• 0
  • Home
  • About Us
  • What We Do

Shopping Cart

GPAM
  • Home
  • About Us
  • What We Do

Warehouse “buffer bill” advances

Assembly Majority Leader Eloise Gómez Reyes (California State Assembly, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons, iStock)
Assembly Majority Leader Eloise Gómez Reyes (California State Assembly, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons, iStock)

A bill that would create a 1,000-foot buffer zone between large warehouse developments and residential areas has advanced through one chamber of the California legislature. 

The measure, known as Assembly Bill 2840, passed a third and final reading in the 80-member California Assembly last week. It is now in the State Senate.  

“You can be a neighbor, but we want you to be a good neighbor,” Assembly Majority Leader Eloise Gómez Reyes, who represents an Inland Empire district and introduced the bill, previously told the Riverside Press-Enterprise, referring to logistics companies. “It isn’t being a good neighbor if you’re driving your diesel trucks through neighborhoods where these children are.”

Gómez Reyes’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The bill, introduced by Gómez Reyes in February, creates the buffer zone by prohibiting local agencies from approving the development of facilities that are 100,000 square feet or larger if they’re located within 1,000 feet of any “sensitive receptor” — a broad term that includes homes and apartments, schools, community centers and prisons. A revised version also allows local agencies to approve the projects but impose “alternative measures that will reduce the project’s impact on the public health and safety in a comparable manner.”

It also requires that local agencies mandate that a percentage of the construction jobs on logistics projects go to local residents, and that the work is done only by a “skilled and trained” workforce–language that suggests a preference for union members.

The legislation is intended as an effort to curb transportation and industrial-related health risks. In her bill comments, Gómez Reyes, a Democrat from Colton — an Inland Empire city that’s located at the intersection of two major freeways — specifically cites constant emissions from diesel truck traffic as a risk to schools and communities.

The California Nurses Association is also backing the effort, again citing the high levels of nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide pollution.

“These pollution-producing warehouses,” the group added, “are disproportionately located in low-income and minority neighborhoods.”

The effort has proved controversial, drawing opposition from the California Chamber of Commerce and other business groups who argue that stifling new warehouses would hurt the state’s supply chain. Some Democratic lawmakers have weighed in against the effort, and on Wednesday the Los Angeles Daily News’ editorial board also came out in opposition, writing in part that “the end result of this policy … is to restrict needed space to accommodate an ever-shifting market.”

The bill also reflects the booming industrial and logistics market of the Inland Empire––which includes Riverside and San Bernardino counties––which ranks among the largest and hottest in the country.

It’s a market that started growing decades ago, largely because of the area’s strategic location and relatively cheap land. The trend has accelerated over the past two decades, as e-commerce giants such as Amazon reshaped the American economy: As of 2021, according to a compilation by a Pitzer College environmental professor, San Bernardino County had over 3,000 warehouses and Riverside County nearly 1,000. Those facilities totalled more than one billion square feet, or nearly 37 square miles, and are a big part of the reason why 40 percent of the nation’s goods travel through the Inland Empire.

The pandemic supercharged the already hot submarket: A report published in April by Newmark found that industrial space in the two-county region was virtually nonexistent, pushing lease prices to their highest levels ever, while industrial developers were also rushing to build more than 33 million square feet of industrial space. In recent months the market has also notched some nationally high-profile deals, including Amazon’s lease of a 4.1 million-square-foot facility in Ontario — the company’s largest ever.

“It looks like the Inland Empire is about to eat up the rest of Southern California,” one economist recently told the Southern California News Group.

At the same time, however, residents and local governments — concerned especially about the area’s poor air quality — have increasingly pushed back against the warehouse boom: Numerous area cities, including Riverside, San Bernardino and Colton–hometown of Reyes, author of the state legislation––have moved to pass their own local moratoriums on new warehouses.

Read more
  • Senior community nixes industrial development for more residential
  • Rexford spends $153M on six industrial properties
  • Industrial availability in the Inland Empire is virtually nonexistent
[contact-form-7 404 "Not Found"]

The post Warehouse “buffer bill” advances appeared first on The Real Deal Los Angeles.

Powered by WPeMatico

  • 02 June 2022
  • The Real Deal
  • Uncategorized
  •  Like
California water report: Enough to support new residential development →← Metro gives double toot for $2.3B Union Station makeover
  • Recent Posts

    • Los Angeles’ oldest film studio lot up for sale amid shaky production space market June 20, 2025
    • Paris Hilton pays $63M for Mark Wahlberg’s former Beverly Park estate June 20, 2025
    • Caruso: ICE raids fuel “terrible problem” for construction, business June 20, 2025
    • Historic Koreatown apartments slated for 53-unit redevelopment June 20, 2025
    • Italian Renaissance-inspired Hancock Park mansion hits market for $20M June 20, 2025
  • Recent Comments

    • Archives

      • June 2025
      • May 2025
      • April 2025
      • March 2025
      • February 2025
      • January 2025
      • December 2024
      • November 2024
      • October 2024
      • September 2024
      • August 2024
      • July 2024
      • June 2024
      • May 2024
      • April 2024
      • March 2024
      • February 2024
      • January 2024
      • December 2023
      • February 2023
      • January 2023
      • December 2022
      • November 2022
      • October 2022
      • September 2022
      • August 2022
      • July 2022
      • June 2022
      • May 2022
      • April 2022
      • March 2022
      • February 2022
      • January 2022
      • December 2021
      • November 2021
      • October 2021
      • September 2021
      • August 2021
      • July 2021
      • June 2021
      • May 2021
      • April 2021
      • March 2021
      • February 2021
      • January 2021
      • December 2020
      • November 2020
      • October 2020
      • September 2020
      • August 2020
      • July 2020
      • June 2020
      • May 2020
      • April 2020
      • March 2020
      • February 2020
      • January 2020
      • December 2019
      • November 2019
      • October 2019
      • September 2019
      • August 2019
      • July 2019
      • June 2019
      • May 2019
      • April 2019
      • March 2019
      • February 2019
      • January 2019
      • December 2018
      • November 2018
      • October 2018
      • September 2018
      • August 2018
      • July 2018
      • June 2018
      • May 2018
      • April 2018
      • March 2018
      • February 2018
      • January 2018
      • December 2017
    • Global Property and Asset Mangement, Inc.
      137 North Larchmont
      Los Angeles, California 90010
      +1 213-427-1127

    © 2025 GPAM