A developer in southern California must stop the construction of a controversial industrial park In the county of San Bernardino, who moved dozens of houses, after a judge found faults in the environmental impact report of the project.
County supervisors at the end of 2022 lit the proposal of an industrial real estate company to withdraw 117 houses and ranchs in rural regions of Bloomington to make room for more than 2 million square feet of warehouse space. Several environmental and community groups continued the county shortly after, alleging that the approval of the Bloomington business park had violated many regulations set out in state and housing laws.
Almost two years later, and after more than 100 houses, the judge of the Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino, Donald Alvarez, judged last week that the project examination by the county did not comply with the law of the State intended to inform the decision -makers and the public on the potential environmental damage of the proposed developments. He said that the construction of the warehouse project must stop while the county restores the report in a way that complies with the law.
A spokesperson for the County of San Bernardino refused to comment on the decision because it is the subject of an active dispute. The developer, based in Orange Howard Industrial Partnerssaid it would appeal the decision parties and predicted that delays in the global project would be short -lived.
The 213 acres industrial park came with Familiar compromise To the communities of the interior Empire of California which are invited to assume the tentacular distribution centers which are an integral part of the storage, packaging and delivery of American online purchase orders.
The environmental impact report has revealed that development would have “significant and inevitable” effects on air quality. But this would also bring jobs to the majority Latin American community of 23,000 residents, and the developer has committed to providing 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 at the Colton Joint School District in an exchange of land that would inaugurate an ultra -modern school nearby.
For Bloomington residents and community defenders who fought the explosive growth of the warehouse industry in the internal empire, the court's decision is considered a victory.
Ana Gonzalez, executive director of the Center for Community Action and Environmental JusticeOne of the complainants of the trial, said that his organization had disputed some warehouse approvals each year in the past five years. The proceedings generally end in colonies which grant the community additional protections, such as air filters and CVC systems for neighboring houses. She said that she had never been seen that construction stopped in her footsteps.
“To see the way it turned out to be just hope, and that ignites this resilience that our community needed to continue fighting,” said Gonzalez.
However, she said, the timing is soft-amer.
“I don't know at this stage if we could never get the houses there,” said Gonzalez. “Seeing the community destroyed in Bloomington is really heartbreaking.”
The decision raises broader questions about the rigor of the County process of San Bernardino to approve the warehouse projects, which have become a pillar of the county economy. While supporters say that developments provide uses essential to the region, many residents living in their shadow deplore pollution, traffic and disturbances in the neighborhood.
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 have got a good price and were happy to move on, while many neighbors left could see a future with 24 -hour truck traffic and a hollow of the rural culture of the community.
Alondra Mateo, community organizer for another applicant in the trial, Collective for environmental justice of peoplesaid the numerous residents who spoke during public hearings, which argued concerns about the environmental impacts of Bloomington's business park, was informed that the county adhered to the required environmental examination process.
“For the court to take a look at all the evidence and that I then agree with us,” said Mateo, “is a great powerful victory for our community which has been honestly gas for so long.”
Candice Youngblood, lawyer for the non -profit environmental law group JusticeWho represented the complainants, described the County Environmental Report as “deficient”. She declared that the conclusions of the court “testify to the fact that this document reflects the reduction of corners at the expense of the community and in the interest of the industry”.
In a decision of nearly 100 pages, Alvarez determined that the county had violated California Environmental Quality Act by not analyzing the renewable energy options which could be available or appropriate for the project, and not adequately analyze the impacts on the noise of construction.
Alvarez noted that the county had not analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives to the project; And failed to analyze enough how air emissions would have an impact on public health. Despite the observation that the project would have inevitable impacts on air quality, the county determined to use zero emission trucks would be an economically impractical form of attenuation – a conclusion that Alvarez considered “not supported by substantial evidence”.
But he ruled against the complainants on several questions, rejecting their arguments according to which the county did not analyze the impacts of project traffic; Failure of the adequate analysis of environmental justice problems; Poorly analyzed operational noise impacts; and abused his discretion by not translating the key parts of the Spanish report.
Youngblood, with Earthjustice, said that the decision forced the county to restart the environmental examination process, in particular by offering members of the community new opportunities to weigh the impacts of the project.
Mike Tunney, development vice-president of Howard Industrial Partners, said that the company was “satisfied” by the maintenance of the court of the Environmental Report Court. He said that the decision would lead to “minor revisions” of the report, which the county “would quickly approach”.
“We are committed to making the necessary adjustments to resolve the problems identified by the court,” Tunney said in a press release. “We will simultaneously pursue an appeal from the courts of the court decision which threatened a major control project of $ 30 million which is already under construction to prevent the current floods which have had a negative impact on the community for decades.”
This article is part of the time ' Actions report initiative,, funded by the James Irvine Foundationexploring the challenges faced by California's economic divide.
