Agenda packet, regular meeting — South Gate City Council, April 22, 2025 (part 1 of 3)

SOUTH GATE CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, April 22, 2025 at
6:30 p.m.

SOUTH GATE COUNCIL CHAMBERS
8650 CALIFORNIA AVE
SOUTH GATE, CA 90280
VIEW MEETING LIVE ONLINE AT:

HTTPS://YOUTUBE.COM/@SOUTHGATECA90280
City Officials
MAYOR,
Maria Davila

CITY CLERK,
Yodit Glaze

VICE MAYOR,
Joshua Barron

CITY TREASURER,
Jose De La Paz

COUNCIL MEMBER,
Maria del Pilar Avalos

CITY MANAGER,
Rob Houston

COUNCIL MEMBER,
Gil Hurtado

CITY ATTORNEY,
Ra
ú
l F. Salinas

COUNCIL MEMBER,
Al Rios

If you would like to participate in this meeting, you can participate via the following options:

1. VIEW THE MEETING LIVE ONLINE AT: https://youtube.com/@SouthGateCA90280 Please allow up to 24 hours after the meeting for the archive to be available.

2. PARTICIPATE BEFORE THE MEETING by emailing the City Clerk at:
[email protected] no later than 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Please write "Public Comment" in the subject line.

3. ATTEND THE MEETING IN PERSON
*The disruption in service of any alternative method does not prelude the City Council or other legislative
body from taking further action and moving forward on the agenda.

Meeting Schedule
The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month, 1 closed session business will usually commence at 5:30 p.m., when scheduled, and general business session will commence at 6:30 p.m.

Brown Act
Agendas are drafted to accurately state what the legislative body is being asked to consider. The legislative body can take action on "all items" listed on the agenda and be in compliance with the open meeting laws. Under the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The governing body may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future meeting.

City's Vision Statement
We envision a thriving, safe and inclusive community where everyone has the opportunity to access exceptional services, education and support to be resilient and live full, vibrant lives.

Public Communications
Public Comments on agenda items are limited to three (3) minutes. All comments are to be addressed directly to the Agency Members not to the members of the public.

Emails for public comment received prior to 12pm on the day of the Council Meeting will be summarized by the City Clerk, not read in its entirety. A copy of the email will be provided to the City Council and will also be available at the City Clerk's Office for public review. A copy of each email will be recorded for public record and noted on the official minutes of tonight's meeting.

Call to Order/Roll Call With Invocation & Pledge

CALL TO ORDER:

Maria Davila, Mayor
INVOCATION:

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

Gabe Perez, Director of Community Development
ROLL CALL:

Yodit Glaze, City Clerk
Public Hearings

1. APPEAL
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DETERMINATION TO DENY AN
EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. 2020-01 FOR TRUCK TRAILER STORAGE AT 8530 ALAMEDA STREET, AND DETERMINING THE ACTION IS

EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(PL 23-0061)

The City Council will consider: (CD)

a. Conducting a public hearing pursuant to South Gate Municipal Code Section

11.50.040.B;

b. Accepting the determination that this matter is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act;

c. Adopting the findings as outlined in the Resolution (Attachment A); and 2 d. Upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to uphold the determination of the Director of Community Development to deny an extension of Temporary Use Permit No. 2020-01.

Documents:

Item 1 Report 04222025.pdf

2. APPEAL
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DETERMINATION REGARDING
LEGAL NONCONFORMING USES AT A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8530 ALAMEDA

STREET, AND DETERMINING THE ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

The City Council will consider: (CD)

a. Conducting a public hearing pursuant to South Gate Municipal Code Section

11.50.040.B;

b. Accepting the determination that this matter is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act;

c. Adopting the findings as outlined in the Resolution (Attachment A); and

d. Upholding the decision of the Planning Commission upholding the determination of the Director of Community Development that the legal, nonconforming use for a metal processing and/or recycling activities at the subject property have been abandoned and can no longer be conducted, and 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 must be immediately terminated.

Documents:

Item 2 Report 04222025.pdf
Attachment B - PC Reso_2025-04.pdf
Attachment C - AEP Appeal 2025-04, 250408v3 FNL w Exhs.pdf Attachment D - PC AB - 8530 Alameda St - Appeal - Engle - 031825.pdf Attachment E - Letters_from_SGHS_students_031825.pdf
Attachment F - Public Comments on 8530 Alameda St - PC Meeting 03-18-25.pdf

3. REQUEST FOR ZONE CHANGE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8530 ALAMEDA STREET, AND DETERMINING THE

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

The City Council will consider: (CD)

a. Conducting a public hearing pursuant to South Gate Municipal Code Section

11.50.040.B;

3 b. Accepting the determination that this matter is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act;

c. Adopting the findings as outlined in the Resolution (Attachment A); and

d. Denying 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.

Documents:

Item 3 Report 04222025.pdf
Comments From The Audience - Non-Agenda Items
During this time, members of the public may address the City Council regarding any items not listed on the agenda and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council and not on this agenda. Comments from the audience will be limited to three (3) minutes per speaker; unless authorized by the Mayor, the time limit may not be extended by utilizing another member's time. There will be no debate or action on items not listed on the agenda unless authorized by law. The collective initial period of time for comments from the audience shall be limited to 45 minutes. Any speaker that did not get a chance to speak during this segment due to the 45-minute limitations will be able to speak at the end of the meeting prior to adjournment.

Note: The City Council desires to provide all members of the public with the opportunity to address the Council. Nevertheless, obscene language, comments intended to disrupt/interfere, other actions which disrupt the progress of the meeting or slanderous comments will not be tolerated and may result in ejection and/or may constitute a violation of South Gate Municipal Code Section1.04.110.

Reports And Comments From City Officials

During this time, members of the City Council will report on matters pertaining to their service on various intergovernmental boards and commissions as a representative of the City pursuant to Assembly Bill 1234. City Council Members will also have an opportunity to comment on matters not on the agenda.

Consent Calendar Items

Agenda Items
4, 5
and
6 are Consent Calendar Items. All items including Ordinances, Resolutions and Contracts, may be approved by adoption of the Consent Calendar, individually and collectively by one (1) motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless Members of the City Council, the public, or staff request that specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion and action. Members of the public are permitted to speak on any item listed but their time period is limited to three (3) minutes in total.

Any motion to introduce or adopt an Ordinance on the Consent Calendar shall be: (1) a motion to waive the reading of the Ordinance and introduce the Ordinance or (2) a motion to 4 waive the reading of the Ordinance and adopt the Ordinance, as appropriate.

4. FISCAL YEAR 2025/26 STREET LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 – RESOLUTIONS TO PRELIMINARILY APPROVE THE ENGINEER’S REPORT, DECLARE THE CITY’S INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT

ASSESSMENTS AND SET A PUBLIC HEARING

The City Council will consider: (PW)

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. 1 and setting a Public Hearing for May 27, 2025.

Documents:

Item 4 Report 04222025.pdf

5. AGREEMENT WITH MNS ENGINEERS, INC. TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL

ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE SALT LAKE WATER TANK, CITY PROJECT NO. 734-WTR
The City Council will consider: (PW)

a. Approving a Professional Engineering Services Agreement with MNS Engineers, Inc., to prepare design and construction documents necessary for the Demolition of Salt Lake Water Tank, City Project No. 734-WTR, for an amount not to exceed Two Hundred Ninety-One Thousand Five Hundred and Ten Dollars ($291,510);

b. Appropriating $350,000 in Water Funds for the Demolition of Salt Lake Water Tank, City Project No. 734-WTR;

c. Authorizing the City Manager to approve and execute amendments up to a cumulative amount of $100,000; and

d. Authorizing the Mayor to execute the Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.

Documents:

Item 5 Report 04222025.pdf

6. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES

5 The City Council will consider: (CLERK)

a. Approving the Special and Regular Meeting minutes of March 11, 2025; and

b. Approving the Special and Regular Meeting minutes of March 25, 2025.

Documents:

Item 6 Report 04222025.pdf
Reports, Recommendations And Requests

7. WARRANT REGISTER FOR APRIL 22, 2025

The City Council will consider: (SVCS)

a. Approving Check No. 109714 from April 8, 2025; and

b. Approving the Warrant Register for April 22, 2025.

Total of Checks: $3,524,972.94 Less: Voids $ 0.00 Less: Employee Payroll Deductions
$ (612,163.86)
Grand Total: $2,912,809.08

Cancellations: 109830
Documents:

Item 7A Report 04222025.pdf
Item 7B Report 04222025.pdf
Adjournment
Adjournment in memory of Mr. Leabres, long-time South Gate resident and father of South Gate employee James Leabres.

I, Yodit Glaze, City Clerk, certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Meeting Agenda was posted on April 17, 2025, at 5:45 p.m., as required by law.

Yodit Glaze
City Clerk

GENERAL NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
The City Council adopted new rules relating to the conduct of the public meetings, proceedings, and business in the City of South Gate on July 12, 2022, (Resolution 2022-38-CC) and go into effect on August 1, 2022. Resolution #2022-38-CC is available at the City Clerk’s Office.

MEETING SCHEDULE
6 Regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month, closed session meetings will commence at 5:30 p.m. unless posted otherwise on its agenda. The regular City Council meetings will commence at 6:30 p.m. Agendas are available at the following locations:

City Clerk
Office,
Public Notice Boards at City Hall, and on the
City’s web page at https://www.cityofsouthgate.org
The Public can sign up to receive automatic notices of postings of agendas for the City Council or any other Commission or Board of the City of South Gate. Visit the City webpage and click on the Agenda & Minutes icon. That will take you the page where an individual can enter their email in the “Email Updates” box to register.

PUBLIC COMMENT/PARTICIPATION
Any person may request to address a legislative body during a public meeting. The Presiding Officer will call upon those present in the Council Chambers.

Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes on any item listed on the agenda, including public hearings.

Under Comments from the Audience portion, speakers are also limited to a single three (3) minutes time limit. Comments from the Audience is initially limited to 45 minutes at each meeting. Any speaker still wishing to speak, that did not speak, will have an addition Comments from the Audience opportunity after the last business item is finished. The Presiding Officer may extend the time limit as long as there is no objection from the City Council as a body.

To ensure that the public is able to participate, the City provides the opportunity to submit their comments in person, email, mail. Methods of participation may be subject to change during other such times when a State of Emergency, Health Order or State Executive Order limits in-person participation.

CURFEW
In absence of a motion duly adopted by majority vote of the City Council, the Presiding Officer may adjourn the City Council meetings at 10:30 p.m. The Presiding Officer may ask the City Council if any agenda items listed should be continued or dealt with during the meeting. For those items to be continued, the City Council can direct the item be placed on the next City Council agenda or the current meeting may be adjourned to a time certain at which time the meeting shall be reconvened as an Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council and action upon the published agenda continued.

STAFF REPORTS
As a general rule, staff reports. or other written documentation are prepared/organized with respect to each item of business listed on the agenda. Meeting agendas and staff reports are available at least 72- hours prior to the scheduled regular City Council meeting and a minimum of 24-hours prior to a Special City Council meeting. There are times when the City Council receives written material. revised material after the posting of agendas, these materials are become a public record and will be available for public view within 72-hours after the meeting in which they were received. Those materials and any other public document can be inspected in the City Clerk's Office located at 8650 California Avenue, South Gate.

SERVICES TO FACILITATE ACCESS TO PUBLIC MEETINGS
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in the City Council Meetings, please contact the Office of the City Clerk. Notification 48 hours prior to the City Council Meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility. For further information, please contact the Office of the City Clerk at (323) 563-9510 or via email at [email protected]
.
7 Office of the
South Gate City Clerk
Item No. 1
APR 1 7 2025
FILED :a'ss4s C'Uy of South Gate

CITY COUNCIL
A(GE,'NIDA IE3I[LL
For the Regular Meeting of: April 22, 2025
Originating Department: Community Development
Gabriel ez
Ciffl Manager:

Rob Houston
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION TO DENY AN EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT N0. 2020-01 FOR TRUCK TRAILER STORAGE AT 8530 ALAMEDA STREET, AND DETERMINING THE

ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (PL 23-0061)
PURPOSE: Public hearing to consider the following:

Appeal of Plaru'iing Commission's Decision on Director's Determination (PL 23-0061):

Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to uphold the Director of Community Development's determination to deny an extension ofTemporary Use Permit ("TUP") No. 2020-01 for truck-trailer storage at 8530 Alameda Street.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
Proiect Location:

Assessor's Parcel Number:

Property Owner:

Appellant/Representative:

General Plan Designation:

6. §:
8530 Alameda Street
6202-036-003
Alameda Engle Properties (Jason Engle)
Sara Atsbaha, Somos Law Group
Industrial (Cornrnunity Design Element, Figure CD 1, Existing Land Uses)
South Gate College District Subarea 1 (Cornrnunity Design Element, Figure CD 4, Districts)
IF (Industrial Flex)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

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 the Resolution (Attachment A); and

4. UPHOLD the decision of the Planning Commission to uphold the determination of the Director of Community Development to deny an extension of TUP No. 2020-01.

AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
8 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 April 10, 2025.

ENVIRONMENT AL EV ALUATION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City Council's deten'nination qualifies for a categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15321, (Class 21) "Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies," in that the City of South Gate ("City") is enforcing the South Gate Municipal Code.

The City Council's determination on the extension of TUP No. 2020-01 is not subject to CEQA review because it is not an "approval" as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15352, but rather a determination of whether a use must terminate at a site, and therefore does not coinrnit the City to any definite course of action regarding new uses or changes to the approved use of the subject property. Furthermore, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves pursuant to Section 15270(a).

BACKGROUND
This is an appeal filed by legal counsel, Somos Law Group ("Somos"), on behalf of the property owner and applicant, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP" represented by Jason Engle), for a

6.78-acre property located at 8530 Alameda Street. Somos is appealing the Planning Commission's decision on the Director of Community Development's determination.

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 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 cunently being processed.

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 JackEngel & Company(hereinafter, "JECO") and/orAEP forametalprocessingrecyclingfacility 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.

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.

AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
9 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 stmcture that was previously utilized to conduct the metal recycling at the Site was demolished.

On July 16, 2020, the City 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 with possible one-year extensions up to a maximum period of five years from the date of approval". The Community Development Director explicitly imposed various conditions upon the approval of TUP2020-01, including, but not limited to:

1. The approved temporary use for the Site is restricted to truck trailer storage only - and no other use is permitted without the written authorization from the City.

2. The approval of the temporary use was set to expire on July 16, 2021 - and a new application was to be submitted at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date if an extension was desired. Additional one-year extensions would be considered for approval for up to a maximum period of 5 years from the original approval date of July 16, 2020 - and would be determined based upon compliance with the conditions of approval and written verification from the property owner that the owner is in process of developing the land, selling the land, and/or working with Los Angeles Community College or a developer on a housing development project.

TUP2020-01 expired on July 16, 2021, without a timely request for renewal from Fleet Yards, Inc.

On or about July 11, 2022, an e-mail was submitted to the Planning Division requesting a new Temporary Use Permit (or the renewal of TUP2020-01). In December 2022, the 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.

AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
10 Planning Commission Hearing
On May 2, 2023, the Planning Coinrnission conducted a public hearing on the appeal of the Director of Community Development's determination to deny an extension of TUP No. 2020-01 for a truck trailer storage at 8530 Alameda Street.

The appellant's attorney, Alfred Fraijo Jr., gave a presentation on the basis of the appeal. Public comment was received from the following individuals:
* Alan Engle (property owner, Alameda Engle & Company) * Daniel Otting (Fleet Yard Inc., 8440 S. Alameda st., Los Angeles) * Jennifer Ganata (6325 Pacific Boulevard, Ste. 300, Huntington Park) The Planning Commission also received a presentation by City staff and outside legal counsel James Eckart providing a response to the appellant's presentation.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to adopt Resolution No. 2023-05 denying the appeal and upholding the Director's Determination. In reaching its decision, the Planning Commission specifically determined that:

1. The land use of storage of truck trailers and containers is not authorized or allowed by the South Gate Municipal Code on any land within the Industrial Flex (IF) zone, of which the subject property is a part.

2. Temporary Use Permit 2020-01 was originally issued in error and in violation of City ordinances. Temporary use permits are to be used for "short-term activities" which are of a "short-term nature." In addition, the South Gate Municipal Code specifies that the maximum duration of a temporary use permit shall not exceed three days in a row, or ten working days in any calendar year. Temporary Use Permit 2020-01 was issued in error as the approval was granted for a longer period of time than the South Gate Municipal Code allows for.

Following the Planning Coinmission's meeting, the applicant met with staff to discuss options in dealing with the situation which ultimately led to a second determination by the Community Development Director on the legal nonconforming status and a request for a zone change and General Plan Amendment, which are being processed separately from this request.

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."
AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
11 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 permissions tables", lists allowed land uses within the IF zone. Truck storage/terminal 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 Permits 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-term 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 deternnined 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 limitations imposed by the South Gate Municipal Code upon the issuance of Temporary Use Permits as set forth hereinabove, and notwithstanding the language contained within TUP2020-01, the Director of Community Development was prohibited from granting an extension of TUP2020-01. The Plaru'iing Commission was similarly prohibited from granting an extension of TUP2020-01 for similar reasons and upheld the Director's Determination.

Temporary Use Permit 2020-01 should never have been issued in the first place for the purported use (which is prohibited within the IF Zone) nor forthe duration set forth therein, since itpurported to authorize the subject use for one year (with possible extensions for a total of 5 years from the original date of issuance), which is far longer than the three-consecutive-day and ten- nonconsecutive-day maximum periods autliorized by the SGMC.

Notwithstanding the pending appeal, there is no authority in the South Gate Municipal Code to authorize an extension of TUP2020-01 for the use or time period that was originally and erroneously approved. As such, the appeal must be denied.

CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision to uphold the Director's Determination to deny an extension of TUP No. 2020-01 for truck-trailer storage at the subject property.

ATT ACHMENTS:

A. City Council Resolution
B. Request for Appeal of Planning Commission dated May 16, 2023 C, PC Resolution No. 2023-05
D. Request for Appeal of Director's Determination dated April 27, 2023 E. Director's Determination to Deny Extension of TUP2020-01 dated May 16, 2023
F, Temporary Use Permit 2020-01
4QTl77a) nR(inRQl 4QnQ!'17RRn)'in4vT
12 Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO.

CITY OF SOUTH GATE

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SOUTH GATE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE

PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE

DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S

DETERMINATION TO DENY AN EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY
USE PERMIT N0. 2020-01 FOR TRUCK TRAILER STORAGE AT 8530 ALAMEDA STREET, AND FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT

FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENT AL QUALITY ACT
(PL 23-0061)
WHEREAS, the Applicant and property owner, Jason Engle on behalf of Alameda Engle Properties, LLC, requested an extension of Temporary Use Permit 2020-01 (PL 23-0061) to allow for the continued use of truck trailer and container storage at 8530 Alameda Street, a use which is prohibited at that location by the South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC"); WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development denied the extension request of Temporary Use Permit 2020-01, based on evidence and testimony provided by the Applicant and City records and provisions of the SGMC regulating the types of uses subject to and the duration of temporary use permits;
WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an Appeal of the Director's Decision on the ground that the temporary use permit was previously approved and granted; WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission duly noticed and agendized a public hearing on this matter on March 21, 2023, April 18, 2023, and May 2, 2023;
WHEREAS, on May 2, 2023, pursuant to California Governrnent Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission duly conducted a public hearing on this matter, and adopted Planning Cominission Resolution No. 2023-05 denying the appeal request; WHEREAS, on May 16, 2023, the applicant filed an application to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council; however, through a stipulation by the appellant and the City, and due to pending conversations between City staff and the applicant to reach a resolution as to other pending issues with the use of the subject property, the appeal hearing was not scheduled until now;
WHEREAS, on Apil 22, 2025, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65854, the City Council duly noticed and agendized a public hearing and conducted a public hearing on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the City Council made the following findings:

1. The land use of storage of truck trailers and containers is not authorized or allowed by 13 the South Gate Municipal Code on any land within the Industrial Flex ("IF") zone, of which the subject property is a part.

2. Temporary Use Perinit 2020-01 was originally issued in error and in violation of City ordinances. Temporary use permits are to be used for "short-term activities" which are of a "short-term nature." In addition, the South Gate Municipal Code specifies that the maximum duration of a temporary use permit shall not exceed three days in a row, or ten working days in any calendar year. Temporary Use Peri'nit 2020-01 was issued in error as the approval was granted for a longer period of time than the South Gate Municipal Code allows for.

3. The Temporary Use Permit cannot be extended pursuant to the provisions of the South Gate Municipal Code.

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

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals of this Resolution are true and correct.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that the subject decision is exempt from the California Environment Quality Act ofl970 ("CEQA"), because it can be seen with certainty that this decision has no likelihood of causing a significant negative effect on the environment and the effects derivative from the decision are exempt from the application of CEQA, pursuant to a Class I exemption under Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines (15 Cal.Code Regs. § 15301).

SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of South Gate, pursuant to the facts noted above, does hereby uphold the decision of the Plaru'iing Commission upholding the determination of the Director of Cornrnunity Development to deny an extension of Temporary Use Permit 2020-01 at 8530 Alameda Street.
[Remainder of page left blank intentionally.]
14 SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution which shall be effective upon its adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED on this 22nd day of April 2025.

CITY OF SOUTH GATE:

By:

Maria Davila, Mayor
ATTEST:

By:

Yodit Glaze, City Clerk
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Raul F. Salinas, City Attorney
15 ATT ACHMENT B
Officeoftlie
PiL5
SOMOS

LAW GROUP
304 South Broadway, Sciite 350
Los Arigeles, CIA 90C)13
May 16, 2023
VIA ELECTRONIC MA[L
Maria det PilarAvalos
Mayor, City of South Gate
8650 California Avenue
South Gate, CA 90280
Email:[email protected]
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 Aiameda 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 1970s. 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 lJse Permit ("TUP") at the recommendation and requirement of the City's previous Director of Community Development. On December 20, 2023, the Current Dlrector of Community Development denied the extension on the grounds that the City erred in issuing the TlJP, and alleging that the legal nonconforming use had been abandoned. On January 26, 2023, AEP submitted a !etter appealing the Director's decision to the South Gate City Planning Commission ("CPC").

Ourfirm sent a supplemental letter explainingjustification for the appeal on April 27, 2023, ("Supplementai Letter") attached hereto as . On April 27, 2023 City Attorney, Craig Hardwick, kindly notified us that the )egal 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 legal nonconforming use is at the center of this appeal ("Appea!"). On May 2, 2023, in a close, 3-2 decision, CPC denied the appeal of the Director's denial of the TtJP

SOMOS I
16 extension on the grounds that the TLJP was issued in enor.' 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 lega( nonconforming use. Since the appeal hearing, we have been working with the City Attorney and the City Manager to reach a resolution.

Intheinterim,wearewritingtoappealtoCPC'sdenialoftheTUPextensio 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 1973; 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 appetlants' 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
213.592.2966 direct
[email protected]
' A copy of appellants' presentation materials during the May 2, 2023 CPC hearing are attached as .

SOMOS 2
17 C(,:

Yalini Silva
Mereditli Elguira
Vice Mayor Gll Hurtado
Councilmember Maria DavilaCoi,incilmemberA( RiosCounciknernber Josliua BarronRaque( Larios SOMOS
18 April 27, 2023
SOMOS

LAW GROUP
304 South Broadway, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 900'l3

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City of South Gate
8650 California Ave
South Gate CA, 90280
Re: 8530 Alameda Street - Appeal of Director's Denial of TUP 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").

AEP historically operated a recycling facility on the Property, including storage of truck trailers, since the early 1970s. Fleet Yards, Inc. ("Fleet Yards") is the current tenant 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 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.

SOMOS I
19 'f. 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.l

2. Truck Trailer Storaqe is a Leqal & Nonconforrninq Use 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 § 11.55.030.E. AEP, and later, Fleet Yards have been operating a recycling facility, including truck trailer storage at the Propertysincetheearly1970s. FIeetYardsobtainedaTUPonlyattheCity'sdirection 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 onJy recently changed to "Industrial Flex." We also understand that the City's did not issue certificates of occupancy regularlyduringtheearly1970swhentheoperationsstartedattheProperty. However, we have attached the following documents that establish consistent storage of tractor trailers long before the zone change on the Property:
* AJuly1,2019,BusinessLicensetoJackEngleauthorizing"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
20 @ Aerial Photos showing tractor trailers on the site dating back to 201 2;3 * Documentation of Utility payments dating back to 2016;4 * A sewerage system connection fee invoice from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District dating back to 2007;
* AninvoicefromtheSouthCoastAirQualityManagementDistrictfor 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 legal 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 E1-E-4.
4 See Exhibit C.
5 See Exhibit D.
" SGMC §§ 11 .55.030; 11 .55.040
7 Id. at "11.55.040.
a South Gate General Plan: Community Design Element, Policy t=i.e, pg. 106.

SOMOS 3
21 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.'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 Cit of South Gate Since 20'l4 and Cannot Obtaln an Auxilla Per it Without the Ci 's Coo eration.

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 legaJ nonconforming use on the Property, attached hereto as Exhibit G. '2 See Exhibit A.

SOMOS 4
22 licensing policies and procedures, in addition to permits from other state and local jurisdictions.l3 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 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 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 TLIP; 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 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 COVI D-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 /d.

SOMOS 5
23 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 Noncoriforminq 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. 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 TLIP, 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 P(an.

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
24 Please contact my office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Alfred Fraijo Jr.

Partner
213.592.2966 dired
[email protected]
SOMOS
25 ATT ACHMENT C
RESOLUTION N0. 2023-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COfVIMISSION OF THE
CITY OIi' SOUTH GATE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING

THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S
DECISION TO DENY AN EXTENSION OF TEMPORAR\ USE
PERMIT N0. 2020-01 FOR TRUCK TRAILER STORAGE AT 8530

ALAMF,DA STREET
WHEREAS, the Applicant and property owner, Jason Engle on behalf of Alatneda Bngle Properties, LLC, requested an extension of Temporary 'Use Pertnit 2020-01 to allow for the continued use of truck trai.ler and container storage at 8530 Alameda Street, a use wliich is prohibited at that location by the South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC"); and WHEREAS, the Director of Community Deyelopment denied the extension request of Tempoyary Use Peitnit 2020-01, based on evidence and testimony provided by the Applicant and City records and provisions of the SGMC pertaining to the duration of temporaryuse permits; and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an Appeal of the Director's Decision on the ground tliat tlie temporary rise permit was previously approved and granted; and WHEREAS, prirsuant to California Government Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission duly noticed and agendized a public hearing on this matter on March 21, 2023, April 18, 2023, May 2, 2023; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65854, Toe Platming Commission dulynoticed and agendizeda publichearing and conductedthe public hearing onthis matter on May 2, 2023, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-05.

WHEREAS, the Planning Cotnmission made fhe following findings:
1, The land use of storage of truck trailers and containers is not authorized or allowed by the Soutb Gate Municipal Code on any land within the Industrial Flex (IF) zone, of which the subject property is a part.
2, Ternporary Use Permit 2020-01 was originally issued in error and in violation of City ordinances, Temporaty use permits are to be used for "short-term activities" which are of a "sliort-term nature." in addition, the South Gate A4unicipal Code specifies thatthe maximum duration of a temporary tise permit sliall not exceed three days in a row, or ten working days in any calendar year. Temporary Use Permit 2020-01 was issued in error as the approval was granted for a longer period of time than the South Gate Municipal Code allows for.

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

SEC'['ION 1. The Planriing Cominission hereby finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals ofthis Resolution are true and coi'rect.
26 SECTION 2. The Planning Cott'unission hereby finds that tlie subject decision is exempt from the California Eiwironment Quality Act of 1970 ("CEQA"), because it can be seen with certainty that this decision has no likelihood of causing a sigi'iificaixt negative effect on the environinent and the effects derivative from the decision are exeii'ipt from tlie application of CEQA, pursuant to a Class 1 exemption under Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines (15 Cal.Code Regs. Fg 15301).

SECTION 3. The Plaiuiing Commission of the City of Sout]i Gate, pirsuant to the facts noted above, does liereby uphold the decision of the Director of Community Development to deny an extension of Temporaty Use Pernfft 2020-01 at 8530 Alan'ieda Street.

This action was adopted by the following vote at the Planning Comrnission meeting of May 2, 2023.

AYES: Delgado, Duarte, Ozaeta
NOES: Laborin, Prieto
ABSENT:

APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2"d of May, 2023.

Community Development Director
Jose
City Planning Commission
27 Attachment D
April 27, 2023
SOMOS

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

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City of South Gate
8850 California Ave
South Gate CA, 90280
Re: 8530 Alameda Street - Appeal of Director's D@nial of TUP Extensign 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").

SOMOS 1
28 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.l

2. Truck Trailer Storaqe is a Leqal & Nonconforminq Use at the Property B, The City has Authority to Remedy the Previous Administratton'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 TOP 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 TIJP 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 regularlyduringtheearly1970swhentheoperationsstartedattheProperty. 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
29 * AerialPhotosshowingtractortrailersonthesitedatingbackto2012;a * DocumentationofLltilitypaymentsdatingbackto2016;"
* A sewerage system connection fee invoice from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District dating back to 2007;
* AninvoicefromtheSouthCoastAirQualityManagementDistrictfor 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 Right 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 prope% 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 (imitations on expansion, the nonconforming use provisions of the SGMC protect all established legal 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.
6 SGMC §§ 11 .55.030; 11 .55.040
7 Id. at 11.55.040.
a South Gate General Plan: Community Design Element, Policy t=i.e, pg. 106.

SOMOS 3
30 COVID-19 Pandemic, and by the City's error in requiring a TLIP. 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 TOP extension."
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 Yarrls has Maintained gn Active Business License with the City of South Gate Since 2014, and Cannot Obtain an Auxiliary Permit Wlthoutthe City's Coopq7Boign
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.'2 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.
'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
31 licensing policies and procedures, in addition to permits from other state and local jurisdictions.l3 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 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 that additional one-year extensaions 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 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 TLJP extension was missed in 2021 due to complications from the COVID-19 Pandemic, both AEP and FleetYards 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 /d.

SOMOS 5
32 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. Terminatin4 the Leqal Nonconforminq 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, 4 037. Here, Fleet Yards only agreed to the TOP 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 TOP, 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. Conclusiqn
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 dearance where, as here, the use is legal nonconforming.

SOMOS 6
33 Please contact my office if you have any questions- Sincerely,
Alfred Fraijo Jr.

Partner
213.592.2966 direct
[email protected]
SOMOS
34 ATT ACHMENT E
(:ENTENNIAL
-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.

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 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. Sectipn 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 35 (ENTENNIAL
- a l' l r L "J ',,-
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 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.

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 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).

2. That iri 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, oranyformeroccupantofthePremises. UndertheformerZoningCode,storageoftrucksandtruck- 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.

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. 36 (:ENTENNIAL
-ICO YEARS-
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.

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

Craig D. Hardwick Esq.
37 ATT ACHMENT F
8650 Califomia Avenue
South Gate, Ca 90280
Phone: (323) 583-9528
Planning Division
July 16, 2020
Daniel Offing
Fleet Yards Inc.
893 West 16" Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
[via email: [email protected]]
Re: Temporary Use Permit No. TUP2020-01 8530 Alameda Street (APN: 6202-036-003) Dear Mr. Otting,
The City South Gate has received your temporary use permit application to permit 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. The proposed project has been reviewed and it has been approved subiect to the followinq conditions:

CondiUons ofApproval

1. The approved temporary use for the site of 8530 Alameda Street is restricted to truck trailer storage only. No other outdoor storage is permitted including truck storage. No other use is permitted without the written authorization from the City.

2. Thetemporaryuseisapprovedforatermofoneyear,settoexpireonJuly18,202l.Anewapplication must be submitted at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date if an extension is desired.

Additional one-year extensions will be considered for approval for up to a maximum period of 5 years from the original approval date of July 16, 2020. Additional extensions will be determined based on compliance with said conditions and written verification from the property owner that he/she/they/ is/are in process of developing the land, selling the land and/or working with Los Angeles Community College or a developer on a housing development project.

3. Egress and ingress shall only be via Alameda Street as reflected in Attachment A. No truck or trailers traveling to or from the site shall be allowed to drive upon any South Gate streets other than Alameda Street.

4. Operations shall be limited to those described in Attachment B as to the number, size and height of truck trailers that will be stored on site.

5. Any violations of these conditions or City Laws could result in the revocation of this Temporary Use Permit No. TUP2020-01.

6. All conditions for a Temporary Use Permit No. TuP2020-01,shall be agreed to by the property owner in the form of a signed and notarized affldavit.

City of South Gate
Attachments. A. Site Plan
B. Operation Plan
38 Map should be updated to clarify tlie area covered by t)ie ' rise pennit (8530) and separately show tlie access point across 8440. The current map makes it appear as if the entire track is 8440, wlien tlie red sliaded area also includes 8530.

Fleet Yards. Inc.

ATTACHMENT A
39 Attachment B
ADDENDUM: Description of Operation

CITY OF SOUTH GATE

LAND USE ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT APPLICATION
- TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
Property: 8440 S Alameda st., Los Angeles, CA 90001 APN: 6202-036-003
Applicant: Dan Otting
Mailing Address: 893 W 16'h Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: 949-246-6000
Description of Proposed Operation:

Summary:

Short- Term Truck Trailer Storage.
8530 Alameda Street
Detailed:

The property at 8440 S Alameda St. is approx. 9.7 acres (423,000 sq ft) in total, but 6.7 acres are a part of South Gate proper.

On the acres in South Gate, approximately 125 trailers will be parked for short- -term storage.

Stand commercialtrailersareeither40',48',or53'long(usually53'),13'6"tall,and8'wide.Please note t while we are proposing to use the entire property (9.7 acres) for storage, the acres within So ate proper will only be used for trailer storage, with no trucks being stored on t part of the yard.

The Iyardwillbeactive24hoursaday,7daysaweek,butmostofthetraffic(>90%) allbebetween the urs of 6:00 AM and 8:00 PM each day.

Fo the entirety of the 9.7 acre property, we expect to see up to 50-75 trucks and yard each business day. 6] acres
enter and exit

6.7 acres
40 Office of the
South Gate City Clerk
APR 1 7 2025
FILED
Ciffl of South Gate

CITY COUNCIL
Item No. 2
AG-ENIDA IBI[ILIL,
QNI /) fl ,/l/') /
DepartmentDirector: 9.- ). A %
GaAriel@rez
For the Regular Meeting of: April 22, 2025
Originating Department: Public Works
Ciffl Maixager:

Rob Houston
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION

REGARDING LEGAL NONCONFORMING USES AT A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8530 ALAMEDA STREET, AND DETERMINING THE ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENT AL QUAlITY ACT
PURPOSE: Public hearing to consider the following:

Appeal of Plaru'iing Commission's Decision on Director's Determination: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision upholding the Director's determination that the legal, nonconforming use for a metal processing and/or recycling activities at a property located at 8530 Alameda Street have been abandoned and can no longer be conducted, and 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 must be immediately terminated.

PROJECT OVERVIEW

1. Proiect Location:

2. Assessor'S Parcel Number:

3. Property Owner:

4. Appellant/Representative:

5. General Plan Designation:

6. :

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 (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 the Resolution (Attachment A); and

4. UPHOLD the decision of the Planning Commission upholding the determination of the AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
41 Director of Community Development that the legal, nonconforming use for a metal processing and/or recycling activities at the subject property have been abandoned and can no longer be conducted, and 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 must be irninediately terminated.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Advertising and notification of the public hearing for this item was conducted in compliance with Sections I 1.50.020 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 April 10, 2025.

ENVIRONMENT AL EV ALUATION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council's determination qualifies for a categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15321, (Class 21) "Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies," in that the City is enforcing the South Gate Municipal Code.

The City Council's determination on the termination of the legal, non-conforming use of the subject property 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 determination of whether a use must terminate at a site, and therefore does not commit the City to any definite course of action regarding new uses or changes to the approved use of the subject property. Furthermore, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves pursuant to Section 15270(a).

BACKGROUND
This is an appeal filed by legal counsel, Somos Law Group ("Somos"), on behalf of the property owner and applicant, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP" represented by Jason Engle), for a

6.78-acre property located at 8530 Alameda Street. Somos is appealing the Planning Commission's decision on the Director of Coinrnunity Development's deteri'nination thatthe legal, nonconforming use for metal processing and/or recycling activities at the subject property has been abandoned and can no longer be conducted, and 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 must be immediately terminated.

Planning Commission Hearing
On March 18, 2025, the Planning Commission voted 3-O to adopt Resolution No. 2025-04 denying an appeal and upholding the Director of Community Development's determination and noncompliance notification regarding recycling/metal processing and truck trailer storage at 8530 Alameda Street.

AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
42 The appellant's attorneys, Alfred Fraijo Jr. and Sara Atsbaha, gave a presentation on the basis of the appeal. Public comment was received from tlie following individuals:
* Andrew Herrera
* Jennifer Daley, Southeast Los Angeles (SELA) for a Better Tomorrow * Omar Ruiz
* David Moreno, 8429 Santa Fe Avenue
* Jei'inifer Ganata, CBE, 6325 Pacific Boulevard, Ste. 300, Huntington Park * Alma Rodriguez
* Individual who did not provide a name [Spanish speaker] @ Selena Zepeda [Spanish speaker], Walnut Park resident * Salvador Diaz, Walnut Park resident
* Gregorio Jimenez, 10423 Mallison Avenue
* Javier Gutierrez
The Planning Commission 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 Attachments D, E, and F. * Jennifer Daley, SELA for a Better Tomorrow
* Mario Dominguez
* Claudia Rivera
* Nathan Cueto
* Sara Atsbaha, Somos Group, appellant's attorney
* Various letters from South Gate High School students 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 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.

AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
43 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.

According to public records and inforination 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. cornrnenced 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 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 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 forrenewal 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.

On May 2, 2023, the Planning Cornrnission upheld the Director's Detennination to deny an extension of the TUP (as set forth in Resolution 2023-05).

Notwithstanding the issuance and subsequent ineligibility for renewal of the TUP, the appellant contended that the truck trailer storage activities are a legal, non-conforming use. As the appellant bears the burden of proving the legal, nonconforming status of the truck trailer storage, Staff provided the appellant ample opportunity to present to the Director sufficient evidence to support its contention.

On January 21, 2025, Interim Community Development Director David M. Crabtree, AICP, issued a determination and noncompliance letter indicating 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 - was abandoned and can no longer be conducted unless otherwise in conformity to all current laws and regulations of the City (and applicable governmental agencies). The use 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.

AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
44 ANALYSIS:

Appeal of Director's Determination
On January 21, 2025, the City sent a Director's Deterinination and Noncompliance Notification letter to the applicant indicating 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 deternnined 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 governinental agencies). Furthermore, based on staff's research and information provided by Somos, 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 teri'ninated.

On February 6, 2025, the applicant filed an appeal requesting the Planning Commission challenging the Director's determination based on the following grounds:

1. The Director's Determination is unsupported by the South Gate Municipal Code (SGMC) purportedly due to the Director's differentiation between an ancillary and primary use, that the immediate termination of a legal, nonconforming use is inconsistent with the SGMC and General Plan, and the Determination violates procedural requirements;

2. Substantive and procedural due process concerns; and

3. Termination of a legal, nonconforming use is a de facto regulatory taking; and,

4. The City's failure to comply with the Califoi'nia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.

Truck Storage/Terminal Use: AEP 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/terminar' 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 permissions tables," lists allowed land uses within the IF zone. Truck storage/terminal use is not listed on that Table as an allowed usewithintheIFzone. SGMCSectionll.21.020notesthat"Anylandusethatisnotspecifically 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.

It is undisputed that the recycling/metal processing activities that occurred at the subject property were legal, nonconforming, and that truck trailer storage is not currently a permitted use at the subject property pursuant to the South Gate Municipal Code (inclusive of the Zoning Code). The isSues of contention are (i) whether the legal, nonconforming recycling/metal processing activities at the subject property have been abandoned; and/or (ii) whether the appellant has submitted sufficient evidence to substantiate that the current use of the site for truck trailer storage unrelated AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
45 to recycling/metal processing activities constitutes a legal, nonconfori'ning use of the subject property.

In response to the appellant's arguments set forth in tlie Request for Appeal, Staff submits the following.

ASSERTION: The Director's Determination is unsupported by the South Gate Municipal Code.

The appellant first argues that the Director failed to make a determination that the legal, nonconforming use is "wholly discontinued or abandoned for a continuous period of two calendar years" as required by SGMC 11.55.040(D). The Director, however, correctly determined that the legal, nonconforming recycling/metal processing use at the site was wholly discontinued and/or abandoned - as evidenced by the cessation of all activities associated with the recycling/metal processing activities in or around 2020, including the demolition of the structure that was previously utilized for such activities. Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Director did not distinguish between primary and ancillary legal, non-confornning uses. Rather, the Director accepted the appellants assertion that the storage of truck trailers at the site was an "integral part of metal processing operations," however, the Director did determine that the truck trailer storage was only done as part of the recycling/metal processing activities while those activities were occurring. The Director correctly determined that the current use of the site for truck trailer storage only is NOT a continuation of the use of the trucks for the recycling/metal processing activities, and, is, in fact, a wholly new use.

The appellant also argues that the immediate termination of the truck trailer storage is inconsistent with the South Gate Municipal Code and the General Plan-which the appellant contends promotes a more gradual transition to a conforming use. However, the appellant fails to recognize that it was the appellant's abandonment of the recycling/metal processing activities for more than 2 years that resulted in the termination of its legal, nonconforming rights - and not any action by the City.

The City's requirement that the legal, nonconforming use be terminated for 2 continuous years does, in fact, provide for a gradual transition - but the appellant failed to utilize those 2 years to make a transition to a conforming use. Instead, the appellant transitioned to using the subject property for the prohibited truck trailer storage use.

The appellant further mistakenly argues that the Director failed to make findings required by Section 1 1.55.040(D) of the municipal code. Specifically, the appellant argues that the Director failed to consider and make a determination regarding (i) the property owner's intent; (ii) the presence or absence of personal property associated with the legal, nonconforming use; (iii) presence or absence of furnishings, equipment, and other property associated with the use; and, (iv) continuity of utility service to the property.

TheappellantincorrectlyinterpretsSGMC§11.55.040(D). PursuanttoSGMC§ll.55.040(D)(1), in order to determine whether a property owner has abandoned/discontinued a legal, nonconforming use, the Director is required to determine the "apparent intent of the owner to discontinue use of the nonconforming structure is apparent, as determined by the director" (emphasis added). This particular requirement, however, is applicable to the intent to discontinue/abandon a nonconforming structure - and not the owner's intent to discontinue a legal, nonconforming use. That being said, the Director determined that the structure previously existing at the site was voluntarily demolished in or around March 2020 - and that all other activities associated with the recycling/metal processing use also terminated around the same time. The A'%1 1l7J nR6nRQ1 4QnQ-Ra)R)1-nRnSvT
46 Director also determined that all other equipment, furnishings, and the structure itself used for the recycling/metal processing activities liave been absent from the site for more than two years.

Moreover, no additional business licenses have been acquired for recycling/metal processing activities for at least 2 years. Any continued utility use at the site (including electricity, gas, water or waste collection) does not negate the Director's determination that all use ofthe subject property for recycling/metal processing activities has been abandoned/discontinued for more than 2 years.

ASSERTION: The City's management of the legal nonconforming use gives rise to substantive and procedural due process concerns.

The appellant contends that the manner in which the City has handled requests from appellant's legal counsel has raised concerns regarding the appellant's substantive and procedural due process.

Appellant also apparently incorrectly argues that the Director suggested that the appellant was required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit in 1988 as a result of a change in the City's Zoning Code. Lastly, appellant argues that Staff has been slow to acknowledge or process its request for a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment. It should be noted that Staff provided documents in its possession - however, was not required to provide copies of business licenses which were no longer in the possession of the City. [Business licenses are issued to business operators - and the appellant would have been in the best position to retain the prior business licenses.] Moreover, the Director did not assert that the appellant required a Conditional Use Permit, but rather that the change in the City's Zoning Code requiring a Conditional Use Permit for the recycling/metal processing use of the site is what converted the legal status of recycling/metal processing use of the site to "legal, nonconforming". Lastly, the processing of the Zone Change and General Plan Amendment is a separate matter before the Plaru'iing Commission, and arguments related to the processing of those requests are not related to the Director's Determination regarding the termination of the legal, nonconforming status of the recycling/metal processing activities or the lack of such status for the truck trailer storage.

ASSERTION: Termination of the legal nonconforming use is a de facto regulatory taking.

The appellant contends that the changes to the City's Zoning laws and General Plan amount to a regulatory taking because of the limited uses allowed at the subject property. However, the City provides for the continuation of nonconforming uses - and, as such, appellant would have been allowed to continue the recycling/metal processing use of the site had the appellant not abandoned the use or otherwise caused the termination of the use as set forth in SGMC Chapter 11.55. It is the appellant's actions that have resulted in the termination of the ability to continue conducting recycling/metal processing activities - and it is the Director's determination that the truck trailer storage that is currently occurring has never been lawfully approved by the City. This hearing is not the venue to challenge the City's prior Zoning Code amendments related to permitted uses.

ASSERTION: The City has Not Considered the Environmental Consequences Resulting from the Termination of the Existing Land Use in Favor of alternative Land Uses Inconsistent with the Requirements of CEQA.

The appellant incorrectly asserts that the City's termination of the legal, nonconforming use of the subject property is tantamount to changing a land use designation - and would require review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). However, the Director determined that the actual use of the site for recycling/metal processing ceased in or about March 2020 - and the Director's Determination merely is a confirmation of the abandonment/discontinuance of the use of the site for recycling/metal processing by the owner.

Although the commencement of a new conforming use may require CEQA review, that would be determined and occur at the time a conforming use is proposed by the appellant or other interested t'Ql '177C (l)'l(inRQl 4QnQ37)lRnR(Xv1
47 party - however, Staff has deteri'nined that this appeal is exempt from CEQA review.

Staff recommends that the Planning Corninission uphold the Director's deteri'nination based on the findings in the attached resolution.

CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission uphold the Director's Determination that the legal, nonconforming use of the subject property for metal processing and/or recycling activities has been abandoned for more than two (2) continuous years, and can no longer be conducted at the site; and that 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.

ATT ACHMENTS:

A. City Council Resolution
B. Plaru'iing Commission Resolution No. 2025-04
C. Request for Appeal from Somos Law Group with exhibits D. PC Agenda Bill dated March 18, 2025
E. Letters from South Gate High School students received at March 18, 2025 Planning Commission meeting
F. PubliccorrespondencespresentedatMarchl8,2025PlanningCommission meeting
AQT177';' nR6nRQ1 4QnQ-R7RR-n)ln4vT
48 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 AJST APPEAL

AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION

TO UPHOLD THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT'S DETERMINATION AND NONCOMPLIANCE

NOTIFICATION REGARDING RECYCLING/METAL
PROCESSING AND TRUCK TRAILER STORAGE AT 8530

ALAMEDA STREET, AND DETF,RMINING THE ACTION IS

EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (PL 25-0070)
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2025, the Director of Community Development issued a Determination and Noncompliance Notification indicating that the legal, nonconforming use for a metal processing and/or recycling activities at a property located at 8530 Alameda Street ("Subject Property") has been abandoned/discontinued and can no longer be conducted, and that the use of the Subject Property for truck trailer storage as a principal use unrelated to metal processing/recycling activities is not a legal, nonconforming use and must be immediately teri'ninated,
WHEREAS, on February 6, 2025, Somos Law Group ("Somos"), on behalf ofthe property owner-appellant, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP" represented by Jason Engle), timely submitted an appeal of the Director's Determination and Noncompliance Notification for the Subject Property. The Appellant requested to allow for the continued use of truck trailer and container storage facility at 8530 Alameda Street, a use which is prohibited at that location by the South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC"); and
WHEREAS, the Appellant challenged the Director's Determination on the following grounds:

1. The Director's Determination is unsupported by the South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC") in the following manners:
a. The Director improperly differentiated ancillary from primary uses; b. The immediate termination of an existing use is inconsistent with the SGMC and the General Plan; and,
c. The Director's Determination violates codified procedural requirements;

2. TheCity'smanagementofthelegalnonconformingusegivesrisetosubstantive and procedural due process concerns;

3. Termination of the Iegal nonconforming use is a de facto regulatory taking; and,

4. The City's failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.

WHEREAS, pursuant to California Governrnent Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission duly noticed and agendized a public hearing on this matter on February 27, 2025; and Page l of 4
5241340.1-L235.37
49 WHEREAS, pursuant to California Governrnent Code Section 65854, the Planning Coinmission conducted the public hearing on this matter on March 18, 2025, and adopted Resolution No. 2025-04 denying the appeal request; WHEREAS, on April 7, 2025, the applicant filed an application (PL 25-0070) to appeal the Planning Coinmission's determination to the City Council; WHEREAS, pursuant to California Governi'nent Code Section 65854, the Planning Cormnission duly noticed and agendized a public hearing on this matter on March 27, 2025; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65854, the City Council conducted the public hearing on this matter on April 22, 2025.

WHEREAS, the City Council, after conducting the public hearing and having considered all testimony and other evidence submitted in connection therewith, makes the following findings:

1. The Subject Property had been used by Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP") and/or Jack Engel & Company ("JECO") from approximately 1973 through March 2020 for recycling/metal processing activities. Although the main metal processing occurred within a building or structure located on the Subject Property, it also included the use of trucks to take metal to the Subject Property for processing, and to disburse the processed metal thereafter - which necessitated said trucks being parked and/or temporarily stored at the Subject Property for these uses.

2. Inl988,theCityamendeditsZoningCode,inpart,torequireaConditionalUsePermit for recycling facilities - thereby making the recycling/metal processing use at the Subject Property legal, nonconforming.

3. On or about April 28, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2323, which further amended the South Gate Zoning Code and changed the zoning designation of the Subject Property to Industrial Flex ("IF") Zone - thereby further making the recycling/metal processing use at the Subject Property legal, nonconforming.

4. In or around March 2020, the owner of the Subject Property, AEP, voluntarily demolished the structure that was used for the recycling/metal processing activities, and all other activities associated with the recycling/metal processing use ceased at that time.

5. In or around March 2020, Fleet Yards, Inc. ("Fleet") commenced utilizing the Subject Property for the storage of truck trailers and/or containers as a principal use not related to any recycling/metal processing activities.

6. In July 2020, Fleet was issued Temporary Use Permit TUP 2020-01 by the City authorizing the use of the Subject Property for "truck storage for a one-year period of time with possible extensions up to amaximum of five years from the date of approval." TUP 2020-01 expired on July 16, 2021- without a request from Fleet to renew.

7. Notwithstanding an untimely request by Fleet to renew TUP 2020-01, South Gate Municipal Code Section 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

Page 2 of 4 ends

AS13772.0860893 4932-9492-6885vl
50 year.

8. PursuanttoSGMCll.55.040(D),anyindustrialnonconfori'ninguseorstructuretl'iatis wholly discontinued or abandoned for a continuous period of two calendar years loses its legal, nonconfonning status, and all subsequent uses of the property shall conform to current provisions of the South Gate Zoning Code.

9. The Director sufficiently considered the factors set forth in SGMC 1 1.55.040(D) in the determination that the recycling/metal processing use at the Subject Property had been discontinued and/or abandoned for a continuous period of at least two calendar years, and that any use of the Subject Property must adhere to the current Zoning Code. lO.Notwithstanding the Planning Corni'nission's decision to uphold the Director's Determination, the City Council has considered all factors set forth in SGMC 1 1.55.040(D) and all other evidence submitted in connection with this public hearing, and concurs that the recycling/metal processing use had been discontinued and/or abandoned for a continuous period of at least two calendar years, and that any use of the Subject Property must adhere to the current Zoning Code.

11. The City Council concurs with the Plaru'iing Commission's decision to uphold the Director's Deteri'nination, and independently determines, that the current use of the Subject Property for truck trailer storage unrelated to recycling or metal processing activities is not a legal nonconforming use, and, therefore, is not subject to the provisions of SGMC Chapter 11.55 ("Nonconforming Uses and Buildings").

12. The current use of the Subject Property for the storage of trucks, truck-trailers, and/or storage containers is considered a "truck storage/terminar' as that term is defined by SGMC §11.60.230 to mean "indoor or outdoor site for freight, truck terminals, truck storage yards, or similar cotnrnercial facilities." 13, "Truck storage/ten'ninal" use is not authorized or allowed by the SGMC on any land within the Industrial Flex (IF) zone, of which the Subject Property is a part.

14. The use of the Subject Property as a truck storage/terminal must immediately cease.

15. The City Council rejects the Appellant's contentions that the Appellant's due process rights have been violated or that the termination of the right to continue a legal, nonconforming use that has been abandoned or discontinued constitutes an illegal regulatory taking.

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

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals of this Resolution are true and correct, and are incorporated herein.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that the subject decision qualifies for a categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15321, (Class 21) "Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies," in that the City is enforcing its municipal code.

Page 3 of 4 ends

AS13772.0860893 4932-9492-6885vl
51 SECTION 3. The City Council ofthe City of South Gate, pursuant to the facts noted above, does hereby uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to uphold the deteri'nination of the Director of Comi'nunity Development, and independently finds, that the legal, nonconforming use for metal processing and/or recycling activities at a property located at 8530 Alameda Street have been abandoned and can no longer be conducted at the Subject Property, and that the use of the Subject Property for truck trailer storage ("truck storage/terminal") as a use unrelated to metal processing/recycling activities is not a legal, nonconforming use and must be imi'nediately terminated.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution which shall be effective upon its adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED on this 22nd day of April 2025.

CITY OF SOUTH GATE:

By:

Maria Davila, Mayor
ATTEST:

B7:

Yodit Glaze, City Clerk
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BY:

Raul F. Salinas, City Attorney

Page 4 of 4 ends

AS13772.0860893 4932-9492-6885vl
52 RESOLUTION N0. 2025-04

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF SOUTH GATE, ST ATE OF CAI,IFORNIA, DENYING AN

APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT'S DETERMINATION AND NONCOMPLIANCE

NOTIFICATION REGARDING RECYCLING/METAL
PROCESSING AND TRUCK TRAILER STORAGE AT 8530
ALAMEDA STREET, AND DETERMmING THE ACTION IS

EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2025, the Director of Community Development issued a Detennination and Noncompliance Notification indicating that the legal, nonconforming use for a metal processing and/or recycling activities at a property located at 8530 Alameda Street ("Subject Property") has been abandoned/discontinued and can no longer be conducted, and that the use of the Subject Property for truck trailer storage as a principal use unrelated to metal processing/recycling activities is not a legal, nonconforming use and must be immediately terminated; and
WHEREAS, onFebruary 6, 2025, Somos Law Group ("Somos"), on behalf ofthe property owner-appellant, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP" represented by Jason Engle), timely submitted an appeal of the Director's Determination and Noncompliance Notification for the Subject Property. The Appellant requested to allow for the continued use of truck trailer and container storage facility at 8530 Alameda Street, a use which is prohibited at that location by the South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC"); and
WHEREAS, the Appellant challenges the Director's Determination on the following grounds:

2. TheCity'smanagementofthelegalnonconformingusegivesrisetosubstantive and procedural due process concerns;

3. Termination of the legal nonconforming use is a de facto regulatory taking; and,

4. The City's failure to comply with the California Enviroru'nental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.

WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65854, the Plaru'iing Corni'nission duly noticed and agendized a public hearing on this matter on Februaiy 27, 2025; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission conducted the public hearing on this matter on March 18, 2025.

Pagelof4
5241340.1-L235.37

ATTACHMENT B
53 WHEREAS, the Planning Coinmission, after conducting the public hearing and having considered all testimony and other evidence submitted in connection therewith, makes the following findings:

2. Inl988,theCityamendeditsZoningCode,inpart,torequireaConditionalUsePermit for recycling facilities - thereby making the recycling/metal processing use at the Subject Property legal, nonconforming.

3. On or about April 28, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2323, which 'further amended the South Gate Zoning Code and changed the zoning designation of the Subject Property to Industrial Flex ("IF") Zone - thereby further making the recycling/metal processing use at the Subject Property legal, nonconforming.

6. In July 2020, Fleet was issued Temporary Use Permit TUP 2020-01 by the City authorizing the use of the Subject Property for "truck storage for a one-year period of time withpossible extensions up to amaximum of five years from the date of approval." TUP 2020-01 expired on July 16, 2021- without a request from Fleet to renew.

8. Pursuant to SGMC 11.55.040(D), any industrial nonconforming use or structure that is wholly discontinued or abandoned for a continuous period of two calendar years loses its legal, nonconforming status, and all subsequent uses of the property shall conform to current provisions of the South Gate Zoning Code.

Page 2 of 4 ends

AS13772.0860893 4932-9492-6885vl 54
and that any use of the Subject Property must adhere to the current Zoning Code. lO.Notwithstanding the Director's Determination, the Planning Coininission has considered all factors set forth in SGMC 1 1.55.040(D) and all other evidence submitted in connection with this public hearing, and concurs that the recycling/metal processing use had been discontinued and/or abandoned for a continuous period of at least two calendar years, and that any use of the Subject Property must adhere to the current Zoning Code.

11. The Planning Commission concurs with the Director's Determination, and independently deternnines, that the current use of the Subject Property for truck trailer storage unrelated to recycling or metal processing activities is not a legal nonconforming use, and, therefore, is not subject to the provisions of SGMC Chapter

11.55 ("Nonconforming Uses and Buildings").

12. The current use of the Subject Property for the storage of trucks, truck-trailers, and/or storage containers is considered a "truck storage/terminal" as that teri'n is defined by SGMC §11.60.230 to mean "indoor or outdoor site for freight, truck teiminals, truck storage yards, or similar commercial facilities."

13. "Truck storage/ten'ninal" use is not authorized or allowed by the SGMC on any land within the Industrial Flex (IF) zone, of which the Subject Property is a part.

14. The use of the Subject Property as a truck storage/terminal must irni'nediately cease.

15. The Planning Commission rejects the Appellant's contentions that the Appellant's due process rights have been violated or that the termination of the right to continue a legal, nonconforming use that has been abandoned or discontinued constitutes an illegal regulatory taking.

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

SECTION 1. The Planning Commission hereby finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals of this Resolution are true and correct, and are incorporated herein.

SECTION 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the subject decision qualifies for a categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15321, (Class 21) "Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies," in that the City is enforcing its municipal code.

SECTION 3. The Planning Commission of the City of South Gate, pursuant to the facts noted above, does hereby uphold the decision of the Director of Community Development, and independently finds, that the legal, nonconforming use for metal processing and/or recycling activities at a property located at 8530 Alameda Street have been abandoned and can no longer be conducted at the Subject Property, and that the use of the Subject Property for truck trailer storage ("truck storage/terminal") as a use unrelated to metal processing/recycling activities is not a legal, nonconforming use and must be immediately terminated.

Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-04
March 18, 2025

Page 3 of 4 ends

AS13772.0860893 4932-9492-6885vl 55
This action was adopted by the following vote at the Planning Commission meeting of March 18, 2025.

AYES: Prieto, Ruiz, Ozaeta
NOES:

ABSENT: Laborin
APPROVED and ADOPTED this 18I'1 of March 2025.

Jo F. Signo,
Pl&ng manager
APPROVED:

Ci Planning Corni'nission
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-04
March 18, 2025

Page 4 of 4 ends

AS13772.0860893 4932-9492-6885vl 56
Law Group
-i-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025- 04
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

SOMOS LAW GROUP LLP
ALFRED FRAIJO, JR. (SBN 221973)
[email protected]
IAN M. FORREST (SBN 240403)
[email protected]
SARA ATSBAHA (SBN 310049)
[email protected]
SARAH JANE M. LONGALONG (SBN 356305)
[email protected]
304 South Broadway Street, Suite 350
Los Angeles, California 90013
Tel.: 213.592.1185 | Fax: 213.620.5759
Attorneys for Appellant

ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL

FOR THE CITY OF SOUTH GATE
In the matter of the appeal of:

CITY OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04,

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING

COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH

GATE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DENYING

AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE

DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT’S DETERMINATION

AND NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION

REGARDING RECYCLING/METAL

PROCESSING AND TRUCK TRAILER
STORAGE AT 8530 ALAMEDA STREET,

AND DETERMINING THE ACTION IS

EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

APPELLANT ALAMEDA ENGLE
PROPERTIES, LLC’S APPEAL OF CITY

OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-
04 ATTACHMENT C
57 Law Group

-ii-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025- 04
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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 1 A. Historical Use of the Subject Property................................................................... 1 B. City Zoning Change and Legal Non-Conforming Use Status ............................... 3 C. AEP Leases the Subject Property to Fleet Yards in Reliance on the LNCU Determination and City’s Issuance and Assurances Regarding a Temporary Use Permit for the Subject Property.................................................... 4 D. The City Denies To Extend The TUP .................................................................... 5 E. The City’s Determination Regarding LNCU at the Subject Property ................... 8 F. AEP’s Zone Change / General Plan Amendment Application ............................ 13 G. City Planning Commission Resolutions 2025-04 and 2025-05 ........................... 14 III. ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................................. 16 A. The Director’s Determination And PC Res. 2025-04 Failed To Follow Applicable Provisions Of The SGMC And Are Arbitrary And Capricious Violations Of Constitutional Requirements Of Substantive And Procedural Due Process ....................................................................................... 17

1. The SGMC’s Requirements ..................................................................... 18

2. The SGMC does not permit the City to bifurcate different the LNCU into component parts in order to justify a finding of LNCU ....... 19

3. The two-year period cited by the City is inaccurate and does not support the determination of abandonment.............................................. 21

5. The City met none of its requisite evidentiary burdens under SGMC §11.55.040.D.2 in support of determination that AEP abandoned its LNCU................................................................................ 23 58 Law Group

-iii-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025- 04
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

B. The City Violated AEP’s Rights To Due Process And Deprived AEP Of A Fair And Impartial Adjudicatory Proceeding................................................... 24

2. The City allowed AEP insufficient time to respond to the arguments by the City Prosecutor at the March 18, 2025 Planning Commission Hearing ............................................................................... 26 C. The City’s Re-Zoning And Termination Of The LNCU For The Subject Property Are A De Facto Regulatory Taking ...................................................... 26

2. PC Res. 2025-04 cuts off access to AEP property in LA County contiguous with the Subject Property, resulting in an
unconstitutional regulatory taking without just compensation ................ 28 D. The City Has Not Considered The Environmental Consequences Resulting From The Termination Of The Existing Land Use In Favor Of Alternative Land Uses Inconsistent With The Requirements Of CEQA ............. 29 E. The City Director’s Determination Makes For Poor Public Policy And Is Inconsistent With The SGMC’s “Encouraged” Phasing Out Of LNCU Prescribed In SGMC And GP .............................................................................. 30 IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 32

59 Law Group

-1-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the City of South Gate Municipal Code (“SGMC”) Section 11.50.040, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC (“AEP”) appeals the City of South Gate Planning Commission’s (“Planning Commission”) Resolution No. 2025-04, A Resolution Of The Planning Commission Of The City Of South Gate, State Of California, Denying An Appeal And Upholding The Director Of Community Development’s Determination And Noncompliance Notification Regarding Recycling/Metal Processing And Truck Trailer Storage At 8530 Alameda Street, And Determining The Action Is Exempt From The California Environmental Quality Act (“PC Res. 2025-04,” Exhibit 1). PC Res. 2025-04 upholds the City Director of Community Development’s (“Director”) determination and noncompliance notification regarding the metal recycling/processing and truck trailer storage at 8530 Alameda Street (“Subject Property”), determines that the Planning Commission’s action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, asserts that the legal, nonconforming use (“LNCU”) for a metal processing and/or recycling activities located on the Subject Property has been abandoned/discontinued and can no longer be conducted, and that the use of the Subject Property for truck trailer storage as a principal use unrelated to metal processing/recycling activities is not a LNCU and must be immediately terminated.

As discussed below, the determinations of the Planning Commission and Director in PC Res. 2025-04 are in error, are not supported by reference to fact or applicable law and should be reversed by the City Council.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Historical Use of the Subject Property

1. Jack and Rose Engle, as husband and wife, owned and operated Jack Engle & Company (“JECO”). Since the early 1960s, JECO operated on 8440 S. Alameda Street in unincorporated Los Angeles County. In 1973, JECO acquired the 8530 Alameda Avenue (“Subject Property”) from Firestone Tire and Rubber Company and expanded its metal processing operations on the Subject Property.
60 Law Group

-2-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

2. The metal processing operations on the Subject Property included shipment of unprocessed scrap metal to the Subject Property via truck and trailers. When a container would arrive at the JECO facilities, the industrial scrap metal would be unloaded, weighed, graded, and sorted into like kind materials, and stored on site.

3. The storage of truck trailers and containers have consistently been central to the business, particularly in the collection, processing, storage, and shipment of industrial scrap metals.

4. JECO’s suppliers would generate on average between 6 and 11 million pounds of scrap metal per month. This volume of material could not be processed in a matter of days or weeks. These materials would necessarily be stored onsite in truck trailers and in different containers until there was a sufficient amount for processing. These truck trailers and containers holding processed and unprocessed scrap metal were stored on the Subject Property for months or longer as necessary. Such storage has always been a critical part of JECO’s operations.

5. JECO stored its own truck trailers and containers, as well as truck trailers and containers owner by others. At any given time, the Subject Property could be storing dozens of truck trailers, hundreds of medium-to-large roll-off containers comparable in size to shipping containers, as well as thousands of smaller containers which would be consolidated into the larger containers and truck trailers for shipment.

6. JECO would frequently use its own truck trailers and containers to purchase and store scrap metal materials at the Subject Property. For example, JECO purchased material from the City of South Gate as a supplier, who itself used JECO’s services from 2002 through 2019.

7. Whether the materials were stored in truck trailers or other containers was determined by the product’s end destination (international or domestic), and whether the material was to travel by rail, sea, or truck. The logistics of international shipping and the different requirements for international ports of entry required the onsite storage of materials at the Subject Property for a longer duration than domestic shipments. International shipments also often required inspectors to enter the Subject Property to inspect the shipments extending 61 Law Group

-3-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

the duration of onsite storage of the processed materials in truck trailers and containers.

8. In the case of either domestic or international shipments, truck trailers and containers would be loaded and stored onsite at the JECO facility until a truck driver was scheduled to retrieve the materials with a specific time slot booked with the appropriate shipping port or rail line. Given the continuous movement and coordination, truck trailers and containers were consistently stored onsite at the Subject Property and such truck trailers and containers constituted as integral and essential a part of JECO’s operations as the metal processing itself. Indeed, no metal recycling operations would have been possible without the storage of these truck trailers and containers and this practice is consistent with industry standards for comparable metal processing operations nation-wide.

9. In 2009, Jack and Rose Engle’s son, Alan Engle, acquired the Subject Property under his company, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC (“AEP”), to continue the family business.

B. City Zoning Change and Legal Non-Conforming Use Status

10. In 2015, the City of South Gate (“City”) changed the zoning of the Subject Property from M3 (Heavy Manufacturing) to Industrial Flex (“IF”).

11. At the same time, the City also included the Subject Property in the South Gate College District as indicated in the City’s General Plan.

12. Consequently, when the property was appraised in 2015, a City representative from the City’s Planning Department asserted the Subject Property was a storage yard in the IF zone of South Gate, but was a pre-existing, legal nonconforming or “grandfathered” use given the Subject Property’s recent zone change from M3 to IF. (“Syn-Mar 2015 Appraisal Report,” Exhibit 3 at Page 19.)

13. This assertion was repeated in 2017, when another appraiser report indicated that a City representative asserted that “the subject as a storage yard in the industrial flex zone of South Gate is reportedly now a pre-existing, legal, non-conforming use (“grandfathered” use).” (“Syn-Mar 2017 Appraisal Report,” Exhibit 4 at Page17.)

62 Law Group

-4-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

C. AEP Leases the Subject Property to Fleet Yards in Reliance on the LNCU Determination and City’s Issuance and Assurances Regarding a Temporary Use Permit for the Subject Property

14. In March of 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 Pandemic, AEP ceased recycling and processing metal but continued to own and operate the Subject Property for truck trailer and container storage and delivery. While this change continued a primary use of the Subject Property for the purposes of the LNCU, the cessation of the metals recycling decreased the intensity of any environmental burdens associated with the Subject Property.

15. In early 2020, AEP leased the Subject Property to its current tenant, Fleet Yards.

16. In or around April 2020, the City (via then Director for Community Development, Joe Perez) and AEP began discussions regarding the City’s goals for the Subject Property, wherein the City errantly required AEP and Fleet Yards to obtain a Temporary Use Permit (“TUP”) for the Subject Property. The City’s stated purpose for the TUP was to allow the City to explore ways to encourage the development of education facilities at or around the Subject Property.

17. In those discussions, the City made commitments to AEP and Fleet Yards, reiterated on numerous occasions, that the TUP would be extended annually and that the City would administer additional extensions in the future.

18. AEP and Fleet Yards reasonably relied on the City’s representations regarding the TUP when making critical business decisions and investments in the Subject 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.

19. AEP engaged in these discussions with the City in good faith notwithstanding the fact that the long-standing uses of the site, including truck trailer and container storage, were vested LNCU under the law. Indeed, truck trailer and container storage at the Subject Property was not expressly discussed in relation to the TUP. The City did not address the LNCU issue at that time, nor did it suggest AEP or Fleet Yards pursue an appropriate entitlement, such as a Development Agreement (“DA”) or Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”). 63 Law Group

-5-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

20. On July 16, 2020, the City issued the TUP to Fleet Yards for its truck trailer use on the Subject Property, subject to six conditions:
(i) the approved temporary use for the site of 8530 Alameda Street is restricted to truck trailer storage only. No other outdoor storage is permitted including truck storage. No other use is permitted without the written authorization from the City; (ii) the temporary use is approved for a term of one year, set to expire on July 16, 2021. A new application must be submitted at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date if an extension is desired. Additional one-year extensions will be considered for approval for up to a maximum period of 5 years from the original approval date of July 16, 2020.

Additional extensions will be determined based on compliance with said conditions and written verification from the property owner that he/she/they/is/are in process of developing the land, selling the land and/or working with the Los Angeles Community College or a developer on a housing development project; (iii) egress and ingress shall only be via Alameda street …. No other truck or trailers traveling to or from the site shall be allowed to drive upon any South Gate streets other than Alameda Street;
(iv) Operations shall be limited … as to the number, size and height of truck trailers that will be stored on site;
(v) any violations of these conditions or City Laws could result in the revocation of this Temporary Use Permit No. TUP2020-01; and
(vi) all conditions for a Temporary Use Permit No. TUP2020-01, shall be agreed to by the property owner in the form of a signed and notarized affidavit. (“ J. Perez’s letter to D. Otting dated July 16, 2020,” Exhibit 5.) D. The City Denies To Extend The TUP

21. Despite the substantial disruptions to the City’s administration caused by and during the COVID-19 pandemic and despite the assurances given to AEP and Fleet Yards during the TUP negotiations in 2020, Fleet Yard’s July 11, 2022 TUP renewal request was 64 Law Group

-6-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

denied as untimely by Meredith Elguira, City Director of Community Development, successor to Joe Perez. (“M. Elguira letter to T. Newcomer dated December 20, 2022,” Exhibit 6; “E.Martinez email to City dated December 23, 2022”, Exhibit 7.)

22. The initial TUP revocation failed to consider the significant impacts on local businesses and timely government services resulting from and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

On or around October 5, 2022, the City agreed to provide a one (1) year extension in order to provide AEP with enough time for [AEP] to go through [the City’s] process. (See Exhibit 7.)

23. On December 20, 2022 however, the City abruptly changed course and denied the TUP extension for the storage of trucks and containers at the Subject Property on the grounds that the City erred in originally issuing the TUP and a new City assertion that the LNCU of truck and container storage at the Subject Property had been abandoned. Specifically, the City agued the TUP was only valid for one year, and a TUP extension could not be reissued because:
(i) that the City had erred in issuing the TUP because SGMC § 11.51.070(B)(4) restricts temporary use permits to a maximum of three consecutive days or ten working days in any calendar year, rendering the one-year duration unauthorized; (ii) the business (Fleet Yards) failed to obtain the required business license; (iii) Fleet Yards failed to submit a renewal application within the required time frame; and (iv) under SGMC § 11.55.040, any prior nonconforming industrial use is deemed discontinued and cannot be resumed because the site was not used for such purposes for over two consecutive calendar years.

In conclusion, the City directed all truck trailer and container storage to be vacated and that the site be maintained as a vacant lot. (See Exhibit 6.)

24. On December 23, 2022, a representative for AEP and Fleet Yards contested the Director’s decision and appealed the TUP denial. (See Exhibit 7.)

25. On January 12, 2023, the City Manager formally denied AEP’s and Fleet Yard’s request for an extension of the TUP and extending the appeal period to January 30, 2023. (“C. 65 Law Group

-7-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

Jeffers’s TUP Denial Letter to D. Otting dated January 12, 2023,” Exhibit 8.)

26. On January 26, 2023, AEP timely appealed the Director’s denial of the TUP to the South Gate City Planning Commission (“CPC” or “Planning Commission”). (J. Engle Appeal Letter to C. Jeffers dated January 26, 2023,” Exhibit 9.)

27. On or around April 27, 2023, prior to the hearing on the appeal, the City asserted the issue of LNCU was not related to the TUP extension and would not be considered as part of the TUP hearing. However, this is in direct contradiction to the City’s December 20, 2022 correspondence wherein the TUP extension was denied, at least in part, based on the City’s assertion that the LNCU had been abandoned.

28. AEP responded that same day, pointing out that:
(i) the LNCU issues were cited as a primary reason for the denial of the TUP extension; (ii) that the LNCU of truck trailer and container storage had been legally established through decades of continuous operation;
(iii) that the TUP was only pursued and issued at the City’s request and after assurances that the truck and trailer storage at the Subject Property would be allowed to continue; (iv) that Fleet Yards had substantially complied with the TUP conditions and that any delay in renewal was due to COVID-19-related disruptions; and (v) that the City’s refusal to extend the TUP, issue zoning clearance, or acknowledge the LNCU contradicted prior City representations and misapplied the SGMC.

Accordingly, AEP requested that the City either formally recognize the truck trailer storage as a LNCU or, alternatively, reverse the Director’s denial of the TUP extension. (AEP’s Appeal of Director’s Denial of TUP Extension dated April 27, 2023,” Exhibit 10.)

29. On May 2, 2023, the CPC denied AEP’s appeal of the Director’s denial of the TUP extension in a close 3-2 decision. At the hearing, the City made numerous factual and legal misstatements regarding the LNCU of truck trailer and container storage at the Subject Property, including:
(i) that the LNCU was not “legally established”;
66 Law Group

-8-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

(ii) that the LNCU doctrine was inapplicable because the operations “don’t look like” the historic photos; and
(iii) that the SGMC requirements for the truck trailer and container storage applicable from approximately 1980 until 2015 were applicable to the Subject Property’s operations, instead of the correct SGMC requirements from 1973 when truck trailer and container storage operations on the Subject Property legally commenced.

The misstatements and legal errors were not addressed or corrected by the City. (See Exhibit 10; “AEP’s Appeal of CPC’s Denial of TUP Extension dated May 16, 2023,” Exhibit

11.)

30. Rather, instead of making a determination on the truck trailer and storage as a LNCU, the City instructed staff to work with AEP to find a solution. AEP, via its counsel, immediately conferred with the City to discuss a path forward for the LNCU at the Subject Property, continuing those conversations with the City Attorney’s office and submitting evidence of truck trailer and container storage at the Subject Property dating back to the early 1970s.

31. On May 16, 2023, AEP timely appealed the CPC’s determination in order to ensure exhaustion of its administrative remedies, but with the intent of continuing discussions with the City regarding the LNCU at the Subject Property. (See Exhibit 11.)

32. Also on May 16, 2023, the City asserted to the AEP that an appeal of the TUP decision to the City Council was “not available” notwithstanding the appeal provisions in the SGMC. (“M. Elguira’s letter to A. Engle re Denial of Request by AEP for Extension of TUP dated May 16, 2023,” Exhibit 12.)

33. In or around May 2023, AEP’s appeal of the TUP extension to the City Council were stayed pending the City’s determination regarding the Subject Property’s LNCU.

E. The City’s Determination Regarding LNCU at the Subject Property

34. On May 21, 2023 and in support of the discussions between the City and AEP surrounding the LNCU, AEP submitted a Public Records Act request (PRA) to the City to 67 Law Group

-9-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

gather evidence to demonstrate the longstanding LNCU at the property. The PRA requested records related to zoning, land use, and permitting for the Subject Property including:
(i) certificates of occupancy issued between 1970 and 2014; (ii) zoning codes and maps in effect from 1973 through 2014; (iii) administrative and discretionary permits issued through 2020; (iv) documents and communications related to the 2015 zoning code amendments and the 2020 TUP; and
(v) correspondence between City officials and individuals or entities affiliated with the Subject Property.
(“S. Atsbaha’s Email to R. Larios re PRA Submittal dated May 21, 2023,” Exhibit 13.)

35. On July 5, 2023, after numerous follow up inquiries and diligence by AEP’s counsel, the City responded with certain documents responsive to the PRA request. As a result of the City’s delays and lack of communication, AEP’s counsel was not able to complete its legal arguments demonstrating the Subject Property’s LNCU until August 17, 2023. (See Exhibit 14.)

36. On August 17, 2023, via its counsel, AEP requested a formal determination from the City that truck trailer and container storage at the Subject Property be recognized as a LNCU under the SGMC. In support of which, AEP asserted:
(i) The current use of the Subject Property for truck trailer and container storage had been ongoing since 1973 as an integral and necessary practice associated with the metal processing operations conducted by JECO.
(ii) No separate entitlement or CUP was required for truck and container storage as evidenced by the historic zoning code and SGMC provisions in place in 1973 that allowed such activities by right within the M-3 Heavy Manufacturing zone. (iii) The City’s own records, including Certificates of Occupancy and decades of business licenses identified metal manufacturing and outdoor storage, confirming that the use was legally established and did not require a CUP or any other entitlement under the 68 Law Group

-10-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

applicable version of the SGMC.
(iv) The City’s historic practice did not require listing every component of a primary or by- right use on business permits until 1993, and the failure to separately list truck trailer and container storage did not negate its longstanding legality. (v) The City had both direct and constructive notice of this use for decades, and was even a client of the Subject Property from 2002 until 2019.
(vi) The truck trailer and container storage at the Subject Property was not incidental, but rather essential to the core functions of the metal processing business at the Subject Property.
(vii) The storage of truck trailers and containers had never been abandoned or discontinued for the two-year period required to extinguish nonconforming rights under SGMC §

11.55.040, and that substantial documentary evidence—such as utility records, photographs, business licenses, and operational logs—confirmed this uninterrupted use. (viii) Even assuming a change in certain operations, current activities by JECO and/or Fleet Yards were substantially similar to the historic use of the Subject Property and fall within the City’s discretion to preserve or authorize minor, incidental modifications to existing LNCUs, as supported by SGMC § 11.55.030 and relevant case law. (“A. Fraijo Jr.’s Letter re Demonstration of Legal Nonconforming Use Letter to M. Elguira dated August 17, 2023,” Exhibit 15.)

37. AEP requested to preserve truck trailer and container storage on the Property as a LNCU, or, in the alternative, have the City exercise its authority to continue allowing the use under its discretion to protect AEP’s substantially similar or negligible expansions of historically permitted operations. (See Exhibit 15.)

38. On October 4, 2023, via counsel and again at the request of the City, AEP submitted proposed terms to the City Manager for a Development Agreement (“DA”) to address the City’s concerns regarding the use of the property, provide a framework for municipal oversight and future development, and resolve the City’s erroneous 2020 requirement that Fleet 69 Law Group

-11-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

Yards obtain a TUP. (“Settlement Agreement Term Sheet to the City dated October 4, 2023,” Exhibit 16.)

39. On November 3, 2023, despite the City’s May 16, 2023 letter denying AEP the ability to appeal, the City advised that it now would allow AEP to appeal the CPC’s May 2, 2023 denial determination for a TUP renewal. (“J. Eckart Letter to AEP re Denial of Extension of Temporary Use Permit dated November 3, 2023,” Exhibit 17.)

40. On November 15, 2023, AEP submitted its “Appeal & Determination of Legal Nonconforming Use” to the City as requested. (“A. Fraijo Jr. Letter to Mayor P. Avalos re Request for Appeal and Determination of Legal Nonconforming Use dated November 15, 2023,” Exhibit 18.)

41. On or around November 16, 2023, the City informed AEP’s counsel that the City misplaced the appeal documents and accompanying check for the appeal fees. Despite the fact that it had already been timely submitted on November 15, 2023, on December 15, 2023, the City requested that the appeal and supporting documentation be re-submitted by December 18, 2023 to assist the City’s determination regarding the LNCU of the truck trailer and container storage at the Subject Property. On December 18, 2023, the AEP complied with the City’s request and re-submitted its appeal of the CPC’s determination denial of the TUP renewal to the City (“J. Eckart letter to S. Atsbaha re Resubmittal of Appeal Packet and New Payment of Appeal Fees dated December 15, 2023,” Exhibit 19.) On December 18, 2023, the AEP re- submitted its appeal of the CPC’s determination denial of the TUP renewal to the City. (“Receipt re Somos Appeal Payment Fees to City dated December 18, 2023,” Exhibit 20.)

42. On January 4, 2024 and pursuant to the City’s request, AEP submitted supplemental documentation of the LNCU at the Subject Property. This supplemental documentation included:
(i) A comprehensive record of materials previously provided on April 27, May 16, August 17, and November 15, 2023, establishing that truck trailer and container storage had been a LNCU at the Subject Property since the early 1970s. 70 Law Group

-12-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

(ii) A timeline of operations by JECO and Fleet Yards, and description of all responsive City-issued business licenses, entitlements, and regulatory permits. (iii) An explanation regarding AEP’s inability to obtain an auxiliary business license due to the City’s own requirement for a zoning clearance, which the City would not grant absent a determination on the LNCU issue.
(iv) Notation of the City’s lack of response to the proposed DA terms submitted on October 4, 2023, which the AEP intended to address the City’s concerns, provide for municipal oversight, establish a pathway for future development of the Property, and remedy the City’s errant requirement for a TUP in 2020, and emphasis that while the prior City Manager declined to meet to discuss the DA, AEP remained willing to engage with the City’s new leadership at the earliest opportunity to pursue a collaborative resolution. (“A. Fraijo Jr.’s letter to M. Elguira re Supplemental Documentation of Legal Nonconforming Use dated January 4, 2024,” Exhibit 21.)

43. Between January and June of 2024, the City indicated that a settlement agreement regarding the future of the Subject Property may be possible. The City requested that AEP submit proposed terms for the agreement during conversations that occurred between counsel for the AEP and the City.

44. On June 19, 2024, via counsel and at the City’s request, AEP proposed a settlement agreement in an attempt to resolve the outstanding determination regarding the LNCU. (“S. Atsbaha email to R. Salinas re Settlement Agreement Terms dated June 19, 2024,” Exhibit 22.)

45. Based on multiple conversations with the City and at the City’s request, AEP submitted several discussion proposals intended to correct the City’s prior error in requiring a TUP for truck trailer storage at the Subject Property. These proposals included:
(i) draft terms for a potential DA;
(ii) market study to determine feasible future developments and alternate uses at the Subject Property;
71 Law Group

-13-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

(iii) identification of potential third-party partnerships consistent with the goals of the City’s General Plan;
(iv) a medium-term phase-out of the existing use; and
(v) a proposed timeline with measurable milestones to guide redevelopment of the Subject Property and facilitate transition to an alternative use. The proposed timeline was modeled on the phase-out language included in the City’s General Plan. (“S. Atsbaha letter to City regarding Proposed Solution Summary based on conversations with the City dated March 17, 2025,” Exhibit 23.)
F. AEP’s Zone Change / General Plan Amendment Application

46. On October 14, 2024, AEP submitted an Application for a Zone Change (ZC) and General Plan Amendment (GPA) for the property based on the recommendation of the City. (“S. Atsbaha email submittal re ZC and GPA to City Planning dated October 14, 2024,” Exhibit 24; “ZC and GPA Application submitted to City dated October 14, 2024,” Exhibit 25; “AEP’s letter to R. Houston re Application for Zone Change and General Plan Amendment dated October 18, 2024,” Exhibit 26.)

47. The GPA/ZC Application would have achieved the City’s goals by adding text for structured phase-out, or alternatively reverting the Subject Property to its previous M3 designation until a viable use or development partner could be identified. (See Exhibit 25.)

48. Despite continued and numerous efforts by AEP’s representatives and counsel, the City did not acknowledge its receipt of the GPA/ZC Application until January 2, 2025. (“AEP’s outreach efforts to City regarding the ZC/GPA from October 18, 2024 to December 2, 2024,” Exhibit 27.)

49. On January 21, 2025, the City determined the longstanding LNCU at the Subject Property to have been abandoned and can no longer be conducted at the Site. (“D. Crabtree’s Letter to AEP re Director’s Determination and Noncompliance Notification dated January 21, 2025,” Exhibit 28.)

50. On or about January 23, 2025, AEP responded to the Director’s determination 72 Law Group

-14-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

and noncompliance notification indicating its surprise to receive the letter in light of the City’s indication that the delays to its consideration of the pending Development Agreement (“DA”) and pending entitlement applications for a Zone Change (“ZC”) and General Plan Amendment (“GPA”) prepared and provided at the City’s request. (A. Fraijo Jr.’s Letter to D. Crabtree re Director’s Determination and Noncompliance Notification dated January 23, 2025,” Exhibit

29.)

51. On January 28, 2025, the City requested additional information and noted that additional City departments were reviewing the ZC/GPA Amendment and provide additional comments. The City requested that the additional information be submitted by February 3, 2025, and, provided the project cleared departmental review, the matter could be scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on March 4, 2025. (“J. Signo’s letter to S.

Atsbaha regarding AEP’s Request for Zone Change Designation from Industrial Flex (IF) to Heavy Manufacturing (M3) dated January 28,2025,” Exhibit 30.)

52. On February 3, 2025, via counsel, AEP responded to the City’s January 28, 2025 letter and submitted the additionally requested information, including:
(i) a check in the amount of $8,423;
(ii) an amended zoning map;
(iii) an amended general plan diagram;
(iv) a radius map (along with a physical copy via FedEx for arrival that day); and (v) a Property Owners and Occupants List (also via FedEx to arrive that day). (“S. Atsbaha letter to J. Signo regarding AEP’s Request for Zone Change Designation from Industrial Flex (IF) to Heavy Manufacturing (M3),” Exhibit 31.) G. City Planning Commission Resolutions 2025-04 and 2025-05

53. On January 21, 2025, the City determined the longstanding LNCU at the Subject Property to have been abandoned. (See Exhibit 28.)

54. On February 6, 2025, AEP requested for an appeal of the Director’s Determination and Noncompliance Notification to the CPC. AEP also requested that the City 73 Law Group

-15-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

consider alternative proposals and meet with AEP. The letter set forth multiple grounds for the appeal, including:
(i) the City’s interpretation of the LNCU is inconsistent with the applicable code; (ii) the Director’s Determination does not comply with codified requirements; (iii) the General Plan requires a gradual phase-out of existing uses to avoid vacancy, and the Determination raises both substantive and procedural due process concerns; and (iv) the City failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (“A. Fraijo Jr.’s letter to D. Crabtree regarding AEP’s Request for Appeal of the Director’s Determination and Noncompliance Notification dated February 6, 2025,” Exhibit 32.)

55. On March 18, 2025, the City Planning Commission heard both AEP’s appeal from the City Director’s Determination and Noncompliance notification regarding the recycling/metal processing and truck trailer storage, as well as AEP’s ZC/GPA Amendment request to change the zoning of 8530 Alameda Street from IF to M3 (heavy manufacturing) and remove subject property from the South Gate College District as shown in the community design element of the general plan.

56. On March 20, 2025, the City circulated City Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-04 regarding the LNCU at the Subject Property, wherein the CPC’s decision included:
(i) finding that “that the subject decision qualifies for a categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15321, (Class 21) ‘Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies,’ in that the City is enforcing its municipal code”; and
(ii) upholding the decision of the Director of Community Development, and finding that “the legal, nonconforming use for metal processing and/or recycling activities at a property located at 8530 Alameda Street have been abandoned and can no longer be conducted at the Subject Property, and that the use of the Subject Property for truck trailer storage (‘track storage/terminal’) as a use unrelated to metal processing/recycling activities is not a legal, nonconforming use and must be immediately terminated.” 74 Law Group

-16-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

(“J. Eckart’s Email to AEP regarding Resolutions No. 2025-04 and 2025-05,” Exhibit 33); (See Exhibit 1 at 3) (Resolution No. 2025-04 - A Resolution Of The Planning Commission Of The City Of South Gate, State Of California, Denying An Appeal And Upholding The Director Of Community Development’s Determination And Noncompliance Notification Regarding Recycling/Metal Processing And Truck Trailer Storage At 8530 Alameda Street, And Determining The Action Is Exempt From The California Environmental Quality Act.)

57. Also on March 20, 2025, the City circulated City Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-05 regarding AEP’s ZC/GPA Application, wherein the CPC’s decision included the recommendation “that the City Council deny the request to change the zoning of a property located 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. (See Exhibit 31; Exhibit 2 at 2) (Resolution No. 2025-05 - A Resolution 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 Zoning Of A Property At 8530 Alameda Street 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.)

58. Consistent with the SGMC, AEP timely appealed: (i) CPC Resolution 2025-04 regarding the LNCU at the Subject Property; (ii) CPC Resolution 2025-05 regarding AEP’s ZC/GPA Application; and (iii) the City’s denial of a TUP extension for the Subject Property.

III. ARGUMENTS
By upholding the Director of Community Development’s determination and noncompliance notification regarding AEP’s recycling/metal processing and truck trailer storage at 8530 Alameda Street, the City acted in excess of its jurisdiction, prejudicially abused its discretion by failing to proceed in a manner required by law, and denied AEP a fair hearing, due process of law, and equal protection of the laws, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 7, of the California Constitution. The 75 Law Group

-17-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

City’s decision was both procedurally and substantively prejudiced against AEP by a number of erroneous and incomplete factual and legal assertions leading to the City’s decision to uphold the Director’s determination that the LNCU for truck trailer and container storage at the Subject property had been abandoned. PC Res. 2025-04 would also result in an unconstitutional taking of AEP property and is in violation of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Thus, the determinations of the Planning Commission and Director in PC Res. 2025-04 are in error, are not supported by reference to fact or applicable law, and should be reversed by the City Council.

A. The Director’s Determination And PC Res. 2025-04 Failed To Follow Applicable Provisions Of The SGMC And Are Arbitrary And Capricious Violations Of Constitutional Requirements Of Substantive And Procedural Due Process
AEP’s rights to substantive and procedural due process are protected by the California Constitution. See Article I, section 7, of the California Constitution. Such protections prohibit the City’s adjudication of land use issues in a manner which is arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory. See Bottini v. City of San Diego (2018) 27 Cal. App. 5th 281 (substantive due process violations require conduct that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and must have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained); Hobbs v. City of Pacific Grove (2022) 85 Cal. App. 5th 311 (substantive due process protects against arbitrary government action and requires a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest). If a City fails to proceed in a manner required by law, the City’s actions taken pursuant to such are, by definition, arbitrary, capricious, and/or discriminatory, and must be overturned. See Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506 (invalidated a city’s zoning variance because the planning commission failed to provide sufficient data to justify its decision, and emphasizing the need for adherence to legal standards in land use adjudications). Such constitutional protections prohibit the disparate treatment of one parcel, where said parcel is restricted and given lesser rights than the surrounding parcels. See Ross v.

City of Yorba Linda (1991) 1 Cal. App. 4th 954 (overturning city action where a small parcel was restricted and given fewer rights than surrounding properties, holding such zoning to be 76 Law Group

-18-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

unreasonable and oppressive).

1. The SGMC’s Requirements
SGMC Chapter 11.55 addresses Nonconforming Uses and Buildings. SGMC §

11.55.020 (Applicability) provides that “[t]he provisions of this chapter shall apply to all nonconforming buildings or uses, including outdoor activities such as product storage or parking” (emphasis added). SGMC § 11.55.030 provides, in relevant part M. Phasing of Compliance. Partial conversions of properties or buildings to bring them into better compliance with this title are permitted and encouraged. This applies to nonconforming outdoor activities such as product storage or parking. When a portion of a property, building, or use is converted to bring it into conformance in phases, the owner does not waive the right to maintain previously allowed uses of other parts of the building or property under the conditions established in this chapter (emphasis added).

O. Interpretation of Existing Uses. For the purposes of this chapter, 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 (emphasis added).

SGMC § 11.55.040.D (Discontinuation/Abandonment Of A Nonconforming Use Or Structure) provides that abandonment of an industrial nonconforming use or structure occurs when the use is wholly discontinued or abandoned for a continuous period of two calendar years.
…The determination of discontinuance (i.e., abandonment) shall be supported by evidence, satisfactory to the director, and shall include the following:

1. The apparent intent of the owner to discontinue use of the nonconforming structure is apparent [sic], as determined by the director.

2. Where furnishings, equipment and other personal property associated with the use are absent , and where lawful occupancy and/or use of the structure has been discontinued for two calendar years. Evidence of a discontinuation of a nonconforming use shall include but not be limited to : (i) the absence of an active business license; the absence of an active State Board of Equalization permit; (ii) the absence of active electricity, gas and water service accounts; and (iii) the absence of an active waste collection account.

3. If the previously conforming use has been discontinued for the purpose of repair, remodeling, or aesthetic improvements, the maintenance of an active building permit and continuance of a business license shall constitute conclusive evidence 77 Law Group

-19-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

that such use has not been abandoned during the period of repair, remodeling, or aesthetic improvements; provided, that the work is conducted diligently to completion.

See SGMC § 11.55.040.D (emphasis added).

In order to establish that a use has been “wholly discontinued or abandoned” for the requisite two-year period per SGMC § 11.55.040.D., the Director is required to make specific findings, supported by evidence in the determination. That evidence should demonstrate “both [1] an intent to abandon and [2] ‘an overt act, or failure to act, which carries the implication the owner does not claim or retain any interest in the right to the nonconforming use.’” See Pallco Enterprises, Inc. v. Beam (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1482, 1498) (quoting Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1996) 12 Cal.4th 533, 569). Here, the City violated AEP’s rights to substantive and procedural due process via the City’s arbitrary and capricious disregard for its own municipal code and the fact that the City’s findings that AEP discontinued and abandoned its LNCU at the Subject Property are wholly unsubstantiated by the record before the City.

2. The SGMC does not permit the City to bifurcate different the LNCU into component parts in order to justify a finding of LNCU It is undisputed that AEP’s use of the Subject Property for truck trailers and container storage has continued since the early 1970’s. See Section II.A., supra. This has been documented at length in letters and materials submitted to the City, including on April 27, 2023, May 2, 2023, May 16, 2023, and August 17, 2023. See Sections II.B - E., supra.

Relevant to the issues here and the determination whether that LNCU has been abandoned, there is no language in the entirety of the SGMC, including Chapter 11.55’s requisites for Nonconforming Uses and Buildings, that would permit the City Director to bifurcate the LNCU into component parts in order to justify a finding of abandonment. In fact, the SGMC unequivocally requires protection for all parts of an LNCU. The LNCU requisites protect “all nonconforming buildings or uses, including outdoor activities such as product storage or parking.” See SGMC §§ 11.55.020 (Applicability), 11.55.030.M (Phasing of 78 Law Group

-20-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

Compliance), 11.55.030.O (Interpretation of Existing Uses) (emphasis added). This is reiterated in SGMC § 11.55.030.M’s specific assertion that “[w]hen a portion of a property, building, or use is converted to bring it into conformance in phases, the owner does not waive the right to maintain previously allowed uses of other parts of the building or property…. (emphasis added)” And further clarified by SGMC § 11.55.030.O’s assertion that “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 (emphasis added).” As applied to AEP here, SGMC § 11.55.030.M. is plain: when phasing out a LNCU, AEP does not waive the right to maintain previously allowed uses of the property, including outdoor activities such as storage or parking. Separating the component parts of the LNCU is plainly contrary to the SGMC and is wholly inappropriate here. Indeed, such an interpretation would be contrary to applicable legal precedent as courts have found that a nonconforming use is “not restricted to the identical use that was in existence at the time of the enactment of the zoning ordinance but embraces any use substantially the same or similar,” and certainly a use that had been in place consistently for over 50 years. See Endara v. City of Culver City (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 33, 38 (emphasis added) (court allowed a change in nonconforming use when the property was originally designed and intended for manufacturing purposes, the premises had been continuously used for such purposes, there was no enlargement of the space devoted to the use, and no abandonment of a nonconforming use because the present use was substantially the same as it had been before the adoption of the zoning ordinance). Further, after diligent search and based on publicly available information, AEP is aware of no other instances where the City found that an LNCU had been abandoned simply because one element of the LNCU had ceased.

The City’s attempt to bifurcate the LNCU into component parts to justify abandonment here is ultra vires, inconsistent with the plain reading the SGMC, the known practices of the City, and relevant legal precedent, and should be rejected.

79 Law Group

-21-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

3. The two-year period cited by the City is inaccurate and does not support the determination of abandonment
As described in Section II.C. – E. supra, the City required AEP to apply for and then issued a TUP supporting the ongoing operations at the Subject Property, assuring AEP that such a TUP would be continued. The TUP extension was formally denied on January 12, 2023, timely appealed on January 26, 2023, heard by the CPC on May 2, 2023, timely appealed by the AEP on May 16, 2023, and the issue was stayed by the City pending determination of the LNCU at the Subject Property until present. See Section II ¶¶ 25 – 33.

As no determination regarding the LNCU has yet been made and the TUP extension stayed through present, the two-year period whereby “the use is wholly discontinued or abandoned for a continuous period” under the SGMC has not yet begun. As such, the SGMC’s prerequisites for determining that the abandonment of a LNCU have not been satisfied.

Notably, the requisite two-year period of abandonment referenced by the City Director on January 12, 2023 is equally defective. There, the City Director errantly includes the time when the TUP issued by the City and purportedly supporting AEP’s operations was in effect as part of the requisite two-year period of discontinuance. Thus, even taking the City’s depiction of the requisite two-year period as relevant (which, as explained immediately above, it is not given the City’s own administrative actions staying the determination), it is clear that the then City Director effectively attempted to manufacture the requisite showing of two-years of abandonment in the January 12, 2023 rejection of the LNCU and denial of the TUP extension.

For these reasons, the City has failed to satisfy SGMC § 11.55.040.D.’s required showing that the abandonment of the LNCU at the Subject Property has been wholly discontinued or abandoned for a continuous period of two calendar years and the decision of the Planning Commission should be reversed.

80 Law Group

-22-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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. The City has failed to substantiate its determination of AEP’s intent to abandon the LNCU and all evidence in the record before the City indicates the AEP neither intended nor did in fact abandon the LNCU
The City has failed to substantiate its determination of AEP’s intent to abandon the LNCU and all evidence in the record before the City indicates the AEP neither intended nor did in fact abandon the LNCU at the Subject Property. The “abandonment of a nonconforming use involves both [1] an intent to abandon and [2] ‘an overt act, or failure to act, which carries the implication the owner does not claim or retain any interest in the right to the nonconforming use.’” Pallco Enterprises, Inc. v. Beam (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1482, 1498, emphasis added (quoting Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1996) 12 Cal.4th 533, 569.) The court further reasoned that “mere cessation of use alone is not enough, ‘although the duration of nonuse may be a factor in determining whether the nonconforming use has been abandoned.’” Id.

Here however, there is no evidence suggesting either AEP’s intent to abandon the LNCU or an action demonstrating that AEP no longer retained an interest in maintaining the LNCU. See Section II.B – F, supra. In fact, the evidence that AEP submitted to the City clearly shows the exact opposite: that AEP intended to continue the LNCU at the Subject Property. See id. Specifically, AEP communicated directly to City that it intended to continue current operations until a viable alternative use or development partner was identified.

Further, on April 27, 2023 and August 17, 2023, per the evidence described in SGMC §

11.55.040.D.2., AEP provided photographs, utility records, historic licenses, business ledgers and comparable documentation demonstrating that the truck trailers and containers remained at the Subject Property, that the facilities to coordinate their storage was still located on the Subject Property, and that utility service to the Subject Property is and had been at all times present in order to continue the LNCU. See Section II.D – E., supra. In addition, AEP provided private tours of the Subject Property to City staff and elected officials as part of its ongoing good faith efforts to reach an equitable resolution for the reasonable continuation of the LNCU.

Because there is no evidence before the City satisfying the SGMC’s requisite showing 81 Law Group

-23-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

of neither AEP’s intent nor action implying the intent to abandon the LNCU, the City Council should reverse the recommendation of the Planning Commission in PC Res. 2025-04

5. The City met none of its requisite evidentiary burdens under SGMC §11.55.040.D.2 in support of determination that AEP abandoned its LNCU
Before a use or any part of a use can be terminated for abandonment or discontinuation, the Director must make substantiated findings that the use is “wholly discontinued or abandoned for a continuous period of two calendar years” and evidence supporting such a determination “shall include” the absence of “furnishings, equipment and other personal property…,” as well as:
(i) the absence of an active business license; [(i-a)] the absence of an active State Board of Equalization permit; (ii) the absence of active electricity, gas and water service accounts; and (iii) the absence of an active waste collection account.

SGMC § 11.55.040.D (emphasis added).

The required findings of SGMC § 11.55.040.D.2 were not made and are not supported by the administrative record before the City here. See Section II ¶¶ 21 - 27 (Community Development Director’s determination contains none of the required findings), 56 (PC Res. 2025-04 refers to Determination as basis for decision). Indeed, the record here once again demonstrates the opposite. On April 27, 2023 and August 17, 2023, per the evidence described in SGMC § 11.55.040.D.2., AEP provided photographs, utility records, historic licenses, business ledgers and comparable documentation demonstrating that the truck trailers and containers remained at the Subject Property, that the facilities to coordinate their storage was still located on the Subject Property, and that utility service to the Subject Property is and had been at all times present in order to continue the LNCU. See Section II.B – F., supra.

Because the required findings of SGMC § 11.55.040.D.2 were not made and are not supported by the record before the City here, the Director’s decision and PC Res. 2025-04’s approval of same is an arbitrary and capricious government action in violation of its own regulations, the broader protections of the California Constitution, and should be reversed by the City Council.
82 Law Group

-24-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

B. The City Violated AEP’s Rights To Due Process And Deprived AEP Of A Fair And Impartial Adjudicatory Proceeding
Constitutional guarantees of due process of law govern the City’s proceedings. See Withrow v. Larkin (1975) 421 U.S. 35, 46; Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. State Water Resources Control Board (2009) 45 Cal.4th 731,737. A violation of due process can be demonstrated by a showing of a situation, based on the totality of circumstances, “which experience teaches that the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision-maker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.” Withrow, 421 U.S. at 47. The probability that a single decision maker is biased can be sufficient to warrant reversal of the adjudicatory decision. See Woody’s Group, Inc. v. City of Newport Beach (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1021-1022. Unfortunately, and as generally described in Section II above, due process violations have pervaded the City’s proceedings regarding AEP’s LNCU.

1. The City has abused its regulatory processes, demanding the AEP to pursue land use entitlements and regulatory fixes that the City then would not support in good faith or had no intention of approving It is understood that land use rights are serious and fundamental to our national identities. Our governing bodies, municipalities and courts have long understood this, and protections of land use rights are codified in our laws and regulations. The abandonment of property rights is protected against by serious safeguards, codified here by the SGMC and by the laws and constitution of California and the United States for the benefit of all citizens.

These concerns are not trivial or an issue to be treated as casually as the City has done here to date. Noone should lose a grandfathered property right where, as here, the City has repeatedly induced AEP to jeopardize its established LNCU status in the time-consuming and costly pursuit of land use entitlements only to have the City then decide it would not support such entitlements in good faith, or never had any intention of approving those entitlements in the first place.

Section III.A. above describes in detail the ways in which the City has failed to adhere to the requirements of the SGMC. Equally appalling, however, is the fact that the City’s review 83 Law Group

-25-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

and adjudication of this matter has otherwise proceeded in an unfair and prejudicial manner.

The City’s ever-shifting requests, lack of response, weaponized uncertainty and conflicting requests kept AEP responding to directionless City requests for years and induced AEP’s reliance and reasonable belief that the City was working in good faith to rectify its error in requiring the TUP and developing a long-term solution to gradually transition the LNCU at the Subject Property as directed by the CPC on May 2, 2023. For example, (i) The City has refused to clarify the permitted uses in the IF zone within the South Gate College District, leaving the Subject Property’s future uncertain and AEP without the ability to plan for its gradual transition. See Section III.C.1, infra. Unless the AEP has certainty as to what the City will allow the Subject Property to become, efforts to transition the Subject Property will be forever frustrated for lack of direction. (ii) After demanding AEP apply for and secure a TUP in support of its operations at the Subject Property, the City asserts it was issued in an error and that the City failed to follow its own SGMC procedures, inducing reliance on the part of the AEP. See Section II ¶¶ 21 - 23.1
(iii) After City representatives demanded AEP submit a ZC/GPA Application (a time- consuming and costly undertaking), the City did not respond, acknowledge its receipt or seriously undertake its consideration. See Section II ¶¶ 46 - 48. (iv) After City representatives demanded AEP submit proposed terms for a DA phasing out the current use (again, a time-consuming and costly undertaking), the City did not respond, acknowledge its receipt or seriously undertake its consideration. See Section II ¶ 38.

Furthermore, the City’s delays and failures to provide documentation in response to

1 This, despite the fact that options to unambiguously preserve the legal status of AEP’s LNCU were available. For example, SGMC § 11.55.030.J allows for “alterations or expansions of a nonconforming industrial structure or use are permitted subject to the approval of the director through an administrative permit application” subject to five standards. The City never cited this as an option AEP could pursue, insisting instead that AEP pursue the TUP.

Indeed, had the process under SGMC 11.55.030.J been offered to AEP instead of the City’s erroneous insistence on the TUP and inducement of AEP to rely on same, the alleged abandonment of the LNCU would not be at issue today.
84 Law Group

-26-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

AEP’s inquiries frustrated AEP’s responses to and defenses against the City’s actions. For example, AEP requested specific documents relating to the City’s misstatements made during a May 2, 2024 Planning Commission hearing. See Section II ¶¶ 34-35. Despite this request and several inquiries about the City’s allegations regarding changes to the SGMC, it took the City several months to respond. Even then, with its untimely production of documents, the City was unable to provide the majority of the documents AEP requested, including previous iterations of the code and older business licenses clearly in the City’s possession. Specifically, the Director’s Determination cites a 1988 change to the SGMC that required a Conditional Use Permit. While this information was specifically requested May 17, 2024, it was never provided by the City. The City’s lack of diligence in responding to AEP’s PRA request frustrated AEP’s ability to demonstrate the LNCU at the Subject Property, as well as AEP’s ability to effectively respond to the City’s misstatements during the May 2, 2024 Planning Commission.

As such, the City abused its regulatory processes, demanding the AEP to pursue land use entitlements and regulatory fixes that the City then would not support in good faith or had no intention of approving, as evidenced by its lack of response and/or support for AEP’s efforts to negotiate in good faith.

2. The City allowed AEP insufficient time to respond to the arguments by the City Prosecutor at the March 18, 2025 Planning Commission Hearing
During the March 18, 2025 Planning Commission hearing on the appeal of the City Director’s Determination, the City Planning Commission did not provide AEP with an adequate opportunity to be heard when it provided AEP with three (3) minutes of rebuttal to the City Prosecutor’s thirty (30) minute arguments. This imbalance of time allotted did not allow AEP adequate opportunity to rebut arguments presented by the City Attorney prior to the Planning Commission’s decision, and is procedural error here.

C. The City’s Re-Zoning And Termination Of The LNCU For The Subject Property Are A De Facto Regulatory Taking
The City’s 2015 Zone Change and General Plan Amendment changed the zoning on of 85 Law Group

-27-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

the Subject Property from “M3” (Heavy Manufacturing) to “IF” (Industrial Flex), within Subarea 1 of the South Gate College District – a sub-district created by the 2015 General Plan Amendment. See Section II ¶¶ 10 - 11. The zone change was not immediately applied to the Subject Property given the LNCU present, but the City’s discretionary action approving PC Res. 2025-04 would change that. See Section II ¶ 56. Moreover, the consequences of the City’s approval of PC Res. 2025-04 stretch beyond the jurisdictional bounds of the City, as that decision will effectively island AEP property located in LA County immediately north of and contiguous with the Subject Property. See Section III.C.2, supra. In either case, the City’s approval of PC Res. 2025-04 will result in an unconstitutional regulatory taking of AEP property without compensation.

1. The application of the IF and South Gate College District Zones to the Subject Property severely curtail viable economic use of the Subject Property, resulting in an unconstitutional regulatory taking without just compensation
Once applied to the Subject Property, the IF zoning and South Gate College District overlay will severely, if not completely, limit viable future uses of the Subject Property due to the Property’s location, surrounding industrial land uses, and unique characteristics.

As is, the IF zone allows only a small range of uses, such as research and development facilities, mixed-use and residential uses. See SGMC § 11.22.060.A. (Industrial Flex zone (IF) “should incorporate light industrial development, research and development (R&D) integrated with office, and local- and regional-serving commercial”). When the South Gate College District is also applied, the potentially applicable uses are even further constrained. See South Gate General Plan 2035, Community Design Element at 105-106. In that subdistrict, the only uses permitted are civic/institutional facilities, open space, office/research and development and light industrial uses. See id. (“Allowable Place Types” table). Unlike the IF zone, single retail uses are discouraged. See id. at P.10. The subdistrict further suggests any use that is not affiliated with a community college district is precluded. See id. (“The South Gate College District is proposed to become a diverse, dense and vibrant area that contains a wide array of facilities such as classrooms, a library, public meeting spaces, parks and plazas, cultural 86 Law Group

-28-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

facilities and a hub for emerging green technology firms. The City envisions that educational, cultural and recreational facilities will be open to and shared with the residents of South Gate.”) This overlapping zoning severely, if not completely, empties the pool of future potential uses for and occupants of Subject Property. Even the City has steadfastly refused to give clear guidance as to what uses are permitted on the Subject Property, in an apparent admission of the lack of potentially viable uses and users.

Even if such a unique potential occupant of the Subject Property is found however, they are not likely to be interested in the Subject Property as it will remain, into any foreseeable future, surrounded by industrial uses on three sides, including metal fabrication facilities, automotive repair yards, train tracks, warehouses, and similar uses. As such, the Subject Property’s transition to a use consistent with the IF and South Gate College District zoning will have no appreciable benefit to the regional welfare given the surrounding industrial land uses that would remain.

Thus, the City’s approval of PC Res. 2025-04 and immediate application of the IF and South Gate College District zoning to the Subject Property will constitute an impermissible form of “spot zoning,” effectively depriving AEP of all feasible use, as well as being arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable as it will bears no reasonable relationship to the regional welfare given the immediately surrounding industrial land uses and zoning that remain permitted by the City. This constitutes an unconstitutional regulatory taking of AEP property without compensation.

2. PC Res. 2025-04 cuts off access to AEP property in LA County contiguous with the Subject Property, resulting in an
unconstitutional regulatory taking without just compensation If approved, PC Res. 2025-04 would also “island” AEP property located in LA County, immediately north of and contiguous with the Subject Property, and which remains zoned industrial. See SGMC § 11.22.060, Figure 11.22-3 (Zoning Location Map for the Industrial Flex (IF) Zone). That AEP property is in the shape of a triangle, currently surrounded by train tracks, other industrial properties over which AEP has no rights of ingress or egress to the north, 87 Law Group

-29-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

and the Subject Property to the south. If PC Res. 2025-04 is approved, the Subject Property will effectively become an incompatible land use, resulting in a lack of effective access, islanding that property, and nullifying that property’s properly zoned use pursuant to the rules and laws of Los Angeles County. This too, would constitute an unconstitutional regulatory taking of AEP property without compensation.

D. The City Has Not Considered The Environmental Consequences Resulting From The Termination Of The Existing Land Use In Favor Of Alternative Land Uses Inconsistent With The Requirements Of CEQA
In issuing PC Res. 2025-04 and justifying its discretionary decision to uphold the City Director’s Determination to remove the LNCU designation and apply the IF and South Gate College District zoning to the Subject Property, the Planning Commission asserted, in relevant part
The Planning Commission hereby finds that the subject decision qualifies for a categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15321, (Class 21) ‘Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies,’ in that the City is enforcing its municipal code.

PC Res. 2025-04 at 3.

In so finding, the City has failed to consider relevant exceptions to the Class 21 exemption described in Cal. Code Regs., title 14 (“CEQA Guidelines”) § 15300.2 which would make this exemption inapplicable, including but not limited to potential cumulative impacts, unusual circumstances causing this decision to have a significant effect on the environment, and the fact that the project is located on a “Hazardous Waste Site” list compiled pursuant to CA.

Gov’t Code § 65962.5. At a minimum here, there is substantial evidence that the Hazardous Waste Sites exception to the Class 21 exemption applies, and thus the City cannot use the Class 21 categorical exemption from CEQA in support of its determination. See EnviroStor Database (Engle Northern Parcel, Rec. # 60000644, Firestone – Engle Southern Parcel, Rec # 70000165, last accessed April 5, 2025)); GeoTracker Database (Jack Engle Co (SL2049A1721, last accessed April 5, 2025)). The City’s finding that its decision was exempt from CEQA via Class 21 is unsupported and flatly contradicted by substantial evidence in the administrative record. 88 Law Group

-30-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

Further, the environmental consequences of the City’s discretionary action here are unpredictable and there is no evidence in the administrative record that reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts have been considered. For example, the forced application of zoning here will foster changes in land uses and new proposed construction and development on the site that will naturally have environmental impacts related to construction (e.g., air quality, noise and vibration, traffic), regardless of the character of any new development. It is reasonably foreseeable that any such new development consistent with the IF zoning and South Gate College District Overlay will also have impacts related to land use and planning, traffic impacts (level of service impacts as well as impacts on the levels of service experienced by the surrounding communities), hazards and hazardous materials, and utilities and service systems.

The lack of applicable exemption requires the City to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with its discretionary action here, disclose those impacts pursuant to the appropriate CEQA document (e.g., negative declaration or environmental impact report), and then approve this decision supported by adequate findings based on substantial evidence in the administrative record. See CA. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000, et seq.

E. The City Director’s Determination Makes For Poor Public Policy And Is Inconsistent With The SGMC’s “Encouraged” Phasing Out Of LNCU Prescribed In SGMC And GP
In addition to the legal deficiencies of the City Director’s Determination as upheld by PC Res. 2025-04, the abrupt termination of the LNCU at the Subject Property is contrary to the “encouraged” gradual phasing out of legal nonconforming land uses in the SGMC and GP and makes for poor public policy.

SGMC § 11.55.030.M. (Phasing of Compliance) provides, in relevant part, that Partial conversions of properties or buildings to bring them into better compliance with this title are permitted and encouraged . This applies to nonconforming outdoor activities such as product storage or parking. When a portion of a property, building, or use is converted to bring it into conformance in phases, the owner does not waive the right to maintain previously allowed uses of other parts of the building or property under the conditions established in this chapter (emphasis added).

89 Law Group

-31-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

The SGMC § 11.22.060 (Industrial Flex zone (IF)) states in relevant part that “[t]he purpose of the industrial flex zone is to continue the industrial job base in the area, while allowing flexibility to incorporate a mix of uses and job options.” For its part, the South Gate General Plan 2035 states in relevant part that “[i]ndustrial and manufacturing uses should remain in the area but could be phased out as the college district expands.” South Gate General Plan 2035, Community Design Element at 105-106 (South Gate College District, P.6); see also id. at 99 (Objective CD 8.4, P.3 (“Existing, non-conforming industrial uses should be phased out during the course of the General Plan”). The General Plan explains that this subdistrict was designed to be a redevelopment in partnership with local community college districts, only to be executed after the City prepared a Specific Plan or Precise Plan together with a community college partner. See id. at 106 (P.2). The purpose of this Specific Plan/Precise Plan was to identify viable alternative uses on the Property prior to phasing out the existing use. See id. at 106 (P.6). The City has had 10 years to initiate preliminary planning stages. See id. (current South Gate General Plan applicable until 2035).

However, to date, the City has prepared no such plan.

As noted in Section II.C.1, the IF zone allows a small range of uses, which are then severely limited further by the South Gate College District designation. Given the development constraints place on the Subject Property by the IF zoning and the South Gate College District, the GP and SGMC policies encouraging the gradual phasing out of legal, nonconforming uses once viable alternatives make intuitive sense: vacant property is not in the interests of the City, its constituents, or the local businesses and community at large. As noted above, both the SGMC and the General Plan specifically allow and encourage the gradual phasing out of noncompatible existing uses as future uses become viable. See id. at 106 (P.6). The General Plan anticipates the phasing out of the existing uses consistent with the course of the current General Plan, which terminates in 2035. See id. (current South Gate General Plan applicable until 2035).

Here however, by refusing to negotiate a gradual and phased transition of the Subject 90 Law Group

-32-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
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

Property and inappropriately demanding the LNCU immediately cease, the City acts inconsistently with the SGMC and General Plan. Given the limited opportunities for development and/or new tenants consistent with both the General Plan and South Gate College District, if the City Council upholds the PC Res. 2025-04, the Subject Property will be left vacant, idle and unproductive, depriving the City of part of its tax base and resulting in an unconstitutional regulatory taking without just compensation. See discussion at Section III.C., supra. Such an outcome is unnecessary, would make for poor public policy, and should be reversed by the City Council.

IV. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the determinations of the City Director and Planning Commission in PC Res. 2025-04 are in error and are not supported by reference to fact or applicable law. In making these decisions, the City violated AEP’s rights to substantive and procedural due process via the City’s arbitrary and capricious disregard for its own municipal code and the fact that the City’s findings that AEP discontinued and abandoned its LNCU at the Subject Property are wholly unsubstantiated by the record before the City. Furthermore, the City’s approval of PC Res. 2025-04 and immediate application of the IF and South Gate College District zoning to the Subject Property will constitute an unconstitutional regulatory taking of AEP property without compensation and are in violation of CEQA.

For the reasons set forth above, PC Res. 2025-04 should be reversed by the City Council and the CPC’s determination that the LNCU has been abandoned should be denied and set aside.

Dated: April 8, 2025 SOMOS LAW GROUP

/s/ Ian M. Forrest
By:________________________________
Ian M. Forrest, Esq.

Attorneys for Appellant, Alameda Engle
Properties, LLC

91 Exh 1

EXHIBIT 1

92 RESOLUTION N0. 2025-04

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF SOUTH GATE, ST ATE OF CAI,IFORNIA, DENYING AN

APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT'S DETERMINATION AND NONCOMPLIANCE

NOTIFICATION REGARDING RECYCLING/METAL
PROCESSING AND TRUCK TRAILER STORAGE AT 8530
ALAMEDA STREET, AND DETERMmING THE ACTION IS

EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

2. TheCity'smanagementofthelegalnonconformingusegivesrisetosubstantive and procedural due process concerns;

3. Termination of the legal nonconforming use is a de facto regulatory taking; and,

4. The City's failure to comply with the California Enviroru'nental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.

Pagelof4
5241340.1-L235.37 93
WHEREAS, the Planning Coinmission, after conducting the public hearing and having considered all testimony and other evidence submitted in connection therewith, makes the following findings:

2. Inl988,theCityamendeditsZoningCode,inpart,torequireaConditionalUsePermit for recycling facilities - thereby making the recycling/metal processing use at the Subject Property legal, nonconforming.

6. In July 2020, Fleet was issued Temporary Use Permit TUP 2020-01 by the City authorizing the use of the Subject Property for "truck storage for a one-year period of time withpossible extensions up to amaximum of five years from the date of approval." TUP 2020-01 expired on July 16, 2021- without a request from Fleet to renew.

Page 2 of 4 ends

AS13772.0860893 4932-9492-6885vl 94
and that any use of the Subject Property must adhere to the current Zoning Code. lO.Notwithstanding the Director's Determination, the Planning Coininission has considered all factors set forth in SGMC 1 1.55.040(D) and all other evidence submitted in connection with this public hearing, and concurs that the recycling/metal processing use had been discontinued and/or abandoned for a continuous period of at least two calendar years, and that any use of the Subject Property must adhere to the current Zoning Code.

11.55 ("Nonconforming Uses and Buildings").

13. "Truck storage/ten'ninal" use is not authorized or allowed by the SGMC on any land within the Industrial Flex (IF) zone, of which the Subject Property is a part.

14. The use of the Subject Property as a truck storage/terminal must irni'nediately cease.

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

SECTION 1. The Planning Commission hereby finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals of this Resolution are true and correct, and are incorporated herein.

Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-04
March 18, 2025

Page 3 of 4 ends

AS13772.0860893 4932-9492-6885vl 95
This action was adopted by the following vote at the Planning Commission meeting of March 18, 2025.

AYES: Prieto, Ruiz, Ozaeta
NOES:

ABSENT: Laborin
APPROVED and ADOPTED this 18I'1 of March 2025.

Jo F. Signo,
Pl&ng manager
APPROVED:

Ci Planning Corni'nission
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-04
March 18, 2025

Page 4 of 4 ends

AS13772.0860893 4932-9492-6885vl 96
Exh 2

EXHIBIT 2

97 RESOLUTION N0. 2025-05

A RESOLUTION 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 ZONING OF A PROPERTY AT 8530 ALAMEDA STREET 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 behalf of the property owner, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC (represented by Jason Engle), submitted an application 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 Goverent 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 Government Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission conducted the public hearing on this matter on March 18, 2025.

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings:

1. In 2015, the City rezoned the Subject Property from M3 to IF to accornrnodate future growth of East Los Angeles Community College (ELACC) within the South Gate College District as described in the Cornrnunity 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.

2. The Subject Property is located in the northwestern corner of the City in the IF zone, and changing the zoning and removing the Subject Property from the South Gate College District as shown in the Community Design Element ofthe General Plan would constitute "spot zoning," which is contrary to the vision and policies of the General Plan.

3. 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 Subject Property unless otherwise 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 the IF zoning district.

AS13772.0860893 4923-2538-6533vl
98 4. The IF zoning district allows for 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.

5. Changing tlie zoning district to M3 would precIude a number of recreational, educational, public assembly, parks, plazas, and open space uses from being developed on the Subject Property.

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

SECTION 1. The Planning Corninission hereby finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals of this Resolution are true and correct.

SECTION 2. The Planning Coinmission'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).

SECTION 3. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council deny the request to change the zoning of a property located 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.

This action was adopted by the following vote at the Planning Commission meeting of March 18, 2025.

AYES: Prieto, Ruiz, Ozaeta
NOES:

ABSENT: Laboi
APPROVED and ADOPTED this 18al of March, 2025.

APP VE
City anning Commission
Plannirig Manager
J
AS13772.0860893 4923-2538-6533vl
99 Exh 3

EXHIBIT 3

100
/i255
/1/2/3/4/5/6/7/i255/8/5/4/9/i255/10 /11/i255/10 /12/13/14/14/14/i255 /15/16/16/17/13/15/12/14/17/i255/1/3/18/2/19/i255/20/21/5/22/7/9/5/i255/1/2/4/7/7/2/i255/i255 /23/24/25/24/26/3/4/27/28/i255/29/3/30/i255/20/24/6/7/21/7/30/i255/31/3/18/24/2/32/33/1/3/18/2/19/i255/34/5/2/7/35/i255/31/5/21/25/36/3/4/24/25/5/i255 /37/38/39/40/39/41/i255
/43/44/45/46/i255/47/48/49/i255/50/51/45/52/53/51/43/48/i255 /37/38/39/40/39/41/i255/50/38/54/55/56/i255 /57/24/9/18/30/2/4/25/5/21/i255/58/21/7/59/i255/60/20/61/62/i255/63/64/17/64/13/17/14/63/13/17/17/14/65/i255/66/i255/67/64/i255/13/i255/68/7/5/69/32/i255 /67/5/24/18/36/5/26/2/18/4/25/24/6/i255/60/20/61/62/i255/63/64/17/64/13/17/14/63/13/17/17/16/65/i255 /i255
/37/38/39/40/39/41/i255/46/55/70/71/72/40/73/74/40/38/39/56/i255 /75/19/7/30/7/i255/76/3/24/25/24/6/30/i255/27/4/3/69/25/9/7/i255/36/3/4/i255/22/5/24/32/i255/25/24/9/18/30/2/4/25/5/21/i255/18/30/7/30/35/i255/5/22/3/24/6/i255 /26/7/4/2/5/25/24/i255/3/2/19/7/4/i255/18/30/7/30/28/i255/i255 /i255
/50/77/72/72/55/39/74/i255/47/70/55/i255/43/55/41/78/79/79/80/i255/50/38/39/81/38/72/82/40/39/41/56/i255 /75/19/7/i255/30/18/83/84/7/26/2/i255/25/30/i255/5/i255/27/4/7/13/7/59/25/30/2/25/24/6/i255/21/7/6/5/21/35/i255/24/3/24/13/26/3/24/36/3/4/22/25/24/6/i255/18/30/7/28/i255/1/7/7/i255 /26/3/22/22/7/24/2/30/28/i255
/i255
/37/38/39/40/39/41/i255/50/85/78/39/41/55/i255/43/40/86/55/79/80/56/i255 /20/i255/76/3/24/25/24/6/i255/26/19/5/24/6/7/i255/25/30/i255/18/24/21/25/87/7/21/32/28/i255/i255/i255 /i255
/50/38/82/82/55/39/74/70/56/i255
/i255
/20/61/62/i255/63/64/17/64/13/17/14/63/13/17/17/14/35/i255/88/19/25/26/19/i255/25/30/i255/21/3/26/5/2/7/9/i255/25/24/i255/2/19/7/i255/31/25/2/32/i255/3/36/i255/1/3/18/2/19/i255/34/5/2/7/35/i255/25/30/i255/76/3/24/7/9/i255/57/24/9/18/30/2/4/25/5/21/i255/58/21/7/59/28/i255/i255/20/26/26/3/4/9/25/24/6/i255/2/3/i255/5/i255 /4/7/27/4/7/30/7/24/2/5/2/25/69/7/i255/88/25/2/19/i255/2/19/7/i255/31/25/2/32/i255/3/36/i255/1/3/18/2/19/i255/34/5/2/7/i255/27/21/5/24/24/25/24/6/i255/9/7/27/5/4/2/22/7/24/2/35/i255/2/19/7/i255/30/18/83/84/7/26/2/89/30/i255/76/3/24/25/24/6/i255/88/5/30/i255/4/7/26/7/24/2/21/32/i255 /26/19/5/24/6/7/9/i255/2/3/i255/2/19/25/30/i255/36/4/3/22/i255/67/64/28/i255/i255/20/61/62/i255/63/64/17/64/13/17/14/63/13/17/17/16/35/i255/88/19/25/26/19/i255/25/30/i255/21/3/26/5/2/7/9/i255/25/24/i255/18/24/25/24/26/3/4/27/3/4/5/2/7/9/i255/29/3/30/i255/20/24/6/7/21/7/30/i255/31/3/18/24/2/32/i255 /5/4/7/5/35/i255/25/30/i255/76/3/24/7/9/i255/67/64/i255/90/i255/68/7/5/69/32/i255/67/5/24/18/36/5/26/2/18/4/25/24/6/28/i255/i255/75/19/7/i255/30/18/83/84/7/26/2/i255/5/30/i255/5/i255/30/2/3/4/5/6/7/i255/32/5/4/9/i255/25/24/i255/2/19/7/i255/57/24/9/18/30/2/4/25/5/21/i255/58/21/7/59/i255/76/3/24/7/i255/3/36/i255 /1/3/18/2/19/i255/34/5/2/7/i255/25/30/i255/4/7/27/3/4/2/7/9/21/32/i255/24/3/88/i255/5/i255/27/4/7/13/7/59/25/30/2/25/24/6/35/i255/21/7/6/5/21/35/i255/24/3/24/13/26/3/24/36/3/4/22/25/24/6/i255/18/30/7/i255/60/91/6/4/5/24/9/36/5/2/19/7/4/7/9/91/i255/18/30/7/65/35/i255/88/19/25/21/7/i255/2/19/7/i255 /30/18/83/84/7/26/2/i255/5/30/i255/5/i255/30/2/3/4/5/6/7/i255/32/5/4/9/i255/25/24/i255/2/19/7/i255/67/64/i255/90/i255/68/7/5/69/32/i255/67/5/24/18/36/5/26/2/18/4/25/24/6/i255/76/3/24/7/i255/3/36/i255/18/24/25/24/26/3/4/27/3/4/5/2/7/9/i255/29/3/30/i255/20/24/6/7/21/7/30/i255/31/3/18/24/2/32/i255 /5/27/27/7/5/4/30/i255/2/3/i255/83/7/i255/5/i255/27/7/4/22/25/2/2/7/9/i255/18/30/7/28/i255 /i255
/20/26/26/3/4/9/25/24/6/i255/2/3/i255/1/3/18/2/19/i255/34/5/2/7/89/30/i255/3/24/21/25/24/7/i255/22/18/24/25/26/25/27/5/21/i255/26/3/9/7/35/i255 /i255
/93/i255/94/94/95/96/97/95/98/99/98/i255/53/55/82/38/100/78/79/i255/38/81/i255/39/38/39/71/38/39/81/38/72/82/40/39/41/i255/101/77/40/79/54/40/39/41/70/i255/38/72/i255/70/74/72/77/71/74/77/72/55/70/95/i255 /57/36/i255/5/24/32/i255/24/3/24/26/3/24/36/3/4/22/25/24/6/i255/83/18/25/21/9/25/24/6/i255/25/30/i255/4/7/22/3/69/7/9/i255/3/4/i255/9/7/30/2/4/3/32/7/9/35/i255/5/24/32/i255/24/7/88/i255/30/2/4/18/26/2/18/4/7/30/i255/83/18/25/21/2/i255/3/24/i255/2/19/7/i255/21/5/24/9/i255/3/24/i255/88/19/25/26/19/i255/2/19/7/i255 /24/3/24/26/3/24/36/3/4/22/25/24/6/i255/83/18/25/21/9/25/24/6/i255/88/5/30/i255/21/3/26/5/2/7/9/i255/30/19/5/21/21/i255/26/3/24/36/3/4/22/i255/2/3/i255/2/19/7/i255/27/4/3/69/25/30/25/3/24/30/i255/3/36/i255/2/19/25/30/i255/2/25/2/21/7/28/i255/102/7/30/2/4/18/26/2/25/3/24/i255/36/3/4/i255/2/19/25/30/i255 /27/18/4/27/3/30/7/i255/25/30/i255/9/7/36/25/24/7/9/i255/5/30/i255/9/5/22/5/6/7/i255/2/3/i255/2/19/7/i255/7/59/2/7/24/2/i255/3/36/i255/22/3/4/7/i255/2/19/5/24/i255/36/25/36/2/32/i255/60/12/17/103/65/i255/27/7/4/26/7/24/2/i255/3/36/i255/2/19/7/i255/4/7/27/21/5/26/7/22/7/24/2/i255/26/3/30/2/i255/5/2/i255/2/19/7/i255 /2/25/22/7/i255/3/36/i255/9/7/30/2/4/18/26/2/25/3/24/28/i255/104/19/7/4/7/i255/5/24/32/i255/24/3/24/26/3/24/36/3/4/22/25/24/6/i255/83/18/25/21/9/25/24/6/i255/3/4/i255/30/2/4/18/26/2/18/4/7/i255/25/30/i255/9/5/22/5/6/7/9/i255/3/4/i255/27/5/4/2/25/5/21/21/32/i255/9/7/30/2/4/3/32/7/9/i255/83/32/i255 /36/25/4/7/35/i255/7/59/27/21/3/30/25/3/24/35/i255/3/2/19/7/4/i255/26/5/30/18/5/21/2/32/i255/3/4/i255/24/5/2/18/4/5/21/i255/9/25/30/5/30/2/7/4/35/i255/2/19/7/i255/30/5/22/7/i255/22/5/32/i255/83/7/i255/4/7/30/2/3/4/7/9/i255/2/3/i255/2/19/7/i255/26/3/24/9/25/2/25/3/24/i255/25/24/i255/88/19/25/26/19/i255/25/2/i255 /7/59/25/30/2/7/9/i255/25/22/22/7/9/25/5/2/7/21/32/i255/27/4/25/3/4/i255/2/3/i255/2/19/7/i255/3/26/26/18/4/4/7/24/26/7/i255/3/36/i255/30/18/26/19/i255/26/5/30/18/5/21/2/32/28/i255/75/19/7/i255/4/7/30/2/3/4/5/2/25/3/24/i255/22/5/32/i255/24/3/2/i255/4/7/30/18/21/2/i255/25/24/i255/5/24/32/i255/6/4/7/5/2/7/4/i255 /9/7/6/4/7/7/i255/3/36/i255/24/3/24/26/3/24/36/3/4/22/25/2/32/i255/2/19/5/24/i255/27/4/7/69/25/3/18/30/21/32/i255/7/59/25/30/2/7/9/28/i255/75/19/7/i255/4/7/26/3/24/30/2/4/18/26/2/25/3/24/i255/30/19/5/21/21/i255/22/7/7/2/i255/5/21/21/i255/26/18/4/4/7/24/2/i255/4/7/105/18/25/4/7/22/7/24/2/30/i255 /3/36/i255/2/19/7/i255/23/24/25/36/3/4/22/i255/106/18/25/21/9/25/24/6/i255/31/3/9/7/i255/5/30/i255/5/9/3/27/2/7/9/i255/83/32/i255/2/19/7/i255/26/25/2/32/i255/3/36/i255/1/3/18/2/19/i255/34/5/2/7/i255/5/24/9/i255/30/19/5/21/21/i255/83/7/i255/26/3/22/27/21/7/2/7/9/i255/88/25/2/19/25/24/i255/3/24/7/i255/60/10/65/i255 /32/7/5/4/i255/3/36/i255/2/19/7/i255/9/25/30/5/30/2/7/4/28/i255 /60/107/4/9/28/i255/10/108/16/108/i255/109/i255/10/i255/60/27/5/4/2/65/35/i255/15/13/64/12/13/15/108/65/93/i255 /i255
/75/19/7/i255/30/18/83/84/7/26/2/i255/27/4/3/27/7/4/2/32/i255/19/5/30/i255/5/9/7/105/18/5/2/7/i255/4/3/3/22/i255/2/3/i255/22/7/7/2/i255/2/19/7/i255/26/18/4/4/7/24/2/i255/27/5/4/87/25/24/6/i255/4/7/105/18/25/4/7/22/7/24/2/30/i255/36/4/3/22/i255/1/3/18/2/19/i255/34/5/2/7/i255/5/24/9/i255 /29/3/30/i255/20/24/6/7/21/7/30/i255/31/3/18/24/2/32/35/i255/4/7/30/27/7/26/2/25/69/7/21/32/28/i255/i255 101
Exh 4

EXHIBIT 4

102

Page 17 ends

ZONING
Storage Yard
8440-8530 South Alameda Street, South Gate, California
17-175

LAND USE CONTROLS
Zoning Code: Industrial Flex (APN 6202-036-003) & M2 - Heavy Manufacturing (APN 6202-036-004)
Zoning Description: These zonings provide for many industrial uses, among certain other uses.

Current Use Legally Conforming: The subject is a pre-existing legal, non-conforming use. See comments.

Zoning Chan ge Likely: A zoning change is unlikely.

Comments:

APN 6202-036-003, which is located in the City of South Gate, is zoned Industrial Flex. APN 6202-036-004, which is located in unincorporated Los Angeles County area, is zoned M2 – Heavy Manufacturing. The subject as a storage yard in the Industrial Flex zone of South Gate is reportedly now a pre-existing, legal, non-conforming use ("grandfathered" use), while the subject as a storage yard in the M2 – Heavy Manufacturing zone of unincorporated Los Angeles County appears to be a permitted use.

According to South Gate's online municipal code:
“11.36.050 Removal of nonconforming buildings or structures.

If any nonconforming building is removed or destroyed, any new structures built on the land on which the nonconforming building was located shall conform to the provisions of this title. Destruction for this purpose is defined as damage to the extent of more than fifty (50%) percent of the replacement cost at the time of destruction.

Where any nonconforming building or structure is damaged or partially destroyed by fire, explosion, other casualty or natural disaster, the sam e may be restored to the condition in which it existed immediately prior to the occurrence of such casualty. Th e restoration may not result in any greater degree of nonconformity than previously existed. The reconstruction shall meet all current requirements of the Uniform Building Code as adopted by the city of South Gate and shall be completed within one (1) year of the disaster.(Ord. 1747 § 1 (part), 8-25-87)." T he subject property ha s adequate room to meet the current parking requirements from South Gate and Los Angeles County, respectively.
103
Exh 5

EXHIBIT 5

104
City of
South Gate
8650 California Avenue
South Gate, Ca 90280
Phone: (323) 563-9526
July 16, 2020
Daniel Oiling
Fleet Yards Inc.
893 West 161h Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Planning Division
[via email: danfieetyardsinc.com ]
Re: Temporary Use Permit No. TUP2O2O-01 8530 Alameda Street (APN: 6202-036-003) Dear Mr. Oiling,
The City South Gate has received your temporary use permit application to permit 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. The proposed project has been reviewed and it has been approved sublect to the followinq conditions:

Conditions of Approval

2. The temporary use is approved for a term of one year, set to expire on July 16, 2021. A new application must be submitted at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date if an extension is desired.

Additional one-year extensions will be considered for approval for up to a maximum period of 5 years from the original approval date of July 16, 2020. Additional extensions will be determined based on compliance with said conditions and written verification from the property owner that he/she/they! is/are in process of developing the land, selling the land and/or working with Los Angeles Community College or a developer on a housing development project.

4. Operations shall be limited to those described in Attachment B as to the number, size and height of truck trailers that will be stored on site.

5. Any violations of these conditions or City Laws could result in the revocation of this Temporary Use Permit No. TUP2O2O-01.

6. All conditions for a Temporary Use Permit No. TUP2O2O-01 shall be agreed to by the property owner in the form of a signed and notarized affidavit.

Joe Perez
Commnity Development Director
City of South Gate
Attachments: A. Site Plan
B. Operation Plan
105
Fleet Yards, Inc.

B44U anseda Yard
9440 S djanreda St. Los 0ogeles CA 90001
6/0/2020

ATTACHMENT A
Map should be updated to clarify the area covered by the permitted use permit (8530) and separately show the access point across 8440. The current map makes it appear as if the entire track is 8440, when the red shaded area also includes 8530.
106
Attachment B
ADDENDUM: Description of Operation

CITY OF SOUTH GATE

LAND USE ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT APPLICATION
- TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
Property: 8440 S Alameda St., Los Angeles, CA 90001
APN: 6202-036-003
Applicant: Dan Otting
Mailing Address: 893 W 16th Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: 949-246-6000
Description of Proposed Operation:

Sum ma rv:

Short- Term Truck Trailer Storage.

Detailed:

The property at 8440 S Alameda St. is approx. 9.7 acres (423,000 sq ft) in total, but 6.7 acres are a part of South Gate proper.

On the 3 acres in South Gate, approximately 125 trailers will be parked for short- -term storage.

Standard commercial trailers are either 40', 48', or 53' long (usually 53'), 13'6" tall, and 8' wide. Please note that while we are proposing to use the entire property (9.7 acres) for storage, the 3 acres within South Gate proper will only be used for trailer storage, with no trucks being stored on that part of the yard.

The full yard will be active 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, but most of the traffic (>90%) will be between the hours of 6:00 AM and 8:00 PM each day.

For the entirety of the 9.7 acre property, we expect to see up to 50-75 trucks and trailers enter and exit the yard each business day.

Need do change to the correct
address and correct APN: 8530
Alameda Street
8530 Alameda Street

6.7 acres

6.7 acres
107
Exh 6

EXHIBIT 6

108
From: Efren Martinez
To: Meredith Elguira; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Yalini Siva
Subject: Re: 8530 Alameda Street Temporary Use Permit
Date: Friday, December 23, 2022 4:43:57 PM
Attachments: image003.png
Untitled attachment 00049.htm
8530 Alameda TUP.pdf
Untitled attachment 00052.htm
TUP2020-01_Approval_8530 Alameda FINAL.pdf
Untitled attachment 00055.htm
Affidavit Use Permit.pdf
Untitled attachment 00058.htm
City Manager and Councilmembers please see email below addressed to your Staff:

Meredith,
With all due respect, we disagree with you email.

We were completely blindsided by your email and letter that contained misleading and swayed information.

We have been working with your office and had several conference calls and email communication with you and your staff regarding you deliberately denying our current FIVE (5) years agreement with the City of South Gate.

This agreement took place before you were employed with the City of South Gate. You took it upon yourself to open, review, judge and cancel our fully operational agreement with the City. During our calls you continuously informed us that you strongly disagreed with how and why this agreement was done with us in the first-place. I consistently informed you that you cannot just go back on our current agreement just because you personally did not agree, and you disagreed with us and brought up that you could because you had a loophole stating that we were late in filing a particular form earlier this year and per your loophole this violated our conditions. Earlier this year you denied our yearly submitted form that according to our agreement it must be submitted yearly, 30 days prior to the anniversary date of the agreement because it was late and you state that is the reason that you are revoking our entire legal agreement. You then came-up with other excuses for which we have been able to rebuttal and prove otherwise.

You also refused to accept and understand that Covid has played a major role on all sorts of delays to include in government and the financial impacts towards our loans, leasing or selling the property or even getting a developer to fully develop the property which we have committed with the City of South Gate to be one of our options.

I personally requested to sit with you and your staff to further discuss our disagreements before going in any other direction and to see if we can answer any of your questions and/or concerns but due to your COVID policies we agree to meeting online and on conference calls. After our conference calls we sent you numerous documents and historical background with supporting documentation such as previous emails, draft agreements to and from the city staff that led up to our current five(5) year agreement with the city. After all of that information was provided to you, you stated that you would consider giving us a one (1) year extension, we disagreed and stated that we have a five(5) year agreement and that we cannot settle for one year. At our last conference call on October 5th, 2022 at 9am with the following individuals on the call: [email protected] , [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected] you informed us ALL and even stated that you wanted to make it very clear that you concluded that because you Disagreed with our current City Agreement, that the only thing you were going to do was to provide us with a one(1) year extension in order to provide us with enough time for us go thru YOUR process “the way it should have been done in the first place” according to your standards.

Upon the end of our conference call with you on October 5th, it was concluded that you were officially informing us that you were giving us one year to go thru your process and that we had the right to appeal your decision with the Planning Commission or the City Council. In conclusion that is why the email that you just sent on December 20, 2022 which states that you are giving us 10 days to Cease-ALL-Operations at our property literally during the holidays and exactly 11 days before the new year is completely contradicting to what you informed all parties on 109
October 5, 2022’s conference call which was to provide us with an one(1) year extension.

We believe your actions and decisions are reckless and inconsistent with the City of South Gate motto and tradition of being Business Friendly and working/partnering with the business community for the betterment and wellbeing of its residents. Your decision will have catastrophic results to our livelihood and those of our vendors and employees which most live in the local area.

Due to us being targeted and discriminated by you, please consider this email as our official complaint and appeal of your decision. I am also respectfully requesting from you to help us set-up and coordinate a meeting with the City Manager and/or City Council to discuss and resolve this matter. In the meantime, I also respectfully request that “your request of us Stoping all operations at our property” be put on hold so that we may continue to operate until we have a final determination by the City Manager and City Council regarding our matter.

Thank you and hope to hear from City Manager and/or City Council in order to resolve matters.

Efren Martinez, Jr.
323-646-2405
On Dec 20, 2022, at 7:02 PM, Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Efren,

We are following up on your request for extension of the Temporary Use Permit (TUP) issued in July 2020 for the subject property. We have not heard back from regarding your plans moving forward. Per our discussion, we are unable to grant your request for extension due to non-compliance with the conditions of approval and more importantly, TUPs are issued for temporary use only for a maximum time of 10 working days. Please see the attached letter for further clarification. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions, the best way to reach me is through email.

Best regards,

110
Exh 7

EXHIBIT 7

111

CENTENNIAI
-100 '/ L/'.RS -
Planning Division
8650 California Avenue, South Gate, CA 90280-3004
P: (323) 563-9565
www.cityofsouthgate.org
December 20, 2022
Tommy Newcomer
Fleetyards, Inc.
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
sent via email only
Subject: 8530 Alameda Street (APN: 6202-036-003)
Mr. Newcomer, et at.:

Based on previous discussions and emails regarding the overall usage of the subject property at 8530 Alameda Street located in the City of South Gate, the Planning Division is not able to further process a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) for the storage of trucks/containers at the subject property. Although previous Community Development Department staff provided an approval for a TUP to permit the use of truck trailer storage (TUP 2020-01), this approval was granted for one year only. This TUP also included conditions of approval, which have since not been complied with.

A business license, pursuant to South Gate Municipal Code (SGMC) Chapter 2.10, was never applied for and obtained by the subject business to store trucks and containers at the subject property. Condition of Approval No. 2, listed within the approval of TUP 2020-01, required that the applicant submit for a new application "at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date...". TUP 2020-01 was approved for one (1) year, thereby expiring on July 16, 2021. Planning staff received an email regarding a new TUP on July 11, 2022.

Pursuant to SGMC Section 11.51.070 (B)(4) Temporary Use Permits: "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." The approval for TUP 2020-01 was granted in error, as the above mandatory approval condition would not allow for a temporary use to be permitted for longer than ten working days. 112
Lastly, the previous land use that was permitted at the subject site can no longer be re-activated as the SGMC Section 11.55.040, regarding discontinuation of nonconforming uses, allows industrial uses to be continued only if a land use is continued within two consecutive calendar years. Due to non-compliance, the Planning Division is requiring that the property be maintained as a vacant property and all truck trailer storage is to be vacated. Please let me know if you have any questions, the best way to reach me is through email at [email protected].

Community Development Director
Attachments: TUP 2020-01 Approval, dated July 16, 2020 Affidavit Use Permit
113
From: Meredith Elguira
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Yalini Siva
Subject: 8530 Alameda Street Temporary Use Permit
Date: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 7:03:37 PM
Attachments: image003.png
8530 Alameda TUP.pdf
TUP2020-01_Approval_8530 Alameda FINAL.pdf
Affidavit Use Permit.pdf
Hello Efren,

We are following up on your request for extension of the Temporary Use Permit (TUP) issued in July 2020 for the subject property. We have not heard back from regarding your plans moving forward.

Per our discussion, we are unable to grant your request for extension due to non-compliance with the conditions of approval and more importantly, TUPs are issued for temporary use only for a maximum time of 10 working days. Please see the attached letter for further clarification. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions, the best way to reach me is through email.

Best regards,

114
Exh 8
EXHIBIT 8
115
ri
.Jk- I , I
-__'
ren !!.%XnJff4!la
, 7. ' a -_-
*_!A_1i\6_f--
ki
{i

CEN TEN NI A L
-l'}"ai '{F -' P's

CHRIS JEFFERS

CITY MANAGER
January 12, 2023
Mr. Daniel Otting, CEO
[email protected]
Mr. Efren Martinez
[email protected]
Fleet Yards Inc.
893 West 16fh Street
Newport Beach, California 92663
Office of the City Manager
8650 California Avenue, South Gate, CA 90280
P: (323) 563-9503 F: (323) 569-2678
www.cityofsouthgate.org
Re: City of South Gate's Denial of Reqgiest by Fleet Yards Inc. for Extension of Temporary Use Permit No. TUP 2020-01 for Truck-Trailer Storage at 8530 Alameda Street
Dear Messrs. Otting and Martinez,
We are in receipt of Mr. Martinez's December 23, 2022, e-mail addressed to the South Gate City Manager, the City's Director of Community Development ("Director"), and certain members of the City Council. We understand that Mr. Martinez's e-mail is intended as a notice to the City that Fleet Yards Inc, wishes to appeal the Director's denial of your request for an extension of the above-referenced Temporary Use Permit. Such appeals should be filed along with the appropriate fees required under the adopted fee schedule with the City Clerk pursuant to South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC") {S) 11.50.040. Those appeals, including fees, according to the SGMC, are to be submitted within 10 working days of the decision notification. Given the holidays, I am extending that time period for the applicant to Januaiy 30, 2023, at 5:00 PM.

The fees to be paid are the Appeal fee ($2,364) and the Public Notice fee ($1,570) for a total of $3,934. In addition, there should be a written letter signed by the property owner or authorized officer/agent of the property owner requesting the appeal. In that appeal letter, the property owner should clearly state what they are appealing and provide any supporting documents they wish to submit for the Planning Commission to review as part of the appeal. If a written appeal letter and fees are submitted on or before Januaiy 30, 2023, you will be notified of the date, time and location of the appeal hearing before the Planning Commission, in accordance with SGMC §§ 11.50.020 ,'-Ji.. :Qj',
116
City of South Gate's Deriial of Request by Fleet Yards Inc. for Extemion of Temporary Use Permit No. TUP 2020-01 for Truck-Trailer Storage at 8530Alameda Street
Jariuaiy 12, 2022

Page 2 ends

and 1 1.50.030. Failure to submit the fortnal request and fees by the date specified will result in the Director's decision being finalized and in effect.

At the hearing, the Director will be recommending that the Planning Commission uphold the Director's decision to deny the renewal of the subject pernnit, for the following reasons:

1. The truck-trailer storage use that is the subject of the permit is not authorized or allowed by the SGMC on any land within the Industrial Flex (IF) zone of which the subject property is a part. Table 11.21-3 shows that outside storage of vehicles is not permitted in the IF zone.

2. The permit was originally issued in error and in violation of City ordinances.

SGMC {§ 11.51.070.A states that temporary use pernnits are to be used for "short- term activities" which are of a "short-term nature". SGMC § 11.51.070.B.4 specifies that the maximum duration of a temporary use permit shall not exceed three days in a row, or ten working days in any calendar year. This means that when the former City official issued his July 16, 2020, letter purporting to approve a temporary use permit having an initial term of one year and four potential annual extensions thereafter, that approval was void because it was issued in violation of the limitations imposed by the SGMC. That official had no authority to issue the permit, and Fleet Yards Inc. had no right to rely on the permit.

I would note, that under an appeal of a land use entitlement, the burden is upon the applicant to show the decision by the Director to be not consistent with or is a wrong interpretation of the South Gate Municipal Code and thus, the reason why the Planning Commission should alter that decision. In this situation, the burden will be on the applicant to demonstrate:

1. That the South Gate Municipal Code 11.51.070 pernnits temporary uses longer than three days in a row or ten days in a given calendar year.

2. Within the Industrial Flex (IF) zone, SGMC Table 11.21.3 allows for the outside storage of vehicles/containers.

3. The former City official had authority to override the SGMC in his capacity as the Director.

Your appeal will be heard at a regularly scheduled meeting of the South Gate Planning Commission. As indicated above, you will be notified well in advance of the date, time and place of the hearing. At the hearing, you will be given an opportunity to present your case to the Planning Commissioners as to why they should overturn the Director's denial of your application to conduct a business that is not permitted within the Industrial Flex zone, along with the renewal of the temporary use permit erroneously issued.
117
Ciffl of South Gate's Denial of Request by Fleet Yards Itic. for Extension of Temporary Use Permit No. TUP 2020-01 for
Truck-Trailer Storage at 8530Alameda Street
January 12, 2022
Page3of3
If you have any questions about the appeal or this letter, please contact Ms. Yalini Siva, Senior Planner at [email protected] or (323) 563-9526.

Sff.

Chris Jeffers
City Manager
Cc: Community Development Director
Craig Hardwick, Deputy City Attorney
Senior Planner
118
Exh 9
EXHIBIT 9
119
Alameda Engle Properties,
LLC
2127 Century Woods Way
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Chris Jeffers
City Manager
8650 California Ave
South Gate, CA 90280
January 26, 2023
To the Attention of Chris Jeffers:

This letter shall serve as notice to the City of South Gate, that Alameda Engle Properties would like to appeal the “City of South Gate’s Denial of Request by Fleet Yards Inc. for Extension of Temporary Use Permit No. TUP 2020-01 for Truck-Trailer Storage at 8530 Alameda Street.” Accompanying this letter is a check for $3,934, which is comprised of $2,364 (Appeal Fee) and $1,570 (Public Notice Fee).

For over 50 years, the subject property has been Heavy Industrial and has been Truck Storage, Container/Trailer Storage, as well as a Metal Recycling Facility. Since the previous tenant (Jack Engle and Company) has vacated the property, it has remained in similar utilization (less the Truck Storage and Recycling operation). Upon the previous tenant departure, we inquired within the city of South Gate for a reduced utilization. Although we felt we didn’t need to “check” with the city of South Gate, we did, as we have always maintained a good relationship, being on the property for over 50 years in Heavy Industrial. Since ownership of the property, no vehicle/container that moves in or out of the property does so through South Gate. All movements are through Los Angeles, as the exit/entrance on Alameda Street is a right turn only; heading away from the city of South Gate. Further to this, the property and its content are not visible from the street, as the property is surrounded by a 10-foot solid wall and then is offset further from Alameda Street due to the Alameda Corridor and ACTA owned land.

Further to this, the current tenant has done community outreach events to build good repour with the community.

Upon bringing in a new tenant, we requested our item/situation to be brought before the City Council for a permanent solution to the matter but the Community Development Director, Joe Perez, chose to employ a TUP. This TUP had extensions that renewed yearly. The current tenant lease was based upon the Temporary Use Permit No. TUP2020-01 8530 Alameda Street (APN 6202-036-003). Why the Community Development Director chose a TUP with the noted conditions, was not our place, although we disagreed because we wanted the item brought to the City Council for approval. However, it was the permitting decision of the City. We are asking the City to continue with its signed contract, as many factors were put into motion based upon that document. Maybe the renewal should not be called a TUP, but it should reflect the 50+ years this property was Heavy Industrial and continue with the longtime usage of its past. Please see at the end of this letter the original document drawn-up to 120
denote all our points that are consistent and relevant for this appeal. Hence, there is nothing different then versus now.

It is clear thru current written and verbal communication that the City of South Gate wants to rectify a mistake and/or wrongdoing by its previous employee (Joe Perez, Community Development Director).

The City is within its full right to do so, but ask that the City of South Gate take a more humble and welcoming approach and do everything possible within reason, to work with us rather than punish us for an action that the City officially took.

This current reversal of a previously signed City document feels like discrimination of the landowner and seems to favor the bigger name companies that make use of Heavy Industrial for the same practice. The City has no solutions, just reversal of a previous decision. A decision to which (right or wrong), was decided by the Community Development Director of the City of South Gate with signing authority. Once again, if the City of South Gate wants to rectify a mistake and/or wrong-doing by its previous employee (Joe Perez, Community Development Director), the City is within its full right to do so, but we ask that this is done in a collaborative way that is mutually beneficial and allows us to continue to use the property in the way it has been for over 50 years.

Currently, this same type of Container Storage is within the City of South Gate, and we are asking for no different treatment. This takes place at the following location:

JB Hunt MT Lot Ardine - 5 Acres
4500 Ardine St, South Gate, CA 90280

Denying the previously signed City document, the City is not allowing the property to be utilized. This is ignoring the Grandfathered status. Alameda Engle Properties has a desire to engage the City of South 121
Gate to further understand its vision of possible development(s) on the property for the betterment and prosperity of the City of South Gate and its residents. During the course of any such due diligence, research and planning, the property owner desires to continue to put the Company property to good economic use. Furthermore, the current hardship times of the Covid-19 pandemic and local and National Financial Crisis (foreseen recession) of which has no foreseen end date, Company requires a temporary financial solution for itself and to keep its property in good standing.

I look forward to being notified of the date, time, and location of the appeal hearing, as I still strongly believe that our item should be taken to the South Gate City Council for a more permanent solution to the matter using the original draft Agreement placed after this signature page.

All methods of communication can be as follows:
(First choice)
Email- [email protected]
-P lease cc [email protected] in all emails to [email protected] (Second choice)
Mailing Address:

Attn: Alan Engle
2127 Century Woods Way
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Regards,
Jason Engle
Property Representative
[email protected]
122
Temporary Use Agreement – City of South Gate and Alameda Engle Properties Page 1 of 2 TEMPORARY USE AGREEMENT – CITY OF SOUTH GATE AND ALAMEDA ENGLE

PROPERTIES, LLC
THIS CONSULTING AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made as of this 1st day of September, 2022 (the "Effective Date") between City of South Gate. herein referred to jointly as “CITY,” and ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC a California limited liability company herein referred to as “Company.” WHEREAS, Company is located at and owns the property known as 8530 South Alameda Street, South Gate, CA 90280.

WHEREAS, Company through its affiliate Jack Engle & Company, Inc., a California corporation, has proudly been a part of the community at its current locations since 1963. Approximately 6.77 acres of the property of the Company is located in the City of South Gate and the remaining approximately 2.947 acres, known as 8440 South Alameda Street, is located in an unincorporated portion of the County of Los Angeles.

WHEREAS, for over 50 years, Company has continuously been operating as an Industrial Recycling Center (wholesale-not open to public), which operation includes: trucking (pickup and deliveries), processing of ferrous and non-ferrous materials (shredding, bailing, shearing, sorting, and picking), and includes container storage and container delivery.

WHEREAS, Company has owned its property and operated in the City so long that it has seen many zoning modifications throughout the years to include zoning modifications to its own and neighboring properties, which have resulted in, among other matters, making the property on which Company owns and operates its business a legal non-conforming (grandfathered-in) property.

WHEREAS, Company desires to work with and engage the City of South Gate to further understand its vision of possible development(s) to be developed on the Company property for the betterment and prosperity of the City of South Gate and its residents.

WHEREAS, Company has been exploring various ways to develop, or work with third parties to develop, the property for the betterment and prosperity of the City of South Gate and its residents.

WHEREAS, Company has determined that any such development will require extensive due diligence, research, planning, and approvals, all of which will require an adequate amount of time to complete.

WHEREAS, during the course of any such due diligence, research and planning, the Company desires to continue to put the Company property to good economic use.

WHEREAS, due to the current hardship times of the Covid-19 pandemic and local and National Financial Crisis of which has no foreseen end date, Company requires a temporary financial solution for itself and to keep its property in good standing.

WHEREAS, Fleet Yards, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Fleet“), which operates a trailer storage company that distributes many essential products to third parties, desires to lease the Company’s property, including the portion of the property located in the city of South Gate, for a term of five years for the temporary storage of trailers and containers, and the Company desires to lease its property to Fleet for a term of five years for such use.

WHEREAS, the City desires to cooperate with the efforts of the Company to lease the Company property as set forth above and in connection therewith to grant a temporary use for such use as set forth herein. 123
Temporary Use Agreement – City of South Gate and Alameda Engle Properties Page 2 of 2

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual promises set forth in this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows:

1. Temporary use. The City hereby confirms and approves the use of the Company property for the storage of trailers, containers and related legal uses and the lease by the Company of the Company property to third parties for such uses.

2. Term. The term of this agreement shall commence as of September 1, 2022 and continue until September 1, 2027.

3. Restrictions. No truck or trailer traveling to or from the Company property located in the City of South Gate shall be allowed to drive on any street located within the City of South Gate other than on Alameda Street, and all ingress and egress to the Company property located in the City of South Gate shall be from Alameda Street.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have entered into this Temporary Use Agreement as of the day and year first above written.

Land Owner:

Alameda Engle Properties, LLC,
a California limited liability company

_________________________ _______________
By: Alan Engle Date
Its: Principal

Contact Information:

Alameda Engle Properties, LLC,
a California limited liability company
c/o Mr. Alan Engle
2127 Century Woods Way
Los Angeles, California 90067
Tel: (323) 394-5326
Email: [email protected]
CITY:

City of South Gate
A Local Government Municipality

_________________________ _______________
By: Chris Jeffers Date
Its: City Manager

Contact Information:

City of South Gate
8650 California Ave,
South Gate, CA 90280
Tel: 323-563-9503
Email: [email protected]

_________________________ _______________
By: Raul Salina Date
Its: City Attorney

Contact Information:

City of South Gate
8650 California Ave,
South Gate, CA 90280
Tel: 323-563-9538

124
Exh 10

EXHIBIT 10

125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
Exh 11

EXHIBIT 11

133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
Exh 12
EXHIBIT 12
158
159
160
161
Exh 13
EXHIBIT 13
162
163
164
165
Exh 14
EXHIBIT 14
166
167
Exh 15
EXHIBIT 15
168
1 May 16, 2023

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Maria del Pilar Avalos
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 TUP Extension Dear Mayor del Pilar
Avalos, 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 1970s. 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. 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 legal 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 169
2 extension on the grounds that the TUP was issued in error.1 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 TUP 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 1973; 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
213.592.2966 direct
[email protected]
1 A copy of appellants’ presentation materials during the May 2, 2023 CPC hearing are attached as Exhibit B. 170
3 cc:

Yalini Silva
Meredith Elguira
Vice Mayor Gil Hurtado
Councilmember Maria Davila
Councilmember Al Rios
Councilmember Joshua Barron
Raquel Larios
171

EXHIBIT A

172
1 April 27, 2023

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City of South Gate
8650 California Ave
South Gate CA, 90280
Re: 8530 Alameda Street – Appeal of Director’s Denial of TUP 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”).

AEP historically operated a recycling facility on the Property, including storage of truck trailers, since the early 1970s. Fleet Yards, Inc. (“Fleet Yards”) is the current tenant 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 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. 173
2 1. Background
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.1

2. Truck Trailer Storage is a Legal & Nonconforming Use 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 § 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 1970s. 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, 1977;2
1 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.
174
3 • Aerial Photos showing tractor trailers on the site dating back to 2012;3 • Documentation of Utility payments dating back to 2016;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 Legal Nonconforming Use has Not Been Abandoned or Discontinued, and the Right 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.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 legal 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 E1-E-4.
4 See Exhibit C.
5 See Exhibit D.
6 SGMC §§ 11.55.030; 11.55.040
7 Id. at 11.55.040.
8 South Gate General Plan: Community Design Element, Policy P.6, pg. 106. 175

4 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.10 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.11

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.12 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.
10 See Exhibit E.
11 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. 12 See Exhibit A.
176

5 licensing policies and procedures, in addition to permits from other state and local jurisdictions.13 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.

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

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 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 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 Id.
177

6 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. Terminating the Legal Nonconforming 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, 412-413; 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.

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.

178

7 Please contact my office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Alfred Fraijo Jr.

Partner
213.592.2966 direct
[email protected]
179

EXHIBIT B

180
8350 Alameda Street

ALAMEDA ENGLE
PROPERTIES, LLC
Appeal of Director's Denial of TUP
Extension for Truck Trailer Storage
Temporary Use Permit No. 2020-01
May 2, 2023
Presentation by Alfred Fraijo Jr.
181
02 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC — TUP DENIAL APPEAL — MAY 02, 2023 8530 Alameda Street
Property Site
City of South Gate
Los Angeles County
182
03 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC — TUP DENIAL APPEAL — MAY 02, 2023 • 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.

Request to Extend the TUP
183
04 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC — TUP DENIAL APPEAL — MAY 02, 2023 Project Timeline
EARLY 1970S TO 2020
Alameda Engle Properties, LLC operated
a recycling facility on the Property,
including storage of truck trailers
2020 TO PRESENT
Tenant Fleet Yards, Inc. operating
truck trailer storage on the Property
JULY 16, 2020
City approved TUP for truck trailer
use on the Property
DECEMBER 20, 2022
Community Development Director
claims City would no longer
consider the TUP extensions
JANUARY 26, 2023
Appeal of Director’s denial of the
TUP extension
184
05 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC — TUP DENIAL APPEAL — MAY 02, 2023 Compliance with All TUP Conditions
Conditions of Approval Complies?

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

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. Egress and ingress shall only be via Alameda Street

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

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
185
06 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC — TUP DENIAL APPEAL — MAY 02, 2023 • 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 § 11.55.030.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 is a Legal
Nonconforming Use
Truck Trailer Storage
1973 ----------------------------------- Present
186
07 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC — APPEAL OF TUP DENIAL — MAY 02, 2023 2012 2018 2020 2022
Historic Aerial Photographs
187
08 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC — TUP DENIAL APPEAL — MAY 02, 2023 50+ Years of Continuous
Truck Trailer Storage Use
Director Shall Evaluate
All 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
188
1 4
09 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC — TUP DENIAL APPEAL — MAY 02, 2023 “Industrial and manufacturing uses should remain in
the [South Gate College District] but could be phased
out as the college district expands.” South Gate
General Plan 2035, Community Design Element, p. 106.

General Plan Compliance
189
190

APPENDIX
11 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC — TUP DENIAL APPEAL — MAY 02, 2023 191 Business License Compliance
2 3
2 3
4 The Use has Not Been Abandoned
12 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC — TUP DENIAL APPEAL — MAY 02, 2023 AEP/Jack Engle License
2014 - Present
Fleet Yards License
1973 - 2020
Fleet Yards Auxiliary PermitZoning
Clearance
192
Exh 16

EXHIBIT 16

193
1 of 2
Tuesday, April 8, 2025 at 09:44:46 Paciﬁc Daylight TimeTuesday, April 8, 2025 at 09:44:46 Paciﬁc Daylight Time Subject:Subject: FW: 8530 Alameda Street - Conﬁdential Settlement Communication - Evidence Code Section 1152 - Draft Settlement Terms
Date:Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 at 9:39:06 AM Paciﬁc Daylight Time From:From: Jessica Rivas on behalf of Alfred Fraijo Jr.

To:To: Patricia Ortega
Attachments:Attachments:image118048.png, image837246.png, image869628.png, image079061.png, 8530 Alameda Street - Condifential Settlement Communication - Draft Term Sheet 10.4.23.pdf FYI.

Jessica Rivas
+1 213-669-5751 | direct
[email protected]

From:From: Alfred Fraijo Jr. <[email protected]>
Sent:Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 9:37 PM
To:To: Raúl F. Salinas <[email protected]>; Raul Salinas <[email protected]> Cc:Cc: Sara Atsbaha <[email protected]>
Subject:Subject: Fwd: 8530 Alameda Street - ConﬁdenUal SeVlement CommunicaUon - Evidence Code SecUon 1152 - DraZ SeVlement Terms

Resending. Please conﬁrm receipt.

Thank you.

Alfred Fraijo Jr.
+1 213-592-2966 | direct
[email protected]

Begin forwarded message:

From:From: Sara Atsbaha <[email protected]>
Date:Date: October 4, 2023 at 12:05:30 PM PDT
194
2 of 2
To:To: "Salinas, Raúl F." <[email protected]>
Cc:Cc: "Alfred Fraijo Jr." <[email protected]>
Subject:Subject: 8530 Alameda Street - ConﬁdenUal SeVlement CommunicaUon - Evidence8530 Alameda Street - ConﬁdenUal SeVlement CommunicaUon - Evidence Code SecUon 1152 - DraZ SeVlement TermsCode SecUon 1152 - DraZ SeVlement Terms

CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION- EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 1152

Dear Mr. Salinas,

On behalf of Alfred, I am transmitting the attached draft terms for discussion at your next meeting. I understand you may be meeting tomorrow, Thursday.

Thank you for your continued attention to this matter.

Best regards,

Sara

Sara Atsbaha
Attorney
+1 213-866-8609 | direct
[email protected]

304 South Broadway, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90013
+1 213-592-1185 | main
somosgroup.org
This message is sent by a law ﬁrm and may contain information that is privileged or conﬁdential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

195
Exh 17

EXHIBIT 17

196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
Exh 18

EXHIBIT 18

213
214
215
216
Exh 19

EXHIBIT 19

217
218
219
220
Exh 20

EXHIBIT 20

221
222
223
Exh 21

EXHIBIT 21

224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
Exh 22

EXHIBIT 22

241
242
Exh 23

EXHIBIT 23

243
244
245
246
247
248
Exh 24

EXHIBIT 24

249
250
Exh 25

EXHIBIT 25

251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
Exh 26

EXHIBIT 26

259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
Exh 27

EXHIBIT 27

271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
Exh 28

EXHIBIT 28

279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
Exh 29

EXHIBIT 29

287
288
289
Exh 30

EXHIBIT 30

290
291
292
Exh 31

EXHIBIT 31

293
294
295
296
297
298
Exh 32

EXHIBIT 32

299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
Exh 33

EXHIBIT 33

316
1 Sarah Jane Longalong
Subject: FW: Alameda Engle Properties, LLC / Truck Trailer Storage at 8530 Alameda Street, South Gate
Attachments: attachment.tiff; PC Reso_2025-04.pdf; PC Reso_2025-05.pdf From: James Eckart <[email protected]>
Date: March 20, 2025 at 2:06:00 AM PDT
To: Sara Atsbaha <[email protected]>, "Alfred Fraijo Jr." <[email protected]> Subject: Alameda Engle Properties, LLC / Truck Trailer Storage at 8530 Alameda Street, South Gate

CAUTION EXTERNAL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Sara and Alfred:

It was nice to meet each of you in person earlier this week at the South Gate Planning Commission.

Attached hereto [in Adobe Acrobat (*.pdf) format], please find a copy of the following Planning Commission Resolutions:

a) Resolution No. 2025-04 (upholding the Director’s Determination and Noncompliance Notification); and,

b) Resolution No. 2025-05 (denying your client’s request for a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment).

Please remember that your client may appeal either or both of the Planning Commission’s decisions to the City Council by filing a Request for Appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10) working days of this notification. In order to keep the administrative record clean, the City requests that a separate Request for Appeal be filed for each Planning Commission decision your client intends on appealing.

Should the City Clerk not receive a timely filed Request for Appeal (along with any applicable appeal fees), the respective decisions of the Planning Commission would be deemed final and binding.

Thank you for your continuing professionalism, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

—Jim

--
James Eckart, City Prosecutor

DAPEER, ROSENBLIT & LITVAK, LLP
11500 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 550
317
2 Los Angeles, CA 90064-1524
Tel: (310) 477-5575
Fax: (310) 477-7090
[email protected]

NOTICE: This message is intended only for the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, retain or disseminate this message or any attachment. If you have received this message in error, please call the sender immediately at (323) 587-5221 and delete all copies of the message and any attachment. Neither the transmission of this message or any attachment, nor any error in transmission or misdelivery shall constitute waiver of any applicable legal privilege.

318
Ciffl of South Gate

PLANNING COMMISSION
A(GENIDA JET[TlTL,
Planning Manager:

John F.
r the Regular Meeting of: March 18, 2025 -= /
AICP DavidCraEitree.AICP
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S DETERMINATION FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8530 ALAMEDA STREET, AND

DETERMINING THE ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
PURPOSE: Public hearing to consider the following:

Appeal of Director's Deteimination: Consideration of an appeal of the Director's determination that the legal, nonconfoiming use for metal processing and/or recycling activities at a property located at 8530 Alameda Street have been abandoned and can no longer be conducted, and 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 must be immediately terminated.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
Proiect Location:

Assessor's Parcel Number:

Property Owner:

Appellant/Representative:

General Plan Designation:

6. :
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 (Coinrnunity Design Element, Figure CD 4, Districts)
IF (Industrial Flex)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

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

2. ACCEPT the deteri'nination that this matter is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act;

3. ADOPT the findings as outlined in Resolution No. 2025-04 (Attachment A); and

4. UPHOLD the deteimination of the Director of Community Development that the legal, nonconforming use for a metal processing and/or recycling activities at the subject property have been abandoned and can no longer be conducted, and 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 must be immediately terminated.

AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl

ATTACHMENT D
319

AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805v1

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 February 27, 2025.

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
In accordance with the California Environmen tal Quality Act (CEQA), the Director’s determination qualifies for a categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15321, (Class 21) “Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies,” in that the City is enforcing the South Gate Municipal Code.

The Planning Commission’s determination on the termination of the legal, non-conforming use of the subject property is not subj ect to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review because it is not an “approval” as defined in Ca lifornia Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15352, but rather a determination of whether a use must terminate at a site, and therefore does not commit the City to any definite course of action regarding new us es or changes to the approved use of the subject property. Furthermore, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves pursuant to Section 15270(a).

BACKGROUND
This is an appeal by the applicant, Somos Law Group (“Somos”), on behalf of the property owner, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC (“AEP” repres ented by Jason Engle), for a 6.78-acre property located at 8530 Alameda Street. Somos is appealing the Director of Community Development’s decision that the legal, nonconfor ming use for metal processing and/ or recycling activities at the subject property has been abandoned and can no longer be conducted, and 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 must be immediately terminated. Somos is also requesting to change the zoning of the subject property from IF (In dustrial 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 abut ting 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 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 accordi ng to County sta ff, a conditional use permit (CUP) is currently being processed.

History of Zoning and Land Use of Subject Property
As early as 1961, the Subject Property was desi gnated as being within a Heavy Manufacturing (“M-3”) Zone.

320

AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805v1
Based upon a review of public reco rds and documents submitted by AEP, the Site was used by Jack Engel & Company (hereinafter, “JECO”) 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.

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 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 – how ever, the recycling operations at the Subject Property were deemed to be a legal, nonconformi ng 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 Marc h 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 an d/or containers as a principal us e. Moreover, the structure that was previously utilized to conduct the metal recycling at the Site was demolished.

In July 2020, the City ap proved Fleet Yards, Inc.’s application for a Temporar y 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 possibl e extensions up to a maximum peri od of five years from the date of approval”. TUP2020-01 expired on July 16, 2021, without a timely reque st for renewal from Fleet Yards, Inc.

In December 2022, the 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 Temp orary Use Permits to no more than three days in a row or ten working days in any calendar year.

On May 2, 2023, the Planning Commission upheld th e Director’s Determination to deny an extension of the TUP (as set forth in Resolution 2023-05).

Notwithstanding the issuance and subsequent inelig ibility for renewal of the TUP, the appellant contended that the truck trailer storage activities are a legal, non-conforming use. As the appellant bears the burden of proving the le gal, nonconforming status of th e truck trailer storage, Staff 321

AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805v1
provided the appellant ample opportunity to present to the Director sufficient evidence to support its contention.

On January 21, 2025, Interim Community Development Director David M. Crabtree, AICP, issued a determination and noncompliance letter indicating the legal, nonconforming use of the subject property for metal processing and/or recycling ac tivities – including the integral truck trailer storage component of those ac tivities – was abandoned and can no longer be conducted unless otherwise in conformity to al l current laws and regulations of the City (and applicable governmental agencies). The use for truck trailer storage as a principal use unrelated to metal processing/recycling activities is not a lega l, nonconforming use – and, as such, must be immediately terminated. A copy of that letter is attached hereto as Attachment B.

ANALYSIS:

Appeal of Director’s Determination
On January 21, 2025, the City sent a Director’s Determination and Noncompliance Notification letter to the applicant indicating the legal, non conforming use of the Subj ect Property for metal processing and/or recycling activit ies – including the integral truc k 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 la ws and regulations of th e City (and applicable governmental agencies). Furthermore, based on staff’s research and information provided by Somos, the use of the Site for truck trailer storage as a principal use unrelated to metal processing/recycling activities is not a lega l, nonconforming use – and, as such, must be immediately terminated.

On February 6, 2025, the applicant filed an appeal requesting the Planning Commission challenging the Director’s determination based on the following grounds:

1. The Director’s Determination is unsupported by the South Gate Municipal Code (SGMC) purportedly due to the Director’s differentiation between an ancillary and primary use, that the immediate termination of a le gal, nonconforming use is incons istent with the SGMC and General Plan, and the Determination violates procedural requirements;

2. Substantive and procedural due process concerns; and

3. Termination of a legal, nonconforming use is a de facto regulatory taking; and,

4. The City’s failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.

SGMC Prohibits that Use at 8530 Al ameda Street: The subject property is zoned Industrial Flex (IF). Table 11.21-3, under SGMC Section 11.21.030 “Land use permissions tables,” lists allowed land uses within the IF zone. Truck storage/termin al use is not listed on that Table as an allowed 322

AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805v1
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 zo ne shall not be allowed or permitted within the zone.” Therefore, the storage of trucks, truck-trailers and containe rs is a prohibited use in the IF zone.

It is undisputed that the recycling/metal processing activities that occurred at the subject property were legal, nonconforming, and that truck trailer storage is not currently a pe rmitted use at the subject property pursuant to the South Gate Municipal Code (inclusive of the Zoning Code). The issues of contention are (i) whether the legal, nonconforming recycling/metal processing activities at the subject property have been abandoned; a nd/or (ii) whether the appellant has submitted sufficient evidence to substantiate that the current use of the site for truck trailer storage unrelated to recycling/metal proc essing activities constitutes a lega l, nonconforming use of the subject property.

In response to the appellant’s ar guments set forth in the Request for Appeal, Staff submits the following.

ASSERTION: The Director’s Determination is unsupported by the South Gate Municipal Code.

The appellant first argues that the Director failed to make a determination that the legal, nonconforming use is “wholly discontinued or abandoned for a continuous period of two calendar years” as required by SGMC 11.55.040(D). The Director, however, correctly determined that the legal, nonconforming recycling/meta l processing use at the site was wholly discontinued and/or abandoned – as evidenced by the cessation of all ac tivities associated with the recycling/metal processing activities in or around 2020, including the demolition of the structure that was previously utilized for such activities. Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Director did not distinguish between primary and ancillary legal, non-conforming uses. Rather, the Director accepted the appellants assertion that the storage of tr uck trailers at the site was an “integral part of metal processing operations,” however, the Director did determine that the truck trailer storage was only done as part of the recycling/metal pr ocessing activities while those activities were occurring. The Director correctly determined that the current use of the site for truck trailer storage only is NOT a continuation of the use of the trucks for the recycling/metal processing activities, and, is, in fact, a wholly new use.

The appellant also argues that the immediate termination of the truck trailer storage is inconsistent with the South Gate Municipal Code and the General Plan – which the appellant contends promotes a more gradual transition to a conforming use. Ho wever, the appellant fails to recognize that it was the appellant’s abandonment of the recycling/metal processing activities for more than 2 years that resulted in the termination of its legal, nonconforming rights – and not any action by the City.

The City’s requirement that the legal, nonconfor ming use be terminated for 2 continuous years does, in fact, provide for a gradual transition – but the appellant failed to utilize those 2 years to make a transition to a conforming use. Instead, the appellant transitioned to using the subject property for the prohibited truck trailer storage use.

323

AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805v1
The appellant further mistakenly argues that the Director failed to make findings required by Section 11.55.040(D) of the municipal code. Specifi cally, the appellant argue s that the Director failed to consider and make a determination re garding (i) the property owner’s intent; (ii) the presence or absence of persona l property associated with the legal, nonconforming use; (iii) presence or absence of furnishi ngs, equipment, and other propert y associated with the use; and, (iv) continuity of utility service to the property.

The appellant incorrectly interprets SGMC §11.55.040(D). Pursuant to SGMC §11.55.040(D)(1), in order to determine whether a property owner has abandoned/dis continued a legal, nonconforming use, the Director is required to de termine the “apparent intent of the owner to discontinue use of the nonconforming structure is apparent, as determined by the director” (emphasis added). This particular requirement , however, is applicable to the intent to discontinue/abandon a nonconforming structure – and not the owner’s intent to discontinue a legal, nonconforming use. That being said, the Director determined that the structure previously existing at the site was voluntarily demolished in or around March 2020 – and that all other activities associated with the recycling/metal processing us e also terminated aro und the same time. The Director also determined that all other equipment, furnishings, and the structure itself used for the recycling/metal processing activities have been abse nt from the site for more than two years.

Moreover, no additional business licenses have been acquired for recycling/metal processing activities for at least 2 years. Any continued utility use at the site (including electricity, gas, water or waste collection) does not negate the Director’s determination that all use of the subject property for recycling/metal processing activities has been abandoned/discontinued for more than 2 years.

ASSERTION: The City’s management of th e legal nonconforming use gives rise to substantive and procedural due process concerns.

The appellant contends that the manner in whic h the City has handled requests from appellant’s legal counsel has raised concerns regarding the appellant’s substantive and procedural due process.

Appellant also apparently incorrectly argues that the Director suggested that the appellant was required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit in 1988 as a result of a change in the City’s Zoning Code. Lastly, appellant argues that Staff has been slow to acknowledge or process its request for a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment. It should be noted that Staff provided documents in its possession – however, was not required to provide copies of business licenses which were no longer in the possession of the City. [Business licenses are issued to business operators – and the appellant would have been in the best position to retain the prior business licenses.] Moreover, the Director did not assert that the appellant required a Conditional Use Permit, but rather that the change in the City’s Zoning Code requiring a Conditional Use Permit for the recycling/metal processing use of the site is what converted the legal status of recycling/metal processing use of the site to “legal, nonconforming”. Lastly, the processing of the Zone Ch ange and General Plan Amendment is a separate matter before the Pl anning Commission, and argum ents related to the processing of those requests are not related to the Director’s Determination regarding the termination of the legal, nonconfor ming status of the recycling/meta l processing activities or the lack of such status for the truck trailer storage.

ASSERTION: Termination of the legal nonconforming use is a de facto regulatory taking.

The appellant contends that the changes to the City’s Zoning laws and General Plan amount to a regulatory taking because of the li mited uses allowed at the subject property. However, the City provides for the continuation of nonconforming uses – and, as suc h, appellant would have been allowed to continue the recycling/metal processing use of the site had the appellant not abandoned the use or otherwise caused the te rmination of the use as set fort h in SGMC Chapter 11.55. It is 324

AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805v1
the appellant’s actions that have resulted in the termination of the abilit y to continue conducting recycling/metal processing activities – and it is the Director’s determination that the truck trailer storage that is currently occurring has never been lawfully approved by the City. Th is hearing is not the venue to challenge the City’s prior Zoning Code amendments related to permitted uses.

ASSERTION: The City has Not Considered th e Environmental Consequences Resulting from the Termination of the Existing La nd Use in Favor of alternative Land Uses Inconsistent with the Requirements of CEQA.

The appellant incorrectly asserts that the City’s termination of the legal, nonconforming use of the subject property is tantamount to changing a la nd use designation – and would require review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). However, the Director determined that the actual use of the site for recycling/metal processing ceased in or about March 2020 – and the Director’s Determination merely is a confirmation of the abandonment/discontinuance of the use of the site for recycling/metal pro cessing by the owner.

Although the commencement of a new conforming use may require CEQA review, that would be determined and occur at the time a conforming use is proposed by the appellant or other interested party – however, Staff has determined that this appeal is exempt from CEQA review.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Director’s determination based on the findings in the attached resolution.

CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission uphold th e Director’s Determination that the legal, nonconforming use of the subject property for metal processing and/or re cycling activities has been abandoned for more than tw o (2) continuous years, and can no longer be conducted at the site; and that the use of the site for truck tra iler storage as a principal use unrelated to metal processing/recycling activities is not a legal, nonconforming use.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. PC Resolution No. 2025-04
B. Director’s Determination and Noncompliance Notification Letter C. Request for Appeal from Somos Law Group of Director’s Determination and Noncompliance Notification dated February 6, 2025
D. Request for Appeal from Somos Law Group of Director’s Determination dated November 15, 2023
E. Director’s Letter to Engle regarding TUP 2020-01 extension dated May 16, 2023 F. PC Agenda Bill dated May 2, 2023 (without attachments) G. Letter from Somos regarding SELA letter dated March 13, 2025 H. Letter from SELA dated March 6, 2025

--------------------------------------------- SEE ATTACHMENT 2 OF COUNCIL REPORT 325
Cited
South
(,ate-
Department ofCommunity Development
Planning Division
8650 California Avenue
South Gate, CA 90280-3075
www.cityofsouthgate.org
P: (323) 563.9529
F: (323) 563-5358
January 21, 2025
Alameda Engle Properties, LLC
2127 Century Woods Way
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Attn: Alan Engle, Manager
Re: DIRECTOR DETERMINATION AND NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFCATION Nonconforming Land Use at
8530 Alameda Street, South Gate [APN 6202-036-003] Mr. Engle:

The real property commonly known as 8530 Alameda Street, South Gate and identified by Assessor Parcel Number 6202-036-003 (hereinaffer, "Subject Property" or "Site") is currently being utilized by Fleet Yards, Inc. for the principal use of truck trailer storage.

Fleet Yards and the property owner (Alameda Engle Properties, LLC) have asserted that truck trailer storage is a legal, nonconforming use at the Site and entitled to continue operation in accordance with the South Gate Municipal Code (hereinafter, "SGMC" or "Municipal Code"), and have requested a formal determination by the Director as to whether the truck trailer storage at the Site constitutes a legal, nonconforming use.

History of Zoning and Land Use of Subject 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 Alameda Engle Properties, LLC (hereinafter, "AEP" or "Property Owner"), the Site was used by Jack Engel & Company (hereinaffer, "JECO") 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/orAEP.

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

ATTACHMENT B
326
Alameda Engle Properties, LLC
Attn: Alan Engle, Manager
January 21, 2025

Page 2 of 7 ends

South Gate City CouncilApril 22, 2025

South Gate City Council
April 22, 2025