Rialto, CA — The Rialto City Council meeting on Nov. 12 drew significant community attention as the council deliberated on the West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project proposed by Rialto Springs, LLC.
The 225,173-square-foot warehouse, planned for an 11.19-acre site within the Rialto Airport Specific Plan, has sparked both support and opposition from residents and stakeholders, with environmental, traffic and quality-of-life concerns at the forefront.
Rialto Springs, LLC, a Santa Fe Springs-based company, seeks to establish the warehouse in an area designated for industrial use.
However, local opposition, led by the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ), filed an appeal to reverse the city’s initial approval.
Many attendees at the packed meeting, some watching from overflow spaces outside City Hall, voiced concerns about the warehouse’s anticipated effects on their neighborhood and the broader Inland Empire, which has seen rapid warehouse growth.
Residents expressed frustration with the region’s industrial expansion, citing pollution, traffic congestion and declining property values.
Paige H. Gosney, a land-use lawyer representing Rialto Springs, argued that the project is in line with Rialto’s zoning and environmental guidelines.
Gosney said that the purpose of the portion of the council meeting dedicated to discussing this project was not to be a “referendum on warehouses” in general.
“The only thing that’s relevant is whether the project before you is within the scope of the environmental impact analysis,” Gosney said.
He emphasized the city’s “proactive and progressive” approach to mitigating the effects of industrial projects, noting that Rialto’s regulations for industrial development aim to protect nearby communities.
Gosney assured the council that Rialto Springs, LLC would “abide by all standards and regulations in place to minimize impact,” adding, “We have met and exceeded city requirements, and this project stands on those standards.”
“We’ve done everything that you’ve asked, everything the community has asked,” Gosney told the council.
Yet many residents and advocates voiced their concerns, demanding greater consideration for community health and safety.
Claudia Puebla, a CCAEJ representative, described going door-to-door to gather community input, hearing the “anxiety and anger from the residents.”
Puebla urged the council to consider the long-term health of the area’s residents, calling for a “full environmental impact report based on current conditions,” not an addendum to the original report from 1997.
Brenda Parker, a resident advocating against the project, was particularly vocal.
She criticized Rialto Springs for not honoring its promises to the community, especially regarding landscaping to shield the warehouse from view.
“This project is not about preserving our neighborhood or our safety,” she stated, pointing out that the warehouse’s proximity to homes would diminish the quality of life and potentially impact property values.
Parker openly doubted the validity of Gosney’s claim that residents were adequately consulted, saying that Rialto Springs “did not confer with the residents.”
She added, “we know better. We live here.”
Parker called on the council to “consider alternatives that would benefit our community,” suggesting that the area could be better used for facilities like parks or small businesses rather than industrial buildings.
Other community members echoed Parker’s sentiments, questioning why Rialto had become a central location for warehouse developments.
Mayor Deborah Robertson and Council Member Joe Baca expressed understanding of the residents’ concerns, with Baca suggesting that the council may need to pause on warehouse approvals to assess the broader impact on the community.
“Sometimes, we have to say ‘timeout’ to building warehouses,” Baca stated, acknowledging the Inland Empire’s larger trend of industrial expansion.
Despite the opposition, some in the community supported the project, highlighting its economic benefits.
Several union representatives spoke in favor, citing job opportunities for local residents in both construction and long-term warehouse positions.
These jobs, supporters argued, could provide stable employment for many in the area, including veterans and other workers facing barriers to traditional employment.
“We build American infrastructure, and these projects mean livelihoods for our members,” said one union representative.
Another added, “The project is an opportunity to bring jobs closer to home for our members and improve the infrastructure in our community.”
Rialto Springs emphasized the warehouse’s design, which, according to project representatives, includes several measures to reduce its impact on nearby residences.
Gosney highlighted the company’s commitment to “excess landscaping, sound barriers, and designated truck routes” to minimize noise, light, and traffic impacts on residential areas.
Additionally, he mentioned plans to build sidewalks and improve road access to enhance community safety.
“We’re committed to a project that meets community standards and provides safe, improved infrastructure,” he said.
The council will review the appeal’s claims before making a final decision. Council members acknowledged the conflicting viewpoints and stated they would carefully weigh the project’s potential benefits and drawbacks.
“This decision impacts everyone in this room and beyond,” Robertson noted, stressing the importance of a balanced approach that considers community health, economic needs and sustainable development.
With both sides firmly advocating their positions, the West Coast Boulevard and Locust Avenue Warehouse Project has underscored the broader tensions over warehouse expansion in the Inland Empire.
While the council has yet to issue a final ruling, the debate reflects the ongoing challenge of balancing economic growth with community welfare in a region increasingly defined by its industrial landscape.
