipe Guerrero. [Quoted text hidden] Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 12:22 PMTo: Jennifer Daley <[email protected]> Hello, I don’t have them. Would you mind sharing? Thank you.

Get Outlook for iOS
From: Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 12:19:31 PM[Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] Jennifer Daley <[email protected]> Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 12:29 PMTo: Meredith El uira <mel uira so ate.or > Okay thanks. I'm working on gathering that for you and will send soon.[Quoted text hidden] 482
Jennifer Daley
1247 Hyperion Ave.

Los Angeles CA 90029
858-361-1092
Rob Houston
City Manager
City of South Gate
8650 California Ave.

I’ve spoken to South Gate residents who are dealing with the daily challenges caused by these illegal truck yards: pollution, dangerous roadblocks, deadly collisions, traﬃc, no parking and the disregard and trashing of residential areas. These residents have collected hundreds of signatures to shut down the illegal truck yards, but the city has ignored them and the trucks are running rampant through the neighborhoods. Why is this?
What is a Temporary Use Permit? The Alameda truck yard is still running, so these permits appear to be completely meaningless. Are they legally allowed to operate permanently?
This leads me to another question: are there backroom deals being made here that are granting the truck companies legal immunity? Who does the council represent? These 483
special interests or the people?
Because no action has been taken by the city, we have no other choice but to bring these serious concerns to the press and to other activist groups in protest.

Thank you for your time and consideration in addressing the concerns of your constituents. We look forward to your action on this issue.

Jennifer Daley
484
Jennifer Daley
1247 Hyperion Ave.

Los Angeles, CA 90029
Rob Houston
City Manager
City of South Gate
8650 California Ave.

South Gate, CA 90280
Dear Mr. Houston,
I’m writing about the illegal truck yards that are operating in our city. I’m an environmental justice activist who is very concerned about what is happening in the city of South Gate.

Felipe Guerrero and his brother Omar have reached out to me because, after having submitted hundreds of signatures to the city about the illegal truck parking lots in South Gate, there has been no action. The yard at 8440 Alameda is speciﬁcally concerning because two people died there, and the city has still done nothing to shut it down. This is gravely negligent on your part. Does the city not care that the illegal operations here are causing deaths and threatening community peace and safety on a daily basis? The yard at 8440 Alameda was given a ﬁve-year temporary deal to operate. Five years have passed, and they are still operating. Why? Felipe and Omar have contacted me because they have submitted petitions, written letters to you, the mayor and the city council, and there has been no effort to shut down these illegal yards. I believe Felipe reached out to your city attorney, Raul Salinas as well. In spite of all of these efforts, no one has been able to answer as to why this yard continues to operate without a permit.

The yards are breaking the law and disrupting the community’s safety. There are illegal yards in the other areas of South Gate which you also allow. I believe the yard at Ardene where JB Hunt parks their trucks is also not permitted.

I am establishing on record that hundreds of residents have petitioned and reached out to ofﬁcials trying to stop these illegal yards to no avail, and to ask how you plan to address this problem.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Daley
9/30/24
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
9 I
j
9 ys,119('! 19Qi-_' A I
04 lJi9tr
ATTACHMENT E 514
The
- -J--
Irh'is aQ'Qec%t mq 'Lp&q be.ccxcabe- cy Olc{-ey- - %J a -J - - - - u - - . bsder ' ex"Sffic.x. '\'hc r>'S!r c.kcia rnu
' -'- ' l- - "' - J ' -- - '- 'a-" -'
Skv+- C_ou4xnca r'ykq bcacN- i cim c-ocy\rl5(J
- - J a k J t - - - - -
o'mc>'+ m<'* bisSeb becS%h C,iW( cszer'iore
-e,k:>e__' (,x)ylyyl cx!51tSW'2Ci',a\- Wsh -%he danvanhc -' - - " a " - ' -' - i - J
e.e;mvhis,it->n fc'y 5c=N hlO ko fhys azamvto
I c-ha-xi'r.i-L-'ovxXi-laPc'l--evtV%yoQSayilJud"aa
i -' - ' J ' - - " " - "" ' ../I
I %S etOh€,-
515
. I- -- - " ' - - ' - - - '
I
la J' .5('g( Ja!' (:icJ k , '7!"t ( -a#e_Lk h
'{)p__ca-yS'< '< kae Oi Azriri-l" (hrzr/;./!i'cn,.
hnti ti
P"' "r)rrioA, JqenlJ4s /7}
I I
j ,i
I ' -- - " - - ' - " '
vi S k-, / Ul/Q-/ )'A.* cl
'- ' - ' 0' - " - ''V I V V a- " & '
t't.n[;!imi ('nm;j;C>v'*
: la-)-a 'fcgeJJ -4C- '-rr>ol'l:4i:h'! (AQQ ' l
-' - ' - ' - -' - J ' -' -' - - -
i
I
i
a - ) ' - ""a '---- - "-"-J 'i
I
516
I
!i'l tnsl n<iv-vse - > aa'l")-pS-l-i(\'-f , as '(Y'l C-i Me-J"Q" I l I '_/ " _) l '
i I 0 'c ( 0 ('Vs{'Ron'i -'r l e_S 4'(iv o 'kx-'z{ x vtu -sr 0 iTh %l/l s 'l "" '( c:i(\,(, :) ";V'(_-c % €-CIJ I"lCA_) '%J Y - !'l/Th el ilO 4 (, (__4(_Hlvll I
!-er ctoy - i -x- C-ov'd '< :r-s )7y-) 4 c__> ,3-e_ I
I
I ( o(v*muhi -(H -Ogv 0;. -'i r iS cry (- Cec+s rp, tv'y l , (c(i'vihli (,H/'i(l Qqy( 3C!o ( 2X_<-uu'y 1 I ivp r-e__c,v ' ii of"-'-'5ixelccna'rov"'q>';siciu-vc_i
'C) 0'll*;OVI } ,!==-' c5m u,3H=ec> (_x(}(_")i_)'i 'T?eopre_ '1 r ) ( () rwalqovzr"c I (,HM ') 'tv'l-r, %S, ',- ( i"C "';"- bi "5-e '!i'!l \)l t.-l, rz n "s A5 C O {r(liS<nv'i 'l-O (-w (2i 'I 14 0 v-'i I
:1 "'- '), C.t 'lx_y .V'- -tuyi SJ s vct tyc ,,,, , u' ., I
: (_.. c'i ('v\ov"'v S +ve';_>,
') S yt C _cv<<'q ,
I V) -(2 Q %, (sc(
517
" X"J's ; a'aU, av'\.et "\.S Rq,,\,-zg , X',m,- 3 -yvy\o5v- " a \J " J "
lOf CO'VV'Movli'riCk "C>r ('- '%<d _gvasV'sYO%h't- xvtl :A S"w'x_'c Q* Sc)o& (aqk lnil'h :5c)+oo(, I oP\"oSa " ,_/ 1 l
laS/Lc(V"ji-'iCl 3'a) "'-,,3 'a'lCk "c Sk" 'rO 'h'J"'i " I " -,/ - - " J
l\/V\r-niL-r'S'a""<n'l k-C"-L)',i-e, al+ w'\\ 'DY'tV"l y'% c ip t v a si I y S J J '
po'\l4()xonJ'!ot'<avcbVl'Q""ks'ecovax"rriuvyy'h""'> -
/lk'iS wall eiP('o e,(A:" C'y'V"' Go<Y"% \@(c,cs.gp(, )Y1\I

U J )
'i-s"'< %-i-> r-e_J*c%b (f-y ' 9o\.\o'r<-3 c;sr
/ a - - -- - a - o ' l -
"'-\SIO uy& c-,v€ "'<""\)': na e\)UW 't"oKL "f kaA '2cxSS I.z - '-'-,_j X, -'_J - 'Z-Q"Ss% )(;y'w - !=s . 'Jaa,\'li VLO'c O'A! ei'Ffa-acA- pe, bv'r lo'"ec-cvqi\tz5WWC;"n>Jtoo{5\\N2_a.\"V\-sbSu('!S-
I " - -" "
l\' all"l 6ih[ '\%__ C-Wl\iAr("n A!=,'r u'i\\ be_ 'pvcq%l"'i ("e It 'J
:4VLn -!U""5eo C;tsv- C'VIA- Ccyv'ztvsl 'Flem +o k,,ve_ lneq(!k i ,,' "

1. l\SSutis h'r ar <q<'('4 Ck9(?,.=
J } J - " " " ' -
I
I
I
I
I
518
i
I t-'4i,r'lVy"'icim-rai'gcit'y)qct)y-icy,i-)"',l-lp'lcir'ith-ib('p i'.'r C- c ri-r 7h ti i-i r' -i / e ,5 Ftir t7 /i s (lzi' rh virox- h-i(i-i + C'/ i-i r/ Q I -Sl'Jt'ir'l('143-r0(;/}"7("'-'l('lb9iHj(e(i),T_(;4'r05'(:> I
i Chi t' i-"i "i ; i-r c) ;E15- 3 a A / ci /-"2? <ocJ q 5 4i-(a < )' + 0 /'7 t:icq v'-/ 'l
I
4 i
irs-'iaiav(t.'i<yt,i'iia->s i'>tocci>_>t:)4-i'itPciileticii" .1 t} tag" rYi o r @ 6> i-r cJ @4'( z t -i cr Ll r ('/.-) v r yeio h,-q l,. J ht 5 IC' {{(( / .5- /')-7 ty /= [ '/J P(( I 5 /!-) ti -i ci5 c,r 5'(i (- ( .s y 7' H:i Y ,, t- I
!Nt,5 (l l{ ty ( i )- }4's Y S C /- a C / t' ,-) ,/ 4 toe:txs-, /,)-Z-' t = t 5 t-> i (,i(g ci )h ( roh )' 7'///". / i '7' )i-(,r)ziq ///7 7 a v' -/ brtei 'r'lh "=>: I I
'l
I
(2 / / -} htiS z" 4 0 X / i a-5. J C1 H (,i c / ti "r' c! 4 ,' O L/ 'l h>ro trfi-> c{ 71 y>c fic>fir- Cti-z cxt-i c-/ /m c )->_<:'it,i } )z-p I I
I 4hrJ' 4 (.i =-i 4 c""" a I / l"') ( 0 IV"e /' ! 0 ,X ['> Y 7/ JQ;j , li P vr'i-r->cir'ap lypiy7t-a-eqally@t't,i>i(7y-_41f
L,' f _9 ,- J vv) /" '/ (i h /'7 7' J /' ) (-tlh-i /W / 5-S , ' 0 , 1 .)__ () 51 t' p -)h t' <' / C)' l"/' Oim Jzip 5 fQ)":/ ,,i ,_/ c/' 3 ; J_ Q-I(( ()y //'),-) a> i-"z > f'ecyf /,.) z> // <-i .s:7(,iy"7,> I x-i , a 5 ( e /-) y /, ) i'r z-" l'% ,:"cp_z oi-z,- t<z i->5v ([c- /'-" _s 5'r@ t- r <-i", rr ees> (i()1,4-';rli"y'6i?]lrCi(/< ')d/' Ur"';"lhl/lo
I - " '
j l'> tp S It'[,/o-() C' ia L"l ]/to[i 5 )'- -9 ( 4" j'-':)'ci c" v d() /a? P l'> (' (6 ) - () (';" r) Y j Ji)7"i ') /' 5 0 ( y" Ci (-) / / 3/ a "/ (' " /' I
i
"h"' ""'her (U/"'L:' 4h%')c"'e"'5i714 ),,,g(f,=aa
I
I
h
I % l" .
i as .-,/ . (I
I /h(-tzjV, -__'aJ,4t_.___s-Z
-'
i -
i -_-
I
i
519
520
/ a 'G4-_F('f S 'Ja_-Jr"_E)?k)__[_a 4N'aJArl'7) . <=,Y) )J';)rQ ' " 14-llrCE)lq S!t'f ')')/'l)l way yqz "(,s,,x>s-vtoa WrJ H 'YaV") -P
_ -_ t-A _ _ -a_ * Ii,9,1'S yi Jrit4 q%l919
I
I
I
521
: ("'Cd!(J, nc<vue 'ss '\9q(z '6tokoy\(_,,12_'rig"i t< vwvkv IC'! (-C"?lYVl'JAjs'tA 'GC-:av CA- ' k'e&y evw:svr>ih'vw{Y'r o<np.(' "+-'YV'i i
I
I
522
'Hi wist irinwtp'ii Sl'nn<yia .Sceoc4i I a
' 7"""- i
eQber c:i g rrgvvihmvt;tie,t ror (2 ve,-u-er mvtarornstmg- '- -' - 0 %,. . " -' ' - I
Gc'J Q S€cxlea* a* Soutkt_ (gct6e l-l'<cyt"t Er)rt-n=:>1. iYVl(XC ml(dCC ) arab (-aOr=rl\r-] all(* r-+ )afrettr;p i
I J / %- - " ' a a ' 1- l-'I - '- " - ' I I ' " " " - ..- "-a '%,is srtr, iivu:w ivr, katrt'nlr,i cAet'i;'cc=ls <,im;al'etcrvvcrJ ' - ' -l - ' -" " Va 7
:i _g(;(ptA';eS ke8".JV COOld', Cr)fPaJlx .be" n*,'e
'Yv,pA On mvivvrw,ki $crelv'(oe';nlrp vW!llat"by cui'-]s- s_'l l "'j " ' V' / e'hstip*q, l urcir:i he. plavmiviq cothvhiss;on a= %[/ J - " J 0 J - - - --' = " ' /
no -tc> -kis; zoriivi.e4 ci'vhm-e vw'i[ (,z "o)l -eiiiu'trema4;a[ '- %J (/ - " (
:s'cod7 ts (leivr-e,
I
I
Isivr (.p(,,l,, , S9(bq; y(z. 5WceL
' a a " - I L t l/ / C -
I
I
523
=sa,ui"rB 97
' Sl
7AbSaq -1JS2%,
r - i ,a 'l /
I
i
" wl._ _,w .lux(i=ffi .,i( t,<r.7 I V)! . 5\-g@) :,1 :
-i-,,)t4/ <-+ (Ail1'3Slt4A_.TJ >UU(,Il]l)l(:) ,'dltj,, 7A(:cS :
-t-, - =;( /' 7-z
(v -:/ ,2D) l
( ')'a 7
Yla
I
C)0 I
I
&yl " "7"d "f'>ri:'p'> 6>t4 'f-'ai,<,(i,vyh i
T:j l- - -!')d)aq -( a L)lv,'-=r, ='= =4-, irba t
tM'>
flq ""'-' -jffl ,T '('7:j " 7' ro
l
Tan 4U -'1- ' suJviq -)"o !§ ,%7S ,S
ffl- ffQ "b lm, i'%ll -5a"b ?Th pt i.
'g7774V, ,(I(O . /}u.a'V - ,'iM ((h- . S7 . i \,'f"!,
" p '7>IJ !Y-) ':,eiq ,X ,y,,1<5 _t
""-rh g'i ffD _A'):) affi S't'fffi W
A -7tt'lJ(p ti'u ,-'!- 0% all lt .__. __ 'l - )dl(,=lO !UDTt-(,: )'> ak;%- . r. 't- I {AD , /)1(:tAO'3,, _3,_.ir.x-/yplS,1 yjfffl, T:. OYvi7x!,I I
Y rS"IM ,/"u'V [r) "4AA t'lilljYii f'p
_ , =:,[4')[U [ a{ 5lq,\. /- W9 ,-T- . _,41J0 .'o,}J, _ ,(,I, , 'i[t-i;iilV;hil-l) -)Doff rl!i% .'%7f) It,,l('), .-jl -ffi ,Sc4, Lt,r=f>i,f!;Uk?_ ffl f7'?))t4 _ ct-___ 4f'_q.5, W(',M'lOiA,l ()7:50 )(-4,P"11!)t/[J'CJC)@UXa(O(=}bl"'=!4'9,ltl "'b)e)l,,.ff( SOs ' 0 - a"ql
_tv txArrcl-3-, Y) e.l_, H14)0fi(-5(KA,,
1 /% /l i -
7/-',1,
524
525
'i 11
I
- - - - ' - - ' % . € '.. " - " ' - . I ' - l I ' V ' i 4 'I :

I
l_ 15koO }Yl(4Hy ci': OA'h'lr.'\ir_ {.d-h'l'r"'j.'Tl"li') fl'S':-e-cah l-
I
i i-m<,i rieK-ho-ri/ci'l.l-Q O_1 1i:" 'ro,S" h(c>-w'r-e+-t 5-+YuQ91r'-"i " - 1 " - ' J -' -" " ' - -" a " - J " ' a "' -/ J ' -' l"lo a}%'q 'ln.f,c<IF!. I sK Cie- 'H'iC i7)'la.nni YIQ COmiS's>ori l
I *o"'SJoea"+\p-cQ'->ns'zJgqcrcxnlci;"'vh'+"srhFUlL-'
i
Sin '-{,<ekLl , %0bvl-<t4r.i
""-'-("?':vcim'-e-
V' a ' a - - '-
i
I
I
526
r
L
lj%
fl
S'
0 527
.t / * __ /)
Vr.-"f[- IT-t-,V
"r",, '
-7,= -r'e=
P""t, -r 7 § " I)tWl xrvKg ; s, p-'y,v-rlt('..,J, r)Th 'vy}-,'rl .,,,,,!/) nT !all o Y) '[1"')4! 19 . 1),ot)'J TJX, ' t,,St,,,,l, -iz_ rr-"'a 0 -=H i-vi-q.:a.zl _ 'J-i7 !'q l"v8 <..sl v tY{. 'T'lO ") q r7_,l,r Q7 iQQ _A,v') -"W I C" 'l") ff 'SJJ Q n "Vl,I ", n?l r -'p"9 '=-g -,-,-it"y Try()rg, r,,\v,,, li I
7n'.) %/ '7_/ ' 0 ()// * "_r 2,1 ' "-=,t T.-_ !( v7__ l) ,._ ' Y {i ' i Cs_-l ')/"', r i _ _. 1,'7' ?nK, -n 'an ( 'Cj no7 aa )Av' Y r J 0 ( <7 1,7 / r -' r it r'v{ V U k7',) /'7, }"'On" '7';vvvl )/H )'1 , rTt 7M '7"J T-r -Yn >5 yrvr syt-r-i-q'a _ - ';r,,t (,l G.) 1 I I
'1""'7"=rl'ri "(-'7 -'?-7""S 7" -r="iyP(e.I
I
'-, -,/"ai ') ' ) J,t 0-7;) -J""'Yl Y)/C7 ";J (') !a2\l-('4('i'-!i 1/(4 (rJ 0 () /'1,
_, vvr- l/Ull } ' "-Q jY}('l '-X' Vl'l1l ')7( S ,l ' )-vl 'yy Y7, r , n i, 528
jH:, iY)q (lart'ia 15 ArtM, 'I/m CA fY)ea\i)_.e,,4 C!- (5mMyxs:x,aab !o< (,,o' "be+-}ez- eaivortmal+
lrAn;a rx SalA9Y'l4 ill ")'OU*)i (Xa'
A-
t-6
I b:q-"-'tzg'kkL-a"'-'Q:'d-l=g"lJvy-i-ri';x',>t'aiAi
l,-,
I C>Ua*e.-,T)ib-r_x"'lr,z.hbm")-"'rr:xpislq"]-"(,(,(;,.5.53 we,i St'vei r-seb'.i -lk>e,i 'sr'-)-e,= da j;:yo:-
I
_i wot'ig'ai a)ahix+"' PrAx+i'oiqi II oi;il<l"A=)q'z 'i ilj_
" - - -v l/ - I l- a 'IJ " ..l ' - ' I
rylavqnitqo (nTh}')tt-i5;ori 4-r,i Lsu r'ri
I
i II Q '1!t:S=T""2-oni:}A (i)qariae= n'n!l -a
I o'x))1 C\lU'4'orvr[k!Ji l'= 5<!u "j'4=' - do-n6
I i
ICA'V')a-' t-Vi.ili - \:r" 'hx; a "ra! l'x)0;'\!" (,CA\i)6ei -I I
1_______ i I n')(Wei ""\")liUo4i'x"j-77 +-})e-h l,ye,y Q)(eAdu heivr.

I
" al-YIU /'tt,l ,
% .:'!)l' ]:7---= 'a" .

A'iI-"t/t.-vy,l ,' C-=,;,.\-
,,-
I
I
I
I
i
I
529
i
I
l%(5'ry-"fa'Y(')-n-Q--CkV\'Ahl(j"t:-:'1':":v'l"""
_ II(TheH!r<-A rxln'n'r %r- -ck'J-p,rn' iY1""a\f'.
i I j
.1
, - - " al -'%l %/ '- - " ' - '_ - 'r i ' 1 ,_ Ola ra.r3 oNb*t*A g57"'irz aloYVv,Ao -,affe
i
I
-_ s- '- -" %/ - ' -' - ' - "-j " " - " " - ' l -" I ' - " ' %rirxr (JOC) i
530
'j"i'ite('),,'vU
:/trc e,=ycl )/
531
%-sv\t':-ev-e\*l3e';9%'sTh1
532
'i
I
#or 01 hr.++er e
Kpra(a, and hr> x rrsr,rrsb(7 (;>4: (cimrhuyzil;r,3 hr S loonaie
J r,=rg;r>y 8S?>o Alqm@t4a Sffcr+ +6
533
p-_J'F,i
T5%)riUi;,n4,s(AFfinec:),> m7=,
534
n >vmc 15 ByiyPeye-i&i
I ' - J " ' -
I-x--' UUCA_-y '+\-<s "'1- " =c-p-l 'u
I ,)
:-px-=t,i)'c5 b..._s +'\"'i, S uyq< "r'hc O'l(lhh'iThm i
i-' U 1- ' a a - a aJ
lr c<s,5':ciz %=> Y"i0a'j Q(:' "l'hvouq'l-. Lz:-"tk U
-}\-'ss Iz\===,z c-4 - z( l
k
SsysC e-V-e__\i" ",,
V'
v
T3n OcY)V)(A
I
535
Item No. 2
Dear Mr. Signio, Mr. PeLayo and Members of the South Gate Planning Commission, As you prepare for the Planning Commission meeting this Tuesday, I urge you to consider the long-term implications of your decision regarding the illegal truck yard at 8530 ALameda Street. This decision wilL set a precedent for how South Gate enforces its business regulations and codes. The community is watching closely to see if the City will take a firm stance on ethical business practices.

The property at 8530 Alameda Street has been operating without a valid permit or License sinceJuLy 16, 2021, when the Temporary Use Permit (TUP) expired. The original TUP was issued in error, making the operation iLlegaL even before that. On Aprill8, 2023, the South Gate Planning Commission determined that the continued operation of this facility violated City codes, citing that:

1. The proposed use as a truck storage/terminaLis prohibited in the Industrial Flex (IF) zone.

2. TemporaryUsePermitscannotauthorizeprohibitedusesforextendeddurations,andtheoriginalTUP was issued in error.

The full denial of EngLe's request, dated ApriL18, 2023, is attached for your reference. Complete EngeL documentation can be viewed here:
https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cLoudfront.net/cityofsouthgate/e38f28b4-b7b5-1 1 ed-acbc-00505691 83fa- 4253c1 cb-dOd2-4870-b889-bade0633e61 a-1 682709352.pdf Despite this clear ruling, EngLe has repeatedly attempted to pressure the City into reversing its decision. The 2015 General Plan Amendment established that this area is designated for Industrial Flex (IF) use, intended to benefit the South Gate College District and residents. Engle's current request to rezone the area contradicts the City's vision for a more sustainable future.

Engle's continued efforts to bypass regulations for financial gain are concerning and must be stopped. It is critical that the City prioritize the interests of residents over corporate profits. Allowing preferential treatment would send a damaging message thatiLlegal business practices are tolerated in South Gate and that city officials can be influenced.

As you deliberate, I urge you to prioritize the best interests of South Gate's residents and uphold the City's commitment to ethical business practices and zoning laws.

Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.

Sincerely,
Jennifer DaLey
SELA for a Better Tomorrow
Item 2) I strongly urge the Commissioners to vote no and deny the appeal by this scumbag applicant. We don't want trash like this in our city. I'm tired of our city constantly bending over and making changes to our ordinances, zoning codes and General Plan. All because these property owners don't want to be in compliance with our city's laws. Enough is enough Commissioners. Do you really want to see our city devolve into a sewer? Or look like Tijuana Mexico? Have you people been there? I have. Trust me, it Looks really bad. You don't want to live there. And I don't want our city to look like some sort of garbage town. Besides, this business adds no real value to our city. Commissioners you need to do the right thing and vote no on item 2. This is the right decision for our city.

ATTACHMENT F
536
Members of the Planning Commission, this email is to address the items 2 and 3.

I've been Listening to council meetings for quite some time now. Every so often people show up to the meetings to address the city council or planning commission to state their thoughts on items being considered.

I'm all for people expressing their views. But when there's accusations of corruption without any facts to support them, the accusations fail to address the issue. What it does is stain the reputation of the city.

Item 2 is an appeal from the business owner against a decision that City Staff has taken. It's pretty clear that our city council took a position in 2015 to change the zoning code. Once the permit expired, staff has taken the position to follow the direction given by the city council concerning the zoning code to stop the work being done.

Whatl don't understand is the accusation that our city council is somehow involved with corruption. Ifthe young Lady, Jennifer, is claiming that the city council is allowing the business to operate illegally, she should know that the opposite is actually true. The city staff has denied this business from operating for years. That is why there is an appeal. It seems that she should be applauding the city for addressing this issue, even before she came to our city, from where ever she is from.
537
Dear Honorable Planning Commission, City Clerk, Mayor Davila, City Council, and City Manager,
I am writing to express my strong support for upholding South Gate's municipal code in the case of 8530 Alameda Street and to urge the City Council to deny the appeal Tiled by the property owner. From what I have gathered through the agenda and available information, it is clear that this is not a case of unfair treatment, but rather the City rightfully enforcing its zoning regulations, as it would for any other business or property owner.

The Facts: How We Got Here
For decades, 8530 Alameda Street was home to a metal processing and recycling facility. Even affer zoning changes in 2015, the City allowed the business to continue under legal nonconforming status, showing its willingness to work with long-standing businesses and provide flexibility for property owners.

However, that nonconforming status required renewal, and in 2020, the property owner failed to submit that renewal. As a result, the legal protection for that prior use expired, and the site became subject to the current Industrial Flex (IF) zoning, which does not allow truck trailer storage.

Despite this, the site has continued to be used For truck trailer storage, an operation that was never separately recognized as a legal nonconforming use. The City is now requiring compliance with existing zoning, which is a necessary and standard enforcement action.

South Gate's Approach Has Been Fair and Consistent
The City of South Gate has a proven history or working with its business community, and this case is no exception. The fact that the previous nonconforming use was allowed to continue for nearly five years after the zoning change shows that the City was not looking to push businesses out but instead offered reasonable opportunities to transition.

However, zoning laws exist for a reason, and South Gate is simply applying the same standards it would to any other business. The property owner had multiple opportunities to maintain their legal status but Failed to foilow the required renewal process. This is not an issue of the City being unreasonable-this is a case of a business not following the necessary steps to remain in compliance.
538
Addressing Arguments Against the City's Decision
Some may argue that truck storage was always part of the metal processing operation and therefore should still quali$ under the original nonconTorming status. However, the key issue is that nonconforming use protections do not extend indefinitely without proper renewal.

The original nonconforming status applied specifically to metal processing, not to truck storage as a separate business.

Once metal processing ceased and the structure was demolished, the truck storage became an independent operation-not a continuation of the original use.

Under South Gate's current zoning regulations, truck trailer storage is not a permitted use in the IF zone.

The City is not changing the rules or targeting this specffic business. If noncompliant operations were allowed to continue indefinitely without proper renewal, it would undermine the entire purpose of zoning laws.

Addressing Misinformation
I have also seen claims that the City is acting unfairly or even engaging in selective enforcement. However, from what I have read, South Gate has acted responsibly and transparently in enforcing its municipal code,
This situation is not about the City suddenly changing its stance-it is about a property owner who failed to take the necessary steps to maintain their legal standing. It is misleading and unfair to suggest that the City is at fault when all it is doing is enforcing the rules that apply to everyone.

Why Denying the Appeal Is the Right Decision
South Gate's zoning regulations exist to ensure Fairness, order, and responsible land use. If the City allows this appeal to succeed, it will set a dangerous precedent that nonconforming uses can continue indefinitely, even when renewal requirements are ignored. That would not be fair to other businesses and property owners who Follow the rules.

I urge the City Council to:
539
- Uphold the City's decision and deny the appeal to protect the integrity of South Gate's municipal code.

Ensure that land use regulations are applied fairly and consistently to all businesses. - Stand by the City's long-term planning and zoning vision rather than allowing businesses to bypass regulations through legal loopholes.

South Gate has done its part to support local businesses while also maintaining the integrity of its zoning regulations. Now, it is time to uphold those regulations and deny this appeal.

Thank you for your time and for your commitment to enforcing South Gate's municipal code fairly and consistently.

Respectfully,
Nathan Cueto
540
8530 Alameda Street
Development Agreement & Zone Change/General Plan Amendment Term Summaries
Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP") has operated its truck trailer and container storage business at their property located at 8530 Alameda Street ("Property") since 1973. The City of South Gate ("City") has asked for solutions to address the legal nonconforming use, along with a sunset date for the current use. To address these requests, AEP submitted two potential solutions for the City"s consideration: 1) a Draft Development Agreement ("DA") which terms out the current use over a 10-year period, consistent with the requirements of the current General Plan; and 2) a General Plan Amendment ("GPA") and Zone Change ("ZC") to revert the Property back to its previous zoning designation. Summaries of those options are attached as ExhibitA and Exhibit B. AEP"s preferred solution is the DA, which addresses the concerns that the City has voiced while keeping the property productive as future development partners are identified. The terms forthe DA are described below.

Development Agreement Term Sheet
AEP and the City of South Gate collectively, the "Parties" wish to enter into a Development Agreement consistent with the following terms:

1. : AEP owns real property commonly known as "8530 Alameda Street" located within the City of South Gate, California.

2. Historic Use: The property operated as a family-owned recycling business, including on-site truck trailer and container storage between 1973 and 2019. The Property was leased to Fleet Yards, Inc. in 2020 for the purpose of truck trailer and container storage.

3. Legal Nonconforming Use: It is AEP"s position that truck trailer and container storage is a legal nonconforming use on the Property because this use was authorized by-right when the recycling operations began in 1973, and because the use has been continuous since that time, through Jack Engle & Company's operations between 1973 and 2019, and through Fleet Yards" operations beginning in 2020. AEP reserves the right to defend all legal nonconforming uses on the Property, including truck trailer and container storage.

4. Current Lease Term: Fleet Yards' current lease does not expire until Summer, 2035.

5. TruckTrailer&ContainerStorage:InordertoavoidsubstantialfinancialdamagestoAEPfrom prematurely terminating the current lease with Fleet Yards, the City agrees to allow Fleet Yards to continue its truck trailer and container storage operations at the Property through the term of the current lease (Summer, 2035).

6. Entitlements: In order to facilitate more uses on the Property consistent with the City's long term vision for the "industrial flex" zone, the City will work with AEP on an entitlement pathway that allows a broader range of commercial uses on the Property.

Redevekopment Partner/
Future Tenant
(1 Year)*
AEP to retain a broker and begin marketingthe Property totarget and secure redevelopmentpartners and/or $ture tenants based on the Market, Study. AEP to provide regular status updatgs to the City on its efforts.

Project Plans/Agency
Involvement
(2-3 Years)" -
Redevelopment Partner to secure funding, refine site plan, and coordinate entitlements package with the City and redevelopmentplanswithDTSC. AEP/RedevelopmentPartnerto provide regular projed updates to the City during this period.

Precise Plan/Specific Plan (1 Year)*
City to assist Redevelopment Partner & AEP with Precise Plan/Specific Plan (required by current General Pjan) and advise onappropriateentitiementspackage. RedevelopmentPartnerto submit entitlements application. Parties to-meet quarterly until the entttlements application is filed.

Entitlements Processing (18 months)* - City to review entitrements application. AEP7Redeveiopment Partner to prepare EIR.
- ':; -). f -. . . - -C i - " "" = !F,. . - ' : '_ . - '- . ;_- .t -,4'ia;%
)(( Effjnsio,Of'6'r('Eritit,I%3Jjit( i (up'.(p3'rAirs)
'. . aPi3't%'istng -.' a, a '
I' - . .,. _
':a_a " 'l . .. ))..'.. i .-,.l !,;a,. 'z. .', ', _. I ! . ." _, - '_ _ . - . .a@;:Q:cgtio:#1eid@Wt'the:frpef:r'aze'+$:kQd wiih-a@ asi;Fisk. ::ii!est'imates, jn4 may=bede[ayed elue $. ci5guzst'fnces-beyond I -the Partres" control: If- 'an entj €lements package; f6r' ihi yeaivil6iiment ploject_h'qs'bee:n nled_vyj&-:t5,e,% 4iH:'>-. years, the Parties m;ay extend the'4agre=ey%pt-%r,i t=j up,to 3, Odditf6nij_'9eaff 16 al!6i tfie t-ity :o c6mpiete;pmces"ini,;qj%i= €Q€t€!emenffi. Ttietotaftejjmr_h;>llAotexciea;,:IQ"iyears:
l - a + _ _4<- _ } - I ',:,'. _ J " y " i': y ;_)Oa 4 :
fEeiff!!Ntfflffl!J!!!(JINXK!nW'Ntffi((!!RWk!N'f )ffi!in-Ml'gtX!WNM!X-IRX ifflOWffl!l!f!!ft!aNFlt!U)+lt)4!rt *XanMe)t!M'ffiA)?!!lm!N!Hti!Wi;l)GW3a%F!l(?RngMN-4_!R!t=!tN!M:Wfmf.!iNWfflnit!mNMitlJIAW)!'It'lEff!!!i'!'tlM"lNffmt:!!u'!i)1 W!;'!'ffl{!amaB!
lm!fAm:X!ltffifflFfltiAl!UtNAliia4!!!i!!t"!!!!Ffl&iffiW::WfJJ!!Wj!!li:Ruakffl41'ffiaffimR!Mf&(BJmfaA'jfM-i@!UIN 1€!Ni'Jj%!t!a!J&ff!l: &'!i'::'=aMat!ifflitH?t4f=!!!:!'..IW}aJ&W)!&tim!a?'t!M*-n € &f'af!i!!i!emu',!E?'mWlm!'ffl![!>iffiim!;!ff!!HiMff!! Tta!i;",A4iPl € aa"te:iD![&R*aTh!!?i!at!a!_}WM&f&W'4ffi8]d&!tF 4M't'!iMi:M!jWfJN 542
Exhibit B
Zone Change/ General Plan Amendment
Removes the use restrictions under the SGMC and General Plan. Reverts the zoning to the previous zoning designation, where the current use is allowed. City (Planning Commissioners or City Councilmembers) to initiate text changes that add termination date earlier that current 2035 deadline. Allows for faster resolution and more flexibility regarding future uses, as City will have to update its General Plan in 2035. .. ' N' &'a&!_a!f.WmM . ._. . .: ' .. ' T - . &-Wffl_Ml'lAl - . . JWaFll AEP Application forgone
Change7General Plan
Amendment
Re;verses the City's 2015 rezone.

Removes the Propertyfrom
Souih Gate C5rnmunity College
District Subarea 1 (requiring
educational/institutionat uses)
and reverts the zoning back to
M2 where industrial uses,
including the current use are
allowed with' discretionary
entitlernents.
_ "' " " """ "" -- 'l
Pending. Application fi(ed
October, 2024. Scheduled fpr
Planning Commission
Consideration on 3/18.
(". eiiy*i4t'ea-Jl"ea@ C:'j'i@rige,s
;- , - ' ; . a - ' :
:1,7 . . _ . . ., .i .,, . ,, _ ' - l., , .
,eurrep.fl'9,-the G'enereipP_jaii " ' - al
alfoyjs,ngncorit_ormfrtg u4,@s-,in ' a-
'the fEzom to-ionti'i'iu6.ffn'tri. _,.'
=';6i§;cori4urf@4;withitj%: ""
tirriin,g,pf the City's neJ Gerieral I
P'la:0.updaje;- To give tffie:=iw.J
jnore'fle*ibilityoKa sti6Her-" '
-ti.mefrqe and p guarantee.of .,_
the md dite as: re'queiiffi.d, t't3e: .-
E:tj w6ulo$"haVe;to inNiite:a tie.
_cha#@etjEi,Oh.@JeQieral P%aji:(ai';d-.'
."g6yiin,gCoqe;'-. ..4.. "-
- ."o0_= I "'al"'a-,.,""'-i ' {'.'i+"' "" -," " - ', ,,"""'a"o"- '+" S' ":,a', ' - - ' " = ' l: - - , - '; " - ' " - ' " " _'UaNrr)6yn; ' - " "" o7_ ':".:ax,
:" _ -C _ - - 1- l- " .) .. ,. 1, , , . _, .. , .:. .a- +,, ., l _ . . ' _ I , ' - '_ _,iii,"'p ._ ..s"O'. . - - , _ :- '.....'
' -:j _' o -" ! " '_' I _' l' a " ' _ * _. ( '-. .'_' - - -a. h.+a-Th /2 "'_ " : "' 543
Exhibit C
Site Map
*Entrance/Exit
544
Item No. 3
Item 3) OnCe again I strongly urge the CommisSioners tO VOte nO and deny thiS wretched applicant hiS despicable request for a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment. This is exactly the kind of scumbaggry that you all should be opposed too. Commissioners this is your opportunity to put a stop on this property owner that wants to have their way with our city's ordinances and laws. How much more ofthis sort of treatment are you people Willing tO put up With? Correct me ifl'm Wring, but item 3, iS juSt more Of item 2. COmmiSSiOnerSl pleaSe I begyou, don't Sell Out Our City tO thiS dirtbag. Ifyou have any compassion far the pOOr hard working people in Our City that are struggling to make it in thiS cruel WOrld. Please, reject this demon's request and VOte nO On item 3.

Hello,
My name is Melodie Cuevas and I lived in South Gate for over 20 years. I only recently Left the community when I was 22years old to Orange County. Movingonly 14 miles awayto Orange County,l notice a substantial difference in my quality of life, especially as it regards air quality. I feel completely disheartened to know that my hometown suffers heavilVfrom pollution and negligence. Policies, such as the Zoning change, that are being introduced only serve to cominue to exacerbate this ongoing history of environmentatinjustice. Please consider not purshing this zoning any further and listen to your constituents who are sharing their very real concerns with 70u.

Thank you,
Melodie Cuevas
God help us.

Non-Agenda Public Comments
I'd Like to state my dissatisfaction with the decision made by our City Council Members pertaining to the liquor License for the Sofive soccer facility. They should have allowed them to seLL beer and wine inside of their restaurant. I think the arrangement would have been manageable. Yes, this could have been managed. And if things were to get out of hand our city could have easily taken back the CUP and denied them the ability to sell alcohol. Unfortunately, my view is the minority opinion. We all saw the many residents that came out and spoke during the course or two City Council meetings against the saLe or alcohoL. Sadly, it had no chance at passing. I would like for our city to have some Life in it. And not be some dead end boring place. With no place to go and hang out. Oh well. I'm also not happy with the decision made by our City CounciL Members by denying us a phone based calL-in feature for our various meetings that take place inside of our City Council room. This is a horrible short sighted decision by our City Council Members. I contacted the City Clerk of Cudahy Richard IgLesias and he informed me that Cudahy has cameras inside of their City Council room. And that they use Zoom for their meetings. That way their residents can participate remotely. I asked him if they have ever experienced any technical glitches or difficulties. His answer to me was no. They have no audio probLems. No problems with their presentations. And no picture or camera problems. So how is it that a Little pipsqueak city like Cudahy is able to pull off using Zoom with no problems for their meetings that take place inside of their City Hall? Yet, We are unable tO da the same With Our meetings? What iS Cudahy doing that we aren't doing? HOW iS it that they have it figured out, yet we don't? Simply put, our cyber networks/cyber systems are trash and are in very serious need of an upgrade. Even our City Treasurer stated during a City Counci( meeting that our City would have to make an investment of $150,000 in order to support a phone based call-in feature.

Commissioners this is proof of how behind and pitiful our City Hall is. Our City Hall is truly an operational mess. God help us.
545
Item No. 3
APR 17 2025

CITY COUNCIL
AGENIDA IBT[TL,T[,
DepartmentDirector:

For the Regular Meeting o'f: April 22, 2025
Originating Department: Comm Develo ment
G[stbrie erez Rob Houston
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR ZONE CHANGE AJSJD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8530 ALAMEDA STREET, AND DETERMINING

THE ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENT AL QUALITY ACT (PL 25-0054)

PROJECT PROPOSAL/REQUEST
Zone Change ("ZC") and General Plan Amendment ("GPA") (PL 25-0054): The applicant requests the following:

1. ZC to change the property from IF to Heavy Manufacturing (M3); and

2. GP A to indicate truck trailer and container storage facilities within the South Gate College District are permitted to continue operating, or remove the Subject Property from the South Gate College District entirely.

The request to remove the subject property from the South Gate College District as identified in the General Plan, includes the following:
a. Community Design Element
i. Amend Figure CD-4 (Districts) by removing the Subject Property from the South Gate College District, Sub-area 1
b. Housing Element
i. Amend Figure HE-4 (Districts) by removing the Subject Property from the South Gate College District, Sub-area I
ii. Amend Figure HE-6 (Zoning Map) by changing the zoning district from IF to M3
iii. Amend Table HE-52 (Outside of Specific Plan Areas) by reducing the number of parcels (29 to 28), acres (25.18 to 18.40), and potential units (1,886 to 1,377, a reduction of 509 units). Total units would decrease from 5,150 to 4,641 units.

AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
546
iv. Amend Table HE-55 (Summary of Sites Inventory) accordingly, which results in a reduction of 509 housing units.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
* Project Location:
* Assessor's Parcel Number:
* Property Owner:
* Applicant/Representative:
* General Plan Designation:

RECOMMENDED ACTION:
8530 Alameda Street
6202-036-003
Alameda Engle Properties (Jason Engle)
Sara Atsbaha, Somos Law Group
Industrial (Community Design Element, Figure CD 1, Existing Land Uses)
South Gate College District Subarea 1 (Commiu'iity Design Element, Figure CD 4, Districts)
IF (Industrial Flex)

1. CONDUCT a public hearing pursuant to South Gate Municipal Code Section I 1.50.040.B;

2. ACCEPT the determination that this matter is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act;

3. ADOPT the findings as outlined in the Resolution (Attachment A); and

4. DENY the zone change of the subject property from IF to M3 and amendments to the Community Design Element and Housing Element of the General Plan regarding removing the subject property from the South Gate College District.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Advertising and notification of the public hearing for this item was conducted in compliance with Sections 11.50.020 and 11.50.030 of the South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC"). Notices of the hearing were posted and published in the "South Gate Press" on March 27, 2025.

ENVIRONMENT AL EVALUATION
The California Enviroru'nental Quality Act ("CEQA") does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves pursuant to Section 15270(a).

BACKGROUND
An application by legal counsel, Somos Law Group ("Somos"), on behalf of the property owner and applicant, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP" represented by Jason Engle), requesting to change the zoning of the subject property from IF to M3 (Heavy Manufacturing) and remove the subject property from the South Gate College District as shown in the Community Design Element of the General Plan.

It should be noted that AEP also owns the abutting 2.9-acre site to the north at 8440 S. Alameda Street, which is located outside of the City of South Gate ("City") and in the County of Los AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
547
Angeles. Access to both properties is via a driveway from Alameda Street to the property at 8440 S. Alameda Street. This property is also being used for truck trailer storage and according to County staff, a conditional use permit ("CUP") is currently being processed.

Planning Commission Hearing
On March 18, 2025, the Planning Commission voted 3-O to adopt Resolution No. 2025-05 recommending to the City Council denial of a request to change the zoning from IF to M3 and remove the subject property from the South Gate College District as shown in the Community Design Element of the General Plan.

Theapplicant'sattorneys,AlfredFraijoJr.andSaraAtsbaha,gaveapresentation. Publiccornment was received from the following individuals:
* Janeth Preciado Vargas, SELA youth organizer at CBE * Jennifer Campbell
* Rossmery Zayas, SELA organizer with CBE
* Ozzie, resident, CBE youth organizing intern
* Jennifer Ganata, CBE
* Javier Guttierrez
* Jennifer Daley
* Jason Engle, property owner
* Tim Simpson, owner's environmental consultant, GSI Environmental * David Moreno, 8429 Santa Fe Avenue
* Donald Thomas, Engle employee
* Selena Zepeda, neighboring resident
The Planning Cornrnission also received a presentation by City staff and outside legal counsel James Eckart providing a response to the appellant's presentation.

Generally, speakers were opposed to the truck trailer storage citing concerns with traffic, pollution, health impacts, and other environmental concerns. Additionally, written correspondences from the individuals below. The correspondences are included in Attachment D. * Mario Dominguez
* Claudia Rivera
* Melody Cuevas
* Sara Atsbaha, Somos Group, applicant's attorney History of Zoning and Land Use of Subiect Property
As early as 1961, the Subject Property was designated as being within a Heavy Manufacturing ("M-3") Zone.

Based upon a review of public records and documents submitted by AEP, the Site was used by Jack Engel & Company (hereinafter, "JECO") and/or AEP for ametal processing/recycling facility from as early as 1973 until approximately March 2020. During that time, the site was developed AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
548
with a single-story industrial structure used for the recycling operations conducted by JECO and/or AEP.

The metal recycling operations conducted by JECO and/or AEP included, but was not limited to, the delivery of scrap metal product to the Site inside of truck trailers - which would remain on site for up to several months while the scrap metal was sorted and processed on-site, and prepared for shipment to a final off-site destination.

In 1988, the City amended its Zoning Code, in part, to require a Conditional Use Permit for recycling facilities. Thereafter, on or about April 28, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2323, which further amended the Zoning Code and changed the zoning classification ofthe Subject Property to Industrial Flex ("IF") Zone.

ANALYSIS:

Zoning Map Amendment and General Plan Amendment
The applicant is requesting to change the zoning of the property at 8530 Alameda Street from IF to M3 and remove the subject property from the South Gate College District as shown in the Cornrnunity Design Element of the General Plan. The request is to accommodate Fleet Yards, Inc.'s operation as a truck storage/terminal facility.

Around 2015, the City rezoned properties in the area from M3 to IF. This was to accommodate future growth of the East Los Angeles Community College ("ELACC") within the South Gate College District as described in the Community Design Element of the City's General Plan. The subject property is included in the South Gate College District as part of sub-area 1 (portions north of Firestone Boulevard and east of Alameda Street). ELACC anticipates a largely expanded campus complex that would include adaptive reuse of nearby industrial facilities along Firestone Boulevard. Changing the zone to M3 would be contrary to the vision and policies of the General Plan.

The IF zone allows certain residential uses to be developed and changing the zoning to M3 would preclude potential new housing development, which is contrary to the City's Housing Element and the Statewide regional housing needs. Moreover, such rezoning would remove 509 potential housing unit sites from thehousing-site inventory identified in the Housing Element ofthe General Plan; the "No Net Loss Law" codified in Government Code section 65863 might require the City, within 180 days, to identify new suitable housing locations within the City to replace some or all of the lost locations. Furthermore, uses such as recreation, education, public assembly, parks, plazas, and open space, which are allowed in the IF zone would be prohibited in the M3 zone. For all of those reasons, as such, staff recommends the Planning Commission reject the proposed Zoning Map Amendment and General Plan Amendment.

If the City decides to approve the request and approve the zone change and General Plan Amendment, the applicant would have to apply for a CUP to allow a truck storage/terminal use in AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
549
the M3 zone, which would have to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Comtnission at a public hearing. Additionally, the City would be tasked with identifying additional housing unit sites to offset the loss in potential housing units so there is a "no let loss" in housing as mentioned earlier.

CONCLUSION
Staff recoini'nends denying the request for a zone change from IF to M3 and leaving the subject property as part of tlie South Gate College District as shown in the Coinrnunity Design Element and Housing Element of the General Plan.

ATT ACHMENTS:

A. City Council Resolution
B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-05
C. Planning Coinrnission Agenda Bill for March 18, 2025 D. Public coininents received at the March 18, 2025, Planning Commission meeting
A'%I 1777 nR6nRQ1 4QnQ-R))'IR-n!'l(lSvT
550
Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO.

CITY OF SOUTH GATE

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SOUTH GATE, ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF A PROPERTY AT 8530 ALAMEDA STREET FROM IF (INDUSTRIAL FLEX) TO M3 (HEAVY

MANUF ACTURING) AND REMOVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY

FROM THE SOUTH GATE COLLEGE DISTRICT AS SHOWN IN

THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT AND HOUSING

ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, AND FINDING THE

ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (PL 25-0054)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Somos Law Group, on behalf of the property owner, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC (represented by Jason Engle), submitted an application (PL 25-0054) for a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment for a property located at 8530 Alameda Street ("Subject Property"). The applicant requested a zone change and General Plan Amendment to change the zone from IF (Industrial Flex) to M3 (Heavy Manufacturing) and remove the subject property from the South Gate College District as shown in the Community Design Element of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission duly noticed and agendized a public hearing on this matter on February 27, 2025; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Governrnent Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission conducted the public hearing on this matter on March 18, 2025, and adopted ResolutionNo. 2025-05 recommending to the City Council denial of arequest to change the zoning of the subject property from IF to M3 and remove the subject property from the South Gate College District as shown in the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Governrnent Code Section 65854, the City Council duly noticed and agendized a public hearing on this matter on March 27, 2025; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Governrnent Code Section 65854, the City Council conducted the public hearing on this matter on April 22, 2025.

WHEREAS, the City Council made the following findings:

1. In 2015, the City rezoned the Subject Property from M3 to IF to accommodate future growth of East Los Angeles Community College ("ELACC") within the South Gate College District as described in the Community Design Element of the City's General Plan. ELACC anticipates a largely expanded campus complex that would include adaptive reuse of nearby industrial facilities along Firestone Boulevard. Changing the zone to M3 would be contrary to the vision and policies of the General Plan.

AS13772.0860893 4923-2538-6533vl
551
Attachment B
RESOLUTION N0. 2025-05
A RESOLU"nON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF SOUTH GATE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF A
REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONmG OF A PROPERTY AT 8530 ALAMEDA STRF,ET FROM IF (INDUSTRIAL FLEX) TO M3
(HEAVY MANUFACTURING) AND REMOVE THE SUBJECT

PROPERTY FROM THE SOUTH GATE COLLEGE DISTRICT AS

SHOWN IN THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE

GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the applicant, Somos Law Group, on belialf of the propeity owner, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC (represented by Jason Engle), submitted an application for a Zone Change and General Plan Ai'nendment for a property located at 8530 Alameda Street ("Subject Propeity").

The applicant requested a zone change and General Plan Ai'nendment to change the zone from IF (Industrial Flex) to M3 (Heavy Manufacturing) and remove the subject property from the Soutli Gate College District as shown in the Coininunity Design Element of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, prirsuant to California Government Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission duly noticed and agendized a public liearing on tl'iis matter on Februaiy 27, 2025; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Califori'iia Goveri'unent Code Section 65854, the Plai'ining Coinrnission conducted the public hearing on this matter on Marchl8, 2025.

WHEREAS, tlie Planning Coininission made the following findings:

1. In 2015, the City rezoned tlie Subject Property from M3 to IF to accommodate future growtli of East Los Angeles Comi'nunity College (ELACC) within the Soutli Gate College District as described in the Community Design Element of the City's General Plan. ELACC anticipates a largely expanded campus complex that would include adaptive reuse of nearby industrial facilities along Firestone Boulevard. Changing the zone to M3 would be contrary to tlie vision and policies of the General Plan.

2. The Subject Property is located in the nortliwestern corner of the City in tlie IF zorxe, and changing the zoning and removing the Subject Property from the Soutli Gate CollegeDistrictasshownintheCommunityDesignElementoftheGeneral Planwould constitute "spot zoning," whicli is contrary to the visiori and policies of the General Plan.

3. Tlie legal, nonconforining use of the Subject Property for metal processing and/or recycling activities - including the integral tnick trailer storage component of those activities - has been determined to be abandoned and can no longer be conducted at the Subject Property unless otlierwise in conformity to all current laws and regulations of the City (and applicable governmental agencies). The City desires a land use compatible with the purpose and intent of tlie IF zoning district. 4513772.0860893 4923-2538-6533vl
552

4. The IF zoning district allows for ceitain residential uses to be developed, and changing the zoi'iing to M3 wouldprectudepotential new liousing development, whichis contraty to the City's Housing Element and the Statewide regional liousing needs.

5. Changing tlie zoning district to M3 would preclude a number of recreationaI, educational, public assembly, parks, plazas, and open space uses from being developed on tl'ie Subject Property.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Tlie Plai'ining Coi'turtission liereby finds that all of the facts set forth in tl'ie Recitals of this Resolution are tnie and correct.

SECTION 2. Tlie Plai'mng Commission's recoininendation to tlie City Council on ainendments to the Zoning Map and General Plan is not subject to California Enviroi'irnental Quality Act (CEQA) review because it is not an "approval" as defuied in California Code of Regulations, Titlel4, Section 15352, butratlier arecoirunendation, aiid therefore does not cot tlie Cityto any definite course of action reguding the Zoning CodeAmendment and General Plan.

Fuithermore, CEQA does not apply to projects which a priblic agency rejects or disapproves pursuant to Section 15270(a).

SECTION 3. The Planning Comi'nission hereby recommends that the City Council deny the request to cliange tlie zoning of a propeity located at 8530 Alameda Street from IF to M3 and remove the Subject Propeity from the Sorith Gate College District as sliown in tlie Coinmunity Design Element of the General Plan.

This action was adopted by the following vote at tlie Planning Comnission meeting of Marcli 18, 2025.

AYES: Prieto, Ruiz, Ozaeta
NOES:

ABSENT: Laborin
APPROVED and ADOPTED this 18' of March, 2025.

APP
Planning Manager
City Coimnission
J
AS13772.0860893 4923-2538-6533v)
553
Attachment C
Ciffl of South Gate

PLANNING COMMISSION
AGIENIDA TBT[T[,T[,
Regular Me6tii'g of: March 14S',' 202';
.PiaimingManager: - DevelopyuentDii'ector:

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR ZONE CHANGE AND GEN8RAL PLAN 4MF,NplENT FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8530 ALAMEDA STdET, AND )jk!lEiU9lINING

THE ACTI(X IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMFJT AL QUAI,ITY ACT
PROJReT PROPOSAL/REQUEST
Zone C,haiig6 (ZC) and General PlAri Atn5hdment (GPA): The. applicaant reqtieMs tlie following:
1, ZC to chaiige the property from Industrial Fiex (IF) to IHeavy %aliuicfg)fx;g (M3); ana 2, GPAto'indicatetri'icktrailerandcontainerstoragefacilitieswitliinthe8outbGate C61fege I'isti4ci are pennit!ed to corifihtie qperatiiig, or remove tlieSubj66tPrqperty from the South Gate Co2fege District ent-irely.

The jeq;test to ternove the subject properiy from the Sod (;are Qoliege 12ist4ct as identified..intiia General Plan, in61udes the forlowing:
a, C)ormnqxifiy Design.Blemefft
i. Aim@ndFigure'CD-4(Distripts)by=movirigflie$uJqBt:Prop.(=rtyfroiti.-ffe Sauffi Gate College Dis'hict, Sub-area 1
b, Hbusiiig Element
i , 'AmendFi@ireH-E-4(Di9Jrices)byt'einovingfbeSubje6tPrqpeityfromtlie :South Gate Co'llege Di-strict, Sub4rea !
ii , Amer)dFigureHn-6(ZoningMap)'bychqrigingthezogdisttietfromIF to M3
iii . Amend Tabie HE-52 (Outside of Specific Plari Areas) 'by reducing the nurriber of parcels (29 to 28), acres (25.18 to 18.40), and potential units (l,gU to 1,377, a reductioi'i of 509 units). Total ur'itts would aectease from 5,150 to 4,64] units.
iv. .Ainend Table HE-55 (Suinmaiy of Sites Inventory) accordingly, wliicl'i tesults in a reduction of 509 liousing units.

AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
554

PROJECT OVERVIEW
* Project Location:
* Assessor's Parcel Number:
* Property Owner:
* Applicant/Representative:
* General Plan Designation:

RECOMMENDED ACTION:
8530 Alameda Street
6202-036-003
Alameda Engle Properties (Jason Engle)
Sara Atsbaha, Somos Law Group
Industrial (Community Design Element, Figure CD 1, Existing Land Uses)
South Gate College District Subarea l (Community Design Element, Figure CD 4, Districts)
IF (Industrial Flex)

1. CONDUCT a public hearing pursuant to South Gate Municipal Code Section 11.50.040.B;

2. ACCEPT the determination that this matter is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act;

3. ADOPT the findings as outlined in Resolution No. 2025-05 (Attachment A); and

4. RECOMMEND to the City Council no change to the zoning district of the subject property from IF to M3 and no change to the Community Design Element and other elements of the General Plan regarding removing the subject property from the South Gate College District.

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council on amendments to the Zoning Map and General Plan is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review because it is not an "approval" as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15352, but rather a recommendation, and therefore does not commit the City to any definite course of action regarding the Zoning Code Amendment and General Plan. Furthermore, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves pursuant to Section 15270(a).

BACKGROUND
The applicant, Somos Law Group ("Somos"), on behalf of the property owner, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP" represented by Jason Engle), is requesting to change the zoning of the subject property from IF (Industrial Flex) to M3 (Heavy Manufacturing) and remove the subject property from the South Gate College District as shown in the Community Design Element of the General Plan.

It should be noted that AEP also owns the abutting 2.9-acre site to the north at 8440 S. Alameda Street, which is located outside of the City and in the County of Los Angeles. Access to both AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
555
properties is via a driveway from Alameda Street to the property at 8440 S. Alameda Street. This property is also being used for truck trailer storage and according to County staff, a conditional use permit (CUP) is currently being processed.

History of Zoning and Land Use of Subject Property As early as 1961, the Subject Propeity was designated as being within a Heavy Manufacturing ("M-3") Zone.

Based upon a review of public records and documents submitted by AEP, the Site was used by Jack Engel & Company (hereinafter, "ECO") and/or AEP for a metal processing/recycling facility from as early as 1973 until approximately March 2020. During that time, the site was developed with a single-story industrial structure used for the recycling operations conducted by JECO and/or AEP.

ANALYSIS:

Zoning Map Amendment and General Plan Amendment
The applicant is requesting to change the zoning of the property at 8530 Alameda Street from IF to M3 and remove the subject property from the South Gate College District as shown in the Community Design Element of the General Plan. The request is to accommodate Fleet Yards, Inc.'s operation as a truck storage/terminal facility.

Around 2015, the City rezoned properties in the area from M3 to IF. This was to accommodate future growth of the East Los Angeles Community College (ELACC) within the South Gate College District as described in the Community Design Element of the City's General Plan. The subject propetly is included in the South Gate College District as part of sub-area 1 (portions north of Firestone Boulevard and east of Alameda Street). ELACC anticipates a largely expanded campus complex that would include adaptive reuse of nearby industrial facilities along Firestone Boulevard. Changing the zone to M3 would be contrary to the vision and policies of the General Plan.

AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
556
The IF zone allows certain residential uses to be developed and changing the zoning to M3 would preclude potential new housing development, which is contrary to the City's Housing Element and the Statewide regional housing needs. Moreover, such rezoning would remove 509 potential housing unit sites from the housing-site inventory identified in the Housing Element of the General Plan; the "No Net Loss Law" codified in Government Code section 65863 might require the City, within 180 days, to identify new suitable housing locations within the City to replace some or all of the lost locations. Furthermore, uses such as recreation, education, public assembly, parks, plazas, and open space, which are allowed in the IF zone would be prohibited in the M3 zone. For all of those reasons, as such, staff recommends the Planning Commission reject the proposed Zoning Map Amendment and General Plan Amendment.

If the City decides to approve the request and approve the zone change and General Plan Amendment, the applicant would have to apply for a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow a truck storage/terminal use in the M3 zone, which would have to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Cornrnission at a public hearing. Additionally, the City would be tasked with identifying additional housing unit sites to offset the loss in potential housing units so there is a "no let loss" in housing as mentioned earlier.

CONCLUSION
Staff recommends denying the request for a zone change from IF to M3 and leaving the subject property as part of the South Gate College District as shown in the Community Design Element of the General Plan.

ATT ACHMENTS:

B. Applicant's letter of request dated October 18, 2024 C. Proposed General Plan Diagram
D. Proposed Zoning Map
E. Figure CD-4 (Districts)
F. Figure HE-4 (Districts)
G. Figure HE-6 (Zoning Map)
H. Table HE-52 (Outside of Specific Plan Areas)
I. Table HE-55 (Summary of Sites Inventory)
AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
557

ATT ACHMENT B
SOMOS

LAW GROUP
304 South Broadwey, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90013
October 18, 2024

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Robert Houston
City Manager
City or South Gate
8650 California Ave.

South Gate, CA 90280
Email: [email protected]
Re: Application for Zone Change and General Plan Amendment at 8530 Alameda Street
Dear Mr. Houston:

We are grateful for the City of South Gate's long-term collaboration on finding a viable solution for the historic use at 8530 Alameda Street ("the Property"). Consistent with our previous conversations, we are writing on behalf ofAlameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP"), to provide more specificity on the proposed zone change ("ZC") and amendment to the General Plan ("GPA") that you suggested, along with other options for resolving the historic use issue. A copy of the application that we submitted on October 14, 2024, is attached for reference. We anticipate that further review and discussion will be required to reach a resolution that suits the needs and expectations of the City, and that allows the Property to remain productive. Per your request, we have identified the following legally-defensible solutions, including:

1. A GPA to add language to the Industrial Flex ("IF") zoning designation clarifying that existing truck trailer and container storage facilities within the South Gate College District are permitted to continue operating;

2. A zone change ("ZC") and amendment to the General Plan ("GPA") to revert the property to its previous "M3" zoning designation to remedy the split zoning on the Property; or

3. An agreement with the City that allows the historic use to continue for an agreed-upon term while AEP, in coordination with the City, determines viable alternative uses for the Property consistent with the City's vision for future developments in the area.

SOMOS I
558
Based on our coordination with the City and prior conversations with you, we understand that a GPA or ZC/GPA are the most efficient and practical paths forward to formalize the long-standing industrial use at the Property.

As outlined in the application, this request for a ZC and GPA is consistent with all state and local requirements, and supported by the Property-specific facts below:

1. The ZC ad GPA Prevents Challenges Re Use Continuity and Consistency
The City rezoned the portion of the Property in South Gate from M3 to Industrial Flex "IF" in 2015. As depicted in the Property Map below, nearly one-third of the property (including the only point ofingress/egress) is located outside the City in unincorporated Los Angeles County ("County"). The portion of the Property located in the County is zoned "M2" for Heavy Manufacturing uses. The entirety of the Property has been used for truck trailer and container storage for over 50 years in the City of South Gate and over 60 years on the County side. The ZC and GPA approval will formalize consistent zoning and uses across the entirety of the Property. Split zoning over a single property, and/or inconsistencies in permitted uses between the northern (County) portion of the property and southern (City) portion of the property, together with the single point of ingress and egress severely restrict the scope viable alternative uses.

The Proposed ZC ad GPA will enable use consistency over both portions or the Property and avoid additional challenges in implementing future uses.

SOMOS 2
559
Property Map
kidusbial
1 2. The ZC & GPA are Consistent with Uses in the Surrounding Area.

As depicted in the Site Map, the surrounding uses are predominantly industrial. The property is bounded by railroad tracks and an aluminum manufacturing facility to the south, railroad tracks to the east, waste management services, truck parking, truck repair facilities to the north, and an auto auction facility, auto parts facility, and metal manufacturing facility to the west. The residential development to the northeast of the Property is separated by railroad tracks and additional truck parking facilities that are not owned, operated or affiliated with AEP. The ZC and GPA revert the current zoning to the previous "M3" zoning designation, which is consistent with the surrounding industrial uses, and will allow the property to continue to operate as a vital part of the local economy without increasing the intensity of the use.

3. The ZC & GPA Facilitate Productive Use of the Property While the City Evaluates City-Wide Land Use & Policy Changes The Property's unique characteristics, including its location in multiple jurisdictions, split zoning designations, and location adjacent to railway and heavy industrial uses substantially narrow the scope of viable alternative uses. If the historic use is not allowed to continue as a "bridge" to future regional redevelopment options, SOMOS 3
560
the Property is at risk of becoming vacant. As you know, vacant properties can result in public health and safety concerns, deter investment in surrounding properties, and create lost opportunities for tax revenue. In recent years, variable market conditions have complicated identification of potential development partners and prevented the City's redevelopment goals for the region From materializing. The ZC and GPA will allow the current tenant to continue the historic operations at the property and maintain the Property's historic role as a job generator and contributor to the local economy until AEP, together with the City, identify a feasible redevelopment partner or plan. AEP remains dedicated to working with the City and supporting its long-term vision for the region.

We look forward to discussing the application and alternate options with you in more depth.

Sincerely,
Alfred Fraijo Jr.

Partner
213.592.2966 direct
[email protected]
cc: Raul Salinas
SOMOS 4
561
I. . , A .' :a
0 -If l:

Inmo ?a
ul-
562

ATTACHMENT D

LOS A-NGEL-ES-C-OIIN
spatf< illan lU'ea!
um;;i M'xad-llse zon. ' MH-ttabm H!11T.11
iv TtaitWfaga §gOS-0penSpaee
W Raqtwememi & App Ovemys
Conklor Thansalon Cliiailiy
SpocmTnaalmentAteas
Flntone & Allot Gnfflmy
563
South Gate General Plan 2035 Community Design Element ffiffl!l Amine Industrial
Civic Center
e;3] South Gate College (2 Sub Areatl
g EI Paseo/South Gate Towne Center [3 Sub Ateail
g!t;l Fkeitone Industrial
Gateway [4 Sub Ateasl
g Hollydale Induittial
Impenal [3 Sub Areail
§ Tweedy Educational Dist+id
[ Rayo Industrial (2 Sub Areail
South Gate Triangle [2 Sub Areal
[ Southwest Induittial
564

ATTACHMENT F
J :T.'
,4 ,..

South Gate General Plan 2035 51
565

ATT ACHMENT G
Figure HE-6: Zoning Map
iosamiancaasy
I
;8 €" C*tdTmlh Gal6 Bal(daff
Sp*eHlc Plan AIM!l
:l'llcll)'daln TpiiJlLl'kiiiAiuai
, i Tw*ady Boulavgd PlaiiAiw
Urban Mlx*d4aa lenss Pail MH - Mobue Hom*Padi
RC - Ragkml Commsim
M2- Light Illaiujadunng
4"a'a,myao*ti 0 -
South Gate General Plan 2035 53
566

ATT ACHMENT H
Table HE-52: 0ytside of Specific Plan Areas
I I I ' I k 'II
NM (Neighborhood Medium)
CC (Civic Center)
CDR2 (Corridor-2)
MS (Main Street)
UN (Urban Neighborhood)
CDR1 (Corridor-l)
IF (Industrial Flex)
RC-R (Reqional Commercial-
Residential Overlay) 30

4.33 2.49

19.62 9.86

24.37 13.94

25.'l8

6.54 SS
73 625
260
968
,1040
1,8-86
203
NL Nei hborhoodLow 12 4 4.41 37
'Total 235 !!!!U ,5150
City-Owned Sites
The City of South Gate and its Housing Authority own a number of properties throughout the City. Several of these properties have been identified for residential uses. Some of these properties have already been included in the "Pipeline Projects" discussion earlier. Four additional properties identified for residential development have no specific project proposals yet. While two parcels are currently zoned M2, as they are owned by the City, these properties can be developed as residential uses as the City sees appropriate. All city-owned properties would begin disposition of these properties startin@ in 2024.

Development Potential
For the purpose of estimating development potential, the same density of Industrial Flex within a specific plan area is used for the two M2 properties. The City will also be able to maximize the density on site. However, for the purpose of this analysis, no density bonus is assumed. As a conservative estimate, the large projects are expected to be able to facilitate lower income housing. Smaller projects are credited toward the moderate income RHNA.

Table HE-53: City-Owned Properties
6233001902
6233002901
M2
M2
Vacant parcel
Vacant parcel
(0.94 acre in Rio Hondo
Channel - potential based
on remaining 1.77 acres)
Vacant Parcel

2.71 4.74
40 40
71 tgo
6205015906 2703Tweedy TMU1 AmigosMarket O.12 20 2
Total 7.70 266 '
Source: City of Sot th Gate, 2021
100 Housing Element
567

ATTACHMENTI
Table HE-54: Motel/Hotel Sites with HomeKey or Redevelopment Potentihl - Ncit 'Jsed for RHNA - '!IJ
iai 1 z I I
URffflNffi
l:li IUNI
I
*
i
:ln'
I I
- A
l- ('. l j iLJu U b II! ; D:,N( !]_!]j :,liffi
I )iil iixiixi & s I1€ xis II i Q QI @li
i isX-I ?T/iT'11' i.i.ii.i _lili_L i If I 1 € ffll'_ri ark l I1€ fi ii IIi * il iilp I ' 111181 i iiiall?i i II I l' ix 81 € Aa ial 6204020015 - Urban
Neighborhood 0.62 4t) 30 25
6221003054 -Urban
Neighborhood 0.40 40 30 16
6221003065
6221003064
-Urban
Neighborhood

0.12 0.30 40 Unknown' 17
6222009008
6222009009
-Urban
Neighborhood

0.13 0.13 40 11
6206016012 -Urban
Neighborhood 0.15 40 12

12.0 658
Notes:

1. NoworkingphonenumbersandCountyAssessordatadoesnotcontaininformationonthenumberofrooms.

Sources: City ofSouth Gate, 2021; Los Angeles County Assessor's Office.

Adequacy of Sites Inventory in Meeting RHNA
As shown below, the City has adequate capacity to accommodate the RHNA. This capacity can be increased based on the City's density incentives program, as demonstrated by the recent projects. A site-specific listing of parcels that could accommodate the RHNA within the planning period is included in Appendix C.

Table HE-55: Summary of Sites Inventory
RHNA 2,136 994 1,173 3,9:'J p,282
ADU 109 38 218
Pipeline 5U 9Z 245 31Q 71Z
Remainin RHNA 1968 622 890 3445 ,6925
Sites Inventory
Gateway District SP
TransitVillage 562 288 567 5,447
IndustrialFlex 32 17 33 82
UrbanNeighborhood 12 7 15 34
Subtotal 606 312 615 1533
' Hollydale SP
NeighborhoodMedium 0 0 7 7
Corridor-3 0 211 36 247
HollydaleMixedUse-1 0 76 20 96
HollydaleMixedUse-2 102 0 180 282
South Gate General Plan 2035 103
568
Attachment D
Item No. 2
Dear Mr. Signio, Mr. Pelayo and Members of the South Gate Planning Commission, As you prepare for the Planning Commission meeting this Tuesday, I urge you to consider the long-term implications otyourdecision regardingthe illegaltruckyard at8530 Alameda Street. This decision wiLLset a precedent for how South Gate enforces its business regulations and codes. The community is watching cLoseLy to see if the City will take a firm stance on ethical business practices.

The propery at 8530 Alameda Street has been operatingwithout a valid permit or license since July 16, 2021, when the Temporary Use Permit (TUP) expired, The originaLTUP was issued in error, makingthe operation illegal even before that. On April18, 2023, the SOuth Gate Planning Commission determined that the continued operation ofthisfacilityviolated Citycodes, citingthat:

1. The proposed use as a truck storage/terminalis prohibited in thelndustrial Flex (IF) zone.

2. TemporaryUsePermitscannotauthorizeprohibitedusesforextendeddurations,andtheoriginaLTUP was issued in error.

The fulL denial of Engle's request, dated ApriL 18, 2023, is attached foryour reference. Complete Engel documentation can be viewed here:
https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/cityofsouthgate/e38f28b4-b7b5-1 1 ed-acbc-00505691 83fa- 4253c1 cb-dOd2-4870-b889-bade0633e61 a-l 682709352.pdf Despite this clear ruling, Engle has repeatedLy attempted to pressure the City into reversing its decision. The 2015 General Plan Amendment established that this area is designated forlndustrial Flex (IF) use, intended to benefit the South Gate College District and residents. EngLe's current request to rezone the area contradicts the City's vision for a more sustainable future.

Engte's continued efforts to bypass regulations for financial gain are concerning and must be stopped. It is CritiCal that the City prioritize the interests Of residents OVer corporate PROFITS. AllOWing preferential treatment Would Send a damaging message that illegaL business practices are tolerated in SOuth Gate and that City OffiCialS can be influenced.

As you deliberate, I urge you to prioritize the best interests of South Gate's residents and uphold the City's commitment to ethical business practices and zoning Laws.

Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Datey
SELA for a Better Tomorrow
Item 2) I strongly urge the Commissioners to vote no and denythe appeal by this scumbag applicant. We don't wanttrash like thiS in Our City.l'm tired Of Our City constantlY bending OVer and making changes tO Our ordinances, zoning codes and General Plan. All because these property owners don't wantto be in compliance with our city's laws. Enough is enough Commissioners. Do you really wantto see our city devolve into a sewer? Or look Like Tijuana Mexico? Have you people been there? I have. Trust me, it Looks really bad. You don't want to Live there. And I don't want our city to Look like some sort of garbage town. Besides, this business adds no reaL value to our city. Commissioners you need to do the right thing and vote no on item 2. This is the right decision for our city.
569
Members of the Planning Commission, this email is to address the items 2 and 3.

I've been listening to council meetings for quite some time now. Every so often people show up to the meetings tO address the City COunCil Or planning commission tO State their THOUGHTS On ITEMS being considered.

Item 2is an appeal from the business owner against a decision that City Staff has taken. It's pretty cLearthat our City COunCit tOOk a pOSitiOn in 2015 tO change the zoning COde. OnCe the permit eXpired, Staff haS taken the position to follow the direction given by the city council concerningthe zoning code to stop the work being done.

Whatl don't understand is the accusation that our city council is somehow invoLved with corruption. Ifthe young Lady, Jennifer, is claiming that the city council is allowing the business to operate illegally, she should know that the opposite is actually true. The city staff has denied this business from operatingfor years. That is why there is an appeal. lt seems that she should be applauding the city for addressingthis issue, even before she came to our city, from where ever she is from.
570
Dear Honorable Planning Commission, City Clerk, Mayor Davila, City Council, and City Manager,
I am writing to express my strong support for upholding South Gate's municipal code in the case of 8530 Alameda Street and to urge the City Council to deny the appeal filed by the property owner. From what I have gathered through the agenda and available Information, it is clear that this is not a case of unfair treatment, but rather the City rightfully enforcing its zoning regulations, as it would for any other business or property owner.

The Facts: How We Got Here
For decades, 8530 Alameda Street was home to a metal processing and recycling facility. Even after zoning changes in 2015, the City allowed the business to continue under legal nonconforming status, showing its willingness to work with long-standing businesses and provide flexibility for property owners.

However, that nonconforming status required renewal, and in 2020, the property owner failed to submit that renewal. As a result, the legal protection for that prior use expired, and the site became subject to the current Jndustrial Flex (IF) zoning, which does not allow truck trailer storage.

Despite this, the site has continued to be used for truck trailer storage, an operation that was never separately recognized as a legal nonconforming use. The City is now requiring compliance with existing zoning, which is a necessary and standard enforcement action.

South Gate's Approach Has Been Fair and Consistent
The City of South Gate has a proven history of working with its business community, and this case is no exception. The fact that the previous nonconforming use was allowed to continue for nearly five years after the zoning change shows that the City was not looking to push businesses out but instead offered reasonable opportunities to transition.

However, zoning laws exist for a reason, and South Gate is simply app)ying the same standards it wou)d to any other business. The property owner had multiple opportunities to maintain their legal status but failed to follow the required renewal process. This is not an issue of the City being unreasonabte-this is a case of a business not following the necessary steps to remain in compliance.
571
Addressing Arguments Against the City's Decision
Some may argue that truck storage was always part of the metal processing operation and therefore should still qualify under the original nonconforming status. However, the key issue is that nonconforming use protections do not extend indefinitely without proper renewal. - The origina( nonconforming status applied specifically to metal processing, not to truck storage as a separate business.

Once metal processing ceased and the structure was demolished, the truck storage became an independent operation-not a continuation of the original use. - Under South Gate's current zoning regulations, truck trailer storage is not a permitted use in the IF zone.

The City is not changing the ru(es or targeting this specific business. If noncompliant operations were allowed to continue indefinitely without proper renewal, it would undermine the entire purpose of zoning [aws.

Addressing Misinformation
l have also seen claims that the City is acting unfairly or even engaging in selective enforcement. However, from what I have read, South Gate has acted responsibly and transparently in enforcing its municipal code.

This situation is not about the City suddenly changing its stance-it is about a property owner who failed to take the necessary steps to maintain their legal standing. It is misleading and unfair to suggest that the City is at fault when all it is doing is enforcing the rules that apply to everyone.

Why Denying the Appeal Is the Right Decision
South Gate's zoning regulations exist to ensure fairness, order, and responsible land use. If the City allows this appeal to succeed, it will set a dangerous precedent that nonconforming uses can continue indefinitely, even when renewal requirements are ignored. That would not be fair to other businesses and property owners who follow the rules.

I urge the City Council to:
572
- Uphold the City's decision and deny the appeal to protect the integrity of South Gate's municipal code.
- Ensure that land use regulations are applied fairly and consistently to all businesses. - Stand by the City's long-term planning and zoning vision rather than allowing businesses to bypass regulations through legal loopholes.

South Gate has done its part to support local businesses while also maintaining the integrity of its zoning regulations. Now, it is time to uphold those regulations and deny this appeal, Thank you for your time and for your commitment to enforcing South Gate's municipal code fairly and consistenUy.

Respectfully,
Nathan Cueto
573
8530 Alameda Street
Development Agreement & Zone Change/General Plan Amendment Term Summaries
Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP") has operated its truck trailer and container storage business at their property located at 8530 Alameda Street ("Property") since 1973. The City of South Gate (/crtylJ) has asked for solutions to address the legal nonconforming use, along with a sunset date for the current use. To address these requests, AEP submitted two potential solutions for the City's consideration: 1) a Draft Development Agreement ("DA") which terms out the current use over a 10-year period, consistent with the requirements of the current General Plan; and 2) a General Plan Amendment ("GPA") and Zone Change ("ZC") to revert the Property back to its previous zonin@ designation. Summaries of those options are attached as ExhibitA and Exhibit B. AEP's preferred solution is the DA, which addresses the concerns that the City has voiced while keeping the property productive as future development partners are identified. The terms for the DA are described below.

Development Agreement Term Sheet
AEP and the City of South Gate collectively, the "Parties" wish to enter into a Development Agreement consistent with the following terms:

1. : AEP owns real property commonly known as "8530 Alameda Street" located within the City of South Gate, California.

2. HistoricUse:Thepropertyoperatedasafamily-ownedrecyc!ingbusiness,includingon-sitetruck trailer and container storage between 1973 and 2019. The Property was leased to Fleet Yards, Inc. in 2020 forthe purpose oftrucktrailerand containerstoraBe. 3, Legal Nonconforming Use: It is AEP's position that truck trailer and container storage is a legal nonconforming use on the Property because this use was authorized by-right when the recycling operations began in 1973, and because the use has been continuous since that time, through Jack Engle & Company's operations between 1973 and 2019, and through Fleet Yards' operations beginning in 2020. AEP reserves the right to defend all legal nonconforming uses on the Property, including truck trailer and container storage.

4. Current Lease Term: Fleet Yards" current lease does not expire until Summer, 2035.

5. TruckTrailer&ContainerStoraae:InordertoavoidsubstantialfinancialdamagestoAEPfrom prematurely terminating the current lease with Fleet Yards, the City agrees to allow Fleet Yards to continue its truck trailer and container storage operations at the Property through the term ofthe,. current lease (Summer, 2035).

6. Entitlements: InordertofacilitatemoreusesonthePropertyconsistentwiththeCity'slongterm vision for the "industrial flex" zone, the City will work with AEP on an entitlement pathway that allows a broader range of commercial uses on the Property.

7. Development Partners: The Parties agree that during the remaining term of the current lease, they will work together to identify a development partner and/or lessee with the requisite experience to redevelop a portion of the Property consistent with the City's long term vision for the Industrial Flex zone. The Development Partner or Lessee must be able to provide a conceptual site plan and proof of financing for the project's development and operation, either independently or with additional pa rtners.
574
Exhibit A
Proposed Development Agreement Terms
ASSiStS the City in satisfying the redevelopment requirements in the General Plan. Identifies a long-term redevelopment solution. Creates a contractual obligation to phase-out the current use based on market conditions. Provides market-driven data forthe City's next iteration ofthe General Plan. ' Fe6sl6tlity-ShMdy
8e;ae%[email protected]@Hii7
Futu're'TitiaM
(2-3 Yi5i.rs)';.
(1 Yearj*
575
Exhibit B
Zone Change/ General Plan Amendment
Removes the use restrictions under the SGMC and General Plan. Reverts the zoning to the previous zoning designation, where the current use is allowed. City (Planning Commissioners or City Councilmembers) to initiate text changes that add termination date earlier that current 2035 deadline. Allows for faster resolution and more flexibility regarding future uses, as City will have to update its General Plan in 2035. i , ."' i'i' ". ' 0 I .,a i ',i '.. sat., <. ,_ 0 ,- : I I:ial _, l,, . i. 0 ' lil,l'l )l-'_ ,i
. , . + I i . . _ . . , ._,>: %
_ . .,l"aa:a i',. , I '
I i 'l ' i ,." I , . .. I :
l
. . I ', : i ' '.' = i , ( ' - -
AjPi4P,Pt1CaiJ5"!' ;pt.z§pe "
,(%jge}(7e;n@r0lP,t@ffi"
., . %endjment . ,
.1,llla)l:l',l":'%,11""':.';:'Jl)'..";..a."f"l'(,l'::lall"":(,i7)'."a:'.('4'}::l'ja:':: g(""I'f":::;J":"":
:"-'i"l,'--',il':- -a - _" 'i 'a ' a' '- _ '.- ' , ' (. I } . i, i ( i ) (- ', 'l , -. * ," ' l i i - I i ' 0 ' .RAVe::sj'.ih'Q:e*d3pfg. r:ij66e. i
-'!A6tu6y4,.4Re'%,?%949rn"" -
q:6u%iH GO;e,..e:4!jy..Calleie
'[)i,€j,7i@;jqbqrqa:1,t.(reai'0.
',e:d_Qc,ajJoQ41}ir%s%iti.gpi!..4ses)
,'qn.4.te%ps:.t;he,i.§0;r)g.l.eBek:;o
.rV3Q'.%ijj'i 05diisi(iil Q4e5; l'_
iji3i'Qdi0g't'h'i',"<jIi7Feiik pj'6 6're
-ill%p,%qth.:4i:e:tiqn@,ry'
,"4ffi'rnents,,'- : : "Ia ;li. . ,
):a: ':': ':: "_ G:a(: " : 'J::"\'\a)': )i' N ' -S(" - :'U. '.1' " '- _ a :
" " fffia.iffi!t
o" -a'-'- :'7"'-""a.l"'i';':i-'7J'l,"-.-A--'--
re;n'4i6.'g. pppl!ffi4tj#6,'jjffi""'a "
Oct65@r,-202,4,"!4qti%0i'a'foi
Planning.'Cqffi-r5iAji6ri-;' . '
'Considerationprb3/18, '
'l

1. l . . ,. .
" " 'o ! :'i" l" ', i ' 1, ' i
, I ' " " -a -. , . _ " a l' . l a l .l' " l .' a ta' 1 _. ' , ,l,te il,, 7 ,J,+-_,, l_-+%%;a.5+vtt':i%07 l:f-i!l-:5:=-',:,;lit,!t, _,_7,_ -s:;:, 'k' "<.':-a";' ";'aa'Ai"'.J'ta: S"2aa')" '& f?i::'ha"':"\'a'i':;.a'i0f".,9.o":'<ffi':
: '!4'_:.',)" :,g!;;aS);":jj,'!':ajT'l: '.' !(_:,"( 3,17,;,.l'j, j,2J1).I.i-:
i4#,,A
;l"-,XXF"""i"'y:'aR:aJil,,,:'af'!:"=7<,0;",:113,.%,:;,-;ll,",',:.:l-%,lt:a,':!-:ll,,a'e!4..,,,lr:,lll,l,,X:
2:!. ""IK,,.u:,,;, J:ra'$F,4':,,,l,,l_Jffillall,%"";.1,,,,,=a+,,(-f\:%(a("'j7,1-_,,'f.#l._li S_ ':. +jEj a' ag '. ' -1% i
t' :'a;'Ji:"_l(a,-a,ir ltia.,
(,,,,"""'t;.-';r!:':':aQaj:"l'-g+W7.i'Wa'+Xl,,,.=">':.',,1-";,1 ; + 1, ,, , ,= =,,i,,, v (,l; ( _:J, , .-, :.i.) ;.:t +' -_ r, -%<,.. _ 0, ;,,, . r. ,, '+j'+aiy-a;,Caa7y3:a: :i,":ar;.W,y.v;=<_+:l!2;
""ax'J'j"':'>g'l:"'Je"X""'=kA".'::uy6"':ajo"*"aao"'e""'a""G"f'o'or'e"n"j""""j"a'm'l"""a'?':"""kaa"'aj"('a':"ffiti"t'I 0:lm'rs'A'Jt'ra*J"ilQ.<a':':'i%ay';h_LWO+-J' l
"", -1'4 -' a :'a';Sa %' : a-!.,' . .:'.:'i":tl 7*aj:"Q 4: o : il ,"c;'J, ':i t-l[i--"a 'i'!..'7JlaBX"'4'P_.aa'a"WJ:ell,';a's":";"y' "yl,,"'ya"'a':5al',ll(";ia.,"'<l,,!'4,,"'3,,"i';ia";';.,'l,;' -i<"1;i %"',:'<:':""j'sl,'(5'j%,lla'i_',..l, 7,:,,',:l.i,(%ll4)i_ -)!, 'Q-<<-,Gi="U-'!='l*'l:*;%' "'<="
)ii a. P a- < \[-"'iJ_o"'-lla'l:a'ia,"a-('aal "v>_xls'+,, t__l_i =t!-l'J'4AM:' A;5_%.f'9%i;%,h%.ar'Gs'.-'.;.1,,s,_0, -"y!it!;l.t:. ,k4 ,, *. $$ :,,,_H.;t<,t.,=,
;*'=%"A!' ):""'::,,"'= AT,,,"'r'a_,r-'sAiVK"V:a""'l"ia:o"'4a',';,17'4';ffi,""';)a"" i-,l,"'y- 4,a :::;': ' ,;'; ,"" %"I ,&',"a'!aa"" .laa)=a%Cia;,a,lal."a%,L;::.,11,:.1:.,,l,l,aaaf.::,11,l,: ;'a', =a l'l :Th Q 17 m- l'i i, (5a!
h-jJ.!l
L.,
4 ;J"aj

4.-.-
> 4'=2
)aJ, _
J
i%
.1
[
);
t
IE
P
J[
j
j.

Q
!: 8 q {
d
t'
)t KE;i
y' %,
i,_4a ff:l: uEI
u. -e!ffi at B.'g%.
nQ a* G3j 8ili i i0
7A,
9 3
1 9
!,! l
ta'i'f
J C,
z
iVi.
> p
!IJ
'%1
§.,4
pa!:!
gJQ4?
a
f
J
'IW,
ge Q
,E
!",=-IFQX,:i,' a '!:'J:-al'l-.._ - .
fgi;J
:-Th
a .i
,o!
=t
j!m
!'
Q
€
g
'i
2 5
2 S
h
!
i-
! i42 jfl:i a(i }7
9 u
W
;[
§
i
:
q
41-14 f i 2 M IZ
>f
iiA
%
a
M
!
E
(8 i! W
t i] ( ! itsoAa'aa
@g
I
g%
] l: N
[
I
!44
91Vu
7 IJ
%,,
k+-
9 ,?,JA
'5'j)
tm 3
7"-!
itrJr g
i;€
W
I
f
li
:'l
it
i
le
@i
Di
ttK
J p,'
m
2 "j";"'
r.x k
k4i
tNa'.
!'n
l!N,
9y%,!i,
X
il5i €I ,P,u!j V
%
17 y
576
llx3/a:iue4u3 *
delAl e)!S
577
Item No. 3
Item 3) Once again I strongly urge the Commissioners tO VOte nO and den'y thiS wretched applicant hiS despicable request for a Zone Change and General P(an Amendment. This is exactly the kind of scumbaggry that you all should be opposed too. Commissioners this is your opportunity to put a stop on this property owner that wants to have their way with our city's ordinances and laws. How much more of this sort of treatment are you people willing to put up with? Correct me if I'm wrong, but item 3, is just more of item 2. Commissioners, please I begyou, don't Sell Out Our CitytO thiS dirtbag.ltyOu haVe any compassion fOrthe pOOr hard working people in Our Citythat are struggLingto make it in thiS cruel WOrld. Please, reject this demon's request and VOte nO On item 3.

HetlO,
My name is Melodie Cuevas and I Lived in South Gate for over 20 years. I only recently left the community when I WaS 22 Years Old tO Orange COunty. MOVing Onto 14 MILES aWa7t0 0range COunty, I nOtiCe a substantial difference in my quality of Life, especially as it regards air quaLity. I feel completely disheartened to know that my hometown suffers heavily from pollution and negligence. Policies, such as the Zoning change, that are being introduced only serve to continue to exacerbate this ongoing history of environmental injustice. Please consider not purshing this zoning any further and Listen to your constituents who are sharing their veiy real concerns with 70u.

Thank you,
Melodie Cuevas
God help us.
578
Office of the
South Gate City Clerk Item No. 4
APR 1 7 2025
FILED f2'mPt4 City of South Gate

CITY COUNCIL
ACENU)A IE3I[LJ1
DepartmentDirector:

For the Regular Meeting o'f: Aprn 22, 2025
Ori i i g ! ent: Public Works
7a'
C/ )'- '- a Ciffl Marxager: ,
Arturo ervantes Rob Houston
SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2025/26 STREET LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I - RESOLUTIONS TO PRELIMINARILY

APPROVE THE ENGINEER'S REPORT, DECLARE THE CITY'S INTENTION TO

LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS AND SET A PUBLIC HEARING PURPOSE: To adopt Resolutions to preliminarily approve the Engineer's Report, to declare the City of South Gate's ("City") intention to levy and collect assessments, and to set a public hearing.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: The City Council will consider:
a. Adopting a Resolution preliminarily approving the Engineer's Report for the proceedings of the Fiscal Year 2025/26 Annual Levy and Collection of Assessments for the Street Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District No. 1; and b. Adopting a Resolution declaring the City's intention to levy and collect assessments under the Fiscal Year 2025/26 Annual Levy and Collection of Assessments within the Street Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District No. I and setting a Public Hearing for May 27, 2025.

FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of preparing the Engineer's Report is $8,307, and it will be funded with Street Lighting and Landscaping Funds budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Municipal Budget.

ANALYSIS: The assessment amount is currently set at $2.38 per adjusted front footage. The total revenue produced from this assessment has remained constant over the years while the total cost of maintaining the District has increased, leaving an operating shortfall. The revenue for Fiscal Year ("FY") 2025/26 is estimated to be $1,994,154, while the cost of maintaining the District is estimated to be $3,041,636. The operating budget deficit is $1,184,010, which is planned to be funded with restricted funds including Measure R, Gas Tax and Proposition A.

This amount includes $136,528 for the maintenance of the landscaped medians on Long Beach Blvd and Garfield Avenue recently constructed, which amount added to the deficit.

On April 26, 2016, the City Council authorized a financial analysis to identify alternatives to minimize the funding deficit which would be needed if the City Council wished to conduct 1 579
Proposition 218 Ballot proceedings for new or increased assessments. A consultant conducted the analysis to determine the feasibility of increasing the assessment within the existing District to cover the revenue shortfall. Feasible alternatives recommended included creating new districts to supplement the revenue from the subject District. New districts are created via separate and independent proceedings. As such, as a part of these proceedings, staff is not planning to propose an increase to the assessment rates.

BACKGROUND: Formed in 1981, the District operates under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (California Streets and Highways Code). It authorizes the City to levy assessments on parcels receiving a direct "special benefit" from public improvements. Since the District encompasses the entire City, the assessment applies to all parcels citywide.

District revenue is restricted to its original purpose: maintaining and operating landscaping and lighting systems citywide and along City streets. Eligible expenditures include the operation and maintenance of: (a) Landscaping-trees, shrubs, grass, ornamental vegetation, irrigation, and drainage systems. (b) Lighting systems-illuminated signs, decorative fixtures, street furniture, streetlights, and traffic signals. These expenses cover both labor and materials.

Each year, the Los Angeles County Assessor's Office ("LA County") levies and collects the District's funds through the property tax roll on the City's behalf. To authorize this process, the City Council must take specific actions in compliance with the county's requirements and state law. The actions before the City Council are part of the required proceedings to grant this authority.

On February 28, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-03-CC to initiate proceedings for FY 2025/26 and directed the preparation of the Engineer's Report. The next steps in the process can be completed by adopting the two proposed resolutions before the City Council, which will achieve the following:
* Declare the City's intention to levy and collect assessments in FY 2025/26 within the District;
* Set a public hearing for May 27, 2025. At that time, the City Council will, (a) consider and determine whether to levy the proposed aru'iual assessment, and (b) hear all protests related to (i) said proposed proceedings, (ii) the estimate of the cost and expenses of the proposed maintenance, and/or (iii) the proposed aru'iual assessment. Any and all persons interested may file a written protest prior to the conclusion of the hearing referred to herein; and
* Preliminarily approve the Engineer's Report which is the document required to set the amount of the assessment. The Engineer's Report contains a description of the District, District budget, an analysis of revenue needs, a benefit analysis, the total parcels located within the District, and the amount to be assessed.

The schedule for the District assessment proceedings is as follows:

Date City Council Action
2/28/2025 City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-03-CC initiating proceedings to levy 2 580
assessments and ordering preparation of the Engineer's Report. 4/22/2025 1. Adopt Resolution approving Engineer's Report.

2. Adopt Resolution declaring the City's intention to levy and collect assessments and set a public hearing for May 27, 2025.
5/27/2025 Conduct a public hearing and adopt a Resolution confirming the area boundary and ordering the levy of annual assessments.
8/07/2025 Deadline for filing assessment roll
An Assessment District authorizes the City to levy fees on specific parcels of land that receive a direct "special benefit" from public improvements. This District allows the City to provide enhanced landscape maintenance and street lighting along its streets, benefiting properties within its boundaries. Funding for these services comes from aru'iual assessments paid by the benefiting property owners. To continue levying and collecting assessments for FY 2025/26, the City must prepare an Annual Report and hold a public hearing, as required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.

ATTACHMENTS: A. Proposed Resolution approving the Engineer's Report (Exhibit A: 2025/26 Engineer's Annual Levy Report is available for review in the City Clerk's office)
B. Proposed Resolution declaring the City's intention to levy and collect assessments in FY 2025/26 and setting a Public Hearing KT:lc
3 581
Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO.

CITY OF SOUTH GATE

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH

GATE, CALIFORNIA, PRELIMINARILY APPROVING THE

ENGINEER'S REPORT REQUIRED FOR THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2025/26 ANNUAL LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS

WITHIN THE STREET LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. l
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of South Gate (City Council), pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972," being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, adopted Resolution No. 2025-03-CC, initiating proceedings for the aru'iual levy of assessments within a special maintenance district, said special maintenance districtknown and designated as Street Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "Maintenance District"); WHEREAS, the City Council was presented with an Engineer's Report, dated April 10, 2025, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (hereinafter referred to as the "Report"), as required by said Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code and as previously directed by Resolution No. 2025-03-CC approved on January 14, 2025;
WHEREAS, the City Council examined and reviewed the Report as presented and is satisfied with each and all of the items and documents as set forth therein, and is satisfied that the assessments, on a preliminary basis, have been spread in accordance with the special benefits received from the improvements to be maintained, as set forth in said Report.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby declare that the above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby acknowledge Report as presented consists of the following:

A. Plans and specifications describing the general nature, location and extent ofthe existing improvements to be maintained are on file in the City Engineer's office. No new improvements or any substantial changes in existing improvements are proposed for the next fiscal year; all improvements to be maintained are in existing public streets or sidewalks of the City;
B. Estimate of cost, including the amount of the annual installment for the forthcoming fiscal year;

Page 1 of 2 ends

South Gate City CouncilApril 22, 2025

South Gate City Council
April 22, 2025