Southern California developer must stop construction of a controversial industrial park in San Bernardino County, which resulted in the displacement of dozens of homes after a judge found flaws in the project’s environmental impact report.
In late 2022, county supervisors gave the green light to an industrial real estate company’s proposal to remove 117 homes and ranches in rural Bloomington to make way for more than 2 million square feet of warehouse space. Several environmental and community groups sued the county shortly afterward, alleging that approval of the Bloomington Business Park violated numerous regulations set forth in state environmental and housing laws.
Nearly two years later, and after more than 100 homes have already been razed, San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Donald Alvarez ruled last week that the county’s review of the project does not was not consistent with state law intended to inform policymakers and the public. on potential environmental damage from proposed developments. He said construction on the warehouse project must stop while the county redoes the report in a manner consistent with the law.
A San Bernardino County spokesperson declined to comment on the decision because it is the subject of active litigation. The developer, based in Orange County Howard Industry Partnerssaid it would appeal parts of the decision and predicted that delays to the overall project would be short-lived.
The 213-acre industrial park is accompanied compromises are familiar to communities in California’s Inland Empire being asked to support the sprawling distribution centers that are integral to storing, packing and delivering America’s online shopping orders.
The environmental impact report found the development would have “significant and unavoidable” impacts on air quality. But it would also create jobs for the largely Latino community of 23,000, and the developer has pledged millions of dollars to improve infrastructure.
And because the warehouse project would be located about 50 feet from Zimmerman Elementary School, the developer agreed to pay $44.5 million to the Colton Common Unified School District in a land swap that would open the way to a nearby state-of-the-art school.
For Bloomington residents and community advocates fighting the explosive growth of the warehouse industry in the Inland Empire, the court’s decision is considered a victory.
Ana Gonzalez, executive director of Center for Community Action and Environmental Justiceone of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said her organization has challenged a few warehouse approvals each year for the past five years. Lawsuits typically end in settlements that grant the community additional protections, such as air filters and HVAC systems for neighboring homes. She said she has never seen construction come to a screeching halt.
“Seeing the way this unfolded gives us hope, and it ignites the resilience our community needed to keep fighting,” Gonzalez said.
Still, she said, the moment is bittersweet.
“I don’t know at this point if we’ll ever be able to get the houses back that were there,” Gonzalez said. “To see the community wiped out in Bloomington is truly heartbreaking. »
The decision raises broader questions about the rigor of the approval process for San Bernardino County’s warehouse projects, which have become a mainstay of the county’s economy. While supporters say the developments bring much-needed jobs to the area, many residents living in their shadow lament pollution, traffic and neighborhood disruption.
In the case of Bloomington, the project in question fractured the community. Some people who sold their homes to make way for the industrial park say they got a good price and were happy to move, while many neighbors left behind envision a future with 24-hour truck traffic and a weakening of the rural sector of the community. culture.
Alondra Mateo, a community organizer for another plaintiff in the lawsuit, the Grassroots Collective for Environmental Justicesaid the many residents who spoke at public hearings, raising concerns about the environmental impacts of the Bloomington Business Park, were informed that the county was adhering to the required environmental review process.
“The fact that the court looked at all the evidence and then agreed with us,” Mateo said, “is such a big, powerful victory for our community that, honestly, has been on fire for so long.”
Candice Youngblood, attorney with the nonprofit Environmental Law Group Earthly justicewho represented the plaintiffs, called the county’s environmental report “deficient.” She said the court’s findings “testify to the fact that this document reflects savings at the expense of the community and in the interest of the industry.”
In a nearly 100-page decision, Alvarez determined that the county violated the California Environmental Quality Act by failing to analyze renewable energy options that might be available or appropriate for the project, and by not adequately analyzing the noise impacts of construction.
Alvarez found that the county had not analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives to the project; and failed to sufficiently analyze the impact of atmospheric emissions on public health. Although it was found that the project would have unavoidable impacts on air quality, the county determined that the use of zero-emission trucks would be an economically infeasible form of mitigation – a conclusion that Alvarez ruled “not supported by substantial evidence”.
But he found the plaintiffs wrong on several counts, rejecting their arguments that the county failed to analyze the project’s traffic impacts; failed to adequately analyze environmental justice issues; the impacts of operational noise have been poorly analyzed; and abused its discretion by failing to translate key parts of the report into Spanish.
Youngblood, of Earthjustice, said the decision requires the county to restart the environmental review process, including providing new opportunities for community members to weigh in on the project’s impacts.
Mike Tunney, vice president of development for Howard Industrial Partners, said the company was “pleased” with the court’s decision upholding parts of the environmental report. He said the decision would result in “minor revisions” to the report, which the county would “make expeditiously.”
“We are committed to making the necessary adjustments to resolve the issues identified by the Court,” Tunney said in a statement. “We will simultaneously appeal portions of the Court’s decision that threaten a major $30 million flood control project that is already under construction to prevent ongoing flooding that has negatively impacted the community for decades . »
This article is part of The Times equity reporting initiative, financed by the James Irvine Foundationexploring the challenges faced by low-income workers and efforts to address them. California’s economic divide.
