San Bernardino County supervisors reapprove Bloomington Business Park warehouse plan after court-ordered environmental redo
The board voted 4-0 with one abstention Sept. 22 to approve, as amended, a 213-acre industrial specific plan and three warehouses totaling about 2.1 million square feet that a judge had ordered set aside.
San Bernardino County supervisors on Sept. 22 approved the Bloomington Business Park Specific Plan for a second time, after a judge's order required the 2022 approval to be vacated.
The vote on Item 84 (file 14917) was 4-0 with one abstention. Supervisors Jesse Armendarez, Dawn Rowe, Curt Hagman and Joe Baca Jr. voted yes. Supervisor Paul Cook abstained.
The clerk recorded the action as approved as amended. The record of action does not describe the amendment.
The board then took final action in Item 85 (file 14918), a land use amendment package that included the project. That item passed 5-0, also as amended, and adopted Ordinance Nos. 4519 and 4520 and Resolution No. 2026-135.
What was approved
The plan sets up a 213-acre industrial business park in the community of Bloomington, according to the Land Use Services Department staff report. Its rough boundaries are Santa Ana Avenue on the north, Maple and Linden avenues on the east, Jurupa Avenue on the south and Alder Avenue on the west.
The approvals change that land from residential designations and permit three high-cube warehouses of 383,000 square feet, 1.25 million square feet and 479,000 square feet. A 9.55-acre truck and trailer parking lot was also approved.
To offset the lost housing capacity, a separate 24-acre site at San Bernardino and Locust avenues was rezoned from single-family to multiple residential, the report says.
The applicant is IV5 Bloomington Gateway Distribution Center LLC.
Why it came back
The board first approved the project Nov. 15, 2022. Several groups sued the following month in a case captioned People's Collective for Environmental Justice v. County of San Bernardino, the report says.
In September 2024, the Superior Court found deficiencies in how the environmental impact report handled alternatives, air quality, greenhouse gases, energy and noise, and ordered the approvals set aside, according to the report.
The county prepared a recirculated report. Staff wrote that the project and its entitlements "have not changed" from those approved in 2022.
The new analysis concludes that air quality impacts "remain significant and unavoidable," the staff report says. Approval therefore required a document called a statement of overriding considerations, a finding that the project's benefits outweigh those impacts.
The report says the court rejected the last of the plaintiffs' fair-housing claims in July 2026.
Hearing and conditions
The record of action for Item 84 lists more than 60 public speakers. It does not summarize their comments.
The county Planning Commission recommended reapproval Aug. 20 on a 3-0 vote.
Staff wrote that commenters argued the project should meet warehouse standards in Assembly Bill 98. The county determined the project is exempt because its entitlement process began before Sept. 30, 2024, the report says.
One permit was revised to require compliance with replacement housing rules in Assembly Bill 1218 for two units, according to the report.
The board also approved an updated memorandum of understanding with the developer on public benefit contributions. The report says it keeps the 2022 commitments, including an annual community enhancement fee, a one-time fee for infrastructure and improvements to storm drains.