A Southern California developer must halt construction of a controversial industrial park in San Bernardino County that has displaced scores of homes, after a judge found flaws in the project’s environmental impact report.
County supervisors in late 2022 green-lighted an industrial real estate firm’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 soon after, alleging that the approval of the Bloomington Business Park violated numerous regulations set out in state environmental and housing laws.
Nearly two years later, and after more than 100 homes have already been leveled, San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Donald Alvarez ruled last week that the county’s review of the project did not conform with the state law intended to inform decision-makers and the public about the potential environmental harms of proposed developments. He said construction of the warehouse project must stop while the county redoes the report in a manner that complies with the law.
A San Bernardino County spokesperson declined to comment on the ruling because it is the subject of active litigation. The developer, Orange County-based Howard Industrial Partners, said it would appeal portions of the ruling and predicted that delays to the overall project would be short-lived.
The 213-acre industrial park came with trade-offs familiar to communities in California’s Inland Empire that are being asked to shoulder the sprawling distribution centers integral to the storage, packaging and delivery of America’s online shopping orders.
The environmental impact report found that the development would have “significant and unavoidable” impacts on air quality. But it also would bring jobs to the majority Latino community of 23,000 residents, and the developer pledged to provide millions of dollars in infrastructure improvements.
And because the warehouse project would be about 50 feet from Zimmerman Elementary, the developer agreed to pay $44.5 million to the Colton Joint Unified School District in a land swap that would usher in a state-of-the-art school nearby.
For Bloomington residents and community advocates who have been fighting the explosive growth of the warehouse industry in the Inland Empire, the court’s decision is being viewed as a victory.
Ana Gonzalez, executive director of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said her organization has challenged a couple of warehouse approvals annually for the past five years. The lawsuits typically end in settlements that award the community extra protections, such as air filters and HVAC systems for nearby homes. She said she’s never before seen construction stopped in its tracks.
“To see the way this one turned out just gives us hope, and it ignites that resilience that our community needed to keep fighting,” Gonzalez said.
Still, she said, the timing is bittersweet.
“I don’t know at this point if we could ever get the homes that were there back,” Gonzalez said. “To see the community being wiped out in Bloomington is really heartbreaking.”
The ruling raises broader questions about the rigor of San Bernardino County’s process for approving warehouse projects, which have become a mainstay of the county’s economy. While proponents say the developments bring much needed jobs to the region, many residents living in their shadows lament the pollution, traffic and neighborhood disruption.
In Bloomington’s case, 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 on, while many of the neighbors left behind see a future with 24-hour truck traffic and a hollowing out of the community’s rural culture.
Alondra Mateo, a community organizer for another plaintiff in the suit, the People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, said the many residents who have spoken out in public hearings, raising concerns about the environmental impacts of the Bloomington Business Park, were told that the county was adhering to the required environmental review process.
“For the court to take a look at all the evidence and then agree with us,” Mateo said, “is such a big, powerful win to our community that has honestly been gaslit for so long.”
Candice Youngblood, an attorney with the nonprofit environmental law group Earthjustice, which represented the plaintiffs, called the county’s environmental report “deficient.” She said the court’s findings are “a testament to the fact that this document reflects cutting corners at the expense of the community and in the interest of industry.”
In a nearly 100-page ruling, Alvarez determined that the county had violated the California Environmental Quality Act by not analyzing renewable energy options that might be available or appropriate for the project, and not adequately analyzing construction noise impacts.
Alvarez found the county failed to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to the project; and failed to sufficiently analyze how air emissions would impact public health. Despite finding the project would have unavoidable impacts on air quality, the county determined using zero-emission trucks would be an economically infeasible form of mitigation — a finding that Alvarez deemed “not supported by substantial evidence.”
But he ruled against the plaintiffs on several issues, rejecting their arguments that the county failed to analyze the project’s traffic impacts; failed to adequately analyze environmental justice issues; improperly analyzed operational noise impacts; and abused its discretion by failing to translate key portions of the report into Spanish.
Youngblood, with Earthjustice, said the ruling forces the county to restart the environmental review process, including providing community members with new opportunities to weigh in on the project’s impacts.
Mike Tunney, Howard Industrial Partners’ vice president for development, said the company was “pleased” by the court’s ruling upholding portions of the environmental report. He said the ruling would result in “minor revisions” to the report, which the county would “quickly address.”
“We are committed to making the necessary adjustments to address the issues identified by the Court,” Tunney said in a statement. “We will simultaneously pursue an appeal of portions of the Court’s ruling that threaten a $30 million major flood control project which 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, funded by the James Irvine Foundation, exploring the challenges facing low-income workers and the efforts being made to address California’s economic divide.
English (US) · 