Xochitl Pedraza moved to San Bernardino County eight years ago. After three decades of city living, unincorporated Bloomington offered a rural community where she could buy an acre of land and raise chickens.
Click here to SUBSCRIBE to CA Political Review
But Pedraza’s neighborhood has become more industrial in recent years, as developers have converted large swaths of property along the 10 Freeway into a logistics corridor for e-commerce, connecting goods shipped into Southern California ports with online shoppers across the nation. While proponents of the developments say they bring jobs and infrastructure improvements, many residents living in their shadow lament the pollution, traffic and neighborhood disruption.
There was already an avocado distribution center across the street from Pedraza’s home; now there’s an Amazon fulfillment center on the corner that brings “trucks after trucks after trucks,” Pedraza said. The incessant beeping and honking penetrate her soundproof windows.
She and her 8-year-old grandson suffer from dry eyes, nasal congestion and a chronic dry cough — symptoms she attributes to dust from warehouse construction and the region’s ozone pollution.
A bill on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk would establish siting and design standards for industrial warehouses that, according to supporters, would better protect the health of residents such as Pedraza.
Assemblymember Juan Carrillo (D-Palmdale), who co-authored the legislation, has described the measure as a “very delicate compromise” that resulted from lengthy negotiations among a working group that included labor, health, environmental and business representatives.
Nonetheless, the bill has generated staunch opposition from a diverse range of environmental, community and civic groups statewide who object to the secrecy in which the bill was crafted in the final days of session and who say it fails to hold warehouse developers to higher standards.
Beginning in 2026, AB 98 would prohibit cities and counties from approving new or expanded distribution centers unless they meet specified standards. New warehouse developments would need to be located on major thoroughfares or local roads that mainly serve commercial uses. And warehouse sites would need to be set back several hundred feet from so-called “sensitive sites” such as homes, schools and healthcare facilities.
Additionally, if a developer demolishes housing to make way for a warehouse, the bill would require two new units of affordable housing for each unit that is destroyed. The developer would have to provide displaced tenants with 12 months’ rent.
Some regulations would need to be enacted in the state’s “warehouse concentration region” — Riverside and San Bernardino counties and a dozen Inland Empire cities — by 2026, two years before the rest of the state.
While some labor groups support the bill, it is opposed by a host of environmental, business and community organizations. Several cities also opposed the legislation, which according to an analysis by the Senate Appropriations Committee, requires general plan updates that could result in one-time costs for cities and counties ranging from tens of millions to potentially hundreds of millions of dollars.
Environmental advocates are especially concerned about the bill’s setback requirements for projects involving warehouses 250,000 square feet and larger that are within 900 feet of homes, schools, parks or healthcare facilities.
In those cases, the bill would require that truck loading bays are located at least 300 feet from the property line in areas zoned for industrial use; and 500 feet from the property line in areas not zoned for industrial use. Warehouses would also need to comply with design and energy efficiency standards.
Another joke created by Democrat Controlled Sacramento.
Geez