SOUTH GATE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at
6:30 p.m.
SOUTH GATE COUNCIL CHAMBERS
8650 CALIFORNIA AVE
SOUTH GATE, CA 90280
VIEW MEETING LIVE ONLINE AT:
HTTPS://YOUTUBE.COM/@SOUTHGATECA90280
City Officials
MAYOR,
Maria Davila
CITY CLERK,
Yodit Glaze
VICE MAYOR,
Joshua Barron
CITY TREASURER,
Jose De La Paz
COUNCIL MEMBER,
Maria del Pilar Avalos
CITY MANAGER,
Rob Houston
COUNCIL MEMBER,
Gil Hurtado
CITY ATTORNEY,
Ra
ú
l F. Salinas
COUNCIL MEMBER,
Al Rios
If you would like to participate in this meeting, you can participate via the following options:
1. VIEW THE MEETING LIVE ONLINE AT: https://youtube.com/@SouthGateCA90280 Please allow up to 24 hours after the meeting for the archive to be available.
2. PARTICIPATE BEFORE THE MEETING by emailing the City Clerk at:
[email protected] no later than 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Please write "Public Comment" in the subject line.
3. ATTEND THE MEETING IN PERSON
*The disruption in service of any alternative method does not prelude the City Council or other legislative
body from taking further action and moving forward on the agenda.
Meeting Schedule
The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month, 1 closed session business will usually commence at 5:30 p.m., when scheduled, and general business session will commence at 6:30 p.m.
Brown Act
Agendas are drafted to accurately state what the legislative body is being asked to consider. The legislative body can take action on "all items" listed on the agenda and be in compliance with the open meeting laws. Under the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The governing body may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future meeting.
City's Vision Statement
We envision a thriving, safe and inclusive community where everyone has the opportunity to access exceptional services, education and support to be resilient and live full, vibrant lives.
Public Communications
Public Comments on agenda items are limited to three (3) minutes. All comments are to be addressed directly to the Agency Members not to the members of the public.
Emails for public comment received prior to 4:00 pm on the day of the Council Meeting will be summarized by the City Clerk, not read in its entirety. A copy of the email will be provided to the City Council and will also be available at the City Clerk's Office for public review. A copy of each email will be recorded for public record and noted on the official minutes of tonight's meeting.
Call to Order/Roll Call With Invocation & Pledge
CALL TO ORDER:
Maria Davila, Mayor
INVOCATION:
Pastor Ernesto Trejo, South Gate Church of Christ
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Luis Frausto, Director of Administrative Services
ROLL CALL:
Yodit Glaze, City Clerk
Presentation
1. Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District Presentation
The City Council will consider receiving and filing a presentation from Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District. (CM)
Documents:
Item 1 Report 05132025.pdf
Public Hearings
2. Authorize City Manager to Execute Agreement with Alameda Engle Properties (AEP) to Terminate All Use of the Property at 8530 Alameda Street
The City Council will consider: (AS)
2 1
.
DISCUSS
a proposed agreement for the termination of all truck trailer storage, the removal of all trucks trailers, the implementation of air quality monitoring, and the transition of the property at 8530 Alameda Street, South Gate (“Subject Property”) to a legally allowable use;
2 .
ACCEPT
the determination that this matter is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act;
3 .
AUTHORIZE
the City Manager to execute agreement included in Attachment 1.
Documents:
Item 2 Report 05132025.pdf
3. Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision upholding the Director's Determination to Deny an Extension of Temporary Use Permit No. 2020-01 for Truck Trailer Storage at a Property Located at 8530 Alameda Street
The City Council will consider: (CD)
1 .
CONDUCT
a public hearing pursuant to South Gate Municipal Code Section
11.50.040.B;
2 .
ACCEPT
the determination that this matter is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act;
3 .
ADOPT
the findings as outlined in the Resolution (Attachment A); and 4 .
UPHOLD
the decision of the Planning Commission to uphold the determination of the Director of Community Development to deny an extension of TUP No. 2020-01.
Documents:
Item 3 Report 05132025.pdf
4. Appeal of Planning Commission’s Decision upholding the Director’s determination that the legal, nonconforming
use for metal processing and/or
recycling activities at a property located at 8530 Alameda Street have been abandoned and can no longer be conducted, and the use of the site for truck trailer storage as a principal use is not
a legal, nonconforming use and must be
immediately terminated
The City Council will consider: (CD)
1 .
CONDUCT
a public hearing pursuant to South Gate Municipal Code Section
11.50.040.B;
2 .
ACCEPT
the determination that this matter is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act;
3 .
ADOPT
the findings as outlined in the Resolution (Attachment A); and 4 .
UPHOLD
the decision of the Planning Commission upholding the determination of the Director of Community Development that the legal, nonconforming use for a metal processing and/or recycling activities at the subject property have been abandoned and can no longer be conducted, and the use of the site for truck trailer storage as a principal use unrelated to metal processing/recycling activities is not a legal, nonconforming use and must be immediately terminated. 3 Documents:
Item 4 Report 05132025.pdf
Attachment A.pdf
Attachment B.pdf
Attachment C.pdf
Attachment D.pdf
Attachment E.pdf
Attachment F.pdf
5. Zone Change and General Plan Amendment for a Property Located at 8530 Alameda Street to change the zone from IF
(Industrial Flex) to M3 (Heavy
Manufacturing)
The City Council will consider: (CD)
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 of the General Plan regarding removing the subject property from the South Gate College District.
Documents:
Item 5 Report 05132025.pdf
Comments From The Audience - Non-Agenda Items
During this time, members of the public may address the City Council regarding any items not listed on the agenda and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council and not on this agenda. Comments from the audience will be limited to three (3) minutes per speaker; unless authorized by the Mayor, the time limit may not be extended by utilizing another member's time. There will be no debate or action on items not listed on the agenda unless authorized by law. The collective initial period of time for comments from the audience shall be limited to 45 minutes. Any speaker that did not get a chance to speak during this segment due to the 45-minute limitations will be able to speak at the end of the meeting prior to adjournment.
Note: The City Council desires to provide all members of the public with the opportunity to address the Council. Nevertheless, obscene language, comments intended to disrupt/interfere, other actions which disrupt the progress of the meeting or slanderous comments will not be tolerated and may result in ejection and/or may constitute a violation of South Gate Municipal Code Section1.04.110.
Reports And Comments From City Officials
During this time, members of the City Council will report on matters pertaining to their service on various intergovernmental boards and commissions as a representative of the City 4 pursuant to Assembly Bill 1234. City Council Members will also have an opportunity to comment on matters not on the agenda.
Consent Calendar Items
Agenda Items
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and
12 are Consent Calendar Items. All items including
Ordinances, Resolutions and Contracts, may be approved by adoption of the Consent Calendar, individually and collectively by one (1) motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless Members of the City Council, the public, or staff request that specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion and action. Members of the public are permitted to speak on any item listed but their time period is limited to three (3) minutes in total.
Any motion to introduce or adopt an Ordinance on the Consent Calendar shall be: (1) a motion to waive the reading of the Ordinance and introduce the Ordinance or (2) a motion to waive the reading of the Ordinance and adopt the Ordinance, as appropriate.
6. Resolution reclassifying the Full-Time Deputy Director of Finance to the Accounting and Finance Manager retitling
the Full- Time Budget and Finance
Manager to the Budget and Procurement Manager in the Administrative Services Department
The City Council will consider: (HR)
a. Adopting a Resolution to approve the reclassification of 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.
Documents:
Item 6 Report 05132025.pdf
7. Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. 2023-58-AC with Executive Management Security, Inc., for Parks S
ecurity
The City Council will consider: (HR)
a. Approving Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. 2023-58-AC with Executive Management Security, Inc., (“Agreement”) to extend the term of the Agreement for unarmed security services in the amount not-to-exceed $115,000 and to continue services through November 1, 2025; and
b. Authorizing the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 2 in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
Documents:
Item 7 Report 05132025.pdf
5 8. Amendment No. 4 to Contract No. 2023-94-CC with MV Cheng & Associates for Temporary Professional Staffing Services
The City Council will consider: (AS)
a. Approving Amendment No. 4 to Contract No. 2023-94-CC with MV Cheng & Associates, through June 30, 2025, for temporary professional finance and accounting services in an amount not-to-exceed $85,000;
b. Appropriate $85,000 from the General Fund reserves to expenditure account number 100-301-12-6101 (Professional Services) to fund temporary professional staffing service; and
c. Authorizing the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 4 in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
Documents:
Item 8 Report 05132025.pdf
9. Agreement with Sequel Contractors, Inc., for construction of the Citywide
Residential Resurfacing Project,
Phase IV, City Project No. 699-ST and the Citywide
Sidewalk Improvement Project, Phase X,
City Project
No. 698-ST
The City Council will consider: (PW)
a. Approving an Agreement with Sequel Contractors, Inc., to construct the Citywide Residential Resurfacing, Phase IV, City Project No. 699-ST, and the Citywide Sidewalk Improvement Project, Phase X, City Project No. 698-ST, in an amount not-to-exceed $3,638,773, inclusive of the $3,546,573 Base Bid and $92,200 in Additive Alternate Bid; b. Authorizing the Mayor to execute the Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney;
c. Authorizing the City Manager to approve contract change orders up to a cumulative amount of $545,816 to avoid delaying construction and payment of invoices involving change order work;
d. Transferring $70,000 in Measure R Funds and $100,000 in Development Funds from the Firestone Boulevard Enhancement Capacity, City Project No. 476-ST to the Residential Resurfacing Phase IV, City Project No. 699-ST, to fund drainage improvements at the intersection of the Firestone Boulevard and Dearborn Avenue; e. Transferring $89,000 in Measure R Funds and $101,000 in Prop C Local Return Funds from the Garfield Avenue and Imperial Highway Street Improvements, City Project No. 419-ST to the Residential Resurfacing Phase IV, City Project No. 699-ST, to fund the construction of the U-turn pocket on Imperial Highway;
f. Appropriating $752,540 in Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) Funds to the Residential Resurfacing, Phase IV, City Project No. 699-ST to fund improvements on Industrial Avenue, Pinehurst Avenue, and Hildreth Avenue; g.
Transferring $210,000 in Road Mitigation Funds and $250,000 in Urban Greening Funds from the Long Beach Boulevard Street Improvements, City Project No. 515-ST to the Residential Resurfacing Phase IV, City Project No. 699-ST, to fund ADA curb ramps, pedestrian lighting, and traffic loop replacements on Long Beach Boulevard; 6 h.
Appropriating $350,000 in Water Funds to the Residential Resurfacing, Phase IV, City Project No. 699-ST to fund water improvements on Frontage Road East; i. Adopting a finding determining the Residential Resurfacing Project IV as categorically exempt under Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15301 and the projects are categorically exempt under Existing Facilities Section 15301 Class (c) Existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities (including road grading for the purpose of public safety) and to be categorically excluded under Section 326 of amended Chapter 3 of Title 23, United States Code (23 U.S.C. § 326) without significant impacts on the environment as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”); and
j. Approving the Notice of Exemption for the construction of the Residential Resurfacing Phase IV Project and directing the City Clerk to file it with the Los Angeles County Registrar Recorder’s Office.
Documents:
Item 9 Report 05132025.pdf
10. Agreement with Chamber of Commerce for Promotion of Community Activities
The City Council will consider:
a. Approving an Agreement with the South Gate Chamber of Commerce for promotion of community activities in Fiscal Year 2025/2026 in the amount not to exceed $50,000; and
b. Authorizing the Mayor to execute the Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
Documents:
Item 10 Report 05132025.pdf
11. Change Order No. 1 with Fast Deer Bus Charter, Inc., to Provide Buses for Recreation Programs
The City Council will consider approving: (PARKS)
a. Approving a change order in the amount of $26,840 to increase the overall original purchase order issued to Fast Deer Charter, Inc., to the amount of $67,141 (P.O. No. 0008804) to provide transportation for Parks and Recreation trips for the remainder of the current fiscal year 2024/25; and
b. Authorizing the Director of Parks and Recreation to execute any additional documents needed.
Documents:
Item 11 Report 05132025.pdf
7 12. Purchase and Installation of New Scoreboard for the Marvin Cole Gymnasium
The City Council will consider: (PARKS)
a. Approving a purchase order with ABV Scoreboard Services, Inc.(NEVCO) for delivery, and installation of scoreboard equipment at the Sports Center in the amount of $77,589.23; and
b. Authorizing the Director of Parks & Recreation to approve any additional costs needed to complete the purchase and installation of the scoreboards.
Documents:
Item 12 Report 05132025.pdf
Reports, Recommendations And Requests
13. Resolution making certain findings for an exception to the 180-Day wait period
The City Council will consider: (HR)
a. Adoption of a Resolution making certain findings that allow a recently retired Director of Finance to be hired for temporary, part-time employment with the City of South Gate commencing within the 180-day wait period from his retirement from the City of South Pasadena.
Documents:
Item 13 Report 05132025.pdf
14. Mid-Year Budget Report and Adjustments for Fiscal Year 2024-25
The City Council will approve: (AS)
a. Approve the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget Report and Adjustments; b. Approve of Fiscal Year 2023-24 Capital Improvement Program Carryovers; and c. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of South Gate Approving Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Mid-Year Budget Amendments and Adjustments.
Documents:
Item 14 Report 05132025.pdf
15. Warrant Register for May 13, 2025
The City Council will consider
approving the Warrant Register for May 13, 2025. (ADMIN SVCS)
Total of Checks: $4,401,372.00 Less: Voids $ (2,351.02)
Less: Employee Payroll Deductions
$
(382,601.36)
Grand Total: $4,016,419.62
8 Cancellations: 104574, 104575, 105343, 106463, 106819, 107089, 107642, 107675, 107694, 107712, 107764, 107848
Documents:
Item 15 Report 05132025.pdf
Adjournment
I, Yodit Glaze, City Clerk, certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Meeting Agenda was posted on May 8, 2025, at 05:55 p.m., as required by law.
Yodit Glaze
City Clerk
GENERAL NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
The City Council adopted new rules relating to the conduct of the public meetings, proceedings, and business in the City of South Gate on July 12, 2022, (Resolution 2022-38-CC) and go into effect on August 1, 2022. Resolution #2022-38-CC is available at the City Clerk’s Office.
MEETING SCHEDULE
Regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month, closed session meetings will commence at 5:30 p.m. unless posted otherwise on its agenda. The regular City Council meetings will commence at 6:30 p.m. Agendas are available at the following locations:
City Clerk
Office,
Public Notice Boards at City Hall, and on the
City’s web page at https://www.cityofsouthgate.org
The Public can sign up to receive automatic notices of postings of agendas for the City Council or any other Commission or Board of the City of South Gate. Visit the City webpage and click on the Agenda & Minutes icon. That will take you the page where an individual can enter their email in the “Email Updates” box to register.
PUBLIC COMMENT/PARTICIPATION
Any person may request to address a legislative body during a public meeting. The Presiding Officer will call upon those present in the Council Chambers.
Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes on any item listed on the agenda, including public hearings.
Under Comments from the Audience portion, speakers are also limited to a single three (3) minutes time limit. Comments from the Audience is initially limited to 45 minutes at each meeting. Any speaker still wishing to speak, that did not speak, will have an addition Comments from the Audience opportunity after the last business item is finished. The Presiding Officer may extend the time limit as long as there is no objection from the City Council as a body.
To ensure that the public is able to participate, the City provides the opportunity to submit their comments in person, email, mail. Methods of participation may be subject to change during other such times when a State of Emergency, Health Order or State Executive Order limits in-person participation.
CURFEW
In absence of a motion duly adopted by majority vote of the City Council, the Presiding Officer may 9 adjourn the City Council meetings at 10:30 p.m. The Presiding Officer may ask the City Council if any agenda items listed should be continued or dealt with during the meeting. For those items to be continued, the City Council can direct the item be placed on the next City Council agenda or the current meeting may be adjourned to a time certain at which time the meeting shall be reconvened as an Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council and action upon the published agenda continued.
STAFF REPORTS
As a general rule, staff reports. or other written documentation are prepared/organized with respect to each item of business listed on the agenda. Meeting agendas and staff reports are available at least 72- hours prior to the scheduled regular City Council meeting and a minimum of 24-hours prior to a Special City Council meeting. There are times when the City Council receives written material. revised material after the posting of agendas, these materials are become a public record and will be available for public view within 72-hours after the meeting in which they were received. Those materials and any other public document can be inspected in the City Clerk's Office located at 8650 California Avenue, South Gate.
SERVICES TO FACILITATE ACCESS TO PUBLIC MEETINGS
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in the City Council Meetings, please contact the Office of the City Clerk. Notification 48 hours prior to the City Council Meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility. For further information, please contact the Office of the City Clerk at (323) 563-9510 or via email at [email protected]
.
10 Office ofthe
South Gate City C
MAY - 7
FILED
o
0 J
o
z
o
0 o
0 LLI
z
o
0 J
O
o. I
11 We are the largest of 5 vector control special districts servicing LA County, with our current cost per single family home being $18.97 annually.
G6rrnari
PaThffidaJe:4
il <
'h!"=!a'tiQ;gt-""Ol3i ' 8
12 140 Travel-associated cases in GLACV
3 Locally acquired cases in GLACVC
- 14 cases in LA County
1.1 0 * * * e" " "*
13 "Our departments control mosquitoes through surveillance, management, education, & outreach" 14 'J'7
a Phone
a Website
- Door-to-door yard inspections
- Control efforts
"!'
15 o
d@.
16 o
17 o
18 o
o
o
19 0
o
o
o
10 20
South Gate
Greater LA Court Vector Control District
Activ!ties: 17i/2022 - 12/3j7202A
. ,A
4=4
.W=.j'.
'ili
Mosquito Souroes
@ Stomi Water Struauras & Dralni: 335
Inspections: 20221i601 )
202311,768 )
202411538)
@ Paids & Pools: n
Inspections: 2022 179 )
2023(50)
zoza(az)
@ Rmid*ntial & Public: 1,216
Inspec&ns: 2022 (1,139)
2023 ( 594 )
2CQ41 726)
y- =F-
a' ff
l -! l
see
IIs@
21 Scientific & Technical Department
Utilizes innovative field and laboratory techniques to monitor mosquito, black fly, and midge populations as well as vector-borne diseases. 'i =l
rJ' - aBlack Fly Surveillance
aJJl
Mosquito Trapping Mosquito Identification
h ;'
ii - ; (
Dead Bird Testing
22 13 23
SIT Benefits
24 Community
Outreach Youth Education City/Community
Presentations
00 lass
Traditional
Media & Social
Media
25 r With Us
:d
Encourage residents to call & visit District website to submit service requests Add a District tab to city websites and a rolling item on city marquees/newsletters " ;'aa" m a'
,%;tJJsA'J*M'i ml0l ay
26 "***I
eases
a *
,,II,II@
d l'@I@
"Alll"@ AA Il#'lll@'
27 Item No. 2
Office of the
Gout)i Gate City Clerk
MAY - 8 2025 2:(F
Cil of South Gate
CITY COUNCIL
FILED
AGENIDA IBJ[TlT[,
DirectorofCommunifflDevelopment: IgA[)47 CityMant
GabrieYPerezl /'
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH
ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES (AEP) TO TERMINATE ALL USE OF THE PROPERTY AT 8530 ALAMEDA STREET AS A TRUCK TRAILER STORAGE
FACILITY AND TO IMPLEMENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING, AND
DETERMINING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENT AL QUALITY ACT (PL 23-0061, PL 25-0054, PL 25-0070) PURPOSE: To review an agreement between the City, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP"), Fleet Yards, Inc. ("Fleet Yards"), and the City listing the terins and timeline for the ternnination of all truck trailer storage, the removal of all trucks trailers, the implementation of air quality monitoring, and the transition of the property at 8530 Alameda Street, South Gate ("Subject Property") to a legally allowable use.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Proiect Location:
Assessor's Parcel Number:
Property Owner:
Tenant/Occupant:
Appellant/Representative:
General Plan Designation:
7. :
8530 Alameda Street
6202-036-003
Alameda Engle Properties (Jason Engle)
Fleet Yards, Inc. (Daniel Otting)
Sara Atsbaha, Somos Law Group
Industrial (Cornrnunity Design Element, Figure CD 1, Existing Land Uses)
South Gate College District Subarea 1 (Community Design Element, Figure CD 4, Districts)
IF (Industrial Flex)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. DISCUSS a proposed agreement for the teri'nination of all truck trailer storage, the removal of all trucks trailers, the implementation of air quality monitoring, and the transition of the property at 8530 Alameda Street, South Gate ("Subject Property") to a legally allowable use;
2. ACCEPT the determination that this matter is exempt from tlie California Environi'nental Quality Act;
3. AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute agreement included in Attachment 1.
ENVIRONMENT AL EV ALUATION
The City Council's detennination on an agreement to tenninate a use 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 an agreement to terminate a use at a site, 28 and therefore does not coinrnit the City to any definite course of action regarding a new use on the subject property. Furthert'nore, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves pursuant to Section 15270(a).
BACKGROUND
Notwithstanding the erroneous issuance of a Temporary Use Permit in July 2020, City Staff has diligently and consistently been seeking the termination of the use ofthe Subject Property for truck trailer storage - including by denying any extension of Temporaiy Use Permit TUP 2020-01, rejecting any assertion by Alameda Engle Properties ("AEP") and/or Fleet Yards that such use is not legal, nonconforming and must otherwise cease, and recoinmending denial of any change of zone for the Subject Property and amendments to the zoning of the Subject Property or the General Plan that would otherwise allow such use to continue.
As a result of the City's efforts, AEP has exercised its due process rights to appeal first to the Planning Commission and subsequently to the City Council, the the Community Development Director's decision to deny any extension of TUP 2020-01 and the Community Development Director's determination that the use of the Subject Property for truck trailer storage is not a legal, nonconforming use and that it must otherwise tenninate (hereinafter, "Appeals"). AEP's Appeals and the public hearing regarding AEP's application for a zone change and general plan amendment (hereinafl:er, collectively, "Public Hearings") were scheduled for April 22, 2025.
At tlie Public Hearings on April 22, 2025, AEP requested a continuance of the Public Hearings to negotiate the terms of an Agreement with the City to terminate all use of the Subject Property for truck trailer storage - wliich, once entered, AEP would withdraw its Appeals and its application for a zone cliange and to amend the City's General Plan.
After hearing from AEP's legal counsel, the public was provided an opportunity to give public testimony prior to the City Council's consideration of AEP's request to continue the Public Hearings. Variousmembersofthepublicprovidedcomi'nentsonAEP'srequestforacontinuance, as well as on the following three Public Hearings:
1. Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision on Director's Determination:
Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Corni'nission's decision upholding the Director's determination to deny an extension of Temporary Use Permit No. 2020-01 for truck trailer storage at the Subject Property. * Owner/Appellant: Alameda Engle Properties (Jason Engle) @ Representative: Somos Law Group representing Alameda Engle Properties, LLC
2. Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision on Director's Determination:
Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision upholding the Director's deteimination that the legal, nonconforming use for metal processing and/or recycling activities at the Subject Property. have been abandoned and can no longer be re-commenced or conducted, and that the use of tlie site for truck trailer storage as a principal rise unrelated to metal processing/recycling activities is not a legal, nonconforining use and must be immediately teri'ninated. * Owner/Appellant: Alameda Engle Properties (Jason Engle) * Representative: Somos Law Group representing Alameda Engle Properties, LLC
29 3. Zone Change and General Plan Amendment: Request to change the zoning of a property at 8530 Alameda Street from IF (Industrial Flex) to M3 (Heavy Manufacturing) and remove the subject property from the South Gate College District as shown in the Community Design Element of the General Plan, including related text changes. On March 18, 2025, the Planning Comi'nission reviewed the request and voted unanimously to recommend denial to the City Cormcil. * Owner/Applicant: Alameda Engle Properties (Jason Engle) * Representative: Somos Law Group representing Alameda Engle Properties, LLC
There were 24 speakers who provided public testimony. At the conclusion of the public testimony, Council voted, 3-2 (Council Members Avalos and Rios dissenting), to continue the Public Hearings to the regularly scheduled meeting on May 13, 2025.
ANALYSIS:
City Staff has diligently and consistently been seeking the termination of the use of the Subject Property for truck trailer storage - however, the City is required to ensure tliat AEP and Fleet Yards are provided with their due process rights pursuant to the US Constitution and California Constitution. These due process rights include AEP's right to challenge decisions that have been made by the Comi'nunity Development Director to the Plai'ining Commission - and the right to appeal the Planning Comt'nission's decision to the City Council.
During the course of these proceedings, City Staff has sought AEP's voluntary compliance with existing laws and the General Plan, however, City Staff was unwilling to recommend any agreement with AEP based upon AEP's desire to be granted ten (10) years to terininate tlie truck trailer storage use of the Subject Property. In consideration of AEP's and Fleet Yards' refusal to terminate the truck trailer storage use in a timely fashion - and in consideration of the health and safety concerns raised by the public, City Staff has steadfastly moved forward with the Public Hearings required for the City to lawfully terminate the truck trailer storage use of tlie Subject Property.
AEP and Fleet Yards is now prepared to enter into an agreement with the City which would result in, amongst other benefits, the following:
a) Teri'nination of all truck trailer and container storage at the Subject Property on or before May 13, 2026;
b) Ternnination of all tnick trailer and container storage at the parcel contiguous to the Subject Property (that is located in unincorporated Los Angeles County) on or before May 13, 2026;
c) Implementation of specified air quality monitoring efforts to address envirorunental concerns;
d) Immediate withdrawal of all Appeals and the request for a zone change and General Plan Amendment, as well as a waiver of any claims and/or causes of action AEP and/or Fleet Yards may have against the City related to the subject matter of the Public Hearings; and,
3 30
e) Assurances from AEP that it will seek an allowable use of the Subject Property, and that it will otherwise adhere to all applicable laws - including the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan.
There are a number of reasons why the City Council may consider the settlement agreement as the best option to achieve compliance, including:
1. City Staff and the coinmunity share concerns about the truck trailer and container storage on both the Subject Property in South Gate and upon the contiguous property located in unincorporated Los Angeles County creating and/or contributing to nuisance activities and conditions, as well as potential health and safety hazards. Settlement by means of the proposed Agreement would lead to the applicant's voluntary coinmitment to terminate all truck trailer and container storage activities on the City and County propeities - thereby eliminating all adverse impacts from these activities upon our coinmunity. Without this Agreement, any decision by the City Council on the Public Hearings would have no impact upon the property in the unincorporated County - and would likely result in AEP and/or Fleet Yards continuing current operations on the County side.
2. The Agreement would result in the teri'nination of all truck trailer and container storage - including the removal of all truck trailers and containers from the Subject Property (and the contiguous property in LA County) by a date certain - on or before May 13, 2026. A one-year transition period will allow the applicant to transition to an acceptable use.
3. The Agreement provides for specified air quality monitoring by AEP, and would require AEP to work proactively with the City to ensure that environmental conceriis are addressed under the Agreement.
4. Entering into the Agreement would result in the voluntary withdrawal of all Appeals - and would result in the previous decisions by the Planning Coinrnission (to deny the extension of the TUP, that the metal processing/recycling activities have been abandoned, and that the truck trailer and container storage is not legal, nonconforming) to be final and binding and not subject to further challenge by AEP or Fleet Yards.
5. Should the City Council reject the Agreement, and, instead, proceed with the Public Hearings, any decision adverse to AEP's and/or Fleet Yards' interests would likely be appealed and/or challenged in the Superior Court - and, if necessary, appealed to higher couits thereafter. If litigated, the applicant may employ tactics to delay immediate closure, including seeking a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction staying any decisions of the City Council. Such appeals could result in a delay in terminating the truck trailer and container storage for rip to 2 to 3 years.
6. The outcome of litigation is uncertain. Litigation is also costly and time-consuming, and could require dedicated City resources for two to three years. Regardless of the outcome, the City could expect to pay in excess of $350,000 to defend against litigation.
7. The applicant will also likely seek damages from the loss of its tenant, rental income and business interniption, estimated to be upwards of $11,000,000 based on current rent multiplied by tlie expected timeframe to complete litigation. AEP will also likely seek a finding of inverse condemnation obligating the City to pay just compensation for a 31 regulatory taking of the property, which is valued at approximately $60,000,000.
8. AEP has a financial interest in seeing the property re-purposed for an appropriate use for long-term investment. Although transition to an allowable, pernnitted use may take up to 1 year, it would likely be sooner. The applicant would iinmediately begin the process to repurpose the property to avoid gaps in rental income,
9. Once litigation is commenced, neither AEP nor Fleet Yards are likely to enter into an agreement with terms favorable to tlie City - and might reject any and all future settlement discussions and/or offers. If AEP does entertain settlement discussions with tlie City a'Jier the commencement of litigation, the applicant may request payment for the loss of rental income and business interniption, as well as other perceived damages.
10. Under a settlement agreement, the applicant would agree to indemnify and defend the City against any CEQA challenge. The City has authority to issue an abatement schedule pursuant to its enforcement powers. . The one-year transition period in the settlement agreement is well within this allotted timeframe.
CONCLUSION
The City Council has the options to (i) enter into tlie Agreement - and all appeals and applications by AEP will be witlidrawn; or (ii) reject the Agreement and proceed with the Public Hearings.
Table 1 depicts a comparison of what the City could expect if it were to accept the Agreement versus should the City Council reject the Agreement and reach a decision at the Public Hearings that is adverse to AEP.
TABLE 1- COMPARISON TABLE OF OPTIONS
Decision Approve Settlement
Agreement
Reject Settlement
Agreement and Hold
Public Hearings
Reject Settlement
Agreement and
Hold Public
Hearings
Action Authorize the City
Manager to execute
Settlement Agreement
with AEP and Fleet Yards
Uphold Planning
Coinmission's decision to
deny appeals and deny Zone
Change and General Plan
Amendment (after
conducting Public Hearings)
Grant appeals and/or
Zone Change and
General Plan
A_+'nendment (after
conducting Public
Hearings)
Ramifications Teri'nination of all truck
trailer and container
storage 011 City-side __and
County-side of property.
Air quality monitoring.
Transition to an allowed
use
Litigation by the AEP
and/or Fleet Yards
Truck trailer storage
use will continue
Termination of Use On or before May 13,
2026
2-3 years due to litigation Unknown (if ever)
City's Cost $0 Potentially $11 million or
32 ldefe1nnOsreeo"fncliltuigda"ntigonCa'nydsany, costs for damages.
The Staff recoininends the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the settlement agreement to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation that has an uncertain outcome, and would most certainly lead to a delay in the closure of the truck trailer storage facility.
ATT ACHMENTS:
1. Settlement Agreement
33 Attachment 1
AGREEMENT FOR THE TERMINATION OF TRUCK TRAILER STORAGE USE,
IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR QUALITY MONITORING, AND TRANSITION TO PERMITTED USE OF REAL PROPERTY AT 8530 ALAMEDA STREET
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SOUTH GATE
AND
ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES LLC
The CITY OF SOUTH GATE, a California municipal corporation ("City") and ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES LLC, a California limited liability company ("AEP") hereby enter into the following Agreement For The Termination Of Truck Trailer Storage Use, Implementation Of Air Quality Monitoring, And Transition To Permitted Use Of Real Property At 8530 Alameda Street ("Agreement") regarding the present use of tlie property located at 8530 Alameda Street, City of South Gate, California (the "Property") for container and truck trailer storage (the "Use"). The City and AEP may be referred to individually as a "Party" or collectively as the "Parties" herein.
WHEREAS, since the 1960s, AEP and/or its predecessor(s) in interest have operated a metals processing business at the Property which included the shipment of scrap metals in truck trailers and containers, as well as the onsite storage of those truck trailers and containers at tlie Property in conjunction with the metal processing business; WHEREAS, in or around March of 2020, AEP ceased all recycling and metal processing activities, AEP leased the Property to its current tenant, Fleet Yards Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Fleet Yards") for truck trailer and container storage and delivery independent of the former recycling and metal processing activities;
WHEREAS, the City issued a Temporary Use Permit TUP 2020-01 ("TUP") on or about July 16, 2020 for the Use at the Property for a one-year period of time, with the possibility of four (4) one-year extensions;
WHEREAS, in or around December 2022, the South Gate Community Development Director denied AEP and Fleet Yards' request to extend the TUP in part as a result of the limitations set forth in the South Gate Mui'iicipal Code related to the duration of TUPs; WHEREAS, AEP timely appealed the Director's denial of the extension of TUP 2020- 01, on May 2, 2023, the Planning Corni'nission upheld the Director's Determination and upheld the denial of the extension of the TUP as set forth in Resolution No. 2023-05 - A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of South Gate, State of California, Upholding the Director 34 of Community Development's Decision to Deny an Extension of Temporary Use Permit No. 2020-01 for Truck Trailer Storage at 8530 Alameda Street ("Res. 2023-05").
WHEREAS, in or around May 2023, AEP requested a fori'nal determination that the continued use of tlie property for truck trailer and container storage was a valid "legal non- confori'ning use" ("LNCU") wliich the City Planning Commission ultimately denied via City Resolution No. 2025-04 - A Resolution Of The Plannirig Commission Of The City Of South Gate, State Of California, DenyingAn AppealAnd Upholding The Director Of Community Development's Determination And Noncompliance Notification Regarding Recycling/Metal ProcessingAnd Truck Trailer Storage At 8530 Alameda Street, And Determining The Action Is Exempt From The California Environmental Quality Act ("Res. 2025-04"); WHEREAS, in or around October 2024, AEP submitted an Application for a Zone Change (ZC) and General Plan Amendment (GPA) ("ZC/GPA Application") for the Property, to which the City Planning Commission recoini'nended rejection via City Resolution No. 2025-05 - A Resolution Of The Planning Commission Of The City Of South Gate, State Of California, Recommending To The City CouncilDenial OfA Request To Change The Zoning OfA Property At 8530 Alameda Street From If (Industrial Flex) To M3 (Heavy Manufctcturing) And Remove The Subject Property From The South Gate College District As Shown It? The Community Design Element Of The General Plan ("Res. 2025-05");
WHEREAS, AEP timely appealed Res. 2023-05 upholding tlie denial of an extension of the TUP tnick trailer storage at the Property, Res. 2025-04 rejecting AEP's assertion that the Use constituted an LNCU at tlie Property, and Res. 2025-05 wherein the City Planning Commission recoini'nended rejection of AEP's ZC/GPA Application, all of which are scheduled for public hearings before the City Council on May 13, 2025 (collectively the "Appeals"); WHEREAS, AEP has agreed to withdraw the Appeals and terminate the Use at the Property on or before May 13, 2026, and to seek the City's assistance for the transition of the Property to alternative use(s) consistent with relevant provisions of the South Gate Municipal Code and General Plan;
WHEREAS, the Parties now desire to enter into this Agreement to memorialize the teri'ns under which the AEP will terminate tlie Use at the Property and the City will support the Property's transition to a different use;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein and other good and sufficient consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acla'iowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
1. No Admission. Except as so provided herein, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as an admission by any Party of liability, or as a waiver of any claim or defense. However, this section shall not diminish or otlierwise affect the obligations, responsibilities and duties of the Parties under this Agreement. In entering into tliis Agreement, the City is relying on its policing powers to require the cessation of any land use it believes is inconsistent with its Municipal Code, and consistent with its practice of allowing a reasonable time for the cessation of such use as part of its broad policing powers. 2of9
35 2. Avoidance of Litigation and Enforcement. The Parties acknowledge that this Agreement provides for the cessation and transition of the Use at the Property, including portions of the Property which lie outside the City's territorial boundaries, but OIIIY until the Termination Date, and results in the withdrawal of AEP's continued prosecution of its Appeals, including potential litigation resulting therefrom, as well as avoids the City's potential pursuit of any enforcement action(s) against AEP and/or its tenant(s) regarding the Use at the Property.
3. Termination of the Use.
3. 1. AEP agrees to take all necessary and reasonable steps to terminate the Use at the Property, whether by AEP, its tenants, any subtenants and/or other users of the Property - including the removal of all truck trailers and containers located or stored at the Property, after a period of no more than twelve (12) months ("Closeout Period") following the execution of this Agreement or May 13, 2026, whicliever comes first ("Termination Date"). The Parties agree that the Closeout Period shall not be extended for any reason. If necessary, the City may bar entry into the Property after May 13, 2026 to prevent the continued Use, and, AEP agrees that the City may enter the Property and may undertake at AEP's expense the cost of removal of any trailers or related trucking vehicles tl'iat remain after that date.
3.2. AEP agrees that it shall not cause or allow any person or entity other than AEP and/or Fleet Yards to operate or control the Use at tlie Subject Property. The Parties acknowledge that the levels of Use may vary from month to month during the Closeout Period. AEP agrees that the intensity of the Use during the Closeout Period will remain consistent with the historical Use levels at the Property over the past five (5) years. In addition to adherence to Paragraph 3.1, herein above, AEP represents and warrants that by the Terinination Date there shall be a complete cessation of all illegal nonconforming rise at the Property, as determined in the sole discretion of the Director of Coinmunity Development, including any use that falls within the scope of the Appeals pending before the City Council.
3.3. AEP agrees that the termination of the Use includes the terinination of tlie truck trailer and container storage on the AEP property adjacent to the Propeity and located within the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County ("LAC Property").
3.4. The Parties agree that the Closeout Period is reasonable and necessary to peri'nit AEP and the existing tenant adequate time to, without limitation:
3.4.1. apply for building and otlier necessary state and local pernnits to remove, demolish or dismantle tlie facilities and operations at the Property related to the Use;
3.4.2. issue adequate notices to remove and vacate any and all privately owned containers at the Property prior to tl'ie Termination Date;
3.4.3. comply with existing lease and site-specific financing obligations; and/or 3 of 9
36 3.4.4. take other necessary and reasonable steps to mitigate the economic loss to be incurred from terininating the Use and/or relocating current operations.
4. Property Transition Support.
4.1. Subject to its independent police powers, the City agrees to work with AEP and/or potential tenants, purchasers or representatives of same (collectively "AEP Parties") in good faith to assist with the identification of potential uses of the Property, potential occupants of the Property, as well as other development and planning information reasonably requested by the AEP Parties seeking to purchase, lease, occupy and/or otherwise use the Property in support of tlie Property's prompt transition and re- utilization.
4.2. Upon request by an AEP Party, the City agrees to meet and confer at least four (4) times during the Closeout Period ("Pre-development Meeting(s)") and thereafter as reasonably necessary to confiri'n appropriate alternate uses allowed under current zoning, confiri'n the appropriate entitlement pathway(s) for such uses, advise the AEP Party regarding requirements for filing for new Projects, and, subject to its independent police and other municipal powers, to expedite processing of any applications submitted to tlie City for permits, entitlements or other municipal requirements necessary to facilitate such altetnate uses of the Property upon submission of completed applications, supporting materials, and applicable fees.
4.3. The City agrees in good faith to promptly acknowledge receipt of any project applications submitted by an AEP Party, to promptly advise tlie AEP Party of any application deficiencies or data needs preventing the application from being deemed complete, and to expedite processing of any project applications submitted by an AEP Party for any use of the Property upon submission of completed applications, supporting materials, and applicable fees. The form of assistance described herein shall be consistent with the ordinary course of business and no greater than the City's non'nal processes available to the public generally.
4.4. The Parties agree that expedited City support for project applications will be undertaken at the AEP Party's expense, however, the Parties acknowledge and agree that expedited City support does not guarantee any specific recoinmendation by City Staff nor decision by tlie Planning Coinmission or City Council.
4.5. AEP agrees to abide by tlie applicable land use laws and regulations with respect to any future development of tlie Property including the City's Municipal and Zoning Codes, General Plan and/or any restrictive covenants and agreements encumbering the Property.
AEP reserves the right to pursue projects that may require modification and/or amendments of applicable land use and zoning regulations applicable to the Property, including but not limited to zone clianges, general plan amendments, and/or conditional use peri'nits. The City reserves all rights to decline such projects or land uses in whole or in part consistent with its independent judgment and in accordance with the City Municipal Zoning Codes, General Plan, and related land uses. The parties acknowledge 4 of 9
37 and represent that tliere is no existing agreement between them or any third party for any future project, application, or requested land use.
4.6. The Parties agree that they will exercise reasonable efforts to explore the identification of a viable, alternative use of the Property and to secure or approve all necessary peri'nits, entitlements or other municipal requirements to establish that rise on the Property on or before May 13, 2027.
4.7. The Parties agree that future uses of and on the LAC Property will be subject to the sole land use and regulatory authority of Los Angeles County - but such use sl'iall not include truck trailer and/or container storage. Likewise, the Parties agree that any land use and regulatory approval by the Los Angeles County on the LAC Property shall not effect or control any deteri'nination relative to the Property within the City's boundaries.
4.8. Waiver of Rights & Withdrawal of Appeals. In exchange for and subject to the mutual promises herein, the sufficiency whereof is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree to mutually dismiss and release any and all claims and causes of action that they may have against each other and all of their past and present councilmembers, planning coini'nissioners, respective boards, bureaus, officers, agents, employees and all persons that acted on tl'ieir behalf with relation to or arising from the Appeals pending before the City, with each side to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs. Such dismissal and release shall include the claims and causes of action of each Parties' respective successors, assigns, tenants and subtenants arising out of or in any way related to this Agreement, however, tlie Parties acknowledge and agree that such waiver of rights does not prohibit the City from (i) enforcing any law, rule, regulation, or other obligation should AEP or any AEP Party violate any provision of this Agreement, and/or (ii) enforcing any law, rule, or regulation unrelated to this Agreement. By this Agreement, AEP voluntarily withdraws all Appeals regarding any TUP, LNCU and/or ZC/GPA Application. The Parties specifically waive the benefits of Section 1542 of the California Civil Code, as follows:
"A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE
CREDITOR OR RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO
EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE
RELEASE AND THAT, IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER, WOULD HAVE
MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR OR RELEASED PARTY."
5. Indemnity.
5.1. Except for City's gross negligence or willful misconduct, AEP agrees to hold hartnless, indeinnify, and defend the City for legal challenges of this Agreement made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.) ("CEQA") in any court having proper jurisdiction provided such CEQA challenge is brought pursuant to the relevant statutes of limitation (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21167) or before the Ten'nination Date, whichever comes last. The Parties acknowledge this Agreement is made consistent with CEQA's requirements, including that the 5 of 9
38 enforcement of statutes and ordinances prohibiting unperinitted rises are exempt firom CEQA and that CEQA is not a limitation or restriction on the power or authority of any public agency in the enforcement or of any law it is peri'nitted or required to enforce or administer. (Cal. Pub Res Code §§ 21083, 21084, 21174; Title 14 Cal. Code of Regulations § 15321 (EnforcemerxtActions by Regulatozy Agencies); Anderson v.
County of Santa Barbara (2023), 94 Cal.App.5Ih 554.)
5.2. Further, except for City's gross negligence or willful misconduct, AEP also agrees to hold hari'nless, indemnify, and defend the City for legal challenges of this Agreement taken up by Fleet Yards, and/or any tenant, subtenant, and/or other user of the Property, or any other challenge asserting the right to remain in possession of the Property in any court having proper jurisdiction until such times as the City receives a Tenant Waiver Letter, in a fon'n satisfactory to the City, from Fleet Yards and from any such tenant, subtenant and/or user of the Property acknowledging and agreeing to the teri'nination of the Use on or before the Termination Date as referenced in Section 3.1 herein and to waive all rights as referenced in Section 4.8 herein. Upon the City's receipt of the Tenant Waiver Letter(s) referenced herein, this Section 5.2 of the Agreement will be immediately null, void, and will not be binding or have any legal effect.
6. Air Quality Monitoring. During the Teri'nination Date or until the Use at tlie Property is terininated, whichever comes first, AEP agrees to implement the following measures to monitor air quality:
6.1. Monitoring. AEP will prepare an Air Monitoring Workplan for onsite monitoring of PM;,5, PMI, and weather data (i.e., wind speed, wind direction) to analyze particulate matter (PM) monitoring data and notification/alert trends including quality control/quality assurance checks. Tlie Air Monitoring Workplan will be submitted to the City within forty-five (45) days of the execution of this Agreement for approval in advance of implementation.
6.2. Onsite Monitors. The Air Monitoring Workplan will include onsite PurpleAir monitors and processes to evaluate if bias is present, consistent with methodology from South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1466 Appendix 2 - Procedures to Demonstrate Intra-Instrument Precision.
6.3. Meteorology. Tlie Air Monitoring Workplan will include an onsite weatlier station capable of recording wind direction and speed.
6.4. Air Quality Monitoring Reports. The first AQ Report will be submitted to the City within six (6) montlis of the execution of this Agreement, with subsequent AQ Reports to be submitted every three (3) months thereafter until May 13, 2026.
7. Notice and Right to Cure. The Parties agree that in the event of a breach of this Agreement, tlie Party claiming the breach shall give written notice of the alleged breach to the other Party and, within fifteen (15) days of the written notice, the Parties shall meet in good faith to resolve any differences and, if necessary, agree on a course of action to cure any breach, provided, however, that such right of notice and opportunity to cure shall not apply to or 6 of 9
39 extend the Tem'iination Date or any other timeframe set forth elsewhere in this Agreement or in applicable Law.
8. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Each Party shall bear his/her/its own attorneys' fees and costs in conjunction with the Appeals and negotiation and preparation of this Agreement.
9. Counterparts; Facsimile Signatures. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement.
10. Modification. This Agreement may be modified only by written agreement of the Parties.
11. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the sole and entire agreement and understanding of the Parties with respect to the entire subject matter hereof, and any and all prior discussions, negotiations, commitments, and understandings related hereto. No representations, oral or otherwise, express or implied, other than those contained herein have been made by any Party hereto.
12. Construction, Headings and Captions. Headings and Captions contained in this Agreement are inserted only as a matter of convenience and for reference and shall in no way be construed to define, limit, or extend the scope of this Agreement or the intent of any of its provisions. Whenever required by the context of this Agreement, the singular shall include the plural and the masculine shall include the feminine and vice versa. This Agreement shall not be construed as if it had been prepared by one of the Parties, but rather as if all Parties liad prepared same. The provisions of this Agreement shall be interpreted in a reasonable manner to effect the purpose of the Parties and this Agreement. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to sections and subsections are to this Agreement. Any and all exhibits referred to in this Agreement are attached and incorporated by this reference. All dates prescribed in this Agreement shall mean any time on or before 11:59 p.m., Pacific Standard Time on such date. In the event the date on which any Party is required to take any action under tlie terms of this Agreement is not a business day, the action shall be taken on the next succeeding business day. For purposes of this Agreement, the term "business day" shall not include Saturdays, Sundays or California state or federal legal holidays.
13. Binding Effect. This Agreement is binding and shall inure to the benefit of each Party hereto, as well as any successors, assigns, heirs, administrators and transferees of tlie Parties, including any tenant of the Property, for which AEP takes full responsibility for ensuring that such tenant is bound by and ceases any Use as of the Termination Date.
14. Severability. If any provision or any part of any provision of this Agreement is for any reason held to be invalid, unenforceable or contrary to any public policy, law, statute and/or ordinance, then the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shall remain valid and fully enforceable.
15. Governing Law and Venue. The Parties acknowledge that this Agreement has been negotiated and entered into in the State of California. The Parties expressly agree that this 7 of 9
40 Agreement shall be goveri'ied by, interpreted under, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The Parties further agree that the proper venue for any dispute relating to this Agreement sliall be Los Angeles County.
16. Consultation with Counsel. In executing this Agreement, the Parties have consulted with and had the advice and counsel of an attorney of their choosing who is duly admitted to practice law in the State of California. The Parties are satisfied with the terms incorporated herein, which represent a full and fair settlement, and that they have executed this Agreement after independent investigation and without fraud, duress or undue influence. Furtlien'nore, the Parties acknowledge that this Agreement is executed by the Parties who enjoy, in connection with the subject matter of the Agreement, equal bargaining power.
17. Authorization. The undersigned are authorized to execute this Agreement and have read, understood, and agree to all of the terins and conditions hereof. lSignatures on the following pages]
8 of 9
f'f
41 Tlie Parties below named have executed this Agreement as of the date and year appeaiing adjacent to the signatures of the Parties.
Dated: ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES LLC
BY:
Dated: CITY OF SOUTH GATE
BY:
Rob Houston, City Manager
ATTEST:
BY:
Yodit Glaze, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY:
By: DRAFT
Raul F. Salinas
City Attorney
BY:
Alfred Fraijo, Esq.
Somos Law Group
AS13772.0860893 4930-3946-2721vl
9 of 9
/5
42 Item No. 3
City of South Gate
St)ulfial'(f.'il:r'C.itry"C:tiik CITYCOUNCIL
"9- ..Y , 70, A(GENIDA IT[TlTL,
F&LE
Originating Department: Community Development
nepartmemnireaor:lsj4a,,plez;rrez cihwanager:[1Rob Houstonl'!:!J!:!;\z SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION TO DENY AN EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT N0. 2020-01 FOR TRUCK TRAILER STORAGE AT 8530 ALAMEDA STREET, AND DETERMINING THE
ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENT AL QUALITY ACT (PL 23-0061)
PURPOSE: Public hearing to consider the following:
Appeal of Planning Coinmission's Decision on Director's Determination (PL 23-0061):
Consideration of an appeal of the Plaru'iing Commission's decision to uphold the Director of Community Development's determination to deny an extension of Temporary Use Permit ("TUP") No. 2020-01 for truck-trailer storage at 8530 Alameda Street.
This item was continued from the Regular City Council Meeting of April 22, 2025.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Proiect Location:
Assessor's Parcel Number:
Property Owner:
Appellant/Representative:
General Plan Designation:
6. :
8530 Alameda Street
6202-036-003
Alameda Engle Properties (Jason Engle)
Sara Atsbaha, Somos Law Group
Industrial (Community Design Element, Figure CD 1, Existing Land Uses)
South Gate College District Subarea l (Community Design Element, Figure CD 4, Districts)
IF (Industrial Flex)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. CONDUCT a public hearing pursuant to South Gate Municipal Code Section 11.50.040.B;
2. ACCEPT the determination that this matter is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act;
3. ADOPT the findings as outlined in the Resolution (Attachment A); and
4. UPHOLD the decision of the Plaru'iing Cornrnission to uphold the determination of the Director of Coinmunity Development to deny an extension of TUP No. 2020-01.
AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
43 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Advertising and notification of the public hearing for this item was conducted in compliance with Sections 1 1.50.020 and 11.50.030 of the South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC"). Notices of the hearing were posted and published in the "South Gate Press" on April 10, 2025.
ENVIRONMENTAL EV ALUATION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City Council's deteri'nination qualifies for a categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15321, (Class 21) "Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies," in that the City of South Gate ("City") is enforcing the South Gate Municipal Code.
The City Council's determination on the extension of TUP No. 2020-01 is not subject to CEQA review because it is not an "approvar' as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15352, but rather a determination of whether a use must tenninate at a site, and therefore does not corni'nit the City to any definite course of action regarding new uses or changes to the approved use of the subject property. Furthermore, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves pursuant to Section 15270(a).
BACKGROUND
This is an appeal filed by legal counsel, Somos Law Group ("Somos"), on behalf of the property owner and applicant, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP" represented by Jason Engle), for a
6.78-acre property located at 8530 Alameda Street. Somos is appealing the Planning Commission's decision on the Director of Community Development's determination.
It should be noted that AEP also owns the abutting 2.9-acre site to the north at 8440 S. Alameda Street, which is located outside of the City and in the County of Los Angeles. Access to both properties is via a driveway from Alameda Street to the property at 8440 S. Alameda Street. This property is also being used for truck trailer storage and according to County staff, a conditional use permit ("CUP") is currently being processed.
History of Zoning and Land Use of Subiect Property
As early as 1961, the Subject Property was designated as being within a Heavy Manufacturing ("M-3") Zone.
Based upon a review of public records and documents submitted by AEP, the Site was used by Jack Engel & Company (hereinafter, "JECO") and/or AEP for ametal processing/recycling facility from as early as 1973 until approximately March 2020. During that time, the site was developed with a single-story industrial structure used for the recycling operations conducted by JECO and/or AEP.
The metal recycling operations conducted by JECO and/or AEP included, but was not limited to, the delivery of scrap metal product to the Site inside of truck trailers - which would remain on site for up to several months while the scrap metal was sorted and processed on-site and prepared for shipment to a final off-site destination.
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 AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
44 2323, which further amended the Zoning Code and changed the zoning classification of the Subject Property to Industrial Flex ("IF") Zone.
Pursuant to the Section 11.21.030 and Table 11.21-3 of the amended Zoning Code, recycling facilities require a Conditional Use Permit - however, tlie recycling operations at the Subject Property were deemed to be a legal, nonconfon'ning land use that was allowed to continue in accordance with SGMC Chapter 11.55 ("Nonconfon'ning Uses and Buildings").
According to public records and infoimation 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 confirnned that around March 2020, Fleet Yards, Inc. comi'nenced 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.
On July 16, 2020, the City approved Fleet Yards, Inc.'s application for a Temporary Use Pen'nit and issued TUP2020-01, authorizing the use of the Subject Property for "truck trailer storage for a one-year period with possible one-year extensions up to a maximum period of five years from the date of approval". The Community Development Director explicitly imposed various conditions upon the approval of TUP2020-01, including, but not limited to:
1. The approved temporary use for the Site is restricted to truck trailer storage only - and no other use is permitted without the written authorization from the City.
2. The approval of the temporary use was set to expire on July 16, 2021 - and a new application was to be submitted at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date if an extension was desired. Additional one-year extensions would be considered for approval for up to a maximum period of 5 years from the original approval date of July 16, 2020 - and would be deteri'nined based upon compliance with the conditions of approval and written verification from the property owner that the owner is in process of developing the land, selling the land, and/or working with Los Angeles Cornrnunity College or a developer on a housing development project.
TUP2020-01 expired on July 16, 2021, without a timely request for renewal from Fleet Yards, Inc.
On or about July 11, 2022, an e-mail was submitted to the Plaru'iing Division requesting a new Temporary Use Permit (or the renewal of TUP2020-01). In December 2022, the Director advised Fleet Yards, Inc. that several conditions of approval of the TUP had not been adhered to, and, moreover, that the TUP was ineligible for renewal as SGMC §1 1.51.070(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.
Planning Commission Hearing
On May 2, 2023, the Plaru'iing Corni'nission conducted a public hearing on the appeal of the Director of Community Development's determination to deny an extension of TUP No. 2020-01 for a truck trailer storage at 8530 Alameda Street.
AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
45 The appellant's attorney, Alfred Fraijo Jr., gave a presentation on the basis of the appeal. Public comment was received from the following individuals:
* Alan Engle (property owner, Alameda Engle & Company) * Daniel Otting (Fleet Yard Inc., 8440 S. Alameda st., Los Angeles) * Jeru'iifer Ganata (6325 Pacific Boulevard, Ste. 300, Huntington Park) The Planning Coi'nunission also received a presentation by City staff and outside legal counsel James Eckart providing a response to the appellant's presentation.
At the conclusion of the hearing, tlie Planning Commission voted 3-2 to adopt Resolution No. 2023-05 denying the appeal and upholding the Director's Determination. In reaching its decision, the Planning Commission specifically detennined that:
1. The land use of storage of truck trailers and containers is not authorized or allowed by the South Gate Municipal Code on any land within the Industrial Flex (IF) zone, of which the subject property is a part.
2. Temporary Use Permit 2020-01 was originally issued in error and in violation of City ordinances. Temporary use permits are to be used for "short-term activities" which are of a "short-terin nature." In addition, the South Gate Municipal Code specifies that the maximum duration of a temporary use permit shall not exceed three days in a row, or ten working days in any calendar year. Temporary Use Permit 2020-01 was issued in error as the approval was granted for a longer period of time than the South Gate Municipal Code allows for.
Following the Planning Commission's meeting, the applicant met with staff to discuss options in dealing with the situation which ultimately led to a second deten'nination by the Community Development Director on the legal nonconforming status and a request for a zone change and General Plan Amendment, which are being processed separately from this request.
ANALYSIS:
The renewal application was denied because under the SGMC: (1) the use which is the subject of the Temporary Use Permit is prohibited at 8530 Alameda; and (2) Temporary Use Permits can only allow otherwise unauthorized uses to be conducted for a few days, not for multi-year periods.
Past/Proposed Use of Property is as a "Truck Storage/Terminal": Applicant and its tenant have been using the subject property to store trucks, truck-trailers, and storage containers. Under the SGMC, this use is defined as "truck storage/terminal" use which, pursuant to the SGMC Section
11.60.230 "T" definitions, "means indoor or outdoor site for fireight, 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 use within the IF zone. SGMC Section 11.21.020 notes that "Any land use that is not specifically listed in the land use tables for the applicable zone shall not be allowed or permitted within the zone." Therefore, the storage of trucks, truck-trailers and containers is a prohibited use in the IF AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
46 zone.
Temporary Use Pen'nits Cannot Autliorize Prol'iibited Uses for Extended Durations. Pursuant to SGMC Section 11.51.070 "Temporary Use Perinit," temporary use permits are processed administratively to "allow for short-term activities that warrant individual consideration and are acceptable because of their temporary, short-term nature." SGMC Section 11.51.070 (A) "Temporary Uses," also notes that the "provisions of this section shall regulate all special events, and temporary land uses as pen'nitted by Table 11.21-3, 11.21-4, or 11.21-5, as applicable to the zone, or as detennined by the director." SGMC Section 11.51.010 (B) lists "Mandatory Approval Conditions" for temporary use permits, wherein there are "limits on the maximum duration will be specified in the permit, and shall not exceed three days in a row, or ten working days in any calendar year."
Original Issuance of the TUP was Done in Error, and Renewal of the TUP is not authorized by the SGMC. Based on limitations imposed by the South Gate Municipal Code upon the issuance of Temporary Use Peri'nits as set forth hereinabove, and notwithstanding the language contained within TUP2020-01, the Director of Cornrnunity Development was prohibited from granting an extension of TUP2020-01. The Plaru'iing Comt'nission was similarly prohibited from granting an extension of TUP2020-01 for similar reasons and upheld the Director's Determination.
Temporary Use Permit 2020-01 should never have been issued in the first place for the purported use (which is prohibited within the IF Zone) nor for the duration set forth therein, since it purported to authorize the subject use for one year (with possible extensions for a total of 5 years from the original date of issuance), which is far longer than the three-consecutive-day and ten- nonconsecutive-day maximum periods authorized by the SGMC.
Notwithstanding the pending appeal, there is no authority in the South Gate Municipal Code to authorize an extension of TUP2020-01 for the use or time period that was originally and erroneously approved. As such, the appeal must be denied.
CONCLUSION
Staff recornrnends the City Council uphold the Plai'ining Commission's decision to uphold the Director's Deten'nination to deny an extension of TUP No. 2020-01 for truck-trailer storage at the subject property.
ATT ACHMENTS:
A. City Council Resolution
B. Request for Appeal of Planning Commission dated May 16, 2023 C. PC Resolution No. 2023-05
D. Request for Appeal of Director's Determination dated April 27, 2023 E. Director's Determination to Deny Extension of TUP2020-01 dated May 16, 2023
F. Temporary Use Permit 2020-01
A (. T 17 7';) n!;lAn);'Q l 4QnQ)1 a) R gn)ln'ivT
47 Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY OF SOUTH GATE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH GATE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S
DETERMINATION TO DENY AN EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY
USE PERMIT N0. 2020-01 FOR TRUCK TRAILER STORAGE AT 8530 ALAMEDA STREET, AND FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT
FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(PL 23-0061)
WHEREAS, the Applicant and property owner, Jason Engle on behalf of Alameda Engle Properties, LLC, requested an extension of Temporary Use Permit 2020-01 (PL 23-0061) to allow for the continued use of truck trailer and container storage at 8530 Alameda Street, a use which is prohibited at that location by the South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC"); WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development denied the extension request of Temporary Use Permit 2020-01, based on evidence and testimony provided by the Applicant and City records and provisions of the SGMC regulating the types of uses subject to and the duration of temporary use permits;
WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an Appeal of the Director's Decision on the ground that the temporary use permit was previously approved and granted; WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission duly noticed and agendized a public hearing on this matter on March 21, 2023, April 18, 2023, and May 2, 2023;
WHEREAS, on May 2, 2023, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission duly conducted a public hearing on this matter, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-05 denying the appeal request; WHEREAS, on May 16, 2023, the applicant filed an application to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council; however, through a stipulation by the appellant and the City, and due to pending conversations between City staff and the applicant to reach a resolution as to other pending issues with the use of the subject property, the appeal hearing was not scheduled until now;
WHEREAS, on Apil 22 and May 13, 2025, pursuant to California Governrnent Code Section 65854, the City Council duly noticed and agendized a public hearing and conducted a public hearing on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the City Council made the following findings:
1. The land use of storage of truck trailers and containers is not authorized or allowed by 48 the South Gate Municipal Code on any land within the Industrial Flex ("IF") zone, of which the subject property is a part.
2. Temporary Use Permit 2020-01 was originally issued in error and in violation of City ordinances. Temporary use permits are to be used for "short-term activities" which are of a "short-term nature." In addition, the South Gate Municipal Code specifies that the maximum duration of a temporary use permit shall not exceed three days in a row, or ten working days in any calendar year. Temporary Use Permit 2020-01 was issued in error as the approval was granted for a longer period of time than the South Gate Municipal Code allows for.
3. The Temporary Use Permit cannot be extended pursuant to the provisions of the South Gate Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COtJNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals of this Resolution are true and correct.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that the subject decision is exempt from the California Environment Quality Act of 1970 ("CEQA"), because it can be seen with certainty that this decision has no likelihood of causing a significant negative effect on the environment and the effects derivative from the decision are exempt from the application of CEQA, pursuant to a Class 1 exemption under Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines (15 Cal.Code Regs. § 15301).
SECTION 3. The City Council ofthe City of South Gate, pursuant to the facts noted above, does hereby uphold the decision of the Plaru'iing Commission upholding the determination of the Director of Community Development to deny an extension of Temporary Use Permit 2020-01 at 8530 Alameda Street.
[Remainder of page left blank intentionally.]
1 49
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution which shall be effective upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED on this 13th day of May 2025.
CITY OF SOUTH GATE:
B7:
Maria Davila, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Yodit Glaze, City Clerk
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Rail F. Salinas, City Attorney
50 ATT ACHMEN'T B
affk.e of the
MAY 16 2023 Th
FiLED
SOMOS
LAW GRO(A)
304 South Broedwey, Suite 350
Los Arigeles, CA 90013
May "16, 2023
VIA ELECTRONIC MA[L
Maria de( PilarAvalos
Mayor, City of South Gate
8650 California Avenue
South Gate, CA 90280
Email:[email protected]
Re: 8530 Alarneda Street - Appeal of CPC's Denial of TLIP 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 Property, including storage of truck trailers/containers, since the early 1 970s. Fleet Yards, Inc, ("Fleet Yards") is the current tenant on the Property, and has been storing truck trailers/containers on the Property since 2020 pursuant to a Temporary LJse Permit ("TUP") at the recommendation and requirement of the City's previous Director of Community Development. On December 20, 2023, the Current Director of Community Development denied the extension on the grounds that the City erred in issuing the TOP, and alleging that the legal nonconforming use had been abandoned. On January 26, 2023, AEP submitted a !etter appealing the Director's decision to the South Gate City Planning Commission ("CPC").
Ourfirm sent a supplemental letter explainingjustification for the appeal on April 27, 2023, ("Supplementat 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 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
SOMOS I
51 extension on the grounds that the TUP was issued in enor' The CPC did not make a determination On truCk trailer/container storage aS a legal nonconfortning 11Se at the Properly. Immediately after the CPC hearing our office conferred regarding the path forward for the legal nonconforming use. Since the appeal hearing, we have been working with the City Attorney and the City Manager to reach a resolution.
Intheinterim,wearewritingtoappealtoCPC'sdenialoftheTUPextensio With regard to the Appeal, we respectfully request that City Council:
a. Acknowledge the existing legal nonconforming use, given the consistent truck trailer storage on the property since 1973; and b. Allow Fleet Yards to continue its truck trailer/container storage operations pursuant to that use; or
c. In the alternative, postpone the City Council hearing on the appeal until we have had an opportunity to resolve the legal nonconforming use issue with the City Manager and City Attorney, which would moot the need for further appeal.
Justification for these requests is well-documented, as explained in the Supplemental Letter, the supporting exhibits to the Supplemental Letter, and in the 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,
r
Alfred Fraijo Jr.
Partner
213.592.2966 direct
[email protected]
' A copy oFappellants' presentation materlals during the May 2, 2023 CPC hearing are attached as . 2 10
SOMOS
52 CC:
Yalini Silvo
Meredith Elguira
Vice Mayor Gil Hurtado
Councilmember Maria DavilaCot,incilmemberAl Rios
Cocincilmember Josliua BarronRaque( Larios
SOMO8
53 ATT ACHMENT C
RESOLUTION N0. 2023-OS
A RF,SOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OIi SOUTH GATE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING
THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DE'VELOPMENT'S
DECISION TO DENY AN EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY USF,
PERMIT N0. 2020-01 FOR TRUCK TRAILER STORAGE AT 8530
ALAMEDA STRF,ET
WHEREAS, the Applicant and property owner, Jason Engle on behalf of Alameda Engle Properties, LLC, requested an extension of Temporary Use Permit 2020-01 to allow for the continued use of truck trailer and container storage at 8530 Alameda Street, a use which is prohibited at that location by the South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC"); and WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development denied the extension request of Temporary Use Permit 2020-01, based on evidence and testitnony provided by the Applicant and City records andprovisions of the SGMC pertaining to the duration of temporary use permits; and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an Appeal of the Director's Decision on the ground that the temporary use permit was previously approved and granted; and WHEREAS, prirsuaitt to California Government Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission duly noticed and agendized a public hearing Oil this matter on March 21, 2023, April 28, 2023, May 2, 2023; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65854, tbe Planning Commission dulynoticed and agendized a publichearing and conductedtliepublic hearing on this matter on May 2, 2023, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No, 2023-05.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings:
1. The land use of storage of truck trailers and containers is not authorized or allowed by the Soutb Gate Municipal Code on any land within the Industrial Flex (IF) zone, of which the subject property is a part.
2. Ternporary Use Permit 2020-01 was originally issued in error and in violation of City ordinances, Temporary use permits are to be used for "short-term activities" which are of a "short-term nature." iti addition, the South Gate Municipal Code specifies that the maximum duration of a temporary use permit sliall not exceed three days in a row, or ten working days in any calendar year. Temporary {Jse Permit 2020-01 was issued in error as the approval was gtanted for a longer period of time than the South Gate Municipal Code allows for.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA, HERF,BY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission hereby finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals of this Resolution are true and correct.
l'l
54 SECTION 2. The Planning Comznission hereby finds that tlie subject decision is exempt frotn the California Environment Quality Act of 1970 ("CEQA"), because it can be seen with certainty tl'iat this decision has no likelihood of causing a significant negative effect on the environment and tlie effects derivative from the decision are exempt from tl'ie application of CEQA, ptuasuant to a Class l exemption under Section 15301 of tl'ie State CEQA Guidclines (15 Cal.CodcRcgs. § 15301).
SECTION 3. T}te Planning Commission of the City of Soutli Gate, pursuant to tlie facts noted above, does l'iereby uphold the decision of tiie Director of Coinmunity Development to deny an extension of Temporary Use Permit 2020-01 at 8530 Alameda Street.
Tliis action was adopted by tlie following vote at the Planning Cornrnission mcetmg of May 2, 2023.
AYES: Delgado, Duarte, Ozaeta
NOES: Laborin, Prieto
ABSENT:
APPROVED and ADOPTED t)iis 2"d of May, 2023.
Comn'iunity Development Director
APP
Jose
Chairpe
City Planning Con'imission
,;ID
55 Attachment D
April 27, 2023
SOMOS
LAW GPOUI)
304 South Broedway, 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.
The truck trailer storage use has been continuous on the Property during the AEP operations and subsequent Fleet Yards operations. As a family-owned business and longstanding member of the South Gate community, AEP is dedicated to working alongside its neighbors, fellow stakeholders, and the City to amicably resolve the City's concerns regarding historic uses on the Property.
We are writing to clarify the scope and nature of the operations on the Property and respectfully request that:
a. The City acknowledge the existing legal nonconforming use; and b. The City allow Fleet Yards to continue its truck trailer storage operations pursuant to that use; or
c. In the alternative, that the City honor its previous commitments regarding the TUP extensions in light of City staff's error in requiring the TOP. 1SOMOS
56 '1. Backqround
At the recommendation of Joe Perez, the Director of Community Development at the time, on July 16, 2020, Fleet Yards obtained a Temporary Use Permit ("TUP") for truck trailer use on the Property, subject to six conditions. The City made several commitments to AEP and to Fleet Yards during the discussions leading to the TUP, including that the TUP would be extended annually and that the City would consider additional extensions in the future. The purpose of the TUP was to allow the City to explore its priorities for development of education facilities at or around the Property.
We understand that many of these projects have been substantially delayed because of setbacks caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic, changing real estate market conditions declining attendance for in-person academic programs, and environmental conditions in the Property vicinity. On December 20, 2022, the current Community Development Director informed Fleet Yards that the City would no longer consider the TUP extension because of the City's misapplication of the South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC") and because the conditions of approval have been violated. On January 26, 2023, AEP informed the City that they would be appealing the determination.=
2. Truck Trailer Storaqe is a Leqal & Nonconforminq Use at the Property a. The City has Authority to Remedy the Previous Adn'iinistration'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 TlJP and TUP extensions were not necessary because the truck trailer storage is an ongoing legal nonconforming use with over 50 years of history between the two operators on the Property. Fleet Yards agreed to the TUP only to demonstrate its willingness to work with the City regarding a shared vision for additional education facilities in South Gate. We understand that the zoning on the Property was only recently changed to "Industrial Flex." We also understand that the City's did not issue certificates of occupancy regularly during the early 1970s when the operations started at the Property. However, we have attached the following documents that establish consistent storage of tractor trailers long before the zone change on the Property:
* A July 1, 2019, Business License to Jack Engle authorizing "outside storage" at 8530 Alameda Street since April 18, 1 977;2 I Please note that the 2022 Rejection Letter failed to disclose the owner's appeal rights and the City's policies and procedures to file the appeal.
2 See Exhibit A.
SOMOS 2
13 57
* AerialPhotosshowingtractortrailersonthesitedatingbackto2012;"' * DocumentationofUtilitypaymentsdatingbackto2016;"'
* A sewerage system connection fee invoice from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District dating back to 2007;
* An invoice from the South CoastAir Quality Management District for operations on the Property dating back to 2011.5
These documents demonstrate that the industrial operations on the Property, including truck trailer storage have been operating consistently for decades. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the City acknowledge that truck trailer storage is a legal nonconforming use on the Property.
b. The Leqal Nonconforminq lJse has Not Beeri Abandoned or Discontinued, and the Riqht to Continue is Protected and Preserved Pursuant to the South Gate Municipal Code.
The SGMC states that a legal nonconforming industrial use is preserved so long as it is not abandoned or discontinued for two consecutive calendar years. SGMC §
11.55.040.B. In determining whether a legal nonconforming use has been abandoned, the Director is to evaluate (i) the apparent intent of the owner to discontinue, (ii) whether furnishings equipment, or personal property have been removed, (iii) whether the use has been discontinued for a period of two years, (iv) whether there is an active business license and State Board of Equalization permit, and (v) whether there are active utilities accounts, including electricity, gas, water, and waste collection. SGMC § 11 .55.040.D.1-2.
The SGMC specifically preserves legal nonconforming uses during transfers of ownership or tenancy. SGMC § 11.55.040.E. Although there are limitations on expansion, the nonconforming use provisions of the SGMC protect all established legal nonconforming uses under the code, regardless of the scope of the use.8 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 El-E-4.
4 See Exhibit C.
5 See Exhibit D.
8 SGMC §§ 11 .55.030; ll .55.040
7 Id. at 11.55.040.
a South Gate General Plan: Community Design Element, Policy P.6, pg. 106. 3 )'t
SOMOS
58 COVID-19 Pandemic, and by the City's error in requiring a TUP. AEP consistently held business licenses for the entirety of their operations on the Property.9 Similarly, Fleet Yards has held a business license with the City for business operations including outdoor storage transportation, freight and cargo at its primary South Gate address at 4223 Independence Avenue, South Gate, CA 90280, but was informed that it did not need one for the Property. Although the scope and nature of operations for AEP and Fleet Yards were different, neither party ceased the truck trailer storage operations, vacated the premises, or terminated utility service at the Property for the requisite two consecutive year abandonment period. Documentation of consistent utilities payments are attached in Exhibit C. Aerial Photographs dating back to 2012 demonstrate that truck trailer storage has been a continuous use at the Property without substantial interruption.lo In addition, Fleet Yards' intent to continue the legal nonconforming truck trailer storage use has been communicated to the City on multiple occasions, including in connection with the subsequent TOP extension."
Based solely on this, Director Meredith Elguira's December 20, 2022 ("2022 Rejection Letter") communication that the use had been abandoned is inconsistent with the documents in the record, the open and continuous communications with the City declaring the intent to continue operations. In addition, preserving the legal nonconforming use is consistent with the policies in the General Plan. Truck trailer storage is an existing use on the Property and should not be displaced pursuant to General Plan policies. In addition, the Property is surrounded by industrial uses, and adjacent educational institutions have substantialiy 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 Auxiliaz 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 be'meen 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
%S
59 licensing policies and procedures, in addition to permits from other state and local jurisdictions.l3 However, on December 20, 2022 the City claimed that the business license had lapsed without reference to the existing licenses for the Fleet Yards operations. We understand that the City's position is that Fleet Yards requires a supplemental or auxiliary business license for its operations on the Property. However, to obtain a business license, an applicant must first obtain zoning clearance from the South Gate Planning Department. Based on communications from City staff, including the 2022 Rejection Letter, we understand that the City will not issue a zoning clearance because of the current zoning on the Property, notwithstanding the legal nonconforming use. It is inequitable to claim that the use has been abandoned due to lack of an auxiliary business permit when City staff members have indicated that they would not issue the prerequisite zoning clearance for that auxiliary business permit. For these reasons, in consideration of all of the determinative factors for abandonment, there is substantial evidence that the legal nonconforming use on the Property, including storage of tractor trailers has not been abandoned or discontinued. d. Fleet Yards has Substantially Complied with all of the TUP Conditions.
On December 20, 2022, Director Meredith Elguira alleged that the TUP could not be extended because the conditions of approval had been violated. However, Fleet Yards has substantially complied with the TUP conditions to the extent feasible. On July 16, 2020, the City approved the TUP subject to the following conditions:
1. That the approved use be restricted to truck trailer storage only;
2. That the temporary use is approved for a term of one year, and that additional one-year extensions must be applied for at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the previous term, for a period of 5 years;
3. That ingress and egress shall be only via Alameda Street;
4. That the number, size and height of truck trailers do not exceed those attached to the original approval;
5. That violations of these conditions or City laws could result in revocation of the 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 TOP has not changed, Consistent with the requirements of the TUP, ingress and egress is permitted only on Alameda Street. Although the application for the TLJP extension was missed in 2021 due to complications from the COVI D-19 Pandemic, both AEP and Fleet Yards have been in consistent communication with the City regarding the nonconforming use on the Property. The owner's signed affidavit is attached as Exhibit H. The remaining condition cites 13 /d.
SOMOS 5
i!
60 violations of "City laws". As noted above, the City's cooperation is required to obtain an auxiliary business permit to supplement the active business license. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the City acknowledge that each of these conditions have been met to the extent possible.
3. Terminatinq the Leqal Nonconforminq Use Violates the Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel
The Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel was designed to promote fair and equitable business transactions. The doctrine is based on the principle that a party who has made a promise should be held accountable for it where reliance on the agreement was reasonable, and enforcement of the agreement is necessary to avoid injustice.
Drennan v. StarPaving Co. (1958) 51 Cal.2d 409, 412-413: Garcia v World Sav. & LoanAssn. (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 staff on July 8, 2020, in addition to the plain language of the TUP, the City was to consider additional extensions of the TOP 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 TLIP causes substantial harm to the community, and there is substantial evidence supporting that the use is legal and nonconforming, we urge you to use this opportunity to make it right. As a further demonstration of good faith and willingness to work together, we respectfully request the City share any documentation indicating that the truck trailer storage is not authorized pursuant to the legacy operations on the Property, and procedures for obtaining a business permit zoning dearance where, as here, the use is legal nonconforming.
SOMOS 6
ll
61 Please contact my office if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Alfred Fraijo Jr.
Partner
213.592.2966 direct
[email protected]
SOMOS
IE
62 ATT ACHMENT E
CENTENNIAL
-lCa YEARS-
May 16, 2023
Mr. Alan Engle
Manager
Alameda Engle Properties LLC
2127 Century Woods Way
Los Angeles, California 900667
Community Development Department
Meredith T. Elguira, Director of Community Development
8650 California Avenue, South Gate, CA 90280-3004
P: (323) 563-9529
www.cityofsouthgate.org
Re: City of South Gate's Denial of Request by Alameda Engle Properties, LLC. for Extension of Temporary Use Permit No. TUP 2020-01 for
Truck-Trailer Storage at 8530 Alameda Street in South Gate, California Dear Mr. Engle,
On May 2, 2023, the South Gate Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the request by Alameda Engle Properties, LLC's ("AEP") to extend, for a period of one year, the term of Temporary Use Permit No. 2020- 01 (the "TUP"). Such an extension would have allowed the continued storage of trucks and truck-trailers at 8530 Alameda Street (the "Premises") by AEP's tenant, Fleet Yards, Inc. ("Fleet Yards"). At the conclusion of that hearing, the Planning Commission upheld the City's earlier decision to deny the extension and not renew the TUP. AEP has now asked to appeal that decision to the South Gate City Council. For the reasons explained by the City Attorney's Office at the May 2, Planning Commission meeting and reiterated below, an appeal of this matter to the City Council is not available.
As the City has repeatedly advised AEP and Fleet Yards, the TUP was initially issued in error, because it purported to allow a "temporary" use of the Premises for a period of at least one year and possibly as many as five years, far in excess of the limited duration mandated by the Zoning Code. Temporary use permits, as the name implies, are intended to allow only short-term uses of land. Specifically, Section 11.51.070 of the Zoning Code states that the maximum duration of a temporary use permit shall not exceed three days in a row or ten days in any calendar year. It is unfortunate that the TUP was erroneously issued in 2020 for a much longer one- year period and erroneously renewed in 2021 for an additional one-year period. But those earlier errors do not entitle AEP to further extensions of the TUP for periods far in excess of the maximum durations authorized by the Zoning Code. Simply put, there is no authority in the Zoning Code for issuing or renewing a temporary use permit for any period longer than three consecutive days or ten days in any calendar year.
Furthermore, the original issuance of the TUP in violation of the Zoning Code also meant that the City was not required to grant AEP a hearing on the matter of renewing the TUP. Again, as publicly stated by the City's legal counsel at the Planning Commission meeting, the City granted that hearing aS a matter Of courtesy - something that was also explained to AEP in the course of the May 2 meeting. No hearing was required because no decision by the Planning Commission could have resulted in validation and extension of the TUP. 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 21 63
CENTENNIAL
- II i - - - .-
Community Development Department
Meredith T. Elguira, Director of Community Development 8650 California Avenue, South Gate, CA 90280-3004
P: (323) 563-9529
www.cityofsouthgate.org
Code. Therefore, regardless of whether the Planning Commission had voted to uphold or overturn the denial of the requested TUP extension, the result would have been the same: no valid permit would exist. A hearing before the City Council would be equally futile, as AEP would still have no valid permit regardless of whether the Council voted to uphold or overturn the denial of AEP's request to extend the TUP for another year. Therefore, an appeal to the City Council is neither warranted nor available.
AEP and its attorneys contend that Fleet Yard's use of the Premises for the storage of trucks and truck-trailers constitutes a legal non-conforming use which can be continued in the absence of the TUP and despite the fact that such use is not allowed under the current version of the Zoning Code adopted in 2015. Because renewal of the TUP is an impossibility, we recommend that AEP promptly provide the City with evidence supporting that legal non-conforming use argument. Before the City can agree that Fleet Yard's use of the Premises constitutes a legal nonconforming use, AEP and/or Fleet Yards must provide the City with clear evidence which at a minimum establishes two things:
1. That the Premises were used for the storage of trucks and truck trailers since before the 2015 zone change, and that such use has continued from then until now without any interruption longer than two years. Evidence that a truck or trailer was occasionally parked on the Premises for purposes of loading or unloading will not suffice. The City requires evidence that the Premises were being used for the storage of trucks and truck-trailers consistent with the customary legal application of "legal non- conforming" use, not that such trucks or trailers were merely present on the Premises for short periods in the normal course of their travels associated with the primary approved use and the only city licensed business being operated at the location (Metal Recycling Center).
2. That 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, oranyformeroccupantofthePremises. UndertheformerZoningCode,storageoftrucksandtruck- trailers without a CUP would not have complied with the Zoning Code and therefore could not be the basis for a claim of legal non-conforming use.
Additional to the lack of a CUP, the City does not have a record of any business(s) being licensed for the operation of a storage facility of trucks and/or truck trailers prior to the zone change in 2015 or afterwards. 64 %A"%!!!a'N!!i'
CENTENNIAL
-ICO YEflr!S'-
Community Development Department
Meredith T. Elguira, Director of Community Development 8650 California Avenue, South Gate, CA 90280-3004
P: (323) 563-9529
www.cityofsouthgate.org
We urge AEP, as soon as possible, to either provide the evidence requested above or cause Fleet Yards to discontinue its storage of trucks and truck-trailers at the Premises. Failure to do so will result in enforcement action by the City.
Sa cer
Meredith T. El
CC: Mr. Chris Jeffers, City Manager
Rail F. Salinas, Esq.
Craig D. Hardwick Esq.
65 ATT ACHMENT F
65;athGate-
8650 Califomia Avenue
South Gate, Ca 90280
Phone: (323) 563-9526
Planning Division
July 16, 2020
Daniel Offing
Fleet Yards Inc.
893 West 16" Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
[via email: [email protected]]
Re: Temporary Use Permit No. TUP2020-01 8530 Alameda Street (APN: 8202-036-003) Dear Mr. Offing,
The City South Gate has received your temporary use permit application to permit the use of truck trailer storage for a one year period with possible one year extensions up to a maximum period of five years from the date of approval, at 8530 Alameda Street. The proposed project has been reviewed and it has been approved subject to the followinq conditions:
Conditions ofApproval
1. The approved temporary use for the site of 8530 Alameda Street is restricted to truck trailer storage only. No other outdoor storage is permitted including truck storage. No other use is permitted without the written authorization from the City.
2. Thetemporaryuseisapprovedforatermofoneyear,settoexpireonJuly16,202l.Anewapplication must be submitted at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date if an extension is desired.
Additional one-year extensions will be considered for approval for up to a maximum period of 5 years from the original approval date of July 16, 2020. Additional extensions will be determined based on compliance with said conditions and written verification from the property owner that he/she/they/ is/are in process of developing the land, selling the land and/or working with Los Angeles Community College or a developer on a housing development project.
3. Egress and ingress shall only be via Alameda Street as reflected in Attachment A. No truck or trailers traveling to or from the site shall be allowed to drive upon any South Gate streets other than Alameda Street.
4. Operations shall be limited to those described in Attachment B as to the number, size and height of truck trailers that will be stored on site.
5. Any violations of these conditions or City Laws could result in the revocation of this Temporary Use Permit No. TUP2020-01.
6. All conditions for a Temporary Use Permit No. TL1P2020-01,shall be agreed to by the property owner in the form of a signed and notarized affidavit.
JcooemPmeLz x=ector
City of South Gate
Attachments. A. Site Plan
B. Operation Plan
66 Map sliorild be updated to claril'y tlie area covered by tlie pennitted use pennit (8530) and separately show tlie access point across 8440. The current n'iap n'iakes it appear as if tlie entire track is 8440, wlien tlie red shaded area also includes 8530.
ATT ACHMENT A
." '-"f a (
--a ." l - % .a '+a
iQ"'r'-. '
"1),.
67 Attachment B
ADDENDUM: Description of Operation
CITY OF SOUTH GATE
LAND USE ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT APPLICATION
- TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
Property: 8440 S Alameda st., Los Angeles, CA 90001 APN: 6202-036-003
Applicant: Dan Otting
Mailing Address: 893 W 16'h Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: 949-246-6000
Description of Proposed Operation:
Summary:
Short- Term Truck Trailer Storage.
8530 Alameda Street
Detailed:
The property at 8440 S Alameda St. is approx. 9.7 acres (423,000 sq ft) in total, but 6.7 acres are a part of South Gate proper.
On the acres in South Gate, approximately 125 trailers will be parked for short- -term storage.
Stand commercial trailers are either 40', 48', or 53' long (usually 53"), 13'6" tall, and 8' wide. Please note t while we are proposing to use the entire property (9.7 acres) for storage, the acres within So proper will only be used for trailer storage, with no trucks being stored on t part of the yard.
The II yard will be active 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, but most of the traffic (>90%) all be between the urs of 6:00 AM and 8:00 PM each day.
Fo the entirety of the 9.7 acre property, we expect to see up to 50-75 trucks and trai yard each business day. 67 acres
enter and exit
6.7 acres
68 Item No. 4
Office ok the
South Gate City Clerk City of South Gate
CITY COUNCIL
3""" M;'it4%5 AGE,IKIIDrA IEsI[LL
DepartmentDirector:
For the Regular Meeting of. May 13, 2025
Originating Department: Community Developmen
%/52::
Ciffl Manager:
Rob Houston
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION
REGARDING LEGAL NONCONFORMING USES AT A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8530 ALAMEDA STREET, AND DETERMINING THE ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUAJ,ITY ACT
PURPOSE: Public hearing to consider the following:
Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision on Director's Determination: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Cornrnission's decision upholding the Director's determination that the legal, nonconforming use for a metal processing and/or recycling activities at a property located at 8530 Alameda Street have been abandoned and can no longer be conducted, and the use of the site for truck trailer storage as a principal use unrelated to metal processing/recycling activities is not a legal, nonconfornning use and must be immediately terminated.
This item was continued from the Regular City Council Meeting of April 22, 2025.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Proiect Location:
Assessor's Parcel Number:
Property Owner:
Appellant/Representative:
General Plan Desipation:
6. :
8530 Alameda Street
6202-036-003
Alameda Engle Properties (Jason Engle)
Sara Atsbaha, Somos Law Group
Industrial (Cominuriity Design Element, Figure CD 1, Existing Land Uses)
South Gate College District Subarea 1 (Community Design Element, Figure CD 4, Districts)
IF (Industrial Flex)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. CONDUCT a public hearing pursuant to South Gate Municipal Code Section 11.50.040.B;
2. ACCEPT the determination that this matter is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act;
AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
69 3. ADOPT the findings as outlined in the Resolution (Attachment A); and
4. UPHOLD the decision of the Planning Commission upholding the determination of the Director of Coini'nunity Development that the legal, nonconfori'ning use for a metal processing and/or recycling activities at the subject property have been abandoned and can no longer be conducted, and the use of the site for truck trailer storage as a principal use unrelated to metal processing/recycling activities is not a legal, nonconforming use and must be immediately terminated.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Advertising and notification of the public hearing for this item was conducted in compliance with Sections 11.50.020 and 11.50.030 of the South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC"). Notices of the hearing were posted and published in the "South Gate Press" on April 10, 2025.
ENVIRONMENT AL EV ALUATION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council's determination qualifies for a categorical exemptionunder CEQA Guidelines Section 15321, (Class 21) "Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies," in that the City is enforcing the South Gate Municipal Code.
The City Council's determination on the teri'nination of the legal, non-confornning 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 filed by legal counsel, Somos Law Group ("Somos"), on behalf of the property owner and applicant, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP" represented by Jason Engle), for a
6.78-acre property located at 8530 Alameda Street. Somos is appealing the Planning Commission's decision on the Director of Community Development's determination that the legal, nonconforming use formetal 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.
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.
Planning Commission Hearing
On March 18, 2025, the Planning Comi'nission voted 3-0 to adopt Resolution No. 2025-04 denying an appeal and upholding the Director of Community Development's determination and AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
70 noncompliance notification regarding recycling/metal processing and truck trailer storage at 8530 Alameda Street.
The appellant's attorneys, Alfred Fraijo Jr. and Sara Atsbaha, gave a presentation on the basis of the appeal. Public comment was received from the following individuals:
* Andrew Herrera
* Jennifer Daley, Southeast Los Angeles (SELA) for a Better Tomorrow * Omar Ruiz
* David Moreno, 8429 Santa Fe Avenue
* Jennifer Ganata, CBE, 6325 Pacific Boulevard, Ste. 300, Huntington Park * Alma Rodriguez
* Individual who did not provide a name [Spanish speaker] @ Selena Zepeda [Spanish speaker], Walnut Park resident * Salvador Diaz, Walnut Park resident
* Gregorio Jimenez, 10423 Mallison Avenue
* Javier Gutierrez
The Planning Commission also received a presentation by City staff and outside legal counsel James Eckart providing a response to the appellant's presentation.
Generally, speakers were opposed to the truck trailer storage citing concerns withtraffic, pollution, health impacts, and other environmental concerns. Additionally, written correspondences from the individuals below. The conespondences are included in Attachments D, E, and F. * Jennifer Daley, SELA for a Better Tomorrow
* Mario Dominguez
* Claudia Rivera
* Nathan Cueto
* Sara Atsbaha, Somos Group, appellant's attorney * Various letters from South Gate High School students History of Zoning and Land Use of Subiect Property
As early as 1961, the Subject Property was designated as being within a Heavy Manufacturing ("M-3") Zone,
Based upon a review of public records and documents submitted by AEP, the Site was used by Jack Engel & Company (hereinafter, "JECO") and/or AEP for ametal processing/recycling facility from as early as 1973 until approximately March 2020. During that time, the site was developed with a single-story industrial structure used for the recycling operations conducted by JECO and/or AEP.
The metal recycling operations conducted by JECO and/or AEP included, but was not limited to, the delivery of scrap metal product to the Site inside of truck trailers - which would remain on site for up to several months while the scrap metal was sorted and processed on-site and prepared for AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
71 shipment to a final off-site destination.
In 1988, the City amended its Zoning Code, in part, to require a Conditional Use Permit for recycling facilities. Thereafter, on or about April 28, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2323, which further amended the Zoning Code and changed the zoning classification of the Subject Property to Industrial Flex ("IF") Zone.
Pursuant to the Section 11.21.030 and Table 11.21-3 of the amended Zoning Code, recycling facilities require a Conditional Use Permit - however, the recycling operations at the Subject Property were deemed to be a legal, nonconfori'ning 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 forrenewal as SGMC §11.51.070(B)(4) sets the maximum duration of Temporary Use Permits to no more than three days in a row or ten working days in any calendar year.
On May 2, 2023, the Planning 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 contendedthatthetrucktrailerstorageactivitiesarealegal,non-conforminguse. Astheappellant bears the burden of proving the legal, nonconforming status of the truck trailer storage, Staff provided the appellant ample opportunity to present to the Director sufficient evidence to support its contention.
On January 21, 2025, Interim Community Development Director David M. Crabtree, AICP, issued a determination and noncompliance letter indicating the legal, nonconforming use of the subject property for tnetal 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 AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
72 processing/recycling activities is not a legal, nonconforining use ii'nunediately terminated.
and, as such, must be
ANALYSIS:
Appeal of Director's Determination
On January 21, 2025, the City sent a Director's Deterinination and Noncompliance Notification letter to the applicant indicating the legal, nonconfon'ning 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 confon'nity 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 iini'nediately terminated.
On February 6, 2025, the applicant filed an appeal requesting the Planning Commission challenging the Director's determination based on the following grounds:
1. The Director's Determination is unsupported by the South Gate Municipal Code (SGMC) purportedly due to the Director's differentiation between an ancillary and primary use, that the immediate termination of a 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/Teri'ninal 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 cornrnercial 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 use within the IF zone. SGMC Section 11.21.020 notes that "Any land use that is not specifically listed in the land use tables for the applicable zone shall not be allowed or permitted within the zone." Therefore, the storage of trucks, truck-trailers and containers is a prohibited use in the IF zone.
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 AS13772.0860893 4909-8288-0805vl
73 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 deten'nined 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 irnrnediate 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 confornning use. However, the appellant fails to recognize that it was the appellant's abandonment of the recycling/metal processing activities formore 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 confornning use. Instead, the appellant transitioned to using the subject property for the prohibited truck trailer storage use.
The appellant further mistakenly argues that the Director failed to make findings required by Section 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 §11.55.040(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 anonconforming structure - and not the owner's intent to discontinue a legal, nonconforming use. That being said, the Director determined that the structure previously existing AQ,il77a) nR(inRQl 4QnQ-R')RR-n)ln4vT
74 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 deteri'nination that all use ofthe subject property for recycling/metal processing activities has been abandoned/discontinued for more than 2 years.
ASSERTION: The City's management of the legal nonconforming use gives rise to substantive and procedural due process concerns.
The appellant contends that the manner in which the City has handled requests from appellant's legal counsel has raised concerns regarding the appellant's substantive and procedural due process.
Appellant also apparently incorrectly argues that the Director suggested that the appellant was required to obtain a Conditional Use Pei'mit 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 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 m Favor of alternative Land Uses Inconsistent with the Requirements of CEQA.
The appellant incorrectly asserts that the City's termination of the legal, nonconforming use of the subject property is tantamount to changing a land use designation - and would require review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). However, the Director determined that the actual use of the site for recycling/metal processing ceased in or about March 2020 - and the Director's Deternnination merely is a confirmation of the abandonment/discontinuance of the use of the site for recycling/metal processing by the owner.
AQT anl') n)l(inRQTh dQnQR')RR-nR(Xvi
75 Although tlie coinrnencement of a new conforming use may require CEQA review, that would be deteri'nined and occur at the time a confon'ning 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 Cornrnission uphold the Director's deten'nination based on the findings in the attached resolution.
CONCLUSION
Staff recoi'm'nends the Planning 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, nonconfon'ning use.
ATT ACHMENTS:
A. City Council Resolution
B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-04
C. Request for Appeal from Somos Law Group with exhibits D. PC Agenda Bill dated March 18, 2025
E. Letters from South Gate High School students received at March 18, 2025, Planning Commission meeting
F. Public correspondences presented at March 18, 2025, Planning Commission meeting
A'%T1777 nRfillRQl dQnQ37)IR-nRn<v1
76 Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY OF SOUTH GATE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH GATE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL
AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION
TO UPHOLD THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT'S DETERMINATION AND NONCOMPLIANCE
NOTIFICATION REGARDING RECYCLING/METAL
PROCESSING AND TRUCK TRAILER STORAGE AT 8530
ALAMEDA STREET, AND DETERMINING THE ACTION IS
EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (PL 25-0070)
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2025, the Director of Community Development issued a Determination and Noncompliance Notification indicating that the legal, nonconfori'ning use for a metal processing and/or recycling activities at a property located at 8530 Alameda Street ("Subject Property") has been abandoned/discontinued and can no longer be conducted, and that the use of the Subject Property for truck trailer storage as a principal use unrelated to metal processing/recycling activities is not a legal, nonconforming use and must be immediately terminated;
WHEREAS, onFebruary6, 2025, Somos Law Group ("Somos"), onbehalfoftheproperty owner-appellant, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP" represented by Jason Engle), timely submitted an appeal of the Director's Determination and Noncompliance Notification for the Subject Property. The Appellant requested to allow for the continued use of truck trailer and container storage facility at 8530 Alameda Street, a use which is prohibited at that location by the South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC"); and
WHEREAS, the Appellant challenged the Director's Deteri'nination on the following grounds:
1. The Director's Determination is unsupported by the South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC") in the following manners:
a. The Director improperly differentiated ancillary from primary uses; b. The immediate termination of an existing use is inconsistent with the SGMC and the General Plan; and,
c. The Director's Determination violates codified procedural requirements;
2. TheCity'smanagementofthelegalnonconformingusegivesrisetosubstantive and procedural due process concerns;
3. TemiinationofthelegalnonconfonninguseisadeJctoregulatorytaking;and,
4. The City's failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission duly noticed and agendized a public hearing on this matter on February 27, 2025; and Page l of 4
5241340.1-L235.37
77 WHEREAS, pursuant to California Governinent Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission conducted the public hearing on this matter on March 18, 2025, and adopted Resolution No. 2025-04 denying the appeal request; WHEREAS, on April 7, 2025, the applicant filed an application (PL 25-0070) to appeal the Planning Commission's determination to the City Council; WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission duly noticed and agendized a public hearing on this matter on March 27, 2025; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Governrnent Code Section 65854, the City Council conducted the public hearing on this matter on April 22 and May 13, 2025.
WHEREAS, the City Council, after conducting the public hearing and having considered all testimony and other evidence submitted in connection therewith, makes the following findings:
1. The Subject Property had been used by Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP") and/or Jack Engel & Company ("JECO") from approximately 1973 tmough March 2020 for recycling/metal processing activities. Although the main metal processing occurred within a building or structure located on the Subject Property, it also included the use of trucks to take metal to the Subject Property for processing, and to disburse the processed metal thereafter - which necessitated said trucks being parked and/or temporarily stored at the Subject Property for these uses.
2. Inl988,theCityamendeditsZoningCode,inpart,torequireaConditionalUsePeri'nit for recycling facilities - thereby making the recycling/metal processing use at the Subject Property legal, nonconforming.
3. On or about April 28, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2323, which further amended the South Gate Zoning Code and changed the zoning designation of the Subject Property to Industrial Flex ("IF") Zone - thereby further making the recycling/metal processing use at the Subject Property legal, nonconforming.
4. In or around March 2020, the owner of the Subject Property, AEP, voluntarily demolished the structure that was used for the recycling/metal processing activities, and all other activities associated with the recycling/metal processing use ceased at that time.
5. In or around March 2020, Fleet Yards, Inc. ("Fleet") commenced utilizing the Subject Property for the storage of truck trailers and/or containers as a principal use not related to any recycling/metal processing activities.
6. In July 2020, Fleet was issued Temporary Use Permit TUP 2020-01 by the City authorizing the use of the Subject Property for "truck storage for a one-year period of time with possible extensions up to amaximum of five years from the date of approval." TUP 2020-01 expired on July 16, 2021- without a request from Fleet to renew.
7. Notwithstanding an untimely request by Fleet to renew TUP 2020-01, South Gate Municipal Code Section 11.51.070(B)(4) sets the maximum duration of Temporary Use Permits to no more than three days in a row or ten working days in any calendar
AS13772.0860893 4932-9492-6885vl
)D 78
year.
8. Pursuant to SGMC 1 1.55.040(D), any industrial nonconforming use or structure that is wholly discontinued or abandoned for a continuous period of two calendar years loses its legal, nonconfornning status, and all subsequent uses of the property shall conform to current provisions of the South Gate Zoning Code.
9. The Director sufficiently considered the factors set forth in SGMC 11.55.040(D) in the determination that the recycling/metal processing use at the Subject Property had been discontinued and/or abandoned for a continuous period of at least two calendar years, and that any use of the Subject Property must adhere to the current Zoning Code. lO.Notwithstanding the Planning Commission's decision to uphold the Director's Deteri'nination, the City Council has considered all factors set forth in SGMC 1 1.55.040(D) and all other evidence submitted in connection with this public hearing, and concurs that the recycling/metal processing use had been discontinued and/or abandoned for a continuous period of at least two calendar years, and that any use of the Subject Property must adhere to the current Zoning Code.
11. The City Council concurs with the Plaru'iing Cornrnission's decision to uphold the Director's Deten'nination, and independently determines, that the current use of the Subject Property for truck trailer storage unrelated to recycling or metal processing activities is not a legal nonconforming use, and, therefore, is not subject to the provisions of SGMC Chapter 11.55 ("Nonconforming Uses and Buildings").
12. The current use of the Subject Property for the storage of trucks, truck-trailers, and/or storage containers is considered a "truck storage/terminal" as that term is defined by SGMC §11.60.230 to mean "indoor or outdoor site for freight, truck ternninals, truck storage yards, or similar commercial facilities."
13. "Truck storage/terminar' use is not authorized or allowed by the SGMC on any land within the Industrial Flex (IF) zone, of which the Subject Property is a part.
14. The use of the Subject Property as a truck storage/terminal must immediately cease.
15. The City Council rejects the Appellant's contentions that the Appellant's due process rights have been violated or that the termination of the right to continue a legal, nonconforming use that has been abandoned or discontinued constitutes an illegal regulatory taking.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals of this Resolution are true and correct, and are incorporated herein.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that the subject decision qualifies for a categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15321, (Class 21) "Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies," in that the City is enforcing its municipal code.
AS13772.0860893 4932-9492-6885vl
79 SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of South Gate, pursuant to the facts noted above, does hereby uphold the decision of the Planning Corninission to uphold the determination of the Director of Community Development, and independently finds, that the legal, nonconfori'ning use for metal processing and/or recycling activities at a property located at 8530 Alameda Street have been abandoned and can no longer be conducted at the Subject Property, and that the use of the Subject Property for truck trailer storage ("truck storage/ten'ninar') as a use unrelated to metal processing/recycling activities is not a legal, nonconfon'ning use and must be imi'nediately terminated.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution whicl'i shall be effective upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED on this 13th day of May 2025.
CITY OF SOUTH GATE:
By:
Maiia Davila, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Yodit Glaze, City Clerk
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Rail F. Salinas, City Attorney
AS13772.0860893 4932-9492-6885vl
\L
80 ATT ACHMENT B
RESOLUTION N0. 2025-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH GATE, ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDmG THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT'S DETERMINATION AND NONCOMPLIANCE
NOTIFICATION REGARDING RECYCLING/METAL
PROCESSING AND TRUCK TRAILER STORAGE AT 8530
ALAMEDA STREET, AND DETERMINING THE ACTION IS
E,XEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, on Jartuary 21, 2025, tlie Director of Corninunity Development issued a Detert'nination and Noncompliance Notification indicating that the legal, nonconformirig use for a metal processing and/or recycling activities at a propeity located at 8530 Alameda Street ("Subject Property") has been abandoned/discontinued and can no longer be conducted, and tl'iat tl'ie use of the Subject Property for ttauck trailer storage as a principal use unrelated to metal processing/recycling activities is not a legal, nonconfonning use and must be ii'nunediately teri'ninated; and
WHEREAS, onFebniary 6, 2025, Somos Law Group ("Somos"), on bel'ialf oftliepropeity owner-appellant, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP" represented by Jason Engle), timely submitted an appeal of tlie Director's Deterinination and Noncompliai'ice Notification for tl'ie Subject Property. The Appellant reqriested to allow for tlie continued use of truck trailer and container storage facility at 8530 Alameda Street, a use whicli is prohibited at that location by tlie South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC"); and
WHEREAS, the Appellant challenges the Director's Determination on the following grounds:
1. The Director's Determination is unsupported by the South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC") in the following manners:
a. Tlie Director improperly differentiated ancillary from primary uses; b. The immediate ten'nination of ai'i existing use is inconsistent with tlie SGMC and the General Plan; and,
c. The Director's Determination violates codified procedural requirements;
2. TheCity'smanagementoftlielegalnonconjormingusegivesrisetosubstantive and procedural due process concenis;
3. Termination of the legal nonconforming use is a de fctcto regulatory taking; and,
4. The City's failure to comply with tl'ie California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65854, the Planning Coinmission duly noticed and agendized a public hearing on tl'iis matter on Febi-uary 27, 2025; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Govenunent Code Section 65854, the Planning Coinmission conducted tl'ie public hearing on this matter on Marcl'i 18, 2025.
5241340 l-L235.37
81 WHEREAS, tlie Plar'u'iing Commission, affer conducting tlie priblic hearing and having considered all testimony and other evidence submitted ii'i connection therewitli, makes tl'ie following findings:
1. Tlie Subject Propeity had been used by Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP") and/or Jack Engel & Company ("JECO") from approxiinately 1973 through March 2020 for recycling/metal processing activities. Althougli the main metal processing occurred witl'ffii a building or structure located on the Subject Property, it also iiicluded the rise of trucks to take metal to the Subject Property for processing, ai'id to disburse tlie processed metal thereafter - which necessitated said trucks being parked and/or temporarily stored at the Subject Propeity for these uses.
2. Inl988,theCityamendeditsZoningCode,inpart,torequireaConditionalUsePennit for recycling facilities - thereby making the recycling/metal processing use at the Subject Property legal, nonconfon'ning.
3. On or about April 28, 2015, tlie City Council adopted Ordinance 2323, whicli further amended tlie Soutli Gate Zoniiig Code and clianged tlie zoning designation of the Subject Propeity to Industrial Flex ("IF") Zone - thereby furtlier making the recycling/metal processing use at the Subject Property legal, nonconforming.
4. In or around March 2020, the owner of tlie Subject Propeity, AEP, voluntarily demolished tlie stiucture tliat was used for tlie recycling/metal processing activities, and all otlier activities associated with the recycling/metal processing use ceased at that time.
5. In or around March 2020, Fleet Yards, h'ic. ("Fleet") coininenced utilizing the Subject Property for the storage of tiuck trailers and/or containers as a principal use not related to aiiy recycliiig/metal processing activities.
6. hi July 2020, Fleet was issued Temporaiy Use Peimit TUP 2020-01 by the City autliorizing the use of the Subject Property for "tnick storage for a one-year period of time withpossible extensions up to amaxii'num of fiveyears from thedate of approval." TUP 2020-01 expired on July 16, 2021- without a request from Fleet to renew.
7. Notwithstanding an untimely request by Fleet to renew TUP 2020-01, South Gate Municipal Code Section 11.51.070(B)(4) sets the maximum duration of Temporary Use Pet-inits to no more tban three days in a row or ten working days in any calendar year.
8. Pursuant to SGMC 1 1.55.040(D), any industrial nonconfonrung use or stnicture that is wholly discontinued or abandoned for a continuous period of two calendar years loses its legal, nonconfonniiig status, and all subsequent uses of the property sliall conform to current provisions of tlie Soutl'i Gate Zoning Code.
9. Tlie Director sufficiently considered the factors set forth in SGMC 11.55.040(D) in the deterinination that the recycling/metal processing use at the Subject Property had been discontinued and/or abandoned for a continuoris period of at least two calendar years, Planning Conunission Resolution No. 2025-04
March 18, 2025
((J
4513772.0860893 4932-9492-6885vl
82 and tliat any rise of tlie Subject Propeity must adliere to the cun-ent Zoning Code. lO.Notwithstanding the Director's Detennination, tlie Plai'uung Coiuinission has considered all factors set forth in SGMC I i55.040(D) and all other evidence submitted in coiuiection witli tliis priblic heating, and concurs tliat tlie recycling/metal processing use had been discontinued and/or abandoned for a continuous period of at least two calendar years, and that any use of tl'ie Subject Property must adl'iere to the cutrent Zoning Code.
ll.The Plai'ining Commission concurs with tlie Director's Deteimination, and independently deteimines, tliat the cturent use of tlie Subject Propeity for tnick trailer storage ui'irelated to recycling or metal processing activities is not a legal nonconforming use, and, therefore, is not subject to tlie provisions of SGMC Chapter
11.55 ("Nonconfori'ning Uses and Buildings").
12. The current use of the Subject Property for the storage of trucks, truck-trailers, and/or storage containers is considered a "tnick storage/tenninal" as tliat ternn is defined by SGMC §11.60.230 to mean "iiidoor or outdoor site for freiglit, truck terminals, tnick storage yards, or similar commercial facilities."
13. "Tnick storage/teiminal" rise is not authorized or allowed by the SGMC on any land within tlie mdustiial Flex (IF) zone, of which the Subject Propeity is a part.
14. Tl'ie use of tlie Subject Propeity as a truck storage/teiminal must irni'nediately cease.
15. The Plaru'iing Commission rejects the Appellant's contentions tliat the Appellant's due process iiglits have been violated or that the terinination of tlie riglit to contii'iue a legal, nonconforining rise that lias been abandoned or discontitiued constitutes an illegal regulatory taking,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission hereby finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals of this Resolution are true and correct, and are incorporated herein.
SECTION 2. Tl'ie Planning Commission hereby finds that the subject decision qualifies for a categorical exemption under tl'ie California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15321, (Class 21) "Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies," in tliat the City is enforcing its municipal code.
SECTION 3. Tlie Planning Cornrnission of the City of South Gate, pursuant to the facts noted above, does hereby upliold tlie decision of tl'ie Director of Coininunity Development, and independently finds, that the legal, nonconfon'ning use for metal processing and/or recycling activities at a propeity located at 8530 Alameda Street liave been abandoned and can no longer be conducted at the Subject Propeity, and tliat tlie use of tlie Subject Property for truck trailer storage ("truck storage/ten'ninal") as a use uiuaelated to metal processing/recycliiig activities is not a legal, nonconforining use and must be iirunediately terininated.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-04
March 18, 2025
Page3of4
AS13772.0860893 4932-9492-6885vl
83 Tl'iis action was adopted by the following vote at tlie Planning Commissioii meeting of Marcli 18, 2025.
AYES: Prieto, Ruiz, Ozaeta
NOES:
ABSENT: Laborin
APPROVED and ADOPTED this 18"1 of Marcli 2025.
JPol Fa a S'MgllaonageraT
APPROVED:
Ci Planning Con'unission
Planniiig Commission Resolution No. 2025-04
March 18, 2025
AS13772.0860893 4932-9492-6885vl
84 ATT ACHMENT C
I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
SOMOS LAW GROUP LLP
ALFRED FRAUO, JR. (SBN 221973)
alfred@,somosgroup.orz
IAN M. FORREST (SBN 240403)
forrest@,somosgroup.org
SARA ATSBAHA (SBN 310049)
[email protected]
SARAH JANE M. LONGALONG (SBN 356305)
sarah@,somosgroup.org
304 South Broadway Street, Suite 350
Los Angeles, California 90013
Tel.: 213.592.ll85i Fax: 213.620.5759
Attoineys for Appellant
ALAMEDA ENGLE PROPERTIES, LLC
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
FOR THE CITY OF SOUTH GATE
In the matter of the appeal of:
CITY OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING
COA4MISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04,
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
GATE, ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA, DENYIN
AN APPEAL AND tJPHOLDING THE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT'S DETERMINATION
AND NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION
REGARDING RECYCLING/METAL
PROCESSING AND TRUCK TRAILER
STORAGE AT 8530 ALAMEDA STREET,
AND DETERMINING THE ACTION IS
EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIROISIMENTAL QUALITY ACT
APPELLANT ALAMEDA ENGLE
PROPERTIES, LLC'S APPEAL OF CITY
OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING
COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. 2025-
04 SOMO8
Law Group AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025- 04
n
85 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 3
4 I. INTRODUCTION
5 6
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.
A. Historical Use of the Subject Property.
7 B. City Zoning Change and Legal Non-Conforming Use Status............................... 3 8 9
10 11
C. AEP Leases the Subject Property to Fleet Yards in Reliance on the LNCU Determination and City's Issuance and Assurances Regarding a Temporary Use Permit for the Subject Property
D. The City Denies To Extend The TUP.
E. The City's Determination Regarding LNCU at the Subject Property................... 8 12 F. AEP's Zone Change / General Plai'i Amendment Application............................ 13 13 14
G. City Planning Commission Resolutions 2025-04 and 2025-05........................... 14 15 III. ARGUMENTS.
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
A. The Director's Determination And PC Res. 2025-04 Failed To Follow Applicable Provisions Of The SGMC And Are Arbitrary And Capricious Violations Of Constitutional Requirements Of Substantive And Procedural Due Process.
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. Tlie SGMC's Requirements.
The SGMC does not permit the City to bifurcate different the LNCU into component parts in order to justify a finding of LNCU....... 19 The two-year period cited by the City is inaccurate and does not support the determination of abandonment......
Tlie City has failed to substantiate its determination of AEP's intent to abandon the LNCU and all evidence in the record before the City indicates the AEP neither intended nor did in fact abandon the LNCU
The City met none of its requisite evidentiary burdens under SGMC § l 1.55.040.D.2 in support of determination that AEP abandoned its LNCU
SOMOS
Law Group
-11-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025- 04
86 l
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
B.
C.
The City Violated AEP's Rights To Due Process And Deprived AEP Of A Fair And Impartial Adjudicatory Proceeding. .....
1. 2.
The City has abused its regulatory processes, demanding the AEP to pursue land use entitlements and regulatory fixes that the City then would not support in good faith or had no intention of approving .
The City allowed AEP insufficient time to respond to the arguments by the City Prosecutor at the March 18, 2025 Planning Commission Hearing
The City's Re-Zoning And Termination Of The LNCU For The Subject Property Are A De Facto Regulatory Taking..
1. The application of the IF and South Gate College District Zones to the Subject Property severely curtail viable economic use of the Subject Property, resulting in an unconstitutional regulatory taking without just compensation
2. PC Res. 2025-04 cuts off access to AEP propeity in LA County contiguous with the Subject Propeity, resulting in an unconstitutional regulatoiy taking without just compensation................28 14 15
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 CBQA.............29 16 17
18 E. The City Director's Determination Makes For Poor Public Policy And Is Inconsistent With The SGMC's "Encouraged" Phasing Out Of LNCU Presciibed In SGMC And GP
19 IV. CONCLUSION.
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
SOMOS
Law Group
-ill-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025- 04
l'l
87 1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 Pursuant to the City of South Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC") Section 11.50.040, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP") appeals the City of South Gate Planning Commission's ("Planning Commission") Resolution No. 2025-04, A Resolution Of The Planning Commission Of The City Of South Gate, State Of California, Denying An Appeal And Upholding The Director Of Community Development's Determination And Noncompliance Notification Regarding Recycling/Metal ProcessingAnd Truck Trailer Storage At 8530 Alameda Street, And Determining The Action Is Exempt From The California Environmental Quality Act ("PC Res. 2025-04," Exhibit 1). PC Res. 2025-04 upholds the City Director of Community Development's ("Director") deteimination and noncompliance notification regarding the metal recycling/processing and tiuck trailer storage at 8530 Alameda Street ("Subject Property"), determines that the Planning Commission's action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, asserts that the legal, nonconforming use ("LNCU") for a metal processing and/or recycling activities located on the Subject Property has been abandoned/discontinued and can no longer be conducted, and that the use of the Subject Property for truck trailer storage as a principal use unrelated to metal processing/recycling activities is not a LNCU and must be immediately terminated.
As discussed below, the determinations of the Plaru'iing Commission and Director in PC Res. 2025-04 are in error, are not suppoited by reference to fact or applicable law and should be reversed by the City Council.
21 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
22 23
24 25
26 27
A. Historical Use of the Subject Property
1. Jack and Rose Engle, as husband and wife, owned and operated Jack Engle & Company ("JECO"). Since the early 1960s, JECO operated on 8440 S. Alameda Street in unincorporated Los Angeles County. In 1973, JECO acquired the 8530 Alameda Avenue ("Subject Property") from Firestone Tire and Rubber Company and expanded its metal processing operations on the Subject Property.
SOMOS
Law Group
-1-
AF,P APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
2,0
88 I
2 3
4 5
6 7
2. The metal processing operations on the Subject Property included shipment of unprocessed scrap metal to the Subject Propeity via truck and trailers. When a container would arrive at the JECO facilities, the industrial scrap metal would be unloaded, weighed, graded, and sorted into like kind materials, and stored on site.
The storage of tiuck trailers and containers have consistently been central to the business, particularly in the collection, processing, storage, and shipment of industrial scrap
3. metals.
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
4. JECO's suppliers would generate on average between 6 and 11 million pounds of scrap metal per month. This volume of material could not be processed in a matter of days or weeks. These materials would necessarily be stored onsite in truck trailers and in different containers until there was a sufficient amount for processing. These truck trailers and containers holding processed and unprocessed scrap metal were stored on the Subject Propeity for months or longer as necessary. Such storage has always been a critical part of JECO's operations.
5. JECO stored its own truck trailers and containers, as well as tiuck trailers and containers owner by others. At any given time, the Subject Property could be storing dozens of truck trailers, hundreds of medium-to-large roll-off containers comparable in size to shipping containers, as well as thousands of smaller containers wMch would be consolidated into the larger containers and truck trailers for shipment.
6. JECO would frequently use its own tiuck trailers and containers to purchase and store scrap metal materials at the Subject Property. For example, JECO purchased material from the City of South Gate as a supplier, who itself used JECO's services from 2002 through 2019.
7. Whether the materials were stored in truck trailers or other containers was determined by the product's end destination (intemational or domestic), and whether the material was to travel by rail, sea, or truck. The logistics of international shipping and the different requirements for intetnational ports of entiy required the onsite storage of materials at the Subject Property for a longer duration than domestic sipments. Inteniational shipments also often required inspectors to enter the Subject Property to inspect the shipments extending SOMOS
Law Group
-2-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
89 1 the duration of onsite storage of the processed materials in tiuck trailers and containers. 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 8. In the case of either domestic or international shipments, truck trailers and containers would be loaded and stored onsite at the JECO facility until a truck driver was scheduled to retrieve the materials with a specific time slot booked with the appropriate shipping poit or rail line. Given the continuous movement and coordination, truck trailers and containers were consistently stored onsite at the Subject Propeity and such truck trailers and containers constituted as integral and essential a part of JECO's operations as the metal processing itself. Indeed, no metal recycling operations would have been possible without the storage of these tiuck trailers and containers and this practice is consistent with industry standards for comparable metal processing operations nation-wide.
9. In 2009, Jack and Rose Engle's son, Alan Engle, acquired the Subject Property under his company, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP"), to continue the family business.
B. City Zoning Change and Legal Non-Conforming Use Status
10. In20l5,theCityofSouthGate("City")changedthezoningoftheSubject Property from M3 (Heavy Manufacturing) to Industrial Flex ("IF").
11. At the same time, the City also included the Subject Propeity in the South Gate College District as indicated in the City's General Plan.
12. Consequently, when the property was appraised in 2015, a City representative from the City's Planning Department assetted the Subject Property was a storage yard in the IF zone of South Gate, but was a pre-existing, legal nonconforming or "grandfathered" use given 21 the Subject Propeity's recent zone change from M3 to IF. ("Syn-Mar 2015 Appraisal Report," 22 23
24 25
Exhibit 3 at Page 19.)
13. Thisassertionwasrepeatedin20l7,whenanotherappraiserreportindicatedthat a City representative asserted that "the subject as a storage yard in the industrial flex zone of South Gate is reportedly now a pre-existing, legal, non-conforming use ("grandfathered" use)," 26 27
("Syn-Mar 2017 Appraisal Report," Exhibit 4 at Pagel7.) SOMOS
Law Group
-3-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
90 I
2 AEP Leases the Subject Property to Fleet Yards in Reliance on the LNCU Determination and City's Issuance and Assurances Regarding a Temporary Use Permit for the Subject Property
3 14. In March of 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 Pandemic, AEP ceased 4 recycling and processing metal but continued to own and operate the Subject Property for truck 5 trailer and container storage and delivery. While this change continued a primary use of the 6 Subject Property for the purposes of the LNCU, the cessation of the metals recycling decreased 7 the intensity of any environmental burdens associated with the Subject Property. 8 15. Inearly2020,AEPleasedtheSubjectPropertytoitscurrenttenant,FleetYards. 9 16. In or around April 2020, the City (via then Director for Community 10 Development, Joe Perez) and AEP began discussions regarding tlie City's goals for the Subject 11 Property, wherein the City errantly required AEP and Fleet Yards to obtain a Temporary Use 12 Permit ("TUP") for the Subject Property. The City's stated purpose for the TUP was to allow 13 the City to explore ways to encourage the development of education facilities at or around the 14 Subject Property.
15 17. In those discussions, the City made commitments to AEP and Fleet Yards, 16 reiterated on numerous occasions, that the T{JP would be extended annually and that the City 17 would administer additional extensions in the future. 18 18. AEP and Fleet Yards reasonably relied on the City's representations regarding 19 the T'[JP when making critical business decisions and investments in the Subject Property, 20 including but not limited to the execution of a long-term lease agreement for Fleet Yards to 21 continue to operate the truck trailer and container storage use onsite. 22 19. AEP engaged in these discussions with the City in good faith notwithstanding the 23 fact that the long-standing uses of the site, including tiuck trailer and container storage, were 24 vested LNCU under the law. Indeed, truck trailer and container storage at the Subject Property 25 was not expressly discussed in relation to the TUP. The City did not address the LNCU issue at 26 that time, nor did it suggest AEP or Fleet Yards pursue an appropriate entitlement, such as a 27 Development Agreement ("DA") or Conditional Use Permit ("CUP").
SOMOS
Law Group
-4-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
91 1 20. On July 16, 2020, the City issued the TUP to Fleet Yards for its truck trailer use 2 on the Subject Propeity, subject to six conditions:
3 (i) the approved temporary use for the site of 8530 Alameda Street is restricted to truck 4 trailer storage only. No other outdoor storage is permitted including truck storage. No 5 other use is peimitted without the written authorization from the City; 6 (ii) the temporaiy use is approved for a term of one year, set to expire on July 16, 2021. A 7 new application must be submitted at least thiity (30) days prior to the expiration date if 8 an extension is desired. Additional one-year extensions will be considered for approval 9 for up to a maximum period of 5 years from the original approval date of July 16, 2020. 10 Additional extensions will be deteimined based on compliance with said conditions and 11 written verification from the property owner that he/she/they/is/are in process of 12 developing the land, selling the land and/or working with the Los Angeles Community 13 College or a developer on a housing development project; 14 (iii) egress and ingress shall only be via Alameda street.... No other truck or trailers 15 traveling to or from the site shall be allowed to drive upon any South Gate streets other 16 17
18 than Alameda Street;
(iv) Operations shall be limited
be stored on site;
as to the number, size and height of truck trailers that will 19 (v) any violations of these conditions or City Laws could result in the revocation of this 20 Temporary Use Peimit No. T{JP2020-01 ; and
21 (vi) all conditions for a Temporary Use Permit No. TUP2020-01, shall be agreed to by the 22 23
24 property owner in the form of a signed and notarized affidavit. (" J. Perez's letter to D. Otting dated July 16, 2020," Exhibit 5.) The City Denies To Extend The TUP
25 21. Despite the substantial disruptions to the City's administration caused by and 26 during the COVID-19 pandemic and despite the assurances given to AEP and Fleet Yards 27 during the T{JP negotiations in 2020, Fleet Yard's July 11, 2022 T{JP renewal request was SOMOS
Law Group
-5-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
92 1 denied as untitnely by Meredith Elguira, City Director of Community Development, successor 2 to Joe Perez. ("M. Elguira letter to T. Newcomer dated December 20, 2022," Exhibit 6; 3 4
5 6
7 8
"E.Martinez email to City dated December 23, 2022", Exhibit 7.)
22. The initial T{JP revocation failed to consider the significant impacts on local businesses and timely goveinrnent services resulting from and during the COVID-19 pandernic.
On or around October 5, 2022, the City agreed to provide a one (l) year extension in order to provide AEP with enough time for [AEP] to go through [the City's] process. (See Exhibit 7.)
23. On December 20, 2022 however, the City abruptly changed course and denied 9 the T{JP extension for the storage of trucks and containers at the Subject Property on the 10 11
12 13
grounds that the City erred in originally issuing the T{JP and a new City asseition that the LNCU of truck and container storage at the Subject Property had been abandoned. Specifically, the City agued the TUP was only valid for one year, and a T{JP extension could not be reissued because:
14 15
16 17
18 19
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
that the City had erred in issuing the T{JP because SGMC § 11.51.070(B)(4) restricts temporary use permits to a maximum of three consecutive days or ten working days in any calendar year, rendering the one-year duration unauthorized; the business (Fleet Yards) failed to obtain the required business license; Fleet Yards failed to submit a renewal application within the required time frame; and under SGMC § 11.55.040, any prior nonconforming industrial use is deemed 20 discontinued and cannot be resumed because the site was not used for such purposes for 21 over two consecutive calendar years.
22 23
24 25
26 27
In conclusion, the City directed all truck trailer and container storage to be vacated and that the site be maintained as a vacant lot. (See Exhibit 6.)
24. On December 23, 2022, a representative for AEP and Fleet Yards contested the Director's decision and appealed the T{JP denial. (See Exhibit 7.)
25. On January 12, 2023, the City Manager formally denied AEP's and Fleet Yard's request for an extension of the T{JP and extending the appeal period to Januaiy 30, 2023. ("C.
SOMOS
Law Group
-6-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
AS
93 1 Jeffers's TUP Denial Letter to D. Otting dated Jamiary 12, 2023," Exhibit 8.) 2 3
4 26. On January 26, 2023, AEP timely appealed the Director's denial of the TUP to the South Gate City Planning Commission ("CPC" or "Planning Commission"). (J. Engle Appeal Letter to C. Jeffers dated January 26, 2023," Exhibit 9.) 5 27. On or around April 27, 2023, prior to the hearing on the appeal, the City asseited 6 7
8 9
the issue of LNCU was not related to the T{JP extension and would not be considered as pait of the T{JP hearing. However, this is in direct contradiction to tlie City's December 20, 2022 correspondence wherein the T'[JP extension was denied, at least in part, based on the City's asseition that the LNCU had been abandoned.
10 28. AEP responded that same day, pointing out that:
11 12
(i) the LNCU issues were cited as a primary reason for the denial of the T{JP extension; (ii) that the LNCU of truck trailer and container storage had been legally established 13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 through decades of continuous operation;
(iii) that the T{JP was only pursued and issued at the City's request and after assurances that the truck and trailer storage at the Subject Property would be allowed to continue; (iv) that Fleet Yards had substantially complied with the T{JP conditions and that any delay in renewal was due to COVID-19-related disiuptions; and (v) that the City's refusal to extend the TUP, issue zoning clearance, or acknowledge the LNCU contradicted prior City representations and misapplied the SGMC.
Accordingly, AEP requested that the City either foimally recognize the truck trailer storage as a LNCU or, alternatively, reverse the Director's denial of the TUP extension. (AEP's Appeal of Director's Denial of TUP Extension dated April 27, 2023," Exhibit 10.)
29. On May 2, 2023, the CPC denied AEP's appeal of the Director's denial of the T{JP extension in a close 3-2 decision. At the hearing, the City made numerous factual and legal misstatements regarding the LNCU of truck trailer and container storage at the Subject Property, including:
(i) that the LNCU was not "legally established"; SOMOS
Law Group
-7-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
94 1 (ii) that the LNCU doctrine was inapplicable because the operations "don't look like" the 2 historic photos; and
3 4
5 6
7 8
(iii) that the SGMC requirements for the tiuck trailer and container storage applicable from approximately 1980 until 2015 were applicable to the Subject Property's operations, instead of the correct SGMC requirements from 1973 when tiuck trailer and container storage operations on the Subject Property legally commenced.
The misstatements and legal errors were not addressed or corrected by the City. (See Exhibit 10; "AEP's Appeal of CPC's Denial of TUP Extension dated May 16, 2023," Exhibit 9 11.)
10 30. Rather, instead of making a detemiination on the huck trailer and storage as a II
12 13
14 LNCU, the City instructed staff to work with AEP to find a solution. AEP, via its counsel, immediately conferred with the City to discuss a path fotaward for the LNCU at the Subject Property, continuing those conversations with the City Attorney's office and submitting evidence of truck trailer and container storage at the Subject Property dating back to the early 15 1970s.
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
31. OnMayl6,2023,AEPtimelyappealedtheCPC'sdeterminationinorderto ensure exhaustion of its administrative remedies, but with the intent of continuing discussions with the City regarding the LNCU at the Subject Property. (See Exhibit 11.)
32. Also on May 16, 2023, the City asserted to the AEP that an appeal of the T'[JP decision to the City Council was "not available" notwithstanding the appeal provisions in the SGMC. ("M. Elguira's letter to A. Engle re Denial of Request by AEP for Extension of TUP dated May 16, 2023," Exhibit 12.)
33. In or around May 2023, AEP's appeal of the TUP extension to the City Council were stayed pending the City's determination regarding the Subject Property's LNCU.
E. The City's Determination Regarding LNCU at the Subject Property
34. On May 21, 2023 and in support of the discussions between the City and AEP surrounding the LNCU, AEP submitted a Public Records Act request (PRA) to the City to SOMOS
Law Group
-8-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
95 1
2 3
4 gather evidence to demonstrate the longstanding LNCU at the propeity. The PRA requested records related to zoning, land use, and peimitting for the Subject Property including:
(i) certificates of occupancy issued between 1970 and 2014; (ii) zoning codes and maps in effect from 1973 through 2014; 5 6
(iii) administrative and discretionary peimits issued through 2020; (iv) documents and communications related to the 2015 zoning code amendments and the 7 2020 TUP; and
8 9
10 11
(v) correspondence between City officials and individuals or entities affiliated with the Subject Propeiiy.
("S. Atsbaha's Email to R. Larios re PRA Submittal dated May 21, 2023," Exhibit 13.)
35. On July 5, 2023, after numerous follow up inquiries and diligence by AEP's 12 counsel, the City responded with certain documents responsive to the PRA request. As a result 13 14
15 of the City's delays and lack of communication, AEP's counsel was not able to complete its legal arguments demonstrating the Subject Propeity's LNCU until August 17, 2023. (See Exhibit 14.)
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 36. On August 17, 2023, via its counsel, AJEP requested a formal determination from the City that truck trailer and container storage at the Subject Property be recognized as a LNCU under the SGMC. In support of which, AEP asserted:
(i) The current use of the Subject Property for truck trailer and container storage had been ongoing since 1973 as an integral and necessary practice associated with the metal processing operations conducted by JECO.
(ii) No separate entitlement or C{JP was required for truck and container storage as 23 evidenced by the historic zoning code and SGMC provisions in place in 1973 that 24 allowed such activities by right within the M-3 Heavy Manufacturmg zone. 25 26
(iii) The City's own records, including Certificates of Occupancy and decades of business licenses identified metal manufacturing and outdoor storage, confirming that the use was 27 legally established and did not require a C{JP or any other entitlement under the SOMOS
Law Group
-9-
AEP APPEAI, OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
2A
96 1 applicable version of the SGMC.
2 (iv) The City's historic practice did not require listing every component of a primaiy or by- 3 4
5 6
7 8
right use on business permits until 1993, and the failure to separately list truck trailer and container storage did not negate its longstanding legality. (v) The City had both direct and constiuctive notice of this use for decades, and was even a client of the Subject Property from 2002 until 2019. (vi) The tiuck trailer and container storage at the Subject Property was not incidental, but rather essential to the core functions of the metal processing business at the Subject 9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 Property.
(vii) The storage of truck trailers and containers had never been abandoned or discontinued for the two-year period required to extinguish nonconforming rights under SGMC §
11.55.040, and that substantial documentary evidence-such as utility records, photographs, business licenses, and operational logs-confirmed this unintertaupted use. (viii) Even assuming a change in certain operations, current activities by JECO and/or Fleet Yards were substantially similar to the Mstoric use of the Subject Property and fall within the City's discretion to preserve or authorize minor, incidental modifications to existing LNCUs, as supported by SGMC § 11.55.030 and relevant case law. ("A. Fraijo Jr.'s Letter re Demonstration of Legal Nonconforming Use Letter to M. Elguira dated August 17, 2023," Exhibit 15.)
20 37. AEP requested to preserve truck trailer and container storage on the Property as a 21 22
LNCU, or, in the alternative, have the City exercise its authority to continue allowing the use under its discretion to protect AEP's substantially similar or negligible expansions of 23 24
25 26
27 historically permitted operations. (See Exhibit 15.)
38. On October 4, 2023, via counsel and again at the request of the City, AEP submitted proposed terms to the City Manager for a Development Agreement ("DA") to address the City's concerns regarding the use of the property, provide a framework for municipal oversight and future development, and resolve the City's erroneous 2020 requirement that Fleet SOMOS
Law Group
-10-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
97 1 Yards obtain a T{JP. ("Settlement Agreemeiit Term Sheet to the City dated October 4, 2023, 2 Exhibit 16.)
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
39. On November 3, 2023, despite the City's May 16, 2023 letter denying AEP the ability to appeal, the City advised that it now would allow AEP to appeal the CPC's May 2, 2023 denial determination for a T{JP renewal. ('U. Eckait Letter to AEP re Denial of Extension of Temporary Use Permit dated November 3, 2023," Exhibit 17.)
40. OnNovember 15, 2023, AEP submitted its ",4ppeal & Determination ofLegal Nonconforming Use" to the City as requested. ("A. Fraijo Jr. Letter to Mayor P. Avalos re Request for Appeal and Determination of Legal Nonconforming Use dated November 15, 2023," Exhibit 18.)
11 41. On or around November 16, 2023, the City informed AEP's counsel that the City 12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 misplaced the appeal documents and accompanying check for the appeal fees. Despite the fact that it had already been timely submitted onNovember 15, 2023, on December 15, 2023, the City requested that the appeal and supporting documentation be re-submitted by December 18, 2023 to assist the City's determination regarding the LNCU of the truck trailer and container storage at the Subject Property. On December 18, 2023, the AEP complied with the City's request and re-submitted its appeal of the CPC's determination denial of the TUP renewal to the City ("J. Eckart letter to S. Atsbaha re Resubmittal of Appeal Packet and New Payment of Appeal Fees dated December 15, 2023," Exhibit 19.) On December 18, 2023, the AEP re- submitted its appeal of the CPC's determination denial of the TUP renewal to the City. ("Receipt re Somos Appeal Payment Fees to City dated December 18, 2023," Exhibit 20.)
42. On January 4, 2024 and pursuant to the City's request, AEP submitted supplemental documentation of the LNCU at the Subject Property. This supplemental documentation included:
25 26
27 (i) A comprehensive record of materials previously provided on April 27, May 16, August 17, and November 15, 2023, establishing that truck trailer and container storage had been a LNCU at the Subject Property since the early 1970s.
SOMOS
Law Group
-11-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
3(:)
98 1 (ii) A timeline of operations by JECO and Fleet Yards, and description of all responsive 2 City-issued business licenses, entitlements, and regulatory peimits. 3 (iii) An explanation regarding AEP's inability to obtain an auxiliary business license due to 4 the City's own requirement for a zoning clearance, which the City would not grant 5 absent a determination on the LNCU issue.
6 (iv) Notation of the City's lack of response to the proposed DA terms submitted on October 7 4, 2023, which the AJEP intended to address tlie City's concerns, provide for mrmicipal 8 oversight, establish a pathway for future development of the Propeity, and remedy the 9 City's errant requirement for a TUP in 2020, and emphasis that while the prior City 10 Manager declined to meet to discuss the D A, AEP remained willing to engage with the 11 City's new leadership at the earliest opportimity to prirsue a collaborative resolution. 12 ("A. Fraijo Jr.'s letter to M. Elguira re Supplemental Documentation of Legal Nonconforming 13 Use dated January 4, 2024," Exhibit 21.)
14 43, Between January and June of 2024, the City indicated that a settlement 15 agreement regarding the future of the Subject Propcrty may be possible. The City requested 16 that AEP submit proposed terms for the agreement during conversations that occurred between 17 counsel for the AEP and the City.
18 44. On June 19, 2024, via counsel and at the City's request, AEP proposed a 19 settlement agreement in an attempt to resolve the outstanding determination regarding the 20 LNCU. ("S. Atsbaha email to R. Salinas re Settlement Agreement Terms dated June 19, 2024," 21 Exhibit 22.)
22 45. Based on multiple conversations with the City and at the City's request, AEP 23 submitted several discussion proposals intended to correct the City's prior error in requiring a 24 T{JP for truck trailer storage at the Subject Property. These proposals included:
25 (i) draft teims for a potential DA;
26 (ii) market study to determine feasible future developments and altemate uses at the Subject 27 Property;
SOMOS
Law Group
-12-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
3i
99 1 (iii) identification of potential tird-party partnerships consistent with the goals of the City's 2 General Plan;
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
(iv) a medium-term phase-out of the existing use; and (v) a proposed timeline with measurable milestones to guide redevelopment of the Subject Property and facilitate transition to an alternative use. The proposed timeline was modeled on the phase-out language included in the City's General Plan. ("S. Atsbalia letter to City regarding Proposed Solution Summaiy based on conversations with the City dated March 17, 2025," Exhibit 23.)
F. AEP's Zone Change / General Plan Amendment Application
46. On October 14, 2024, AEP submitted an Application for a Zone Change (ZC) and General Plan Amendment (GPA) for the property based on the recommendation of the City. ("S. Atsbaha email submittal re ZC and GPA to City Planning dated October 14, 2024," Exhibit 24; "ZC and GPA Application submitted to City dated October 14, 2024," Exhibit 25; "AEP's letter to R. Houston re Application for Zone Change and General Plan Amendment dated 15 October 18, 2024," Exhibit 26.)
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
47. The OPAl'LC Application would have achieved the City's goals by adding text for structured phase-out, or alternatively reverting the Subject Property to its previous M3 designation until a viable use or development partner could be identified. (See Exhibit 25.)
48. Despite continued and numerous efforts by AEP's representatives and counsel, the City did not acknowledge its receipt of the GPA/ZC Application until January 2, 2025. ("AEP's outreach efforts to City regarding the ZC/GPA from October 18, 2024 to December 2, 2024," Exhibit 27.)
49. On January 21, 2025, the City determined the longstanding LNCU at the Subject Property to have been abandoned and can no longer be conducted at the Site. ("D. Crabtree's Letter to AEP re Director's Determination and Noncompliance Notification dated January 21, 26 2025," Exhibit 28.)
27 50. On or about January 23, 2025, AEP responded to the Director's determination SOMOS
Law Group
-13-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
3>
100
1 and noncompliance notification indicating its surprise to receive the letter in light of the City's 2 indication that the delays to its consideration of the pending Development Agreement ("DA") 3 and pending entitlement applications for a Zone Change ("ZC") and General Plan Amendment 4 ("GPA") prepared and provided at the City's request. (A. Fraijo Jr.'s Letter to D. Crabtree re 5 Director's Determination and Noncompliance Notification dated January 23, 2025," Exhibit 6 29.)
7 51. On January 28, 2025, the City requested additional infoimation and noted that 8 additional City departments were reviewing the ZC/GPA Amendment and provide additional 9 comments. The City requested that the additional information be submitted by February 3, 10 2025, and, provided the project cleared departmental review, the matter could be scheduled for a 11 public hearing before the Planning Commission on March 4, 2025. ("J. Signo's letter to S. 12 Atsbaha regarding AEP's Request for Zone Change Designation from Industrial Flex (IF) to 13 Heavy Manufacturing (M3) dated Januaiy 28,2025," Exhibit 30.) 14 52. On Febiuaiy 3, 2025, via counsel, AEP responded to the City's January 28, 2025 15 letter and submitted the additionally requested information, including:
16 (i) a check in the amount of $8,423;
17 (ii) an amended zoning map;
18 (iii) an amended general plan diagram;
19 (iv) a radius map (along with a physical copy via FedEx for arrival that day); and 20 (v) a Property Owners and Occupants List (also via FedEx to arrive that day). 21 ("S. Atsbaha letter to J. Signo regarding AEP's Request for Zone Change Designation from 22 Industrial Flex (IF) to Heavy Manufacturing (M3)," Exhibit 31.) 23 G. City Planning Commission Resolutions 2025-04 and 2025-05 24 53. On January 21, 2025, the City determined the longstanding LNCU at the Subject 25 Propeity to have been abandoned. (See Exhibit 28.) 26 54. On February 6, 2025, AEP requested for an appeal of the Director's 27 Deteimination and Noncompliance Notification to the CPC. AEP also requested that the City SOMOS
Law Group
-14-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
';'3
101
I consider alternative proposals and meet with AEP. The letter set forth multiple grounds for the 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
appeal, including:
(i) the City's interpretation of the LNCU is inconsistent with the applicable code; (ii) the Director's Determination does not comply with codified requirements; (iii) the General Plan requires a gradual phase-out of existing uses to avoid vacancy, and the Determination raises both substantive and procedural due process concerns; and (iv) the City failed to comply with the California Environi'nental Quality Act (CEQA). ("A. Fraijo Jr.'s letter to D. Crabtree regarding AEP's Request for Appeal of the Director's Determination and Noncompliance Notification dated February 6, 2025," Exhibit 32.)
55. On March 18, 2025, the City Plaru'iing Commission heard both AEP's appeal from the City Director's Determination and Noncompliance notification regarding the recycling/metal processing and truck trailer storage, as well as AEP's ZC/GPA Amendment request to change the zoning of 8530 Alameda Street from IF to M3 (heavy manufacturing) and remove subject property from the South Gate College District as shown in the community design element of the general plan.
16 56. On March 20, 2025, the City circulated City Planning Commission Resolution 17 18
19 20
No. 2025-04 regarding the LNCU at the Subject Propeity, wherein the CPC's decision included:
(i) finding that "that the subject decision qualifies for a categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15321, (Class 21) 'Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies,' in that the City is enforcing its 21 22
23 24
25 26
municipal code"; and
(ii) upholding the decision of the Director of Community Development, and finding that "the legal, nonconforming use for metal processing and/or recycling activities at a property located at 8530 Alameda Street have been abandoned and can no longer be conducted at the Subject Property, and that the use of the Subject Property for truck trailer storage ('track storage/terminal') as a use unrelated to metal processing/recycling 27 activities is not a legal, nonconforming use and must be immediately terminated." SOMOS
Law Group
-15-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
:sq
102
I ("J. Eckart's Email to AEP regarding Resolutions No. 2025-04 and 2025-05," Exhibit 33); (See 2 Exhibit 1 at 3) (Resolution No. 2025-04 - A Resolution Of The Planning Commission Of The 3 City Of South Gate, State Of California, Denying An AppealAnd Upholding The Director Of 4 Conwunity Development's Determination And Noncompliance Notification Regarding 5 Recycling/Metal ProcessingAnd Truclc Trailer Storage At 8530Alameda Street, And 6 Determining The Action Is Exempt From The California Environmental Quality Act.) 7 57. Also on March 20, 2025, the City circulated City Planning Commission 8 Resolution No. 2025-05 regarding AEP's ZC/GPA Application, wherein the CPC's decision 9 included the recommeiidation "that the City Council deny the request to change the zoning of a 10 property located at 8530 Alameda Street from IF to M3 and remove the Subject Propeity from 11 the South Gate College District as shown in the Community Design Element of the General 12 Plan. (See Exhibit 31; Exhibit 2 at 2) (Resolution No. 2025-05 - A Resolution Of The Planning 13 Commission Of The City Of South Gate, State Of California, Recommending To The City 14 Council Denial OfA Request To Change The Zoning OfA Property At 8530 Alameda Street 15 From If (Industrial Flex) To M3 (Heavy Mamtfctcturing) And Remove The Subject Property 16 From The South Gate College DistrictAs Shown In The Community Design Element Of The 17 General Plan.)
18 58. Consistent with the SGMC, AEP timely appealed: (i) CPC Resolution 2025-04 19 regarding the LNCU at the Subject Property; (ii) CPC Resolution 2025-05 regarding AEP's 20 ZC/GPA Application; and (iii) the City's denial of a TUP extension for the Subject Propeity. 21 DI. ARGUMENTS
22 By upholding the Director of Community Development's determination and 23 noncompliance notification regarding AEP's recycling/metal processing and truck trailer 24 storage at 8530 Alameda Street, the City acted in excess of its jurisdiction, prejudicially abused 25 its discretion by failing to proceed in a manner required by law, and denied AEP a fair hearing, 26 due process of law, and equal protection of the laws, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment 27 to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 7, of the California Constitution. The SOMOS
Law Group
-16-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
103
1 2
3 City's decision was both procedurally and substantively prejudiced against AEP by a number of erroneous and incomplete factual and legal assertions leading to tlie City's decision to uphold the Director's deteri'nination that the LNCU for truck trailer and container storage at the Subject 4 property had been abandoned. PC Res. 2025-04 would also result in an unconstitutional taking 5 6
7 8
of AEP propeity and is in violation of the requirements of the Califoinia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Thus, the deteiminations of the Planning Commission and Director in PC Res. 2025-04 are in error, are not supported by reference to fact or applicable law, and should be reversed by the City Council.
9 10
11 A. The Director's Determination And PC Res. 2025-04 Failed To Follow Applicable Provisions Of The SGMC And Are Arbitrary And Capricious Violations Of Constitutional Requirements Of Substantive And Procedural Due Process
12 13
14 15
AEP's rights to substantive and procedural due process are protected by the California Constitution. See A+ticle I, section 7, of the California Constitution. Such protections prohibit the City's adjudication of land use issues in a manner which is arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory. See Bottini v. City of San Diego (2018) 27 Cal. App. 5th 281 (substantive due 16 17
18 19
20 21
22 process violations require conduct that is unreasonable, arbitraryy, or capricious, and must have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained); Hobbs v. City of Pacific Grove (2022) 85 Cal. App. 5th 311 (substantive due process protects against arbitrary governrnent action and requires a rational relationship to a legitimate governrnental interest). If a City fails to proceed in a manner required by law, the City's actions taken pursuant to such are, by definition, arbitrary, capricious, and/or discriminatory, and must be ovetturned. See Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974)11 Cal. 3d 506 (invalidated a 23 city's zoning variance because the planning commission failed to provide sufficient data to 24 25
26 27
justify its decision, and emphasizing the need for adherence to legal standards in land use adjudications). Such constitutional protections prohibit the disparate treatment of one parcel, where said parcel is restricted and given lesser rights than the surrounding parcels. See Ross v.
City of Yorba Linda (1991)1 Cal. App. 4th 954 (overturning city action where a small parcel SOMOS
Law Group
was restricted and given fewer rights than surrounding propeities, holding such zoning to be -17-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
104
1 unreasonable and oppressive).
2 3
1. The SGMC's Requirements
SGMC Chapter 11.55 addresses Nonconforming Uses and Buildings. SGMC 53 4 11.55.020 (Applicability) provides that "[t]he provisions of this chapter shall apply to all 5 nonconfoiming buildings or uses, including outdoor activities such as product storage or 6 parking" (emphasis added). SGMC § 11.55.030 provides, in relevant pait 7 8
9 10
M. Phasing of Compliance. Partial conversions of properties or buildings to bring them into better compliance with this title are permitted and encouraged. This applies to nonconforming outdoor activities such as product storage or parking. When a portion of a property, building, or use is converted to bring it into conformance in phases, the owner does not waive the right to maintain previously allowed uses of other parts of the building or property under the conditions established in this chapter (emphasis added). 11 12
13 0. Inteipretation of Existing Uses. For the purposes of this chapter, an existing use of any part of a building or property will be assumed to be an existing use throughout that building or property, including outdoor activities (emphasis added).
14 15
SGMC Fg 11.55.040.D (Discontinuation/Abandonment Of A Nonconforming Use Or 16 Structure') provides that abandonment of an industrial nonconforming use or structure occurs 17 when the use is wholly discontinued or abandoned for a continuous period of two calendar 18 19
...The determination of discontinuance (i.e., abandonment) sj be supported by evidence, satisfactory to the director, and include the following:
20 21
1. The apparent 'y of the owner to discontinue use of the nonconforming structure is apparent lsic3, as deteimined by the director. 22 23
24 25
2. Where furnishings, equipment and other personal property associated with the use are absent, and where lawful occupancy and/or use of the structure has been discontinued for two calendar years. Evidence of a discontinuation of a nonconforming use sj include but not be limited to: (i) the absence of an active business license; the absence of an active State Board of Equalization permit; (ii) the absence of active electricity, gas and water service accounts; and (iii) the absence of an active waste collection account. 26 27
SOMOS
Law Group
3. If the previously conforming use has been discontinued for the purpose of repair, remodeling, or aesthetic improvements, the maintenance of an active building permit and continuance of a business license shall constitute conclusive evidence -18-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RF,SOLUTION NO. 2025-04
37 105
1 2
that such use has not been abandoned during the period of repair, remodeling, or aesthetic improvements; provided, that the work is conducted diligently to completion.
3 See SGMC F:3 11.55.040.D (emphasis added).
4 In order to establish that a use has been "wholly discontinued or abandoned" for the 5 requisite two-year period per SGMC § l 1.55.040.D., the Director is required to make specific 6 findings, supported by evidence in the determination. That evidence should demoi'istrate "both 7 [1] an intent to abandon and [2] 'an overt act, or failure to act, which carries the implication the 8 owner does not claim or retain any interest in the right to the nonconfotaming use."' See Pallco 9 Ertterprises, Inc. v. Beam (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1482, 1498) (quoting Hansen Brothers 10 Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Sttpervisors (1996) 12 Cal.4th 533, 569). Here, the City violated 11 AEP's rights to substantive and procedural due process via the City's arbitrary and capricious 12 disregard for its own municipal code and the fact that the City's findings that AEP discontinued 13 and abandoned its LNCU at the Subject Property are wholly unsubstantiated by the record 14 before the City.
15 16
The SGMC does not permit the City to bifurcate different the LNCU into component parts in order to justify a finding of LNCU 17 It is undisputed that AEP's use of the Subject Property for truck trailers and container 18 storage has continued since the early 1970's. See Section II.A., sttpra. This has been 19 documented at length in letters and materials submitted to the City, including on April 27, 2023, 20 May 2, 2023, May 16, 2023, and August 17, 2023. See Sections II.B - E., sttpra. 21 Relevant to the issues here and the determination whether that LNCU has been 22 abandoned, there is no language in the entirety of the SGMC, including Chapter ll.55's 23 requisites for Noriconforming Uses and Buildings, that would permit the City Director to 24 bifurcate the LNCU into component parts in order to justify a finding of abandonment. In fact, 25 the SGMC unequivocally requires protection for all parts of an LNCU. The LNCU requisites 26 protect "all nonconforming buildings or uses, including outdoor activities such as product 27 storage or parking." See SGMC §§ 11.55.020 (Applicability), 11.55.030.M (Phasing of SOMOS
Law Group
-19-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
106
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 Compliance), 11.55.030.0 (Interpretation of Existing Uses) (emphasis added). This is reiterated in SGMC § ll.55.030.M's specific assertion that "[w]hen a portion of a property, building, or use is conveited to bring it into conformance in phases, the owner does not waive the right to maintain previously allowed uses of other parts of the building or property.... (emphasis added)" And fuither clarified by SGMC el .0's asseition that "an existing use of any part of a building or property will be assumed to be an existing use throughout that building or property, including outdoor activities (emphasis added)." As applied to AEP here, SGMC Eg 11.55.030.M. is plain: when phasing out a LNCU, AEP does not waive the right to maintain previously allowed uses of the property, including outdoor activities such as storage or parking. Separating the component parts of the LNCU is plainly contrary to the SGMC and is wholly inappropriate here. Indeed, such an interpretation would be contrary to applicable legal precedent as courts have found that a nonconfoiming use is GGnot restricted to the identical use that was in existence at the time of the enactment of the zoning ordinance but embraces any use substantially the same or similar," and certainly a use that had been in place consistently for over 50 years. See Endara v. City of Culver City (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 33, 38 (emphasis added) (court allowed a change in nonconforming use when the property was originally designed and intended for manufacturing purposes, the premises had been continuously used for such purposes, there was no enlargement of the space devoted to the use, and no abandonment of a nonconforming use because the present use was substantially the same as it had been before the adoption of the zoning ordinance). Further, after diligent search and based on publicly available information, AEP is aware of no other instances where the City found that an LNCU had been abandoned simply because one element of the LNCU had ceased. 24 25
26 The City's attempt to bifurcate the LNCU into component parts to justify abandonment here is ultra vires, inconsistent with the plain reading the SGMC, the known practices of the City, and relevant legal precedent, and should be rejected. 27 SOMOS
Law Group
-20-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
107
1 2
3. The two-year period cited by the City is inaccurate and does not support the determination of abandonment
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
II
12 As described in Section II.C. - E. sttpra, the City required AEP to apply for and then issued a T{JP supporting the ongoing operations at the Subject Propeity, assuring AEP that such a T{JP would be continued. The TUP extension was foimally denied on January 12, 2023, timely appealed on January 26, 2023, heard by the CPC on May 2, 2023, timely appealed by the AEP on May 16, 2023, and the issue was stayed by the City pending deteimination of the LNCU at the Subject Property until present. See Section II 77 25 - 33.
As no determination regarding the LNCU has yet been made and the TUP extension stayed tmough present, the two-year period whereby "the use is wholly discontinued or abandoned for a continuous period" under the SGMC has not yet begun. As such, the SGMC's prereqriisites for determining that the abandonment of a LNCU have not been 13 satisfied.
14 Notably, the requisite two-year period of abandonment referenced by the City Director 15 16
17 18
on January 12, 2023 is equally defective. There, the City Director errantly includes the time when the TUP issued by the City and puiportedly supporting AEP's operations was in effect as pait of the requisite two-year period of discontinuance. Thus, even taking the City's depiction of the requisite two-year period as relevant (which, as explained immediately above, it is not 19 given the City's own administrative actions staying the determination), it is clear that the then 20 21
22 23
City Director effectively attempted to manufacture the requisite showing of two-years of abandonment in the January 12, 2023 rejection of the LNCU and denial of the T{JP extension.
For these reasons, the City has failed to satisfy SGMC § ll.55.040.D.'s required showing that the abandonment of the LNCU at the Subject Property has been wholly 24 discontinued or abandoned for a continuous period of two calendar years and the decision of the 25 26
27 Planning Commission should be reversed.
SOMOS
Law Group
-21-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
tub
108
1 2
3 4. The City has failed to substantiate its determination of AEP's intent to abandon the LNCU and all evidence in the record before the City indicates the AEP neither intended nor did in fact abandon the LNCU
4 5
6 9
10 11
12 13
The City has failed to substantiate its detetmination of AEP's intent to abandon the LNCU and all evidence in the record before the City indicates the AEP neither intended nor did in fact abandon the LNCU at the Subject Propeity. The "abandonment of a nonconforming use involves [1] an intent to abandon [2] 'an overt act, or failure to act, which carries the implication the owner does not claim or retain any interest in the right to the nonconforming use."' Pallco Enterprises, Inc. v. Beam (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1482, 1498, emphasis added (quoting Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1996) 12 Cal.4th 533, 569.) The court further reasoned that "mere cessation of use alone is not enough, 'although the duration of nonuse may be a factor in determining whether the nonconforming use has been abandoned."' Id.
14 Here however, there is no evidence suggesting either AEP's intent to abandon the 15 16
17 18
LNCU or an action demonstrating that AEP no longer retained an interest in maintaining the LNCU. See Section II.B - F, sttpra. In fact, the evidence that AEP submitted to the City clearly shows the exact opposite: that AEP intended to continue the LNCU at the Subject Property. See id. Specifically, AEP communicated directly to City that it intended to continue cuttaent 19 operations until a viable alternative use or development partner was identified. 20 21
22 23
24 25
26 Further, on April 27, 2023 and August 17, 2023, per the evidence described in SGMC {S) I 1.55.040.D.2., AEP provided photographs, utility records, historic licenses, business ledgers and comparable documentation demonstratuig that the tnick trailers and containers remained at the Subject Property, that the facilities to coordinate their storage was still located on the Subject Property, and that utility service to the Subject Property is and had been at all times present in order to continue the LNCU. See Section II.D - E., supra. In addition, AEP provided private tours of the Subject Property to City staff and elected officials as part of its ongoing 27 good faith effoits to reach an equitable resolution for the reasonable continuation of the LNCU.
SOMOS
Law Group
Because there is no evidence before the City satisfying the SGMC's requisite showing -22-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COM[VIISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
LN
109
1 2
of neither AEP's intent nor action implying the intent to abandon the LNCU, the City Council should reverse the recommendation of the Planning Commission in PC Res. 2025-04 3 4
5. The City met none of its requisite evidentiary burdens under SGMC §11.55.040.D.2 in support of determination that AEP abandoned its LNCU
5 6
7 8
Before a use or any part of a use can be terminated for abandonment or discontinuation, the Director must make substantiated findings that the use is "wholly discontinued or abandoned for a continuous period of two calendar years" and evidence supporting such a determination "sj3;33 include" the absence of "furnishings, equipment and other personal 9 property...," as well as:
10 11
(i) the absence of an active business license; [(i-a)] the absence of an active State Board of Equalization permit; (ii) the absence of active electricity, gas and water service accounts; (iii) the absence of an active waste collection account. 12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
SGMC Fg 11.55.040.D (emphasis added).
The required findings of SGMC § l 1.55.040.D.2 were not made and are not supported by the administrative record before the City here. See Section II $7 21- 27 (Community Development Director's determination contains none of the required findings), 56 (PC Res. 2025-04 refers to Determination as basis for decision). Indeed, the record here once again demonstrates the opposite. On April 27, 2023 and August 17, 2023, per the evidence described in SGMC § 11.55.040.D.2., AEP provided photographs, utility records, istoric licenses, business ledgers and comparable documentation demonstrating that the tnick trailers and containers remained at the Subject Property, that the facilities to coordinate their storage was still located on the Subject Property, and that utility service to the Subject Property is and had been at all times present in order to continue the LNCU. See Section II.B - F., sttpra.
Because the required findings of SGMC § 11.55.040.D.2 were not made and are not supported by the record before the City here, the Director's decision and PC Res. 2025-04's approval of same is an arbitrary and capricious government action in violation of its own regulations, the broader protections of the California Constitution, and should be reversed by the City Council.
SOMOS
Law Group
-23-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
110
1 2
B. The City Violated AEP's Rights To Due Process And Deprived AEP Of A Fair And Impartial Adjudicatory Proceeding
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
Constitutional guarantees of due process of law govetaii the City's proceedings. See Withrow v. Larkiri (1975) 421 U.S. 35, 46; Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. State Water ResourcesControlBoard(200g)45Cal.4th731,737. Aviolationofdueprocesscanbe demonstrated by a showing of a situation, based on the totality of circumstances, "which experience teaches that the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision-maker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable." Withrow, 421 U.S. at 47. The probability that a single decision maker is biased can be sufficient to warrant reversal of the adjudicatory decision. See Woody's Group, Inc. v. City ofNewport Beach (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1021-1022. Unfortunately, and as generally described in Section II above, due process violations have pervaded the City's proceedings regarding AEP's LNCU.
1. The City has abused its regulatory processes, demanding the AEP to pursue land use entitlements and regulatory fixes that the City then would not support in good faith or had no intention of approving 15 It is understood that land use rights are serious and fundamental to our national 16 17
18 19
identities. Our goveining bodies, municipalities and courts have long understood this, and protections of land use rights are codified in our laws and regulations. The abandonment of property rights is protected against by serious safeguards, codified here by the SGMC and by the laws and constitution of California and the United States for the benefit of all citizens. 20 These concerns are not trivial or an issue to be treated as casually as the City has done here to 21 22
23 24
date. Noone should lose a grandfathered property right where, as here, the City has repeatedly induced AJEP to jeopardize its established LNCU status in the time-consuming and costly pursuit of land use entitlements only to have the City then decide it would not support such entitlements in good faith, or never had any intention of approving those entitlements in the first 25 place.
26 27
Section III.A. above describes in detail the ways in which the City has failed to adhere to the requirements of the SGMC. Equally appalling, however, is the fact that the City's review SOMOS
Law Group
-24-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
111
1 and adjudication of this matter has otherwise proceeded in an unfair and prejudicial maru'ier. 2 The City's ever-shifting requests, lack of response, weaponized uncertainty and conflicting 3 requests kept AEP responding to directionless City requests for years and induced AEP's 4 reliance and reasonable belief that the City was working in good faith to rectify its error in 5 requiring the T{JP and developing a long-ternn solution to gradually transition the LNCU at the 6 Subject Propeity as directed by the CPC on May 2, 2023. For example, 7 (i) The City has refused to clari:[y the permitted uses in the IF zone within the South Gate 8 College District, leaving the Subject Propeity's future rmcertain and AEP without the 9 ability to plan for its gradual transition. See Section III.C.1, infra. Unless the AJEP has 10 certainty as to what the City will allow the Subject Property to become, effoits to 11 transition the Subject Property will be forever frustrated for lack of direction. 12 (ii) After demanding AEP apply for and secure a T{JP in suppoit of its operations at the 13 Subject Property, the City asseits it was issued in an eiror and that the City failed to 14 follow its own SGMC procedures, inducing reliance on the part of the AEP. See Section 15 II 77 21 - 23.'
16 (iii) After City representatives demanded AEP submit a ZC/GPA Application (a time- 17 consuming and costly undeitaking), the City did not respond, acknowledge its receipt or 18 seriously undertake its consideration. See Section II $$ 46 - 48. 19 (iv) After City representatives demanded AEP submit proposed terms for a DA phasing out 20 the current use (again, a time-consuming and costly undertaking), the City did not 21 respond, acla'iowledge its receipt or seriously undertake its consideration. See Section II 22 $ 38.
23 Furtheimore, the City's delays and failures to provide documentation in response to 24 25
26 27
SOMOS
Law Group
' Tliis, despite tlie fact tliat options to unambiguously preserve tlie legal status of AEP's LNCU were available. For example, SGMC F> 1 1.55.030.J allows for "alterations or expansions of a nonconforming industrial structure or use are permitted subject to the approval of the director through an administrative permit application" subject to five standards. The City never cited this as an option AEP could pursue, insisting instead that AEP pursue the aIlIIJP.
Indeed, had the process under SGMC 11.55.030.J been offered to AEP instead of tlie City's erroneous insistence on the TUP and inducement of AEP to rely on same, the alleged abandonment of the LNCU would not be at issue today.
-25-
AEP APPEAl OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
112
l
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 AEP's inqriiries frustrated AEP's responses to and defenses against the City's actions. For example, AEP reqriested specific documents relating to the City's misstatements made during a May 2, 2024 Plaru'iing Cornrnission hearing. See Section II 77 34-35. Despite this request and several inquiries about the City's allegations regarding changes to the SGMC, it took the City several months to respond. Even then, with its untimely production of documents, the City was unable to provide the majority of the documents AEP requested, including previous iterations of the code and older business licenses clearly in the City's possession. Specifically, the Director's Determination cites a 1988 change to the SGMC that required a Conditional Use Permit. While this information was specifically requested May 17, 2024, it was never provided by the City. The City's lack of diligence in responding to AEP's PRA request frustrated AEP's ability to demonstrate the LNCU at the Subject Property, as well as AEP's ability to effectively respond to the City's misstatements during the May 2, 2024 Planning Commission.
As such, the City abused its regulatory processes, demanding the AEP to pursue land use entitlements and regulatotay fixes that the City then would not support in good faith or had no intention of approving, as evidenced by its lack of response and/or suppoit for AEP's efforts to negotiate in good faith.
2, The City allowed AEP insufficient time to respond to the arguments by the City Prosecutor at the March 18, 2025 Planning Commission Hearing
19 20
21 22
During the March 18, 2025 Planning Cornrnission hearing on the appeal of the City Director's Determination, the City Planning Commission did not provide AEP with an adequate opportunity to be heard when it provided AEP with three (3) minutes of rebuttal to the City Prosecutor's thirty (30) minute arguments. Tis imbalance of time allotted did not allow AEP 23 adequate opportunity to rebut arguments presented by the City Attorney prior to the Planning 24 Commission's decision, and is procedural error here. 25 26
C. The City's Re-Zoning And Termination Of The LNCU For The Subject Property Are A De Facto Regulatory Taking
27 The City's 2015 Zone Change and General Plan Amendment changed the zoning on of SOMOS
Law Group
-26-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
U4
113
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 the Subject Property from "M3" (Heavy Manufacturing) to "IF" (Industrial Flex), within Subarea 1 of the South Gate College District - a sub-district created by the 2015 General Plan Amendment. See Section II $$ 10 - 11. The zone change was not immediately applied to the Subject Property given the LNCU present, but the City's discretionary action approving PC Res. 2025-04 would change that. See Section II ffl 56. Moreover, the consequences of the City's approval of PC Res. 2025-04 stretch beyond the jurisdictional bounds of the City, as that decision will effectively island AEP property located in LA County immediately north of and contiguous with the Subject Property. See Section III.C.2, sttpra. In either case, the City's approval of PC Res. 2025-04 will result in an unconstitutional regulatory taking of AEP 10 11
12 13
propeity without compensation.
1. The application of the IF and South Gate College District Zones to the Subject Property severely curtail viable economic use of the Subject Property, resulting in an unconstitutional regulatory taking w'thout just compensation
14 Once applied to the Subject Property, the IF zoning and South Gate College District 15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 overlay will severely, if not completely, limit viable future uses of the Subject Property due to the Property's location, surrounding industrial land uses, and unique characteristics.
As is, the IF zone allows only a small range of uses, such as research and development facilities, mixed-use and residential uses. See SGMC § l 1.22.060.A. (Industrial Flex zone (IF) "should incorporate light industrial development, research and development (R&D) integrated with office, and local- and regional-serving commercial"). When the South Gate College District is also applied, the potentially applicable uses are even 'Jurther constrained. See South GateGeneralPlan2035,CommunityDesignElementatl05-106. Inthatsubdistrict,theonly uses permitted are civic/institutional facilities, open space, office/research and development and light industrial uses. See id. ("Allowable Place Types" table). Unlike the IF zone, single retail uses are discouraged. See id. at P.10. The subdistrict fiirther suggests any use that is not affiliated with a community college district is precluded. See id. ("The South Gate College District is proposed to become a diverse, dense and vibrant area that contains a wide array of SOMOS
Law Group
facilities such as classrooms, a library, public meeting spaces, parks and plazas, cultural -27-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
Lik
114
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 facilities and a hub for emerging green technology firms. The City envisions that educational, cultural and recreational facilities will be open to and shared with the residents of South Gate.") This overlapping zoning severely, if not completely, empties the pool of future potential uses for and occupants of Subject Property. Even the City has steadfastly refused to give clear guidance as to what uses are peimitted on the Subject Propeity, in an apparent admission of the lack of potentially viable uses and users.
Even if such a unique potential occupant of the Subject Property is found however, they 8 are not likely to be interested in the Subject Propeity as it will remain, into any foreseeable 9 10
11 12
future, surrounded by industrial uses on three sides, including metal fabrication facilities, automotive repair yards, train tracks, warehouses, and similar uses. As such, the Subject Property's transition to a use consistent with the IF and South Gate College District zoning will have no appreciable benefit to the regional welfare given the surrounding industrial land uses 13 that would remain.
14 Thus, the City's approval of PC Res. 2025-04 and immediate application of the IF and 15 South Gate College District zoning to the Subject Property will constitute an irnpermissible 16 17
18 19
form of "spot zoning," effectively depriving AEP of all feasible use, as well as being arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable as it will bears no reasonable relationsip to the regional welfare given the immediately surrounding industrial land uses and zoning that remain permitted by the City. This constitutes an unconstitutional regulatory taking of AEP property without 20 21
22 compensation.
2. PC Res. 2025-04 cuts off access to AEP property in LA County contiguous with the Subject Property, resulting in an unconstitutional regulatory taking without just compensation 23 24
25 26
If approved, PC Res. 2025-04 would also "island" AEP property located in LA County, immediately north of and contiguous with the Subject Propeity, and which remains zoned industrial. See SGMC Fp 11.22.060, Figure 11.22-3 (Zoning Location Map for the Industrial Flex (IF) Zone'). That AEP property is in the shape of a tiiangle, currently surrounded by train 27 tracks, other industrial properties over which AEP has no rights of ingress or egress to the north, SOMOS
Law Group
-28-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
'll
115
1 and the Subject Property to the south. If PC Res. 2025-04 is approved, the Subject Property will 2 effectively become an incompatible land use, resulting in a lack of effective access, islanding 3 that property, and nullifying that propeity's properly zoned use pursuant to the rules and laws of 4 Los Angeles County. This too, would constihite an unconstitutional regulatory taking of AEP 5 6
7 propeity without compensation.
D. The City Has Not Considered The Environmental Consequences Resulting From The Termination Of The Existing Land Use In Favor Of Alternative Land Uses Inconsistent With The Requirements Of CEQA 8 In issuing PC Res. 2025-04 and justifying its discretionary decision to uphold the City 9 Director's Determination to remove the LNCU designation and apply the IF and South Gate 10 College District zoning to the Subject Property, the Planning Commission asserted, in relevant 11 part
12 13
14 The Planning Commission hereby finds that the subject decision qualifies for a categorical exemption under the Califoinia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15321, (Class 21) 'Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies,' in that the City is enforcing its municipal code. 15 16
PC Res. 2025-04 at 3.
In so finding, the City has failed to consider relevant exceptions to the Class 21 17 exemption described in Cal. Code Regs., title 14 ("CEQA Guidelines") § 15300.2 wich would 18 make this exemption inapplicable, including but not limited to potential cumulative impacts, 19 unusual circumstances causing this decision to have a significant effect on the environment, and 20 the fact that the project is located on a "Hazardous Waste Site" list compiled pursuant to CA. 21 Gov't Code § 65962.5. At a minimum here, there is substantial evidence that the Hazardous 22 Waste Sites exception to the Class 21 exemption applies, and thus the City cannot use the Class 23 21 categorical exemption from CEQA in suppoit of its determination. See EnviroStor Database 24 (Engle Northern Parcel, Rec. # , Firestone - Engle Southern Parcel, Rec # , 25 last accessed April 5, 2025)); GeoTracker Database (Jack Engle Co (SL2049A1721, last 26 accessed April 5, 2025)). The City's finding that its decision was exempt from CEQA via Class 27 21 is unsupported and flatly contradicted by substantial evidence in the administrative record.
SOMOS
Law Group
-29-
AEP AJ'PEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
116
1 Fuither, the environmental consequences of the City's discretionaiy action here are 2 unpredictable and there is no evidence in the administrative record that reasonably foreseeable 3 environmental impacts have been considered. For example, the forced application of zoning 4 here will foster changes in land uses and new proposed construction and development on the 5 site that will nahirally have environmental impacts related to constniction (e. g., air quality, 6 noise and vibration, traffic), regardless of the character of any new development. It is 7 reasonably foreseeable that any such new development consistent with the IF zoning and South 8 Gate College District Overlay will also have impacts related to land use and planning, traffic 9 impacts (level of service impacts as well as impacts on the levels of service experienced by the 10 surrounding communities), hazards and hazardous materials, and utilities and service systems. 11 The lack of applicable exemption requires the City to analyze the potential 12 environmental impacts associated with its discretionary action here, disclose those impacts 13 pursuant to the appropriate CEQA document (e.g., negative declaration or environmental impact 14 report), and then approve this decision suppoited by adequate findings based on substantial 15 16
17 evidence in the administrative record. See CA. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000, et seq.
E. The City Director's Determination Makes For Poor Public Policy And Is Inconsistent With The SGMC's 'GEncouraged" Phasing Out Of LNCU Prescribed In SGMC And GP
18 In addition to the legal deficiencies of the City Director's Determination as upheld by 19 PC Res. 2025-04, the abrupt termination of the LNCU at the Subject Propeity is contrary to the 20 "encouraged" gradual phasing out of legal nonconforming land uses in the SGMC and GP and 21 22
makes for poor public policy.
SGMC Fp 11.55.030.M. (Phasing of Compliance) provides, in relevant pait, that 23 24
25 26
27 Partial conversions of properties or buildings to bring them into better compliance with this title are permitted and encouraged. This applies to nonconforming outdoor activities such as product storage or parking. When a portion of a property, building, or use is converted to bring it into conformance in phases, the owner does not waive the right to maintain previously allowed uses of other paits of the building or property under the conditions established in this chapter (emphasis added).
SOMOS
Law Group
-30-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
117
l
2 The SGMC § 11.22.060 (Industrial Flex zone (IF)) states in relevant part that"[t]he puipose of the industrial flex zone is to continue the industrial job base in the area, while allowing 3 flexibility to incorporate a mix of uses and job options." 4 5
6 For its pait, the South Gate General Plan 2035 states in relevant part that "[i]ndustrial and manufacturing uses should remain in the area but could be phased out as the college district expands." South Gate General Plan 2035, Community Design Element at 105-106 (South Gate 7 8
9 10
College Distiict, P.6); see also id. at 99 (Objective CD 8.4, P.3 ("Existing, non-confoiming industiial uses should be phased out during the course of the General Plan"). The General Plan explains that this subdistiict was designed to be a redevelopment in paitnership with local cornrnunity college districts, only to be executed after the City prepared a Specific Plan or 11 Precise Plan together with a cornrnunity college paitner. See id. at 106 (P.2). The purpose of 12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
tis Specific Plan/Precise Plan was to identify viable alternative uses on the Propeity piior to phasing out the existing use. See id. at 106 (P.6). The City has had 10 years to initiate preliminary planning stages. See id. (current South Gate General Plan applicable until 2035).
However, to date, the City has prepared no such plan.
As noted in Section II.C.1, the IF zone allows a small range of uses, which are then severely limited further by the South Gate College District designation. Given the development constraints p'lace on the Subject Property by the IF zoning and the South Gate College District, the GP and SGMC policies encouraging the gradual phasing out of legal, nonconforming uses 20 once viable alternatives make intuitive sense: vacant property is not in the interests of the City, 21 22
23 24
25 26
27 its constituents, or the local businesses and community at large. As noted above, both the SGMC and the General Plan specifically allow and encourage the gradual phasing out of noncompatible existing uses as 'future uses become viable. See id. at 106 (P.6). The General Plan anticipates the phasing out of the existing uses consistent with the course of the current General Plan, which terminates in 2035. See id. (current South Gate General Plan applicable until 2035).
Here however, by refusing to negotiate a gradual and phased transition of the Subject SOMOS
Law Group
-31-
AEP APPEAL OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
6D
118
I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 Propeity and inappropriately demanding the LNCU irnrnediately cease, the City acts inconsistently with the SGMC and General Plan. Given the limited oppoitunities for development and/or new tenants consistent with both the General Plan and South Gate College District, if the City Council upholds the PC Res. 2025-04, the Subject Property will be left vacant, idle and unproductive, depriving the City of part of its tax base and resulting in an unconstitutional regulatory taking without just compensation. See discussion at Section III.C., sttpra. Such an outcome is unnecessary, would make for poor public policy, and should be reversed by the City Council.
9 IV. CONCLUSION
10 In conclusion, the determinations of the City Director and Planning Commission in PC 11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
Res. 2025-04 are in error and are not supported by reference to fact or applicable law. In making these decisions, the City violated AEP's rights to substantive and procedural due process via the City's arbitrary and capricious disregard for its own municipal code and the fact that the City's findings that AEP discontinued and abandoned its LNCU at the Subject Property are wholly unsubstantiated by the record before the City. Furtheimore, the City's approval of PC Res. 2025-04 and immediate application of the IF and South Gate College District zoning to the Subject Property will constitute an unconstitutional regulatory taking of AEP property without compensation and are in violation of CEQA.
For the reasons set forth above, PC Res. 2025-04 should be reversed by the City Council and the CPC's determination that the LNCU has been abandoned should be denied and set 21 22
23 24
25 26
27 aside.
Dated: April 8, 2025 SOMOS LAW GROUP
/s/ fan M. Forrest
BY:
Ian M. Forrest, Esq.
Attorneys for Appellant, Alameda Engle
Properties, LLC
SOMOS
Law Group
-32-
AEP APPEAJ, OF SOUTH GATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
!6i
119
EXHIBIT I
Exh 1
120
RESOLUTION N0. 2025-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH GATE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN
APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT'S DETERMnNATION AND NONCOMPLIANCE
NOTIFICATION REGARDING RECYCLING/METAL
PROCESSING AND TRUCK TRAILER STORAGE AT 8530
ALAMEDA STREET, AND DETERMINING THE ACTION IS
EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
IVHEREAS, on Janciary 21, 2025, the Director of Corntnunity Development issued a Deterinination and Noncomliliai'ice Notificatiori indicating that tlie legal, nonconfonning use for a metal processing and/or recycling activities at a propeity located at 8530 Alameda Street ("Subject Property") lias lyeen abandoned/discontinued and can no longer be conducted, and that tbe use of tlie Subject Propetty for truck trailer storage as a principal use ui'irelated to metal processing/recycling activities is not a legal, nonconfomiing use and must be iminediately teri'iiinated; and
WHEREAS, on Febitiaiy 6, 2025, Somos Law Group ("Somos"), on behalfoftl'ie property owner-appellaiit, Alai'neda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP" represented by Jason Engle), timely submitted an appeal of tlie Director's Deterinination aiid Noi'icompliaiice Notification for tlie Subject Propeity. Tl'ie Appellant requested to allow for tlie continued use of ttuck trailer atid container storage facility at 8530 Alameda Street, a use whicli is prolffbited at that locatiori by the Soutli Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC"); and
WHEREAS, the Appellant cliallenges the Director's Deterii'iination on tlie following grounds:
1. Tl"ie Director's Determixiation is unsupported by the South Gate Mui'iicipal Code ("SGMC") in the following mariners:
a. Tlie Director ii'i'iproperly differentiated ancillary fi-om primary uses; b. The in'u'nediate teii'nination of an existing use is inconsistent with the SGMC and tl'ie General Plan; and,
c. The Director's Deterinination violates codified procedural requirements;
2. TlieCity'smanagementoftlielegalnoncoxiformingusegivesrisetosubstantive and procedural due process concems;
3. Teri'ninationofthelegalnonconforminguseisade.7ac/oregulatorytaking;and,
4. The City's failure to comply with tlie Califomia Environinental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.
WHEREAS, pursuaiit to Califomia Govetmnent Code Section 65854, tlie Planning Coinmission duly noticed and agendized a public lieariiig on tl'iis matter on February 27, 2025; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Goveriment Code Section 65854, tlie Plai'tning Con'irnission conducted tlie public liearing on this matter on Marcli 18, 2025.
5241340.1- L235.17
53 121
}VHEREAS, tlie Plant'ang Cominission, after conducting tlie public lieaiing and liaving considered all testiinony and otl'ier evidence submitted in connection therewitli, makes tlie following findings:
1. The Stibject Propeity liad been used by Alameda Engle Properties, LLC ("AEP") and/or Jack Engel & Company ("JECO") from approxiinately 1973 througli Marcli 2020 for recycling/metal processing activities. Althougli tl'ie main metal processing occurred wifl'm a building or stnicture located on tlie Subject Property, it also included tlie rise of trucks to take metal to tlie Subject Property for processing, and to disburse t]'ie processed metal thereafter - wliidi necessitated said trucks being parked and/or temporarily stored at tlie Subject Property for these uses.
2. Inl988,theCityainendeditsZoningCode,inpart,torequireaConditionalUsePermit for recycling facilities - tliereby makii'ig tlie recycling/metal processing use at the Subject Propeity legal, nonconfornning.
3. On or alyout April 28, 2015, tl'ie City Council adopted Ordinance 2323, wliicli fiirtlier amended the Soutli Gate Zoning Code and clianged the zoning designation of tl'>e Subject Propeity to Industrial Flex ("'IF") Zoiie - tbereby fiirtlier makiiig the recycling/metal processing use at tlie Subject Propeity legal, nonconforming.
4. In or around Marcli 2020, tlie owner of tlie Subject Property, AEP, voluntarily demolislied the structi'ire that was used for the recycling/metal processing activities, and all other activities associated witli tlie recycling/metal processinguse ceased at tliat time.
5. In or around Marcli 2020, Fleet Yards, Inc. ("Fleet") coinnienced utilizing tlie Subject Property for the storage of buck trailers aiid/or containers as a principal use not related to any recycling/metal processing activities.
6. Ln July 2020, Fleet was issued Temporary Use Peimit TUP 2020-01 by the City autliorizing tlie rise of tlie Subject Property for "truck storage for a one-year period of time witli possible extensions up to a maximum of five years from the date of approval." TUP 2020-01 expired on July 16, 2021- without a request from Fleet to renew.
7. Notwitlistanding an untimely request by Fleet to renew TUP 2020-01, Soutli Gate Municipal Code Section 11.51.070(B)(4) sets tl'ie maximum duration of Temporary Use Permits to no more than three days in a row or ten working days in any calendar year.
8. Pursuant to SGMC l 1.55.040(D), any industrial nonconforming use or stnicture tliat is wholly discontinued or abandoned for a continuous period of two calendar years loses its legal, nonconforming status, and all subsequent uses of tlie property sliall conform to current provisions of tbe Soutli Gate Zoning Code,
9. Tlie Director sufficiently considered t)ie factors set forth in SGMC 11.55.040(D) in tl'ie determination tliat tlie recycling/metal processing use at tlie Subject Property liad been discontinued and/or abandoned for a continuoris period of at least hvo calendar years, Planning Con'imission Resolution No. 2025-04
March 18, 2025
5'7'
4513772.0860893 4932-9492-6885vl
122
aiid tliat any use of the Subject Propeity must adliere to tlie current Zoning Code.
IO.Notwitlistanding tlie Director's Determination, tlie Planning Conunission has considered all factors set fortl'i iii SGMC 11.55.040(D) and all otl'ier evidence stibmitted in connection witli this public liearing, and concurs tl'iat tlie recycling/metal processing use had been discontinued and/or abandoned for a continuous period of at least two calendar years, and tliat any use of tlie Subject Property must adliere to tlie current Zoning Code.
Il.The Planning Commissioyi concurs with tl'ie Director's Detern'iiiiation, and independently determines, that the cuiarent use of tlie Suliject Property for tnick trailer storage unrelated to recycling or metal processii'ig activities is not a legal nonconfonning use, and, tlierefore, is not subject to tlie lirovisions of SGMC Cliapter
11.55 ("Noi'iconforinii'ig Uses and Buildings").
12. Tlie current use of the Subject Property for the storage of trucks, truck-trailers, and/or storage containers is considered a "truck storage/terminal" as tliat terin is defined by SGMC §11.60.230 to mean "indoor or outdoor site for freiglit, truck tenuinals, truck storage yards, or similar commercial facilities."
13. "Truck storage/termiiial" use is not authorized or allowed by tlie SGMC on any land witluii tlie industrial Flex (IF) zoxie, of wlucli tlie Subject Property is a part.
14. The rise of tlie Sulyject Propeity as a tnick storage/tenninal must irtu'nediately cease.
15. Tlie Planning Cominission rejects tlie Appellant's contentions that tlie Appellant's due process ffghts have been violated or tliat tlie tennination of tlie riglit to contiiuie a legal, nonconfoiming use tliat lias been abandoned or discontinued constitutes axi illegal regulatoiy taking.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMM'ISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Tlie Planning Cominission hereby finds tliat all of tl'ie facts set foitli in tlie Recitals of tliis Resolution are true and correct, and are incorporated }ierein.
SECTION 2. Tlie Plax'u'iing Coinmission liereby finds tliat tlie subject decision qualifies for a categorical exemption under tlie California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15321, (Class 21) "Enforcement Actions by Regtilatory Agencies," in tliat the City is enforcing its municipal code.
SECTION 3. Tlie Plai'tning Con'unission of t]ie City of Soutli Gate, pursuarit to tlie facts noted above, does liereby upliold the decision of tlie Director of Community Development, and independently finds, That tl'ie legal, nonconfori'iiing use for metal processing and/or recycling activities at a property located at 8530 Alameda Street liave been abatidoned and can no loiiger be conducted at tlie Subject Property, and tl'iat tlie use of tlie Subject Propet0 for truck trailer storage ("truck storage/terminal") as a use unrelated to metal processing/recycling activities is not a legal, nonconforming use and must be in'unediately terminated.
Plaiuiiiig Conunission Resolution No. 2025-04
March 18, 2025
Page3of4
451)772.0860893 4912-')4')2-6885vI
55 123
Tl'iis action was adopted by tlie following vote at tl'ie Planning Con'u'nission meeting o'f March 18, 2025.
AYES: Prieto, Ruiz, Ozaeta
NOES:
ABSENT: Laboiin
APPROVED and ADOPTED this 18' of March 2025.
Jo F. Signo,
P g Manager
APPROVED:
Ci Plai'u'iing Coinmission
Planning Conunission Resoltition No. 2025-04
Marcli 18, 2025
Page4of4
AS13772.086089] 4932-9492-6885vl
124
EXHIBIT2
Exh 2
57 125
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 TI-IE ZONING OF A PROPERTY AT 8530 ALAI!/IEDA STREET FROM IF (INDUSTRIAL FLEX) TO M3
(HEAVY MAlSTUFACTtJRING) AND REMOVE THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY FROM THE SOUTH GATE COLLEGE DISTRICT AS
SHOIVN IN THE CONIMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE
GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, tlie applicant, Somos Law Group, on belialf of the property owner, Alameda Engle Properties, LLC (represented by Jason Engle), submitted an application for a Zone Cliange and General Plan Ainendment for a property located at 8530 Alameda Street ("Subject Property").
Tlie applicant requested a zone cliange and General Plaii Airiendment to cliange tlie zone from IF (Industrial Flex) to M3 (Heavy Manufactiiring) and remove the subject property from tl'ie Soutl'i Gate College Distiict as sl'iown in tlie Coiui'nunity Design Element of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Govemment Code Section 65854, tl'ie Planning Commission duly noticed and agendized a public lieating on this matter on February 27, 2025; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Govenunent Code Section 65854, tlie Planning Commission conducted the public liearing on tl"iis matter on Marcli 18, 2025.
WHEREAS, tlie Planning Con'unission made tlie following findings:
1. In 2015, tl'ie City rezoned tl'ie Subject Property from M3 to IF to accommodate future growth of East Los Angeles Comminity College (ELACC) within the Soutli Gate College District as described in the Counity Design Element of the City's General Plan. ELACC anticipates a largely expanded campus complex tliat would include adaptive reuse of nearby industrial facilities along Firestone Boulevard. Chai'iging the zone to M3 would be contraty to tl'ie vision and policies of tlie General Plan.
2. Tlie Subject Property is located in the nortliwestem corner of tlie City in the IF zone, and diangiiig tlie zoning aitd removing the Subject Property from the Soutli Gate College District as sliown iri tl'ie CommunityDesign Element oftlie General Plan worild constitute "spot zoning," whicli is contrary to the vision and policies of tlie General Plan,
3. The legal, nonconforming use of the Subject Property for tnetal processing and/or recycling activities - includii'ig tlie integral tnick trailer storage component of tliose activities - lias been determined to be abandoned and can no longer be conducted at tlte Subject Property unless otlierwise in coi'ifoiinity to all cuiataent laws and regulations of tlie City (and applicable governmental agencies). Tl'ie City desires a land use compatible witli the purpose and intent of the IF zoning district.
ASL]772.086089) 492]-2538-6533v!
126
4. The IF zoning district allows for certain residential uses to lye developed, and cl'ianging tlie zoiffng to M3 would preclude potential new liousiitg developinent, wl'iicli is contrary to the City's Housing Element and t]'ie Statewide regional liousing needs.
5. Clianging tlie zoing district to M3 worild preclude a nrimber 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 Coininission l'>ereby finds that all of tlie facts set forth in the Recitals of this Resolution are tiue and correct.
SECTION 2. Tlie Planning Commission's recotnmendation to tlxe City Council on aniendments to tlie Zoning Map and General Plan is not subject to Califoriiia Environi'nental Quality Act (CEQA) review because it is not an "approval" as defined in Califori'iia Code of Regulations, Titlel4, Section 15352, but ratlier a reconmiendation, and therefore does not commit the City to any definite course of action regarding tl'ie Zoning Code Amendme.nt aiid General Plan.
Ftuthermore, CEQA does riot apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves liursuant to Section 15270(a).
SECTION 3. Tlie Planiig Coininission hereby recommends tliat tlie City Council deny tlie request to cliange tlie zoxiing of a property located at 8530 Alameda Street from IF to M3 and remove the Subject Property from the Soutli Gate College District as shown in tlie Con'imunity Design Element of the General Plan.
Tliis action was adopted by tlie followii'ig vote at tl'ie P]aig Corninission meeting of March 18, 2025.
AYES: Prieto, Ruiz, Ozaeta
NOES:
ABSENT: Laboiin
APPROVED and ADOPTED tliis 1 8' of March, 2025.
APP
City anrung Con'uniss on
Planniiig Manager
J
AS13772.0860893 4923-2518-6533vl
127
EXHIBIT3
Exh 3
tpO
128
Zoning
Zoning Code:
Zoning Description.
Current Use Legally Conforming:
Zoning Change Likely:
Comments:
LAND USE CONTROLS
Industrial Flex (APN 6202-036-003) & M2 - Heavy
Manufactuting (APN 6202-036-004)
These zonings provide for many industrial uses, among certain other uses.
The subject is a pre-existing legal, non-conforming use. See comments.
A zoning change is unlikely.
APN 6202-036-003, which is located in the City of South Gate, is zoned hidustrial Flex. According to a representative with the City of South Gate planning department, the subject's zoning was recently changed to this from M2. APN 6202-036-004, which is located in unincorporated Los Angeles County area, is zoned M2 - Heavy Manufactunng. The subject as a storage yard in the hidustrial Flex zone of South Gate is reportedly now a pre-existing, legal, non-conforming use ("grandfathered" use), while the subject as a storage yard in the M2 - Heavy Manufacturing zone of unincorporated Los Angeles County appears to be a permitted use.
According to South Gate's online municipal code,
" 11.36.050 Removal of nonconforming buildings or struchires.
If any nonconfomning building is removed or destroyed, any new stnxctures built on the land on which the nonconforming building was located shall conform to the provisions of this title. Destruction for this purpose is defined as damage to the extent of more than fifty (50%) percent of the replacement cost at the time of destnuction. Where any nonconforming building or stnucture is damaged or partially destroyed by fire, explosion, other casualty or natural disaster, the same may be restored to the condition in which it existed immediately prior to the occutrence of such casualty. The restoration may not result in any greater degree of nonconfomiity than previously existed. The reconstnuction shall meet all current requirements of the Uniform Building Code as adopted by the city of South Gate and shall be completed within one (l) year of the disaster.
(Ord. 1747 § l (part), 8-25-87)"
The subject property has adequate room to meet the current parking requirements from South Gate and Los Angeles County, respectively.
StorageYard 19
8440-8530 South Alameda Street
Unincorp. Los Angeles County/South Gate, California 15-333
Cl
129
EXHIBIT 4
Exh 4
(p2,
130
GgNoc-W Page 17
ZONING
LAND USE CONTROLS
Zoning Code: Industrial Flex (AFT'il 6202-036-003) & M2 - Heavy Manufacturing (AFN 6202-036-004)
Zoning Description: These zonirqs provide for many industnal useq among certain other uses.
Cumnt LJse Legany Conforming : The subject is a pre-existing legal, non-confoiming use. See comments.
Zoning Change Likely: Azoning change is unlikely.
Comments:
APN 6202-036-003, which is located in the City of Soukh Gate, is zoned Industrial Flex. APN 6202-036-004, which is located in unincorporated Los Angeles County area, is zoned M2 - Heay Manufactuting. The subject as a storage yard in the !ndustral Flex zone of South Gate is reportedly now a pre-exisUng, legal, non-conforming use ("grandfathered" use), while the subject as a storage yard in the M2 - Heay Manufacturing zone of unincorporated Los Angeles County appears to be a permitted use.
According to South Gate's online municipal code:
"11.36.050 Rermval of nonoonforming buiklings or structures.
If any nonconforming building is removed or destroyed, any new structures built on the land on which the nonconforming building was located shall conform to the provisions of this title. DestrucUon for this purpose is defined as damage to the extent of more than fifly (50o/o) percent of the replacement cost at the time of destruction.
Where any nonconforming building or structure is damaged or partially destroyed by fire. explosion, other casuatky or natural disaster, the sme may be restored to the condiUon in which it ex'sted immediately prior to the occurrence of ach casualty. Th; restoration may not result in any greater degree of nonconfomiity than previously existed. The reconstruction shall meet all current requirements of the Uniform Building Code as adopted by the city of South Gate and shall be completed within one (1 )year of the disaster.(Ord. I 747 § 1 (part). 8-25-87)." The subject property has adequate ra:im to meet the current parking requirements from South Gate and Las Angeles County, respectively.
Storage Yard
8440-8530 South Alameda Street, South Gate, CaliTornia 17-1 75
131
EXHIBIT 5
Exh 5
132
6Sffu'thGate-
8860 Callromla Avenue
South Gate, Ca 90280
Phone: (323) 563-9526
Planning Division
July 16, 2020
Daniel Ottlng
Fleet Yards Inc.
893 West lelFI Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
[via emall: [email protected]
Re: Temporary Use Permit No. TUP2020-01 8630 Alameda Street (APN: 6202-036-003) Dear Mr. Otting.
The City South Gate has received your temporary use permit application to permit the use of truck trailer storage for a one year period wlth possible one year extensions up to a maximum period of five years from the date of approval, at 8530 Alameda Street. The proposed project has been reviewed and it has been approved subject to the followinq condiflons:
Condidons ofApproval
5. The approved temporary use for the site of 8530 Alameda Street is restricted to truck trailer storage only. No other outdoor storage Is pemiitted including truck storage. No other use is permitted without the written authorizatlon from the City.
2. The temporary use Is approved for a term of one year, set to expire on July 16, 2021. A new application must be submitted at Jeast thlrty (30) days priorto the explration date tf an extension Is desired.
Additional ode-year extensions will be consldered for approval for up to a maximurii period of 5 years from the origlital approval dat6 ofJuly 16, 2020, AddiUonal extensions w'll be detemiffied based on compliance with said conditions and written verification from the property ownerthat he/sta/the7/ !a/are in process of developing the land, selling the land and/or working with Los Angeles Community College ora developero@ a houslng dev61opmentproject,
3. EgressandingressshallonlybeviaAIamedaStreetasreflectedinAttachmentA.Notnuckortrailers traveling to orfrom the site shall be allowed to drive upon anySouth Gate streets other than Alameda Street
4. OperationsshallbeimitedtothosedescribedinAttachmentBastothenumber,sizeandheightoftruck trailers thatwill be stored on site.
5. Any violaUons of these conditions or City Laws could result in the revocation of this Temporary Use Permit No. TUP2020-01.
6. All conditions for a Temporary lJse Permit No. TUP2020-01,shall be agreed to by the property owner In the form of a signed and notarized affldavit.
JoePe? f?/-'
f/ . - -
Community Dev fopment Director
City of South Gate
Attachments: A. Site Plan
B. Operation Plan
133
Map sliorild be updated to clarilay tlie area covered by tlie ' use pennit (8530) and separately sl'iow t)'ie access int across 8440. T)ie cui'rent map makes it appear as if tlie entire track is 8440, wlien tlie red sliaded area also includes 8530.
ATT ACHMENT A
134
Attachment B
ADDENDUM: Description of Operation
CITY OF SOUTH GATE
IAND USE ADM €NISTRATIVE PERMIT APPLICAT €ON
-TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
Property: 8440 S Alameda st., Los Angeles, CA 90001 APN: 6202-036-003
Applicant: Dan Otting
Mailing Address: 893 W 16'h Street, Newport Beacli, CA 92663 Phone: 949-245-6000
Description of Proposed Operation:
Summanr:
Short- Term Truck Traller Storage,
8530 Alameda Street
Detailed:
The property at 8440 S Alameda St, is approx, 9,7 acres (423,000 sq ft) in total, but 6.7 acres are a part of South Gate proper,
Onthe acresinSouthGate,approxlmatelyl25trailerswillbeparkedforshort--termstorage.
Sta commercialtrailersareeither40l,48',or53@long(usuallyg3'),13'6"tall,and8'wide.Please note t while we are proposing to use the entire property (9.7 acres) for storage, the acres within So Gateproperwillon/ybeusedfortrailerstorage,withnotrucksbeingstoredon tpartofthe yard.
The Ilyardwillbeactive24hoursaday,7daysaweek,butmostofthetraffic(>90%) illbebetween the urs of 6:00 AM and 8:00 PM each day.
Fo the entirety of the 9.7 acre property, we expect to see up to 50-75 trucks and yard each business day. 6] acres
enter and exit
6.7 acres
135
EXHIBIT 6
Exh 6
136
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Efren Martinez
a; cjeffers(5)soqare.orq; qhurtado(@soqate.orq; mrlavila(a)soqate.orq tommy(a)fleetyardsinc.com; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Yalini Siva
Re: 8530 Alameda Street Temporary Use Permit
Friday, December 23, 2022 4:43:57 PM
imaaeC)03.ona
Llntitled attachment 00049.htm
8530 Alameda TUP.pdf
Untitled attachment 00052.htm
T11P2020-01 Approval 8530 Alameda FINAL.pdf
Untitled attachment 00055.htm
Affidavit Use Permit.(idf
Untitled attachment 00058.htm
City Manager and Councilmembers please see email below addressed to your Staff:
Meredith,
With all due respect, we disagree with you email.
We were completely blindsided by your email and letter that contained misleading and swayed infoimation.
We have been working with your office and had several conference calls and email communication with you and your staff regarding you deliberately denying our current FIVE (5) years agreement with the City of South Gate.
This agreement took place before you were employed with the City of South Gate. You took it upon yourself to open, review, judge and cancel our fully operational agreement with the City. During our calls you continuously informed us that you strongly disagreed with how and why this agreement was done with us in the first-place. I consistently informed you that you cannot just go back on our current agreement just because you personally did not agree, and you disagreed with us and brought up that you could because you had a loophole stating that we were late in filing a particular foim earlier this year and per your loophole this violated our conditions. Earlier this year you denied our yearly submitted form that according to our agreement it must be submitted yearly, 30 days prior to the anniversary date of the agreement because it was late and you state that is the reason that you are revoking our entire legal agreement. You then came-up with other excuses for which we have been able to rebuttal and prove otherwise.
You also refused to accept and understand that Covid has played a major role on all soits of delays to include in government and the financial impacts towards our loans, leasing or selling the propeity or even getting a developer to fully develop the property which we have committed with the City of South Gate to be one of our options.
I personally requested to sit with you and your staff to further discuss our disagreements before going in any other direction and to see if we can answer any of your questions and/or concerns but due to your COVID policies we agree to meeting online and on conference calls. After our conference calls we sent you numerous documents and historical background with supporting documentation such as previous emails, draft agreements to and from the city staff that led up to our current five(5) year agreement with the city. After all of that infoimation was provided to you, you stated that you would consider giving us a one (1) year extension, we disagreed and stated that we have a five(5) year agreement and that we cannot settle for one year. At our last conference call on October 5th, 2022 at 9am with the following individuals on the call: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], jasonbengle(§outlook.coin, dan@ fleetyardsinc.com you informed us ALL and even stated that you wanted to make it very clear that you concluded that because you Disagreed with our current City Agreement, that the only thing you were going to do was to provide us with a one(l) year extension in order to provide us with enough time for us go thru YOUR process "the way it should have been done in the first place" according to your standards.
Upon the end of our conference call with you on October 5th, it was concluded that you were officially informing us that you were giving us one year to go thru your process and that we had the right to appeal your decision with the Planning Commission or the City Council. In conclusion that is why the email that you just sent on December 20, 2022 which states that you are giving us 10 days to Cease-ALL-Operations at our propeity literally during the holidays and exactly 11 days before the new year is completely contradicting to what you infoimed all parties on 137
October 5, 2022's conference call which was to provide us with an one(l) year extension.
We believe your actions and decisions are reckless and inconsistent with the City of South Gate motto and tradition of being Business Friendly and working/partnering with the business community for the betterment and wellbeing of its residents. Your decision will have catastrophic results to our livelihood and those of our vendors and employees which most live in the local area.
Due to us being targeted and discriminated by you, please consider this email as our official complaint and appeal of your decision. I am also respectfully requesting from you to help us set-up and coordinate a meeting with the City Manager and/or City Council to discuss and resolve this matter. In the meantime, I also respectfully request that "your request of us Stoping all operations at our property" be put on hold so that we may continue to operate until we have a final determination by the City Manager and City Council regarding our matter.
Thank you and hope to hear from City Manager and/or City Council in order to resolve matters.
Efren Martinez, Jr.
323-646-2405
On Dec 20, 2022, at 7:02 PM, Meredith Elguira <melguira@,sogate.org> wrote:
Hello Efren,
We are followin@ up on your request for extension of the Temporary Use Permit (TUP) issued in July 2020 for the subject property. We have not heard back from regarding your plans moving forward. Per our discussion, we are unable to grant your request for extension due to non-compliance with the conditions of approval and more importantly, TUPs are issued for temporary use only for a maximum time of 10 working days. Please see the attached letter for further clarification. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions, the best way to reach me is through email.
Best regards,
j"D
138
EXHIBIT7
Exh 7
71 139
CENTENNIAI
-100 'f' a A1'l5-
Planning Division
8650 California Avenue, South Gate, CA 90280-3004
P: (323) 563-9565
www.cityofsouthgate.org
December 20, 2022
Tommy Newcomer
Fleetyards, Inc.
sent v/o email on/y
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; ah:[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: 8530 Alameda Street (APN:6202-036-003)
Mr, Newcomer, et al.:
Based on previous discussions and emails regarding the overall usage of the subject property at 8530 Alameda Street located in the City of South Gate, the Planning Division is not able to further process a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) for the storage of trucks/containers at the subject property. Although previous Community Development Department staff provided an approval for a TUP to permit the use of truck trailer storage (TUP 2020-01), this approval was granted for one year only. This TUP also included conditions of approval, which have since not been complied with.
A business license, pursuant to South Gate Municipal Code (SGMCIChapter 2.10, was never applied for and obtained by the subject business to store trucks and containers at the subject property. Condition of Approval No. 2, listed within the approval ofTUP 2020-01, required thatthe applicant submitfor a new application "at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date...", TUP 2020-01 was approved for one (1) year, thereby expiring on July 16, 2021. Planning staff received an email regarding a new TUP on July 11, 2022.
Pursuant to SGMC Section 11.51,070 (B)(4) Temporary Use Permits: "Limits on the maximum duration will be specified in the permit, and shall not exceed three days in a row, or ten working days in any calendar year." The approval for TUP 2020-01 was granted in error, as the above mandatory approval condition would not allow for a temporary use to be permitted for longer than ten working days. 1')-
140
Lastly, the previous land use that was permitted at the subject site can no longer be re'activated as the SGMC Section 11.55.040, regarding discontinuation of nonconforming uses, allows industrial uses to be continued only if a land use is continued within two consecutive calendar years. Due to non-compliance, the Planning Division is requiring that the property be maintained as a vacant property and all truck trailer storage is to be vacated. Please let me know if you have any questions, the best way to reach me is through email at [email protected].
Sa , ly,
Meredith T. Elguira
Community Development Director
Attachments: TUP 2020-01 Approval, dated July 16, 2020 Affidavit Use Permit
7E)
141
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Hello Efren,
Meredith Elauira
[email protected]; dan(a)fleetyardsinc.com; [email protected]; alamedapro([email protected]; efrenm24@t)mail.com
Yalini Siva
8530 Alameda Street Temporary Use Permit
Tuesday, December 20, 2022 7:03:37 PM
imaae003.ona
F1530 Al,imeda TllP.(idf
TUP2020-01 Approval 8530 Alameda FINAL.pdf
Affidavit Use Permit.pdf
We are following up on your request for extension of the Temporary Use Permit (TUP) issued in July 2020 for the subject property. We have not heard back from regarding your plans moving forward.
Per our discussion, we are unable to grant your request for extension due to non-compliance with the conditions of approval and more importantly, TUPs are issued for temporary use only for a maximum time of 10 working days. Please see the attached letter for further clarification. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions, the best way to reach me is through email.
Best regards,
ti H r'i It fi U I
Meredith T. Elguira
Director of Community Developrnerit
City of South Gate l Community Development
865O C,ilifarnia Ai.oenue, South Gate, CA 902Ei0
P: (323) 563-9529
E: [email protected]
W: citi,iofsouthgate.org
7'/
142
EXHIBIT 8
Exh 8
143
CENTENNIAt
CHRI8 JEFFERS
CITY MANAGER
Januaiy 12, 2023
Mr. Daniel Otting, CEO
[email protected]
Mr. Bfren Maitinez
[email protected]
Fleet Yards '[11C.
893 West l 6"' Street
Newport Beach, California 92663
Office of the City Manager
8650 California Avenue, South Gate, CA 90280
P: (323) 563-9503 F: (323) 569-2678
www.cityofsouthgate.org
Re: City of Soiitli Gate's Denial of Reqiiest b)i Fleet Yards Inc. for Extensioii ofTeniporar)i UsePerinitNo. TUP2020-01 for Truck-Trailer Storttge tit 8530 Altrmeda Street
Dear Messrs. Otting and Maitiiiez,
We are in receipt of Mr. A/Iartinez's Decen"iber 23, 2022, e-i'iiail addressed to tlie South Gate City Manager, tlie City's Director of Community Developuient ("Director"), and ceitain members of tlie City Council. We understand tliat '. Martmez's e-matl ts intended as a nottceto the Csty tliat Fleet Yards Inc. wishes to appeal the Director's denial of your request for an extension of tlie above-referei'iced Temporary Use Perinit. Sucli appeals shoi:ild be filed along witl'i tlie appropriate fees required rinder tlie adopted fee scliedule with the City Clerk pursuant to Soutli Gate Municipal Code ("SGMC") S, 11.50.040. Tliose appeals, including fees, according to tlie SGMC, are to be submitted witliin 10 working days of tl'ie decision notification. Given tlie holidays, I am extending that time period for tlie applicant to Januaty 30, 2023, at 5:00 PM.
The fees to be paid are tlie Appeal fee ($2,364) and the Public Notice fee ($1,570) for a total of $3,934. tri addition, there should be a vvi-itten letter signed by the propeity owner or authorized officer/agent of tl'ie propeity owner requesting tlie appeal. In tliat appeal letter, the property owner sliould clearly state wliat they are appealing and provide any supporting docuinents tliey wisli to submit for tlie Planning Commission to review as pait of tlie appeal. If a written appeal letter atd fees are submitted on or before Januaiy 30, 2023, you will be iotified of tlie date, time and location of tlie appeal liearii'ig before tlie Planning Coininission, in accordaiice with SGMC §§ 11.50.020 144
City of Soidh Gate's Denial ofRequest by Fleet Yards Inc. for Extension ofTemporary UsePermitNo. TUP2020-01 for
Truck-TraiierStorage at 8530Alameda Street
Januaiy 12, 2022