Southgate council delays final decision on Alameda truck-yard appeals after hours of public testimony on contamination

Southgate — The City Council on Tuesday voted to continue three related public hearings about land use at 8530 Alameda Street to May 13 after the property owner’s attorney asked for time to meet with city staff and to consider withdrawing appeals. The items before the council concern whether metal processing and truck-trailer storage at the site are legal, nonconforming uses and whether the site should be removed from the Southgate College District through a zone change.

The request for a continuance came from Alfred Bridal, attorney for the applicant. Bridal told the council the applicant “would like to withdraw, explore the withdrawal of its appeals…in favor of a timely and reasonable termination of the current uses at the site.” He asked the council to direct city staff to meet and confer with the property owner and to continue the hearings to the council’s May 13 meeting to allow any agreement to be formalized.

The continuance came after more than two hours of public comment in a packed chamber and a flood of written letters, including dozens from Southgate High School students and neighborhood residents. Many speakers urged the council to uphold a unanimous decision by the Planning Commission that the site’s metal processing and recycling operations have been abandoned and that the truck-trailer storage is not a legal nonconforming use.

“I don’t think it should be delayed,” said Omar Ruiz, a 20-year-old student and lifelong Southgate resident, describing years of community organizing. “If you vote to approve Engle’s request, this allows the legal tracker to continue and expand. You’re not just ignoring the planning commission. You’re ignoring the residents.”

Several speakers cited historical contamination and health impacts in the area. A number of public commenters referenced state and federal sampling and health concerns near the Alameda corridor; one resident, who identified himself as Jonathan, described personal health effects he attributes to local contamination and said, “If I don’t sleep with this machine, I die in my sleep every night.”

Janet Preciado Vargas of Communities for a Better Environment said she brought 44 public-comment letters from Southgate High School students and told the council the youth “demand their right to clean air, clean water, and clean soil.” Planning Commissioner Lisa (last name not given in the record) told the council she participated in the commission’s denial and urged council members “not to overturn our decision,” citing “vast public input against having such an operation” and legacy contamination in the area.

City Attorney Raul Salinas reminded the council and the public of the hearing’s procedural nature, saying the forum is “like being in a court of law…comments that are received by the city council form a part of the administrative record.” Counsel for the applicant said a continuance would allow the parties to work out a short timeline by which the applicant could withdraw its appeals if the parties reach agreement.

After discussion, the council voted on a motion to continue the hearings on items 1–3 to the regular council meeting on May 13, 2025. The roll call recorded by the clerk was: Council Member Avalos — no; Council Member Ortava — yes; Council Member Rios — no; Vice Mayor Baron — yes; Mayor Maria Davila — yes. The motion carried and the public hearings were continued. The council did not take a final action on the underlying appeals or the zone change at Tuesday’s meeting.

What happens next: Council staff were directed to meet and confer with the applicant and report back. Counsel for the applicant said the client’s preference is to withdraw the appeals and to “close out the use at the site” but that staff and the owner need time to negotiate the details and produce any withdrawal paperwork. If the parties do not reach an agreement before May 13, the council will resume the public hearings and proceed to take evidence and argument on the merits.

Why it matters: The property sits on the edge of the Southgate College District and adjacent to schools and residences. Multiple speakers warned that granting a zone change or permitting the continued truck storage and metallic processing uses would expose workers, residents and nearby students to diesel exhaust and legacy soil and groundwater contamination the speakers said is present near Alameda Street and the adjacent industrial sites. The Planning Commission has twice — in 2023 and again in May 2025 — voted to deny continued operation for the contested activities; the appeal process brought the matter to the council for final administrative review.

The council’s May 13 agenda will list any formal withdrawal submitted by the owner or, if no withdrawal is filed, the council will proceed with the public hearings and take testimony on the commission’s findings and applicable municipal code and CEQA considerations.