South Gate residents urge pause on 10130 Adela condo project, cite traffic, parking and contamination concerns

Dozens of South Gate residents urged the City Council to pause final action on a proposed 54‑unit condominium project at 10130 Adela, saying the development would overwhelm local streets, worsen parking and could expose children and elderly residents to lingering contamination from past industrial use.

"I shouldn't have to worry whether my daughters are walking or breathing near toxic land or air," Jose Morales, a resident of 5343 Elmira Road, told the council during the public‑comment period. Morales said the parcel was previously used for steel manufacturing and that the most recent soil tests are outdated.

Residents grouped south of the site said narrow neighborhood streets and school‑period congestion would make the area unsafe if additional traffic and parked cars arrive without visitor parking. "More units means more people and more traffic, and I think that's our biggest concern," said a resident, Leticia Morales, who identified herself as a nearby homeowner.

Several speakers objected to the proposed removal of an existing concrete K‑rail barrier at Adela and Aldrich, which residents said was installed decades ago to block through traffic and protect children. "I believe that the removal of the k rail at Adela and Aldrich does pose a safety risk," said Rosanna La Rosa, who lives at 5205 Elmira Road and cited language from state density bonus law in arguing the city must find a specific adverse health, safety or environmental impact to deny waivers.

Residents also raised environmental concerns drawn from an exemption report cited in public comments. That report, residents said, flagged operational emissions and potential impacts to sensitive receptors including children and people with chronic respiratory disease. Multiple speakers asked the council to require independent, up‑to‑date soil testing and ongoing monitoring before any grading or earthwork proceeds.

City staff and commissioners offered clarifications but stopped short of announcing any council decision. The city manager said planning staff discussed the project at the Planning Commission and that soil testing has been performed; he said studies are available and can be provided to residents. On the K‑rail, the city manager said the proposal discussed at the commission was to replace the existing concrete device with a locked gate to allow emergency access only, not to permit through traffic: "The idea was to replace it with a gate... to have it closed all the time and only have emergency vehicle access," the city manager said.

Staff also noted the city has a preferential parking program used elsewhere that can restrict on‑street parking to neighborhood residents; under that program each household may receive two street parking permits and parking enforcement would ticket vehicles without permits, staff said.

At least one speaker who identified himself as a planning commissioner and environmental consultant urged the city to verify that engineering controls—such as vapor barriers—would be inspected and maintained. "I've seen some of these fail and it's really heartbreaking to see residents that don't even know they're being exposed to dangerous vapor cancer causing vapors," said Luis, who identified himself as a planning commissioner and environmental consultant.

No vote on the Adela project occurred during the council meeting. Council members invited residents to contact planning staff and the planning manager, John Signo, for more information; Signo said he and staff would make themselves available to explain background materials reviewed by the Planning Commission.

The public‑comment period on the project continued a sustained neighborhood push for a community meeting, independent soil testing and retention or replacement of the K‑rail with a form of access control that cannot be used for routine through traffic.

Background and immediate details: the project as discussed publicly would add 54 condominiums and, according to project materials discussed at the Planning Commission, provide two parking spaces per unit but no dedicated visitor parking. Residents repeatedly requested that developers provide visitor parking or that the council require additional on‑site parking rather than rely solely on a neighborhood preferential parking program.

Council members and staff emphasized the limits of the evening's public‑comment period and pointed residents to the Planning Commission record and available studies. Staff said they would provide documents on soil testing and would meet with neighborhood representatives.

A follow‑up: residents asked the council to pause any permit issuance and require independent, recent testing and a community meeting prior to grading or issuance of construction permits; the council made no formal directive during the meeting.