Job killer or neighborhood protector? Proposed warehouse rules divide Inland Empire

California is poised to set new rules for warehouse locations and truck routes with a last-minute bill to curtail air pollution and traffic from distribution centers.

But local government groups oppose the legislation, and business groups warn that it would place onerous requirements on warehouse developments and cities, threatening trade and jobs. Gov. Gavin Newsom has until the end of the month to sign or veto the bill.

Assembly Bill 98 passed in the final hours before the Legislature adjourned Saturday, after lawmakers swapped out language from an agricultural bill for the new warehouse restrictions.

The bill would tighten building standards for new warehouses; ban heavy-duty diesel truck traffic next to sensitive sites including homes, schools, parks and nursing homes; and require local governments to update truck routes to avoid residential streets, said Assemblymember Eloise Gómez Reyes , a San Bernardino Democrat who co-authored the bill.

The measure would also add minimum distance requirements between homes and warehouses, along with buffers featuring walls and landscaping. The bill would also require replacement of two new homes for every one that’s demolished to make room for new logistics centers, along with 12 months rental payment to displaced renters.

What problem is the bill trying to solve?

Reyes said the bill would counter the environmental and health effects of explosive warehouse growth in the Inland Empire, where 4,000 warehouses occupy a billion square feet combined and generate more than 600,000 truck trips per day.

“We have tried to do as best we can, remembering that it’s the health of the residents of California that has to be the state’s top priority,” she told CalMatters Monday. “Everything else is secondary.”

Although the bill was pushed through the Legislature in the last week of session, Reyes said it’s the product of years of effort and “not something that happened overnight.”

Reyes introduced a separate bill earlier this year that would have created bigger buffers between warehouses and sensitive sites, but it failed in committee. She said this bill is a starting point for better health protections in warehouse planning.

“I think what we have put together is a common sense approach and it’s a very important first step,” she said.

Why do some business leaders object?

However business leaders objected to its rushed passage, arguing that it could put a chokehold on trade, endanger jobs and spike consumer costs. The very fact that an earlier bill didn’t make it out of committee shows that the issue deserved more time and attention, said Paul Granillo, president and CEO of the Inland Empire Economic Partnership.

“Anything that is put together in that short a time, in smoke-filled rooms is not good policy; and AB 98 is not good policy,” he said.

Granillo said the restrictions could increase the cost of everyday goods and push business out of state.

“This type of legislation just signals to people that would invest in creating jobs in California that California is not a job-friendly state,” he said.

Melissa Sparks-Kranz, a lobbyist for the League of California Cities, said the bill’s cost to local governments would be prohibitive, forcing cities to spend between $100,000 and several million dollars each to develop the new traffic plans, with penalties of $50,000 for delays in those updates. The league is urging Newsom to veto the bill; the California State Association of Counties is also against it .

Granillo added that the bill’s standards for setbacks and truck routes strip local governments of their land use authority. “The idea that the state thinks it can come up with a solution that will work in all cities of California is ludicrous,” he said.

The California Chamber of Commerce, however, called the bill a “valuable compromise” that could provide a backstop against more extensive legislation and litigation affecting warehouse projects.

Why are warehouse developments important?

Warehouse developments have long been a mixed blessing to communities in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, offering steady employment and economic growth, but worsening the region’s haze of pollution and imposing heavy traffic on neighborhood streets.

Riverside and San Bernardino rank first and second among the counties with highest ozone levels and among the top dozen for particulate pollution. Activists link the proliferation of warehouses to unusually high rates of asthma and cancer.

Local and state officials have tried to thread the needle between environmental protections and economic growth, but sometimes they leave community members , particularly those in low-income communities of color, with the sense that they are cut out of the conversation.

Those concerns made for an unlikely alignment between industry groups and environmental justice advocates. The Jurupa Valley-based Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice also opposed the bill, arguing that it didn’t go far enough to control persistent air pollution from the warehouse boom.

Although the legislation set minimum setbacks of 300 to 500 feet from warehouse docks to the property line of sensitive sites, it fell short of the 1,000 feet recommended to avoid the worst diesel exposure, said Ana Gonzalez, the center’s executive director. And it calls for warehouses to use zero-emission engines when “operationally feasible,” which she said leaves loopholes for developers.

Gonzalez admitted that she was surprised to join industry groups in opposition: “It put us in a muddy place, because we never thought we would be on the same side opposing a warehouse or environmental justice bill.”

Other groups said the bill strikes a balance between environmental and economic interests, even if it didn’t please either side.

James Thuerwachter, a lobbyist for the California State Council of Laborers, which represents workers in the construction industry, said the bill accommodates job creation and environmental regulation.

“AB 98 brings innovative solutions to tackle immediate air quality, safety, and supply chain issues, while also bringing our distribution process into the 21st century,” he said in a state Senate Appropriations Committee hearing last week.

While the bill didn’t meet all her expectations, Gonzalez said it sets baseline environmental health standards that community groups can use to push for greater protections.

“Our organization feels that if the governor signs this bill, there is an opportunity to build from here and do better,” she said.