Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lexington Gallatin Warehouse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to halt Lexington‑Gallatin warehouse, alleging deception and health risks
Summary
Dozens of residents told the South El Monte City Council on June 16 that a proposed warehouse near Lexington and Gallatin would harm air quality, schoolchildren and neighborhood life; speakers cited AQMD/CEQA findings, alleged deceptive canvassing and a developer‑linked petition and asked the council to reject or delay the project.
Dozens of residents pressed the South El Monte City Council on June 16 to stop or reconsider the proposed Lexington‑Gallatin warehouse, raising environmental, health and transparency concerns.
"This warehouse is an environmental hazard, not just to my neighborhood but to the entire city," Carmen Pena told the council, citing AQMD and CEQA findings she said document negative impacts. Adrian Bridal, who described the project as a 221,000‑square‑foot industrial site, said canvassers used misleading brochures and an apparent counter‑petition to steer neighbors toward support. "They are dangling the desperate promise of new jobs and new money," Bridal said, arguing the materials glossed over traffic and emissions impacts near South El Monte High School.
Speakers described a coordinated outreach campaign that, they said, presented a park where the underlying plan would allow permanent industrial construction. "If you visit that site, you won't see the reality of our neighborhood," Greg Villegas said of a developer website; residents told the council that the website was registered June 2, shortly after a town hall, and that the site used AI‑generated visuals to depict a sanitized — and, they say, misleading — vision of the area.
Supporters of delaying action argued the city lacks the staffing and funding to manage long‑term consequences; Kim Valencia said the council is considering a proposed budget that projects a $2.4 million structural deficit next year. "How can this council justify taking on a liability like the Lexington‑Gallatin project when we are cutting community services and staff?" she asked.
Councilmembers listening during public comment did not endorse project claims on the record during the public‑comment period and did not receive a developer representative to respond. The council did not vote on the warehouse project at the June 16 meeting; staff indicated future project reviews would follow normal planning and CEQA processes for any formal applications.
Why this matters: Residents said the site lies close to schools and neighborhoods, and they argue official environmental review documents and the city's own financial outlook warrant more scrutiny and community engagement before any approvals.
What comes next: Speakers urged continued community organizing and alerted voters that the project could become an election issue; the council has not yet scheduled a substantive land‑use decision on the parcel at this meeting.
