California Bill Mandating Buffer Zones Around New Warehouses Heads to Newsom

Industrial development in California could get a lot more complicated — that is, if Gov. Gavin Newsom signs a new bill headed his way.

On Aug. 31, just hours before the deadline of the most recent state legislative session, Assembly Bill 98, which would mandate new warehouses built in the state be at least several hundred feet away from homes, schools and other certain asset types, passed both the state Assembly and Senate. 

The bill now heads to Newsom’s desk. He has until Sept. 30 to sign it, veto it, or let it expire. 

If signed into law, the bill, sponsored by Assemblymembers Eloise Gómez Reyes (D-Colton) and Juan Carrillo (D-Palmdale), would effectively restrict new industrial developments to roadways and require landscaping and/or screening barriers to shield nearby communities from the facilities. 

Certain facilities under the law would also need to satisfy energy efficiency standards, use zero-emission technology, and prohibit trucks on the premises from idling their engines.

The bill is California lawmakers’ response to a host of issues related to the vast amount of industrial development happening in the state in recent years, such as noise and air pollution, traffic and eyesores. Yet Reyes, whose district falls within Southern California’s Inland Empire region — one of the largest industrial markets in the country — said in a statement that the bill does not go far enough.

“The distances outlined in this bill are only a minimum, and cities may adopt more stringent standards than what is outlined in AB 98,” Reyes said. “I urge cities and counties to expand on the standard set in this bill.

“It is also clear that the status quo is unacceptable and immediate action is needed on this issue,” Reyes added. “I believe AB 98 is an important step forward and contains many provisions that will better protect communities in the Inland Empire and across California.”

Still, the proposed law has faced opposition from business groups who claim it will reduce job growth and restrict local land-use authority, and by some environmental groups who claim the bill doesn’t go far enough in its restrictions. 

“This warehouse bill is the latest attempt to undercut local control and land use authority,” Scott Ochoa, Ontario’s city manager, said in a statement posted by the League of California Cities. “Establishing statewide standards based on worst-in-class circumstances is detrimental to all players and invites negative unintended consequences.”

A coalition of 35 environmental groups also oppose the bill from a separate angle, saying in a collective letter to Newsom that, “The bill sets dangerously low standards for warehouse siting and operations that would fail to protect the people who will be the unenviable neighbors of new and expanding facilities.”

Yet not all business-friendly organizations oppose the bill. The California Chamber of Commerce called it a “valuable compromise,” arguing on its website that the bill “strikes an essential balance, allowing California’s goods movement and logistics industry to continue to prosper.”

Nick Trombola can be reached at NTrombola@commercialobserver.com.