(1)Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, sets forth various requirements relating to the review of development project permit applications and the issuance of development permits for specified classes of development projects.

This bill would prohibit a local agency the County of Riverside, the County of San Bernardino, any city located within those counties, and the agencies, boards, or commissions, charter cities, joint powers authorities, regional agencies, public districts, and redevelopment agencies, and any other political subdivisions located within those counties, from approving the development or expansion of any qualifying logistics use, as defined, within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, as defined, except as provided. The bill would authorize a local agency public agency, as defined, to approve the development or expansion of a qualifying logistics use greater than 750 500 feet from a sensitive receptor and within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor only if the local agency takes certain actions, including, among other things, conducting a cumulative analysis of the air quality impacts of the warehouse development project, as specified. The bill would require a local agency, upon receipt of an application for a warehouse development project, to take certain actions, including posting information on its internet website that is easily accessible and easily understandable by the public, as specified. qualifying logistics use complies with certain requirements, including that all heavy-duty vehicles domiciled onsite meet certain requirements. The bill would require these minimum setback measurements to be made from the property line of the sensitive receptor to the property line of the qualifying logistics use by using a straight-line method.

By modifying and increasing the duties of local agencies with regard to qualifying logistics use projects, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would authorize an individual affected by a violation of these provisions or the Attorney General to bring an action to enjoin a violation of the provisions of this bill. The bill would provide that these provisions do not relieve a public agency from complying with the California Environmental Quality Act.

(2)The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

(4)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law declares the importance of, and general responsibility for, making housing available and affordable for all Californians.

This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to those provisions.

Date of Hearing: January 10, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Juan Carrillo, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1000 (

Author:Reyes) – As Amended Ver:January 3, 2024

SUBJECT: Qualifying logistics use projects.

SUMMARY: Prohibits specified public agencies within the Counties of San Bernardino and Riverside from approving the development or expansion of a “qualifying logistics use” (generally, a warehouse of 100,000 square feet or more) within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor, as defined. A public agency may approve a qualifying logistics use between 500 and 1,000 feet from a sensitive receptor if the qualifying logistics use imposes specified mitigation measures. Specifically, this bill:

1. Establishes the “Good Neighbor Policy.”
2. Prohibits a public agency from approving the development or expansion of any qualifying logistics use that is within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor, except as provided below.
3. Allows a public agency to approve development or expansion of a qualifying logistics use that is greater than 500 feet and within 1,000 feet from the property line of a sensitive receptor, if a qualifying logistics use meets the following:
   1. All heavy-duty vehicles domiciled on site shall be a model year 2014 or later from the start of operations.
   2. All heavy duty vehicles shall be zero-emission by December 31, 2028 or when commercially available for intended application, whichever is later.
      1. Zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) means a vehicle commercially available for the intended purpose and is included in the California Hybrid and Zero Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP).
      2. If a vehicle does not comply with the deadline by December 31, 2028 then the owner shall demonstrate to the public agency that the ZEVs needed for a purpose are not commercially available. A public agency shall not determine that ZEVs are commercially unavailable unless the operator demonstrates an inability to obtain the required electric vehicles or equipment needed within six months, as specified.
      3. An owner, operator, or tenant of a qualifying facility shall use a clean fleet of medium duty vehicles. All medium duty vehicles on-site shall be 100% zero emission by December 31, 2028.
   3. All onsite equipment used at the warehouse shall be zero emission with necessary charging or fueling stations.
   4. All off-road construction equipment used for the warehouse development project shall be zero emission (where available) or hybrid electric diesel. All diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment engines must be compliant with standards set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), as specified.
   5. A qualifying logistics use shall construct electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door and requires truck operators with transport refrigeration units to use the electric plugs at loading docks. An owner of a property is exempt if the owner records a covenant on the title of the underlying property that ensures the property shall not be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space.
   6. A qualifying logistics use shall install solar photovoltaic systems with companion battery storage on the project site that generates greater than or equal to the building’s projected needs, as specified.
      1. A project site may satisfy this requirement by installing a community renewable energy project that provides broader grid and community-based benefits.
      2. If a project site cannot accommodate enough solar panels to produce the operations’ base or anticipated use, an owner or operator shall demonstrate how all available space has been maximized for photovoltaic and battery energy storage system use.
   7. Prohibit trucks from idling for more than five (5) minutes and requires drivers to turn off the engine when not in use.
   8. Prohibit heavy duty off-road construction equipment from idling for more than five (5) minutes.
   9. A qualifying logistics shall do at least one of the following:
      1. Install zero emission truck charging or fueling stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project and run conduit to designated locations for future zero-emission truck charging stations.
      2. Contract with a third party for one year or longer to charge or fuel the zero-emission vehicles at an offsite location.
4. Defines terms for the purposes of this bill:
   1. “Development or expansion of any qualifying logistics use” to mean the development of any qualifying logistics use, the expansion of any existing qualifying logistics use, or the expansion of any existing logistics use, where the logistics use after the expansion would be a qualifying logistics use.
   2. “Heavy-duty vehicles” to mean an on-road vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating that is 26,001 or more pounds.
   3. “Logistics use” to mean any land use for the movement or storage of cargo goods or products for later distribution to business or retail customers, including any land use serving heavy-duty vehicles involved in such movement of cargo, goods, or products.
   4. “Public agency” to mean:
      1. the County of Riverside,
      2. the County of San Bernardino,
      3. any city located within the County of Riverside or San Bernardino,
      4. Any agency, board, or commission, any county, city and county, charter city, joint powers authority, regional agency, public district, or redevelopment agency, or any other political subdivision that is located within the County of Riverside or San Bernardino.
   5. “Qualifying logistics use” to mean any logistics use with 100,000 or more square feet of building space including, but not limited to, warehouses.
   6. “Sensitive receptors” to mean one or more of the following:
      1. A residence, including, but not limited to, a private home, apartment, condominium unit, group home, dormitory unit, retirement home, or shelter.
      2. A school, including, but not limited to, a preschool, prekindergarten, or school maintaining kindergarten or any of grades 1-12.
      3. A daycare facility, including, but not limited to, in-home daycare.
      4. A health care facility, including but not limited to, any hospital, medical clinic, community clinic, medical center, nursing home, long-term care facility, hospice, convalescent facility, or similar live-in housing.
      5. A community center.
      6. An established place of worship.
      7. An incarceration facility, including, but not limited to a, prison or jail.
      8. A public playground, public recreation field, or public recreation center.
5. Provides that a minimum setback measurement pursuant to the requirements of this bill shall be made from the property line of the sensitive receptor to the property line of the qualifying logistics use by using a straight-line method.
6. States that an individual affected by the violation of this bill or the Attorney General may bring an action to enjoin a violation of this bill.
7. Clarifies that this bill does not relieve a public agency from complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
8. Finds and declares that Section 1 of this bill addresses a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, Section 1 of this bill applies to all cities, including charter cities.
9. Finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the significant need to protect homes, schools, daycare facilities, and other sensitive receptors in the Counties of Riverside and San Bernardino, and in the cities located within those counties, or under the jurisdiction of any agency, board, or commission, any county, city and county, charter city, joint powers authority, regional agency, public district, or redevelopment agency, or any other political subdivision that is located within those counties, from the potential harm created by large warehouses and other logistics uses.
10. Provides that no reimbursement is required by this bill pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this bill, as specified.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires each city and county to prepare, adopt, and administer a general plan for its jurisdiction, which must include a housing element, to shape the future growth of its community (Government Code § 65300 – 65404).
2. Establishes CEQA, which requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA (Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq.).

FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed fiscal and contains a state-mandated local program.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement. “Local governments throughout the Inland Empire have been approving large industrial warehouse projects at a rapid rate over the past twenty years. This has been contributing to declining air quality as there are now 4,000 individual warehouses occupying about 1 billion square feet in the region that generate approximately 600,000 truck trips a day which is equivalent to 50 million pounds of carbon dioxide. While CEQA exists to ensure environmental issues are addressed through the planning process, we are seeing projects be approved that still cause environmental and public health issues to our community. In the community of Bloomington, 6 out of the 8 schools are located within 1,000 feet of a warehouse. This is not sustainable land use for the community.

“The Attorney General has sued local governments for failing to meet CEQA and not incorporating mitigation issues when approving warehouse projects. Most recently the City of Fontana in 2021 and the City of Stockton in 2022. The Attorney General has also put out a guidance memo for warehouse development that lists out mitigation measures for developers to consider adopting to align their projects with CEQA. That same memo cites that e-commerce has led to growth in the logistics sector over the past few years and that the Central Valley will likely see a growth in warehouse development over the next few years because of the available land in that area. This is clearly an issue that will continue and requiring additional mitigation measures when these projects are approved is the best way to frontload benefits for communities. A setback is necessary as proximity to pollution is the biggest factor for communities who live near warehouses, mitigation measures ensures that they will be clean if they get sited closer than 1,000 feet.

“AB 1000 establishes the Good Neighbor Policy by requiring local governments to have a 1,000 foot buffer zone when siting warehouses over 100,000 square feet next to schools, homes, healthcare facilities, and other sensitive receptors. It would allow warehouses to be sited 500 feet away from sensitive receptors if the project adopts [ZEV] for all classes of vehicles, zero-emission energy to power the facility, zero-emission equipment, and restricts idling and queuing for vehicles & equipment.

“We are seeing that warehouses are often sited next to vulnerable communities over the objection of local residents. We have had residents who have had warehouses sited as close as 60 feet away from their homes. There are quality of life issues with having a massive industrial facility that close to homes and schools. It contributes to asthma, heart disease, cancer and other public health issues. [CARB] and the California Attorney General have recommend 1,000 feet as a buffer zone because it reduces exposure to diesel particulate matter by 80%. Warehouses & logistics are a pivotal part of the Inland Empire economy however industry needs to be good neighbors to the community that has to live next to these massive industrial facilities.”

1. Bill Summary. This bill prohibits local agencies in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties from approving warehouse facilities that are larger than 100,000 square feet within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor. However, this bill allows a local agency to approve a warehouse of this size up to 500 feet from a sensitive receptor if it requires the developer to comply with certain environmental criteria. Specifically, a warehouse that is larger than 100,000 square feet may be located within 500-1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor if the warehouse meets a number of conditions.

The warehouse must:

• 1. Comply with electric fleet requirements.
  2. Comply with off road construction equipment requirements.
  3. Provide access to zero emission truck charging and fueling stations.
  4. Install solar panels and battery storage.
  5. Prohibit idling of trucks and construction equipment.

The setback requirement of this bill is measured from the property lined of the sensitive receptor to the property line of the warehouse. This bill allows an individual affected by a violation of its provisions, or the Attorney General, to bring an action to enjoin a violation.

This bill is sponsored by the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice.

1. Logistics Development in California. The proliferation of e-commerce and consumer expectations for rapid shipping contributed to a boom in warehouse development in California. The Environmental Justice Bureau at the Department of Justice (DOJ) notes that in the Inland Empire alone, 150 million square feet of new industrial space was developed from 2009-2019, and that 21 of the largest 100 logistics leases signed in 2019 were located in the Inland Empire.
2. Measuring Warehouses. This bill and AB 1748 (Ramos) both seek to establish minimum setback requirements on new warehouse developments in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The provisions of AB 1748 would affect any proposed warehouse development or expansion in the identified jurisdictions that include more than 400,000 square feet of building space, while this bill would apply to all warehouses developments and expansions that include 100,000 or more square feet of building space.

Researchers at the Redford Conservancy at Pitzer College and Radical Research LLC prepared a database of existing and proposed warehouses located in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. The tool can be used to estimate the total number of warehouses in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties that meet the size criteria of each bill. In order to determine the number of warehouses that meet the criteria of each bill, the tool applies lot coverage (floor area ratio) estimates to parcels developed with warehouses. Lot coverage for warehouses varies, but several jurisdictions in Riverside and San Bernardino assume a warehouse will cover between 50 and 60 percent of the total parcel. This means that a 100,000 square foot warehouse will typically be located on a lot totaling between 165,000 and 200,000 square feet, while a 400,000 square foot warehouse typically requires a lot that is between 670,000 square feet and 800,000 square feet.

The chart below provides an estimate of the total number of warehouses in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties (5,404) and estimates of how many of those warehouses exceed 100,000 square feet and 400,000 square feet based on assumed lot coverage ratios. The larger lot coverage estimate increases the number of existing warehouses that are assumed to be larger than 100,000 and 400,000 square feet, as it increases the number of parcels that can accommodate a development of that size. The inverse is true when the smaller lot coverage is used, as it decreases the number of parcels that can accommodate warehouses of that size.

The data suggests that 41 percent to 49 percent of all warehouses built in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties are larger than 100,000 square feet, with those warehouses accounting for 85 percent to 90 percent of all warehouse space located in the two counties. Approximately 9 percent to 12.5 percent of all warehouses built in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties exceed 400,000 square feet in size, but those warehouses account for 44 percent to 51 percent of all warehouse space located in the two counties.^[1]

1. Best Practices and Mitigation Measures. DOJ adopted a guidance memo titled Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, last updated September 2022. The memo identifies best practices for avoiding and mitigating impacts associated with warehouse development. The memo relies heavily on research prepared by the CARB. Among the recommendations proposed in the memo related to the siting and design of warehouses, the memo notes that a best practice includes “Per CARB guidance, siting warehouse facilities so that their property lines are at least 1,000 feet from the property lines of the nearest sensitive receptors.” The underlying data the memo cites in support of this recommendation found an 80 percent drop off in the concentration of diesel particulate matter emissions from distribution centers at approximately 1,000 feet. CARB and the South Coast Air Quality Management District analyses indicate that providing a separation of 1,000 feet would substantially reduce diesel particulate matter concentrations and public exposure downwind of a distribution center.^[2]
2. CEQA and Local Approval. CEQA requires public agencies to study and mitigate, to the extent feasible, the environmental impacts of proposed projects, providing a key protection for the environment and residents of California. Under CEQA, a local agency carrying out a discretionary project must first determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Projects can include jurisdiction-wide efforts such as the update of a general plan, approval of jurisdiction-wide contracts (e.g., waste hauling contracts or water service), and zoning ordinance amendments. A project can also include individual development actions such as the approval of warehouses, stadiums, gas storage facilities, and other types of developments. In the case of any discretionary project, if a local agency finds that the potential for significant environmental impacts exists, CEQA requires the agency to prepare and certify the completion of an EIR.

CEQA places the burden on the approving agency to affirmatively show that it has considered feasible mitigation and alternatives that can lessen or avoid identified impacts through a statement of findings for each identified significant impact. The CEQA Guidelines provide direction on the content of the statement of the findings, and states that one or more of the following findings must be identified for each impact:

• 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
  2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
  3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.

A lead agency may approve a project with unavoidable (unmitigated) adverse environmental impacts. When doing so, CEQA requires the agency to make a statement in the record of its views on the ultimate balancing of the merits of approving the project despite the environmental impacts in a “statement of overriding considerations.”

Approval of discretionary projects such as warehouse facilities is subject to CEQA and the lead agency must prepare an EIR if the project may have potentially significant environmental impacts. However, CEQA authorizes lead agencies to prepare a statement of overriding considerations and approve a project with unmitigated or unavoidable impacts. In practice, cities and counties may exercise this authority to approve projects that may significantly impact local residents. For example, the City of Perris prepared a Statement of Facts and Findings and Overriding Considerations for a proposed logistics development involving more than 1.7 million square feet of warehouse space. The City found in the Final EIR that the proposed project, located 300 feet from existing residents, would create long-term operational emission and cumulative criteria pollutants that constituted significant and unavoidable impacts. However, the City found such unmitigated effects were acceptable in view of specified overriding considerations. Among the overriding considerations cited were the creation of 685 new jobs and an estimated increase of $215,000 in additional city tax revenue.

1. Stockton and Fontana Warehouse Settlement Agreements. In 2022, DOJ reached two separate settlement agreements with the City of Fontana and the City of Stockton relative to their approval of warehouse developments. In both settlements, DOJ intervened during the CEQA process where the city was acting as the lead agency approving a warehouse development. In the City of Fontana, DOJ filed a lawsuit against the city in July of 2021 challenging its approval of the project and arguing that Fontana’s limited environmental review violated CEQA.^[3] In the City of Stockton, DOJ submitted letters to the city outlining concerns that its environmental review of the proposed warehouse project failed to adopt all feasible mitigation measures as required by CEQA.^[4] In April of 2022, DOJ announced a settlement agreement with the City of Fontana, the warehouse developer, and other litigants in the case. In December of 2022, DOJ announced a settlement agreement with the City of Stockton regarding its approval of warehouse developments.
2. Settlement Agreement Terms. The settlement agreements between DOJ and each city impose similar mitigation measures relative to warehouse developments and include standards and conditions that are unique to each agreement. Both agreements require each city to adopt a land use ordinance establishing strict standards for citing new warehouse developments within their respective jurisdictions. The City of Fontana adopted a new warehouse-citing ordinance in April 2022. The Stockton Agreement required Stockton to propose a warehouse ordinance no later than December 31, 2023.

Warehouse siting design requirements are embedded in the Fontana Ordinance. The Stockton Agreement outlines warehouse siting design requirements to be incorporated in the Stockton Ordinance. With respect to siting design, the settlement agreements require both cities to impose standards on new warehouse developments that are adjacent to sensitive receptors via ordinance. The ordinances include or are required to include standards related to:

• 1. Minimum setbacks.
  2. Onsite landscaped buffers.
  3. Decorative buffer walls at specified heights.
  4. Entry gate and loading dock orientation.
  5. Vehicle circulation.
  6. Signage relative to truck idling.

The siting design terms in both agreements are largely similar but vary in some key areas. For example, both agreements establish comparable landscaping, truck dock and truck entry orientation, and signage requirements. The Fontana Ordinance applies some of its provisions to warehouses that are 50,000 square feet or larger, some provisions to warehouses that are 200,000 square feet or larger, and other requirements only to warehouses that are 400,000 square feet or larger. With respect to the setback requirements, which are a key provision of this bill and AB 1748 (Ramos), the Fontana Ordinance requires warehouses that are 400,000 square feet or larger to establish a setback of 300 feet from the property line of the nearest sensitive receptor. The Stockton Agreement applies to logistics use projects with a building or buildings totaling 100,000 square feet. The Stockton Agreement requires that logistics uses and their associated loading docks are no closer than 300 feet from sensitive receptors, and requires the City to consider the public health and safety benefits of requiring a larger buffer, up to 1,000 feet. In Fontana, the setbacks are measured from the property line of the sensitive receptor to the nearest dock door at the logistics use facility. In Stockton the agreement stipulates setbacks established by Stockton’s ordinance will be measured from the loading dock or any building edge, whichever is closer, to the property line of any nearby sensitive receptors.

The agreements also included a series of requirements that are not related to the warehouse siting and design. The Fontana Agreement imposed 26 separate requirements and sub-requirements directly on the warehouse development that was the subject of DOJ’s lawsuit. This includes requirements for electric vehicle fleets, solar power, construction fleets, construction operating hours, and the establishment of a community benefit fund providing amenities to residents and the local school district. The Stockton Agreement requires the city to propose ordinance provisions that are similar to the standards that the Fontana Agreement imposed directly on the operator. The agreement includes a requirement that the proposed ordinance establish requirements for electric vehicle fleets, solar power, construction fleets, and other requirements for new warehouse developments larger than 100,000 square feet.

1. CARB Clean Truck Rules. In 2020, CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) regulation to accelerate a large-scale transition to zero-emission medium-and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8. One component of the regulation is a manufacturer sales requirement. Manufacturers who certify Class 2b-8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines would be required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales would need to be 55% of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75% of Class 4 – 8 straight truck sales, and 40% of truck tractor sales.

To further the transition to a zero-emission fleet, at the end of 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order (EO) N-79-20, which requires 100% of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the state be zero-emission by 2045 for all operations where feasible and by 2035 for drayage trucks. EO N-79-20 charges CARB with developing and proposing medium- and heavy-duty vehicle regulations requiring increasing volumes of new zero-emission trucks and buses sold and operated in the state towards that goal. CARB has finalized the Advanced Clean Fleet regulation, which sets a schedule for light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicles to meet zero-emission goals.

1. South Coast Indirect Source Rule (ISR). In 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted the Warehouse ISR, which requires warehouses greater than 100,000 square feet to directly reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) and diesel particulate matter (PM) emissions, or to otherwise reduce emissions and exposure of these pollutants in nearby communities.

According to SCAQMD, warehouses are a key destination for heavy-duty trucks and have other sources of emissions like cargo handling equipment, all of which contribute to local pollution, including toxic emissions, to the communities that live near them. Emissions from sources associated with warehouses account for almost as much NOx emissions as all the refineries, power plants, and other stationary sources in the South Coast Air Basin combined. Those living within a half mile of warehouses are more likely to include communities of color, have higher rates of asthma and heart attacks, and a greater environmental burden.

As part of the rule, warehouse operators will need to earn a specified number of points annually. These points can be earned by completing actions from a menu that includes acquiring and using natural gas near-zero and/or zero-emission on-road trucks, zero-emission cargo handling equipment, solar panels, or zero-emission charging and fueling infrastructure and more. As alternatives to the points system, warehouse operators can prepare and implement a custom plan specific to their site or choose to pay a mitigation fee. Funds from mitigation fees will be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and charging/fueling infrastructure in communities near the warehouse that paid the mitigation fee.

1. Policy Considerations. As a matter of state policy, California has established that by 2042 all vehicles operating will be zero-emission. The Committee may wish to consider the relevancy of this bill, if it were to become law, after 2042 and the impacts to a local government’s decision making power if threats to public health have been sufficiently addressed through the adoption of zero-emission technologies.
2. Related Legislation. AB 1748 (Ramos), requires specified local agencies to impose a 300-foot setback requirement on parcels that are adjacent to sensitive receptors and includes additional policies on warehouses that are larger than 400,000 square feet unless the local agency adopts specified alternative policies. AB 1748 is pending in Assembly Appropriations Committee.
3. Previous Legislation. AB 2840 (Reyes) of 2022, among other provisions, would have prohibited public agencies from siting warehouse developments within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use. This bill was held in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee.

AB 1547 (Reyes) of 2021, among other provisions, would have prohibited public agencies from siting warehouse developments within 3,000 yards of a sensitive land use. This bill was held in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

1. Double-Referral. This bill is double-referred to the Natural Resources Committee, where it passed on an 8-3 vote on April 17, 2023.
2. Arguments in Support: The Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice and a coalition of organizations write in support, “…The Inland Empire is the epicenter of warehousing in the United States, with over 4,000 warehouses that cover 40 square miles and over 1 billion square feet. Another 600 million square feet are approved, under construction, or in environmental planning phases. The proliferation of these warehouses comes with enormous truck traffic which generates approximately 600,000 truck trips a day – an equivalent to 50 million pounds of carbon dioxide. The logistics industry is the largest contributor to ozone air pollution in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, which experience the highest levels of ozone in the United States. Local residents have argued that they are seeing higher levels of asthma and other negative public health impacts. In addition to the public health impacts and degraded quality of life, homes and even neighborhoods are being bought by developers and demolished to make room for more warehouses in the midst of a housing crisis. The Inland Empire is often working-class Latino and Black communities – some of which are primarily Spanish speaking households. These communities are seeing a decline in their quality of life because facilities are sited next to their homes, schools, parks, and other sensitive receptors. Predatory zoning for warehouses adjacent to homes is controlled by local jurisdictions receiving monetary donations from out-of-state and out-of-county developers.

“Placing harmful land-uses next to homes and schools isn’t a NIMBY issue - it is an environmental racism issue. AB 1000 protects communities from conflicting land-use policies, improving quality of life for San Bernardino and Riverside County residents.”

1. Arguments in Opposition. The California Chamber of Commerce and a coalition of organizations writes in opposition, “AB 1000 is still far too prescriptive and will lead to the elimination of high paying jobs, quash critically needed housing associated with mixed use developments in the region, increase vehicle miles traveled for heavy duty vehicles coming from California ports, incentivize frivolous litigation with a new private right of action in California law, and exacerbate supply chain issues that will increase the costs to move goods, thereby increasing the cost of living on all Californians…

“AB 1000’s most recent amends arguably make the bill worse. Like prior versions, the bill maintains its one-size fits all approach to the region by stripping local governments of their land use autonomy and prohibiting all new or expanded logistic-use facilities within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor. It continues to be too prescriptive and fails to address the flexibility needs of local governments. The bill as amended now requires all buffers to be made from the property line of the sensitive receptor to the property line of the qualifying logistics use by using a straight-line method the perimeter of the parcels while prior versions of the bill were less prescriptive…

“… CARB has adopted the Advanced Clean Fleets Rule which will require that large public and private fleets be 100% zero emission by 2042 and drayage fleets of any size by 2035. Under that rule, CARB plans to ban the registration of any new non-zero emission vehicle from California’s ports and intermodal railyards after 2023. CARB has updated its Transportation Refrigeration Unit (TRU) Rules to require lower particulate emissions from all TRUs and certain types of TRUs to transition to zero emissions starting in 2024.”

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (Sponsor)

American Lung Association in California
Ban Sup (Single Use Plastic)
California Environmental Voters (formerly Clcv)
Calstart
Clean Water Action
Coalition for Clean Air
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA)
Democratic Club of The Inland Valley
EJCW (environmental Coalition for Water Justice)
Fair Ontario
Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice
League of Women Voters Riverside
Lutheran Office of Public Policy - California
Move LA
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Redlands Area Democratic Club
Riverside Neighbors Opposing Warehouses
Robert Redford Conservancy At Pitzer College
San Bernardino Community Service Center, INC
San Bernardino County Medical Society
Sierra Club California
Sierra Club, San Gorgonio
South Fontana Concerned Citizens Coalition
The Greenlining Institute
Union of Concerned Scientists
Vote Solar

Support to Prior Version (As Amended 03.30.2023)

Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice [SPONSOR]

350 Humboldt: Grass Roots Climate Action

350 Riverside

American Academy of Pediatrics

Amigos De Los Rios

Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN)

California Climate Action

California Environmental Justice Alliance (CEJA) Action

California Nurses Association

California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment

Central California Asthma Collaborative

Cleanearth4kids.org

Climate Action California

Climate Center; The

Concerned Neighbors of Bloomington

Democratic Club of Claremont

Disability Rights California

Earthjustice

Elders Climate Action, Norcal and Socal Chapters

Environment California

Flo Services USA

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Greenlining Institute

Grow Fontana

Inland Congregations United for Change

Inland Empire United

Inland Equity Partnership

Just San Bernardino

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) of Riverside Council 3190

Let's Green Ca!

Loma Linda University for a Sustainable Future

People's Collective for Environmental Justice

Physicians for Social Responsibility - San Francisco Bay Area Chapter

Pink Panthers

Pomona Economic Opportunity Center

Puente Latino Association

R-now

Safe Routes Partnership

Santa Cruz Climate Action Network

Sisterswe Community Gardening Projects

Sunrun INC.

The Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Collective

United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1167

United Food and Commercial Workers, Western States Council

Voices for Progress

Warehouse Worker Resource Center

Western Center on Law & Poverty

Opposition

Agricultural Council of California

Anaheim Chamber of Commerce

Antelope Valley Chambers of Commerce

Associated General Contractors of California

Bay Area Council

BNSF Railway

Brea Chamber of Commerce

Brentwood Chamber of Commerce

Building Owners and Managers Association of California (BOMA)

California Beer and Beverage Distributors

California Building Industry Association (CBIA)

California Business Properties Association

California Business Roundtable

California Chamber of Commerce

California Family Beer Distributors

California Farm Bureau

California League of Food Producers

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

California Restaurant Association

California Retailers Association
CA State Council of Laborers

California Short Line Railroad Association

California Taxpayers Association

California Trucking Association

Can Manufacturers Institute

Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce

Carson Chamber of Commerce

Chino Valley Chamber of Commerce

Coalition of California Chambers – Orange County

Corona Chamber of Commerce

Folsom Chamber of Commerce

Fontana Chamber of Commerce

Fontana; City of

Fremont Chamber of Commerce

Fresno Chamber of Commerce

Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce

Gateway Chambers Alliance

Glendora Chamber of Commerce

Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce

Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce

Greater High Desert Chamber of Commerce

Greater Irvine Chamber of Commerce

Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce

Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce

Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce

Imperial Valley Regional Chamber of Commerce

Industrial Environmental Association

Inland Action

Inland Empire Economic Partnership (IEEP)

LA Canada Flintridge Chamber of Commerce

LA Verne Chamber of Commerce

Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce

League of California Cities

Livermore Valley Chamber of Commerce

Lodi District Chamber of Commerce

Long Beach Chamber of Commerce

Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

Los Angeles County Business Federation (BIZFED)

Maersk

Murrieta Wildomar Chamber of Commerce

NAIOP California

New California Coalition

Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce

Norwalk Chamber of Commerce

Oceanside Chamber of Commerce

Orange County Business Council

Pacific Merchant Shipping Association

Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce

Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce

Rancho Cordova Area Chamber of Commerce

Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce

Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce

San Juan Capistrano Chamber of Commerce

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians

San Pedro Chamber of Commerce

Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce

Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce

Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce

Santa Paula Chamber of Commerce

South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce

Southern California Leadership Council

Southwest California Legislative Council

State Building and Construction Trades

Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce

Tri County Chamber Alliance

Tulare Chamber of Commerce

Union Pacific Railroad

United Chamber Advocacy Network

Vacaville Chamber of Commerce

Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA)

West Ventura County Business Alliance

Western Growers Association

Western States Petroleum Association

Wine Institute

Yorba Linda Chamber of Commerce

Opposition to Prior Version (As Amended 03.30.2023)

Association of Western Employers

AV Edge (Antelope Valley Economic Development & Growth Enterprise)

Building Industry Association of Southern California

California Association for Local Economic Development (CALED)

California Hotel & Lodging Association

California State Council of Laborers Local 67

California State Council of Laborers Local 73

California State Council of Laborers Local 89

California State Council of Laborers Local 185

California State Council of Laborers Local 220

California State Council of Laborers Local 261

California State Council of Laborers Local 294

California State Council of Laborers Local 300

California State Council of Laborers Local 304

California State Council of Laborers Local 324

California State Council of Laborers Local 345

California State Council of Laborers Local 585

California State Council of Laborers Local 652

California State Council of Laborers Local 724

California State Council of Laborers Local 792

California State Council of Laborers Local 1130

California State Council of Laborers Local 1184

California State Council of Laborers Local 1414

District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California and Vicinity

Institute of Real Estate Management (IREM)

LIUNA! Pacific Southwest Regional Office

Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce

Otay Mesa Property Owners Association

Rebuild Socal Partnership

San Bernardino County

San Pedro Chamber of Commerce

Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce

South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce

Southern California District Council of Laborers

The Chamber Newport Beach

United Contractors

Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958, Linda Rios / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958

1. Robert Redford Conservancy and Radical Research LLC: Warehouse CITY. https://radicalresearch.shinyapps.io/WarehouseCITY/ ↑

2. Department of Justice: Bureau of Environmental Justice. Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. (Updated September 2022). ↑

3. Attorney General Bonta Announces Innovative Settlement with City of Fontana to Address Environmental Injustices in Warehouse Development. California Department of Justice, April 18, 2022. Bureau of Environmental Justice. https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-announces-innovative-settlement-city-fontana-address. ↑

4. Attorney General Bonta Announces Agreement with City of Stockton to Address Environmental Impacts from Continued Warehouse Development. California Department of Justice, December 6, 2022. Bureau of Environmental Justice. https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-announces-agreement-city-stockton-address-environmental. ↑

Date of Hearing: January 10, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Juan Carrillo, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1000 (

Author:Reyes) – As Amended Ver:January 3, 2024

SUBJECT: Qualifying logistics use projects.

SUMMARY: Prohibits specified public agencies within the Counties of San Bernardino and Riverside from approving the development or expansion of a “qualifying logistics use” (generally, a warehouse of 100,000 square feet or more) within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor, as defined. A public agency may approve a qualifying logistics use between 500 and 1,000 feet from a sensitive receptor if the qualifying logistics use imposes specified mitigation measures. Specifically, this bill:

1. Establishes the “Good Neighbor Policy.”
2. Prohibits a public agency from approving the development or expansion of any qualifying logistics use that is within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor, except as provided below.
3. Allows a public agency to approve development or expansion of a qualifying logistics use that is greater than 500 feet and within 1,000 feet from the property line of a sensitive receptor, if a qualifying logistics use meets the following:
   1. All heavy-duty vehicles domiciled on site shall be a model year 2014 or later from the start of operations.
   2. All heavy duty vehicles shall be zero-emission by December 31, 2028 or when commercially available for intended application, whichever is later.
      1. Zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) means a vehicle commercially available for the intended purpose and is included in the California Hybrid and Zero Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP).
      2. If a vehicle does not comply with the deadline by December 31, 2028 then the owner shall demonstrate to the public agency that the ZEVs needed for a purpose are not commercially available. A public agency shall not determine that ZEVs are commercially unavailable unless the operator demonstrates an inability to obtain the required electric vehicles or equipment needed within six months, as specified.
      3. An owner, operator, or tenant of a qualifying facility shall use a clean fleet of medium duty vehicles. All medium duty vehicles on-site shall be 100% zero emission by December 31, 2028.
   3. All onsite equipment used at the warehouse shall be zero emission with necessary charging or fueling stations.
   4. All off-road construction equipment used for the warehouse development project shall be zero emission (where available) or hybrid electric diesel. All diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment engines must be compliant with standards set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), as specified.
   5. A qualifying logistics use shall construct electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door and requires truck operators with transport refrigeration units to use the electric plugs at loading docks. An owner of a property is exempt if the owner records a covenant on the title of the underlying property that ensures the property shall not be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space.
   6. A qualifying logistics use shall install solar photovoltaic systems with companion battery storage on the project site that generates greater than or equal to the building’s projected needs, as specified.
      1. A project site may satisfy this requirement by installing a community renewable energy project that provides broader grid and community-based benefits.
      2. If a project site cannot accommodate enough solar panels to produce the operations’ base or anticipated use, an owner or operator shall demonstrate how all available space has been maximized for photovoltaic and battery energy storage system use.
   7. Prohibit trucks from idling for more than five (5) minutes and requires drivers to turn off the engine when not in use.
   8. Prohibit heavy duty off-road construction equipment from idling for more than five (5) minutes.
   9. A qualifying logistics shall do at least one of the following:
      1. Install zero emission truck charging or fueling stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project and run conduit to designated locations for future zero-emission truck charging stations.
      2. Contract with a third party for one year or longer to charge or fuel the zero-emission vehicles at an offsite location.
4. Defines terms for the purposes of this bill:
   1. “Development or expansion of any qualifying logistics use” to mean the development of any qualifying logistics use, the expansion of any existing qualifying logistics use, or the expansion of any existing logistics use, where the logistics use after the expansion would be a qualifying logistics use.
   2. “Heavy-duty vehicles” to mean an on-road vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating that is 26,001 or more pounds.
   3. “Logistics use” to mean any land use for the movement or storage of cargo goods or products for later distribution to business or retail customers, including any land use serving heavy-duty vehicles involved in such movement of cargo, goods, or products.
   4. “Public agency” to mean:
      1. the County of Riverside,
      2. the County of San Bernardino,
      3. any city located within the County of Riverside or San Bernardino,
      4. Any agency, board, or commission, any county, city and county, charter city, joint powers authority, regional agency, public district, or redevelopment agency, or any other political subdivision that is located within the County of Riverside or San Bernardino.
   5. “Qualifying logistics use” to mean any logistics use with 100,000 or more square feet of building space including, but not limited to, warehouses.
   6. “Sensitive receptors” to mean one or more of the following:
      1. A residence, including, but not limited to, a private home, apartment, condominium unit, group home, dormitory unit, retirement home, or shelter.
      2. A school, including, but not limited to, a preschool, prekindergarten, or school maintaining kindergarten or any of grades 1-12.
      3. A daycare facility, including, but not limited to, in-home daycare.
      4. A health care facility, including but not limited to, any hospital, medical clinic, community clinic, medical center, nursing home, long-term care facility, hospice, convalescent facility, or similar live-in housing.
      5. A community center.
      6. An established place of worship.
      7. An incarceration facility, including, but not limited to a, prison or jail.
      8. A public playground, public recreation field, or public recreation center.
5. Provides that a minimum setback measurement pursuant to the requirements of this bill shall be made from the property line of the sensitive receptor to the property line of the qualifying logistics use by using a straight-line method.
6. States that an individual affected by the violation of this bill or the Attorney General may bring an action to enjoin a violation of this bill.
7. Clarifies that this bill does not relieve a public agency from complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
8. Finds and declares that Section 1 of this bill addresses a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, Section 1 of this bill applies to all cities, including charter cities.
9. Finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the significant need to protect homes, schools, daycare facilities, and other sensitive receptors in the Counties of Riverside and San Bernardino, and in the cities located within those counties, or under the jurisdiction of any agency, board, or commission, any county, city and county, charter city, joint powers authority, regional agency, public district, or redevelopment agency, or any other political subdivision that is located within those counties, from the potential harm created by large warehouses and other logistics uses.
10. Provides that no reimbursement is required by this bill pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this bill, as specified.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires each city and county to prepare, adopt, and administer a general plan for its jurisdiction, which must include a housing element, to shape the future growth of its community (Government Code § 65300 – 65404).
2. Establishes CEQA, which requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA (Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq.).

FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed fiscal and contains a state-mandated local program.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement. “Local governments throughout the Inland Empire have been approving large industrial warehouse projects at a rapid rate over the past twenty years. This has been contributing to declining air quality as there are now 4,000 individual warehouses occupying about 1 billion square feet in the region that generate approximately 600,000 truck trips a day which is equivalent to 50 million pounds of carbon dioxide. While CEQA exists to ensure environmental issues are addressed through the planning process, we are seeing projects be approved that still cause environmental and public health issues to our community. In the community of Bloomington, 6 out of the 8 schools are located within 1,000 feet of a warehouse. This is not sustainable land use for the community.

“The Attorney General has sued local governments for failing to meet CEQA and not incorporating mitigation issues when approving warehouse projects. Most recently the City of Fontana in 2021 and the City of Stockton in 2022. The Attorney General has also put out a guidance memo for warehouse development that lists out mitigation measures for developers to consider adopting to align their projects with CEQA. That same memo cites that e-commerce has led to growth in the logistics sector over the past few years and that the Central Valley will likely see a growth in warehouse development over the next few years because of the available land in that area. This is clearly an issue that will continue and requiring additional mitigation measures when these projects are approved is the best way to frontload benefits for communities. A setback is necessary as proximity to pollution is the biggest factor for communities who live near warehouses, mitigation measures ensures that they will be clean if they get sited closer than 1,000 feet.

“AB 1000 establishes the Good Neighbor Policy by requiring local governments to have a 1,000 foot buffer zone when siting warehouses over 100,000 square feet next to schools, homes, healthcare facilities, and other sensitive receptors. It would allow warehouses to be sited 500 feet away from sensitive receptors if the project adopts [ZEV] for all classes of vehicles, zero-emission energy to power the facility, zero-emission equipment, and restricts idling and queuing for vehicles & equipment.

“We are seeing that warehouses are often sited next to vulnerable communities over the objection of local residents. We have had residents who have had warehouses sited as close as 60 feet away from their homes. There are quality of life issues with having a massive industrial facility that close to homes and schools. It contributes to asthma, heart disease, cancer and other public health issues. [CARB] and the California Attorney General have recommend 1,000 feet as a buffer zone because it reduces exposure to diesel particulate matter by 80%. Warehouses & logistics are a pivotal part of the Inland Empire economy however industry needs to be good neighbors to the community that has to live next to these massive industrial facilities.”

1. Bill Summary. This bill prohibits local agencies in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties from approving warehouse facilities that are larger than 100,000 square feet within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor. However, this bill allows a local agency to approve a warehouse of this size up to 500 feet from a sensitive receptor if it requires the developer to comply with certain environmental criteria. Specifically, a warehouse that is larger than 100,000 square feet may be located within 500-1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor if the warehouse meets a number of conditions.

The warehouse must:

• 1. Comply with electric fleet requirements.
  2. Comply with off road construction equipment requirements.
  3. Provide access to zero emission truck charging and fueling stations.
  4. Install solar panels and battery storage.
  5. Prohibit idling of trucks and construction equipment.

The setback requirement of this bill is measured from the property lined of the sensitive receptor to the property line of the warehouse. This bill allows an individual affected by a violation of its provisions, or the Attorney General, to bring an action to enjoin a violation.

This bill is sponsored by the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice.

1. Logistics Development in California. The proliferation of e-commerce and consumer expectations for rapid shipping contributed to a boom in warehouse development in California. The Environmental Justice Bureau at the Department of Justice (DOJ) notes that in the Inland Empire alone, 150 million square feet of new industrial space was developed from 2009-2019, and that 21 of the largest 100 logistics leases signed in 2019 were located in the Inland Empire.
2. Measuring Warehouses. This bill and AB 1748 (Ramos) both seek to establish minimum setback requirements on new warehouse developments in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The provisions of AB 1748 would affect any proposed warehouse development or expansion in the identified jurisdictions that include more than 400,000 square feet of building space, while this bill would apply to all warehouses developments and expansions that include 100,000 or more square feet of building space.

Researchers at the Redford Conservancy at Pitzer College and Radical Research LLC prepared a database of existing and proposed warehouses located in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. The tool can be used to estimate the total number of warehouses in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties that meet the size criteria of each bill. In order to determine the number of warehouses that meet the criteria of each bill, the tool applies lot coverage (floor area ratio) estimates to parcels developed with warehouses. Lot coverage for warehouses varies, but several jurisdictions in Riverside and San Bernardino assume a warehouse will cover between 50 and 60 percent of the total parcel. This means that a 100,000 square foot warehouse will typically be located on a lot totaling between 165,000 and 200,000 square feet, while a 400,000 square foot warehouse typically requires a lot that is between 670,000 square feet and 800,000 square feet.

The chart below provides an estimate of the total number of warehouses in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties (5,404) and estimates of how many of those warehouses exceed 100,000 square feet and 400,000 square feet based on assumed lot coverage ratios. The larger lot coverage estimate increases the number of existing warehouses that are assumed to be larger than 100,000 and 400,000 square feet, as it increases the number of parcels that can accommodate a development of that size. The inverse is true when the smaller lot coverage is used, as it decreases the number of parcels that can accommodate warehouses of that size.

The data suggests that 41 percent to 49 percent of all warehouses built in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties are larger than 100,000 square feet, with those warehouses accounting for 85 percent to 90 percent of all warehouse space located in the two counties. Approximately 9 percent to 12.5 percent of all warehouses built in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties exceed 400,000 square feet in size, but those warehouses account for 44 percent to 51 percent of all warehouse space located in the two counties.^[1]

1. Best Practices and Mitigation Measures. DOJ adopted a guidance memo titled Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, last updated September 2022. The memo identifies best practices for avoiding and mitigating impacts associated with warehouse development. The memo relies heavily on research prepared by the CARB. Among the recommendations proposed in the memo related to the siting and design of warehouses, the memo notes that a best practice includes “Per CARB guidance, siting warehouse facilities so that their property lines are at least 1,000 feet from the property lines of the nearest sensitive receptors.” The underlying data the memo cites in support of this recommendation found an 80 percent drop off in the concentration of diesel particulate matter emissions from distribution centers at approximately 1,000 feet. CARB and the South Coast Air Quality Management District analyses indicate that providing a separation of 1,000 feet would substantially reduce diesel particulate matter concentrations and public exposure downwind of a distribution center.^[2]
2. CEQA and Local Approval. CEQA requires public agencies to study and mitigate, to the extent feasible, the environmental impacts of proposed projects, providing a key protection for the environment and residents of California. Under CEQA, a local agency carrying out a discretionary project must first determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Projects can include jurisdiction-wide efforts such as the update of a general plan, approval of jurisdiction-wide contracts (e.g., waste hauling contracts or water service), and zoning ordinance amendments. A project can also include individual development actions such as the approval of warehouses, stadiums, gas storage facilities, and other types of developments. In the case of any discretionary project, if a local agency finds that the potential for significant environmental impacts exists, CEQA requires the agency to prepare and certify the completion of an EIR.

CEQA places the burden on the approving agency to affirmatively show that it has considered feasible mitigation and alternatives that can lessen or avoid identified impacts through a statement of findings for each identified significant impact. The CEQA Guidelines provide direction on the content of the statement of the findings, and states that one or more of the following findings must be identified for each impact:

• 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
  2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
  3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.

A lead agency may approve a project with unavoidable (unmitigated) adverse environmental impacts. When doing so, CEQA requires the agency to make a statement in the record of its views on the ultimate balancing of the merits of approving the project despite the environmental impacts in a “statement of overriding considerations.”

Approval of discretionary projects such as warehouse facilities is subject to CEQA and the lead agency must prepare an EIR if the project may have potentially significant environmental impacts. However, CEQA authorizes lead agencies to prepare a statement of overriding considerations and approve a project with unmitigated or unavoidable impacts. In practice, cities and counties may exercise this authority to approve projects that may significantly impact local residents. For example, the City of Perris prepared a Statement of Facts and Findings and Overriding Considerations for a proposed logistics development involving more than 1.7 million square feet of warehouse space. The City found in the Final EIR that the proposed project, located 300 feet from existing residents, would create long-term operational emission and cumulative criteria pollutants that constituted significant and unavoidable impacts. However, the City found such unmitigated effects were acceptable in view of specified overriding considerations. Among the overriding considerations cited were the creation of 685 new jobs and an estimated increase of $215,000 in additional city tax revenue.

1. Stockton and Fontana Warehouse Settlement Agreements. In 2022, DOJ reached two separate settlement agreements with the City of Fontana and the City of Stockton relative to their approval of warehouse developments. In both settlements, DOJ intervened during the CEQA process where the city was acting as the lead agency approving a warehouse development. In the City of Fontana, DOJ filed a lawsuit against the city in July of 2021 challenging its approval of the project and arguing that Fontana’s limited environmental review violated CEQA.^[3] In the City of Stockton, DOJ submitted letters to the city outlining concerns that its environmental review of the proposed warehouse project failed to adopt all feasible mitigation measures as required by CEQA.^[4] In April of 2022, DOJ announced a settlement agreement with the City of Fontana, the warehouse developer, and other litigants in the case. In December of 2022, DOJ announced a settlement agreement with the City of Stockton regarding its approval of warehouse developments.
2. Settlement Agreement Terms. The settlement agreements between DOJ and each city impose similar mitigation measures relative to warehouse developments and include standards and conditions that are unique to each agreement. Both agreements require each city to adopt a land use ordinance establishing strict standards for citing new warehouse developments within their respective jurisdictions. The City of Fontana adopted a new warehouse-citing ordinance in April 2022. The Stockton Agreement required Stockton to propose a warehouse ordinance no later than December 31, 2023.

Warehouse siting design requirements are embedded in the Fontana Ordinance. The Stockton Agreement outlines warehouse siting design requirements to be incorporated in the Stockton Ordinance. With respect to siting design, the settlement agreements require both cities to impose standards on new warehouse developments that are adjacent to sensitive receptors via ordinance. The ordinances include or are required to include standards related to:

• 1. Minimum setbacks.
  2. Onsite landscaped buffers.
  3. Decorative buffer walls at specified heights.
  4. Entry gate and loading dock orientation.
  5. Vehicle circulation.
  6. Signage relative to truck idling.

The siting design terms in both agreements are largely similar but vary in some key areas. For example, both agreements establish comparable landscaping, truck dock and truck entry orientation, and signage requirements. The Fontana Ordinance applies some of its provisions to warehouses that are 50,000 square feet or larger, some provisions to warehouses that are 200,000 square feet or larger, and other requirements only to warehouses that are 400,000 square feet or larger. With respect to the setback requirements, which are a key provision of this bill and AB 1748 (Ramos), the Fontana Ordinance requires warehouses that are 400,000 square feet or larger to establish a setback of 300 feet from the property line of the nearest sensitive receptor. The Stockton Agreement applies to logistics use projects with a building or buildings totaling 100,000 square feet. The Stockton Agreement requires that logistics uses and their associated loading docks are no closer than 300 feet from sensitive receptors, and requires the City to consider the public health and safety benefits of requiring a larger buffer, up to 1,000 feet. In Fontana, the setbacks are measured from the property line of the sensitive receptor to the nearest dock door at the logistics use facility. In Stockton the agreement stipulates setbacks established by Stockton’s ordinance will be measured from the loading dock or any building edge, whichever is closer, to the property line of any nearby sensitive receptors.

The agreements also included a series of requirements that are not related to the warehouse siting and design. The Fontana Agreement imposed 26 separate requirements and sub-requirements directly on the warehouse development that was the subject of DOJ’s lawsuit. This includes requirements for electric vehicle fleets, solar power, construction fleets, construction operating hours, and the establishment of a community benefit fund providing amenities to residents and the local school district. The Stockton Agreement requires the city to propose ordinance provisions that are similar to the standards that the Fontana Agreement imposed directly on the operator. The agreement includes a requirement that the proposed ordinance establish requirements for electric vehicle fleets, solar power, construction fleets, and other requirements for new warehouse developments larger than 100,000 square feet.

1. CARB Clean Truck Rules. In 2020, CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) regulation to accelerate a large-scale transition to zero-emission medium-and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8. One component of the regulation is a manufacturer sales requirement. Manufacturers who certify Class 2b-8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines would be required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales would need to be 55% of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75% of Class 4 – 8 straight truck sales, and 40% of truck tractor sales.

To further the transition to a zero-emission fleet, at the end of 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order (EO) N-79-20, which requires 100% of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the state be zero-emission by 2045 for all operations where feasible and by 2035 for drayage trucks. EO N-79-20 charges CARB with developing and proposing medium- and heavy-duty vehicle regulations requiring increasing volumes of new zero-emission trucks and buses sold and operated in the state towards that goal. CARB has finalized the Advanced Clean Fleet regulation, which sets a schedule for light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicles to meet zero-emission goals.

1. South Coast Indirect Source Rule (ISR). In 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted the Warehouse ISR, which requires warehouses greater than 100,000 square feet to directly reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) and diesel particulate matter (PM) emissions, or to otherwise reduce emissions and exposure of these pollutants in nearby communities.

According to SCAQMD, warehouses are a key destination for heavy-duty trucks and have other sources of emissions like cargo handling equipment, all of which contribute to local pollution, including toxic emissions, to the communities that live near them. Emissions from sources associated with warehouses account for almost as much NOx emissions as all the refineries, power plants, and other stationary sources in the South Coast Air Basin combined. Those living within a half mile of warehouses are more likely to include communities of color, have higher rates of asthma and heart attacks, and a greater environmental burden.

As part of the rule, warehouse operators will need to earn a specified number of points annually. These points can be earned by completing actions from a menu that includes acquiring and using natural gas near-zero and/or zero-emission on-road trucks, zero-emission cargo handling equipment, solar panels, or zero-emission charging and fueling infrastructure and more. As alternatives to the points system, warehouse operators can prepare and implement a custom plan specific to their site or choose to pay a mitigation fee. Funds from mitigation fees will be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and charging/fueling infrastructure in communities near the warehouse that paid the mitigation fee.

1. Policy Considerations. As a matter of state policy, California has established that by 2042 all vehicles operating will be zero-emission. The Committee may wish to consider the relevancy of this bill, if it were to become law, after 2042 and the impacts to a local government’s decision making power if threats to public health have been sufficiently addressed through the adoption of zero-emission technologies.
2. Related Legislation. AB 1748 (Ramos), requires specified local agencies to impose a 300-foot setback requirement on parcels that are adjacent to sensitive receptors and includes additional policies on warehouses that are larger than 400,000 square feet unless the local agency adopts specified alternative policies. AB 1748 is pending in Assembly Appropriations Committee.
3. Previous Legislation. AB 2840 (Reyes) of 2022, among other provisions, would have prohibited public agencies from siting warehouse developments within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use. This bill was held in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee.

AB 1547 (Reyes) of 2021, among other provisions, would have prohibited public agencies from siting warehouse developments within 3,000 yards of a sensitive land use. This bill was held in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

1. Double-Referral. This bill is double-referred to the Natural Resources Committee, where it passed on an 8-3 vote on April 17, 2023.
2. Arguments in Support: The Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice and a coalition of organizations write in support, “…The Inland Empire is the epicenter of warehousing in the United States, with over 4,000 warehouses that cover 40 square miles and over 1 billion square feet. Another 600 million square feet are approved, under construction, or in environmental planning phases. The proliferation of these warehouses comes with enormous truck traffic which generates approximately 600,000 truck trips a day – an equivalent to 50 million pounds of carbon dioxide. The logistics industry is the largest contributor to ozone air pollution in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, which experience the highest levels of ozone in the United States. Local residents have argued that they are seeing higher levels of asthma and other negative public health impacts. In addition to the public health impacts and degraded quality of life, homes and even neighborhoods are being bought by developers and demolished to make room for more warehouses in the midst of a housing crisis. The Inland Empire is often working-class Latino and Black communities – some of which are primarily Spanish speaking households. These communities are seeing a decline in their quality of life because facilities are sited next to their homes, schools, parks, and other sensitive receptors. Predatory zoning for warehouses adjacent to homes is controlled by local jurisdictions receiving monetary donations from out-of-state and out-of-county developers.

“Placing harmful land-uses next to homes and schools isn’t a NIMBY issue - it is an environmental racism issue. AB 1000 protects communities from conflicting land-use policies, improving quality of life for San Bernardino and Riverside County residents.”

1. Arguments in Opposition. The California Chamber of Commerce and a coalition of organizations writes in opposition, “AB 1000 is still far too prescriptive and will lead to the elimination of high paying jobs, quash critically needed housing associated with mixed use developments in the region, increase vehicle miles traveled for heavy duty vehicles coming from California ports, incentivize frivolous litigation with a new private right of action in California law, and exacerbate supply chain issues that will increase the costs to move goods, thereby increasing the cost of living on all Californians…

“AB 1000’s most recent amends arguably make the bill worse. Like prior versions, the bill maintains its one-size fits all approach to the region by stripping local governments of their land use autonomy and prohibiting all new or expanded logistic-use facilities within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor. It continues to be too prescriptive and fails to address the flexibility needs of local governments. The bill as amended now requires all buffers to be made from the property line of the sensitive receptor to the property line of the qualifying logistics use by using a straight-line method the perimeter of the parcels while prior versions of the bill were less prescriptive…

“… CARB has adopted the Advanced Clean Fleets Rule which will require that large public and private fleets be 100% zero emission by 2042 and drayage fleets of any size by 2035. Under that rule, CARB plans to ban the registration of any new non-zero emission vehicle from California’s ports and intermodal railyards after 2023. CARB has updated its Transportation Refrigeration Unit (TRU) Rules to require lower particulate emissions from all TRUs and certain types of TRUs to transition to zero emissions starting in 2024.”

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (Sponsor)

American Lung Association in California
Ban Sup (Single Use Plastic)
California Environmental Voters (formerly Clcv)
Calstart
Clean Water Action
Coalition for Clean Air
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA)
Democratic Club of The Inland Valley
EJCW (environmental Coalition for Water Justice)
Fair Ontario
Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice
League of Women Voters Riverside
Lutheran Office of Public Policy - California
Move LA
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Redlands Area Democratic Club
Riverside Neighbors Opposing Warehouses
Robert Redford Conservancy At Pitzer College
San Bernardino Community Service Center, INC
San Bernardino County Medical Society
Sierra Club California
Sierra Club, San Gorgonio
South Fontana Concerned Citizens Coalition
The Greenlining Institute
Union of Concerned Scientists
Vote Solar

Support to Prior Version (As Amended 03.30.2023)

Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice [SPONSOR]

350 Humboldt: Grass Roots Climate Action

350 Riverside

American Academy of Pediatrics

Amigos De Los Rios

Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN)

California Climate Action

California Environmental Justice Alliance (CEJA) Action

California Nurses Association

California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment

Central California Asthma Collaborative

Cleanearth4kids.org

Climate Action California

Climate Center; The

Concerned Neighbors of Bloomington

Democratic Club of Claremont

Disability Rights California

Earthjustice

Elders Climate Action, Norcal and Socal Chapters

Environment California

Flo Services USA

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Greenlining Institute

Grow Fontana

Inland Congregations United for Change

Inland Empire United

Inland Equity Partnership

Just San Bernardino

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) of Riverside Council 3190

Let's Green Ca!

Loma Linda University for a Sustainable Future

People's Collective for Environmental Justice

Physicians for Social Responsibility - San Francisco Bay Area Chapter

Pink Panthers

Pomona Economic Opportunity Center

Puente Latino Association

R-now

Safe Routes Partnership

Santa Cruz Climate Action Network

Sisterswe Community Gardening Projects

Sunrun INC.

The Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Collective

United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1167

United Food and Commercial Workers, Western States Council

Voices for Progress

Warehouse Worker Resource Center

Western Center on Law & Poverty

Opposition

Agricultural Council of California

Anaheim Chamber of Commerce

Antelope Valley Chambers of Commerce

Associated General Contractors of California

Bay Area Council

BNSF Railway

Brea Chamber of Commerce

Brentwood Chamber of Commerce

Building Owners and Managers Association of California (BOMA)

California Beer and Beverage Distributors

California Building Industry Association (CBIA)

California Business Properties Association

California Business Roundtable

California Chamber of Commerce

California Family Beer Distributors

California Farm Bureau

California League of Food Producers

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

California Restaurant Association

California Retailers Association

California Short Line Railroad Association

California Taxpayers Association

California Trucking Association

Can Manufacturers Institute

Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce

Carson Chamber of Commerce

Chino Valley Chamber of Commerce

Coalition of California Chambers – Orange County

Corona Chamber of Commerce

Folsom Chamber of Commerce

Fontana Chamber of Commerce

Fontana; City of

Fremont Chamber of Commerce

Fresno Chamber of Commerce

Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce

Gateway Chambers Alliance

Glendora Chamber of Commerce

Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce

Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce

Greater High Desert Chamber of Commerce

Greater Irvine Chamber of Commerce

Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce

Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce

Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce

Imperial Valley Regional Chamber of Commerce

Industrial Environmental Association

Inland Action

Inland Empire Economic Partnership (IEEP)

LA Canada Flintridge Chamber of Commerce

LA Verne Chamber of Commerce

Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce

League of California Cities

Livermore Valley Chamber of Commerce

Lodi District Chamber of Commerce

Long Beach Chamber of Commerce

Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

Los Angeles County Business Federation (BIZFED)

Maersk

Murrieta Wildomar Chamber of Commerce

NAIOP California

New California Coalition

Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce

Norwalk Chamber of Commerce

Oceanside Chamber of Commerce

Orange County Business Council

Pacific Merchant Shipping Association

Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce

Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce

Rancho Cordova Area Chamber of Commerce

Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce

Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce

San Juan Capistrano Chamber of Commerce

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians

San Pedro Chamber of Commerce

Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce

Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce

Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce

Santa Paula Chamber of Commerce

South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce

Southern California Leadership Council

Southwest California Legislative Council

State Building and Construction Trades

Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce

Tri County Chamber Alliance

Tulare Chamber of Commerce

Union Pacific Railroad

United Chamber Advocacy Network

Vacaville Chamber of Commerce

Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA)

West Ventura County Business Alliance

Western Growers Association

Western States Petroleum Association

Wine Institute

Yorba Linda Chamber of Commerce

Opposition to Prior Version (As Amended 03.30.2023)

Association of Western Employers

AV Edge (Antelope Valley Economic Development & Growth Enterprise)

Building Industry Association of Southern California

California Association for Local Economic Development (CALED)

California Hotel & Lodging Association

California State Council of Laborers Local 67

California State Council of Laborers Local 73

California State Council of Laborers Local 89

California State Council of Laborers Local 185

California State Council of Laborers Local 220

California State Council of Laborers Local 261

California State Council of Laborers Local 294

California State Council of Laborers Local 300

California State Council of Laborers Local 304

California State Council of Laborers Local 324

California State Council of Laborers Local 345

California State Council of Laborers Local 585

California State Council of Laborers Local 652

California State Council of Laborers Local 724

California State Council of Laborers Local 792

California State Council of Laborers Local 1130

California State Council of Laborers Local 1184

California State Council of Laborers Local 1414

District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California and Vicinity

Institute of Real Estate Management (IREM)

LIUNA! Pacific Southwest Regional Office

Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce

Otay Mesa Property Owners Association

Rebuild Socal Partnership

San Bernardino County

San Pedro Chamber of Commerce

Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce

South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce

Southern California District Council of Laborers

The Chamber Newport Beach

United Contractors

Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958, Linda Rios / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958

1. Robert Redford Conservancy and Radical Research LLC: Warehouse CITY. https://radicalresearch.shinyapps.io/WarehouseCITY/ ↑

2. Department of Justice: Bureau of Environmental Justice. Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. (Updated September 2022). ↑

3. Attorney General Bonta Announces Innovative Settlement with City of Fontana to Address Environmental Injustices in Warehouse Development. California Department of Justice, April 18, 2022. Bureau of Environmental Justice. https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-announces-innovative-settlement-city-fontana-address. ↑

4. Attorney General Bonta Announces Agreement with City of Stockton to Address Environmental Impacts from Continued Warehouse Development. California Department of Justice, December 6, 2022. Bureau of Environmental Justice. https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-announces-agreement-city-stockton-address-environmental. ↑

Date of Hearing: April 26, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1000 (

Author:Reyes) – As Amended Ver:March 30, 2023

SUBJECT: Qualifying logistics use projects.

SUMMARY: Prohibits local agency approval of a “qualifying logistics use” (e.g., a warehouse of 100,000 or more square feet) within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor, as defined, except that a local agency may approve a qualifying logistics use between 750 and 1,000 feet from a sensitive receptor if the local agency conducts an air quality analysis and imposes specified mitigation measures. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits a local agency from approving the development or expansion of any qualifying logistics use that is within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor, except that a local agency may approve such development or expansion that is greater than 750 feet from and within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor only if the local agency does all of the following:
   1. Conducts a cumulative analysis of the air quality impacts of the warehouse development project, as specified, and identifies actions and mitigation plans to address cumulative warehouse impacts.
   2. Requires all heavy-duty vehicles domiciled onsite to be model year 2014 or later from the start of operations and to expedite a transition to zero emission vehicles (ZEV), with the fleet fully ZEV by December 31, 2025, or when commercially available, as specified, for the intended application, whichever date is later.
   3. Requires owners, operators, or tenants of the qualifying facilities to utilize a clean fleet of light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations. Requires, for any light- or medium-duty vehicle domiciled onsite, 33% of the fleet to be ZEVs at the start of operations, 65% by 2024, 80% by 2026, and 100% by 2028.
   4. Requires all onsite equipment used at the warehouse to be zero emission with the necessary charging or fueling stations provided.
   5. Requires all off-road construction equipment used for the warehouse development project to be zero emission, where available, or hybrid electric-diesel and all diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment to be equipped with California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 engines.
   6. Requires zero-emission truck charging or fueling stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project, running conduit to designated locations for future zero-emission truck charging stations.
   7. Requires constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door and requires truck operators with transport refrigeration units to use the electric plugs when at loading docks. An owner of a facility is exempt from the requirements of this bill if the owner records a covenant on the title of the underlying property that ensures the property shall not be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space.
   8. Requires installation of solar photovoltaic systems and companion battery storage on the project site of a specified electrical generation capacity that is equal to or greater than the building’s projected energy needs, including all electrical chargers and designing all project building roofs to accommodate the maximum future coverage of solar panels and installing the maximum solar power generation capacity feasible.
   9. Prohibits trucks onsite from idling for more than three minutes and requires operators to turn off an engine when not in use.
   10. Prohibits the idling of heavy construction equipment for more than five minutes.
2. For a project subject to the bill, requires a local agency to:
   1. Post specified project details and provide specified notices in English and all “threshold” languages.
   2. Conduct at least one scoping meeting, as specified, to describe the project and its potential environmental impacts, take public comments, and provide translation services upon request.
3. Authorizes an affected individual or the Attorney General to bring an action to enjoin a violation of the bill.
4. Defines terms for purposes of the bill, including:
   1. “Qualifying logistics use” as any logistics use with 100,000 or more square feet of building space, including, but not limited to, warehouses.
   2. “Sensitive receptors” as one or more of the following:
      1. A residence.
      2. A school.
      3. A daycare.
      4. A health care facility.
      5. A community center.
      6. An established community place of worship.
      7. An incarceration facility.
      8. A public playground, public recreation field, or public recreation center.
5. Finds and declares that the provisions of the bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, the bill applies to all cities, including charter cities.
6. Provides that no reimbursement is required by this bill, pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution, because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this bill.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires each city and county to prepare, adopt, and administer a general plan for its jurisdiction, which must include a housing element, to shape the future growth of its community (Government Code § 65300 – 65404).
2. Establishes The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA (Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq.).

FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed fiscal and contains a state-mandated local program.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement. According to the author, “Local governments throughout the Inland Empire have been approving large industrial warehouse projects at a rapid rate over the past twenty years. This has been contributing to declining air quality as there are now 4,000 individual warehouses occupying about 1 billion square feet in the region that generate approximately 600,000 truck trips a day which is equivalent to 50 million pounds of carbon dioxide. While CEQA exists to ensure environmental issues are addressed through the planning process, we are seeing projects be approved that still cause environmental and public health issues to our community. In the community of Bloomington, 6 out of the 8 schools are located within 1,000 feet of a warehouse. This is not sustainable land use for the community.

“The Attorney General has sued local governments for failing to meet CEQA and not incorporating mitigation issues when approving warehouse projects. Most recently the City of Fontana in 2021 and the City of Stockton in 2022. The Attorney General has also put out a guidance memo for warehouse development that lists out mitigation measures for developers to consider adopting to align their projects with CEQA. That same memo cites that e-commerce has led to growth in the logistics sector over the past few years and that the Central Valley will likely see a growth in warehouse development over the next few years because of the available land in that area. This is clearly an issue that will continue and requiring additional mitigation measures when these projects are approved is the best way to frontload benefits for communities. A setback is necessary as proximity to pollution is the biggest factor for communities who live near warehouses, mitigation measures ensures that they will be clean if they get sited closer than 1,000 feet.

“AB 1000 establishes the Good Neighbor Policy by requiring local governments to have a 1,000 foot buffer zone when siting warehouses over 100,000 square feet next to schools, homes, healthcare facilities, and other sensitive receptors. It would allow warehouses to be sited 750 feet away from sensitive receptors if the project adopts [ZEV] for all classes of vehicles, zero-emission energy to power the facility, zero-emission equipment, and restricts idling and queuing for vehicles & equipment.

“We are seeing that warehouses are often sited next to vulnerable communities over the objection of local residents. We have had residents who have had warehouses sited as close as 60 feet away from their homes. There are quality of life issues with having a massive industrial facility that close to homes and schools. It contributes to asthma, heart disease, cancer and other public health issues. [CARB] and the California Attorney General have recommend 1,000 feet as a buffer zone because it reduces exposure to diesel particulate matter by 80%. Warehouses & logistics are a pivotal part of the Inland Empire economy however industry needs to be good neighbors to the community that has to live next to these massive industrial facilities.”

1. Bill Summary. This bill prohibits local agencies from approving warehouse facilities that are larger than 100,000 square feet within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor. However, this bill allows a local agency to approve a warehouse of this size up to 750 feet from a sensitive receptor if it requires the developer to comply with certain environmental criteria. Specifically, a warehouse that is larger than 100,000 square feet may be located within 750-1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor if the local agency complies with all of the following conditions:
   1. Conducts an air quality analysis, posts information related to the project, and holds specified informational meetings regarding the project.
   2. Requires the warehouse operator to:
      1. Comply with electric fleet requirements.
      2. Comply with off road construction equipment requirements.
      3. Provide access to zero emission truck charging and fueling stations on site.
      4. Install solar panels and storage.
      5. Prohibit idling of trucks and construction equipment.

This bill is sponsored by the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice.

1. Logistics Development in California. The proliferation of e-commerce and consumer expectations for rapid shipping contributed to a boom in warehouse development in California. The Environmental Justice Bureau at the Department of Justice (DOJ) notes that in the Inland Empire alone, 150 million square feet of new industrial space was developed from 2009-2019, and that 21 of the largest 100 logistics leases signed in 2019 were located in the Inland Empire.
2. Measuring Warehouses. This bill and AB 1748 (Ramos) both seek to establish minimum setback requirements on new warehouse developments. While AB 1748 applies only to Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, this bill would apply statewide. The provisions of AB 1748 would affect any proposed warehouse development or expansion in the identified jurisdictions that include more than 400,000 square feet of building space, while this bill would apply to all warehouses developments and expansions that include more 100,000 square feet of building space.

Researchers at the Redford Conservancy at Pitzer College and Radical Research LLC prepared a database of existing and proposed warehouses located in San Bernardino and Riverside County. The tool can be used to estimate the total number of warehouses in San Bernardino and Riverside County that meet the size criteria of each bill. In order to determine the number of warehouses that meet the criteria of each bill, the tool applies lot coverage (floor area ratio) estimates to parcels developed with warehouses. Lot coverage for warehouses varies, but several jurisdictions in Riverside and San Bernardino assume a warehouse will cover between 50 and 60 percent of the total parcel. This means that a 100,000 square foot warehouse will typically be located on a lot totaling between 165,000 and 200,000 square feet, while a 400,000 square foot warehouse typically requires a lot that is between 670,000 square feet and 800,000 square feet.

The chart below provides an estimate of the total number of warehouses in San Bernardino and Riverside County (5,404) and estimates of how many of those warehouses exceed 100,000 square feet and 400,000 square feet based on assumed lot coverage ratios. The larger lot coverage estimate increases the number of existing warehouses that are assumed to be larger than 100,000 and 400,000 square feet, as it increases the numbers of parcels that can accommodate a development of that size. The inverse is true when the smaller lot coverage is used, as it decreases the number of parcels that can accommodate warehouses of that size.

The data suggests that 41 percent to 49 percent of all warehouses built in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties are larger than 100,000 square feet, with those warehouses accounting for 85 percent to 90 percent of all warehouse space located in the two counties. Approximately 9 percent to 12.5 percent of all warehouses built in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties exceed 400,000 square feet in size, but those warehouses account for 44 percent to 51 percent of all warehouse space located in the two counties.^[1]

1. Best Practices and Mitigation Measures. DOJ adopted a guidance memo titled Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, last updated September 2022. The memo identifies best practices for avoiding and mitigating impacts associated with warehouse development. The memo relies heavily on research prepared by the CARB. Among the recommendations proposed in the memo related to the siting and design of warehouses, the memo notes that a best practice includes “Per CARB guidance, siting warehouse facilities so that their property lines are at least 1,000 feet from the property lines of the nearest sensitive receptors.” The underlying data the memo cites in support of this recommendation found an 80 percent drop off in the concentration of diesel particulate matter emissions from distribution centers at approximately 1,000 feet. CARB and the South Coast Air Quality Management District analyses indicate that providing a separation of 1,000 feet would substantially reduce diesel particulate matter concentrations and public exposure downwind of a distribution center.^[2]
2. CEQA and Local Approval. CEQA requires public agencies to study and mitigate, to the extent feasible, the environmental impacts of proposed projects, providing a key protection for the environment and residents of California. Under CEQA, a local agency carrying out a discretionary project must first determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Projects can include jurisdiction-wide efforts such as the update of a general plan, approval of jurisdiction-wide contracts (e.g., waste hauling contracts or water service), and zoning ordinance amendments. A project can also include individual development actions such as the approval of warehouses, stadiums, gas storage facilities, and other types of developments. In the case of any discretionary project, if a local agency finds that the potential for significant environmental impacts exists, CEQA requires the agency to prepare and certify the completion of an environmental impact report (EIR).

CEQA places the burden on the approving agency to affirmatively show that it has considered feasible mitigation and alternatives that can lessen or avoid identified impacts through a statement of findings for each identified significant impact. The CEQA Guidelines provide direction on the content of the statement of the findings, and states that one or more of the following findings must be identified for each impact:

• 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
  2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
  3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.

A lead agency may approve a project with unavoidable (unmitigated) adverse environmental impacts. When doing so, CEQA requires the agency to make a statement in the record of its views on the ultimate balancing of the merits of approving the project despite the environmental impacts in a “statement of overriding considerations.”

Approval of discretionary projects such as warehouse facilities is subject to CEQA and the lead agency must prepare an EIR if the project may have potentially significant environmental impacts. However, CEQA authorizes lead agencies to prepare a statement of overriding considerations and approve a project with unmitigated or unavoidable impacts. In practice, cities and counties may exercise this authority to approve projects that may significantly impact local residents. For example, the City of Perris prepared a Statement of Facts and Findings and Overriding Considerations for a proposed logistics development involving more than 1.7 million square feet of warehouse space. The City found in the Final EIR that the proposed project, located 300 feet from existing residents, would create long-term operational emission and cumulative criteria pollutants that constituted significant and unavoidable impacts. However, the City found such unmitigated effects were acceptable in view of specified overriding considerations. Among the overriding considerations cited were the creation of 685 new jobs and an estimated increase of $215,000 in additional city tax revenue.

1. Stockton and Fontana Warehouse Settlement Agreements. In 2022, DOJ reached two separate settlement agreements with the City of Fontana and the City of Stockton relative to their approval of warehouse developments. In both settlements, DOJ intervened during the CEQA process where the city was acting as the lead agency approving a warehouse development. In the City of Fontana, DOJ filed a lawsuit against the city in July of 2021 challenging its approval of the project and arguing that Fontana’s limited environmental review violated CEQA.^[3] In the City of Stockton, DOJ submitted letters to the city outlining concerns that its environmental review of the proposed warehouse project failed to adopt all feasible mitigation measures as required by CEQA.^[4] In April of 2022, DOJ announced a settlement agreement with the City of Fontana, the warehouse developer, and other litigants in the case. In December of 2022, DOJ announced a settlement agreement with the City of Stockton regarding its approval of warehouse developments.
2. Settlement Agreement Terms. The settlement agreements between DOJ and each city impose similar mitigation measures relative to warehouse developments and include standards and conditions that are unique to each agreement. Both agreements require each city to adopt a land use ordinance establishing strict standards for citing new warehouse developments within their respective jurisdictions. The City of Fontana adopted a new warehouse-citing ordinance in April 2022. The Stockton Agreement requires Stockton to propose a warehouse ordinance no later than December 31, 2023.

Warehouse siting design requirements are embedded in the Fontana Ordinance. The Stockton Agreement outlines warehouse siting design requirements to be incorporated in the Stockton Ordinance. With respect to siting design, the settlement agreements require both cities to impose standards on new warehouse developments that are adjacent to sensitive receptors via ordinance. The ordinances include or are required to include standards related to:

• 1. Minimum setbacks.
  2. Onsite landscaped buffers.
  3. Decorative buffer walls at specified heights.
  4. Entry gate and loading dock orientation.
  5. Vehicle circulation.
  6. Signage relative to truck idling.

The siting design terms in both agreements are largely similar but vary in some key areas. For example, both agreements establish comparable landscaping, truck dock and truck entry orientation, and signage requirements. The Fontana Ordinance applies some of its provisions to warehouses that are 50,000 square feet or larger, some provisions to warehouses that are 200,000 square feet or larger, and other requirements only to warehouses that are 400,000 square feet or larger. With respect to the setback requirements, which are a key provision of this bill and AB 1748 (Ramos), the Fontana Ordinance requires warehouses that are 400,000 square feet or larger to establish a setback of 300 feet from the property line of the nearest sensitive receptor. The Stockton Agreement applies to logistics use projects with a building or buildings totaling 100,000 square feet. The Stockton Agreement requires that logistics uses and their associated loading docks are no closer than 300 feet from sensitive receptors, and requires the City to consider the public health and safety benefits of requiring a larger buffer, up to 1,000 feet. In Fontana, the setbacks are measured from the property line of the sensitive receptor to the nearest dock door at the logistics use facility. In Stockton the agreement stipulates setbacks established by Stockton’s ordinance will be measured from the loading dock or any building edge, whichever is closer, to the property line of any nearby sensitive receptors.

The agreements also included a series of requirements that are not related to the warehouse siting and design. The Fontana Agreement imposed 26 separate requirements and sub-requirements directly on the warehouse development that was the subject of DOJ’s lawsuit. This includes requirements for electric vehicle fleets, solar power, construction fleets, construction operating hours, and the establishment of a community benefit fund providing amenities to residents and the local school district. The Stockton Agreement requires the city to propose ordinance provisions that are similar to the standards that the Fontana Agreement imposed directly on the operator. The agreement includes a requirement that the proposed ordinance establish requirements for electric vehicle fleets, solar power, construction fleets, and other requirements for new warehouse developments larger than 100,000 square feet.

1. CARB Clean Truck Rules. In 2020, CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) regulation to accelerate a large-scale transition to zero-emission medium-and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8. One component of the regulation is a manufacturer sales requirement. Manufacturers who certify Class 2b-8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines would be required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales would need to be 55% of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75% of Class 4 – 8 straight truck sales, and 40% of truck tractor sales.

To further the transition to a zero-emission fleet, at the end of 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order (EO) N-79-20, which requires 100% of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the state be zero-emission by 2045 for all operations where feasible and by 2035 for drayage trucks. EO N-79-20 charges CARB with developing and proposing medium- and heavy-duty vehicle regulations requiring increasing volumes of new zero-emission trucks and buses sold and operated in the state towards that goal. CARB is currently in the process of finalizing the Advanced Clean Fleet (ACF) regulation. ACF, as proposed, requires all Class 2b-8 vehicles sold into California must be ZEVs starting in 2036.

1. South Coast Indirect Source Rule (ISR). In 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted the Warehouse ISR, which requires warehouses greater than 100,000 square feet to directly reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) and diesel particulate matter (PM) emissions, or to otherwise reduce emissions and exposure of these pollutants in nearby communities.

According to SCAQMD, warehouses are a key destination for heavy-duty trucks and have other sources of emissions like cargo handling equipment, all of which contribute to local pollution, including toxic emissions, to the communities that live near them. Emissions from sources associated with warehouses account for almost as much NOx emissions as all the refineries, power plants, and other stationary sources in the South Coast Air Basin combined. Those living within a half mile of warehouses are more likely to include communities of color, have higher rates of asthma and heart attacks, and a greater environmental burden.

As part of the rule, warehouse operators will need to earn a specified number of points annually. These points can be earned by completing actions from a menu that includes acquiring and using natural gas near-zero and/or zero-emission on-road trucks, zero-emission cargo handling equipment, solar panels, or zero-emission charging and fueling infrastructure and more. As alternatives to the points system, warehouse operators can prepare and implement a custom plan specific to their site or choose to pay a mitigation fee. Funds from mitigation fees will be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and charging/fueling infrastructure in communities near the warehouse that paid the mitigation fee.

1. Policy Considerations. The Committee may wish to consider the following:
   1. Duplicating Existing Local Agency Review and CEQA. The air quality analysis in Section 65098.3, the notice requirements in Section 65098.5 and the meeting requirements in Section 65098.7 of the bill largely duplicate environmental review, noticing, and meeting requirements that are already a part of CEQA. Given this overlap, and the fact that the bill prescribes specific mitigation measures a local agency must adopt, this bill may confuse whether or not CEQA applies to these projects. The Committee may wish to remove these duplicative provisions and clarify that the bill’s provisions do not supersede CEQA.
   2. Terms and Standards. Several key terms in the legislation are undefined. Additionally, while the legislation seeks to establish a 1,000 foot buffer, or a 750 foot buffer, it is unclear which two points the buffers will be measured from. The Committee may wish to define these terms and standards.
   3. Local Land Use Approvals. The bill requires local agencies to require qualified logistics uses to meet a series of criteria at the approval stage of the development process. Many of the criteria are operating standards that cannot be verified at the approval stage. The Committee may wish to recast some of the local approval conditions as requirements on the warehouse owner/operator.
   4. Charging Capacity. The bill establishes strict benchmarks for when the vehicle fleet domiciled at facility the must convert to electric vehicles. The bill also requires warehouse operators to install zero emission truck charging stations, and requires electric plugs for refrigeration units at every dock door. The Committee may wish to consider whether these requirements are superfluous given that in order to comply with the bill’s electric vehicle targets warehouse operators will already have to install sufficient electric vehicle charging capacity.
   5. Solar Requirements. The bill partially replicates a requirement from the settlement DOJ entered into with the City of Stockton for the inclusion of solar panels at the affected warehouse. As written this bill requires any qualifying logistics use to use solar and battery storage on the project site to generate electricity equal to or greater than the building’s projected energy needs, including chargers for electric vehicles. The bill language omits an important aspect of the settlement agreement, which acknowledges that a site may not contain the physical space required to generate the amount of solar power a warehouse facility demands. This is particularly critical in light of the intense power demands of electric vehicle chargers. This requirement, without clarification, could create a de facto ban on new warehouse development if sufficient charging capacity cannot be generated on site. The Committee may wish to incorporate provisions of the settlement agreement that provide an off-ramp for facilities that demonstrate all available space for solar generation and storage is used.
2. Amendments. To address some of the policy considerations noted above, the Committee may wish to consider the following:
   1. Committee Amendments. To address some of the concerns identified above the Committee may wish to:
      1. Remove the air quality analysis, noticing, and meeting provisions that obfuscate the CEQA process and clarify that nothing in the bill supersedes CEQA.
      2. Recast the following local approval conditions as operator requirements:
         1. The heavy duty vehicle mandate.
         2. The clean fleet mandate.
         3. The clean off-road construction equipment mandate.
         4. The zero emission truck charging mandate.
         5. The electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units mandate.
         6. The solar generation and storage mandate.
         7. The truck idling mandate.
         8. The off-road construction equipment mandate.
      3. Define “Heavy Duty Vehicles” as vehicles weighing more than 26,001 pounds (Class 7 and Class 8 vehicles).
      4. Replace “heavy construction equipment” with “off-road construction equipment.”
      5. Amend the solar generation and storage requirements to include the off-ramps included in the Stockton Agreement.
   2. Author’s Amendments. Due to compressed committee referral deadlines, the author was unable to adopt author’s amendments prior to the Committee deadline. The Committee may wish to incorporate the following amendments proposed by the author:
      1. Define the measurement point as from the property line of a sensitive receptor to the property line of the qualifying logistics use.
      2. Define “logistics use” to mean any land use for the movement or storage of cargo, goods, or products for later distribution to business and/or retail customers, including any land use serving heavy-duty trucks involved in such movement of cargo, goods, or products.
      3. Delete “local agency” and replace it with the term “public agency” which is defined to mean any state agency, board, or commission, any county, city and county, charter city, joint powers authority, regional agency, public district, redevelopment agency, or other political subdivision.
      4. Allow warehouse owners and operators to comply with the electric vehicle charging capacity and solar generation and storage capacity requirements through contracts with third-party entities.
      5. Limit the light- and medium-duty vehicle fleet requirements to medium-duty vehicles.
3. Related Legislation. AB 1748 (Ramos), requires specified local agencies to impose a 300-foot setback requirement on parcels that are adjacent to sensitive receptors and include a warehouse that is larger than 400,000 square feet unless the local agency adopts specified alternative policies. AB 1748 is pending in this Committee.
4. Previous Legislation. AB 2840 (Reyes) of 2022, among other provisions, would have prohibited public agencies from siting warehouse developments within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use. This bill was held in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee.

AB 1547 (Reyes) of 2021, among other provisions, would have prohibited public agencies from siting warehouse developments within 3,000 yards of a sensitive land use. This bill was held in the Natural Resources Committee.

1. Double-Referral. This bill is double-referred to the Natural Resources Committee, where it passed on a 8-3 vote on April 17, 2023.
2. Arguments in Support. The Greenlining Institute writes in support, “The Inland Empire has seen a warehouse boom over the past decade, which has led to siting of over 4000 warehouses that cover 40 square miles and over one billion square feet. The proliferation of these warehouses comes with enormous truck traffic which generates approximately 600,000 truck trips a day – an equivalent to 50 million pounds of carbon dioxide. Trucks are one of the largest sources of lung-searing, smog-forming pollution in California and the logistics centers where trucks operate are causing unbearable pollution and socio-economic burdens. The environmental and public health impacts of this growth is compounded by the fact that these facilities are being disproportionately sited next to low-income communities of color. These are often working class Latino and Black communities. It is unjust to place the public health burden on historically disadvantaged communities who are already experiencing the economic impacts of racist redlining policies and practices. These communities are seeing a staggering decline in their quality of life when these facilities are sited next to their homes, schools, parks, and other sensitive receptors.

“AB 1000 addresses the impacts currently affecting low-income communities of color by establishing a 1000 foot setback on warehouse or logistics projects from sensitive receptors, and ensuring that these projects meet a set of standards that reflect California’s goals of a just transition.”

1. Arguments in Opposition. The California Chamber of Commerce writes in opposition, “This bill goes far beyond the recent Attorney General settlement in the region that applies a buffer of less than a third of AB 1000’s on buildings four times the size. AB 1000 removes authority from local government and is a de facto ban on new facilities in most parts of the state. It will create job losses, stop new housing projects, and push these projects to less urbanized areas of the state inducing greenfield development that will induce more vehicle miles traveled, more greenhouse gases, and more particulate pollution…

“The bill is attempting to address an issue that the [CARB] and regional air boards, such as the [SCAQMD], are already working to resolve and proposes solutions that are not only unworkable, but will push warehouse development further east, unnecessarily increasing VMT/GHG/particulate emissions.

“Under the policies of CARB and SCAQMD in the past three decades, PM2.5 and PM10 have significantly decreased while the warehouse square footage has increased to service the region’s growing population. Policies have required light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles to be cleaner and emit less, and advances in warehousing and logistics operations and technology make today’s facilities energy efficient, cleaner, and greener than at any time in our history.”

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice [SPONSOR]

350 Humboldt: Grass Roots Climate Action

350 Riverside

American Academy of Pediatrics

American Lung Association in California

Amigos De Los Rios

Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN)

California Climate Action

California Environmental Justice Alliance (CEJA) Action

California Environmental Voters (formerly Clcv)

California Nurses Association

California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice

Calstart

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment

Central California Asthma Collaborative

Cleanearth4kids.org

Climate Action California

Climate Center; the

Coalition for Clean Air

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA)

Concerned Neighbors of Bloomington

Democratic Club of Claremont

Disability Rights California

Earthjustice

Elders Climate Action, Norcal and Socal Chapters

Environment California

Flo Services USA

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Greenlining Institute

Grow Fontana

Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice

Inland Congregations United for Change

Inland Empire United

Inland Equity Partnership

Just San Bernardino

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) of Riverside Council 3190

Let's Green Ca!

Loma Linda University for A Sustainable Future

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

People's Collective for Environmental Justice

Physicians for Social Responsibility - San Francisco Bay Area Chapter

Pink Panthers

Pomona Economic Opportunity Center

Puente Latino Association

R-now

Redford Conservancy for Southern California Sustainability At Pitzer College

Safe Routes Partnership

San Bernardino County Medical Society

Santa Cruz Climate Action Network

Sierra Club California

Sisterswe Community Gardening Projects

Sunrun INC.

The Climate Center

The Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Collective

Union of Concerned Scientists

United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1167

United Food and Commercial Workers, Western States Council

Voices for Progress

Warehouse Worker Resource Center

Western Center on Law & Poverty

Opposition

Agricultural Council of California

Anaheim Chamber of Commerce

Antelope Valley Chambers of Commerce

Associated General Contractors of California

Association of Western Employers

AV Edge (Antelope Valley Economic Development & Growth Enterprise)

Bay Area Council

BNSF Railway

Boma California

Brea Chamber of Commerce

Building Industry Association of Southern California

Building Owners and Managers Association of California

California Association for Local Economic Development (CALED)

California Building Industry Association

California Business Properties Association

California Business Roundtable

California Chamber of Commerce

California Family Beer Distributors

California Farm Bureau

California Hotel & Lodging Association

California League of Food Producers

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

California Restaurant Association

California Retailers Association

California Short Line Railroad Association

California State Council of Laborers Local 67

California State Council of Laborers Local 73

California State Council of Laborers Local 89

California State Council of Laborers Local 185

California State Council of Laborers Local 220

California State Council of Laborers Local 261

California State Council of Laborers Local 294

California State Council of Laborers Local 300

California State Council of Laborers Local 304

California State Council of Laborers Local 324

California State Council of Laborers Local 345

California State Council of Laborers Local 585

California State Council of Laborers Local 652

California State Council of Laborers Local 724

California State Council of Laborers Local 792

California State Council of Laborers Local 1130

California State Council of Laborers Local 1184

California State Council of Laborers Local 1414

California Taxpayers Association (CALTAX)

California Trucking Association

Can Manufacturers Institute

Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce

Chino Valley Chamber of Commerce

Coalition of California Chambers – Orange County

Corona Chamber of Commerce

District Council of Iron Workers of The State of California and Vicinity

Fontana Chamber of Commerce

Fremont Chamber of Commerce

Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce

Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce

Greater High Desert Chamber of Commerce

Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce

Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce

Industrial Environmental Association

Inland Empire Chamber Alliance

Inland Empire Economic Partnership (IEEP)

Institute of Real Estate Management (IREM)

LA Canada Flintridge Chamber of Commerce

LA Verne Chamber of Commerce

Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce

Livermore Valley Chamber of Commerce

LIUNA! Pacific Southwest Regional Office

Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

Los Angeles County Business Federation (BIZ-FED)

Maersk INC.

Murrieta Wildomar Chamber of Commerce

Naiop of California

Oceanside Chamber of Commerce

Orange County Business Council

Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce

Otay Mesa Property Owners Association

Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce

Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce

Rebuild Socal Partnership

Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce

Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)

Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce

San Bernardino County

San Juan Capistrano Chamber of Commerce

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians

San Pedro Chamber of Commerce

Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce

Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce

Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce

South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce

Southern California District Council of Laborers

Southern California Leadership Council

Southwest California Legislative Council

State Building and Construction Trades Council of California

The Chamber Newport Beach

Tri County Chamber Alliance

Union Pacific Railroad

United Contractors

Vacaville Chamber of Commerce

Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA)

West Ventura County Business Alliance

Western Growers Association

Western States Petroleum Association

Wine Institute

Yorba Linda Chamber of Commerce

Analysis Prepared by: Hank Brady / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958

1. Robert Redford Conservancy and Radical Research LLC: Warehouse CITY. https://radicalresearch.shinyapps.io/WarehouseCITY/ ↑

2. Department of Justice: Bureau of Environmental Justice. Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. (Updated September 2022). ↑

3. Attorney General Bonta Announces Innovative Settlement with City of Fontana to Address Environmental Injustices in Warehouse Development. California Department of Justice, April 18, 2022. Bureau of Environmental Justice. https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-announces-innovative-settlement-city-fontana-address. ↑

4. Attorney General Bonta Announces Agreement with City of Stockton to Address Environmental Impacts from Continued Warehouse Development. California Department of Justice, December 6, 2022. Bureau of Environmental Justice. https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-announces-agreement-city-stockton-address-environmental. ↑

Date of Hearing: April 17, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Luz Rivas, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1000 (

Author:Reyes) – As Amended Ver:March 30, 2023

SUBJECT: Qualifying logistics use projects

SUMMARY: Prohibits local agency approval of a “qualifying logistics use” (e.g., a warehouse of 100,000 or more square feet) within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor, as defined, except that a local agency may approve a qualifying logistics use between 750 and 1,000 feet from a sensitive receptor if the local agency conducts specified air pollution analysis and imposes specified measures to reduce air pollution.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Allows a city or a county to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws” (Article XI, Section 7, of the California Constitution). It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public, including land use authority.
2. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA. (Public Resources Code 21000, et seq.)

THIS BILL:

1. Prohibits a local agency from approving the development or expansion of any qualifying logistics use that is within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor except that local agency may approve such development or expansion that is greater than 750 feet from and within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor only if the local agency does all of the following:
   1. Conducts a cumulative analysis of the air quality impacts of the warehouse development project, as specified, and identifies actions and develops mitigation plans to address cumulative warehouse impacts.
   2. Requires all heavy-duty vehicles domiciled onsite to be model year 2014 or later from the start of operations and shall expedite a transition to zero emission vehicles (ZEV), with the fleet fully ZEV by December 31, 2025, or when commercially available, as specified, for the intended application, whichever date is later.
   3. Requires owners, operators, or tenants of the qualifying facilities to utilize a clean fleet of light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations. Requires, for any light- or medium-duty vehicle domiciled onsite, 33% of the fleet to be ZEVs at the start of operations, 65% by 2024, 80% by 2026, and 100% by 2028.
   4. Requires all onsite equipment used at the warehouse to be zero emission with the necessary charging or fueling stations provided.
   5. Requires all off-road construction equipment used for the warehouse development project to be zero emission, where available, or hybrid electric-diesel and all diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment to be equipped with Air Resources Board (ARB) Tier 4 engines.
   6. Requires zero-emission truck charging or fueling stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project, running conduit to designated locations for future zero-emission truck charging stations.
   7. Requires constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door and requires truck operators with transport refrigeration units to use the electric plugs when at loading docks. An owner of a facility is exempt from the requirements of this subdivision if the owner records a covenant on the title of the underlying property that ensures the property shall not be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space.
   8. Requires installation of solar photovoltaic systems and companion battery storage on the project site of a specified electrical generation capacity that is equal to or greater than the building’s projected energy needs, including all electrical chargers and designing all project building roofs to accommodate the maximum future coverage of solar panels and installing the maximum solar power generation capacity feasible.
   9. Prohibits trucks onsite from idling for more than three minutes and requires operators to turn off an engine when not in use.
   10. Prohibits the idling of heavy construction equipment for more than five minutes.
2. For a project subject to the bill, requires a local agency to:
   1. Post specified project details and provide specified notices in English and all “threshold” languages.
   2. Conduct at least one scoping meeting, as specified, to describe the project and its potential environmental impacts, take public comments, and provide translation services upon request.
3. Authorizes an affected individual or the Attorney General to bring an action to enjoin a violation of the bill.
4. Defines terms for purposes of the bill, including:
   1. “Qualifying logistics use” as any logistics use with 100,000 or more square feet of building space, including, but not limited to, warehouses.
   2. “Sensitive receptors” as one or more of the following:
      1. A residence.
      2. A school.
      3. A daycare.
      4. A health care facility.
      5. A community center.
      6. An established community place of worship.
      7. An incarceration facility.
      8. A public playground, public recreation field, or public recreation center.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. According to the author:

Local governments throughout the Inland Empire have been approving large industrial warehouse projects at a rapid rate over the past twenty years. This has been contributing to declining air quality as there are now 4,000 individual warehouses occupying about 1 billion square feet in the region that generate approximately 600,000 truck trips a day which is equivalent to 50 million pounds of carbon dioxide. While CEQA exists to ensure environmental issues are addressed through the planning process, we are seeing projects be approved that still cause environmental and public health issues to our community. In the community of Bloomington, 6 out of the 8 schools are located within 1,000 feet of a warehouse. This is not sustainable land use for the community.

The Attorney General has sued local governments for failing to meet CEQA and not incorporating mitigation issues when approving warehouse projects. Most recently the City of Fontana in 2021 and the City of Stockton in 2022. The Attorney General has also put out a guidance memo for warehouse development that lists out mitigation measures for developers to consider adopting to align their projects with CEQA. That same memo cites that e-commerce has led to growth in the logistics sector over the past few years and that the Central Valley will likely see a growth in warehouse development over the next few years because of the available land in that area. This is clearly an issue that will continue and requiring additional mitigation measures when these projects are approved is the best way to frontload benefits for communities. A setback is necessary as proximity to pollution is the biggest factor for communities who live near warehouses, mitigation measures ensures that they will be clean if they get sited closer than 1,000 feet.

AB 1000 establishes the Good Neighbor Policy by requiring local governments to have a 1,000 foot buffer zone when siting warehouses over 100,000 square feet next to schools, homes, healthcare facilities, and other sensitive receptors. It would allow warehouses to be sited 750 feet away from sensitive receptors if the project adopts zero-emission vehicles for all classes of vehicles, zero-emission energy to power the facility, zero-emission equipment, and restricts idling and queuing for vehicles & equipment.

We are seeing that warehouses are often sited next to vulnerable communities over the objection of local residents. We have had residents who have had warehouses sited as close as 60 feet away from their homes. There are quality of life issues with having a massive industrial facility that close to homes and schools. It contributes to asthma, heart disease, cancer and other public health issues. ARB and the California Attorney General have recommend 1,000 feet as a buffer zone because it reduces exposure to diesel particulate matter by 80%. Warehouses & logistics are a pivotal part of the Inland Empire economy however industry needs to be good neighbors to the community that has to live next to these massive industrial facilities.

1. South Coast Indirect Source Rule (ISR). In 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management (SCAQMD) adopted the Warehouse ISR, which requires warehouses greater than 100,000 square feet to directly reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) and diesel particulate matter (PM) emissions, or to otherwise reduce emissions and exposure of these pollutants in nearby communities.

According to SCAQMD, warehouses are a key destination for heavy-duty trucks and have other sources of emissions like cargo handling equipment, all of which contribute to local pollution, including toxic emissions, to the communities that live near them. Emissions from sources associated with warehouses account for almost as much NOx emissions as all the refineries, power plants, and other stationary sources in the South Coast Air Basin combined. Those living within a half mile of warehouses are more likely to include communities of color, have higher rates of asthma and heart attacks, and a greater environmental burden.

As part of the rule, warehouse operators will need to earn a specified number of points annually. These points can be earned by completing actions from a menu that includes acquiring and using natural gas near-zero and/or zero-emission on-road trucks, zero-emission cargo handling equipment, solar panels, or zero-emission charging and fueling infrastructure and more. As alternatives to the points system, warehouse operators can prepare and implement a custom plan specific to their site or choose to pay a mitigation fee. Funds from mitigation fees will be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and charging/fueling infrastructure in communities near the warehouse that paid the mitigation fee.

1. ARB clean truck rules. In 2020, ARB adopted the Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) regulation to accelerate a large-scale transition to zero-emission medium-and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8. One component of the regulation is a manufacturer sales requirement. Manufacturers who certify Class 2b-8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines would be required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales would need to be 55% of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75% of Class 4 – 8 straight truck sales, and 40% of truck tractor sales.

To further the transition to a zero-emission fleet, at the end of 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order (EO) N-79-20, which requires 100% of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the state be zero-emission by 2045 for all operations where feasible and by 2035 for drayage trucks. EO N-79-20 charges ARB with developing and proposing medium- and heavy-duty vehicle regulations requiring increasing volumes of new zero-emission trucks and buses sold and operated in the state towards that goal. ARB is currently in the process of finalizing the Advanced Clean Fleet (ACF) regulation. ACF, as proposed, requires all Class 2b-8 vehicles sold into California must be ZEVs starting in 2036.

1. Attorney General warehouse guidance, litigation, and settlements. The Office of the Attorney General has adopted a guidance memo titled Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, last updated September 2022. The memo identifies best practices for avoiding and mitigating impacts associated with warehouse development. According to the memo, examples of best practices when siting and designing warehouse facilities include “(p)er (ARB) guidance, siting warehouse facilities so that their property lines are at least 1,000 feet from the property lines of the nearest sensitive receptors.” The underlying data the memo cites in support of this recommendation found an 80% drop off in the concentration of diesel particulate matter emissions from distribution centers at approximately 1,000 feet. ARB and SCAQMD analyses indicate that providing a separation of 1,000 feet would substantially reduce diesel PM concentrations and public exposure downwind of a distribution center.

The requirements this bill applies to warehouses sited from 750-1,000 feet of any sensitive receptor appear to be drawn largely from a pre-litigation settlement the Attorney General entered with the City of Stockton in December 2022. While the conditions themselves are similar, implementation differs. For example, the conditions in the Stockton settlement are not direct requirements on either the City or a developer for any particular project. Instead, the Stockton settlement requires City staff to “propose a warehouse ordinance to identify and apply all feasible mitigation measures to qualifying warehouse and distribution facility projects to minimize their potentially significant environmental impacts…In preparing and proposing the warehouse ordinance, City staff shall consider including at minimum the conditions included in Exhibit A.” (i.e., conditions similar to those included in this bill). Regarding a minimum setback, the Stockton settlement says “(q)ualifying facilities and their associated loading docks must be located no closer than 300 feet from sensitive receptors, and the City staff should consider the public health and safety benefits of requiring a larger buffer, up to 1,000 feet.”

1. How does the bill relate to CEQA? This bill requires processes, analyses, and measures that use CEQA-like terms and appear similar to CEQA. For example, the bill requires an analysis of air quality impacts and a scoping meeting that may otherwise be part of the lead agency’s CEQA process. In addition, some of the measures required by the bill may overlap with measures that could be required to mitigate significant air pollution impacts via the project’s CEQA review. It’s not clear how implementation of these requirements will relate to the lead agency’s CEQA process. Will they be implemented within CEQA, separate from CEQA, or instead of CEQA? If the bill’s requirements are intended to apply separately, and not duplicate or supersede CEQA, the intent should be clarified.
2. ZEV requirements seem aggressive, but may be ineffective at capturing warehouse-related diesel emissions. While the bill proposes ZEV requirements for warehouse vehicles that are far more aggressive than existing and proposed ARB rules, these requirements apply only to vehicles “domiciled onsite.” At the time the project is approved by the lead agency, prior to construction for a new warehouse, there may be no vehicles domiciled onsite. And regardless if the local agency is willing and able to enforce this requirement going forward, many of the trucks coming and going from the warehouse are likely to be domiciled elsewhere, either due to normal commercial practice in the freight industry or the warehouse operator’s intent to evade the ZEV requirements by registering its fleet elsewhere.
3. Why only warehouses? While the growth in new warehouse development, and these projects’ impacts on traffic and air quality, pose unique impacts on surrounding communities, it seems somewhat arbitrary to apply unique procedures and requirements only to warehouses, without regard to the actual impacts of a particular project. Warehouses are by no means the only land use that produces concentrations of vehicle emissions near residential areas and other sensitive receptors. There are also many other land uses, such as industry with stationary sources, that may produce even higher intensity air pollution emissions and exposure.
4. Related legislation:

AB 1748 (Ramos), pending in the Assembly Local Government Committee, prohibits local agency approval of a warehouse of 400,000 or more square feet that is adjacent to a sensitive receptor, unless the local agency does either of the following:

• 1. Imposes a minimum setback of 300 feet from the building’s loading docks measured from the property line of any sensitive receptor.
  2. Follows an industrial guideline framework, good neighbor policy, or sustainability ordinance adopted by the local agency, which, in its discretion, adequately balances siting qualifying logistics uses next to sensitive receptors.

AB 2840 (Reyes, 2022) required cities and counties within the Counties of Riverside and San Bernardino to impose setbacks on warehouses of 1,000 feet from sensitive receptors or equivalently protective alternative measures, as specified. AB 2840 was held in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee without a vote.

AB 1547 (Reyes, 2021) prohibited public agencies from siting warehouse developments within 3,000 yards of a sensitive land use. AB 1547 was held in this committee without a hearing.

1. Double referral. This bill has been double-referred to the Assembly Local Government Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

350 Humboldt: Grass Roots Climate Action
American Academy of Pediatrics, California, Chapter 2
American Lung Association in California
Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN)
California Climate Action
California Environmental Justice Alliance (CEJA) Action
California Environmental Voters
California Nurses Association
California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice
CalSTART
Center for Community Action & Environmental Justice
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment
Central California Asthma Collaborative
Cleanearth4kids.org
Climate Action California
Climate Center
Coalition for Clean Air
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA)
Democratic Club of Claremont
Earthjustice
Flo Services USA
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Greenlining Institute
Grow Fontana
Inland Congregations United for Change
Just San Bernardino
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) of Riverside Council 3190
Let's Green CA!
Loma Linda University for a Sustainable Future
Natural Resources Defense Council
Physicians for Social Responsibility - San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
Pink Panthers
R-now
Redford Conservancy for Southern California Sustainability at Pitzer College
Safe Routes Partnership
San Bernardino County Medical Society
Santa Cruz Climate Action Network
Sierra Club California
SistersWe Community Gardening Projects
Union of Concerned Scientists
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1167
United Food and Commercial Workers, Western States Council
Voices for Progress
Western Center on Law & Poverty

Opposition

Anaheim Chamber of Commerce
Antelope Valley Chambers of Commerce
Associated General Contractors
Association of Western Employers
Bay Area Council
BNSF Railway
Brea Chamber of Commerce
Building Industry Association of Southern California
Building Owners and Managers Association of California

California Association for Local Economic Development
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Business Roundtable
California Chamber of Commerce
California Hotel & Lodging Association
California League of Food Producers
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
California Short Line Railroad Association
California State Council of Laborers
California Taxpayers Association
California Trucking Association
Can Manufacturers Institute
Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce
Chino Valley Chamber of Commerce
Coalition of California Chambers – Orange County
Corona Chamber of Commerce
District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California and Vicinity
Fontana Chamber of Commerce
Fremont Chamber of Commerce
Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce
Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce
Greater High Desert Chamber of Commerce
Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce
Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce
Industrial Environmental Association
Inland Empire Chamber Alliance
Inland Empire Economic Partnership
Institute of Real Estate Management
La Canada Flintridge Chamber of Commerce
La Verne Chamber of Commerce
Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce
Livermore Valley Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles County Business Federation
Maersk
Murrieta Wildomar Chamber of Commerce
NAIOP of California
Oceanside Chamber of Commerce
Orange County Business Council
Otay Mesa Property Owners Association
Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce
Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce
Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce
Rural County Representatives of California
Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
San Bernardino County
San Juan Capistrano Chamber of Commerce
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
San Pedro Chamber of Commerce
Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce
Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce
Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce
South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce
Southern California Leadership Council
Southwest California Legislative Council
State Building and Construction Trades Council of California
The Chamber Newport Beach
Tri County Chamber Alliance
Union Pacific Railroad
United Contractors
Vacaville Chamber of Commerce
Valley Industry and Commerce Association
West Ventura County Business Alliance
Western Growers Association
Western States Petroleum Association
Wine Institute
Yorba Linda Chamber of Commerce

Analysis Prepared by: Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. /