Agenda packet, regular meeting — South Gate City Council, May 13, 2025 (part 2 of 3)

and 11.50.030. Failure to submit the foimal 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 Plaming Coinmission uphold the Director's decision to deny the renewal of the subject permit, for the following reasons:

1. The ttuck-trailer storage use that is the subject of the permit is not autliorized 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 pen'nitted in the IF zone.

2. The permit was originally issued in error and in violation of City ordinances SGMC § 11.5 LO70.A states that temporaty use permits are to be used for "short- term activities" which are of a "short-te:tm nature". SGMC § 11.51.070.B.4 specifies that the maximum duration of a temporaty use permit shall not exceed three days in a row, or ten worlang days it':i any calendar year. This means that when tlie former City official issued his July 16, 2020, letter prirporting 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 m 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 awrong interpretation of the South Gate Municipal Code and thus, tlie reason why the Plannirig 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 pertnits temporaty uses longer than three days in a row or ten days in a given calendar year. 2, Within tlie 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 oveiride 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 ofthehearing. Atthehearing,youwillbegivenanopportiuiitytopresentyourcasetotheP1anning Comtnissioners as to why they shorild overturn the Director's denial ofyour applicationto conduct a business that is not permitted within the Industrial Flex zone, along with the renewal of the temporary use permit erroneously isstied.

T7
145
City ofSoxdli (mte's Deiiial of Reqxiest b)i Fleet Ytirds Iiic, for Extensioii of Tetnporary Use Periyiit No. TUP 2020-01 for Triick-Trailer Storage at 8530Alaineda Street
Jaiiimiy 12, 2022
Ptige 3 of3
If you l'iave any questioii.s about the appeal or tliis letter, please contact Ms. Yalini Siva, Senior Planner at ysiva@sogate,org or (323) 563-9526.

Sd.

Cliris Jeffers
City Manager
Cc: Comnumity Developi'iient Director
Craig Hardwick, Deputy City Attoiney
Senior Plaiuier
146
EXHIBIT 9
Exh 9
147
Alameda Engle Properties,
LLC
2127 Century Woods VVay
Ios Angeles, CA 90067
Chris Jeffers
City Manager
8650 California Ave
South Gate, CA 90280
January 26, 2023
To the Attention ofChris Jeffers:

This letter shall serve as notice to the City ofSouth Gate, thatAlameda Engle Properties would like to appeal the "City of South Gate's Denial of Request by Fleet Yards Inc. for Extension ofTemporary Use Permit No. TU P 2020-01 for Truck-Trailer Storage at 8530 Alameda Street." Accompanying this letteris a check for S3,934, which is comprised of S2,364 (Appeal Fee) and Sl,570 (Public Notice Fee).

For over 50 years, the subject property has been Heavylndustrial 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, weinquired within the city ofSouth 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 yearsin Heavylndustrial. Since ownership ofthe property, no vehicle/container that movesin 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 bringingin a new tenant, we requested ouritem/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 ofthe City. We are asking the City to continue with its signed contract, as many factors were putinto motion based upon that document. Maybe the renewal should not be called a TUP, but it should reflect the 50+ years this property was Heavylndustrial and continue with the longtime usage of its past. Please see at the end ofthis letter the original document drawn-up to (2o
148
denote all our points that are consistent and relevant forthis 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/orwrongdoing 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 ratherthan punish us for an action that the City officially took.

This current reversal ofa previouslysigned City documentfeels like discrimination ofthe landowner and seems to favorthe bigger name companies that make use of Heavylndustrial forthe 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 ofthe City of South Gate with signing authority. Once again, ifthe 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 donein a collaborative way that is mutually beneficial and allows us to continue to use the propertyin 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 gl
149
Gate to further understand its vision of possible development(s) on the property forthe betterment and prosperity ofthe City of South Gate and its residents. Du ring 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 ofthe Covid-19 pandemic and local and National Financial Crisis (foreseen recession) ofwhich has no foreseen end date, Company requires a temporary financial solution foritself and to keep its propertyin good standing. look forward to being notified ofthe date, time, and location ofthe appeal hearing, asl still strongly believe that ouritem should be taken to the South Gate City Council for a more permanent solution to the matter using the original draft Agreement placed afterthis signature page.

All methods of communication can be as follows:
(First choice)
Email- alamedaprop(Ei)outlook.com
-Please cc jasonbengle(a)outlook.com in all emails to [email protected] (Second choice)
Mailing Address:

Attn: Alan Engle
2127 Centu ry Woods Way
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Regards,
Jason Engle
Property Representative
[email protected]
150

TEMPORARY USE AGREEMENT - CITY OF SOUTH GATE AND ALAMEDA ENGLE

PROPERTIES, LLC
THIS CONSULTING AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made as of tliis 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, soiting, 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 propcrty 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.

WHERE,AS, 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.

Temporary Use Agreement - City of Soutli Gate and Alameda Engle Properties Page 10f 2 151
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 tlie Company property for the storage of trailers, containers arid 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 Sorith 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
Its: Principal
Date
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: A]amedaProp(24outlook.com
CITY:

City of South Gate
A Local Government Municipality
By: Chris Jeffers
Its: City Manager
Date
Contact Information:

City of South Gate
8650 California Ave,
South Gate, CA 90280
Tel: 323-563-9503
Email: [email protected]
By: Raul Salina
Its: City Attorney
Date
Contact Information:

City of South Gate
8650 California Ave,
South Gate, CA 90280
Tel: 323-563-9538
Temporary Use Agreement - City of South Gate and Alameda Engle Properties Page 2 of 2 'g'l <152
April 27, 2023
SOMOS

LAW GROUP
304 South Broadway, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 900al3

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 TLIP extensions in light of City staffs error in requiring the TLJP. 1 SOMOS
153
t 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 ("TLIP") 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 TLIP, including that the TLIP wou(d 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 decayed because of setbacks caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic, changing real estate market conditions, dec)ining 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 rio longer consider the TUP extension because of the City's misapplication of the South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC") and because the conditions of approval have been violated. On January 26, 2023, AEP informed the City that they would be appealing the determination.'

2. Truck Trailer Storaqe is a Leqal & Nonconforminq Use at the Property a. 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, inc!uding 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 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, I 977;2 ' Please note that the 2022 ReJection Letter failed to disclose the owner's appeal rights and the City's policies and procedures to file the appeal.
2 See Exliibit A.

SOMOS 2
154
* Aerial Photos showing tractor trailers on the site dating back to 2012:3 * DocumentationofUtilitypaymentsdatjngbackto2016;"
* AseweragesystemconnectionfeeinvoicefromtheLosAngelesCounty 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. TheLeqalNonconforminqUsehasNotBeenAbandonedor
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) whetherthe 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 § "I"l .55.040.D.1-2.

The SGMC specifically preserves legal nonconforming uses during transfers of ownership or tenancy. SGMC § tl.55.04C). E. Although there are limitations on expansion, the nonconforming use provisions of the SGMC protect all established legal nonconformingusesunderthecode,regardlessofthescopeoftheuse." Thereisno 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." 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 "(ilndustrial and manufacturing uses should remain in the area" until such time that the college district expands. a (emphasis added).

Here, between the two operations on the Property, truck trat)er storage has been a continuous use at the Property since 1973 - notwithstanding hardships caused by the a See Exhibit Ei-E-4.
4 See Exhibit C.
5 See Exhibit D.
6 SGMC §§ i -l .55.030; il.55.040
7 Id. at 4 t55.04(].
a South Gate General Plan: Community Design Element, Policy P.6, pg. 106.

SOMOS 3
155
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 trud< 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 . Aerial Photographs dating back to 2012 demonstrate that truck trailer storage has been a continuous use at the Property without substantial interruption.lo In addition, Fleet Yards' intent to continue the legal nonconforming truck trailer storage use has been communicated to the City on multiple occasions, including in connection with the subsequent TUP extension."
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 operaUons 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 displa>d pursuant to General Plan policies- In addition, the Property is surrounded by industrial uses, and adjacent educationa( institutions have substantially decayed deveiopment 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 1/Vithout the Cfty'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.'2 FIeetYardshassimilarlymaintainedabusinesslicensewiththeCitysince 2014. AEP and Fleet Yards have maintained a good faith effort to comply with all City 9 See Exhibit A.
'a See Exhibit E.
" See January 26, 2023 letter from AEP to Chris Jeffers re TUP Extension, attached hereto as Exhibit F; September27, 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.
4SOMOS
156
licensing policies and procedures, in addition to permits from other state and local jurisdictions.'3 However, on December 20, 2022 the City claimed that the business license had lapsed without reference to the existing licenses for the Fleet Yards operations. We understand that the City's position is that Fleet Yards requires a supplemental or auxiliary business license for its operations on the Property. However, to obtain a business license, an applicant must first obtain zoning clearance from the South Gate Planning Department. Based on communications from City staff, including the 2022 Rejection Letter, we understand that the City will not issue a zoning clearance because of the current zoning on the Property, notwithstanding the legal nonconforming use. It is inequitab!e 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. FleetYardshasSubstantiallyCompliedwithalloftheTLIP
Conditions.

On December 20, 2022, Director Meredith Elguira afleged that the TLIP 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 exoeed 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 5 973. Fleet Yards has used the Property for truck trailer storage since obtaining the TLIP in July, 2020. The size, number, and height of the truck trailers as authorized in the TLIP 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 afffdavit is attached as . The remaining condition cites 13 ld.
5 40
SOMOS
157
violations of 'City laws". As noted above, the City's cooperation is required to obtain an auxifiaiybusinesspermittosupplementtheactivebusinesslicense. Forthesereasons, we respectfully request that the City acknowledge that each of these conditions have been met to the extent possible.

3. TerminaUnq the Leqal Nonconforminq Use Violates the Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel
The Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel was designed to promote fair and equitable business transactions. The doctrine is based on the principle that a party who has made a promise should be he'd 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) 5"l Cal.2d 409, 4"l 2-4al 3; Garcia v !4/brld Sav & Loan Assn. (2010)183 Cal.App.4th 1 03'l,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 U'iis 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 haim 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
(,jJ
158
Please contact my office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Alfred Fraijo Jr.

Partner
2j3.592.2968 direct
[email protected]
SOMOS
159
EXHIBIT 11
Exh II
'73
160
Officeofti'te
gnit'lti asks Cit} Clerk
Pi!FD
SOMOS

LAW GROUP
304 South Broedway, Sciite 350
Los Arigeles, CA 900"l3
May 16, 2023
VIA ELECTRONtC MA[L
Maria dei PilarAvalos
Mayor, City of South Gate
8650 Californi:a Avenue
South Gate, CA 90280
Email:plann[[email protected]
Re: 8530 Alameda Street - Appeal of CPC's Denial of TOP Extension Dear Mayor del PilarAvalos, and Honorable Members of City Council, Our firm represents Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ('AEP"), the owners of real property located at 8530 Afameda Street in City of South Gate ("City"), California (the "Property"). AEP operated a recycling facility on the F,ropeity, including storage of truck trailers/containers, since the early 4 970s. Fleet Yards, inc, ("Fleet Yards") is the current tenant on the Pmperty, 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 issiiing 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 explainingjustification for the appeal on April 27, 2023, ("Suppiemental Letter") attached hereto as . On April 27, 2023 City Attorney, Craig Hardwick, kindly notified us that the legal nonconforming use issue is not related to the TLIP 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 ISOMOS
161
extension on the grounds that the TUP was issued in errorl 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 offioe mnferred regarding the path forward for the legal nonconforming use. Since the appeal hearing, we have been working with the City Attorney and the City Managerto 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 supporUng 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.

Sinoerely,
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 . 2 45
SOMOS
162
C(,:

Yalini Silva
Meredith Elguira
Vk,e Mayor Gil Hurtado
Councilmember Maria DavilaCoi,incilmemberAl RiosCouncilmember Joshua BarronRaquel Larios 80MOS
163
g7
164
April 27, 2023
SOMOS

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

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City of South Gate
8650 California Ave
South Gate CA, 90280
Re: 8530 Alameda Street - Appeal of Director's Denial of 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 1 970s. Fleet Yards, Inc. ("Fleet Yards") is the current tenant on the Property, and has been storing truck trailers on the Property since 2020.

4. 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 appea!ing the determination.=

2. Truck Trailer Storaqe is a Leqal & Nonconforminq 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 1 970s. Fleet Yards obtained a TUP only at the City's direction and recommendations as a demonstration of their good faith efforts to comply with City policies and procedures. The original TUP and TUP extensions were not necessary because the truck trailer storage is an ongoing legal nonconforming use with over 50 years of history between the two operators on the Property. Fleet Yards agreed to the TUP only to demonstrate its willingness to work with the City regarding a shared vision for additional education facilities in South Gate. We understand that the zoning on the Property was only recently changed to "Industrial Flex." We also understand that the City's did not issue certificates of occupancy 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 2posleiceieEsxahnlbdnpArocedures to file the appeal.

SOMOS 2
166
* AerialPhotosshowingtractortrailersonthesitedatingbackto2012;" * DocumentationofUtilitypaymentsdatingbackto2016;"
* A sewerage system connection fee invoice from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District dating back to 2007;
* AninvoicefromtheSouthCoastAirQualityManagementDistrictTor 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 Leoal 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 uUlities 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." 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 P(an: Community Design Element, Policy P.6, pg. 106.

SOMOS 3
)00
167
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 forAEP and Fleet Yards were different, neither party ceased the truck trailer storage operations, vacated the premises, or terminated utility service at the Property for the requisite two consecutive year abandonment period. Documentation of consistent utilities payments are attached in Exhibit C. Aerial Photographs dating back to 20'l2 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."
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.'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
}01168
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 TLIP 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:

4. 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 or 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 complimtions 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 /,,l
SOMOS 5
loop
169
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. TermJnatinq 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. Star Paving Co. (1958) 51 Cal.2d 409, 412-41 3; Garcia v World Sav. & LoanAssn. (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 sta'ff 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. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the equitable path forward is to acknowledge truck trailer storage on the Property as a preserved, legal nonconforming use in light of the substantial evidence supporting this finding, and the requirements of the General Plan.

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

SOMOS 6
/03
170
Please contact my office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Alfred Fraijo Jr.

Partner
213.592.2966 direct
[email protected]
SOMOS
/01,/
171
IK
172
8350 Alameda Street

ALAMEDA ENGLE

PROPERTIES, LLC
Appeaf of Director's Denial of TUP
Extension for Truck Trailer Storage
May 2, 2023
'i- ntation by Alfred Fraijo Jr.
0 Ib(,=
173
02 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC - TUP DENIAL APPEAL - MAY 02, 2023 0 BOMos
{01174
ffil&,
a Pursuant to TUP Condition No. 2 and the City Planning Commission's review authority of the appeal, the Commission can grant a modest 60- day extension of the TUP to permit the Appellant and City to review the legal nonconforming use determination.
a Alternatively, Commission can opt to postpone its determination on the TUP extension until after the Planning Division completes its reviewing of the legal nonconforming use determination.
03 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC - TUP DENIAL APPEAL - MAY 02, 2023 o 80MOg
/027
175
Alameda Engle Properties, LLC operated
a recycling facility on the Property,
includlng storage of truck trailers
City appmved TUP for truck trailer
use on the Property
Appeai of Director's denial of the
TUP extension
2020 TO PRESENT DECEMBER 20, 2022
EARLY 19708 TO 2020 JUIY 16, 2020 JANUARY 26, 2023 Tenant Fleet Yards, Inc. operating
tnuck trailer storage on the Property
Community Development [)irector
claims City would no (onger
consider the TUP extensions
04 ALAMEDAENGLEPROPERTIES,LLC-TUPDENIALAPPEAL-MAYO2,2023 0 iOq
176
all

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 or 5 years. Additional extensions wi!l 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
05 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC-TUP DENIAL APPEAL - MAY 02, 2023 0 770
177
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.
;'Tl li"" i
Truck Trailer Storage
06 ALAMEDAENGLEPROPERTIES,LLC-TUPDENIALAPPEAL-MAYO2,2023 0 178
all
2€)12 2018 2020 2022
07 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC - APPEAL OF TUP DENIAL-MAY 02, 2023 0 SOMOS
179
i: I (.li .. l
08 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC - TUP DENIAL APPEAL - MAY 02, 2023 Director Shall Evaluate
AII of the Following to Determine that a Legal
Nonconforming Use is Abandoned:
o
gOMOS
03 180
09 ALAMEDAENGLEPROPERTIES,LLC-TUPDENIALAPPEAL-MAYO2,2023 0 SOMO9
181
//55 'lb
182
EXHIBIT 12
Exh 12
//8'
183

ATT ACHMENT D
Ciffl of South Gate

PLANNING COMMISSION
AGIINIDA IBT[TlT[,
Planixing ilrlanager:

John F.
tlie Regular Meeting of: Maiach 18, 2025 < / 672
AICP Das.iidCrabtree.MCP
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S DETERMINATION FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8530 ALAMEDA STREET, AND DE,TERMINING THE ACT.[ON IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENT AL QUALITY ACT
PURPOSE: Public hearing to consider tlie followi'iig:

Appeal of Director's Deterniination: Consideration of an appcal of tlie Director's deteimination that the legal, nonconforining use for inetal processing and/or reicycling activities at a property located at 8530 Alameda Street have been abandoned and caxi no longer be conducted, and tlie use of tl'ie site for tnick trailer storage as fl principal use unrelated to metal proccssing/recycling activities is not a legal, nonconfoiming ise and must be i'inmediately terminated.

PROJECT OVERVIF,W

1. Project Location:

2. Assessor's Parcel Number:

3. Prol:ieity Owner:

4. Appellant/Representative:

5. General Plan Designation.
6- m:
8530 Alameda Street
6202-036-003
Alameda Engle l)roperties (Jason Engle)
Sara Atsbalia, Somos Law Group
Industrial (Coininunity Design Element, Figure CD 1, Existing Land Uses)
Socit]i Gate College Distiict Subareal (Community Design Element, Figiire CD 4, Distiicts)
{F (I'iidustrial Flex)
RECOMMENDED ACTTON:

1. CONDUCTapubliclieaiingpursuanttoSoutliGateMunicipalCodeSectionll.50.040,B;

2. ACCEPT the determination tliat tliis matter is exempt from tlie California Environmental Quality Act;

3. ADOPT tl'ie findings as outlined in Resolritiori No. 2025-04 (Attachment A); and

4. UPHOLD tlie detemtiiiation of the Director of Con'ununity Development that tl'ie legal, nonconforinixig use t'or a metal processii'ig and/or recycling activities at tlie suLiject property liave been abandoned and can no longer be conducted, and the use of t]ie site for truck trailer storage as a principa] use unrelated to metal processing/recycling activities is not a legal, nonconfoimmg 'i'ise and must be immediately terininated.

AS13772.0860893 41X19-828tt-0805vl
)1'}
184

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 Februaiy 27, 2025.

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
In accordance with the California Environmental 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 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 1 5270(a).

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

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

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

AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
l':)n
185
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 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 ofthe Subject Property to Industrial Flex ("IF") Zone.

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

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

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

In July 2020, the City 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 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.

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

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 AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
IA%
186
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. A copy of that fetter 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, nonconforming use of the Subject Property for metal processing and/or recycling activities - including the integral truck trailer storage component of those activities - has been determined to be abandoned and can no longer be conducted at the Site unless otherwise in conformity to all current laws and regulations of the City (and applicable governmental agencies). 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 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 Determinatton 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 California 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/terminal" use which, pursuant to the SGMC Section 11.60.230 "T" definitions, "means indoor or outdoor site for freight, truck terminals, truck storage yards, or similar commercial facilities."
SGMC Prohibits that Use at 8530 Alameda Street: The subject property is zoned Industrial Flex (IF). Table 11.21-3, under SGMC Section 11.21.030 "Land use permissions tables," lists allowed land uses within the IF zone. Truck storage/terminal use is not listed on that Table as an allowed AS137720860893 4909-8288-0805vl
i ')-2
187
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 applicabJe 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 to recycling/metal processing activities constitutes a legal, nonconforming use of the subject property.

In response to the appellant's arguments 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/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-conforming 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.

AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
i'7Z
188
The appellant further mistakenly argues that the Director failed to make findings required by Section 11.55.040(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.

The appellant incorrectly interprets SGMC §11.55.040(D). Pursuant to SGMC §1 1.55.040(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 Director also determined that all other equipment, furnishings, and the structure itself used for the recycling/metal processing activities have 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 determinationthat all use of the subject property for recycling/metal processing activities has beeri 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 Planning 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 Izg
AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
189
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 CEOA.

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 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 Plannirig Cornrnission 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-.-PC:-Remtrttott-No-25-04----- SEE ATTACHMENT 2 0F COUNCIL REPORT 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
AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
190

ATT ACHMENT B
City of
South
6ate-
Diipaitmcnt of Comminity Dcvelopuii.in!
l'lai'inini) Division
86!:iO C-iliToniia Awinuc
SoulliGalii,CA'JO280 307'i
vii.yiiiy.cilyt.iTsoullic)iile.org
January 21, 2025
Alameda Engle Properties, LLC
2127 Century Woods Way
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Attn: Aan Engle, Manager
Re: DIRECTOR DETERMINATION AND NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION Nonconforming Land Use at
8530 Alameda Street, South Gate [APN 6202-036-003]
Mr. Engle:

The real property commonly known as 8530 A)ameda Street, South Gate and identified by Assessor Parcel Number 6202-036-003 (hereinafier, "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 (hereinaffer, "AEP" or "Property Owner"), 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/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 Izr
191
Alameda Engle Properties, LLC
Attn: Alan Engle, Manager
January 2"), 2025

Page 2 of 7 ends

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 I 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 11.2'1.030 and Table 1l.2a1-3 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 1155 ("Nonconforming Uses and Buildings").

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

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

In December 2022, the undersigned Director advised Fleet Yards, Inc, that several conditions of approval of the TUP had not been adhered to, and, moreover, that the TUP was ineligible for renewal as SGMC §11.5'l.070(B)(4) sets the maximum duration of Temporary Use Permits to no more than three days in a row or ten working days in any calendar year.2
' See Section Il.iii (Page 5) of the correspondence from Somos Law Group ("8530 Alameda Street - Demonstration of Legal Nonconforming Use") dated August 17, 2023, submitted on behalf of AEP, 2 After a duly-noticed appeal hearing, on May 2, 2023, the Planning Commission upheld the Director's Determination to deny an extension of the TUP (as set forth in Resolution 2023-05). AEP has filed an appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commission's decision - however, by agreement between AEP and the City, a hearing date has not yet been scheduled. tz'l
192
Alameda Engle Properties, LLC
Attn: Alan Engle, Manager
January 21, 2025

Page 3 of 7 ends

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

The person claiming the existence of a nonconforming building or use has the burden of proof with regard to that claim.3
Metal Processing/Recyclinq Operations
Although neither the City nor the Property Owner have been able to locate each annual business license for JECO and/or AEP since 1973, available records (including some business licenses, Certificates of Occupancy, and photographs) document that the use of the Site for metal processing/recycling appears to have been lawfully commenced and continued at the Subject Property as described hereinbelow in greater detail through March 2020.4
The use and storage of the truck trailers has been described by AEP and/or its representatives as an "integral part of metal processing operations" at the Site - and that "metal recycling operations cannot operate without a trucking and logistical component" and that "the metal processing operations cannot function without onsite truck trailer and container storage ." 5 AEP's legal counsel has asserted that at an undisclosed point in time (although presumably prior to March 2020) former Director of Public Works Robert Dickey made recommendations to the Engles regarding the City's Business License Tax based on the Property's use as a "Materials Recycling Facility"'..,[and] Although the truck trailer and container storage portion of the operations were open and visibly part of the operations during the tour, the City did not distinguish this use as separate from the legal nonconforming metal processing operations on the Property, or require a separate business license!
3 SGMC11.55.030.B. Seea/soCitvandCountvofSanFranciscov.BoardofPermitAppeals(1989) 207 Cal. App. 3d 1099, 4107.
4 The Director recognizes that although the Certificate of Occupancy issued on July 8, 1977 lists the business type as "Metal Processing", business licenses issued to JECO between 2015 and 2018 reference oooutdoor storage". Nonetheless, AEP credibly asserts that metal processing/recycling operations continued at the Site through March 2020.
'-' See Section Il.iii (Page 5) of the correspondence from Somos Law Group ("8530 Alameda Street - Demonstration of Legal Nonconforming lJse") dated August 17, 2023, submitted on behalf ofAEP. a See Section ll.iv (Page 8) of the correspondence from Somos Law Group ("8530 Alameda Street - Demonstration of Legal Nonconforming Use") dated August 17, 2023, submitted on behalf of AEP. %1"6
193
Alameda Engle Properties, LLC
Attn: Alan Engle, Manager
January 2'), 2025

Page 4 of 7 ends

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

SGMC 11.55.040.B provides, in pertinent part:

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

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

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

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

11.55], fortwo consecutive calendaryears shall be deemed to constitute an abandonment of any right to continue or maintain such nonconforming use, and any future land use shall conform to provisions of [Title 11].

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

Although AEP has asserted that "draying, freighting, or trucking yards or terminals" were a specifically authorized use of the Subject Property in 1976, AEP has not provided any compelling evidence that either JECO orAEP, in fact, lawfully established such use at the 194
Alameda Engle Properties, LLC
Attn: Alan Engle, Manager
January 21, 2025

Page 5 of 7 ends

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

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

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

An appraisal was prepared on or about July 5 5, 2015, and the other was prepared on or about May 8, 2017. After careful review and consideration of each of the appraisal reports, the Director has concluded that neither of the reports (jointly or combined) provides satisfactory evidence that the Subject Property was utilized for the storage of truck trailers/containers as a )awfu) use independent of the recycling facilities.

In this regard, the Director specifically notes that each appraisal report explicitly states "The subject property is utilized as a metal recycling plant/yard."7 Although each of the appraisal reports also refer to the Site as a "storage yard", each report explains that Due to the fact that the subject improvements [consisting of 2 concrete- block industria) buildings and 3 metal industrial buildings, paving, and fencing, as well as sheds, covered structures, and temporary buildings/structures not included in the overall rentable building area] cover only 8% of the site, we have classified the subject as a storage yard.8 The 2015 appraisal report further states that
Storage/rental yard properties are named as such because they are primarily used for onsite storage of vehicles, machinery, supplies, and/or other job-related materials. These sites usually have a smaller amount of building area specific to the needs of the given user (as compared to traditional industrial or office buildings), along with a relatively large yard area. We have found that storage yard properties will sell For more than just land value alone in recognition of the onsite building improvements.9 7 See the cover letter and page 6 of each of the appraisal reports, as well as page 14 of the 2017 appraisal report.
a See the cover letter of each appraisal report.
9 See page 3 of the 2015 appraisal report.
( 27a)
195
Alameda Engle Properties, LLC
Attn: A!an Engle, Manager
January 2'l, 2025

Page 6 of 7 ends

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

Due to the lack of any compelling evidence that the storage of truck trailers and/or containers was lawfully established and continued at the Site as a principal use unrelated to a metal processing/recycling facility prior to 2000 when Fleet Yards, Inc. commenced business operations at the Site, the Director hereby determines that such use does not have, nor ever had, a legal, non-conforminq status at the Subiect Property." 10 AEP asserts that the appraisals confirm that the City has made prior statements that the use of the Subject Pmpert)71 for truck trailer and container storage is a legal, nonconforming use - however, this assertion is not persuasive. As indicated, the City neither prepared nor approved the appraisal reports - and, as such, any statement therein lacks any binding impact upon the City. On page 19 of the 2015 appraisal, it attributes the statement that "the subject's zoning was recently changed to [lndustrial Flexl from M2" to an unnamed representative of the City's Planning Department, and further states that "the subject as a storage yard...is reportedly now a pre-existing, legal non-conforming use". Since the use of the term "storage yard" in the appraisal is a result of the limited development of the Site (less than 8%) and not due to the specific use conducted at the Site (which both appraisal reports conclude was for a "metal recycling plant/yard'), the reference to the storage yard being a legal, nonconforming use may merely be a reference to the metal processing/recycling use that was occurring at the Site - and not a reference to the use of the Subject Property for truck trailer storage independent of the recycling activities. For that matter, neither appraisal report describes any truck trailer storage use of the Site Independent of the recycling activities.

Furthermore, the 2015 appraisal only attributes the statement regarding the change in zone to the unnamed City Official - and not the conclusion of any legal, nonconforming status. It should also be noted that the 20al7 appraisal report does not contain any reference to the statement that was purportedly made at some unknown time by the unidentified City Official regarding lega1, nonconformity - although on page 17, it does repeat the conclusion that the "storage yard" is a legal, nonconforming use. " TheDirectoriscognizantthatonJulyl8,2020,TemporaryUsePermit2020-01wasissuedtoFleet Yards, Inc. to permit the use of the Site for truck trailer storage for a limited period of time. Specifically, TUP2020-01 authorized truck trailer storage at the Subject Property for a period of one (1) year with possible extensions of up to a maximum of five (5) years, subject to compliance with explicit terms and conditions. The Director subsequently concluded that Fleet Yards, Inc. failed to adhere to the Conditions ofApproval-including, but not limited to, submitting for a renewal of the TUP at least thirty (30) days prior to expiration (which was scheduled for July 16, 2021 ). Moreover, the Director and Planning Commission determined thatTUP2020-01 was issued in error as SGMC 11.51.070(B%4) explicitly limits the issuance of Temporary Use Permits to uses that do not exceed three (3) days in a row, or ten (10) working days in any calendar year. The Director has not found or received any compelling evidence that Fleet Yards, Inc., was given any express or implied assurance that the temporary use authorized by TUP2020-01 would exceed the initial I-year grant without compliance with the Conditions ofApproval - including submitting a timely request for renewal, nor that the temporary use would be allowed to continue beyond a maximum period of 5 years from the initial date of issuance (which was July 16, 2020). Notwithstanding same, a permit that purports to authorize a use in violation of applicable laws is void. 196
Alameda Engle Properties, LLC
Attn: Alan Engle, Manager
January 21, 2025

Page 7 of 7 ends

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

The use of the Site for truck trailer storage as a principal use unrelated to metal processing/recycling activities is not a legal, nonconforming use - and, as such, must be immediately terminated
Any interested party (applicant or opponent) may appeal this Determination to the Planning Commission within ten (10) working days ofthis Determination byfiling a written request to appeal with the City Clerk's Office (located at South Gate City Hall - 8650 California Avenue, South Gate) and tendering any applicable fees. Failure to timely file a request to appeal with the City Clerk's Office and to tender all requisite fees shall result in this Determination being deemed final and binding.

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

Sincerely,
David M. Crabtree, AICP
Jnterim Community Development Director
Cc: Fleet Yards, Inc. -Attn: Dariiel S. Otting, CEO/CFO /893 West 16'h Street, Newport Beach, CA92663
/Via E-Mail: r-),iii(Yalilet::-i,Y::ii'clsliic..ct'o,iiri FleetYards,Inc.-Attn: BrianDavis,AgentforService
/4340 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 380, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Somos Law Group - Attn: Alred Fraijo, Jr. and Sara Atsbaha / 304 South Broadway, Suite 350, Los Angeles, CA 90013 /Via E-Matl: ..'iilfi G':l:i'xi3iiti1r-iyj3i-oiii.i.oi'ci /VjaE-Majla,S..'::l'.':1"5'iE-'fill(,r;.Cii'T'):li).Q171 Rob Houston, City Manager
Raul Salinas, City Attorney
James Eckart, City Prosecutor
R 2,1
197

ATT ACHMENT C
SOMOS

LAW GROUP
304 South Broadway, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90013
February 6, 2025
sou!at?or:iyi=Pierb
VIA ELECTRONtC MAIL
FEB -6 2025
David Crabtree
Interim Director of Community Development
City of South Gate
8650 California Avenue
Email: [email protected]
FILED
Re: Request for Appeal of Director's Determination and Noncompliance Notification
Dear Mr. Crabtree,
We are in receipt of your letter dated January 21, 2025 ("Director's Determination") and writing on behalf of Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP") to appeal the Director's Determination, and to correct misstatements made in the letter.

We have provided substantial information to the City demonstrating that the metal recycling operations and truck trailer and container storage at 8530 Alameda Street (the "Property") were legal and nonconforming when established by right in 1973. As explained in more detail below, the City's interpretation of the South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC" or "Code") is inconsistent with the code language and with the express protections for legal nonconforming uses in the Code and in the City of South Gate's General Plan ("General Plan").

AEP is aware of the City's intent to phase out industrial uses in the area in favor of educational and institutional uses. AEP has supported the City in this endeavor and worked diligently to propose several solutions that will help the City achieve these long- term goals. However, we cannot reach a resolution if the City is not willing to discuss these issues with AEP.

We write first to appeal the Director's Determination, but also to respectfully request the City to consider the alternative proposals and to meet with our office and AEP in order to reach an equitable solution. AEP remains dedicated to working with the City to reach a mutually-acceptable resolution outside of the context of an appeal. If a resolution cannot be reached, our appeal will proceed on the following grounds:

SOMOS I
I ?,2,
198
i. The City's interpretation of the legal nonconforming use provisions of the SGMC are inconsistent with the Code;
ii. The Director's Determination does not comply with codified requirements;
iii. The General Plan requires gradual phase-out for existing uses to avoid vacancy;
iv. Due Process; and
v. The City's failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Ca. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21 00CI, et seq.

1. Introduction
The reason this issue is before the City is because then Director of Community Development, Joe Perez, errantly required AEP to obtain a Temporary Use Permit in 2020 instead addressing the legal nonconforming use issue at that time, or pursuing an appropriate entitlement, such as a DA or CUP. The City did not communicate this failure to AEP for several years - until the current tenants, Fleet Yards, attempted to renew their operating permits. Since the City's communication that their 2020 requirements were in error, AEP, together with Fleet Yards, have worked diligently to resolve this issue with the City. As acknowledged in the Director's Determination, truck trailer and container storage has been a lawful use on the Property since 1973 as part of the metal recycling facilities that operated until 2020. This is demonstrated with Certificates of Occupancy and business licenses issued by the City that address the use. The truck trailer and container storage continued on the Property pursuant to entitlements that the City required ofAEP, and continues to operate today.

At the City's recommendation, AEP submitted several options to correct the City's 2020 error. The solutions presented include 1) proposed terms for a Development Agreement ("DA") including market research to support viable alternate uses, third-party partnerships as envisioned in the General Plan, medium-term phase out of the current use, and a timeline with measurable milestones to facilitate redevelopment/alternative use. Our initial timeline was based on the phase-out language in the General Plan.

The DA terms were submitted to the City on June 4 8, 2024 of last year. Although it has had 6 months to review the proposed terms, the City has not yet responded or provided feedback, or been willing to meet with our office to reach a resolution. Also at the recommendation of the City, our office submitted an application for a Zone Change ('ZC") and General Plan Amendment ("GPA") which can achieve the City's goals by 4 ) adding text for structured phase-out" Or 2) reverting the Property to its previous M3 designation until a viable use or development partner is identified. The City did not acknowledge receipt of the application for nearly 2.5 months after it was filed - notwithstanding consistent follow-up from my office regarding the status of the I We understand that only the City can initiate text changes to the SGMC and General Plan. These options were presented to the Clty in good faith and at the recommendation of City representatives, with the Intention of adding the language required to help the City achieve its redevelopment goals in the South Gate Community College District and to provide structure for phasing out the current use.

SOMOS 2
).g'l
199
application and invitations to discuss. These discussions are crucial because the Property is uniquely situated. Approximately 33 percent of the Property is located outside of the City in unincorporated Los Angeles County - and zoned for heavy industrial uses consistent with the current use. In addition, the only exit/entrance located on the property is located outside of the City's jurisdiction. As described in more detail below, the Property is also subject to additional development constraints. A viable solution for redevelopment of any kind must be compatible with these external constraints. Immediate termination of the existing use would result in a regulatory taking of the portion of the Property located in South Gate. To avoid this outcome, AEP again invites the City to discuss the proposed alternatives at any time convenient to the City.

II. Analysis
a. The Director's Determination is Unsupported by the SGMC The Code Does not Allow the Director to Differentiate Ancillary from Primary Uses
The SGMC unequivocally requires protection for "all nonconforming buildings or uses, including outdoor activities such as product storage or parking."2 The SGMC specifically protects all parts of a legal nonconforming use. 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 "whollydiscontinued orabandonedfor a continuous period of two calendar years."3 The Director cannot make such findings based on the documentation submitted to the City. In addition, the City must treat "an existing use of any part of a building or property... to be an existing use throughout that building or property, including outdoor activities."" This language clarifies that once a use is legally established, it is legally established for the entirety of the property - indicating that separating parts of a property or parts of a use are inappropriate in a legal nonconforming use analysis. Here, the truck trailer and container use has been a continuous use on the property since the metal recycling operations began in 1973.

This has been documented at length in letters and materials submitted to the City on April 27, 2023, May 2, 2023, May 16, 2023, and August 17, 2023. On August 17, 2023, our office provided copies of all available business licenses for the property. Any licenses that were not available were requested from the City, but not provided. The licenses issued to Jack Engle and Company ("JECO") for the Property span between 2015 and 2018, and specifically acknowledge that "outdoor storage" as an authorized use on the site. There is no delineation between primary and ancillary uses on the permits. In addition, our office provided licenses issued to Fleet Yards that specifically acknowledge a special permit for "outdoor storage." As you know, the City must z SGMC § 11.55.020.
a SGMC 4 11.55.040(D).
a SGMC i 11.55.030(0).

SOMOS 3
200
conduct zoning compliance review as part of its business license process,5 the City reviewed, and issued business licenses specifically authorized 'outdoor storage" repeatedly - first to JECO and then to Fleet Yards, as demonstrated by the business licenses that we provided to the City spanning between 2C)15 and 2020. By authorizing "outdoor storage" via the business licenses, the use was legally established as applied to the entirety of the Property pursuant to Section 11.55.030(0).

The Director cannot claim that the use been "wholly" discontinued based on this prior authorization of the metal recycling operations and specifically of the outdoor storage - even affer the City rezoned the Property from M3 to IF. In addition, there is no language in the entirety of SGMC Chapter 11.55 - Nonconforrning Uses and Buildings, that suggests that the Director is authorized to bifurcate different parts of a legal nonconforming use to justify termination. This interpretation is inconsistent with a plain read of the Code. In addition, based on publicly available information, there are no examples of the City using this interpretation for similarly-situated properties. ii. lmmediateTerminationoftheExistingUseislnconsistentwiththe SGMC and the General Plan.

Because vacant property does not serve the City, its constituents, or the local community, both the SGMC and the General Plan specifically provide for gradual phasing out of noncompatible existing uses as future uses become viable. Section

11.22.060 of the SGMC states in relevant part that "The 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."6 The General Plan states in relevant part that 'Jndustrial and manufacturing uses should remain in the area but could be phased out as the college district expands."7 In addition, the General Plan anticipates phasing out consistent with the course of the current plan, which does not terminate until 2035. Our initial DA proposal adopted the same timeline to ensure consistency with the General Plan. However, prior to the appeal hearing, we would appreciate the opportunity to meet with the City to discuss revised DA terms, including a revised timeline. As explained in more detail below, an immediate transition to an alternate use is not feasible or practical on the Property due to its unique location, an existing restrictive covenant, and heavy industrial surroundings both within and outside of the City's jurisdiction. As required by the Code and the General Plan, a gradual transition is better suited to address the interests and concerns of both the City and AEP. 5 See the City of South Gate's requirements for obtaining a new business license, including review of a Zoning Clearance Form by the Community Development Department, available here:
" SGMC § 11.22.060.
' General Plan Community Design Element, Policy P.6.

SOMOS 4
201
iii. The Director's Determination Violates Codified Procedural Requirements
The Director did not address codified requirements for legal nonconforming use analysis in the Director's Determination. In order to establish that a use has been "wholly discontinued or abandoned" 8 for the requisite two-year period, the Director is required to make specific findings, supported by evidence in the determination.9 These findings must include:

1. The apparent intent of the owner;

2. Presence or absence of personal property associated with the use;

3. Presence or absence of furnishings, equipment and other property associated with the use; and

4. Continuity of utility service to the property'o
The Director's findings do not address any of the criteria above. As noted in our previous correspondence, the evidence submitted to the City does not support a finding that the use has been wholly discontinued or abandoned. AEP has communicated directly to City'l that its intent is to continue current operations until a viable alternative use or development partner is identified. The Director does not address the owner's intent in the Determination Letter. On April 27, 2023 and August 17, 2023, our office provided photographs, utility records, historic licenses, business ledgers and comparable documentation demonstrating that the truck trailers and containers are still located on the property, that the facilities to coordinate this use are still located on the property, and that utility service to the Property is and ttas been current so that the use can continue. In addition, AEP has provided private tours of the Property to City staff and elected officials as part of its ongoing good faith efforts to reach an equitable resolution. For these reasons, the Director's findings are not substantiated by evidence, or compliant with SGMC requirements.
b. The City's Management of the Leqal Nonconforming Use Gives Rise to Substantive and Procedural Due Process Concerns,
The Applicant's rights to substantive and procedural due process is protected by the California Constitution.'2 This includes adjudication of land use issues free from arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory determinations by City staff.l3 0n several occasions, the City's management of this matter indicate violations ofAEP's " SGMC § 11.55.040(D).
" SGMC I 11.55.040(D).
' SGMC § 11.55.040(D).

II On June 18, 2024, AEP submitted proposed terms for a Development Agreement that would phase out the current use over time while the parties worked together to identify viable alternative uses. 12 Cal. Const. art I §7.
13 Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (1981)126 Cal.App3d 330, 335-6 (A city cannot unfairly discriminate against a particular parcel of land, and the courts may properly inquire as to whether the scheme of classification has been applied fairly and impartially in each instance.") Wflkins v. Cfty ofSan Bernardina, (1946) 29 Cal.2d 332, 338; City of Orange v. Wenti (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 240, 243.

SOMOS 5
l:3'f
202
constitutional right to due process. This issue has been raised in previous correspondence, but more recently, on or around March 19, 2024, we were asked to file a request for a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment by City representatives After months of follow-up correspondence with the City, we filed the application on October 14, 2024. Although our office has been in consistent contact with the City since filing the application, the City did not acknowledge receipt of the application, assign a planner, or begin processing the application until January, 2025 - nearly 2.5 months after filing. Similarly, at the request of City representatives, AEP submitted proposed terms for a Development Agreement that would phase out the current use. We shared this proposal on June 4 8, 2024, but have not received feedback from the City on the terms,
On May 17, 2024, our office requested specific documents relating to the City's misstatements during a May 2, 2024 Planning Commission hearing, and made several inquiries about the City's allegations regarding changes to the SGMC. Although it took the City several months to provide responsive documents, the City was unable to provide most of the documents that we requested, including previous iterations of the code and older business licenses. In addition, we did not receive responses to our questions about the previous code changes. Our offioe located some of these records independently, and immediately shared them with the City. The Director's Determination cites a 1988 change to the SGMC that required a Conditional Use Permit - This information was specifically requested by my office on May 17, 2024, but never provided in the City's responsive documents. In addition, where, as here, the uses on the Property were established in 1973, subsequent entitlement requirements from 1988 would apply only to new uses or facilities. \/\/e have provided substantial documentation that the previous uses on the Property, including metal recycling and truck trailer and container storage were allowed by right at the time they were established in 1973.

Finally, as noted above, the Director's Determination does not substantiate several of the City's claims, as required in the code, and adopts an interpretation of the City's legal nonconforming use provisions that is inconsistent with the code language and is unique to AEP's property. Based on publicly-available information and the documents provided by the City, the City's treatment of this Property is unique and arguably arbitrary, capricious, and inconsistent with Constitutional due process requirements. c. Termination of the Legal Nonconforming Use is a de facto Requlatory Taking.

The City's 2015 Zone Change and General PlanAmendment changed the zoning on the Property from "M3" - Heavy Manufacturing to 'JF" -Industrial Flex, within Subarea 1 of the South Gate College District - a sub district created by the 2015 General Plan Amendment. However, the 2015 changes to the General Plan severely restrict future uses on the Property - many of which are not immediately viable because of the Property location and unique characteristics. For this reason, the SGMC and the General Plan specifically prioritize protecting existing businesses as noted above until alternative uses are identified.

SOMOS 6
1'2G"%
203
Although the IF zone allows a small range of uses, such as research and development facilities, mixed-use and residential uses, these uses are severely limited by the South Gate College District designation. In this subdistrict, the only uses permitted are civic/institutional facilities, open space, office/research and development and light industrial uses. Residential uses are not permitted, and retail uses are discouraged. The General Plan explains that this subdistrict was designed to be a redevelopment in partnership with local community college districts, only to be executed affer the City prepared a Specific Plan or Precise Plan together with a community college partner.'4 The purpose of this Specific Plan/Precise Plan was to identify viable alternative uses on the Property priorto phasing out the existing use. The City has had 4 0 years to initiate preliminary planning stages. However, to date, the City has prepared no such plan. For this reason, we included market studies and milestones in the DA proposal to help the City complete this preliminary requirement for redevelopment.

AEP has worked diligently and in good faith with the City to propose solutions that achieve its long-term vision for the Property. However, immediate transition to these uses is not feasible or practical.

The Property is surrounded by heavy industrial uses on 3 sides, including metal fabrication facilities, automotive repair yards, train tracks, warehouses, and similar uses.

In addition, we understand from County representatives that adjacent property to the east (bordered by residential uses in South Gate) is slated for development of an additional warehouse facility - meaning that all four sides of the Property will eventually be bordered by heavy industrial uses. The majority of these uses are located outside of the City's jurisdiction.

The Property is also restricted pursuant to an agreement with the Department of Toxic Substances Control ('DTSC"). Pursuant to this agreement, the South Gate portion of the Property may not be used for residential uses, or for educational facilities for persons under 18 years of age. A copy of these restrictions is attached as .

This means that prior to creating the Specific Plan or Precise Plan anticipated in the General Plan, coordination with DTSC on the proposed use, protection measures, and additional restrictions would need to be factored into an appropriate phase-out term that allows productive use of the Property while a viable future use or development partner is identified. For this reason, the General Plan does not allow immediate termination of existing uses.

In addition, the General Plan subdistrict designation appears to preclude any use that is not affiliated with a community college district. In light of the status of the Specific Plan/Precise Plan, the surrounding heavy industrial uses that are not subject to South Gate's jurisdiction, and additional use restrictions from DTSC - terminating the current use without a bridge solution would result in indefinite vacancy and a de facto regulatory taking.
14 Genera1 Plan, Community Design Element, Policy P.2.

SOMOS 7
)"2,Cl
204
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.

The City's termination of the long-standing use of the AEP property effectively changes the AEP property's land use designation in a way that is clearly intended to alter development patterns. Such changes would likely result in new significant environmental impacts, or at a minimum, would increase the severity of effects which may have been identified previously. For example, the land uses permitted by the South Gate College District designation (e.g., civic/institutional facilities, open space, office/research and development and light industrial uses) will change the type and frequency of vehicles accessing the AEP Property and general area. This is, of course, why the General Plan envisioned the South Gate College subdistrict would be supported by a Specific Plan or Precise Plan which would comply with CEQA.

As mentioned previously however, no Specific Plan/Precise Plan to identify viable alternative uses on the AEP Property prior to phasing out the existing use has been completed and as such, no environmental analysis under CEQA in support of said Specific Plan/Precise Plan has been prepared. To terminate the long-standing land use at the AEP Property prior to completing this Specific Plan/Precise Plan and analyzing the environmental impacts of same is inconsistent with a core tenet of CEQA that environmental review must precede the approval of a definite course of action by the City.

Here, the City's termination of the existing land uses at the AEP Property in favor of alternative land uses whose environmental impacts have not been evaluated violates the requirements of CEQA.
lll. Conclusion
AEP remains dedicated to reaching a resolution with the City via the pending ZC/GPA application, revisiting the proposed DA terms, or such other structure that the Parties deem appropriate. We are available to coordinate a meeting to discuss additional options at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,
Alfred Fraijo Jr.

Partner
213.592.2966 direct
[email protected]
SOMOS 8
205
CC:

EXHIBIT A
iLF2
207

RECORDING REQUESTED
Alameda Eng1e Properties LLC
8440 South Alameda Street
Los Angeles, California 90001
WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO:

Department of Toxic Substances a,ontrol
9211 0akdale Avenue
Chatsworth, California9l311
Attention: Sayareh Amirebrahimi
Branch Chief, Cleanup Program

SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER'S USE

LAND USE (,OVENANT AND AGREEMENT
I
County or Los AENngVelReOs,'(MssEeNsTsAorl'sRPEaSrcTeRl INCuTm'ObNeSr: 6202-036-003 Site NaF e,e: ECn0gdlee:S3oOult2h4e9rn Parcel
section 1471, the Department has determined that this Covenant is reasonably necessary to protect present or Tuttlre human health or safety or the environment as a result of the presence on the land of hazardous materials as defined in Health and venantor and the Department hereby agree that,
and Health and Safety Code section 25355.5, the
use of the Property be restricted as set forth in this Covenant and that the Covenant shall conform with the requirements of California Code of Regulations, title 22, section 67391.1.

Page 1 ends

tLR
208

ARTICLE I

ST TEMENT OF FACTS
Description", and depicted in Exhibit B, "Site Location Map." The Property is located in the area now generally bounded b'y Los Angeles County Assessor's Parce[ Number 6202-036-004 to the north (the En@le Northern Parcel), a former railroad spur south of Santa Fe Avenue to the east, a rai0road spur north of Los Angeles County Assessor's Parcel Number 6204-034-002 to tlJe south, and a railroad along South Alameda Street to the west. The Property is also identified as County of Los Angeles, Assessor's Parcel Number 6202-036-003.

1.2. Investiqation of Property. This Property has been investigated under the Department's oversight. The DepaQment approved a Site Investigation Workplan and an Addendum to the Workplan in eiccordance with Health and Safety Code, division 20, chapter 6.8. The investigation a i i i conducted at the Property include soi!, soil vapor and ground water testing dous substances in soil, soil vapor, and groundwater remain at the Propert;y above levels acceptable for unrestricted use.

Specifically, the following hazardoJis substances have been found: 1 ) in soil, arsenic up to 205 mg/kg (ppm), 2) in soil vapor, vinyl chloride up to 22.5 ug/L (ppb) and t4e8tOraucgh/loLraonetdhVel.nneyluCphltOorl2d4e8uupgt/oL,4tnudg3/L).in groundwater, cis-1,2-dichloroethene up to

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

Page 2 ends

209
ARTICLE ill

GE ERAL PROVISIONS

3.1. Runs with the Land. This Covenant sets forth EnvironmentaJ Restrictions that apply to and encumber the Property and every portion thereof no matter how it is improved, held, used, occupied, leased, sold, hypothecated, encumbered, or conveyed. livz
210
JLf(,
Pursuant to Civil Code section 4 4 , all successive Owners of the Property are only during their respective period4 of ownership or occupancy except that such Owners or Occupants shall continue to be liable for any violations of, or non-compliance with, the Environmental Restrictions of is Covenant or any acts or omissions during their ownership or occupancy.

3.3. Incor oration into and Leases. This Covenant shal! be incorporated by reference in each Ond every deed and Lease for any portion of the Property

3.4. ance oj Pro *rt . The Owner and new Owner shall provide Notice "Notice" as used herein includes 4ny demand or other communication with respect to this Covenant) to the Department ot later than 30 calendar days after any conveyance or receipt of any ownership interesj in the Property (excluding Leases, and mortgages, and site code as listed on page onp of this Covenant. The Notice shall also include the Assessor's Parcel Number(s) note: on page one. If the new Owner's property has been assigned a different Assessor's Pa)rcel Number, each such Assessor's Parcel Number that covers the Property must be ptovided. The Department shall not, by reason of this Covenant, have authority to approve, disapprove, or otherwise affect proposed conveyance, except as otherwise rovided by law or by administrative order.

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

Page 4 ends

211

ARTICLE IV
RESTRICTilONS AND REQUIREMENTS

4.1. Prohibited Uses. The Property shall not be used for any of the Following the Property without !iSoil Management Plan pre-approved by the (b)

43. Property:
(a)
(b)
(c) Activity that may altet, interfere with, or otherwise affect the integrity or effectiveness of, or the access to, any investigative, remedial, monitoring, operation or maintenance system (e.g., cap, vapor extraction system, monitoring system, Joundwater extraction system) or activity required for 'AhcecePsr0spfeornyDeW"ahrt0mu';'Inrt.OTr hWer'DIeenpaarptmpre0nVtas' hoaf IllhheaDveepreaa"smoennafble right of Aoneypas"omil bernolunghWtrtc' ntg4e surface by grading, excavation, trenching or backfilling shall be m!aged in accordance with all applicable provisions of state and federal Imw.

Prohibited Activities. The following activities shall not be conducted at the Drilling for any water oil, or gas without prior written approval by the Department.

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

Page 5 ends

212

ATT ACHMENT D
SOMOS

LAW GPOUI)
304 South Broadwey, 8uite 350
Los Angeles, 04 90(:'13
November 15 2023

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

AEP operated a recycling facility on the Property, including storage of truck trailers/containers, starting the early I 97Ds. 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 ("TLJP") at the recommendation and requirement of the City's previous Director of Community Development. As noted in our previous correspondence to the Planning Commission, the City Attorneys and to Planning Staff, this use has been a consistent part of the site operations for over 50 years and is a legal nonconforming use. On December 2 €), 2022, the Current Director of Community Development denied the extension of the TUP on the grounds that the City erred in issuing the TUP, and alleged that the legal nonconforming use had been abandoned. Notwithstanding the City's error in issuing the TUP, the existing truck trailer and container storage use is preserved as legal and nonconforming. On January 26, 2023, AEP submitted a letter appealing the Director's decision to the South Gate City Planning Commission ("CPC").

On April 27, 2023 City Attorney, Craig Hardwick, notified us that the legal nonconforming use issue is not related to the TUP extension, and would not be considered as part of the TUP hearing. However, the current Director of Community Development alleged that the legal nonconforming use had been abandoned in her ISOMO8
213
December 20, 2022 correspondence denying the TUP extension. Ms. Elguira made similar statements regarding the legaJ nonconforming use during the May 2, 2023 appeal hearing before the City Planning Commission ("CPC Hearing"). Thus, the scope of the legal nonconforming use is at the center of this appeal ("Appeal").

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

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

Since then, we have been working closely with the City Attorney's office to provide evidence of truck trailer and container storage on the Property dating back to the early I 970s. After waiting several months for the City's response to our Public Records Act request, our office submitted comprehensive documentation of triick trailer and container storage use over several decades at the property to the City on August 17, 2023, attached hereto as . Ms. Elguira has provided no response to that letter, and has not made a formal determination on the legal nonconforming use issue as required by the SGMC.1
On November 3, 2023, our office received a letter from the City Prosecutor requesting our clients to again submit appeal documentation of he CPC"s May 2, 2023 decision regarding the TUP. In order to preserve our clients' rights, we are writing for a second time to appeal the CPC's determination., and to request that the City:
a. Accept this second appeal of the City Planning Commission's May 2, 2023 denial of our request to extend the TUP;
b. Require that the Director comply with her obligations under the SGMC to issue a determination on the legal nonconforming use; c. Acknowledge that truck trailer and container storage has been a legal nonconforming use on the property, as demonstrated in the August "l 7 letter and supporting Exhibits; and
d. Allow Fleet Yards to continue its truck trailer/container storage operations pursuant to that use.

I Section 11.55.070 of the SGMC provides that the Director must issue a determination when a specific use has lost its legal nonconforming status. SGMC § 11.55.070.A The determination may then be appealed to the City Planning Commission. As of the date of this letter, we have not received any such determination from Ms. Elguira, or B response to our August 17, 2023 letter.
2 t'!'J
SOMOS
214
Justification for these requests is well-documented, as explained in the attached exhibits, and in the appellants' presentation materials dated May 2, 2023, attached hereto as . We reserve the right to submit additional justification prior to the City Council hearing.

Please contact my office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Alfred Fraijo Jr.

Partner
213.592.2966 direct
alfred(a)somosqroup.orq
cc: James Eckart
Raul Salinas
Craig Hardwick
Meredith Elguira
Yalini Siva
Jason Engle
Alan Engle
Dan Otting
Tommy Newcomer
3 IS;D
SOMOS
215

EXHIBIT A
(sl
216
April 27, 2023
SOMOS

LAW GROUP
304 South Broadway, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CIA 90013

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City of South Gate
8650 California Ave
South Gate CA, 90280
Re: 8530 Alameda Street - Appeal of Director's Denial of TUP Extension Dear Chairperson De1gado, 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 I 970s. Fleet Yards, Inc. ("Fleet Yards") is the current tenant on the Property, and has been storing truck trailers on the Property since 2020.

I
152,
SOMOS
217

1. Backqround
At the recommendation of Joe Perez, the Director of Community Development at the time, on July 16, 2020, F(eet 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-")9 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 tonger consider the TUP extension because of the City's misapplication of the South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC") and because the conditions of approval have been violated. On January 26, 2023, AEP informed the City that they would be appealing the determination."

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

The SGMC states that "nonconforming industrial uses may cominue 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. FleetYardsobtainedaTUPonlyattheCity'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 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 foltowing 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 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.
2 %53
SOMOS
218
* AerialPhotosshowtngtractortrailersonthesitedatingbackto2012;3 * DocumentationofUtilitypaymentsdat,ingbackto20l6;"
* 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 § l1.5g. €40.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 collectiori. SGMC § Il .55.040.D.1-2.

The SGMC specifically preserves legaf 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 al) established legal nonconjorming uses under the code, regardless of the scope of the use.6 There :S 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.
e SGMC §§ I1.55.030; 11 .55.040
7 Id. at "I "1.55.040.
a South Gate Genera/ Plan: Community Design Element, Policy P.6, pg. 106.

SOMOS 3
f5'4
219
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 forAEP and Fleet Yards were different, neither parl 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 ExhibJt 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 gn 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.

SOMOS 4
t5S-
220
licensing policies and procedures, in addition to permits from other state and local jurisdictions."a However, on December 20, 2022 the City claimed that the business license had lapsed without refererice 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. FIeetYardshasSubstantiallyCompliedwithalloftheTuP
Conditions.

On December 20, 2022, Director Meredith Elguira alleged that the TLIP could not be extended because the conditions of approval had been violated. However, Fteet 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;

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 TLIP 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 /d.

SOMOS
5 151/
221
violations of "City laws". As noted above, the City's cooperation is required to obtain an auxi(iary 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 Use Violates the DoctrJne 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, 4'l2-4"l3; Garcia v. t/Ubrld Sav & Loan Assn. (20!0) 183 Cal.App.4th 1031,1037. Here, FleetYards only agreed to the TUP as a demonstration of good faith and wiliingness 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 TtJP, 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 legaf nonconforming.

SOMOS 6
fS-i
222
Please contact my office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Alfred Fraijo Jr.

Partner
213.592.2966 direct
[email protected]
SOMOS
223

EXHIBIT B
I €:Q
224
Officeofthe
nutt'ias2eCity Clerk
P:!LED
SOMOS

LAW GROUP
304 South Broadwey, Suite 350
Los Arige(es, CA 90013
May 16, 2023
VIA ELECTRONIC MA[L
Maria del PilarAva!os
Mayor, City of South Gate
8650 Californi'a Avenue
South Gate, CA 90280
Email:[email protected]
Re: 8530 Alameda Street - Appeal of CPC's Deriial of TuP Extensior4 Dear Mayor de! PilarAvalos, and Honorable Members of City Council, Our firm represents Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP"), the owners of real property located at 8530 Alameda Street in City or South Gate ("City"), California (the "Property"). AEP operated a recycling Facility on the 8roperty, including storage of truck trailers/containers, since the early I 970s. Fleet Yards, Inc. ("Fleet Yards") is the current tenant on the Property, and has been storing truck trai(ers/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 Deve(opment 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 letter appealing the Director's decision to the South Gate City Planning Commission ("CPC").

Our firm sent a supplemental letter explainingjustification for the appeal on April 27, 2023, ("Supplemental Letter") attached hereto as , 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 al1eged thatthe 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 I
It@)
SOMOS
225
extension on the grounds that the TUP was issued in error.' The CPC did not make a determination on truck trailer/container storage as a legal nonconforming use at the Property. Immediately after the CPC hearing our office conferred regarding the path forward for the lega( 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 j 973; and b. Allow Fleet Yards to continue its truck trailer/container storage operations pursuant to that use; or
c. In the alternative, postpone the City Councii hearing on the appeal until we have had an opportunity to resolve the legal nonconforming use issue with the City Manager and Cite 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 SupplementaJ 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 Fraljo Jr.

Partner
213.592.2966 direct
[email protected]
t A copy or appellants' presentation materials during the May 2, 2023 CPC hearing are attached a5 - 2 iv(
SOMOS
226
CC:

Yalini Silvo
Meredith Efguira
Vice MayorGiJ Hurtado
go.","o7,'=,"':: 'iH;a,oaviia
=.",r:;':';',:ar Joshua Barron
SOMOs
[(tZ-
227
IA
ibq
228
April 27, 2023
SOMOS

LAW GROUP
304 South Broadwey, Suite 360
Los Angeles, OA 900'l3

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City of South Gate
8650 Califomia Ave
South Gate CA, 90280
Re: 0530 Alameda 8t7eet - Appeal of Director's Denial of TIJP Extension Dear Chairperson Delgado, and Honorable Members of the City Planning Commission, Our firm represents Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP"), the owners of realproperty foceted at 8530 Alemeda Street in City of South Gate ("City"), Califorriia (the"property")- AEP historicatly operated a recycllng fac!iity on the Property, including storage oftruck trailers, since the early 1970s, Fleet Yards, Inc, ("Fleet Yards") is the currenttenant on the Property, and has been storing truck traifers on the Property since 2020.The truck trailer storage use has beeri continuous on the Property during the AEPoperations and subsequent Fleet Yards operations. As a family-owned business andlongstandinB member of the South Gate community, AEP is dedicated to working alongside its neighbors, feflow stakehofders, and the City to amicably resolve the City'sconcerns regarding historic uses on the Property.

We are writing to derTfy the scope and nature of the operations on the Propertyand respectfully request that:
a. The City acknowle$e the existing legal nonconforming use; andb. The City aiiow Fleet Yards to continue its truck trailer storage operationspursuant to that use; or c. (nthea(ternative,thattheCityhonoritsprevlouscommitmentsregarding the TUP extensions in !ight or City staffs error in requiring the TUP. iSOMOS
229

1. Bac%qrourid
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 woufd consider additiona) 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-1 9 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 F!eet 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 viotated. On January 28, 2023, AEP informed the City that they would be appealing the determination.'

2. Truck Trailer Storage is a Legal & Nonconforminq Use af the Property a. TheCityhasAuthoritytoRemedythePreviousAdminisjrqjion's Errai:it Requirements fora TUP,
The SGMC states that "nonconforming industrial uses may continue in use in any zone where they were legally established." SGMC § tl.55.030.E. AEP, and later, Fleet Yards have been operating a recyc!ing facility, including truck trailer storage at the Property since the early 4 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 originaJ TLIP 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 "lndustria! Flex." We also understand that the City's did not igue certificates of occupancy regular!yduringtheearlyl970swhentheoperationsstartedattheProperty. However, we have attached the following documents that establish consistent storage of tractor trailers long before the zone change on the Property:
h A July 'I, 2019, Business License to Jack Engle authorizing "outside storage" at 8530 Alameda Street since April 18, 1977;2 I Please note that the 2022 ReJectlon Letter fai!ed to disclose the owner's appeal rights arid the City'spolicies and procedures to flle the appeal. 2 See Exhibit A.

SOMOS 2
230
* AerialPhotosshowingtractortrailersonthesitedatingbackto2012;"' s [)ocumentationofUtilitypaymentsdatingbackto2018;4
s A sewerage system connection fee invoice from the Los Angeles CountySanitation District dating back to 2007;a AninvoicefromtheSouthCoastAirQualityManagementDistrictfor operations on the Property dating back to 2011.5
These documents demonstrate that the induetri.al operations on the Property, iricludingtruck trailer storage have been operating consistently for decades, For these reasons,we respectfully request that the City acknowledge that truck traller storage is a legalnonconforming use on the Pmperty. b. The Leqal Noriconforrninq Use has N.ot Been Abandoned orDiscontinued, ffind the Rightto Contiriue is F6roteqted and 'Preserved Pureuaptto the Souiii Gate Muilk:ipal Code,, The 8GMC s.tates tlrat a (egat nonconforming industria) use is preserved so longasitisnotabandonedordisconUnuedfortwoconsecu!iveca)endaryears.

SGMC§11.66.040,B. In determining whether a legal nonconformln4 use has been abandoneid,the Director is to evacuate (l) the apparent intent of the owner to discontinue, (ii) whetherfurnishings equipment, or personal property have been removed, (iii) whether the usehas been discontinued for a period of two years, (fv) whether there is an active businesslicense and State Board or Equalization permit, and (v) whether there are active utilitiesaccounts, including electricity, gas, water, and waste coll.ection, SGtVIC e)f) .55.040.D.i-2.

The SGMC specifically preserves legal nonconforming uses during transfers ofownershlp ortenancy. 8GMC 514,55,040.E. Atthough there are limitatioris onexpansion, the nonconforming usa provisions of the 8GMC protect a!l estabfished lega!norvconform)ng uses under the code, regardless of the scope of the use.6 There is no(angusge in the SGMC iridtcating that a portion of a legat noriconformlng use isabandoned due to the scope of the use at the time It is established." The South GateGeneral Plan's Community Design Etement ("'General Plan') specifically anticipateslegal rioncotiforming uses.in the South Gate College District given the existingsurrouhd'ing iridustrlal tises. The General Plan also specifically requires that"[ilndustrial and manufacturing uses should remain in the area' until such time that theco(legs district expands, a (emphasis added).

Here, between the two operat?ons on the Property, truck trai1er storage has beena continuous use at the Property since 1973 - notwithstanding hardships caused by the 3 See Exhibit El-E-4.
4 See Exhibit C.
5 Sse Exhibit D.

B SGMC §§ 11 .55.030; 11.55.040
7 Id. at I 1.55.040.
a South Gate Geneml Plan: Community Design Element, Policy p.a, pg. 108.

SOMOS
3 231
COVID-19 Pandemic, and by the City's error in requiring a TUP. AEP consistently he'd business licenses for the entirety of their operations on the Property.9 Similarly, Fleet Yards has held a business license with the City for business operations including outdoor storage transportation, freight and cargo at its primary South Gate address at 4223 lndependence Avenue, South Gate, CA 90280, but was informed that it did not need one for the Property. Afthough the scope and nature of operations forAEP and Fleet Yards were different, neither party ceased the truck trailer storage operations, vacated the premises, or terminated utility service at the Property for the requisite two consecutive year abandonment period. Documentation of consistent utilities payments are attached in . 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.'l
Based solely on this, Director Meredith Elgiiira'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 policles in the General Plan. Truck traifer 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 erivironmental conditions in the Property vicinity, financing considerations, changes in class attendance, real estate market considerations and the COVID-19 Pandemic - indicatlng that forced changes in use within the South Gate College District at this time isinconsistentwiththeneedsofthecommunity. Forthesereasoris,werespectfully request that the City acknowledge the substantial evidence indicating consistent truck trai)er storage at the Property, and preservation of this use as legal and nonconforming. c. Fleet Yards has Maintained 5n Active Business License with the City of South Gate> Since 20a14, and Cannot Obtain an Auxfliary Permit Withouf fhe City's Cooperat1pn.

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.

SOMOS 4
I ( .n
232
)icensing policies and procedures, in additi.on to perinfts from other state arid local Jurfsdlctions.'3 However, on December 20, 2022 the City claimed that the business license had Ispsed 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 Ifznse for its operaUons on the Property, However, to obtain a business license, an applicant must first obtain zonlng clearance from the South Gate Planning Department. Based on communicatlons 'from City ataff, inc(udirig the 2022 Rejection Letter, we understand that the City will riot issue a z.oning clearance because of the current zoriing on the Praperty, notwithstanding the legal nonconforrning use. It !s fnequitable to claim that the use has been abandoried 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 perinit For these reasoris, in eonsiderafion of all of the determinative factors for abandonmerit, there is substan.tial evidence that the legal nonconforming use on the Property, inaJudlng storage oftractor tratlers has riot been abandoned or discontinued. d. Fleet Yards has Sp5stantla.lly Complied with atl af the TLIPConditioris, On December 2(', 202.2, Director Meredith E(guira alleged that the TUP could not be extended because the conditlons of approval had been violated. However, Fleet Yards has substaritia(ly complied with the TUP conditions to the extent faasibte. On July 46, 2020, the City approved the TUP subJectto the following conditions:
4, That the approved use be restrlcted to truck trailer storage only;2. That the temporary use Is approved for a term of one year, and thatadditional one-year extensions must be applied for at )east 30 days prior to ttxe expiration date of the previous term, for a period of 5 years;3- That ingress and egress shall be only via Atameda Street;4, That the number, size and height of truck trailers do not exceed thoseattached to the original approval;5. That violations of these conditioris or City laws could result in revocation of the TUP; aiid
6, That the property owner agree to all conditions in the form of a signedaffldavtt, As explained above, AEP and later, F'leet Yards have used the Property comiriuously for truck trailer storage since "1973. Fleet Yards has used the Property for truck trai'ter storage since obtaining the TOP in July, 2020. The slze, nuinber, and height of the tru.ek trailers as authorized in the TOP h.ag not chanqed. Consistent with the requiremetits of the TUP, ingress and egress is permitted only on Alameda Street. Although tlte appficatiori for the TUP sxfertsion was missed iri 202"l due to complimtloris from the COVID-19 Pandemic, both AEP and Fleet Yards have been in consistentcommunication with the City regarding the nonconforming use on the Property, The owner's signed affidavit Is attached as . The remaining condition citest! /d. 5 SOMOS
233
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 $he Leqal Nonconforminq Llse Vlolates the Doct(Qns, oj 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 Cal2d 409, 412-413; Garcia v. Worrd Sav & Loein Assn. (2010)183 Cal.App.4th 10311037. 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 sta'ff on July 8, 2020, in addition to the plain language of the TUP, the City was to consider additional extensions of the TLJP 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. )t 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 unilateratchangestothezoningcode. lftheCitydoesnothonoritspriorcommitments, both AEP and Fleet Yards will suffer substantial financial harm. In addition, this inconsistency in City policies discourages investment iri our community end 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, lega[ 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 denlal of the TUP extension. We understand that the City's position is that the TLJP 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 :3 legal nonconforming.
6 {( is4
SOMOS
234
Please contact my office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Alfred Fraijo Jr.

Partner
213.592.2966 direct
[email protected]
SOMOS
t)10
235
236
8350 Alameda Street

ALAMEDA ENGLE

PROPERTIES, LLC
-Appeal of Director's Denial of TUP
Exte-nsion for Truck Trailer Storage
May 2, 2023
i ( ion by Alfred Fraijo Jr.
o
237
02 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC - TUP DENIALAPPEAL - MAY 02, 2023 0 SOMO8
238
a Pursuant to TUP Condition No. 2 and the City Planning Commission's review authority of the appeal, the Commission can grant a modest 60- day extension of the TUP to permit the Appellant and City to review the legal nonconforming use determination
a Alternatively, Commission can opt to postpone its determination on the TUP extension until after the Planning Division completes its reviewing of the legal nonconforming use determination.
03 ALAMEDAENGLEPROPERTIES,LLC-TUPDENIALAPFEAL-MAYO2,2023 0 90MOS
239
Alameda Engle Properties, LLC operateda recycling foci(ity on the Property,inc)uding storage of truck trailers Citya approved TUP for truck traileruse on the Property Appeal of Director's denial of theTL)P extension 2020 TO PRESENT
DECEMBER 20, 2022
EARLY 19708 TO 2020
JULY 16, 2020
JANuARY 26, 2023
Tenant Fleet Yards, Inc. operatingtruck trailer storage on the Property Community Development Directorcraims City would no longerconsider the TLIP extensions 04 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC - TUP DENIAL APPEAL - MAY 02, 2023 o
gOMO8
240
Ill

1. Theapprovedtemporaryuseforthesiteisrestrictedtotrucktrailer 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 bs 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 iri revocation of TUP

6. All conditions shall be agreed to by owner in a signed and notarized affidavit
05 ALAMEDAENGLEPROPERTIES,LLC-TUPDENIALAPPEAL-MAYO2,2023 0 80MO9
241
The fegaJ 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 MunicipaJ Code (SGMC) -
"nonconforming industriai USES may continue in use
tn any zone where they Were iegaJly estabfished."SGMC § li.55.030.E.

Legai nonconforming industrial use is preserved SO
fong as it is not abandoned or discontinued for
two consecutive calendar years. SGMC §il.55.040.B.

Truck Trailer Storage
06 AIAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES,
LLC - TUP DENiAL APPEAL - MAY 02, 2023
0 SOMOS
242
2022
07 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC - APPEAL OF TUP DENiAL - MAY 02, 2023 0 SOMOS
243
08 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC - TUP DENIAI APPEAL - MAY 02, 2023 Director Shall Evaluate
AII of the Following to Determine that a Legal
Nonconforming use is Abandoned:

1. Owner's Intent

2. Furriishings Equipment
& Personal Property

3. Abandoned 2+ Years

4. Licenses & Permits

5. Utilities
o
SOMO8
244
09 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC - TUP DENIA[ APPEAL - MAY 02, 2023 0 SOMO8
245
0 gs]
246
APPENDiX
I I ALAMEDA ENGLE PROFERTIES, LLC - TUF DENIAL APPEAL - MAY 02, 2023 0 80MOa
247
Business License Compliance
1973 - 2020
12 ALAMEDAENGLEPROPERTIES,LLC-TUPDENIALAPPEAL-MAYO2,2023 Q
SOMOS
248

EXHIBIT C
249
(ENTENNIAt
May 16, 2023
Mr. Alan Engle
Manager
Alameda Engle Properties LLC
2127 Century Woods Way
Los Angeles, California 900667
Community Development Department
lleredith T. Elguira, Director of Community Development 8650 California Avenuei SOuth Gate, CA €10280-3004
P: (323) 563-9529
www.cityofsouthgate.org
Re: City of South Gate's Denial of Request by Alameda Engle Properties, LLC. for Extension ofTemporary 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 conductetl 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- o:t (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 daysinanycalendaryear. ltisunfortunatethattheTUPwaserroneouslyissuedin2020foramuchlongeron5- 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. SimpJy 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. Sectign

11.51.020 of the ZoninB 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 ofthe 2oning 250
C E N T E N N I A l
Community Development Department
Meredith T. E)guira, Director of Commuriily Development 8650 California Avenue, South Gate, CA 90280-3004
P: (323) 503-9529
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 avai1able.

AEP and its attorneys contend that Fleet Yard's use of the Premises for the storage of trucks and truck-traiiers constitutes a !egal non-conforming use whicli 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 nonconformin@ 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 un1oading will not suffice. The City requires evidence that the Premises were being used for the storage of trucks and truck-trailers consistent with the custorriary legal application of "legal non- conforming" use, not that such trucks or trailers were merey 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 Rec%icling Center).

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

Additional to the !ack 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. 251
T li

CENTENNIAL
t:!;. -
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. E ira,
CC: Mr. Chris Jeffers, City Manager
Rail F. Salinas, Esq.

Craig D. Hardwick Esq.
%a-v
252

EXHIBIT D
253
August 17, 2023
SOMOS

LAW GROUP
304 South Broedwey, Suite 360
Log Angeles, CIA 90013

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Meredith Elguira
Director of Community Development
City of South Gate
8650 California Avenue
South Gate, CA 90280
Email: [email protected]
Re: 8530 Alameda Street - Demonstration of Legal Nonconforming Use Dear Ms. Elguira,
Our firm represents Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP"), the owners of real property located at 8530 Alameda Street in City of South Gate ("City"), California (the "Property"). We are in receipt of your letter dated May I 6, 2023 requesting documentation of truck trailer and container storage at the Property as a legal nonconforming use. Pursuant to City of South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC") Section 1 1.55.070.A, we are applying to request a determination from your office that the onsite uses are legal and nonconforming based on the substantial evidence attached hereto.

While this formal request shall be reviewed de novo pursuant to the Department's authority under Section 11.55.070 and in consideration of the complete application herein, we are also writing to correct the misstatements in the record made about the nature of the historic operations on the Property, which have always included truck trailer and container storage.l
' Inaccurate statements about the historic operations on the Property were made during the May 2, 2023 City Planning Commission appeal hearing ("CPC Hearing") on the TUP Extension and in the May 16, 2023 letter from Director of Community Development to Alan Engle. During the CPC Hearing, City staff stated "metal plating" was the only authorized use on the Property. This is incorrect. Our clients are not aware of any history of metal plating at the Property and did not engage in metal plating at the Property at any time durlng Jack Engle & Company's ("JECO") operations. Fleet Yards' current operations at the Property do not include metal plating. The metal processing operations described in the City's Record of JECO's Business Lioenses, the Fleet Yards Business Licenses, and the Certificates of Occupancy regarding metal processing have never included metaJ plating - even as an ancillary use. In addition, as early as 2018, the City has Issued business licenses for the Property with the business description ISOMOS
254
As noted in our letter to the City Planning Commission ("CPC") dated April 27, 2023, and during the CPC Hearing, the Engles, for three generations have operated this family business in the City. Metal recycling, including storage of truck trailers and containers, has been conducted onsite since the early 1970s. Between "l 973 to April 2009, Jack and Rose Engle, as husband and wife, owned the Property at which JECO operated. Then commencing in 2009, Jack and Rose Engle's son Alan Engle acquired the Property under his company AEP to continue the family business until March 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

SOMOS 2
[gO
255
misapplication of the SGMC and because the conditions of approval have been violated. On January 26, 2023, AEP informed the City that they would be appealing the determination.2 As noted in our letters to the City dated April 27, 2023 and May 16, 2023, City staff made several misstatements about truck trailer and container storage as a legal nonconforming use on the Property during the CPC Hearing, including, (i) that the use was not legalty established, (ii) that the legal nonconforming use doctrine would not apply because the operations "don't look like" the historic photos, and (iii) that the Municipal Code requirements for truck trailer and container storage from the early 1980s to 2015 apply to the onsite operations instead of the Municipal Code requirements from "1973, when operations on the Property commenced. The CPC did not make a determination on these issues during the CPC Hearing on the TUP extension. Our office filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's determination on May 18, 2023.

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

II. ANALYSIS
A. Truck Trailer and Container Storage Is Preserved Legal and Nonconforming as a Primary and Active Use on the Property.

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

According to the City's zoning map attached hereto as , as early as '196'l,thePropertywaszonedTor"HeavyManufacturing"or"M-3". "Draying,freighting, or trucking yards or terminals were specifically authorized as a by-right use in the M-2 and M-3 zones according to the 1976 version" of the SGMC provided by the City, 2 Please note that the 2022 Rejectiori Letter failed to disclose the owner's appeal rights and the City's policies and procedures to file the appeal.
3 SGMC § Il .55.030.E.
" SGMC § 11 .55.040.B.
5 Pursuant to our Public Records Act Request dated May 17, 2023 ("PRA Request"), the City provided a copy of the municipal code with sections datlng between the late I 960's and early 1 990's. However, the City's copy is not a complete version for each year or decade. In addition, the City was unable to verify whentheapplicableprovisionsoftheSGMCwereamended. Forthepurposesofthisanalysis,we SOMO8 3
t(;H
256
attached hereto as 3.6 These terms are not defined in the historic version of the code provided by the City. Our office secured earlier sections of the code from the Los Angeles County Law Library, attached hereto as "." These terms are also not defined in Exhibit C. "Draying" is a form of trucking service that connects intermodal shipping services, such as ground, ocean or air freight typically as a shorter portion of a longer journey," As late as 1975, ore reduction, metal foundries, and reclamation of iron, copper, and aluminum were also permitted by right in the M-3 zone.8 As late as 1989, "[m]anufacture, processing, or treatment of articles from previously prepared materials..." specifically including metal was also allowed by right in the M-3 zone.9 This is consistent with the two Certificates of Occupancy ("COO") dated 1977 authorizing "metal processing" on the Property, attached hereto as .'o This is also consistent with the City Record of JECO's Business Licenses ("City Bus. Lic.

Records"), attached hereto as . The City Bus. Lic. Records establish that JECO was operating with a valid business license for "Manufacturing - Metal" between 1977and2020.'l Forclarity,however,attachedasaree)ectroniccopiesof businesslicensesissuedtoJECOfor2015-2018. Eachofthesebusinesslicenses specificallyreference "OutdoorStorage..."asthedescriptionofthesiteoperations.

Similarly, the recent business licenses for Fleet Yards Inc, specifically note the "Special Permit For Outdoor Operations,"12 There is nothing in the historic versions of the zoning code indicating the need for any entitlement, including a conditional use permit ("CLIP") for either processing or manufacturing uses in 1977 when the City issued the COOs.'3 "Metal processing" and "metal manufacturing" are not defined in the historic sections of the SGMC.'4 However, a plain read of this use describes metal "recycling" without calling it "recycling." Merriam-Webster includes "processing something, such as... glass or cans in order to regain material for human use" in the definition of "recycling."'5 These documents, along with the historic by-right uses in the M-3 zone in Exhibit B, Exhibit C, and Exhibit D clearly demonstrate that the historic metal processing assume that the applicable date for historic sections of the SGMC a:irrelate with the date stamp in the lower right hand corner of each page provided by the City, unless the section is notated with an earlier date reference to the applicable ordinance. We have provided references to the applicable ordinances where appropriate.
a See Sex,tions 11.22.010(17);
" See "What is [)rayage and Why is it Important?", Nexttruckirig.com, available . 8 SeeLACountyLawLibrarySGMCCopy-1969-1992,SGMC§ 11.24.010.15-26. 9 See LA County Law Library SGMC Copy -1969-1992, SGMC §§ 1t22.010.26; 'a See Exhibit D.
" See Exhibit E. The City provided this summary of JECO's business licenses in response to a Public Records Act request from our office. We understand that the City has been unable to locate business license records between 1973 and 4977 Notwithstanding this missing documentation, we are informed and believe that at the time operations commenced at the Property in 1973, JECO complied with all then- applicable rules, regulations, and ordinances relating to operating its metal processing business. See Declaration of J. Engle,
'2 See Exhibil G,
'3 Based on the City's response to our PRA Request and the similarities between "metal processing" as defined and "metal recycling;' the evidence does not suggest that the JECO operations were processed as an "Unclassified Use" pursuant to Section 1t26.010 of the historic provisions ofthe SGMC. '4 Exhibit B § 11.04 et seq; Exhiblt C § 1 1.04 et seq. '5 Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "Recycling," July, 2023, available i3g. 4SOMOS
257
operations, including related shipping operations and necessary truck yards and terminals, were by right uses at the time JECO expanded operations to the Property in 1973, and after the COOs were issued in 5977. Accordingly, these uses are legally established and preserved pursuant to the SGMC.
ii. TheCitydidnotListAllAIlowableByRightandlncidentalUsesonits Business Permits.

During the CPC Hearing, City staff stated that truck trailer and container storage "could not" be a legal nonconforming use where there is no separate business permit for that use. This is factually inaccurate. Based on the historic code provisions provided by the City, we understand that the licensure requirement for multipfe "business activities" was not enacted until May 25, 1993 with the City's adoption of Ordinance No. 1948, the City's "Business Regulation Ordinance.l6 Accordingly, South Gate's historic business licenses did not list every ancillary or related use because in the early 1 960's and 1 970's, the historic versions of the code are silent-indicating that this was not yet a requirement. This is consistent with the City's own summary of JECO's business license activity.l7 The summary includes only "Manufacturing - Metal" as the listed use, without mention of the many by-right uses specifically authorized in the M3 zone at that time, including freight, drayage, and storage of truck trailers and containers. According to the historic code provisions provided by the City, the City would not have required a separate business license at the time for by-right uses. Once this requirement changed, as described in more detail below, our clients worked together with the City to determine the applicable permitting requirements and fees for the metal processing and recyding operations, and complied with those requirements as directed by the City. In addition, the more recent business licenses issued to both JECO and Fleet Yards specifically reference outdoor storage as the business description These documents, along with thp historic by-right uses in the M-3 zone in Exhibit B, Exhibit C, and Exhibit D clearly demonstrate that the historic metal processing operations, including related shipping operations and necessary truck yards and terminals, were by right uses at the time JECO expanded operations to the Property in 1973, and after the COOs were issued in ")977. Accordingly, these uses are legally established and preserved pursuant to the SGMC.
'a See SGMC § 20.10.010 etseq.
'7 See Exhibit E.
5 !C%?,
SOMO8
258
iii. Truck Traiter and Container Storaqe is an Inteqral Part of Metal Processing Operations
Your May 16, 2023 letter states that the truck trailer and container storage was only "occasional" or "for the purpose of loading and unloading" only.'8 This is factually inaccurate.

As noted in the Declaration of Mr. Jason Engle, Chief Operating Officer at JECO, ("Declaration") the metal processing operations required scrap metal product to be delivered to the Property by truck, with truck trailers and containers in tow. These truck trailers and containers would remain on the site for sorting, processing, and preparation for shipment for up to several months while the scrap metal was being processed and while JECO coordinated shipment logistics. JECO's suppliers and customers would generate between 6 and 11 million pounds of product for processing every month.'9 The precise storage period for truck trailers and containers could take days, weeks, months, or longer depending on the volume of product, the end destination for the product, and whether the following tegs of the product's journey were by ground, air, or sea.2o The processed material would be loaded into an empty container (or the same container) for shipment to its final destination. The shipments for railway or overseas shipping required much larger containers, as depicted in . During the processing and shipment preparation stage, these large containers were stored at the Property, consistent with industry standards and practices. Processed product with a domestic destination would be placed in empty truck trailers or smaller storage containers, which were also stored on the Property. Images of these truck trailers and smaller storage containers are attached hereto as .

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

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

SOMO8 6
%Qu
259
Accordingly, the truck trailer and container storage use at the Property is preserved as part of the metal processing operations as an authorized legal nonconforming use. iv. The City has had Direct and Constructive Notice of the Leqal Nonmnforming Use, Including Truck Traifer and Container Storaqe for Decades.

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

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

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

This is factuatly incorrect. As noted above, "metal processing" and "trucking yards or terminals" did not require a CUP at the time that the City authorized the JECO operations on the Property, or in 1977 - the earliest available COOs that were issued to JECO. In addition, the historic versions of the SGMC do not require a CUP for 22 Declaration, pg. 3.
7SOMOS
260
"recycling" operations until I 988 - nearly 15 years after the operations on the Property commenced.23 The SGMC did not include definitions for "recycling" until "iggo.2'l These definitions did not replace "metal recycling" as an allowed use. Instead, these definitions are for recycling of hazardous materials only - which has never been part of the operations on the Property. Because the metal processing operations on the property, including the necessary truck trailer and container storage was permitted by right in the ear!y 1970s, no CUP or other entitlement would be required. For this reason, the authorized uses are preserved notwithstanding the lack or CUP. vi, The City Requires that Ancillary and Incidental Uses be Preserved as Legal Nonconforming Uses.

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

Here, we have provided substantia[ evidence of the truck trailer and container storage on the Property pursuant to the historic metal processing operations, including service logs, billing invoices, a declaration describing the day-to-day operations from an industry professionat with decades of experience, and photos depicting the types of truck trailers and containers that were used. There is no language in the SGMC indicating that a portion of a legat nonconforming use is abandoned due to the scope of the use at the time it is established.27 Instead, the assumptions for partial uses and structures are consistent with the City's general policy and obligation to preserve legal nonconforming uses where, as here, the use is legally established.28 For this reason, 23 See Exhibit C, § 11.22. 10.22.6 (referencing "Large Collection Facimies" subject to the issuarice of a CUP). See also, Ordinance No. 1760, 1988. We assume for the purposes of this analysis that the City's May j6th letter to Alan Engle is referencing this use. However, we note that "metal pmcessing" and "trucklng yards or terminals," the uses at issue here, did not require a CUP under the historic verslons of the code. For this reason, we assume that the City's May 16, 2023 assertion regarding the CUP is based on a misinterpretation of the approved uses, or reference to a subsequent version of the Zoning Code. 24 SGMC § 11.55.040.E; Ordinan> No. 1835 % 9-1 'l (referring exclusively to recycling and recovery of "hazardous materials").
z6 SGMC §§ II .55.030.E.
26 SGMC §§ 11.55.030.0.
27 Id. at "I 1.55.040.
2a For example, the South Gate General Plan's Community Design Element ("General Plan") specificalty anticipates legal nonconformlng uses in the South Gate College District given the existing surrounding industrial uses. The General Plan Specifically requlres that "[i]ndustrial and manufacturing uses shou/d remain in the area" until such time that the college district expands. South Gate General Plan, Community Design Element, Policy P.6., pg. 106.
8SOMOS
261
based on a plain reading of the zoning code and the evidence above establishing truck trailer and container storage as a legal nonconforming use, truck trailer storage must be considered as an "existing use" For the purpose of the legal nonconforming analysis. vii. Truck Trailer and Container Storage Has Not Been Abandoned for the Requisite Two-Year Period.

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

For all of these reasons, the truck trailer and container storage on the Property has been a protected, legal nonconforming use since 1973. 29 SGMC § 'I 1.55.040.D.1-2.
80MO8 9
262
B. The City Has Authority to Allow the Leqal Nonconforminq use on the Property.

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

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

The current truck trailer and container storage operations are consistent with the existing structures and layout of the Property, and will not require any changes to the site design. In addition, the current operations will not impact the current number of parking spaces or building access.32 Finally, given the legal nonconforming use status of the current operations, allowing the use to continue would not result in a violation of the current SGMC.

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

City of Culver City ("Endara"), the murt allowed a substantially similar legal nonconforming use to be substituted for the original use.33 The Court noted that, "a nonconforming use is not restricted to the identical particular use which was in existence at the time of the enactment of the zoning ordinance but embraces any use 30 SGMC § 11.55.030.J.
31 /d.
32 During the CPC Hearing, City staff raised that the cemer structure on the Property was demolished without a permit from the City. We can confirm that this structure was in fact demolished on or around August 8, 2020, and that despite best efforts, we have been unable to locate a demolition permit. Thls fact notwithstanding, the continued truck trailer and container storage on the Property has remained onslte continuously and is a legal nonconforming use for the reasons detailed herein. 33 Endara v. City of Culver City (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 33.

SOMOS 10
g.qb
263
substantially the same or similar. The adoption of more modern instrumentalities, suitable in carrying on a business should not, in legal contemplation, work a change of use."34 Similarly here, the JECO metal processing operations specifically included truck trailer and container storage as part of its business plan, as documented by the service logs and billing statements for truck trailer and container storage on the Property for prolonged periods of time. Fleet Yards' current operations for truck trailer and container storage are virtually identical, and include storage of truck trailers and containers pursuant to drayage operations for prolonged periods of time. Although the size of the containers and truck trailers were more varied during JECO's tenure on the Property, truck trailer and container storage has been a consistent use onsite since the early 1970s.

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

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

For the reasons stated above, the City has substantial evidence, legal authority, and compelling policy incentives to preserve truck trailer and container storage on the Property as a legal nonconforming use. We remain confident that by working together, we can support the City's development goals while preserving local jobs, family businesses, and the Engle's substantial contributions to the )ocal community. a4 Endara at 38.

SOMO8 Il
t%9
264
If you have any questions about the documentation that we provided or about the scope or nature of the legal nonconforming uses on the Property, please contact me directly.

Thank you,
Alfred Fraijo Jr.

Partner
213.592.2966 direct
[email protected]
CC:

Raul Salinas, City Attorney
Craig Hardwick, CityAttorney
Yalini Silva, Senior Planner
Yodit Glaze, City Clerk
Raquel Larios, Office of the City Clerk
20C)
SOMOS
265

EXHIBIT E
20 N
266
: J p. l,+.
8350 Alameda Street

ALAMEDA ENGLE

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

BOMOS
267
02 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC -TUP DENIAL APPEA.L - MAY 02, 2023 o 80MO8
268
a Pursuant to TUP Condition No. 2 and the City Planning Commission's review authority of the appeal, the Commission can grant a modest 60- day extension of the TUP to permit the Appellant and City to review the legal nonconforming use determination.
a Alternatively, Commission can opt to postpone its determination on the TUP extension until after the Planning Division completes its reviewing of the legal nonconforming use determination
03 ALAMEDAENGLEPROPERTIES,LLC-TUPDENIALAPPEAL-MAYO2,2023 0 SOMOS
269
Alameda Engle Properties, LLC operated
a recycling facility on the Property,
including storage of truck trailers
City approved TUP for truck trailer
use on the Property
Appeal of Director's denial of the
TUP extension
2020 TO PRESENT DECEMBER 20, 2022
EARLY 1970S TO 2020 JULY 16, 2020 JANUARY 26, 2023 Tenant Fleet Yards, Inc. operating
truck trailer storage on the Property
'y
Community Development Director
claims City would no longer
corhsider the TUP extensions
04 ALAMEDAENGLEPROPERTIES,LLC-TUPDENIALAPPEAL-MAYO2,2023 o 270
ass

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 extensiorbs 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 LACC[) 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 trailer.s provi:ded in the TUP

5. Any violations of the-conditions or City laws could resutt in revocation of TUP
aA,llldyaoVn.ldtitions shall be agreed to by o.wner in a signed and notarized 05 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC - TUP DENIAL APPEAL - MAY 02, 2023 80MO5
271
a The legal nonconformtng use issue is dispositive for the future uses on the Property and informs the need for the TUP and subsequent TUP extensions.
a South Gate Municipal Code (SGMC) -
"nonconforming industrial uses may continue in use in any zone where they were legally established " SGMC § li.55.030.E.
a Lega nonconforming industrial use is preserved so long as it is not abandoned or discontinued for
two consecutive calendar years. SGMC §

11.55.040.B.
\ l 1, i- " i I :
i-tl-i
Truck Trailer Storage
06 ALAMEDAENGLEPROPERTIES,LLC-TUPDENIALAPPEAL-MAYO2,2023 0 SOMOI
272
III.*
2012 20'l8 2020 2022
07 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC - APPEAL OF TUP DENIAL - MAY 02, 2023 0 273
00 I
Director Shall Evaffluate
A11 of the FolJowing to Determine that a Legal
Nonconforming Llse is Abandoned:
08 ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC - TUP DENIAL APPEAL - MAY 02, 2023 0 %J
274
09 ALAMEDAENGLEPROPERTIES,LLC-TUPDENIALAPPEAL-MAYO2,2023 J
0 80MO9
275
a H
276

APPENDIX
11 ALAMEDAENGLEPROPERTIES,LLC-TUPDENIALAPPEAL-MAYO2,2023 0 SOMOI
277
Business License Compliance
1973 zozo
Zoning
Clearance
2014 Present
Fleet Yards Auxiliary Permit
12 ALAMEDAENGLEPROPERT1ES,LLC-TUPDENIALAPPEAL-MAYO2,2023 0 SOMOEI
278

ATTACHMENT E
CENTENNiAL
Il'..-.i {Eur:'I -
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. TLIP 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 appea) 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 ofthe 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 hearin@ on the matter of renewing the TUP. %ain, as publicly stated by the City's legal counsel at the Planning Commission meeting, the City granted that hearing as a matter of courtesy - something that was also explained to AEP in the course of the May 2 meeting, No hearing was required because no decision by the Planning Commission could have resulted in validation and extension of the TUP. Section

11.51.020 of the Zoning Code states that any permit conflicting with the provisions of the Zoning Code "shall be null and void." Both the TUP and the requested one-year extension conflict with the provisions of the Zoning a p4
279

CENTENNIAL
Community Development Department
Meredith T. Elguira, Director of Community Deveiopment
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 TLIP 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 Ofthe Premises fOrthe storage OftruCkS and truck-trailers constitutes a legal non-conforming use which can be continued in the absence of the Tt)P 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 pramptly 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 2C)15 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 Recyclirig Center).

2. That in connection with such storage, a Conditional Use Permit had been issued as required by the former Zoning Code. The City can find no indication that such a CUP was ever issued to AEP, Fleet Yards, or ariy former occupant of the Premises. Under the former Zoning Code, storage of trucks and truck- trailers Without a CUP WOuld net haVe complied With the Zoning COde and therefore Could net 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. 7 (C:"
280

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

Meredith T. E
CC: Mr. Chris Jeffers, City Manager
Raul F, Salinas, Esq.

Craig D. Hardwick Esq.
2!v
281

ATT ACHMENT F
City of South Gate

PLANNING COMMISSION
A(GENIDA IBfflJlJL,
Senior Pltiiuier:

For tlie Regular Meeting of: May 2, 2023
Coiyuimitity Developmeixt Director:
'alini Siwt
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR

DENY AN EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY
STORAGE AT 8530 ALAMEDA STREET.

OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S DECISION TO
USE PERMIT N0. 2020-01 FOR TRUCK TRAILER
PURPOSE: Public liearing to consider an appeal of tlie Director of Community Development's decision to deny an extension of Temporary Use Peimit (TUP) No. 2020-01 for truck-trailer storage at 8530 Alameda Street, Soutli Gate.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. CONDUCTapublicliearingpursuanttoSoutliGateMunicipalCodeTablell.51-landSectionll.50.040.B;

2. ACCEPT tlie deten'nination that tliis matter is exempt from tl'ie Califotnia Environmental Quality Act;

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

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

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: Adveitising and notification of tl'ie public liearing for tliis item was conducted in compliance witli Sections 11.50,020 and 11.50.030 of the Soutli Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC"). Notices of tlie hearing were posted and publislied in tlie "Soxith Gate Press" on February 9, April 6 and April 20, 2023.

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

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

BACKGROUND: Tliis is an appeal by Jason Engle on belialf of Alameda Engle Properties, LLC, tlie owner of property located at 8530 Alameda Street. Mr. Engle is appealing tl'ie Director of Community Development's decision to deny an extension or renewal of Temporary Use Permit 2020-01. Tlie liistoiy of tliat Temporary Use Permit is as follows:

Tlie City's Business License Department sliows business license records (Attaclunent B) for "Jack Engle Co," wliicli staited business on April 18, 1977, and closed business on Marcli 27, 2020, at 8530 Alameda Street. Tliis business type was listed as a "Mai'iufacturing - Metal" business witli "outside storage only." Tlie appellant and its predecessor liad previously been utilizing the property to operate a metal recycling facility, in addition to tlie ancillary storage of tnick containers and tnick trailers.

Upon closing tliat business, tlie appellant continued to utilize tl'ie site by leasing tl'ie propetty to tenants for the a%'7
282
outside storage of truck trailers and truck containers, In order to do so, the applicant applied for, and received, Temporary Use Permit 2020-01. That permit "permitted the use of tnick trailer storage for a one year period with possible one year extensions up to a maximum period of five years from the date of approval, at 8530 Alameda Street," with six conditions of approval. A July 16, 2020 letter from the City's former Director of Community Development, setting forth those conditions of approval for that permit, is attached hereto as Attachment C. As of the appeal date, the appellant has failed to comply with the required conditions of approval and has also been operating without a city business license.

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

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

Past/Proposed Use of Pro'perty is as a "Truck Storaze/Terminal": Applicant and its tenant have been using the subject property to store trucks, ttttck-trailers, and storage containers. Under the SGMC, this rise is defined as "truck storage/terminal" use which, pursuant to the SGMC Section 11.60,230 "T" definitiorm, "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 II,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 landuse thatis 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 tnucks, truck-trailers and containers is a prohibited use in the IF zone.

Temporary Use Permits Cannot Authorize Prohibited Uses for Extended Durations. Purguant to SGMC Section 1L51.070 "Temporary Use Permit," temporary use permits are processed adtninistratively 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 deteredbythe director." SGMC Section l 1.51.OI0 (B) lists "Mandatory Approval Conditions" for temporary use permits, wherein there are "limits on the maximum duration will be specified in the perit, and shall not exceed three days in a row, or ten worlig days in any calendar year." OriginalIssuanceoftheTUPwasDoneinError,andRenewaloftheTUPisnotauthorizedbytheSGMC, Based on the aforementioned reasoning, the City's current Director of Community Development determined that the City would not grant an extension of TUP 2020-01. That Temporary Use Permit should never have been issued in the first place, since it putported to authorize the subject use for one or more years, far longer than the three- consecutive-day and ten-nonconsecutive-day maximum periods authorized by the SGMC. The Director and the City Manager each communicated that decision to the appellant. Appellant has appealed that decision, which appeal is the subject of the above-referenced hearing. ') K2,
283
CONCLUSION: Staff believes the Director's decision to deny the applicant's request to extend Temporary UsePermit 2020-01 is mandated by the SGMC. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold theDirector's decision and deny the appellant's request.

ATT ACHMENTS: A. Resolution No. 2023-05
B. Business license records
C. Temporary Use Permit 2020-01 approval letter, dated July 16, 2020 D. City Manager's letter, dated January 12, 2023
E. Appellant's letter, dated January 26, 2023

WITHOUT ATTACHMENTS
J tC'l
284

ATT ACHMENT G
SOMOS
304 South Broadway, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90013
March 13, 2025
VIA U.S. and ELECTRONIC MAIL
Jennifer Daley
SELA for a Better Tomorrow
Pa Box # 13308
Los Angeles, California 90013
Email: selaforabettertomorrow@,qmail.com
Re: SELA Letter Concerning Alameda Engle Properties, LLC Dear Ms. Daley,
We are in receipt of your letter on behalf of SELA for a Better Tomorrow ("SELA") dated March 6, 2025 ("SELA Letter"). We are writing on behalf ofAlameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP") to correct misstatements in the SELA Letter, and to address SELA's concerns regarding the truck trailer and container storage ("Site Operations") at 8530 Alameda Street (the "Property") which straddles the jurisdictions of the City of South Gate ("City") and Los Angeles County.

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

As a threshold matter, we invite SELA's consideration of the points expressed in AEP's February 6, 2025 Request forAppeal of Director's Determination and Noncompliance Notification ("Appeal") attached for convenience as ExhibitA hereto and incorporated by reference herein. Adding to the points made in ourAppeal, AEP specifically addresses the SELA Letter as follows:
j p'a) J)j
285
SOMOS
304 South Broadway, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90013
AEP's operations are legal and have remained constant since 1973 The SELA Letter suggests that the Site Operations have operated illegally for three years "with no business license, no [Temporary Use Permit ("TIJP")] or Conditional Use Permit...." In fact, the Site Operations have consistently operated in South Gate since 1973 and pre-date the currently applicable zoning at the Property. As such, all aspects of the Site Operations are "legal nonconforming uses," which are protected and specifically allowed to continue by the South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC").1 Legal nonconforming uses are not illegal; they are land uses or structures that were lawful when they were established but no longer comply with the current zoning regulations. Since 1973, Site Operations at the Property have been operating lawfully and with City oversight. The City has issued multiple business licenses specially authorizing outdoor storage - an authorized use on the Property.

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

II. There is no link between the allegedly elevated local arsenic levels and the Property or AEP's operations at same
Arsenic is a naturally occurring element with levels that vary by locality. Arsenic is used in lead alloys (e.g., for car batteries), wood preservatives (e.g., railroad ties), and applications in the metallurgical, glass-making, and semiconductor industries. The SELA Letter references a federal Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") study that purportedly found that 83 homes adjacent to the Property exceeded California's standards for acceptable levels of arsenic.a From this, the SELA Letter makes the unfounded suggestion that the AEP Operations or Property are responsible for this arsenic. This is wholly unsubstantiated.

I See SGMC El 11.55, et seq. (Nonconforming Uses and Buildings). 2 AEP has had no affiliation with Mr. Effren Martinez since the City's errant issuance of the TUP. 3 The federal study referenced by SELA is not attached to or referenced by the SELA Letter. 286
SOMOS
304 South Broadway, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90013
AEP has conducted substantial testing of its Property in coordination with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC"). AEP continues to work with DTSC to actively monitor the Property, and is in compliance with all DTSC requirements. The results of this testing indicate that any elevated levels of arsenic, which is naturally occurring in soil, is not present at the Property in concentrations above background. On this basis, any elevated levels of arsenic at adjacent properties are not related to AEP, the Site Operations, or the Property. Notably however, the Property is bordered by numerous industrial properties and uses likely to employ arsenic, including railroad tracks, glass manufacturing, and a metallurgical manufacturer." In light of these facts, the SELA Letter's suggestion that AEP, the Site Operations, or the Property are responsible for any locally elevated arsenic levels is unsubstantiated and inaccurate.

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

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

Prematurely terminating the currently legal use would not expedite the redevelopment process, invites legal challenges, and would likely cause unnecessary delays. Such delay benefits no one: not SELA; not the City; and certainly not he citizens and business leaders of the South Gate community. 4 The Zoning Map for the City of South Gate is available Hj and attached as Exhibit B hereto. An aerial map of the Property and surrounding uses is available 3j and attached as Exhibit C hereto. 287
SOMOS
304 South Broadway, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90013
IV. Conclusion
AEP remains dedicated to cooperatively working with the City, South Gate community, and SELA in its path forward. AEP is open to feedback on the types of features that SELA and/or its members may have regarding the Property and its use.

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

Sincerely,
Alfred Fraijo Jr.

Partner
213.592.2966 direct
[email protected]
CC:

Alan Engle, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC
Jason Engle, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC
Daniel Otting, Fleet Yards
Mayor Maria Davila
Rob Houston, City Manager
Raul Salinas, CityAttorney
James Eckart, City Prosecutor
David Crabtree, Interim Community Development Director John Signo, Planning Manager
Yalini Siva, Senior Planner
') 2'E
288
Exhibit A
AEP Request forAppeal of Director's Determination
rl U
289
SOMOS

LAW GROUP
304 South Broadway, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90013
February 6, 2025
South8'ao:o(L'Alerk

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
FEB - 6 2025
David Crabtree
Interim Director of Community Development
City of South Gate
8650 California Avenue
Email: [email protected]
FILED
Re: Request for Appeal of Director's Determination and Noncompliance Notification
Dear Mr. Crabtree,
We are in receipt of your letter dated January 21, 2025 ("Director's Determination") and writing on behalf of Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP") to appeal the Director's Determination, and to correct misstatements made in the letter.

SOMOS 1
22S
290
i. The City's interpretation of the legal nonconforming use provisions of the SGMC are inconsistent with the Code;
ii. The Director's Determination does not comply with codified requirements;
iii. The General Plan requires gradual phase-out for existing uses to avoid vacancy;
iv. Due Process; and
v. The City's failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Ca. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000, etseq.

At the City's recommendation, AEP submitted several options to correct the City's 2020 error. The solutions presented include 1) proposed terms for a Development Agreement ("DA") including market research to support viable alternate uses, third-party partnerships as envisioned in the General Plan, medium-term phase out of the current use, and a timeline with measurable milestones to facilitate redevelopmenUalternative use. Our initial timeline was based on the phase-out language in the General Plan.

The DA terms were submitted to the City on June 18, 2024 of last year. Although it has had 6 months to review the proposed terms, the City has not yet responded or provided feedback, or been willing to meet with our office to reach a resolution. Also at the recommendation of the City, our office submitted an application for a Zone Change ('ZC") and General Plan Amendment ("GPA") which can achieve the City's goals by 1) adding text for structured phase-out" Or 2) reverting the Property to its previous M3 designation until a viable use or development partner is identified. The City did not acknowledge receipt of the application for nearly 2.5 months after it was filed - notwithstanding consistent follow-up from my office regarding the status of the I We understand that only the City can initiate text changes to the SGMC and General Plan. These options were presented to the City in good faith and at the recommendation of City representatives, with the intention of adding the language required to help the City achieve its redevelopment goals in the South Gate Community College District and to provide structure for phasing out the current use.

SOMOS 2
22!u
291
application and invitations to discuss. These discussions are crucial because the Property is uniquely situated. Approximately 33 percent of the Property is located outside of the City in unincorporated Los Angeles County - and zoned for heavy industrial uses consistent with the current use. In addition, the only exiUentrance located on the property is located outside of the City's jurisdiction. As described in more detail below, the Property is also subject to additional development constraints. A viable solution for redevelopment of any kind must be compatible with these external constraints. Immediate termination of the existing use would result in a regulatory taking of the portion of the Property located in South Gate. To avoid this outcome, AEP again invites the City to discuss the proposed alternatives at any time convenient to the City.

If. Analysis
a. The Director's Determination is Unsupported by the SGMC The Code Does not Allow the Director to Differentiate Ancillary from Primary Uses
The SGMC unequivocally requires protection for "all nonconforming buildings or uses, including outdoor activities such as product storage or parking."2 The SGMC specifically protects all parts of a legal nonconforming use 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."3 The Director cannot make such findings based on the documentation submitted to the City. In addition, the City must treat "an existing use of any part of a building or property... to be an existing use throughout that building or property, including outdoor activities."4 This language clarifies that once a use is legally established, it is legally established for the entirety of the property - indicating that separating parts of a property or parts of a use are inappropriate in a legal nonconforming use analysis. Here, the truck trailer and container use has been a continuous use on the property since the metal recycling operations began in 1973.

This has been documented at length in letters and materials submitted to the City on April 27, 2023, May 2, 2023, May 16, 2023, and August 17, 2023. On August 17, 2023, our office provided copies of all available business licenses for the property. Any licenses that were not available were requested from the City, but not provided. The licenses issued to Jack Engle and Company ("JECO") for the Property span between 2015 and 20'l8, and specifically acknowledge that "outdoor storage" as an authorized use on the site. There is no delineation between primary and ancillary uses on the permits. In addition, our office provided licenses issued to Fleet Yards that specifically acknowledge a special permit for "outdoor storage." As you know, the City must z SGMC § 11.55.020.
a SGMC § 11.55.040(D).
' SGMC i 11.55.030(0).

SOMOS 3
I Ill
] ')'h
292
conduct zoning compliance review as part of its business license prOCeSS,s the City reviewed, and issued business licenses specifically authorized 'outdoor storage" repeatedly - first to JECO and then to Fleet Yards, as demonstrated by the business licenses that we provided to the City spanning between 2015 and 2020. By authorizing "outdoor storage" via the business licenses, the use was legally established as applied to the entirety of the Property pursuant to Section 11.55.030(0).

The Director cannot claim that the use been "wholly" discontinued based on this prior authorization of the metal recycling operations and specifically of the outdoor storage - even after the City rezoned the Property from M3 to IF. In addition, there is no language in the entirety of SGMC Chapter 11.55 - Nonconfoming Uses and Buildings, that suggests that the Director is authorized to bifurcate different parts of a legal nonconforming use to justify termination. This interpretation is inconsistent with a plain read of the Code. In addition, based on publicly available information, there are no examples of the City using this interpretation for similarly-situated properties. ii. Immediate Termination of the Existing Use is Inconsistent with the SGMC and the General Plan.

11.22.060 of the SGMC states in relevant part that "The 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."6 The General Plan states in relevant part that 'Industrial and manufacturing uses should remain in the area but could be phased out as the college district expands."7 In addition, the General Plan anticipates phasing out consistent with the course of the current plan, which does not terminate until 2035. Our initial DA proposal adopted the same timeline to ensure consistency with the General Plan. However, prior to the appeal hearing, we would appreciate the opportunity to meet with the City to discuss revised DA terms, including a revised timeline. As explained in more detail below, an immediate transition to an alternate use is not feasible or practical on the Property due to its unique location, an existing restrictive covenant, and heavy industrial surroundings both within and outside of the City's jurisdiction. As required by the Code and the General Plan, a gradual transition is better suited to address the interests and concerns of both the City and AEP. ! See the City of South Gate's requirements for obtaining a new business license, including review of a Zoning Clearance Form by the Community Development Department, available here:
" SGMC § 11.22.060.
' General Plan Community Design Element, Policy P.6.

SOMOS 4
}')5A
293
The Director's Determination Violates Codified Procedural Requirements
The Director did not address codified requirements for legal nonconforming use analysis in the Director's Determination. In order to establish that a use has been "wholly discontinued or abandoned" a for the requisite two-year period, the Director is required to make specific findings, supported by evidence in the determination g These findings must include:

1. The apparent intent of the owner;

2. Presence or absence of personal property associated with the use;

3. Presence or absence of furnishings, equipment and other property associated with the use; and

4. Continuity of utility service to the property'o
The Director's findings do not address any of the criteria above. As noted in our previous correspondence, the evidence submitted to the City does not support a finding that the use has been wholly discontinued or abandoned. AEP has communicated directly to City'l that its intent is to continue current operations until a viable alternative use or development partner is identified. The Director does not address the owner's intent in the Determination Letter. On April 27, 2023 and August 17, 2023, our office provided photographs, utility records, historic licenses, business ledgers and comparable documentation demonstrating that the truck trailers and containers are still located on the property, that the facilities to coordinate this use are still located on the property, and that utility service to the Property is and has been current so that the use can continue. In addition, AEP has provided private tours of the Property to City staff and elected officials as part of its ongoing good faith efforts to reach an equitable resolution. For these reasons, the Director's findings are not substantiated by evidence, or compliant with SGMC requirements.
b The City's Management of the Leqal Nonconforming Use Gives Rise to Substantive and Procedural Due Process Concerns.

The Applicant's rights to substantive and procedural due process is protected by the California Constitution.l2 This includes adjudication of land use issues free from arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory determinations by City staff.l3 0n several occasions, the City's management of this matter indicate violations ofAEP's " SGMC § 11.55.040(D).
" SGMC § 11.55.040(D).
"' SGMC I 11.55.040(D).
11 0n June 18, 2024, AEP submitted proposed terms for a Development Agreement that would phase out the current use over time while the parties worked together to identify viable atternative uses. 12 Cal. Const. art I §7.
' Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (1981)126 Cal.App3d 330, 335-6 (A city cannot unfairly discriminate against a particular parcel of land, and the courts may properly inquire as to whether the scheme of classification has been applied fairly and impartially in each instance.") Wilkins v. City ofSan Bernardim, (1946) 29 Cal.2d 332, 338; City of Orange v. Valenti (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 240, 243.

SOMOS 5
294
constitutional right to due process. This issue has been raised in previous correspondence, but more recently, on or around March 19, 2024, we were asked to file a request for a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment by City representatives.

After months of follow-up correspondence with the City, we filed the application on October 14, 2024. Although our office has been in consistent contact with the City since filing the application, the City did not acknowledge receipt of the application, assign a planner, or begin processing the application until January, 2025 - nearly 2.5 months after filing. Similarly, at the request of City representatives, AEP submitted proposed terms for a Development Agreement that would phase out the current use. We shared this proposal on June 18, 2024, but have not received feedback from the City on the terms.

On May 4 7, 2024, our office requested specific documents relating to the City's misstatements during a May 2, 2024 Planning Commission hearing, and made several inquiries about the City's allegations regarding changes to the SGMC. Although it took the City several months to provide responsive documents, the City was unable to provide most of the documents that we requested, including previous iterations of the code and older business licenses. In addition, we did not revive responses to our questions about the previous code changes. Our offioe located some of these records independently, and immediately shared them with the City. The Director's Determination cites a 1988 change to the SGMC that required a Conditional Use Permit - This information was specifically requested by my office on May 17, 2024, but never provided in the City's responsive documents. In addition, where, as here, the uses on the Property were established in 1973, subsequent entitlement requirements from 1988 would apply only to new uses or facilities. We have provided substantial documentation that the previous uses on the Property, including metal recycling and truck trailer and container storage were allowed by right at the time they were established in 1973.

The City's 2015 Zone Change and General Plan Amendment changed the zoning on the 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. However,the2015changestotheGeneralPIanseverelyrestrictfuture uses on the Property - many of which are not immediately viable because of the Property location and unique characteristics. Forthis reason, the SGMC and the General Plan specifically prioritize protecting existing businesses as noted above until alternative uses are identified.

SOMOS 6
23o
295
Although the IF zone allows a small range of uses, such as research and development facilities, mixed-use and residential uses, these uses are severely limited by the South Gate College District designation. In this subdistrict, the only uses permitted are civic/institutional facilities, open space, offi>/research and development and light industrial uses. Residential uses are not permitted, and retail uses are discouraged. 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.l4 The purpose of this Specific Plan/Precise Plan was to identify viable alternative uses on the Property priorto phasing out the existing use. The City has had 10 years to initiate preliminary planning stages. However, to date, the City has prepared no such plan. For this reason, we included market studies and milestones in the DA proposal to help the City complete this preliminary requirement for redevelopment.

The Property is surrounded by heavy industrial uses on 3 sides, including metal fabrication facilities, automotive repair yards, train tracks, warehouses, and similar uses.

In addition, we understand from County representatives that adjaoent property to the east (bordered by residential uses in South Gate) is slated for development of an additional warehouse facility - meaning that all four sides of the Property will eventually be bordered by heavy industrial uses. The majority of these uses are located outside of the City's jurisdiction.

Here, the City's termination of the existing land uses at the AEP Property in favor of alternative land uses whose environmental impacts have not been evaluated violates the requirements of CEQA.

Ill. Conclusion
AEP remains dedicated to reaching a resolution with the City via the pending ZC/GPA application, revisiting the proposed DA terms, or such other structure that the Parties deem appropriate. We are available to coordinate a meeting to discuss additional options at your earliest convenience
Sincerely,
Alfred Fraijo Jr.

Partner
213.592.2966 direct
[email protected]
SOMOS 8
232
297
CC:

Alan Engle, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC
Jason Engle, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC
Daniel Otting, Fleet Yards
Rob Houston, City Manager
Raul Salinas, CityAttorney
James Eckart, City Prosecutor
SOMOS
233
-I- inTTT-7------
298
Exhibit B
City of South Gate Zoning Map
23q299
elrVaffMCAN
SpectltcRanArsas
'I,' %illydale Spacdlc Plan ma
Taeady !kiulavam SpeelbcRanJVea
uiuiiii M;iJ I Irii' Yiinnp
:'l CC - CIVIC Center
'jl/ - Tiatm Vilage
fflCDR1 - cetnrk
WCDR2 - Comder z
88 N)A-hh4bod).tediim
lus-iamie+ionepani
ffl!l CV - Ck
fflOS-openspace
Commgcial mdustrial Zones
RC. - Rsglorm Coinmerdal
aM2 - L@( TilanJaclutlng
Ml - heavy taamaciunng
glnaiairalFlexTiansllzml0iiaTby
!ipecial ThnainAraas
drVMmY
&"' zCoiknyronfgS"oulaphGate e
300
Exhibit C
Property Map
23ty 301
302

ATT ACHMENT H
For a Better Tomorrow
March 6, 2025
VIA u.s. MAIL AND EMAIL
Mayor Maria Davila
City of South Gate
8650 California Avenue
South Gate, CA 90280
[email protected]
Re: Immediate Demand for Enforcement of City Codes and Accountability for Illegal Operations in the City of South Gate
Dear Mayor Davila and City Officials,
This letter is submitted on behalf of SELA for a Better Tomorrow, a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization (SELA), and the concerned residents of South Gate who we represent.

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

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

SELA FOR A BETTER TOMORROW
Pa BOX #13308, LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 3 2 3-5 l 0-6 A 3 3 SE LAFO RAEI ETTE RTO M 0 RROW@ G M AI L. CO M
23'a
303
Illegal Operations and the City's Failure to Act
Numerous properties in South Gate, including but not limited to:
8530 Alameda St. (Alameda Engle Properties, LLC);
9313 Rayo Ave. (Mr. C's Towing of South Gate. Inc.); and 4552 Ardine St. (Titan Terminals and Transport Inc. / J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc.)
are operating without permits, zoning approvals, Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), proper grading, water runoff plans, cleanup systems, traffic studies or infrastructure to mitigate the environmental and public health risks associated with their use. These businesses have been operating for years in direct violation of the City's own codes, with full knowledge of City officials, yet no meaningful enforcement action has been taken.

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

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

SELA FOR A BETTER TOMORROW
Pa BOX #13308, LOS ANGELES, CA 90€)13 I 323-510-6433 SEL AFO RAB ETTE RTO M 0 RROW@G M All. CO M
23m
304
Failure to Enforce City Codes & Zoning
The City has an obligation to enforce its General Plan and zoning ordinances, which designate these areas as Industrial Flex ("IF")-not Heavy Manufacturing ("M3"). The City claims these properties are under administrative review and that they will need to request a zone change, while the City takes no meaningful action, conducts no traffic or environmental studies and holds no public meetings. The City continues to ignore its own policies, allowing truck yards and industrial operations to persist illegally and at great harm to residents. The proposal to rezone this parcel from IF to M3 and revert back to its previous use is a step backward from South Gate's goals of sustainability and growth. In addition, this proposal cannot be made by the applicant, Somos Law Group representing Alameda Engle Properties, LLC. An amendment to this zoning code must be initiated by the City, be it the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Manager.

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

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

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

SELA FOR A BETTER TOMORROW
Pa BOX #13308, LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 I 323-510.6jl33 SEl AFO RAB ETTE RTOMO RROW@GM AI L.COM
7(JD
305
Furthermore, Fenix Entrepreneur's Martin Fierro, a key player in Commerce's truck parking scandal, has made financial contributions to South Gate officials.

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

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

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

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

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

SELA FOR A BETTER TOMORROW
Pa BOX #13308, LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 323-510-6jl33
SE LAFO RAEI ETTE RTO M 0 RROW@G M AI L. COM
306
Safety and Quality of Life for Residents
The City's failure to enforce the law is destroying the safety and quality of life for the residents of South Gate. Because the truck yards are completely unregulated, they contribute to an increase in traffic accidents, some fatal, pedestrian danger and deaths, excessive traffic, road damage, reduced parking in residential areas, noise pollution, property damage, decreased property values and homelessness. In choosing to repeatedly ignore the issues of safety and quality of life for South Gate, the City has cultivated mistrust and low morale among residents.

SELA FOR A BETTER TOMORROW
Pa EIOX #13308, LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 323510-6133
SE LA FO RAB ETTE RTO M 0 RROW@ G M AI L. CO M
2'%2=
307
Demand for Immediate Action
The City of South Gate must immediately:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Jennifer Daley
SELA for a Better Tomorrow

SELA FOR A BETTER TOMORROW
PO BOX #13308, LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 I 323-510-6433 SEL AFO RAEI ETTE RTO MO RROW@GM AI L. CO M

2.'k3
308
cc: Joshua Barron ([email protected])
Vice Mayor
Maria del Pilar Avalos ([email protected])
Council Member
Gil Hurtado ([email protected])
Council Member
AI Rios ([email protected])
Council Member
David M. Crabtree ([email protected])
Interim Community Development Director
Rob Houston ([email protected])
City Manager
Raul Salinas ([email protected])
City Attorney
James Eckart ([email protected])
City Prosecutor
John F. Signo ([email protected])
Planning Manager

SELA FOR A BETTER TOMORROW
Pa BOX #13308, LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 I 323-510-6433 SE LAFO RAB ETTE RTO M 0 RROW@ GM AI L.C0 M
309
Draft Complaint

SELA FOR A BETTER TOMORROW
Pa BOX #13308, LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 I 323-510-6433
SE LA FO RAB ETTE RTO M 0 RROW@GM AI L. CO M
7$
310
SELA for a Better Tomorrow

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

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

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

CASE NO.:

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE
AND DECLARATORY RELIEF:

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

2. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AS
AUTHORIZED BY LAW;

3. DECLARATORY RELIEF AS

AUTHORIZED BY LAW
19 28
-1-

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF lui
311
I Plaintiff/Petitioner SELA For A Better Tomorrow hereby brings this action against 2 Defendant/Respondent, City of South Gate, and Does 1-25 (collectively, "Respondents"), and 3 alleges the following:
4 5

PARTIES
6 1. Plaintiff/Petitioner SELA For A Better Tomorrow ("SELA") is a California 7 nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation. SELA was formed for the purpose of advocating for 8 9
progressive and environmental causes. Its headquarters are located at PO Box 13308, 10 Los Angeles, California 90013. SELA is entitled to the relief requested below because it 11 and its members are beneficially interested in, and/or adversely affected by, the City's 12 adoption, implementation and enforcement of the Ordinance's provisions challenged 13 14 herein.
15 2. Defendant/Respondent, City of South Gate (the "City") is a municipal 16 corporation whose officers, officials an agents are responsible for enacting, 17 18
implementing and enforcing the Ordinance, including its "no vending" zones and other 19 restrictions challenged herein.
20 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
21 3. Jurisdiction over this action is proper in the Superior Court of the State of 22 23 California because the Court has general subject matter jurisdiction and no statutory 24 exceptions to jurisdiction exist.
25 4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 26 27 section 394, because each Respondent and Defendant is a city or local agency and is 28 situated in Los Angeles County. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 394 ("An action or proceeding -2-

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF ) Uj
312
against a.. . city, or local agency, may be tried in the county . . in which the city or local agency is situated.").

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

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

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

7. The property at 4552 Ardine St. was purchased by Titan Terminals over a decade 28 ago and converted into a container yard illegally. In fact, there was even a citation for it issued. Titan demolished the building, graded the land and illegally leased it out to JB Hunt, the current tenant onsite, without approval, zoning or permitting for this use. -3-

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 313
I There are no water run-off plans, asphalt work, proper lighting or screening, and no 2 Environmental Impact Report assessing contaminants. 3 8. At 9313 Rayo Ave in South Gate, a tow yard was erected illegally. This is a 4 5
historically contaminated government Superfund Site (on record with the EPA as Cooper 6 Drum Co. at 9316 Atlantic Ave., which is on the same property). The tenant is Mr. C's 7 towing and this yard was created without proper permitting, zoning or infrastructure for 8 9
this use. This site is contaminated and located directly next to Tweedy Learning Center, 10 an LAUSD adult continuation school, putting students and staff at risk for 11 contamination.
12 9. The City is obligated to enforce their own codes, as these properties are not 13 14 zoned for their current use, including trucking and truck and tractor trailer storage. 15 10. The City determined years ago by the 2015 General Plan Amendment that this 16 area is to be used for Industrial Flex (IF) not Heavy Manufacturing (M3), specifically 17 18
for use by the South Gate College District to benefit residents. 19 11. TheCityhasbeenviolatingthelawandtheirowncodessince2021,andtheCity 20 has ignored residents since they took action and exposed these violations in 2023. SELA 21 and local residents have repeatedly voiced their concerns about these violations and the 22 23 health hazards at numerous city council meetings and hundreds of residents have signed 24 the petition to shut down the illegal yards. Attached hereto and incorporated herein as 25 Exhibit "2" are true and correct copies of citizen complaints and their petition regarding 26 27
this unlawful conduct.
28 -4-

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 2S-fCTh
314
l 12. Felipe Guerrero, a South Gate resident who brought these signatures and 2 complaints from the community to Rob Houston, Raul Salinas, etc. via numerous letters, 3 emails, and meetings since December 2023 (see attached exhibit) has been completely 4 5
dismissed by the council.
6 13. SELA's representatives have interfaced with the commututy, obtained health and 7 environmental data, and conducted research to determine the connections between City 8 9
council members and the illegal property owners/tenants to better understand why this 10 urgent issue and residents' voices are being consistently suppressed without justification. 11 14. By allowing these sites to continue illegal operations, the properties and their 12 owners have evaded environmental regulations that are designed protect public health. 13 14 The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) provides oversight of these sites 15 with known soil and water.
16 15. Contamination soil and soil vapor testing have shown high levels of lead arsenic 17 18
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) like PCB, TCE, PCBs and benzene. VOCs are 19 chemicals used for industrial purposes that emit as gases from solids or liquids and are 20 classified as toxic and dangerous to humans and the environment. They are found in 21 gasoline, diesel fuel, solvents and industrial de-greasers. Exposure to VOCs is tmough 22 23 i*alation, skin contact, and ingestion. The DTSC states that when VOCs are not 24 properly cleaned up, as such in the cases of the above named properties, they can 25 migrate from soil or water into buildings through a process called vapor intnusion. Vapor 26 27
intrusion can affect indoor air quality which can impact the respiratory system and 28 potentially cause cancer over time.
-5-

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 315
1 16. Without a comprehensive and adequate cleanup plan, these contaminants will 2 continue harming the environment and potentially impact the respiratory nervous 3 digestive and reproductive system and cause cancer. 4 5

17. A Federal EPA study was conducted on 83 homes adjacent to the Engle property 6 at 8530 Alameda St. (information via Rossmery Zayas at Communities for a Better 7 Environment) for levels of arsenic. California's acceptable level of arsenic for homes is 8 O.llmg/kg. All 83 homes tested above the state limit, with 5 out of the 83 testing above 9 10 15 mg/kg. That is 136 times the acceptable amount. The long-term effects of arsenic 11 include cancer (especially bladder, lung, and kidney cancer), cardiovascular disease, 12 diabetes, liver and kidney damage, nerve damage and developmental problems in 13 14
children.
15 18. In addition to irreparable health and environmental damage, the City's ongoing 16 failure to enforce the law is destroying the safety and quality of life for the residents of 17 18
South Gate. These unchecked trucks are causing traffic accidents, some fatal, pedestrian 19 danger, excessive traffic, road damage, a lack of parking, noise pollution, and decreased 20 property values.
21 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
22 23
Against All Respondents
(Writ of Mandate - Code of Civil Procedure § 1085) 24 19. Petitioners reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation 25 contained in the above paragraphs.
26 27 20. The City has a clear and present duty to carry out their regulation, enforcement 28 and oversight of permits, temporary or conditional use permits, zoning, Environmental -6-

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 2GJ
316
Impact Reports, grading, water runoff, sufficient cleanup systems, proper infrastructure However, the City has fallen woefully short of its duties in this regard, thereby entitling SELA to a writ of mandate under California Civil Procedure Section 1085, directing and requiring the City to comply with its regulations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

27. The City, moreover, owes a legal duty to SELA and residents of South Gate to enforce its laws.
-7-
PE'nTION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF '252.
317
1 28. Section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that attorneys' fees may 2 be awarded to a successful party agauist one or more opposing parties in any action 3 which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest. 4 5
SELA is entitled to such an award of attorneys' fees for the following reasons:
6 a. SELA is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the general public or a 7 large class of persons has a significant interest in, and will derive a significant 8 9
benefit from, the relief prayed for herein.
10 b. The general public will derive a significant benefit from the proper enforcement 11 and application of the law.
12 c. The general public will derive further significant benefits from this action and 13 14 the relief prayed for herein, in that such relief will further the State's goals by 15 eliminating hazardous and toxic conditions.
16 29. The City's compliance with its regulations is a matter of great public concern. 17 18
The necessity and financial burden of private enforcement by SELA is such to make an 19 award of attorneys' fees appropriate, and such fees should not, in the interests of justice, 20 be borne by SELA.
21 22
23 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Against All Respondents
(Injunctive Relief As Authorized By Law)
24 30. Petitioners reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation 25 contained in the above paragraphs.
26 27
28 -8-

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 318
1 31. SELA has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy for the City's wrongful conduct 2 in violation its laws. Monetary damages cannot adequately compensate for the 3 irreparable injuries caused thereby.
4 5

32. Unless enjoined by this Court, the City will continue to violate its' code in all of 6 the respects complained of herein.
7 33. SELA is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting 8 9
Absent intervention by the Court, SELA, and others similarly 10 situated, have and will continue to suffer irreparable injuries through the City's wrongful II conduct detailed herein.
12 34. For the reasons alleged above, Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorneys' 13 14 fees under Section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 15 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
16 Against All Respondents
(Writ of Mandate - Code of Civil Procedure § 1085) 17 18

35. Petitioners reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation 19 contained in the above paragraphs.
20 36. An actual controversy presently exists between SELA and the City concerning 21 22
the City's enforcement of its laws because SELA contends that the City has consistently 23 failed to enforce those laws, to the detriment of the community. 24 37. SELA is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the City denies SELA's 25 contentions and further deny that they have acted in contravention of the law in any 26 27 respect.
28 -9-

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 319
l 38. SELA therefore seeks a judicial determination of the rights and duties of the 2 parties with regard to the City's failure to enforce its laws concerning permits, temporary 3 or conditional use permtts, zoning, Environmental Impact Reports, grading, water 4 5
runoff, sufficient cleanup systems, proper infrastructure, and traffic studies. 6 39. Such a declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time so that SELA and the 7 City may ascertain their respective rights, duties and responsibilities in connection with 8 9
the matters alleged in this Petition.
10 40. For the reasons alleged above, Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorneys' 11 fees under Section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 12 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
13 14 WHEREFORE, SELA requests that this Court:
15 1. Issue its alternative writ of mandate and/or order to show cause directing the City to 16 enforce all aspects of its Code, specifically with regard to its laws concerning permits, 17 18
temporary or conditional use permits, zoning, Environmental Impact Reports, grading, 19 water runoff, sufficient cleanup systems, proper infrastructure, and traffic studies. 20 2. Upon return of the alternative writ and/or the hearing on the order to show cause or 21 22
alternatively in the first instance, issue a peremptory writ ordering Respondents to 23 enforce all aspects of its Code, specifically with regard to its laws concerning pertnits, 24 temporary or conditional use permits, zoning, Environmental Impact Reports, grading, 25 water runoff, sufficient cleanup systems, proper infrastnicture, and traffic studies.; 26 27 3. Enter such temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and permanent 28 injunctions to prohibit the City froma;
- 10 -
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIgF 320
Enter injunctive relief against Respondents requiring them to ffi; and

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

SELA ForA Better Tomorrow
19 -11-

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF "J
321
Exhibits

SELA FOR A BETTER TOMORROW
Pa BOX #13308, LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 I 323-510-6133
SE LA FO RAB ETTE RTO M 0 RROW@ G M AI L. C OM
'ThQ7
322
%Gmail Jennifer Daley ([email protected]>
2Mmeeestsiangegsthis week?
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>
Hi Rob,
Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 6.17 PM
Can we set up an in-person, zoom, or phone meeting with you and anyone else at South Gaie who is inherested, prlor to the nexi city council meeting on 3/11/25? We are available most days and times fmm 2/26 to 31jO. The soonet the better. What days and times work best for you' The environmental non-profit organization I work with, SELA For a Better Tomonow. has been offered pro bono legal help in shutting down unpemiitted illegal truck yards, especially those operating in South (;ate at or neat 8530 Alameda st.. 4552 Ardine st., gait 3 Rayo Ave, etc. The city council is allowing them to operate without the proper pemiits or proper zoning, hamiing residents and the environment. Before we go down this legal route, we would appretJate the chance to discuss this with you.

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

Please let me know when you are available.

Thank you,
Jennifer Daley
SEIA For a Better Tomonow
Jennifar Daley <[email protected]>
To: rhouston so ate or
Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 12:29 PM
Hi Rob,
Just confirming you neceived my email and a request for a meeting. Ate you available early next week for a meeting or calla) Thanks,
[Quolsd text hlddan]
323
%Gmail Jennlfer Daley <[email protected]>
Can we set up a meeting?
Jennlfer Daley <[email protected]>
Hi Josh,
Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:31 AM
Can we set up an in-person, zoom, or phone meeting with you and anyone else at South Gate who is interested, pnor to the next city council meeting on :V11/251 We are available most days and limes from 2/28 to 3/1 0. The sooner the better. What days and times work best for you? The environmental non-profit organization I work with, SELA For a Better Tomonow, has been offered pro bono legal help in shutting down unpemiitted illegal truck yards, especially those opetaling in South Gate ak or near 8530 Alameda si., 4552 Ardine si., 9313 Rayo Ave, etc. The city council is allowing them to operate without the proper pemiits or proper zoning. harming residents and the envlronment. Before we go down this legal route, we would appreciate the chance to discuss this with you.

We'd like to address Our concems and points with you to see il we can amicably iesolve our issues and protect the South Gate residents and environment.

Please let me know when you are available.

Thank you,
JenniTer Daley
SELA For a Better Tomorrow
l"',l
324
M Gmail
Jennifer Daley <lenni%[email protected]>
Update on Mr. C's and Jack Engel
Rob Houston <[email protected]>
To' Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>
Cc PilarAvalos <[email protected]>, AI Rios <[email protected]>, Yodit Glaze <[email protected]> Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 9.57 AM
Jennifer,
Thank you for your inquity. At this point in time I can share with your information on the 9313 Rayo site that you mentioned. This site is now owned by Mr. C's towing and a portion of theparcel is zoned M3 to legally allow tow yard operations including storage. They are only using the portion zoned for this use (see parcel map below) until they conduct a zoneadjustment process with the Planning Commission for the remainder of the properl. (,, :,::';ton
SO' tl"tb CilyolSoulhGatelCihlManager's0ffice
(,ate
8860 Cali(omia Avenue, South Gale, CA g028[)
P: (323) 563-%03
E: @sogg
W: cilyoTsoulhgale.otg
From: Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday. February 13, 2025 8:43 AM
TO: ROb HOuStOn [email protected]>; Pila( AValO!i [email protected]', At RiOS <atios@sogafeiorg>; YOdit Glaze [email protected]>Subject: Update on Mr. C's and Jack Engel This message is tram an EXTERNAL SENDER - tie CAUTIOIIS, parkiCulaTly With LINKS and attaClimtint5 IQuoted text hlddenl
61maga002.png
67 9K
] c -rh
325
M Gmail Jennlfer Daley <[email protected]>
Update on Mr. C's and Jack Engel
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>
To: rhouston so ate.or m avalos so ate.or aros so ate.or Yodit Glaze < [email protected]> Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at8 43 AM
Mr. Houston, Mr. Rios and Ms. Avalos,
Thank you for heanng our concems regarding the illegal and toxic truck yards in South Gate at the South city council meeting on U28/25. I and four other community members publidy commented and several other residents joined us, in hopes that we would get answers fmm you as to why it's taken so long for the council to protect residents and uphold the law with the illegal yards operaling at 8530 Alameda, 9313 Rayo and 4552 Amine.

Mr. Housion, you stated that work is being done behind the scenes lhai you can't share publicly, which we undetsiand, but there has not been any meaningTul response or sign of adion by the council since 2021.

We need a response as to how and why tnuck yards are allowed to operate without permits or an EIR, and a timeframe in which changes will be made. Whak is the date these yards will be requlred to comply with the law, or be shut down? Or are you expeding your community to wait another four years for any actiona) Please let me know so I can share inTo with the hundreds oj people who are waiting on you.

Thank you,
Jennifer Daley
7 c /A%
326
To: South Gate City Council
Rob Houston, City Manager
Yodit Glaze, City Clerk
1/28/25
Good evening Mayor and South Gate City Council,
My name is Jennifer Daley and this is the third time I've spoken to the council on behalf of concerned residents who oppose the illegal truck yards in South Gate. I am joined by supporters Gabi Gutierrez, Kirby Blanton, Joanne Kim, Dominic Fawcett, and Omar Ruiz and Felipe Guerrero.

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

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

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

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

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

Jennifer Daley
1 /28/25
[email protected]
) J.7
327
TO: South Gate City Council
Rob Houston, City Manager
Yodit Glaze, City Clerk
1 /28/25
Hello South Gate Mayor and City Council,
My name is Gabi Gutierrez and I'm a diver, aquarium educator and ocean advocate. I'm here for the second time on behalf of over 300 residents who signed a petition calling for the immediate shutdown of the illegal truck yards in South Gate, particularly the one at 8530 Alameda Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time.

Gabriela Gutierrez
1/28/25
[email protected]
328
TO: South Gate City Council
Rob Houston, City Manager
Yodit Glaze, City Clerk
1 /28/25
Good evening, South Gate Mayor and City Council,
Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Kirby Blanton and I work in earlyeducation and mental health in Los Angeles. I'm here to speak on the damage beingcaused by deals the council has made with illegal truck yards in South Gate. I want to raisea serious concern about South Gate's future-one that's been made clear by the recentscandal in Commerce, where city officials were caught accepting bribes, costing taxpayersmillions. This corruption often starts with seemingly harmless deals made under pressure,and during the pandemic, many cities like South Gate and Commerce faced financialstruggles. Some of these rushed agreements with private companies, especially inindustries like trucking, need to be examined closely.

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

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

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

It's time to review these past agreements, ensure they comply with the law, and correct anymistakes made. You need to put South Gate's future first by upholding transparency,enforcing environmental protections, and ensuring that the money meant to serve ourcommunity goes toward education, mental health, and public services-not into the pocketsof those who break the law.

Thank you.

Kirby Blanton
1 /28/25
[email protected]
')(,L%
329
TO: South Gate City Council
Rob Houston, City Manager
Yodit Glaze, City Clerk
1 /28/25
Good evening City Council and residents of South Gate, My name is Joanne Kim, and I'm a sustainable fashion designer and cancer research advocate. I'm here today to speak about a critical health issue affecting our community:
the pollution from illegal truck yards, particularly the one near 8530 Alameda Street.

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Joanne Kim
1 /25/28
[email protected]
330
TO: South Gate City Council
Rob Houston, City Manager
Yodit Glaze, City Clerk
1 /28/25
Hello Mayor, City Council Members, and the residents of South Gate, My name is Omar Ruiz, and am a 20 year old student and lifelong resident of SouthGate. My family, friends, and I have been working for the past two years to raiseawareness about the dangers, pollution and unsafe roads caused by the illegal truckyards at 8530 Alameda st., 4552 Ardine st., and 9313 Rayo Ave. We've gatheredhundreds or signatures and listened to countless residents share their concerns aboutthe worsening conditions in our city.

People in our community are living next to toxic truck yards and dealing with serioushealth problems. Kids can't walk home from school or play outside because ofdangerous truck traffic and a lack of pedestrian safety. There have been severalfatalities caused by truck accidents. The air is polluted, and riding a bike in South Gateis nearly impossible because the roads are overrun by truck traffic. People can't sleep atnight because trucks run overnight on residential streets. The truck companies litterneighborhoods and take up parking.

My family and I are deeply worried about our health and the future of our community.We've tried reaching out to the City Council in every way possible, but you are ignoringus. How are we supposed to trust the city to protect us when corporations are breakingthe law and damaging our environment? It feels as if the City Council hopes we'll go away if we're ignored long enough. But wewon't. Our health and safety are too important, and it's your responsibility to protectthem.

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

Thank you for your time.

Omar Ruiz
o %
01 /28/25
'l(z(o
331
%Gmail Jennlfer Daley <[email protected]>
Public Comment - Today
4 messages
Jennlfer Daley <[email protected]>
To:

Ciiy Council,
Tue, Dec S0, 2024 at 3:24 PM
I am in need of an update on the illegal tnuck yams operating at 8530 Alameda Street and 4552 Ardine Street, and a new illegal yard at 9313 Rayo Street. I have not received a response from Ms. Elguira. Mr.

Salinas OT Mr. Houston to my email requesting answers on 1U25/24.

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

As a reminder, a Temporary llse Permit was issued in enor for 8530 Alameda Street and the Community Development Director dedined to renew the TUP on 7/1U22. That was two and a half years ago and the yard has been operating illegally since then. The city council has said they have been "reaching out to the owner' and "looking into" the problem for over a year.

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

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

They want answers and action.

So I ask you: What Is the timeline for how long it mll take to get the properly owners to comply? What action Is the council taking to enforce the law and protect your residents? Thank you,
Jennifer Daley
Environmental Justice Advocate
Yodit Glaze <[email protected]>
To' Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>
Tue, Dec 1[), 2024 at 4:05 PM
Hello Ms. Daley,
Thank you for your email regarding public comment for tonight's meeting. I appreciate your engagement in our community matters.

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

If you have any further questions or concems before the meeting, please feel free to reach out Best regards,
Yodit Glaze
City Clerk
From: JenniTer Daley [email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 3:25 PM
To: Yodit Glaze [email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment - Today
ThlS message IS lYOm an Ex'rERNAL SENDER - be CAunOllS, particularly with links and attachments [Ouotad text hldd*nl
332
%Gmail Jennlfer Daley <[email protected]>
City council mtg - response needed
j message
City Council.

Wed, [)sc 11 2024 at 10.52 PM
Below you will find the public comment I submitted for this week's city council meeiing on 12/1 0. I look fomaK to your timely response.

City Council,
I am in need of an update on the illegal tiuck yards operating at 8530Alameda Street and 4552Ardine S(reet. and a new illegal yard at 9313 Rayo Street. I have not received a response from Ms. Elguira, Mr.Salinas or Mr. Houston to my email requesting answers on 11/25/24.

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

As a reminder, a Temporary Use Pemiit was issued in errorfor 8530 Alameda Street and the Community Development Dlredor dedined to renew the TLIP on 7/1 1 /22. That was two and a half years ago andthe yard has been operaiing illegally since then. The city council has said they have been "reaching out to the ownef' and "looking into" the problem for over a year.

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

So I ask you: What is the tlmeline for how long It mll take to get the properly owners to comply? What action Is the council taking to enforce the law and protect your residents? Thank you,
JenniTer Daley
Environmental Justice Advocate
333
%Gmaii Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>
1l1lmeegssaalgteruck yards - Update needed
Jennifer Daley <%[email protected]>
To: rhouston so ate.or tsalinas so ate.or Metedith El uira <mel uira so ale.ortl> Mon. Nov 25, 2024 at 2.16 PM
Hello Meredith, Rob and Raul,
I am wnting to get an update on the illegal truck yards operating at 8530 and 8440 Alameda Street A Temporary Use Permit was issued in enor lay 8530 Alameda Street and the Community Development Director declined lo renew the TLIP on 7/11/22. The yard has been operating illegally sinca then and the city council has been reaching out to the owner and "looking into" the problem for over a year.

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

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

Thank you,
Jennifer Daley
[email protected]
- Fomarded message -
From Jennffer Daley <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at3'04PM
Subject: Re: TO/22 Meeting - Following up
To. Meredith Elguira <[email protected]>
Hi Meredith,
Thank you for the response on November lj. My question remains as to why it has taken so long for the propefy owner to comply with the city's municipal code. The fact that this yard has been operating illegally for many years and has not come into compliance is conceming. Do you know il there is a timeline for compliance or can the property owner dyag this on indefinitely? Felipe Gueveno has voiced this concem to the city for well over a year io no avail.

Is :i the city's posiuon that anyone can set up an illegal operation and drag out the process oT coming into compliance indefinitely? If this is not the case, then the City of South Gate sure makes it seem like it welcomes illegal tnick yards.

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

Thank you,
Jennifer Daley
Sent from my iPhone
On NOV 1 j. 2024, at 1 0144 PM, Meredith Elgulta <[email protected]> wroie Hello Jenniler,
The parcel located at 8440 Alameda St is outside of the City ol South Gate's jurisdiction. The parcel's address south of 8440 S Alameda is 8530 Alameda St and this parcel is located in the City ol South Gate. We are cunenlly working with the property owner to get them comply with the City's municipal code. The parcel at 4552 Ardine St cunently has an active business license is an auxiliary location to Ttan Terminal and Transportation Inc. Staff did not see trucks parked al 5767 Imperial Hwy when they visited the site, however, there are two container units parked across the lyont ol the property line to prevent public access but I've asked staff to inform the owner that these must be removed.

The other questions you have regarding public yecoyds will need to be addressed by the City Clerk's OTfice. 8650 Callloinla Avenue. South Gate. CA 90280
Gate ;:'clfivoi;'uoi;;e-;g
From: Jenniler Daley [email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 31 2024 2:59 PM
To: Meredith Elguira <[email protected]
Subject: Re: 1 0/22 Meeting - Following up
This message is Tvom an EXTERNAL SENDER - 5e CAIITIOIIS, particularly with links and attacliments Hi Meiedith,
I'm still wailing on your response to my premous email. Can I get an update on my questions outlined belowa) Thanks.
334
On Fr. act 25, 2024 at 2:43AM Jennifer Daley <jennifer.lee [email protected]> wrote Hi Meredifh.

I was in attendance at the city council meeting this week on 10/22 and delivered public comment. Can I get responses from you on the jollowing questions I brought to the councila' - What is the status of the tnuck yards operating at 8440 Alameda St, 4552 Ardine St and 5787 Imperial Highway@ Are they opetating with legal and cunent pemiits or not? - Why weren't any of the emails. letters and phone calls between Felipe Guerrero and the city council on recorda) Why weren't the signatures he got from tesidents on nscoid@ What has occutred since that atatement7 Did you present the appesl'7 What was the oulcomea) - %y are we back to square one when Felipe was told this was being worked on in January7 Thank you,
jennifer daley
858-361-1092
[email protected]
iendaley.com
IMDb
insfagtam
jennifet daley
858-361-1092
[email protected]
lendaley.com
IMDb
instagtam
jennijer dsley
858-361-1092
[email protected]
lendaley.com
IMDb
inslagtam
') '7n
335
M Gmail Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>
1 0/22 Meeting - Following up
Jennlfer Dalsy <%[email protected]>
To: Meredlth El ulra <mel uira so ate.or > Thu, Nov S4, 2024 at 3.04 PM Hi Meredith,
Thank you for the response on November jt My question remains as to why it has taken so long for the properly owner to comply wiih the city's municipal code. The fad that this yard has been opeiating illegally for many years and has not come into compliance is conceming. Do you know ij there is a timaline for compliance or can the properly owner drag this on indefinitely' Felipe Gueneto has voiced this concem to the city for well over a year tO nO availi Is it the city's position that anyone can set up an illegal operation and drag out the process of coming into compliance indefinitely? If this is not the case, then the City of Sou(h Gate sure makes it seem like it welcomes illegal truck yards.

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

Thank you,
Jennifer Daley
Sent lrom my iPhone
On Nov jl2024, at SO 44 PM, Meredifh Elguira <[email protected]> wrote' Hello Jennifer,
The parcel located at 8440 Alameda St is outside of the City of South Gate's jurisdiction. The parcel's address south of 8440 S Alameda Is 8530 Alameda St and this parcel is located in the Cily of South Gate. We are currently working with the properl owner to get them comply with the City's municipal code. The parcel al 4552 Ardine St currently has an active business 11cense is an auxillary location to 'ntan Terminal and Transportation Inc. Staff did not aee tiucks paiked at 5767 Impeiial Hwy when they vlsited the site, howevey, there are two container units parked across the front of the property 11ne to prevent public access but I've asked staff to Inform the ovvriey that these must be removed.

The other questions you have regarding public yecoyds will need ko be addressed by the City Clerk's Office.

M50 Calilortua Avenue. South Gate. CA 90280
Gafe w:'J:ivoti:i:uigaa:e-;g
IQtmted letl hiddsnl
i-ql-
336
M Gmail
10122 Meeting - Following up
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>
To: Meredith El uira <met ulra so ate.o >
Hi Meredith.

I'm still wailing on your response lo my previous email. Can I get an updste on my quesiions outlined below7 Thanks.
[0uatsd text hidden]
Jennlfer Daley [email protected]>
Thu, ad 312024 at 2 58 PM
337
%Gmail Jennlfer Daley <[email protected]>
1 0/22 Meeting - Following up
Jannffer Daley <[email protected]>
To: Menedith El uira <mel ulra so ate.or > %, act 25, 2024 at 2:43 AM Hi Metedith,
I was in attendance at (he city council meeiing this week on j O/22 and delivered public comment. Can I get responses from you on the following questions I bmught to the council') - %at is the status of the truck yards operating at 8440 Alameda St. 4552 Ardine St and 5767 Impenal Highwaya) Are they operating with legal and current pemiits OT nota) - Why weren't any of the emails, letiers and phone calls between Felipe Gueneto and the city council on record? Why weren't the signatures he got from residents on tecoydl - On U8/24 you stated in a letter to Felipe. 'The operator flled an appeal against ihe Planning Commission's decision to uphold the staffs decision, and our attomey is currently revlewing supporting evidence on the appeal. We have not decided if we will accept and present the appeal. If our staff chooses )o take the appeal to the Planning Commission, we will send out a public notice to all interested pariies, including the petiiioners on your list."
%at has occurred since that statement? Did you present the appeal7 %at was the oulcomea) - Why are we back to square one when Felipe was told this was being worked on in January9 Thank you,
jennifer daley
858-361-'1092
jennifer.lee daley@gmail com
jendaley.com
IM€ b
inslagtam
)')'2,
338
Jennifer Daley
1247 Hyperion Ave.

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

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

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

I've spoken to South Gate residents who are dealing with the daily challenges caused by these illegal truck yards: pollution, dangerous roadblocks, deadly collisions, traffic, no parking and the disregard and trashing of residential areas. These residents have collected hundreds of signatures to shut down the illegal truck yards, but the city has ignored them and the trucks are running rampant through the neighborhoods. Why is this?
What is a Temporary Use Permit? The Alameda truck yard is still running, so these permits appear to be completely meaningless. Are they legally allowed to operate permanently?
This leads me to another question: are there backroom deals being made here that are granting the truck companies legal immunity? Who does the council represent? These 77 Ll
339
special interests or the people?
Because no action has been taken by the city, we have no other choice but to bring these serious concerns to the press and to other activist groups in protest.

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

JenniTer Daley
"")"a'7S
340
10/22/24
To: Rob Houston
South Gate City Council
My name is Gabi Gutierrez and I am a resident of Echo Park, Los Angeles. I work in Long Beach with many people from South Gate, so I have become very aware of the traffic and environmental iSsueS in the area, and the mounting concerns of Southeast LA residents.

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

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

Thank you,
Gabriela Gutierrez
gabriela,mele,G [email protected]
2'7(O
341
%Gmail Jennlfer Daley <[email protected]>
Re: Illegal Trucking Yards - City Council Meeting Agenda Meredith Elgulra <[email protected]>
To. JenniTer Daley <[email protected]> Thu, act 17 2024 at 12.56 PM Hello Jennifer,
I've asked our code enforcement officers to visit the site and get in touch with the owners il there are any unpermitted uses on site. There is a process that we must {ollow to allow theowner to coned the situation. If lheye are unpermitted uses on site and they don't remove or get proper permits, then we can continue building a case against the properiy owner andhaVe all( Cit)t prosecutor Step in 10 bring the ptopert)t intO compliance. This prOCe8S will need $O be exhausted before we take it $O the CitJ COunCil far their deCiSiOn On the abatementpmcess.

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

Best
IOuoted text hidden]
ll")
342
MGmail Jennifer Daley [email protected]>
Re: Illegal Trucking Yards - City Council Meeting Agenda 4 messages
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]> Thu, act 17, 2024 at 12.19 PM To: Meredilh El uira <mel uira so ate.or >
Hi Metediih,
I'm following up to confirm that you received the emails between Felipe Gueneto and the city council. I emailed them to you on 1 0IS 2. I am also confimiing that the city council is addressing the illegal truck yards and is working on a solution to shut them down.

I am working With manY SELA residents and aCliViSlS WhO EFe expenencing the negative impart that the tnlCk )LARDS make On the community, and am organizing with bike safety and polluiion advocates. Your communiiy and I want to know how the city council will address this problem at the next meeting.

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

Thank you.

Jennifer Daley
858-36'l-1092
[email protected]
On Sat, act S 2. 2024 at 117 PM Jennifer Daley <[email protected]> wrote Hi Metedilh,
I've attached email exchanges and letters between South Gate resident Felipe Guerrero and the city council (you, Mr. Houston, Mr. Salinas, Mr. Rios, Mr. Hurlado and Ms. Zaragoza) regarding shutting down dangerous illegal truck yards, including the Jack Engle yard at 8440 Alameda. The emails and letters occuned between December 2023 and June 2024.

I have also induded Felipe Guenero's petition with residents' signatures. Please let me know you received this and that it has been recorded.

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

On Thu, act SO, 2024 at j2:29 PM Jennifer Daley <jennijet [email protected]> wrote' Okay thanks. I'm working on gathering that f5r you and will send soon.

On Thu, ad TO, 2024 at 12.22PM Metedith Elguira <[email protected]> wrote.

Hello, I don't have them. Would you mind shanng? Thank you.

Get Outlook lot iOS
From: JenniTer Daley <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 202412:19:31 PM
To: Meredith Elguka <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Illegal Trucking Yards
This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and attachments Hi Mandith,
Do you have the signatures petiiioning the truck yards on record7 They were collected and delivered to the city council by Felipe Guerrero.

On Wed, act 9, 2024 at 219 PM Meredith Elguira <melguira@sogate org> wrote:

Received, thank you.
8650 Calllornia Avenue. South Gate. CA 90280
Ga(e w;c;yot:o'auui;'a:e-o;g
From: JenniTer Daley <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 202412:30 PM
To: Meredilh Elguira [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Illegal Trucking Yayds
ThiS message iS Tmm an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAIITIOUS, tiarkiCiilaTIV With LINKS and attachments Hi Meredith,
I've atiached the letter I sent to Rob Houston. I mailed it certified on 9/30/24. My leiter is new as I've only been involved for a few weeks now, bui the family I am working with has been calling, wnling and meeting with city council lot a year now. They have also colleded over 300 signatures of residents opposing the yards. l[ you need any additional information please let me know Thanks for your help:

On Wed, act 9, 2024 at 8 34AM Merediih Elguira <[email protected]> wrote ") '7 (2,
343
M Gmail Jennffer Daley <[email protected]>
slllmeegssaalgTesrucking Yards - Emails and letters from Felipe Guerrero Jennlfer Daley <[email protected]>
To: Menedllh El uira <mal ulra so ate.o >
Sat, ad 12, 2024 at 117 PM
Hi Meredith,
I%e attached email exchanges and letters betwesn South Gaje resident Fslipe Guerteto and the city council (you, Mr. Houston, Mr. Salinas, Mr. Rios, MT. Hurtado and Ms. Zaragoza) regarding shutting down dangerous illegal truck yards, including the Jack Engle yard at 844Cl Alameda. The emails and letiers occurred between December 2023 and June 2024.

I have also included Felipe Guerrero's petition with residents' signatures. Please let me know you received this and that it has been recorded.

Lasuy. what can I do to ensure that the council addresses the illegal truck yards at the next meetinga) Thank you for your help.

On Thu. ad S0. 2024 at 12'29 PM JenniTer Daley [email protected]> wrote:

Okay thanks. I'm wooing on gatherlng that for you and will send soon.

On Thu, act j O, 2024 at 12'22 PM Meiedith Elguira <[email protected]> wrote.

Hello. I don't have them. Would you mind sharlng9 Thank you.

Get Outlook for iOS
From: Jennifer Daley [email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 202412:19:31 PM
To: Meredith Elguira [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Illegal Trucking Yards
Thig me5Sage iS Tram an EXTERNAL SENDER - 5e CA11TIOU5, parkiCUlaTly With LINKS and attacliments Hi Metedith,
Do you have the signatures petitioning the truck yards on recorda) They were collected and delivered to the city council by Felipe Guwero.

On Wed, act 9, 2024 at 2.j 9 PM Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> wrote Received, thank you.
8650 (alifainla !ltenue. South Gate. CA '10280
Gage w:;:iy-i-;-i;;;;-;g
From: Jennifer Daley [email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, Odober 9, 202412:30 PM
To: Meredith Elguira [email protected]:b
Subject: Re: Illegal Trucklng Yards
This message is Trom an EXTERNAI SENDER - be CAllnOUS, particularly with links and attachments Hi Meredilh,
I've attached the letter I sent to Rob Houston. I mailed it certified on 9/30/24. My letter is new as I've only been involved for a few weeks now. but the family I am working with has been calling, wnling and meeting with city council for a year now. They have also collected over 300 signatures of residents opposing the yards.

If you need any additional information please let me know.

Thanks for your helpl
On Wed, ad 9, 2024 at 8.34AM Metedith Elgulra <mek)[email protected]> wrote Hello Jennifer, you memioned last night at the Council meeting that you had sent letters before. Please send me a copy of those letters toy yeleyence. Thank you. 8650 Cal4otnla Avenue. South Gate. CA !10280
Ga(e w:'c::v-iW:u=;;e-o;g
From: JenniTer Daley<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 7:38 PM
To: Meredlth Elguka <[email protected]>
Subiect: Re: Illegal Trucking Yards - typo correction
2,7o
344
ThiS message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, parkiculaffly With LINKS and attacliments Hi Meredith.

Thank you so much. I was given an incorred address that I would like to amend:
8530 Alameda is inconed.

The corred address is 8440 Alameda.

Thank youl
Sent from my iPhone
On act 8. 2024, at 7.19PM, Metedilh Elguira <[email protected]> wrote' Hello Jennffer,
I am Metedith T. Elguita, Community Development Director. We spoke at the City Council mee(lng regaming your concems aboui illegal truck yards. I am emailing you so that you havemy information as well. Please do not hesitate to reach out fl you have any questions. You may also call me at 323.5(i3.9566. sest.

Meredith T. Elguira
4 attachments
lIk.galTnickYardspetitionsignatures.pdf
902K
IIIegalTnickYardsFelipeauerrerocorrespondence02.pdf
202K
f)IIIegalTnickYardsFelipeGuenerocorrespondence03.pdf276K ') r,)-rb
345
M Gmail Jennlfer Daley ([email protected]>
sRmee:slsla'egegsa' Trucking Yards
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>
To: Metedith El uira cmel uira so ate.or >
Wed, act 9, 2024 at 12 29 PM
Hi Metedith,
I've attached the letter I sent to Rob Houston. I mailed it ceriified on 9130/24. My letter is new as IVe only been involved for a few weeks now, but the family I am working with has been calling, wnting and meeting with city countJl for a year now. They have also collected over 300 signatures of nesidents opposing the yards.

If you need any addibonal infomistion please let me know.

Thanks for your helpl
On Wed, act 9, 2024 at 8 34AM Metedith Elguira <[email protected]> wrote Hello Jennifer, you mentioned last nigm at the Council meeting that you had sent letters before. Please send me a copy oT those letters toy reference. Thank you. !1650 Califotnia Avenug South Gate, CA 90280
Gaee w:'c::y"or;"uni;aa:e-o':g
From: JenniTer Daley [email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, Oclobey 8, 2024 7:38 PM
To: Meredith Elguira [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Illegal Ttucking Yards - typo conection
This message is Trom an E)TERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOLIS, particularly with links and attachments Hi Metedi(h,
Thank you so much. I was given an inconect address thatI would like to amend' 8530 Alameda is incorrect.

The corred address is 8440 Alameda.

Thank youl
Sent lrom my iPhone
On act 8. 2024, at 7 j9 PM, Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> wrote' Hello Jennifer,
I am Meredilh T. Elguira, Community Development Diredor. We spoke at the City Council meeting regarding your concems about illegal truck yards. I am emailing you so that you have my information as well. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions. You may also call me at 323.563.9566.

Best,
Metedith T. Elguira
jenniTer daley
1endaley com
IMDb
insiagram
5JenniferDaley-Letter-RobHouston-093024.pdf23K
Meredith Elguira <[email protected]>
To JenniTer Daley <[email protected]>
Wed, act 9, 2024 at 219 PM
Received, thank you.
291
346
8650 Califoiiila Avenue. 5outh Gate. CA 90280
Gafe w:'ciiyot;:Wit;;o;g
From: Jennifer Daley [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 12:30 PM
To: Meredllh Elgulra [email protected]:b
Subject: Re: Illegal Trucking Yards
Thls message IS Tram an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOklS, parkiCUla}17 With LINKS and attachments [Oua(ad taxi hidden]
Jennifer Daley <[email protected]>
To Mensdith Elguiia <[email protected]>
Hi Meredith,
Do you have the signatures petitioning the truck yards on record? They were collected and delivered to the cijy council by Felipe Guenero.l(luoted tett luddsii} Meredlth Elguira <[email protected]>
Ttr JenniTer Daley <[email protected]>
Hello, I don't have them. Would you mind sharng9 Thank you.

Get Outlook for iOS
From: Jennifer Daley [email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, OdoberlO, 202412:19:31 PM
(Otnttsd lexl hidde+il
lQuoted text hidden)
Jennifer Daley [email protected]>
To: Metedit+' El uira <mel uira so ats.or >
Okay thanks. I'm working on gathenng that For you and will send soon. iQuoted text hiddsnl
Thu, act S0, 2024 at 12'l9 PM
Thu, act 10, 2024 atl2 22 PM
Thu, Od 10, 2024 at 12 29 PM
2,O"2-
347
Rob Houston
City Manager
City of South Gate
8650 California Ave.

South Gate, CA 90280
South Gate City Council,
Jennifer Daley
1247 Hyperion Ave.

Los Angeles CA 90029
858-361-1092
October 08, 2024
My name is Jennifer Daley and I'm an environmental activist extremely concerned by the illegal truck yards doing business in South Gate. I was born in Montebello, grew up in Pico Rivera and have lived in Silver Lake for almost 15 years. My uncle was a corporate truck driver all over Southeast LA for his entire career, so I have become familiar with the harmful impact these truck companies can have on the community when they go unchecked.

The truck yard at 8530 Alameda in South Gate is operating under a Temporary Use Permit (T UP). It was issued in 2020 and expired on July 16, 2021. The city maintains that the permit was issued in error. Since July 2021, the trucks have been operating without a TUP and without a Conditional Use Permit. The city's position is that the TUP is allowed to be in effect for "3 days in a row or 10 working days in any calendar year." This un-permitted yard has been operating continuously since July 16, 2021 without a permit.

I've spoken to South Gate residents who are dealing with the daily challenges caused by these illegal truck yards: pollution, dangerous roadblocks, deadly collisions, traffic, no parking and the disregard and trashing of residential areas. These residents have collected hundreds of signatures to shut down the illegal truck yards, but the city has ignored them and the trucks are running rampant through the neighborhoods. Why is this?
What is a Temporary Use Permit? The Alameda truck yard is still running, so these permits appear to be completely meaningless. Are they legally allowed to operate permanently';'
This leads me to another question: are there backroom deals being made here that are granting the truck companies legal immunity? Who does the council represent? These 348
special interests or the people?
Because no action has been taken by the city, we have no other choice but to bring these serious concerns to the press and to other activist groups in protest.

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

Jennifer Daley
349
Jennifer Daley
1247 Hyperion Ave.

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

South Gate, CA 90280
9/30/24
Dear Mr. Houston,
I'm writing about the illegal truck yards that are operating in our city. I'm an environmental justice activist who is very concerned about what is happening in the city of South Gate.

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

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

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

Sincerely,
-'t4!' "7
Jennifer Daley
350
December 6, 20;!3
Felipe Guerrero
10257 San Juan Avenue
South Gate, CA 90280
Mayor Maria del PilarAvalos
City of South Gate
8650 California Avenue
South Gate, CA 90280
Dear Mayor Avalos:

I want to bringto you attention a problem in our communitythat has a negative effect on the health of myself and my neighbors, There Is an illegal and unpermitted truck yard at 8440 Alameda Street in South Gate. This illegal and unpermitted truck yard also has a homeless encampment in front of homes on Santa Fe Avenue. There Is a East Los Angek,s College satellltecampusverynearthlsillegalandunpermlttedyard. Therushingtrucksfromtheillegal and unpermitted yard are also putting students at rlsk as they come and go to school every day, What we need on Santa Fe Avenue are speed bumps.

Over a hundred residents have signed a petition to askthe city to shut down the illegal and unpermitted truck yard, The residents are fed up with all the nolse, lights and pollution coming out ofthis Illegal and unpermitted truck yard.

I would Itketo have a meeting with yourselfto discuss how you can help us clear out the illegal and unperm)tted truck yard and clear out the homeless en,campment that Is directly In front of homesonSantFeAvenue. Thankyouforyourconsideration. Pleasefeelfreetocontactmeat (323) 975-0201 or by e-mail at mrfellpe@uerrero@p,mail,com Sincerely,
Felipe Guerrero
351
December 6, 2023
Felipe Guerrero
10257 San Juan Avenue
South Gate, CA 90280
Vice Mayor Gil Hurtado
Clty of South Gate
8650 California Avenue
South Gate, CA 90280
Dear Vice Mayor Hurtado:

I wantto follow up on my November 16, 2023, letterto yourself re: the problem in our community that has a negative effect on the health of myself and my neighbors. In my letter, I told you about the Illegal and unpermltted truck yard at 8440 Alameda Street in South Gate. As you know over a hundred residents have signed a petltion to ask the cityto shut down the Illegal and unpermitted truck yard, The residents are fed up wlth all the noise, lights and pollution coming out of this illegal and unpermitted truck yard. In addition to all these Issues, we also have trucks racing on Santa Fe Avenue day and night-creating a public safety hazard.

We really need speed bumps on this street as a traffic control means, I still would lake tO have a meeting with yourselfto discuss how you can help us clear out the illegal and unpermitted truCk 7ard and clear out the homeless encampment that iS directl7 In frontofhomeson5antFeAvenue. Thankyouforyourconsideration. Pleasefeelfreeto contact me at (323) 975-0201 or by e-mail at mrfelipeguerrero@gmail,com Sincerely,
Fellpe Guerrero
2!67
352
December 6, 2023
Felipe Guerrero
10257 San Juan Avenue
South Gate, CA 90280
Councilmember AI Rios
City of South Gate
8650 California Avenue
South Gate, CA 90280
Dear Councilmember Rios:

I want to follow up on my November 16, 2023, letterto yourself re: the problem in our community that has a negat?ve effect on the health of myself and my neighbors. ln my letter, I told you about the illegal and unpermitted truck yard at 8440 Alameda Street in South Gate. As you know over a huridred residents have signed a petition to ask the city to shut down the illegal and unpermitted truck yard. The residents are fed up with all the nolse, lights and pollutioncomingoutofthisilIegalandunpermittedtruckyard, lnadditiontoalltheseissues, we also have trucks racing ori Santa Fe Avenue day and night-creating a public safety hazard, We really need speed bumps on this street as a traffic control means, t still would like to have a meeting with yourself to discuss how you can help us clear out the illegal and unpermitted truck yard and clear Outthe homeless encampment that iS direCtl7 infrontofhomesonSantFeAvenue. Thankyouforyourconsideratlon. Pleasefeelfreeto contact me at (323) 9'75-0201 orby e-mail at mrfelipeguerrero@@mall.com Sincerely,
Felipe Guerrero
260
353
December 6, 2023
Felipe Guerrero
10!57 San Juan Avenue
South Gate, CA 90280
Councilmember Joshua Barron
City of South Gate
8650 California Avenue
SOLlth Gate, CA 90280
Dear Councilmember Barron:

I want to follow up on my November 16, 2023 letter to yourself re: the problem in our community that has a negatlve effect on the health of myself and my neighbors. In my letter, I toid you about the illegal and unpermitted truck yard at 8440 Alameda Street in South Gate. As you know over a hundred residents have signed a petition to ask the cityto shut down the illegal and unpermitted truck yard, The residents are fed up with all the noise, lights and pollution coming out ofthis illegal and unpermitted truck yard, In addition to all these Issues, we also have trucks racing on Santa Fe Avenue day and night-creating a public safety hazard, We really need speed bumps on this street as a traffic control means, I still would like to have a meeting with yourself to discuss how you can help us clear out the illegal and unpermltted truCk 9ard and clear Out the homeless encampment that IS directlV infront of homes on Sant Fe Avenue. Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me at (323) 975-0201 or by e-mail at mrfellpe@uerrerot%mail,com Sincerely,
Felipe Guerrero
354
December 6, 2023
Felipe Guerrero
10257 San Juan Avenue
South Gate, CA 90280
Couhcilmember Maria Davlla
Clty of South Gate
8650 California Avenue
South Gate, CA 90280
Dear Councilmember Davila:

I want to follow up on my November 16, 2023 letter to yourself re: the problem in our community that has a negative effect on the health of myself and my neighbors. In my letter, I told you about the illega) and unpermltted truck yard at 8440 A)ameda Street in South Gate. As you know over a hundred residents have signed a petition to ask the cityto shut down the illegal and unpermitted truck yard. The residents are fed up with all the noise, lights and pollutioncomingoutofthlsillegalandunpermittedtruckyard. Inadditlontoalltheseissues, we also have trucks raclng on Santa Fe Avenue day and nlght-creating a public safety hazard.

We really need speed bumps on this street as a traffic control means.

I still would like to hare a meeting with yourselfto discuss how you can help us clear out the illegal and unpermitted truck yard and clear out the homeless encampment that is directly in front of homes on Sant Fe Avenue. Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me at (323) 975-0201 or by e-mail at mrfelipe@uerrero@(,mail.com Sincerely,
Felipe Guerrero
2({o
355
M Gmail Felipe Guerrero <[email protected];s
Help Shut Down Illegal Truck Yard!
13 messages
€luerrero <[email protected]> Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 8:59 AM Dear Gil,
I'm following up on a letter that I mailed in regards to an illegal truck yard that needs to be shut down immediately. I'mattaching a copy of the letter along with a map of the location and the petition that the neighbors have signed. Please letme know when you're able to meet to discuss this matter in further detail. The other council members were sent a letter aswell but I have yet to hear back from any of them as well. Meredith Elguira is aware of the petition as well. Please let meknow if you're able to assist and take action on this request. Looking forward to hearing back from you.

Thank you & Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
3 attachments
A6ola6mKeda Map.pdf
B 4081 6K600tpdf
.y P80e9ti4tiKon,pdf
Fellpe Guerrero <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 3:39 PM
Dear Gil,
Please take your time to read the letter I've attached in regards to the illegal truck yard we have in our community.Your acknowledgement would be appreciated.

Please help me and the community you serve by closing this yard immediately, Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 8:59 AM Felipe Guerrero <[email protected]:b wrote:Dear Gil, I'm following up on a letter that I mailed in regards to an illegal truck yard that needs to be shut down immediately. I'mattaching a copy of the letter along with a map of the location and the petition that the neighbors have signed. Pleaselet me know when you're able to meet to discuss this matter in further detail. The other council members were sent aletter as well but I have yet to hear back from any of them as well. Meredith Elguira is aware of the petition as well.Please let me know if you're able to assist and take action on this request. Looking forward to hearing back from you.

Thank you & Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
3 attachments
40905K6001,pdf
2o})
356
BPetition.pdf8094K
HAlameda Map.pdf606K
Felipe Guerrero [email protected]>
Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 3:58 PM
Dear Maria,
Please take your time to read the letter I've attached in regards to the illegal truck yard we have in our community.Please help me and the community you serve by closing this yard immediately..Your acknowledgement would be appreciated.

Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
3 attachments
3Petition.pdf8094K
RAlameda Map.pdf606K
40935K5001 (l).pdf
FeIipe Guerrero <[email protected]> Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 4:00 PM DearAl,
Please take your time to read the letter I've attached in regards to the illegal truck yard we have in our community.Please help me and the community you serve by closing this yard immediately..Your acknowledgement would be appreciated.

Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
3 attachments
gPetition.pdf
8094K
A60la6mKeda Map.pdf
@ 095800l.pdf39K
Felipe Guerraro <[email protected] Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 4:02 PM Dear Joshua,
Please take your time to read the letter I've attached in regards to the illegal truck yard we have in our community.Please help me and the community you serve by closing this yard immediately. .Your acknowledgement would be appreciated.

Regards,
357
Fellpe Guerrero
3 attachments
B P80e9ti4tiKon.pdf
@ A60la6mKeda Map.pdf
@ 0959001,pdf41K
Feltpe Guerraro <mrfelipeguerrem@gmafl,comy Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 4:04 PM Dear Maria,
Please take your time to read the letter I've attached in regards to the illegal tnx,k yard we have in our community.Please help me and the community you serve by closing this yard immediately..

Your acknowledgement would be appreciated.

Regams,
Felipe Guerrero
3 attachments
Petition.pdf
8094K
.yAlameda Map.pdf
606K
\1 40905K7001.pdf
PilarAvalos <[email protected]'
To: Felipe Guerrero <mrfelipeguerrero@gmail,comy
Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 9:46 AM
Good Morning Mr. Guerrero,
I am in receipt of your email and it's attachments. I am available to meet with you on Monday at 11 am, 1 pm and 3 pm. Icalled you and left a message you can reach me at 323-450-7578.

Please advise what time is good for you.

Thank you,
MS. AValOS
From: Felipe Guerrero <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 3:58 PM
To: Pilar Avalos <[email protected]>
Subject: Help Shut Down Illegal Truck Yard!
This message Is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, partlcularly with links and attachments Dear Maria,
Please take your time to read the letter I've attached in regards to the illegal truck yard we have in our community.

Please help me and the community you serve by closing this yard immediately. .

Your acknowledgement would be appreciated.
358
Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
Felipe Guerrero <[email protected]>
To: PilarAvalos <[email protected]>
Good Afternoon Ms. Avalos,
Thanks for your reply and yes I can meet on Monday at 3pm.

Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 9:46 AM Pilar Avalos <[email protected]:s wrote:

Good Morning Mr. Guerrero,
Fri, DeC 8, 2023 at 3:18 PM
I am in receipt of your email and it's attachments. I am available to meet with you on Monday at 41 am, 1 pm and 3 pm.

I called you and left a message you can reach me at 323-450-7578.

Please advise what time is good for you.

Thank you,
Ms. Avalos
From: Felipe Guerrero <[email protected]>
Senti Thursday, December 7, 2023 3:58 PM
To: PilarAvalos <[email protected]
Subject: Help Shut Down Illegal Truck Yardi
This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUnOUS, particularly with links and attachments Dear Maria,
Please take your time to read the letter I've attached in regards to the illegal truck yard we have in our community.

Please help me and the community you serve by closing this yard immediately..

Your acknowledgement would be appreciated.

Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
Fellpe Guerrero <[email protected])
To: Pilar Avalos <[email protected]:b
Hello Ms. Avalos,
I wanted to confirm the meeting today at 3pm.

If you're not available we can get on a phone call? Please let me know.

Mon, Dec 41, 2023 at 1 :42 PM
Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 3:"18 PM Felipe Guerrero <[email protected]> wrote:

Good Afternoon Ms. Avalos,
Thanks for your reply and yes I can meet on Monday at 3pm. lOl-f
359
Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 9:46 AM Pilar Avalos [email protected]:> wrote:

Good Morning Mr, Guerrero,
I am in receipt of your email and it's attachments. I am available to meet with you on Monday at 1'1 am, 1 pm and 3pm. I called you and left a message you can reach me at 323-450-7578.

Please advise what time is good for you.

Thank you,
Ms. Avalos
From: Felipe Guerrero <mrfelipeguerrero@gma)lcom>
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 3:58 PM
To: Pilar Avalos <[email protected]>
Subject: Help Shut Down Illegal Truck Yardi
This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTTOUS, particularly with links and attachments Dear Maria,
Please take your time to read the letter I've attached in regards to the illegal truck yard we have in our community.Please help me and the community you serve by closing this yard immediately..Your acknowledgement would be appreciated.

Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
AI Rios [email protected]> Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 8:32 PMTo: Felipe Guerrero cmrfelipeguem,[email protected]' Cc: Rob Houston <[email protected]>, Arturo Cervantes ([email protected]>, Meredith [email protected]> Hello Mr. Guerrero,
First let me apologies for not responding sooner to the concern regarding the issue of illegal and un-permitted truck yardlocated at: 8440 Alameda Street in South Gate, I will look into this matter and circle back with you once I have more information.

Again, I appreciate you letting me know the concems of the residence in the area.

I look forward to meeting you and discussing this matter once I have more details.

Best Regards
AI Rios
Councilmen
City of South Gate
On Dec 7, 2023, at 4:00 PM, Felipe Guerrero <[email protected]) wrote:

This message Is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and attachments 360
Dear Al,
Please take your time to read the letter I've attached in regards to the illegal truck yard we have in our community.

Please help me and the community you serve by closing this yard immediately..

Your acknowledgement would be appreciated.

Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
<Petition.pdf><Alameda Map.pdf:b<095800l.pdf>
Felipe Guerrero <[email protected]> Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 12:44 PM To: AI Rios <[email protected]>
Cc: Rob Houston <[email protected]>, Arturo Cervantes <[email protected]>, Meredith Elguira <[email protected]>
Hello Mr. Rios,
I hope you enjoyed your Holidays with yourfrlends and family.

I'm following up to see if you've had time to gather more information as you mentioned? If not, I urge you to please take time from your busy schedule and do so.

I am attaching the petition again along with a link to a news article that involved a fatal accident due to this yard being opened.
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/2-dead-in-south-Ia-crash-involving-big-rig/2650563/ Also, there are videos & pictures attached of the traffic & pollution that these trucks are bringing to our community. &l PICTURES&VIDEOS,zip
Please I ask you and your city colleagues to take action and close this yard immediately.

Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 8:33 PM Al Rios [email protected]> wrote:

Hello Mr. Guerrero,
First let me apologies for not responding sooner to the concern regarding the issue of illegal and un-permitted truck yard located at: 8440 Alameda Street in South Gate.

I will look into this matter and circle back with you once I have more information.

Again, I appreciate you letting me know the concerns of the residence in the area.

I look forward to meeting you and discussing this matter once I have more details.

Best Regards
AI Rlos
Councilmen
City of South Gate
On Dec 7, 2023, at 4:00 PM, Felipe Guerrero <[email protected]> wrote:
2-%
361
This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CALITIOLIS, particularly with links and attachments Dear Al,
Please take your time to read the letter I've attached in regards to thei illegal truck yard we have in our community.

Please help me and the community you serve by closing this yard immediately..

Your acknowledgement would be appreciated.

Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
cPetition.pdf><Alameda Map.pdf><0958001.pdf>
2 attachments
HAlameda Map.pdf606K
BPetition.pdf8094K
%fl3cs;ditqia-lquirat<r'n&i:ii4o'ga4"
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Hello Mr. Guerrero,
Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 2:03 PM
Happy New Year.

We are reviewing the appeal application the operator's attorney submitted last month. This case was presented to the Planning Commission last year. The Planning Commission upheld the staff's decision not to renew the Temporary Use Permit (TLIP) issued for the truck storage use. The operator filed an appeal against the Planning Commission's decision to uphold the staff's decision, and our attorney is currently reviewing supporting evidence on the appeal. We have not decided if we will accept and present the appeal. If our staff chooses to take the appeal to the Plannlng Commission, we will send out a public notice to all interested parties, including the petitioners on your list. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best,
ml
flrC j
:W-
ClNrENHIAl
Meredith T. Elguira
Director of Community Development
City of South Gate l Community Development
'I: 8650 California Avenue, South Gate, CA 90;!80
P: (323) 553-9529
E: [email protected]
W: cityofsouthgate.or@
From: AI Rios <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2023 8:33 PM
To: Felipe Guerrero <[email protected]>
<247
362
Cc: Rob Houston <[email protected]>; Arturo Cervantes [email protected]>; Meredith Elguira <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Help Shut Down Illegal Truck Yard!
Hello Mr. Guerrero,
First let me apologies for not responding sooner to the concern regarding the issue of illegal and un-permitted truck yard located at: 8440 Alameda Street in South Gate.

I will look into this matter and circle back with you once I have more information.

Again, I appreciate you letting me know the concerns of the residence in the area.

I look forward to meeting you and discussing this matter once I have more details.

Best Regards
AI Rios
Councilmen
City of South Gate
On Dec 7, 2023, at 4:00 PM, Felipe Guerrero <[email protected]> wrote:

This message Is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOtJS, particularly with links and attachments Dear Al,
Please take your time to read the letter I've attached in regards to the illegal truck yard we have in our community.

Please help me and the community you serve by closing this yard immediately. .

Your acknowledgement would be appreciated.

Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
<Petition.pdf><Alameda Map.pdf><0958001.pdf>
2-ol6
363
Felipe Guerrero <[email protected]>
To: Meredith Elguira <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 5:10 PM
Dear Ms. Elguira,
Please review the letter I've attached to this email and I hope to hear from you soon.

Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024, 2:03 PM Meredith Elguira <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Mr. Guerrero,
Happy New Year.

We are reviewing the appeal application the operator's attorney submitted last month. This case was presented to the Planning Commission last year. The Planning Commission upheld the staff's decision not to renew the Temporary Use Permit (TUP) issued for the truck storage use. The operator filed an appeal against the Planning Commission's decision to uphold the staff's decision, and our attorney is currently reviewing supporting evidence on the appeal. We have not decided if we will accept and present the appeal. If our staff chooses to take the appeal to the Planning Commission, we will send out a public notice to all interested parties, including the petitioners on your list. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best,
From: Al Rios <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2023 8:33 PM
To: Felipe Guerrero <[email protected]>
CC: Rob Houston <[email protected]>; Arturo Cervantes <[email protected]>; Meredith Elguira <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Help Shut Down Illegal Truck Yard!
Hello Mr. Guerrero,
364
First let me apologies for not responding sooner to the concern regarding the Issue of illegal and un-permitted truck yard located at: 8440 Alameda Street in South Gate.

I will look into this matter and circle back with you once I have more information.

Again, I appreciate you letting me know the concerns of the residence in the area.

I look Forward to meeting you and discussing this matter once I have more details.

Best Regards
Al Rios
Councilmen
City of South Gate
On Dec 7, 2023, at 4:00 PM, Felipe Guerrero <mrfelipeguerrero@gmail,com> wrote:

This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with 11nks and attachments Dear Al,
Please take your time to read the letter I've attached in regards to the illegal truck yard we have in our community.

Please help me and the community you serve by closing this yard immediately..

Your acknowledgement would be appreciated,
Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
<Petition.pdf><Alameda Map.pdfx0958001.pdf>
3 attachments
image002.png
31K
3(X)
365
image002.png
31 K
5Meredith ElguiraLetterll5 24.pdf27K
3o %
366
Felipe Guerrero
10257 San Juan Avenue
South Gate, CA 90280
January 16, 2024
Meredith Elguira
Director of Community Development
8650 California Avenue
South Gate, CA 90280
Dear Ms. Elguira:

In your last letter you ask ifl have any questions, in fact I do; if this project has been denied twice, why is in still in operation illegally? I still want to follow up with the recurring problem that my neighbors and I having been enduring with-the endless parade of trucks coming in and out of the unpermitted truck yard at 8440 Alameda. I recognize there is a process by which the city must abide by, but we are living with this horrible parade of truck traffic that has even resulted in DEATHS. I haVe Sent 70u a flash driVe With the PHOTOS Of What type Of impact we are dealing we.

As a follow up, I would like to set up a meeting with you and the city attorney since I was informed that the situation is in the hands of the City Attorney. I really am frustrated with the Jack of response by the city to the truck traffic problems we are facing every day. I hope you and Mr. Salinas will be able to meet with me to see what can be done to provide us with relief.

Sincerely,
Felipe Guerrero
Cc: Raul Salinas, Esq.

Communities for a Better Environment
302.
367
%Gmail Felipe Guerrero [email protected]>
Jack Engle Yard - 8440 Alameda Street South Gate 8 messages
Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 1l :OO AM
Hello Mr. Houston,
I met with Ms. Daliva almost two weeks ago and she advised me that you would be contacting me to provide the latest update on the illegal trucking yard in South Gate. I hope to hear from you soon, Thank you for your time.

Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
Rob Houston [email protected]:>
To: Felipe Guerrero [email protected]>
Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 11:22 AM
Felipe,
My apologies for the delay in reaching out to you. I am free this affernoon from 1:30 to 3pm. Are you free for a call at that time?
Can you provide a good contact number?
Rob,
From: Felipe Guerrero <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 29, 2024 11:00 AM
To: Rob Houston <[email protected]>
Subject: Jack Engle Yard - 8440 Alameda Street South Gate This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and attachments [Quoted text hiddenl
Felipe Guerrero <[email protected]>
To: Rob Houston <[email protected]>
Rob,
2:30pm works for me.
323-975-0201
Felipe
Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at I 1:27 AM
3=Q2;i
368
[Quoted text hidden)
Rob Houston <[email protected]:b
To: Felipe Guerrero [email protected]>
Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 11:31 AM
Great,
I will call you then.
[Quoted text hldden'l
Felipe Guerrero <[email protected]>
To: Rob Houston <[email protected]>
Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 4:24 PM
Hello Mr, Houston,
I wanted to follow up with the conversation we had at the end of last month in regards to the Illegal Trucking yard.

I've attached a letter for you and am looking forward to hearing back from you.

Thank you for your time.

RegardS,
Felipe Guerrero
[Quoted text hidden]
@ 175500l.pdf49K
Felipe Guerrero <[email protected]>
To: Rob Houston <[email protected]:>
Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 4:45 PM
Hello Mr. Houston,
Any update from when we last spoke?
Please see the attached letter.

Regards,
Falipe
[Quoted text hlddenl
@ Attachment.pdf12613K
Felipe Guerrero <mrfelipeguerrero@gmail,com>
To: Rob Houston <[email protected]>
Tug, Jun 4, 2024 at 10:34 AM
369
March 14, 2024
Felipe Guerrero
10257 San Juan Avenue
South Gate, CA 90280
Rob Houston
City Manager
City of South Gate
8650 California Avenue
South Gate, CA 90280
Dear Mr, Houston:

I want to follow up on our conversation last month regarding the continual problems in our communitythathasanegativeeffectonourhealth, lhaverepeatedlysentcommunications to the city via letters and petitions, I have repeatedly informed the city about the illegal and unpermitted truck yard at 8440 Alameda Street in South Gate, This yard has been operating without a permit for years. I understand there is an expired Temporary permit-how do you define temporary slnce it has been going on for years? They fully intend to keep operating for many years. Can you let me know the status of this temporary permit? This yard was always a scrapping metal yard that operated during the week during daytime hours. Recently it"s been converted to a truck parking facility with the trucks running 24/7/365. The neighbors behind the yard have complained to Los Angeles County about the noise at night from this operation.

I have complained to the city, to the city council, to yourself. Why is the city allowing an unpermitted truck storage facility that runs 24/7/365? IJust wanted to make sure that there isfollow up on this illegal truck storage yard. This is not the only problem in the city, there are other illegal yards in the area which negatively affect the quality of life for us in addition to this yard.

I Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me at (323) 975-C)2€)1 or by e- mail at mrfelipep;uerrero@@mail,com
Sincerely,
3C)S'370
March 28, 2024
Re: South Gate Truck Yard Permitting Concerns
To the City of South Gate,
We are following up on the meeting at 8440 S Alameda Street that took place last week about the illegaltnx,k and trailer storage parking at that site.

We've learned that this site was given a "temporary" use permit almost five years ago, but if that's thecase then what does "temporary" even mean? Why is this site still allowed to operate without the rightpermits? How much longer is this "temporary' use going to be? As members of this community, our quality of life has been harmed by traffic congestion by trucks, damaged roads, and air pollution caused by the tnicks coming and going fmm this yard. It would be onething if they'd gone thmugh the full permit process and the oommunlty had a chance to speak up about itfirst, but as far as we can tell this yard was allowed to start up without any say from the people amallyliving around It.

Worse, this isri't even the only illegal vehicle storage yard we've seen in South Gate, There are trucksyards on Ardine Street (4552 Ardine St), Imperial Highway (5767 Imperial Hwy), and an Amazon van yardon Southern Avenue (52'14 Southem Ave). We've asked amund and none of these sites apparently havepermits, yet they were allowed to be built and run without doing a full permit process that would let thecommunity weigh in on the slte.

Why are Elll these yards being allowed to run in South Gate without proper permits? If they werelegitimate yards, wouldn't they have the right permits? We are worried that this is h.iming into a similar sltuation as what happened in the City of Commerce, withthe multiple illegal yards and under-the-table deals that allowed city staff to run yards for under-marketrates without any permits.

Please look into these Illegal yards and stop them from beooming an even larger problem for our city.

Thank you Tor your time, and we hope that this pmblem will be settled soon.

Sincerely,
Felipe Guerrero Tor the
Concerned City of South Gate Community Members
3Cb
371
May 23, 2024
Felipe Guerrero
10257 San Juan Avenue
South Gate, CA 90280
Mr, Raul Salinas, Esq.

City Attorney
City of South Gate
8650 California Avenue
South Gate, CA 90280
Dear Mr. Salinas:

I am reaching out to you since I have been trying to get an answer from the city of Souti Gate since last year. por months now, my neighbors and I have complained to the city about the Illegal truck parking lots in the city, The one I have the most concerned about is at 8440 Alameda Avenue in South Gate. I recognize that the yard is also in the county"s jurisdiction, and I have complained to the county about this illegal yard as well, I have several petitions signed by residents and have submitted them to the city council and city manager. I am certain you have been made aware of these petitions or at least I hope so.

I am becoming increasingly concerned that there may be undue influence from entities with business interests in the city that may be running interference with the city's ability to shut down these ill=gal truck yards. The 7ard at 8440 Alameda St WaS far decades a metal scrap 7ard that operated during daytime HOURS Onl'y. Then, mysteriously it became a "temporary" 24/7 365 day a year truck terminal that was only supposed to be here for s years, NOW the s years is ending and apparently this may be extended for another decade or permanently, This truck yard has not benefited the community in any way, Pollution, traffic, beat up roads, and traffic hazards have been the only affect from this yard, In fact, two people have died because of this yard (pleaseseeattachednewsarticle). Iunderstandthatplanningstaffisagainsttheseillegaltruckyardsbutget overridden by someone. I see many influential consultants/lobbyists at city council meetings. We would like the voices of the residents to be heard not special interests.

In trying to understand what may be going on in the background, Ilooked at the FPPC's website and I do not See the City Of SOuth Gate'S 700 farm. I alSO IOOked at the City'S WebSite far the COunCil'S 700 FARMS, but I cannot find them. Perhaps they are "buried" somewhere, It would be good for transparencies' sake that these critical forms be placed prominently on the website where residents can have easy access to who is contributing to the council members-this is Just good government, Especially in Southeast Los Angeles where many residents are not familiar with how government works and often don't speak English, it is more critical that we know who is influencing our elected officials.

I would respectfully ask that you respond to this letter and not ignore it as so many others have done in the past. I have included all my past letters / emails to the city and would also like to knowthe status on the other illegal yards that we brought up. Please assist us in this matter, J0f
372
I thank 'VOLI far 'your consideration. Please feel free tO COntaCt me at (323) 975-0201 0r by e-mail at mrfelipeqiierrero@BmaiLcom
Sincerely,
Felipe Guerrero
',OR
373
%Gmail Felipe Guerrero [email protected]>
Jack Engle Property - 8440 Alameda Aye. South Gate
5 messages
Feli e (iuerrero <[email protected]>
Dear Mr. Salinas,
Thu, May 30, 2024 at 4:56 PM
Please review the attached letter and I hope to hear from you soon.

Your reply in this matter is appreciated
Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
28232K900tpdf
Felipe Guerrero <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Dear Mr. Salinas,
I wanted to follow up on the email I sent you last week.

Hope to hear from you soon.

Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 10:32 AM
On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 4:56 PM Felipe Guerrero <[email protected]> wrote:Dear Mr. Salinas, Please review the attached letter and I hope to hear from you soon.

Your reply in this matter is appreciated.

Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
28232K900l.pdf
Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 11:28 AMRaul 8alinas <rsalinas@sogate,org> To: Felipe Guerrero <[email protected]>
Cc: Rob Houston [email protected]>, Meredith Elguira <[email protected]>, Dina Zaragoza<[email protected]> Mr. Guerrero, Thank you for your letter last Thursday (May 30), and your call today (June 4), The Engle property is a matter which has been brought to the attention of the City. The City has met with the property owner and his attorney concerning its usage and discussions between the City and the property areongoing. I did want to address your comment about the possibility of undue influence impacting the manner 3o4
374
in which the City is proceeding. I am not aware of any such undue influence, particularly since this matter is at the staff level. I appreciate your interest in this matter and thank you for your comments. Cordially, Raul.

From: Felipe Guerrero <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 4:57 PM
To: Raul Salinas [email protected]>
Subject: Jack Engle Property - 8440 Alameda Ave. South Gate This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, partlcularly with links and attachments Dear Mr. Salinas,
Please review the attached letter and I hope to hear from you soon.

Your reply In this matter is appreciated.

Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 2:54 PMFelipe Guerrero <[email protected]> To: Raul Salinas [email protected]>
Cc: Rob Houston <[email protected]>, Meredith Elguira <[email protected]>, Dina Zaragoza [email protected]>
Dear Mr. Salinas,
Thank you for your response regarding that there is no undue influence regarding the discussions about the illegal truck yard and the city. In the spirit of transparency, I had asked for the Council member's 700 forms. I firmly believe that we residents of South Gate deserve to know who is contributing to the council members. The 700 forms are not on the city's website. Can help me find these documents so we residents see for ourselves if there is undue influence? Or who is contributing to the city council? Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 11:28 AM Raul Sallnas <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Guerrero, Thank you for your letter last Thursday (May 30), and your call today (June 4). The Engle property is a matter which has been brought to the attention of the City. The City has met with the property owner and his attorney concerning its usage and discussions between the City and the property are ongoing. I did want to address your comment about the possibility of undue influence impacting the manner in which the City is proceeding. I am not aware of any such undue influence, particularly since this matter is at the staff level. I appreciate your interest in this matter and thank you for your comments.

Cordially, Raul.
3 (O
375
From: Feltpe Guerrero <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 4:57 PM
To: Raut Saltnas <[email protected]>
Subject: Jack Engle Property - 8440 Alameda Ave. South Gate This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and attachments Dear Mr. Salinas,
Please review the attached letter and I hope to hear from you soon.

Your reply in this matter is appreciated.

Regards,
Fellpe Guerrero
Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 4:00 PMRaul Salinas [email protected]) To: Felipe Guerrero <[email protected]>
Cc: Rob Houston <[email protected]>, Meredith Elgutra <[email protected]>, Dina Zaragoza <[email protected]>
The forms are lodged with the Clerk's Office and are available through a public record request. I believe you can ask for them on the website as there is a process.

From: Felipe Guerrero <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 2:55 PM
To: Raul Salinas <[email protected]>
Cc: Rob Houston <[email protected]>; Meredith Elguira <[email protected]>; Dina Zaragoza <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Jack Engle Property - 8440 Alameda Ave. South Gate This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and attachments Dear Mr. Salinas,
Thank you for your response regarding that there Is no undue influence regarding the discussions about the illegal truck yard and the city. In the spirit of transparency, I had asked for the Council member's 700 forms. I firmly believe that we residents of South Gate deserve to know who is contributing to the council members. The 700 forms are not on the city's website. Can help me find these documents so we residents see for ourselves if there is undue influence? Or who is contributing to the city council? 376
Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 11:28AM Raul Salinas [email protected]> wrote:

Cordially, Raul.

From: Felipe Guerrero <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 4:57 PM
To: Raul Salinas <[email protected]>
Subject: Jack Engle Property - 8440 Alameda Ave. South Gate This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and attachments Dear Mr. Salinas,
Please review the attached letter and I hope to hear from you soon.

Your reply in this matter is appreciated.

Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
'za -1,
377
Hello Mr. Houston,
Has there been any updates from the last time we spoke? I was hoping you would have a new update given the time that has passed.

Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
[Quotsd text hlddenl
Felipe Guerrero <mrfelipeguerrem@gmail,com>
To: Rob Houston <[email protected]>
Hello Mr. Houston,
I'm following up on my previous email.

Has there been any update or do you have any new information? How much longer before the city decldes to make a decision one way or another? Regards,
Felipe Guerrero
[Quoted text hidden]
Tue, Jun 112024 at 11:19 AM
3i3378
l

ATT ACHMENT E
N-l; m\l }dQrna r s' <7qstit):n[, /'/Y) ci vn'>ri-ikr ,l i'O'(" +'re' rr>mrr_vta;-;;-;=-> ('c>}trea /oej-l-;r- ' - rh;- (O'cn-'i'r ' ao:ne (> S -#t,i,j;h-+ cq+ SoulA
l(:'>cy;(- Mini (, che(>1, / 6ppcre (,/"lcinqi"n-(4 a" 1"4 rE'S30'Alcqm.eclq-' S +re'r_' + 40 "lrve2;'U\1'
(fil'l(4 n vi4'qc.+,) 71 rib-" /') < (q'v56 ra'? CO<ilA /!get tax .} - L/
mar<_,,,,, pg/iu+rr>ri +e rt"isi covrr-rcirtiafl/, 'rki< 'o(SFec-#-s' rr=i\i -':rormi'iii 'hJquse' -Mc "y/ltr;;';re (tauses C)5 Iqe,!Ao-c}'ies '2_'l/y /cyricl
iaos<_e-_,5u_s(zoyel)iQlcimuorr;'51ricab-ctil4'-
n"i\i 4;'-- mill-/ 0)e-l't"incl '-'rrt'< (AnA-reelt"'r<- /'// Qlll+6lC'!.-...;'."X_eo..L'Jt,ii-;e4"A-Jpiqiqrii'r>'r,tcei">miay's;r, FO ':ioll l"iO 40 '#lai< "za7)i'(,'g) c'jlorw) r-""'-Un-+:"'fl -" (> ( u ll ( e n' o: a'eri r,;rq+q I 5=
/ -a )" -- a- ""'
kt,iasi i'- _s_ A_ crie.
1 "------ -
5al ncet'cl\f,
(l JTQsizel'iqa
- F-
3a'h
379
\' <Y\'\ 'n(4'\e. 'S Savvlva Cic.ivc.i_a, l'm (,x V"Vlemb'ev'%J o - - a -'--- l" - ' a - o'S cosauvv%tc:i 'o'r ex be}}-rr eYl%JilVq-p lrA
and (A sSt.sAen'( oS Su'rh CicAe- 'rlxc4h5(_\n(5ol.
-J-'-
TniS aaQGe-cSs mq Ln&q 'v;ieccxv:>e Th4,A old-ev%J " J -- - '- - -J -- - hxSlec \,,, C&S;n"lCt. 7h-(,_ r->!r clqq v7it-i- - - --- a -- - - - -' - ',J t) "biS+t_r L€.Vl i ocqSsecl bci %-to, s\'?-e,- cunA sh.ea 'o I - - ,./ - - -- - s'ffivlca C_0t)41q(4 v=eAq 6cxc%. i ciy7h mcme4J al o) l - - o5(_)1 Mc.i zxs'\ev-5 ahectkh C!i4( c<e<*ore
-e.l3e- cxiytL}i ci!C)nsv'r>o,\ Q:h -'%he- dcmvixhg- -' - - - 1- J ('C;mvhissxt-yn th >q hxO '\-o rkhi=3 ?5C(i'tQ
"-"" - - -- J
(Qhr.i-,-(;%"ll(:i'('ueh%/'%"o'\-alTh'Ja4
- - ' -J %_ - " J
IS cl.OMe,
I
I -%cm-eo,"%q '3rividra € cmr.ict '-' -J ""' -
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
J
I
Ij
380
I/"/', Y)AV J"(i)'YH- "" l 'S 'Xtkxh . 1 (>I j a - " - - - 'a' I '- " " ' a "" - ' J " ""e:..;%y'h Ci ";" (' (S-l wi r" l;eS A'G v -Qx
t-><4-Jev mvivom'ieyl oc! q -"'l-rrJm.'l
JSt'-to,W(;Q-+e='7/iat( -CA';'4€-JJ-'r
'_c".'o""'tE\\'-ie. biAprsriJ"(hrir=/iA'ch,-.
- ' - # " o l " ' - ' - V ' I " ' l I ' r ' I - - ' { " laA';3'l /aAfll'_}117/'rJ -1)lTh} &'s '%-.'l-!".- y - - - - - - ' - I " -" ] o ' - ' ja' 1-l" a -o ' a.v,&eW<vi.c,bi't!t'-cAse-,!:s
('+bJly(-l"l. -('.(211/1 QJ'y' "r>rrir;>/e* henlM,s ryJ vi s-k,-, / t,wa:.r a+A-.-ti gl
i / ' - '- -- -" ' o - " -
r"i,m.ihri ('ksvh;,r;C>ttz
./ a " l ' " " a ' 7 - ' a '
akc> av'a<-ieJ 4rC. oh!Lo'4'tci"y. (Aeayaae q(HS
46 c-oxs-icy.t==_.-< -" }i-ua-'4-! '-%-c-ptA';w
- a - I - - - - g o - l
C/ " Hr l' he="-e>br mz&i-s C/1 le_c2t,"ob* .s
-- -,,/ ----
-'S'c.e-ra-U..i,,X';'xQ_"=r",vy<<'ayl)e"'rAiio,p-" a - a "' -- - - ' - " - Q - i
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
l
381
2JJ
382
383
I '1=-l l _, r-i V /") Ci /') i t' i' go C7t't7; c'i )>':+ Z::'7 )-")' @ , l-- '7 "l"r q tah th-i /';i (' 1"I {:)J;- (' to i-'>a l')l ti i'i i,i / (' ,5 F C' r ct /-i t' /-l zr ft-i virc'-z. h-,=, !. C!/ ,. (! Ct I-) I (/,-/ tl ii 7' ('/ J .:)'za' v / /'7 (7 C" l /-' lli Si h 3 ( i-"i ba (") } , I7' C- /a' r O S' /) I C'j"i}i"I;i-"'rcl d")--70/L)}Cii'h'fJQ3'4r(all +O }"rt)t'iv'/ I lri-i dr t* v -('c.'i ( / p r / /-J 5 i-* i-' ( c-t > :ir' / 4 (isg i' ) / (jl' 0 1' / u / s C; (.t )'a' IQta)- )"r'iti)"(ptrvrcJ@('(ct-i(rv)-@1-yviycrr7-r-sv'iir'@a-Iht5 IQ{/'-(i>-i"'i-i<ti-7e,:rrcti>-i-iti-icist't5(a(-(zl"o)(ry@y I
I !lq t , j c/ {-f" (' c -' )- /'-t"'i Y 5-( /- gi (.! / t> ,-i ,J 4 f cvi l-'1 l.i to t 4 g S-ri I5(_i(,:icH's,zrt)iq)alaizJi7)=(,i)qi*ti",;'vi7.-ibreq!/"'=>I l? // 4 hq_aS t" 4 (-' X / t ,a ". J c( y-i > (' tr__i ?' ,/ q A c L"{ /"i ,.1 61 i"'i ,/ 71 %') (l ,y>(,.. 7i ra Q /- c> y ,-> .-/ /'>":i t h-(' r=) / ) /7 I tb.l,-./ ,4 ,;, t.,i t-4 ('/'-l' I / b ,- (-Y f;l'c ( } t- ,-/ ._; \ I /-),'J I
IPvri-i ,-,-i bzr- (-" l ytyy:p u-t- qa / //' tz t; J >' a y-e , J I Ly c 5), ) /-I,.!.1 f7 (/ tqi-t ( )7 ) (=tii-i-i i" / 0 s., (:: t 1 4- o -5 l t> P jhi';' lt(W I!"t}i*q ,l>-ttr> f#j/_tJ (7 3 ';J <diat-g> /"l-1 (->. r'z y t"e"c'["i,-p z> /'." rl f / 'c-y-?'_.5 .% i'> / a 5 <" co i /_?_) .(')a"o()z-iw 2'4--")_zai-";'_,yt<--i'y5("ic'r-,s 5-()cr<-ia-,ri=s-> ',(Ig,(a,i,47=y r.'iil !ia-t7'ct< 5' i' L'ri""t hqiy""' 1-,{y5-1(,,r77(4c>('tyll(:'@51 _'/r'4Qj"((,rcty'
C4 (' J'l (' ,!' (' I 67 P C'tih \ ) J-i)(i.') ; 5 Ci ( ! t' t'i // }"' (""' r' k' "" " 'f K f ( ti i'a'(o + h I .> r"al'= ' 5 /7 ._/ ,A,, cilf r-,-,,.

I
I
lasy -
I "7 a - l)
I '}/r'y t ('/"/ / V, k*"-c._,_ !.-z_____j-%
l" a
I
I
3['J
384
385
386
l'+'> 'ink b *'\s."J;qt-ev's 'x'!"qeLh "p'b',
%\Qi 'uniM Y\c-i\4 \tMq>i' \'i"pl\lkr?- x") -i* -' l'he!'!N -Xo- eW"v-onv* "'- - - a-' _i 1 ) = - " " ' - a ' - -I i
-S"'-C"'Je"!! %)o6c>-
') 4
387
l}:-l'i v yawtr, ai* S'noviitlo Sceuceclo, lm a
llna;'beF o'r '(rgs';vmuvt-'h'p,5' -For (;t 1@(4-EJ-er (3ntit'rorriwn-g iGcqrl -Q s(rclden-'r a'r :Souflt (gczk=" l-l:-cgiiz'<rkzmj. ""'V '-a 11 0Dmse Chei')Ci;vici g5-30 A)asecl"r 54-ree4- -t-@
ra'tis'i v>qam"'ockrtvu' Q.Prc<.eiS'e- i+ rrxAol ),ri'wbi - -" ( I - '- ,,/ a a " 'V ' _,p' ll'lOr € pOllvF;On i,,<.'t eCiW7fit'k'l'+tia - %%U 17 L - I " ' -' cfr"geC+S )/Hei Imt[ ffibmih7, (( S(It@o( Igprmisp" / - A ( ' -/ o' L a"-' (/ S'Vtvc viecbr -)ate srt-e, ot,yi ( <,orrl ahcvt(
'mOrC {'ol(trtt'Ch ) r;t.iia tar>rorr>rl abcuA- i'+ !gfnxo';'to/ %- - - * ' % L ' I - ' - ' - I I - " " " j"- %.ss srtr. irvwti !'m'-or. (mb_nmlt.i cJmih;occ=(s tmnl-u"vtmd- -' - ( - %- '-a o I - '- ';J a 7 avi_e[ l'atn;tlxes keWbv cocill crlrerAri .tt" fig,. We he,,zonenviwhvw*'ihjstm'v"'(tge'kilrpv"a!kacl";itu"v- -at-=- - ( "'l - ' V / t'hainw<, f Urcic %e. pltnimmq covsvbi.ss;on -x %(/J " '/ " 7 J - - a " / IQo -*> hli,* zonivtey cimarq-e tiw;f a !)l -e*u,i'treinv-teAi" l-' ,) (/ " " " l s'coUp(Bffie,
sivi (pp,l,, , '311cuit: y(;<. 5WceAi
a - r c t l/ / k -
I
I
I
t
l
l
I
I
.1
l
I
I
lq'2
388
3 ('Z
,l
, -5o,uJyB y,r)T (
" b);Av:i%';aq --'S2%.

I
/' a. I A 'I /
_ _ " hOM_ .K4l(Iff:v.,"(.tm,ny! 1_ \'i! . >\-@,) :,, -""" ' -ltti' <q H,lt>S)(D""' >ulllltlr)(()- {, 'Atl
(,-,AUJ'l
I I
-t- -=,t t7-'zi
(ri - -,r Umv,
'lt ("ts<)J 'y,
Y'f
r
C)0
)v'btYM 'Yl ')7Y)j (,1,:=rz'e(-> Yl q. %gt(i,q.rq.fl
r "b";q 7';, 'it"'y, ", '4', Pa gt-
lA],hW
z - l
4'1, ',Uklrq 'af4!'Y T ' {1(1'l"l'2' A?n -' 0 >/1. _ ). __ 0 _. ;p7ra at(,qxva t*lti -1- " Ai'mq )'10 'J)! h}41,
,j,, M q(b vvrg -!""tL-ba4i'?Y4 p)
, >1';77rl9 J/h{#,o i* /luJl,z _,s.v (r)-t3. S,!7 .i\,'f"!- /') /"tA J'd" x7>/J -T' ywi,iq r_l5;_ , yw2"r(",2A.
"'r> 71 ffu/b )Vt "'rvff iqtl7 7)
(,'V-
7t -[iiilK4,4q), i4 i-.-T O% a II 9,i410 ilA'Xflt<' p J;) tUtr) "[.Alt"UQ'3Q[ "'-"" : _a ir-K'/A'S..t Y.,t!', "d'-':,). OS'V)7)IJI,-'1 Y UrSAls[ rWV ['-ffi!'='J AtA [altt(tq
/
U
Q ' A'p
, Y';'/'U' !" _st 5i(,f___3. '/W'?"!, I , A,'k) ."odt0-_ _ Ys ! _, 'i! '))illd';ht{,) 'ji7/X_T rlA!'; 4i d'rO'l(A) l(,,l(1, .-Fl "?IMI% [z(1.4 r . /" _ Pk;iffl__ f,"?[dq (jf__ .41'_J?_, '/[v[M'l07ff @(,55) ,l >ul'gur:)ti[J -[500CJ'U l' a M9" " q-"=gjfi qv@ K(.0S-l,, __ I.vi .,(-v_r;l(czg, , ,tg (.ur/ - <pL4iMlAX)it-}{A'd. ,VL l /at /l i -
dad,
-)':2'-AUff <;".A,ff,r(A'ffl(AC,5,)- . 7jCd, -Mt,WUA, Q l,(it,z, "'ffl,UJl% Y),tW ')3 aOuJ,t'/'4 Aijl)< IIHI
389
o'r-";"rotmrJ The -'isof(oh'oiq (4se MeL4 ho_q_
il':\ge7herr;"S'-> '!'(,"::,' tau Cou'se mClm,i__________Olr;S_ - - - I - a - -. =.. -a a ' - - - I / 11 orae The o{anvy 'nna conrim;ssiori _r s'rop
addinq pW)re 'foj/Uh'eri +0 Hlid '!a
6\vicb\ro,\(H ,-l \JCri:o';kme (">
Qf%r
390
jc,cnacx-s'+uad<.ntrx+<_r=ii''w-(xcx"c'ap)i=qkSr,"hriol.

I - a a o a - ' - -" " " J " ' a'-" "
!'l Ci\')\)oS'C r,\nci,immq 'RS30 A\r,tm-e,aa s'r<-r,-eA 4o rl"i'eO=]"UYY1anl)"-Ob'L!:if"<nCib-r'.rr-t\'*">Ie-"li":'-\A:-'(l"OrillJ>:r- a - J " a ' - J - - " " a - " -' I " " " " -
e_vr,,ri 'rv-to<-r CX>f cr>mmuni+its cti.nr!i i'+ iAi;11 S'Soa 'mcynu r'i"r a+'h\r.'tir. {.!)fn'r"i.-[k'i') 'a"S"'-e_c'rs 'rn<,i r>r_x;on/otJl cxS li"r kclS hcc>w't-ew S"rYs>CIR-l{-a'i eo YYI/'u !r,ci mh,J I as>rCi e "t )'ra I'i(ci.n"'ni nq (..r:>mm' "i')-:ban "" ' +o 54Jop 4r-e, Q::pn<i"aM ckawgr' un4"'1 (Th fOlL "- it ' - "' - - J J - a ' - ' - -Cr\r\c><nm-e,h'*o.( S+i!u '15 Jcm-e., '\bk CAl"So Ary.,,;+ Y\'a{J onq 4rixiL (\f "'iu %i<. "(AalY- \h'l\'l'al -l:i'r+l<- ' a- I ' - ' a - - - " " " cuai'lJy<n cxr<. o-'coopd o'-c 'dd-etrl-i r>-r,ov>i<., - ' o a - " / la - 0-
"'Sin C-e,<€A(,l , "IC4,Vl-e.L4 (:l
- ' - J' a ?myl.>V a a - '- - -
I
I
I
i
I
391
392
'-6'-%.
---:.-7.-/-( r-(s,---v n z)-wi4 '-v'l-+")l _ j-:!.;X'- :-v'H i-"){ ill sX O?. -,, ') _ ""i_l ()M (it') jc)-p " _4 .,.-) -=--N I €-) ()"tr--) (n p _1 g I') lzl1" } l'l __
'i
ll I l/ /l ' I t
393
b7,i'
'-""-" 9LA(')P""','-e%@,,"t)P>(;._.l'lr";JUJI)G'}1ln(,i2 HK'l=-,i "l
q (:,4-uts -aotiot4r) byi!uaz. .ei6p. .a+ t !
394
ll'i i Mv l/\/;LM/. '1< *!i,'leii /"l'l)7 .iri'm ri sv>.-uA,iv r>'ra J a J a "" - ,,/ - / - - - o - " - - - (_r>_ r"lriin+i e'5 !4 !ov ,:> lgA&v' (Xh'vUr'ir r.iti+- - - - - - - - - - - ' -' l - - - - - - - - - - - - l- l OK ,:3y r,ak=:&x&_ a'( e 04< k=h !k'w(,
I'l_ r'xm3; ('!ahoi:vioi P<,3r>a Xlovw-r.Q,:!=A%pA-- - (l a o = J J - '- - " " " " - ' "- " ' .*o rrns)s, rrintbr>hoe,
I Th;q"JJ5"i,lv\'J"'beoCA"'i,i5pZl-iUe-in3rx>4)'1
I
!hke, md S hnsy, o- cicx->mie-r 5'i'h-lainq-5 *t
I
i ,,/ " - - l ,,/ g - U
!QV'p .:5-K)\ (H(!)U)-inQi- -y t.yor!A i:\(=p -41n-rvu i
-0 9 - - - - - - - - - i § - - % u I I I L '- I 0 *r>_ rp *-=tmeh av\A hJ!.tj. I >n
-I sHcrc<'r<_A- n'm'ti! %r- ct<'d,r=p,rn-'- l-Y'l *hr_, Iolae_,=rs oVb*tir(_ '53<> Alovvv,.&q a'a-e,,&.

I
I
s. - s* ' - - s-- a-a- - - - - - - '- " - ' -- % - I " .1 "ThanK trot) J
i As'Mpii (!xtUiz- '
i
'C7
I
I
I
'2? ts
395
f\'/\r<A-,, jiQ'Jh,l,-Y.
:/nc e,=ycl 7/'
396
C::
'2,:lTh
397
333
398
"2. 2,L%
--'- ---ff7-i-M--T7n-o-ms-'-is- ae-1-A4-tihaz-)' iriqrxm-embe,r ' C;7\,-:" <)-f- mvv4yy (nz.* AxA9(4= -ehvt'rameh+ rxri4/,.:,,.:"2= ry'->'lv4m4- o-3';)riti'Hn Or'he Nj)A';cA<iol, S
I vr5e %lrie !6ryri<i,n3 cri,nnvnissiavi-jo
.i7
399
400

ATT ACHMENT F
Item No. 2
Dear Mr. Signio, Mr. Pelayo and Members of the South Gate Planning Commission, As you prepare for the Planning Commission meetingthis Tuesday, I urge you to consider the long-term implications of your decision regardingthe illegaLtruck yard at 8530 Alameda Street. This decision will set a precedentfor hOW SOuth Gate enforces itS business regulations and codes. The community is watchingctosety to see ifthe Citywilltake a firm stance on ethicalbusiness practices.

The property at 8530 ALameda Street has been operatingwithout a valid permit or license since July 16, 2021, when the Temporary Use Permit (TLIP) expired. The original TUP was issued in error, makingthe operation illegal even before that. On April18, 2023, the South Gate Planning Commission determined thatthe continued operation ofthis facility violated City codes, citingthat:

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

2. TemporaryUsePermitscannotauthorizeprohibitedusesforextendeddurations,andtheoriginaLTuP was issued in error.

The fun( denia[ of Engle's request, dated April 18, 2023, is attached for your reference. Complete EngeL documentation can be viewed here:
https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/cityofsouthgate/e38f28b4-b7b5-1 1 ed-acbc-00505691 83fa- 4253c1 cb-dOd2-4870-b889-bade0633e61 a-l 682709352.pdf Despite thiS clear ruling, Engle haS repeatedly attempted tO pressure the City intO reversing itS deCiSiOn. The 2015 General Plan Amendment eStabtiShed thatthiS area iS designated fOrindustriat FleX (IF) uSe,intended tO benefit the Soutti Gate College DiStriCt and residents. Engle's current requestto rezone the area contradicts the City's vision for a more sustainable future.

Engte's continued EFFORTS tO bypaSS regulations far financial gain are concerning and must be stopped. It is criticalthatthe City prioritize the interests of residents over corporate profits. ALLowing preferentialtreatment WOutd Send 8 damaging message that illegal businesS practices are tolerated in SOuth Gate and that City OffiCialS can be influenced.

AS 70u deliberate, I urge 70u tO priOritiZe the beSt intereStS Of SOLlth Gate'S RESIDENTS and upheld the City'S commitment to ethical business practices and zoning laws.

Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Daley
SELA for a Better Tomorrow
Item 2) l strong(y urge the Commissioners to vote no and denythe appea( by this scumba[ app(icant. We don't want trash Like this in our city. I'm tired of our city constamty bending over and making changes to our ordinances, zoning codes and General Plan. ALL because these property owners don'twamto be in compliance with our city's laws. Enough is enough Commissioners. Do you really want to see our city devolve into a sewer? Or look like Tijuana Mexico? Have you people been there? I have. Trust me, it looks really bad. You don't want to live there. And I don'twant our city to look like some sort of garbage town. Besides, this business adds no reaL value to our city. Commissioners you need to do the right thing and vote no on item 2. This is the right decision for our city.
33!, 401
MemberS Of the Planning COmmiSSiOnl thiS emait iS tO addreSS the ITEMS 2 and 3. l'Ve been listening tO COunCil meetings forquite Same time nOW. EVery SO Offen people ShOW up tO the meetingsto address the city council or planning commission to state their thoughts on items being considered.

I'm all for people expressingtheir views. But when there's accusations of corruption without anyfacts to supportthem, the accusations failto address the issue. What itdoes is stain the reputation ofthe city.

Item 2is an appea(from the business owner against a decision that City Staff has taken. It's pretty cLearthat ourcity counciltook a position in 2015 to change the zoning code. Once the permit expired, staff has taken theposition to follow the direction given bythe city council concerningthe zoning code to stop the work being done.

Whatl don't understand is the accusation that our city council is somehow involved with corruption. Ifthe younglady, Jennifer, is claimingthat the city council is alLowingthe business to operate illegally, she should know thatthe opposite is actuaLly true. The city staff has denied this business from operatingforyears. That is why there isan appeal. It seems that she should be applaudingthe cttyfor addressing this issue, even before she came to ourcity, from where ever she isfrom, (337
402
Dear Honorable Planning Commission, City Clerk, Mayor Davila, City Council, and City Manager,
} am writing to express my strong support for upholding South Gate's municipal code in the case of 8530 Alameda Street and to urge the City Council to deny the appeal filed by the property owner. From what I have gathered through the agenda and availab)e information, it is clear thatthis is not a case of unfair treatment, but rather the City rightfully enforcing its zoning regulations, as it wouid for any other business or property owner. ' The Facts: How We Got Here
For decades, 8530 A(ameda Street was home to a metal processing and recycling facility. Even afier zoning changes in 2€)15, the City allowed the business to continue under legal nonconforming status, showing its willingness to work with fong-standing businesses and provide flexibility for property owners.

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

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

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

However, zoning taws exist for a reason, and South Gate is simply appiying the same standards it would to any other business. The property owner had multiple opportunities to maintain their legal status but failed to follow the required renewal process. This is not an issue of the City being unreasonable-this is a case of a business not following the necessary steps to remain in compliance.
.33'6
403
Addressing Arguments Against the City's Decision
Some may argue that truck storage was always part of the metaJ processing operation and therefore should still qualify underthe original nonconforming status. However, the key issue is that nonconforming use protections do not extend indefinitely without proper renewal. - The original nonconforming status app(ied specifically to meta! processing, not to truck storage as a separate business.
- Once metal processing ceased and the structure was demolished, the truck storage became an independent operation-not a continuation of the original use. - Under South Gate's current zoning regulations, truck trailer storage is not a permitted use in the IF zone.

The City is not changing the rules ortargeting this specific business, If noncompliant operations were allowed to continue indefinitely without proper renewal, It would undermine the entire purpose of zoning (aws.

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

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

I urge the City Council to:
33"') 404
- Uphold the City's decision and deny the appeal to protect the integrity of South Gate's municipal code.

Ensure that land use regulations are applied fairly and consistentiy to all businessep. - Stand by the City's long-term planning and zoning vision rather than allowing businesses to bypass regu(ations through legal loophoies.

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

Thank you for your time and for your commitment to enforcing South Gate's municipa! codefairly and consistently.

Respectfufly,
Nathan Cueto
3'4D
405
8530 Alameda Street
Development Agreement & Zone Change/General PJan Amendment Term Summaries
DA are described below.

Development Agreement Term Sheet
AEP and the City Of SOuth Gate COlleCtiVel7, the "Parties" Wish TO enter intO a Development Agreementconsistent with the following terms:

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

2. HistoricUse:Thepropertyoperatedasafamily-ownedrecyclingbusiness,includingon-sitetruck trailer and container storage between 1973 and 20L9. The Property was leased to Fleet Yards, Inc. in2020 for the purpose of truck trailer and container storage.

3. Legal Nonconforming Use: (t is AEP's position that trucktrailer and contaainer storage is a legBl nonconforming use on the Property because this use was authorized by-right when the recyclingoperations began in 1973, and because the use has been continuous since that time, through Jack Engle & Company's operations between 1973 and 2019, and through Fleet Yards" operations beginningin 2020, AEP reserves the right tO defend all legal nonconforming uSeS On the Property, including truCktrailer and container storage.

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

5. TruckTrailer&ContainerStoraHe:lnordertoavoidsubstantialfinancialdamagestoAEPfrom prematurely terminat?ng the current lease with Fleet Yards, the City agrees to allow Fleet Yards tocontinue its truck trailer and container storage operations at the Property through the term ofthe,.current lease (Summer, 2035). 6, Entitlements: InordertofacilitatemoreusesonthePropertyconsistentwiththeCity'slongterm vision forthe "industrial flex" zone, the City will work with AEP on an entitlement pathway that allowsa broader range of commercial uses on the Property.

7. Development Partners: The Parties agree that during the remaining term of the current lease, they wiH work together to identify a development partner and/or lessee with the requisite experience toredevelop a portion of the Property consistent with the City's long term vision for the Industrial Flexzone. The Development Partner or Lessee must be able to provide a conceptual site plan and proof offinancing for the project's development and operation, either independently or with additiona)partners. 406
Exhibit A
Proposed Development Agreement Terms
ASSiStS the City in satisfying the redevelopment requirements in the General Plan. Identifies a long-termredevelopment solution. Creates a contractual obligation to phase-out the current use based on marketconditions. Provides market-driven data for the City's next iteration of the General Plan. "'-
lrffi _ " f%'e'H4- !ah!M!Th;'i'W mwgwiimigsat""pwt
'
Feasibility'Stud9' (lYear)* - .

AEC to conduct Matket Study within 1 Yearto detffirmine feasible future developmepts and altemate qses at the 'Proper,rncluding pptentia] #edevel6pment partners,. " Redevetopment Partner/
Future Tenant'
('1 7ear)*
AEPto retain a brokerjndbegin marketingthe Prqpei;tytoiarget and secure redevelopment partnersandXor'futuretenants based.on the Market Study, AEP- to provide regular status updat'es tothe City on its efforts.

Project pl,ans/Agenc%
Involvement
(2-3 Years)* :

Redevelopment Pirtner to secure fundlng, refine stte. plan, Thnd coordinate entitlements pacliage with the City and reaevelopmentplansw!thDTSC. AEP/Re4evelopr@@nt'F!a.%ertoproviae regular project updates to the Cijy duringthis period.

Precise Plan/Specific Plan - (1 Year)"'
Ctty .to assist Redevel6pment Partner & AEP with PrecisePiian/Specific Plan (required by current Genera) plan) and,-ffidvise onappropriateentitlementspackage. Redeve_lo6ment'Part'nerto 'submit e:ntitlements appllffitloh. Paftles topmast 4uanerly until.the qntitlemer;ts application is filed. . .'. , =. " 'enUtlements Processi4i (18rriant,hi)* " ' City.to review 4n(itleme'nts appl:cat!on.'. QfPAtede:vel;jx'm,ent l.artneit6prepare.EIR. . ... .'. , .,,
Kl,.":."0\a;r';'l,'-::'!'.a:,'f",i'.51,:a;.:r' Ja.2:F4(':Cv-._;.lq,. aa 4 " a a- * o"l % - '-%"" a " '
).ll,jA%"-_),;r_X-_!._a,.fllazJs)>,_>if,_:y,%,
:l:'.:;'4'!=!$,4!i9;1!?!'4"';€d,i:' ha - a
a '. : 0 , g _ ;7, r,, _ , .ff<'#e,_,"az 'I.ai _ ' _ij _ , i_ (* i .(0 , - I .- + i ra )i _i . . r-= , -s- "s, ( ._, ',ffiyP%t aa-pa - _ i_ , , '! I 'k .a- - ,'H.,.,i 3,,y, '_, 1.. l,a,-L'i.: .,a a';.; : c ' :,,": ; X E%.;;.G,,. ' 'i'!JR'fl!"t.4'!"k'!41!'li'::'I'!'!
::;=G,-:-J,:Q\?4
pl.j0,-t=ji ,4,'2
.%,{,,,tip-("j ,
f_';+. Jl <: ' -' .'{4, .'.i'!t.N;;..; ;;.
y 0 _ ":h -:'t*i" ".'__a' , 'X_,;;. .;'art l..,"i'a" ""'T.:=';.."l.'i.,-'aa.('_l.'ll,',x..;. ,la.,::.,l- - ' " " j 'a-- -s = - _r - '-- 111%,jt,;,jrAmqW7?..:J;kl,15,,J.i5.i\,.l+4.;;,';j.:i-,,... 4a_ _ ., . . ."a' -iai--- ,."'as " 'y 'a '--" ' ( ' * '- = ' A f.- ' - - . % -l i.. l_-- I
.,- "' - 'a;i'a ' # _ ' -
a
$6
(Q
N3
H
p.!
!i
M!jn
X
2 *
i%i§f§4;;
l'r'j"upzjpM:(:i i ilvx".'M.=Th: -
:,%ffle !,,ti,e%\ffl,n,vX\.li'.T46!m:e,,,;l,ff.@>tffi,te.ff!m::sThal:r:n,o:m,,,: y"':lc- I=li
i=l
'i)
it
I
i0
P!
i
,aP, ,%;,g5..iyiQ
&

1. i.@;Q4
(ii's:a:a'a:J"2'=* 1101,,!.
:.jlaj;l'!ji!",J'Ji3i';!l;!&.:'I:!";'11!(!'!S!j!'!,!,!l!5(!m!lV4!',:j.';.!l(!f:!!fil,[1 'X'dfM;,k$lli,'3Alt'i!.,141Jii'l:,'l,'!'HMilii$;!JlleffJ'!Q !al.i." &!i'.Jl$( N a %' ."'...T 1L4 :l!.-g l!I. lh If'!ljl.!aa. lflW"+#l "l!Nil i:4Kl.lll l'j' 1.11 044;1 ffl .!A4ilMll IIIQ'.' laKuLll!&.fj. Aii.' *-ii;-aAll_ aaaea 'eA i&Tlffil Il%Aia,[';Qt:lij :44i*'$!!I- A;'JiY! a$"! Li J& Ik : T '*" af!(.'-&-J4 Nj Tt"; r'7N- !i a N !Mj'J. l-'E I &fliWi . i #li#-:iititffi JilkaaiF IT ii M f!!l:-A: P' Thil .3'%2-
407
Exhibit B
Zone Change/ General Plan Amendment
Removes the use restrictions under the SGMC and General Plan. Reverts the zoning to the previouszoningdesignation,wherethecurrentuseisallowed. City(PlanningCommissionersorCityCouncilmembers) to initiate text changes that add termination date earlier that current 2035 deadline. Allows for fasterresolution and more flexibility regarding future uses, as City will have to update its General Plan in 2035. , , . $%!Nlm'
AEP Application f6r Zone
Change/General Plan
Amendment
Reverses the City's 2Q15 rezone.

Removes the Prop_ertyfro#i
South Gate Commiinity College
Distr!ct Subarea 1 (requiring
educationeil/institutional uses)
and reverts the zo-ning back to
M.2 wihere industrial uses,
including the,,current use are
allowed with discreiionary
'entttlements.

Pending. Applicatton filed
October, 20>4. Schedufed for
Planning Commission
Consideration on 3/18.
'=a%,,":, ,l," ! a= ..A' " 1:-iaa':...aZ"'sl,,"" +"':I';'l!- ,'aa' o ' _a,i':""'=":},';':':'a"',7 'j? ,.": J ,""a"l'a a _ ' + -- -I! -a ( 'a i '. =-%la4a" 'a" '-- ii l"'-"'#,t-,'_ P--, Its .% t %_ . . A. '+ ffl , i. , . ,l, ,!3a, ,,y':,- . .,;l{l,,'., -H ).= ' - ,."a"a'l(" ") %%la ' " V..*'l" o a . ... .,..-.%* :a, . . ,i 11;l'-x l,,. (. + _ II a . I:; , ., _ ! ' -' "a a '. I 4 ._ +l,) si : 1, ;. + _... ; ,1_1'7"'l.. '- _ .4 - ' + ': " (, ':'. i': ,l)- '.', l -= I . _ , , } -l) d }l +-_ , ,. l... .. (,, ,, , ( , - I .-'-'-'4'==-'='="-=-=' 5!N#'3X='!':!'>A!!j,\':4',:'94!":o,=Jr ':;,l,%,s"_'f_4,,"-_"a'.,yl1a'a"'-,l,;;',,rJl0aWl,""<'i..aa""'F':%ia,'a:,,:l;4aa7..."'('y'-%t),l" '!,v, "r ' Jsi:,,,QI%":J;0;,' ':Ja'?""t:0: r:5:"a'_': <,l,:i_=-=., s ,_ : .::,:0(:%'ol% . - ,% ' : "' " '- 'a a -" "'.a:' : a. :'I ' "a " at"'a":-.a'a':ao" : :a ::l ,:a- "+ ""':,'i I -, 'a" -i% ' - 4- F=' r I ,,"'>a'l-# s. L . _ s a. . 4 ,v _ . a a # - 'lt. . ., .*, . ,- V t .' a. , .. -. , ,_,ji , 2 ; -.l . . . - )1. . - - . 1.1 a ; 0 ,. }, 0 - . ,II - ' " Ij a I a" a a i" ) -'17. , - J'--,,.' 1' -l:' 5 . 0 -la l = . s- . - .. ' - f- lf4_"' " a " "." ' , . ;,'_,',, ',. ..-
k tlfC' "a':- :-"i "!j.7%%_ , _ 1 . . - .) ._
_bl"Ijj!i;: i.,',q':':jiaW'+4Curze Vr ""; ;4 ' -ii' ,=,t -b,Xi%t 5o,oPa_,,5,Fi,"!.,::J:.o_lc%'n4"-o"ne"'J"ocqc:-,su.olorl:;:t:, !vl-') *'it=_ ,- !, 1!'4:i

4...gima-.y,P:la:il,.J,:.i,<::ffl:$%%%4,n.s-k%n:(0,"-yJ4,,<,a(:,:=:';4:4a7.,"a:;%,-,slr,sl,0"';4ff,,,}s,,li".,<i- 4 -; _ __ ffi ,r :, : I:",,;,, "A:' ,, +i ., a%,' e"aal=4rxt a'j- s' -" - ',r'i =:i%a,,,,_:.::_sla:,'J,:;,;V.ll:lll:>lT.":tl:f.a.....%,,_!u:,_,:-llal,flJlla,, c,;l'.€(,!l+t7s51J:!,.,,:::aat_;, _. a.lylll,4 ,....
a:"";2'' aaii:-,5,,(';z(":,a,':,,'lel,R,a'l";,l:"e:,-:""'N,,,00'7"aa"'>II',,l,l,:ll,,,,,a,"",)a:11. , '""' f')"'=ffi"A.,2A';1$
!=.i'_-"-tQ*. =Ia.",}-=;:"""-""=;"-=
ffi"f:f":;." ?'.4!3")!":)':6"%A' - "'i-."f;a"4j!. f'?'WJ 5 @
@%
:pqq
FX
'.t4
CJ
)i
-?..
q
?
If
Q:o
%4
'Oi
'?? i r
"gu,@3JQ'
!
Q!
Qi
a
[
:':&".

I.nlm
i. t
7C
I
m
[$,?%6!..i9',;,
(,!T'4€$94.
.time?r:- l' §.: e (""":
$,h5,5
Th'
",!)
y
V
IJ
ii
%'T": -:a"
item,oy
4d!;'1
;d;i,lJ@qJ
:
7 s
N
!:
-i;
:e
a
g
tp
,[3}'!?
r,W
}
II!
di FJ
'r'a:f,\'&J""J"'JaJ7'?""""""','eo.a!:jr:'al.""""l"kf:fla'aAaJ"':V%"J,""a'#.,"ja.loa';"..'_a:%?l,.ao""""'ffi'a""l'ilJa%J""""ae"J'(a7:c','ll%ll""="l",a'Jill,11%""""a"""'):"' a" - i :' " :" - - o *;'i""'- '&. _ yai:' l:>a l . " %- * 408
hhs
);x3/a:iue4u3 *
deyy a);5
5 409
Item No. 3
Item 3) OnCe againl strongly urge the Commissioners tO VOte nO and denythiS wretched applicant hiSdespicable requestfor a Zone Change and GeneraL Plan Amendment. This is exactly the kind of scumbaggrythatyou all should be opposed too. Commissioners this is your opportunity to put a stop on this property owner thatwants to have their way with our city's ordinances and Laws. How much more ofthis sort of treatment are youpeople willingto put up with? Correct me ifl'm wrong, but item 3, is just more of item 2. Commissioners, please Ibeg you, don't sell out our city to this dirtbag. Ifyou have any compassion for the poor hard working people in ourcity that are struggLing to make it in this cruel world. Please, reject this demon's request and vote no on item 3.

Hello,
My name is Melodie Cuevas and I Lived in South Gate for over 20 years. I only recently left the community when Iwas 22 years old to Orange County. Moving only 14 miles awayto Orange County,l notice a substantiaLdifference in my quality of life, especially as it regards air quality. I feel completely disheartened to know that myhometown suffers heavilYfrom pollution and negligence. Po(icies, such as the Zonin@ change, that are beingintroduced only serve to continue to exacerbate this ongoing history of environmentalinjustice. Please considernot purshingthis zoning any further and listen to your constituems who are sharing their very real concerns with70u.

Thank you,
MeLodie Cuevas
God help us.
3'r
410
Item No. 5
Office ofthe
South Gate City Clerk

CITY COUNCIL
FILED
AGEIffflIDA KI[LL
Department Director:

For the Regular Meeting of: May 13, 2025
Originating Department: Community Development
4J"F\!z
Ciffl Manager:

Rob Houston
SUBJECT: 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 ENVIRONMENT AL QUALITY ACT (PL 25-0054)

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

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

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

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

AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
411
iv. Atnend Table HE-55 (Summary of Sites Inventory) accordingly, which results in a reduction of 509 housing units.

This item was continued from the Regular City Council Meeting of April 22, 2025.

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENT AL EV ALUATION
The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves pursuant to Section 15270(a).

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

It should be noted that AEP also owns the abutting 2.9-acre site to the north at 8440 S. Alameda AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
412
Street, which is located outside of the City of South Gate ("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 currently being processed.

Planning Commission Hearing
On March 18, 2025, the Planning Commission voted 3-0 to adopt Resolution No. 2025-05 recommending to the City Council denial of a request to change the zoning from IF to M3 and remove the subject property from the South Gate College District as shown in the Community Design Element of the General Plan.

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

Generally, speakers were opposed to the truck trailer storage citing concerns withtraffic, pollution, health impacts, and other environmental concerns. Additionally, written correspondences from the individuals below. The correspondences are included in Attachment D. * Mario Dominguez
@ Claudia Rivera
* Melody Cuevas
* Sara Atsbaha, Somos Group, applicant's attorney
History of Zoning and Land Use of 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 AEP, the Site was used by Jack Engel & Company (hereina:[ter, "JECO") and/or AEP for ametal processing/recycling facility AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
3 413
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.

ANALYSIS:

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

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

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

If the City decides to approve the request and approve the zone change and General Plan AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
414
Amendment, the applicant would have to apply for a CUP to allow a truck storage/terminal use in the M3 zone, which would have to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. Additionally, the City would be tasked with identifying additional housing unit sites to offset the loss in potential housing units so there is a "no let loss" in housing as mentioned earlier.

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

ATT ACHMENTS:

A. City Council Resolution
B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-05
C. Planning Commission Agenda Bill for March 18, 2025 D. Public cornrnents received at the March 18, 2025, Planning Commission meeting
AQ11777 n)l<l'lSlQl dQnQ-RR)l-OR(1';vT
415
Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO.

CITY OF SOUTH GATE

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

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

MANUF ACTURING) AND REMOVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
FROM THE SOUTH GATE COLLEGE DISTRICT AS SHOWN m

THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT AND HOUSING

ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, AND FINDING THE

ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENT AL
QUALITY ACT (PL 25-0054)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Somos Law Group, on behalf of the property owner, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC (represented by Jason Engle), submitted an application (PL 25-0054) for a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment for a property located at 8530 Alarneda 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 propem7 from the South Gate College District as shown in the Community Design Element of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission duly noticed and agendized a public hearing on this matter on February 27, 2025; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission conducted the public hearing on this matter on March 18, 2025, and adopted ResolutionNo. 2025-05 recommending to the City Council denial of arequest to change the zoning of the subject property from IF to M3 and remove the subject property from the South Gate College District as shown in the General Plan; and
WHERF,AS, pursuant to California Governrnent Code Section 65854, the City Council duly noticed and agendized a public hearing on this matter on March 27, 2025; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65854, the City Council conducted the public hearing on this matter on April 22 and May 13, 2025.

WHEREAS, the City Council made the following findings:

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

AS13772.0860893 4923-2538-6533vl
416

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 inthe Community DesignElement 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.

4. The IF zoning district allows for certain residential uses to be developed, and changing the zoning to M3 would preclude potential newhousing development, which is contrary to the City's Housing Element and the Statewide regional housing needs.

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

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 California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves pursuant to Section 15270(a).

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby denies 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. [Remainder of page le'ft blank intentionally.]
AS13772.0860893 4923-2538-6533vl
417
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution which shall be effective upon its adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED, and AJ)OPTED on this 13th day of May 2025.

CITY OF SOUTH GATE:

BY:

Maria Davila, Mayor
ATTEST:

B7:

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

Rail F"-Salinas, City Attorney
AS13772.0860893 4923-2538-6533vl
418
Attachment B
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 ALAMF,DA STREET FROM IF (mDUSTRIAL FLEX) TO M3
(HEAVY MANUFACTtJRlNG) AND REMOVE THE SUBJECT

PROPERTY FROM THE SOUTH GATE COLLEGE DISTRICT AS

SHOWN IN THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELF,MENT 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 aiid 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 WHY,REAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission duly noticed and agendized a priblic hearing on this matter on Febniary 27, 2025; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Califomia Governu'nent Code Section 65854, the Planning Corni'nission conducted the public hearing on this matter on March 18, 2025.

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

2. The Subject Property is located in the northwestern comer of the City in the IF zone, and changing the zoning and removing the Subject Property from the South Gate CollegeDistrict as showninthe 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 'hck trailer storage component of those activities - has been deteimined to be abandoned and can no longer be conducted at tlie Subject Property unless otherwise in confoimity to all cunent laws and regulations of the City (and applicable governi'nental agencies). The City desires a land use compatible with the purpose and intent of the IF zoning district.

AS13772.0860891 4923-2538-6533vl
419

4. The IF zoning district allows for certain residential uses to be developed, and changing the zoningto M3 wouldprecludepotential new liousing development, whicli is contrary to the City's Housing Element and the Statewide regional liousing needs.

5. Changing the zoning district to M3 would preclude a ntunber 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. Tlie Planning Coinmission hereby 'finds that all of tlie facts set forth in the Recitals of this Resolution are true and correct.

SECTION 2. The Planiiing Commission's recommendation to tlie City Council on amendments to the Zoning Map and General Plan is not subject to Califoniia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review because it is not an "approval" as defined in California Code of Regulations, Titlel4, Section 15352, but ratlier arecommendation, and therefore does not commit tlie City to any definite course of action regarding the Zoning Code Ainendment and General Plan.

Fuitl'iermore, CEQA does not apply to projects which a pxiblic agency rejects or disapproves pursuant to Section 15270(a).

SECTION 3. The Plani'fflng Cornu'nission hereby recommends that the City Council deny the request to cl'iange tlie zoning of a property located at 8530 Alameda Street from IF to M3 and remove tlie 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 Coinmission meeting of Marclil8, 2025.

AYES: Prieto, Ruiz, Ozaeta
NOES:

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

APP
City anning Commission
J
AS13772.0860893 4923-2538-6533vl
i'O
420
Attachment C

PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENIDA IBT[LT[,
F tlie Regular Meeting ofi ffgrc/i 18, 2025
xiiyity DeveloptnentDirector:PlaiutiiigManager:

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR ZONE CHANGE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8530 ALAMEDA STREET, AND DETERM[NING THE ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORN{ A ENVIRONMENT AL QUALITY ACT

PROJECT PROPOSAL/REQUEST
Zone Cl'iange (ZC) and General Plan Amendment (GPA): The applicant requests tlie following:

1. ZC to cliange tlie property from Industiial Flex (IF) to Heavy Manufachu-uig (M3); and

2. GPA to indicate truck trailer and container storage facilities witl* the South Gate College District are perinitted to continue operafing, or remove tlie Subject Property from the Soutli Gate College Distiict entirely
The request to remove tlie subject propeity from tlie Soutli Gate College District as identified in tlie General Plan, includes the following:
a, Community Design Element
i. Amend Figure CD-4 (Districts) by removmg the Subject Property from tlie Soutb Gate College District, Sub-area l
b. Housing Element
i. Amenc? Figure HE-4 (Districts) by removing tlie Subject Propexty from thc Soutli Gate College District, Sub-areal
ii. Amend Figure HE-6 (Zoning Map) by cliaxiging the zoning district from IF to M3
iii. Amend Table HE-52 (Outside of Specific Plan Areas) by reducing tlie number of parcels (2.9 to 28), acres (25.18 to 18,40), and potential units (1,886 to J,371 a reduction of 509 units). Total units would decrease from 5,150 to 4,641 units.
iv. Ai'nend Table HE-55 (Summary of Sites Inventory) accordingly, wliicli results in a reduction of 509 liousing units.
plSll772.086089] 4QOQ-82)18-OS05vl
421

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It should be noted that AEP also owns the abutting 2.9-acre site to the north at 8440 S. Alameda Street, which is located outside of the City and in the County of Los Angeles. Access to both AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
ll
422
properties is via a driveway from Alameda Street to the property at 8440 S. Alameda Street. This property is also being used for truck trailer storage and according to County staff, a conditional use permit (CUP) is currently being processed.

History of Zoning and Land Use of Subject Property As early as 1961, the Subject 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 a metal processing/recycling facility from as early as 1973 until approximately March 2020. During that time, the site was developed with a single-story industrial structure used for the recycling operations conducted by JECO and/or AEP.

ANALYSIS:

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

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

AS13772 0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
i,a
423
The IF zone allows certain residential uses to be developed and changing the zoning to M3 would preclude potential new housing development, which is contrary to the City's Housing Element and the Statewide regional housing needs. Moreover, such rezoning would remove 509 potential housing unit sites from the housing-site inventory identified in the Housing Element of the General Plan; the "No Net Loss Law" codified in Government Code section 65863 might require the City, within 180 days, to identify new suitable housing locations within the City to replace some or all of the lost locations. Furthermore, uses such as recreation, education, public assembly, parks, plazas, and open space, which are allowed in the IF zone would be prohibited in the M3 zone. For all of those reasons, as such, staff recommends the Planning Commission reject the proposed Zoning Map Amendment and General Plan Amendment.

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

ATT ACHMENTS:

B. Applicant's letter of request dated October 18, 2024 C. Proposed General Plan Diagram
D. Proposed Zoning Map
E. Figure CD-4 (Districts)
F. Figure HE-4 (Districts)
G. Figure HE-6 (Zoning Map)
H. Table HE-52 (Outside of Specific Plan Areas)
I. Table HE-55 (Summary of Sites Inventory)
i!
AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl 424

ATT ACHMENT B
SOMOS

LAW GROUP
304 South Broadway, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90013
October 4 8, 2024

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

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

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

1. AGPAtoaddlanguagetothelndustrialFlex("IF")zoningdesignation clarifying that existing truck trailer and container storage facilities within the South Gate College District are permitted to continue operating;

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

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

SOMOS I
16 425
Based on our coordination with the City and prior conversations with you, we understand that a GPA or ZC/GPA are the most efficient and practical paths forward to formalize the long-standing industrial use at the Property.

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

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

The Proposed ZC ad GPA will enable use consistency over both portions of the Property and avoid additional challenges in implementing future uses. 2 ib
SOMOS
426
Property Map
y. IndusMal
IF)

2. The ZC & GPA are Consistent with Uses in the Surrounding Area.

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

3. The ZC & GPA Facilitate Productive Use of the Property While the City Evaluates City-Wide Land Use & Policy Changes The Property's unique characteristics, including its location in multiple jurisdictions, split zoning designations, and location adjacent to railway and heavy industrial uses substantially narrow the scope of viable alternative uses. If the historic use is not allowed to continue as a "bridge" to future regional redevelopment options, SOMOS 3
427
the Property is at risk of becoming vacant. As you know, vacant properties can result in public health and safety concerns, deter investment in surrounding properties, and create lost opportunities for tax revenue. In recent years, variable market conditions have complicated identification of potential development partners and prevented the City's redevelopment goals for the region from materializing. The ZC and GPA will allow the current tenant to continue the historic operations at the property and maintain the Property's historic role as a job generator and contributor to the local economy until AEP, together with the City, identify a feasible redevelopment partner or plan. AEP remains dedicated to working with the City and supporting its long-term vision for the region.

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

Sincerely,
Alfred Fraijo Jr.

Partner
213.592.2966 direct
alfred(,somosqroup.orq
cc: Raul Salinas
SOMOS 4
18 428
Civic Cerder
e!! South Gate College [2 Sub Areas]
EI Paseo/SouUi Gate Towns Center [3 Sub Areas]
! Firestone Industiial
Gateway [4 Sub Areas]
Hollydale Industrial
Imperial [3 Sub Areasl
88 Tweady Educational District
f!)B Rayo Industrial [2 Sub Areas]
South Gate Triangle [2 Sub Areal
[ Southwest Industrial
429
z
I
0 ,-k 7t..,..:'1:,
ffl
@ffl
g@ffl
o
0 LiU
0 o
Kl I € D € XI
8 j d !j y
2,:s430

ATTACHMENT E
South Gate General Plan 2035 Community Design Element
431

ATT ACHMENT F
Figure HE-4: Districts
Districts
Arine Industrlal
ClvlcCentei
EI Pasgo/South Gale Tovvna Ccntg 13 Sub Ayeas}
Firesfone Industnal
Hollydale Industrial
Imperlal 13 SubAreasl
88 Tweedy Eduaiilonal DBfild
South Gale Triangle (2 Sub Area]
Soufhwst Industrial
41 (a:' - J
{jta
South Gate General Plan 2035 51
432

ATT ACHMENT G
Figure HE-6: Zoning Map
C,lo'CAyd!lmilhdalaBounda
gp*dlla Plan Anxi
Ll*an Mlud-lls* 2znu
i'JI CC-CiffliiC:enlar
Jan -Tffllllll VFaiga
1118 - Main S!iaal
R*ildamlal No)ghborhom Zones
Nl - NetgMxmiood Low
NM - Nelghboduxd Ilelarm
z cy.a
ffilOS-OpenSpam
Ll-Ughtlmustm
88 M3-%ayManJgliutng
8padd Raqulramanla & Applleabla Overlays
5Fa'asvna eabm %nyeOveilsy
[J Rsdmibt P*mii9m
Omduahiai FlmTiilonal Ovalay
EHah@Nllff
Sp*dal Trealxntllram
* rifflllane&O)aMiXdula
ha S Iln.la
CITYaFklmY
0 " ""-
South Gate General Plan 2035 53
433

ATTACHMENT H
Table HE-52: Outside of Specific Plan Areas
NM (Neighborhood Medium)
CC (Civic Center)
CDR2 (Comdor-2)
MS (Main Street)
UN (Urban Neighborhood)
CDRI (Comdor-1)
IF (Industrial Flax)
RC-R (Reqional Commercial-
Residential Overlay)
20 10
30 32
40 40
75 75
30 1

4.33 2.49

19.62 9.86

24.37 13.94

25.18 6.54
58 73
625
260
968
,1040
1,8-86
NL Nei hborhoodLow 12 4 4.41 37
Total 235 ijQ74 ,5150
City-Owned Sites
The City of South Gate and its Housing Authority own a number of properties throughout the City, Several of these properties have been identified for residential uses. Some of these properties have already been included in the "Pipeline Projects" discussion earlier. Four additional properties identified for residential development have no specific project proposals yet. While two parcels are currently zoned M2, as they are owned by the City, these properties can be developed as residential uses as the City sees appropriate. All city-owned properties would begin disposition of these properties starting in 2024.

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

Table HE-53: City-Owned Properties
- - - 4a:!T]aiTffi"!?T- i;l
- vaagaaaa*i:vaafiThli ja%llala Jj(4il*l*l I dA- ii*ia- rl @llfJ i Ilr'Ei81-l-lo 111-11€ fflffi-IIIIQ:i ifflllrlilll-II- -lffii ail-lira l' r lollol * TMU1 Vacant parcel 0.13 20
M2
Vacant parcel
(0.94 acre in Rio Hondo
Channel - potential based
on remaining 1.77 acres)

2.71 40
M2 Vaznt Parcel 4.74 40
2703 Tweedy TMU1 Amigos Market 0.12 20

7.70 Souroe: City of Soi:th Gate, 2021
100 Housing Element
2=q434

ATTACHMENT I
Table HE-54: Motel/Hotel Sites with HomeKey or Redevelopment Potential - h'ot Used for RHNA Urban
Sunriselnn 6204020015 Neiqlhborhood O.62 40 30
Urban
ValulnnbyNendels 6221003054 Neiq,hborhood O.40 40 30
Villa Luna Motel 6221003065 Urban O.12
6221003064 Neighborhood O.30 4o Un'own'
VillaMotel 6222009008 Urban O.'l3
6222009009 Neighborhood O.13 4o Il
Urban
VogueMotel 6206016012 Neiqlhborhood o.ts 40 12

12.0 658
Notes:

1. No working phone numbers and County Assessor data does not contain information on the number of rooms.

Sources: City of South Gate, 2021 ; Los Angeles County Assessor's affix.

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

Table HE-55: Summary of Sites Inventory
994 3,979 8,282
ADU 109 275 38 218 640
Pipeline 5U 9Z 245 31!2 71Z
Remainin RHNA ,1968 822 890 ,3445 6925
Sites Inventory
Gateway District SP
TransitVillage 562 288 567 1,417
IndustrialFlex 32 17 33 82
UrbanNeighborhood 12 7 15 34
Subtotal 606 L12 615 1533
Hollydale SP
NeighborhoodMedium 0 0 7 7
Corridor-3 0 21'l 36 247
HollydaleMixedUse-1 0 76 20 96
HollydaleMixedUse-g 102 0 180 282
South Gate General Plan 2035 103
435
Attachment D
Item No. 2
Dear Mr. Signio, Mr. Pelayo and Members of the South Gate Planning Commission, AS 70u prepare far tt'ie Planning Commission meeting ttiiS Tuesday, I urge 70u tO COnsider tt'ie long-term implications ofyourdecision regardingthe illegaltruckyard at 8530 Alameda Street. This decision will set a precedent for how South Gate enforces its business regulations and codes. The community is watching cLoseLy to see ifthe Citywill take a firm stance on ethical business practices.

Tt*e property at 8530 Alameda Street BES been operatingwithout a Valid permit Or license SinCe JLIIY 16, 2021, when the Temporary Use Permit (TLIP) expired. The original TLJP was issued in error, makingthe operation illegal even before that. On April18, 2023, the SOuth Gate PlanningCommission determined thatthe continued operation ofthisfacilityviolated Citycodes, citingthat:

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

Temporary Use Permits cannot authorize prohibited uses for extended durations, and the original TUP was issued in error.

Thefull denial of Engle's request, dated April18, 2023,is attached foryour reference. Complete Engel documentation can be viewed here:
httpS://d3ney02raaZWpg.ClOudfr0nt.net/CityOfSOuthgate/e38f28b4-b7b5-1 1ed-acbc-0050569183fa- 4253c1 cb-d0d2-4870-b889-bade0633e61a-1682709352.pdf
Despite this clear ruling, Engle has repeatedly attempted to pressure the City into reversing its decision. The 2015 General Plan Amendment established that this area is designated for Industrial Flex (IF) use, intended to benefitthe South Gate College DiStriCt and residents. Engle's current requestto rezone the area contradicts the City's vision for a more sustainable future.

Engte's continued EFFORTS tO bypaSS re@ulations far financial gain are concerning and rnuSt be stopped. It is criticaL that the City prioritize the interests of residents over corporate profits. Allowing preferential treatment WOuld Send a damaging message that illegal business practices are tolerated in South Gate and that City OffiCialS can be influenced.

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

Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Daley
SELA for a Better Tomorrow
Item 2) I strongly urge the Commissioners to vote no and denythe appeal by this scumbag applicant. We don't wanttrash Like this in our city. I'm tired of our city constantly bending Overand making changes to our ordinances, zoning codes and General Plan. All because these property owners don'twantto be in compliance with our city's laws. Enough is enough Commissioners. Do you really wantto see our city devolve into a sewer? Or look like Tijuana Mexico? Have you people been there?l have. Trust me,it Looks really bad. You don'twantto live there. Andl don'twant our cityto look like some sort of garbage town. Besides, this business adds no real vatue to our city. Commissioners you need to do the rightthing and vote no on item 2. This is the right decision tor our city.
2,(,,436
Members of the Planning Commission, this emaiL is to address the items 2 and 3. l'Ve been listening tO COunCil meetings far quite Same time nOW. EVery SO Offen people ShOW up tO the meetings tO address the City COunCil Or planning commission tO State their THOUGHTS On ITEMS being considered.

I'm allfor people expressingtheirviews. Butwhen there's accusations ofcorruption withoutanyfactsto support them, the accusations failto address the issue. What itdoes is stain the reputation ofthe city.

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

Whatl don't understand is the accusation that our city council is somehow involved with corruption. Ifthe young lady, Jennifer, is claimingthat the city council is allowing the business to operate ilLegalLy, she should know that the opposite iS actuallV true. The city staff has denied thiS business from operatingfOryears. That is why there iS an appeal. It seems that she should be applaudingthe cityfor addressingthis issue, even before she came to our city, from where ever she is from,
2-7437
Dear Honorable Planning Commission, City Clerk, Mayor Davila, City Council, and City Manager,
I am writing to express my strong support for upholding South Gate's municipal code in the case of 8530 A!ameda Street and to urge the City Council to deny the appeal fi)ed by the property owner. From what I have gathered through the agenda and available information, it is clear that this is not a case of unfair treatment, but rather the City righffully enforcing its zoning regulations, as it wou)d for any other business or property owner. ' The Facts: How We Got Here
For decades, 8530 Alameda Street was home to a metal processing and recycling facility, Even after zoning changes in 2015, the City allowed the business to continue under tegal nonconforming status, showing its wi[lingness to work with )ong-standing businesses and provide flexibi(ity for property owners.

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

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

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

However, zoning laws exist for a reason, and South Gate is simpiy applying the same standards it would to any other business. The property owner had multiple opportunities to maintain their legal status but failed to follow the required renewal process. This is not an issue of the City being unreasonable-this is a case of a business not Tol(owing the necessary steps to remain in compliance.
438
Addressing Arguments Against the City's Decision
Some may argue that truck storage was always part of the metaf processing operation and therefore should still qualify under the origina( nonconforming status. However, the key issue is that nonconForming use protections do not extend indefinitely without proper renewal. - The original nonconforming status applied specifically to metal processing, not to truck storage as a separate business.
- Once metal processing ceased and the structure was demolished, the truck storage became an independent operation-not a continuation of the original use. - Under South Gate's current zoning regulations, truck trailer storage is not a permitted use in the IF zone.

The City is not changing the rutes or targeting this specific business. If noncomp)iant operations were allowed to continue indefinitefy without proper renewal, it would undermine the entire purpose of zoning Iaws.

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

This situation is not about the City suddenly changing its stance-it is about a property owner who failed to take the necessary steps to maintain theirlegal standing. It is misleading and unjair to suggest that the City is at fault when all it is doing is enforcing the rules that apply to everyone,
Why Denying the Appeal Is the Right Decision
South Gate's zoning regulations exist to ensure fairness, order, and responsible land use. If the City allows this appeal to succeed, it will set a dangerous precedent that nonconforming uses can continue indefinitely, even when renewal requirements are ignored. That would not be fair to other businesses and property owners who fo[low the rules.

I urge the City Council to:

Z,-'7'
439
- Uphold the City's decision and deny the appeal to protect the integrity of South Gate's municipal code.

Ensure that land use requlations are applied fairly and consistentiy to all businesses. - Stand by the City's long-term p(anning and zoning vision rather than allowing businesses to bypass regulations through legal loophotes.

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

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

Respectfu(ly,
Nathan Cueto
30 440
8530 Alameda Street
Development Agreement & Zone Change/General Plan Amendment Term Summaries
Development Agreement Term Sheet
AEP and the City of South Gate collectively, the "Parties" wish to enter into a Development Agreement consistent with the following terms:

1. :AEPownsrealpropertycommonlyknownas"8530AlamedaStreet"IocatedwithintheCity of South Gate, California.

2. HistoricUse:Thepropertyoperatedasafamily-ownedrecyclingbusiness,includingon-sitetruck trailer and container storage between 1973 and 2019. The Property was leased to Fleet Yards, Inc. in 2020 for the purpose of truck trailer and container storage.

3. LegalNonconformingUse:ItisAEP'spositionthattrucktrailerandcontainerstorageisalegal nonconforming use on the Property because this use was authorized by-right when the recycling @perations began in 1973, and because the use has been continuous since that time, through jack Engle & Company's operations between 1973 and 2019, and through Fleet Yards' operations beginning in 2020. AEP reserves the right to defend all legal nonconforming uses on the Property, including truck trailer and container storage.

4. CurrentLeaseTerm:FleetYards'currentleasedoesnotexpireuntilSummer,2035.

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

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

7. Development Partners: The Parties agree that during the remaining term of the current lease, they will work together to identify a development partner and/or lessee with the requisite experience to redevelop a portion of the Property consistent with the City's lone term vision forthe Industria! Fleg zone. The Development Partner or Lessee must be able to provide a conceptual site plan and proof of financing for the project's development and operation, either independently or with additional partners.
3 441
Exhibit A
Proposed Development Agreement Terms
ASSiStS the City in satisfying the redevelopment requirements in the General Plan. Identifies a long-term redevelopment solution, Creates a contractua) obligation to phase-out the current use based on market conditions. Provides market-driven data forthe City's next iteration ofthe General Plan.

Feasibility Study
Redevelopment Partner/
Future Tinant
F'rolect Plans/Agenq
Involvement
Precise Plan/Specific Plan
flYear)*
(1 Year)*
(2-3 Years)'
(1 Yea,r)*
AEPtp conduct Market Study within 1 Yearto determine feasible 'juture developments'.and alternate uses at the' Pro(xerty, including potentia] iedevelopmefflt pamers.' "
Redevel6pm;tint Partnerto secure funding, refine site plan, -afid coordinate entitlements 6ackage with. -%hae aty arid
'redevelopmeintplinswlthDTSC. AEP/RedevelopmentPattnerlo provide regular.project updates to the C% duripg,this period.

Oty to asslst Redeve1opmeint Partnear & AEP with Preicise Plan/Specific.Plbn (required by current Genera( plan) ana.advis:s .onappraprla%entitlementspackage. Red@vplo4merit'Partnerto submit entitlements appllcatlon. Partles tb meet quarterh'r untjl the entitlemer;ts apptication is filed.'
3> 442
Exhibit B
Zone Change/ General Plan Amendment
Removes the use restrictions under the SGMC and General Plan. Reverts the zoning to the previous zoning designation, where the current use is allowed. City (Planning Commissioners or City Councilmembers) toinitiatetextchangesthataddterminationdateearlierthatcurrent2035deadline. Allowsforfaster resolution and more flexibility regarding future uses, as City will have to update its General Plan in 2035, II ,
AEP Application for Zone
Change/Ge-neiral Plan
Amendment
Reversies the City's 2015 rezone,
Removes the Property frqm
S6uth :(jite Community College
District Subarea 1 (requiraing
educational/institutfonal uses)
and reverts the zor)ing 'back to
M2 where industrial uses,
!ncluding the,current use are
allowed with discreti6nary
enUtlements.

Pending. Applicati6nfiled
October, 2024. Sctiedu!ed for
Planning Commission
Considerataion on 3/18.
" .: a -t%.-l '; <% 4 A 4,1,- % - . it - I I 4#:; )*'f.J- a- -.,' -s :='-=-=:"-.y="' ,>;;"-'=*-x
";"""""a"'f';"""'-"'C'a"L""i'E"'a7:,,'T':"'1"""'ja"a'I:-.="-"-';a;a':'::;aa;"&,,'a"t"':i';'4 - -:'o . Ii = ," " :"": !
?_a::X'€a:'_'-tH4ia!aa '-'>=':i
M."J ff',i,...;i<
"':aJ'.;'i;.._a:'aa'J-;:','fa'J. a""<j";€li'I;"41_'::14.,:,aa"':;l_,lj,l>,__ii,',:,,J:,,l;..a.'E.:-4,, ,:a,%ll%,, aa':'f)'.'r' ,Z"7;.i,,,,,'i,y%J4">(g');at!:,l,l-<_al,,li,a':11;,;.=slll%a_l;l;..;la t.),,la,;aa"u-, ' ..,!i,,.1""i.,,7::':: .rl' _ ' ai-'g'a,!i;laas.. _.taa0"' - ,,, i( ' -a.l'
F"',:.1:,,lll'a"""a""'a;:II":.'a'l:"jl-a::l:k..l'a::':.1,.,.1,:"JJf3',l_yaa-"a'a:,')::_j:14rllall:-.:lea":.llsllll"t_'{'-..,lai)_,s::
m* 0
.,,,,,l,l,%l: ,,,_,ll,,.,,,, =-:07_,I<;;i.,..tpj4.-:: , - a'-j@Y-
_.. t!
a '11!l
4aa " r
%'Ab-_
%J'm"J,'i.Af:',,l1ll._l,'1%; ??,=Xl,__,,,riil:, ,4%,l,'f,,,,%t,+0t\,%;%,,,, ",a'r> <J'Q%,"';lT_,a:;' s-:'-aa"aa-,,"A)a""'4g,,"'aa";M,,t"a':"!,=,"'l""a't'la"'@:;y;I"'-""al,J'-11,"-',.r' "%', , ya , .Ay ? "31 -' i 1. .}A l - R"a' f-""i "'y"i.y8.<;.!i"7P!"'>"'-':'-'=":-+';'-' _ 1. % } a' . '- ' -! Ai#' : a), - } a ! ;% 1. _., r.. % : ,,,=-=,,.*i,.,A2=s,'-,,;;iY'
Q
!Hq4
!
J
l
ffi
lila
I
Q
leJ
I
:ie
%
;Qi
0i
!!;
:f2
ffi
ai
7:7.

IK!J*!%,-_s
ye
ii
!
q
E
'i
g
g
y,.,y,
)p
'ffi
8J
it:

IW
E!
""J
MNJ
&
2:,!i
fi[rY2at j)S,UW,i
;
E
d
a.':'Y,.m§:7
:.tgd,
i;!'mU%5),ei
f
r
d
5 i_J
p
6 A
!4d
rm
m,.4
!a
1,
i:SqJ
8 !!
["i
151),;5;
!:
;l
k
!:
!
II
I": ";j5-:
bOT!; €A'!4#_al.a -4
§-5i!lli
q..

P
M
!U
!l:a'f '-. .R
attli';;"
'tlW/J "4q4teXj3:(Je.'J,i'€'yQ,y."'o'g, -it)', el_%
!!
li Th
11,
&3Sfflli
a
;j7$,3'$J
!!i
74 %aJ'
ice
[
g5\!l
'!";
!]
;j
g,
ffl
< m'i
443
llx3/a:iue4u3 *
1111
de(H a);5
5ThT@i5Th
444
Item No. 3
Item 3) Once again I strongly urge the COmmissioners to vote no and deny this wretched applicant his despicable request for a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment, This is exactly the kind of scumbaggrythat you all should be opposed too. Commissioners this is your opportunity to put a stop on this properhy owner that wants to have their way with our city's ordinances and laws. How much more ofthis sort of treatment are you people willing to put up with? Correct me if I'm wrong, but item 3, is just more of item 2. Commissioners, please I begyou, don't Sell Out Our CitytO thiS dirtbag. Ifyou have any compassion far the pOOr hard working people in our Citythat are struggLingto make it in thiS cruel WOrld. Please, rejectthis demon's request and VOte nO On item 3.

Hello,
My name is Melodie Cuevas and I Lived in South Gate for over 20 years. I only recently leftthe community when I was 22 years old to Orange County. Moving only 14 miles awayto Orange County, I notice a substantial difference in my quality of life, especially as it regards air quality. I feel completely disheartened to know that my hometown suffers heavilyfrom pollution and negligence. Policies, such as the Zonin@change, that are being introduced only serve to continue to exacerbate this ongoing history of environmentalinjustice. Please consider not purshing this zoning any further and listen to your constituents who are sharingtheir very real concerns with 'lOu.

Thank you,
MeLodie Cuevas
God help us.
35 445
Office or the
South Gate City Clerk
Item No. 6
MAY - 8 2025 4 :"' "
FILED Cig of South Gate

CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BJ[LL
For the Regular Meeting of: May 13, 2025
Originating Department: Human Resources
Human Resources Director:
ilton
City Manager:

Rob Houston
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION O APPROVE THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE

FULL-TIME DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE POSITION TO A FULL-TIME

ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE MANAGER AND TO RETITLE THE FULL-TIME

BUDGET AND FINANCE MANAGER POSITION TO A FULL-TIME BUDGET AND

PROCUREMENT MANAGER IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEP ARTMENT PURPOSE: To reclassify the full-time Deputy Director of Finance position to a full-time Accounting and Finance Manager and to retitle the full-time Budget and Finance Manager position to a full-time Budget and Procurement Manager in the Administrative Services Department.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council will consider adopting a Resolution to approve the reclassification of the full-time Deputy Director of Finance to a full-time Accounting and Finance Manager and the retitling of the full-time Budget and Finance Manager position to a full- time Budget and Procurement Manager in the Administrative Services Department.

FISCAL IMPACT: Approving the reclassification of the full-time Deputy Director of Finance position to the full-time Accounting and Finance Manager will result in salary savings, since the position of Accounting and Finance Manager will be paid $14,988 less a year. Approving the retitling of the Budget and Finance Manager position to a full-time Budget and Procurement Manager will result in no additional fiscal impact to the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Adopted Budget since both positions are paid the same.

ANALYSIS: None.

BACKGROUND: TheCitymust,fromtimetotime,add,remove,reclassify,orotherwiseadjust job classifications, job specifications and/or compensation in the Salary Resolution and Position Classification Plan to satisfy the changing needs and demands of the City's workforce. In response to these changing needs and demands, job classification specifications must be amended to more closely match the tasks which need to be performed by employees in the City's various departments.

Administrative Services staff, Human Resources and the City Manager evaluated the needs and structure of the Administrative Services Department and are recommending the reclassification of 1 446
the full-time Deputy Director of Finance position to a 'full-time Accounting and Finance Manager and the retitling of the full-time Budget and Finance Manager position to a full-time Budget and Procurement Manager. The Accounting and Finance Manager will be paid at Pay Grade 661 ($10,050 to $12,216 per month) resulting in an annual savings of $14,988/year, and it will continue to be assigned to the Division Management Association (DMA). Both positions will remain in the Division Management Association.

ATTACHMENT: Proposed Resolution
2 Z/
447
RESOLUTION NO.

CITY OF SOUTH GATE

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE FULL-TIME

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE POSITION TO A FULL-TIME

ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE MANAGER AND TO RETITLE THE FULL-

TIME BUDGET AND FINANCE MANAGER POSITION TO A FULL-TIME

BUDGET AND PROCUREMENT MANAGER IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

WHEREAS, the City must, from time to time, add or otherwise adjust job classifications, job specifications and/or compensation in the Salary Resolution and Position Classification Plan in order to satisfy the changing needs and demands of the workforce and to more closely match the tasks wich need to be performed by employees in the City's various departments; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to reclassi:[y the full-time Deputy Director of Finance position to a full-time Accounting and Finance Manager and to retitle the :[ull-time Budget and Finance Manager position to a :tull-time Budget and Procurement Manager in the Administrative Services Department.

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

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

SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby approve the reclassification of the full-time Deputy Director of Finance position to a fiill-time Accounting and Finance Manager, which will be paid at Pay Grade 661 ($10,050 to $12,216 per month), and it will continue to be assigned to the Division Management Association (DMA).

SECTION 3. The City Council does hereby approve the retitling of the full-time Budget and Finance Manager position to a full-time Budget and Procurement Manager in the Administrative Services Department.
[Remainder of page left blank intentionally.]

Page 1 of 2 ends

South Gate City CouncilMay 13, 2025

South Gate City Council
May 13, 2025