Overview: California’s Assembly Bill 98, which mandates buffer zones between new warehouse developments and residential or sensitive areas like schools, passed in the state legislature less than a month ago. The bill aims to address air pollution, noise, and traffic concerns raised by communities that are heavily impacted by the logistics industry, particularly those across the Inland Empire region, where warehouse growth has surged. The bill sets minimum distances of 300 to 500 feet between warehouse facilities and nearby homes or schools, though it allows local governments to enforce stricter regulations if they choose. However, the bill has drawn criticism from both business groups and environmental advocates.
Aryana Noroozi
California’s Assembly Bill 98, which mandates buffer zones between new warehouse developments and residential or sensitive areas like schools, passed in the state legislature less than a month ago. It currently awaits Gov. Gavin Newsom’s decision as to whether he will sign the legislation.
The bill aims to address air pollution, noise and traffic concerns raised by communities that are heavily impacted by the logistics industry, particularly those across the Inland Empire region, where warehouse growth has surged.
“Yesterday the California State Assembly and Senate both approved AB 98, providing common sense standards and guardrails for new warehouses being built in California. This is an issue that is felt acutely in the Inland Empire where we are home to well over 1 billion square feet of warehousing, over 4,000 warehouses and approximately 600,000 truck trips a day,” said Assemblymember Eloise Gómez Reyes.
Supporters like Gómez Reyes – who represents the 50th Assembly District, which includes urban parts of San Bernardino County, including Rialto, Colton and Fontana – argue that the bill will help protect public health, particularly in low-income communities that have been disproportionately impacted by t rapid growth of the warehouse industry.
The legislation sets minimum distances of 300 to 500 feet between warehouse facilities and nearby homes or schools. It also allows local governments to enforce stricter regulations if they choose. Additionally, the bill includes environmental provisions requiring zero-emission technology when feasible and bans truck idling on-site. It would also require that each home demolished by warehousing must be replaced by two houses and offer 12 months of rent payment to displaced renters. With some exceptions, the bill will call for warehouses to be built on arterial roads, collector roads or local roads primarily used by commercial traffic.
While the bill has been welcomed as a step forward by some, it has also drawn criticism from both business groups and environmental advocates. Some business leaders argue that it could stifle economic growth and local decision-making, while environmental groups argue that the bill doesn’t go far enough to mitigate the harmful effects of diesel emissions and warehouse operations on air quality.
Twenty-four community-based organizations and allies who live or work alongside people who live in communities and neighborhoods harmed by the logistics industry wrote a letter – shared with Black Voice News, but not yet the public – to Gov. Newsom about their concerns with the bill. They advocated for more time to contribute their work and expertise to the bill impacting the communities they work with everyday. They explained that this bill would make their work on the ground far more difficult.
“Many of the local jurisdictions that we engage with would likely refuse to adopt a regulation or set conditions stronger than the state standards,” the letter read.
One of the organizations who authored the letter, the Peoples Collective for Environmental Justice (PC4EJ), who are based in the Inland Empire, said the bill will hinder their efforts on the ground.
“The language in this bill is setting a standard for a buffer zone of 300-500 feet of how close a warehouse can be to homes and schools and it’s a very low one,” said Alicia Aguayo, communications specialists at PC4EJ. “In the IE we already see schools this close to developments and we know the danger of more trucks and warehouses in a community because we already have examples of this in Bloomington.” She explained that these already common practices by developers are “business as usual” and making this the standard by law would be detrimental.
The letter also included five areas of greatest concern. They include a failure to address cumulative impacts from warehouse growth and development, and failure to adequately address harms from truck traffic.
“I want to be abundantly clear: I do not believe the sensitive receptor setbacks in this bill go far enough to protect our most vulnerable communities,” stated Gómez Reyes. “The distances outlined in this bill are only a minimum, and cities may adopt more stringent standards than what is outlined in AB 98. I urge cities and counties to expand on the standard set in this bill.”
Environmental justice groups across the region find that if passed, the bill would most likely prevent local governments from pushing further environmental protections than existing state law.
“Developers do not willingly go above a minimum standard and this standard is dangerous. We know from experience that we cannot count on developers to do the right thing nor on local elected officials to demand higher standards of industry,” said Aguayo. “They’ve had little regard for the community in this region as we’ve seen time and time again in Bloomington, San Bernardino, Moreno Valley, Fontana and the list goes on.”
Newsom has until the end of September to sign or veto the bill.