Lawsuit seeks to block 213-acre Bloomington Business Park warehouse project – San Bernardino Sun

Caitlin Towne speaks with San Bernardino County supervisors against Bloomington Business Park in 2022. A verdict is expected this summer in the lawsuit seeking to block the multi-warehouse project. (Screenshot courtesy of San Bernardino County)

A judgment is expected this summer in a lawsuit that seeks to halt construction of a 213-acre, multi-warehouse project on an unincorporated property in San Bernardino County.

A coalition of environmental organizations wants a judge to overturn the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors’ 2022 decision to approve construction of the Bloomington Business Park, which will include three warehouses spanning 1.25 million square feet, 479,000 square feet and 383,000 square feet square meters, as well as 265 houses demolished.

To replace the homes, the project is increasing the zoning density on a nearby 72-acre site to clear the way for 480 apartments or apartment buildings. The previous zoning plan allowed for the construction of only 52 single-family houses.

A San Bernardino Superior Court hearing was held Thursday, June 20, in a challenge to the project’s environmental permits. A ruling is expected before the Aug. 30 hearing in the case, according to Miranda Fox, a spokeswoman for Earthjustice, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Critics say the project – which covers 141 acres of land previously zoned for development – will increase truck traffic and come along with diesel exhaust pollution in a rural, working-class, mostly Latino area already flooded with warehouses.

“As someone who grew up in this community and witnessed the rich culture of my community, I have seen how much the magazines have changed,” former Bloomington High School student Daniela Vargas said in a press release issued by the plaintiffs.

“Many of us fear being exposed to more and more pollution if the project is carried out closer to our homes and schools.”

Tim Howard, the project’s developer, Orange-based Howard Industrial Partners, declined to comment, citing ongoing concerns dispute. The project’s supporters include labor unions who tout the local jobs it will create. San Bernardino County officials say the project will create more than 2,000 jobs.

Howard said the project will result in approximately $20 million in new infrastructure, including the hiring of a sheriff’s deputy with an office in Bloomington.

Earthjustice, the People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club are plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which was filed in December 2022, about a month after San Bernardino County approved the project.

The lawsuit alleged that the project’s environmental impact assessment process was flawed because it failed to provide documents in Spanish “even though a significant portion of Bloomington’s residents speak only or primarily Spanish.”

The project would “significantly increase” air pollution and worsen public health “in an air basin that already has some of the worst air quality in the nation,” the lawsuit states.

The project also violates fair housing laws because of its location “in a Latino or Hispanic community and in a community that already experiences negative health impacts due to air quality, displacing residents and exacerbating environmental harm for those who remain,” the lawsuit says.

In addition, the lawsuit claims the project “will result in significant levels of greenhouse gas emissions” and “will have serious and harmful impacts on numerous endangered species, habitats, and other biological resources,” adding that environmental reviews “did not adequately consider these impacts.”

“The county must stop approving warehouse construction projects without meaningful engagement with low-income communities of color like Bloomington,” Earthjustice attorney Candice Youngblood said in a statement filed with the plaintiffs.

“We must diligently ensure that these freight developer projects comply with regulations designed to protect communities. Since we believe that this bill is woefully far from legal, we ask the Court to send it back to square one.”