Sponsored message
Logged in as
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • A massive warehouse project
    A half-demolished offwhite house in a large dirt lot. The sky is clear blue and a forest of tall palm trees is behind the house.
    A half-demolished home where a new warehouse project is being built in the unincorporated community of Bloomington in San Bernardino County.

    Topline:

    A new warehouse development in a part of unincorporated San Bernardino County is bringing promises of better streets and needed sewage lines. But many instead fear a loss of community.

    The background: Over the last 15 years or so, the town of Bloomington, home to some 24,000 people and bordered by the cities of Fontana, Rialto and Jurupa Valley, has been surrounded by warehouses being built to support our online shopping habits and the supply chain corridor from the ports of LA and Long Beach — one of the largest sources of the Southland’s health-harming and planet-heating pollution.

    What's happening: More than 100 homes and small ranches are being demolished to make way for the project. The project has divided the community — some people say the promised infrastructure improvements funded by the developer make it necessary, while others worry Bloomington will become fully industrial.

    What's next: Construction of the project is stalled due to a lawsuit brought by environmental justice groups.

    In Bloomington, a small community of some 24,000 people in unincorporated San Bernardino County, people ride horses next to big rig trucks rushing to warehouses. Solar panels adorn the roofs of homes next to truck yards — the panels sometimes paid for by warehouse developers.

    Listen 3:51
    How a warehouse development is reshaping one community in the Inland Empire

    Like so much of Southern California, Bloomington is a place of contrasts.

    Over the last 15 years or so, this once-rural town that’s bordered by the cities of Fontana, Rialto and Jurupa Valley has been surrounded by warehouses being built to support our online shopping habits and the supply chain corridor from the ports of L.A. and Long Beach. That pipeline is one of the largest sources of the Southland’s health-harming and planet-heating pollution.

    A partially demolished house under a blue sky in a dirt lot with palm trees in the background.
    A partially demolished home in Bloomington, where a 213-acre warehouse project is being developed.
    (
    Erin Stone
    /
    LAist
    )

    And now, 117 homes and small ranches in Bloomington are being demolished to make way for yet another warehouse — the largest one yet in the community. The project will bring more than 2 million square feet of warehouse space built by Orange County company Howard Industrial Partners. The project is expected to bring more than 1,000 additional big rig truck trips per day.

    After years of debate, San Bernardino County supervisors unanimously approved the project in 2022. Today, everyone in the development’s way — the non-numbered streets of Bloomington — have been bought out and homes have already been demolished.

    The project was able to happen because back in 2017, the county designated the non-numbered streets of Bloomington as a potential area for re-zoning and development to boost tax revenue to fund more services for the community.

    Construction progress has now stalled due to a lawsuit against the project brought by environmental justice groups. (County Supervisor Joe Baca, who represents Bloomington, declined an interview with LAist due to the ongoing litigation).

    But those who want to stay in Bloomington worry the warehouse will mean the end of their small town and rural lifestyle. Others say the project is necessary to get badly needed infrastructure improvements.

    An open dirt lot with a large warehouse and silouette of mountains in the background. The sky is blue with a couple wispy clouds and the light golden.
    The site of the future warehouse project, which will bring more than 2 million square feet of warehouse space to Bloomington.
    (
    Erin Stone
    /
    LAist
    )

    A changing community

    I meet Margaret Razo and her husband Rafael at a park that will be right across the street from the new warehouse project and next door to another warehouse being developed in Jurupa Valley.

    The 54-year-old grew up in Bloomington and has watched the community transform.

    “Bloomington was so pretty, so beautiful,” Razo said. “And, just driving over here now, it's awful. All the houses are torn down. Childhood homes of our friends. I almost want to cry thinking about how much Bloomington has changed.”

    A man and woman with light brown skin stand beside each other smiling. The man wears a grey t-shirt, jeans and tan shoes and has short grey-black hair and a black mustache. The woman wears sunglasses, red lipstick and butterfly-shaped necklace over a black flowy shirt and dark pants. They stand in the shade of a tree on a grass field. It's sunny in the background with trees.
    Rafael and Margaret Razo live in a house near the new warehouse development in Bloomington. They regularly receive calls from developers asking if they want to sell.
    (
    Erin Stone
    /
    LAist
    )

    When she was a kid, the road in front of her family’s house was dirt. Her little brother and sister played Little League at the park we’re sitting at. The park has changed too … but for the better, thanks to recent donations the county received to improve the park, with a new skate park, children’s play structure and well-kept grass. She loves seeing people ride horses around town.

    A large cement sign with a large baseball reads "gary mendoza memorial field" on green grass and in front of a blue fence. A large tree is behind and sunny blue skies above.
    The warehouse project will be across the street from a park and baseball field. Another warehouse being developed in neighboring Jurupa Valley is also being developed just west of the field.
    (
    Erin Stone
    /
    LAist
    )

    “We just never left Bloomington because we loved it,” Razo said. “And it's the first time in my whole entire life that I've ever thought maybe it's time to leave. Because I feel like we're being pushed out by industry.”

    Though they’re not within the bounds of this project — they live in the numbered streets of Bloomington — they’re close to it, and Razo said calls from warehouse developers offering to buy the home she and her husband live in are constant.

    “It just takes one person to sell,” said Rafael.

    But Razo said she can’t blame others for selling.

    “My cousin is a teacher at Colton High School and she said she was talking to someone and the guy told her, ‘You know, if they're offering me a million dollars for my house, and I'm going to be able to send my kids to college now, how can I say no to that?’” Razo said.

    “At first I was mad at the people who were accepting the money and leaving Bloomington because I'm like, ‘Oh, they don't really love Bloomington,’” Razo continued. “How can you blame them? These big old companies are coming in and just throwing money at people and it's such a poor community. And it just keeps chipping away and chipping away more at Bloomington.”

    For some people, the buyouts, which have all been at or above fair market value, were welcome. I spoke to one Bloomington resident who lives with his grandmother across from the construction site — he declined to share his name, but said they want to move to Yucaipa due to rising crime in Bloomington and his grandmother’s desire to be in a more rural area. He said they were excited to be in conversation with the developer for a generous buyout, but those discussions have now halted due to the lawsuit.

    Razo said if they left, she doesn’t know where they’d go. After all, Bloomington is home. She raised her own children here, her siblings still live here, and her parents are buried here.

    “If they start chipping away at my neighborhood, I don't know,” Razo said. “We're gonna be the little 'Up' house [referring to the movie “Up”]. I don't want to leave, but I feel like they're pushing me out. There's going to be nothing left of the character of Bloomington, the place that we grew up in, it's just going to be all gone.”

    I don't want to leave, but I feel like they're pushing me out. There's going to be nothing left of the character of Bloomington.
    — Margaret Razo, Bloomington resident

    A rural lifestyle coming to an end

    I run into Felipe Ortiz and his daughter Fatima while he’s picking her up from Bloomington High School, which is across the street from the future warehouse project. He, his wife and three kids rent a house in the path of the warehouse. One day they were startled by a bulldozer destroying palm trees Ortiz had planted and fencing on the property. Their landlord didn’t tell them that he’d sold the house to the developer.

    A man with a black mustache and light brown skin wearing a baseball cap and grey sweathshirt and jeans holds his phone to the camera to show a photo of three young children in rodeo attire, one child sitting on a white-grey horse.
    Felipe Ortiz shows a photo of his children, who grew up riding horses.
    (
    Erin Stone
    /
    LAist
    )
    A middle-aged man with light brown skin and a black msutache and grey sweatshirt stands with his 15-yearold daughter who has long black hair, wears a brown sweatshirt. They both smile. It's sunny and a red truck is blurred behind them.
    Felipe Ortiz and daughter Fatima outside Bloomington High School. Ortiz and his family are currently looking for somewhere else to live after their landlord sold the house they rent to a warehouse developer.
    (
    Erin Stone
    /
    LAist
    )

    Like many people in the area, they own horses, goats and other livestock and thought Bloomington was a place where they could maintain their rural lifestyle and connection to their Mexican roots. Now, they don’t know what they’ll do.

    “It’s hard that we can't find anywhere to go because we don't have the money to buy a house,” Ortiz said in Spanish. “I have to protect my family and my animals.”

    15-year-old Fatima said the whole experience has been so stressful she’s had trouble focusing in school.

    “I be seeing machines going through, passing by my house, and I be getting scared,” she said. “And then sometimes I get the feeling of not wanting to come to school. Even if I do, I be thinking about the house instead of thinking about my subjects at school.”

    Across the street from where I talk with the Ortiz’s, I meet 15-year-old Jose Sanchez and 17-year-old Francisco Plascencia riding their horses, something they do every day. They grew up riding, and even in their short lives they’ve seen other warehouse projects already change the community — more big rig trucks driving the roads, and less open space to ride their horses.

    “I grew up here in Bloomington so seeing everything go away … it kind of hurts me,” said Sanchez.

    For now, he said, they’ll have to appreciate riding their horses around town as much as they can.

    “Just enjoy what we have right now,” Sanchez said. “Until the time comes, if they do end up buying our property, it is what it is.”

    Two young men with light brown skin wearing t-shirts sit on large horses, smiling. they both wear baseball caps. It's sunny and the sky is blue.
    Jose Sanchez, left, and Francisco Plascenscia grew up riding horses in Bloomington and have seen the community become more industrial over the years.
    (
    Erin Stone
    /
    LAist
    )

    A necessary project? 

    Others in the community say the project is desperately needed.

    Like many unincorporated areas, Bloomington has a lack of basic infrastructure, such as sidewalks, sewage lines and flood control. That’s led to persistent flooding issues and dangerous traffic conditions. Many community members also worry about public safety with little law enforcement dedicated to the area.

    “The residents of Bloomington need better streets, better schools, good paying jobs and law and order,” said Irma Hansel, who's lived in Bloomington for more than 40 years, at the 2022 supervisor’s meeting when the project was approved. “We believe that the Bloomington project is a way to help to achieve prosperity and a better future for the residents of Bloomington.”

    “Personally, my family and I would love to go one winter without our house flooding or having a river that builds up in my backyard, [taking] my 68-year-old mom along with it when she tried to redirect the water without success,” said resident Raquel Diaz at that same meeting.

    To address the flooding issues, traffic conditions, and public safety concerns, the developer has promised to spend:

    • $39 million for 2.2 miles of street improvements like sidewalks and traffic signals (some of those street improvements will also support an increase in truck traffic expected from the project).
    • $30 million to build a 13-acre drainage basin and 2 miles of storm drains 
    • More than $1 million in tax revenue per year will go to a fund for Bloomington to spend on public safety, code enforcement and parks. $6.4 million in one-time funding will go to a Bloomington-specific infrastructure fund. 
    • $45 million for a brand new elementary school because the old one is right next to the project
    • 198 apartment units will be built in another part of Bloomington to make up for the homes destroyed and comply with California's housing law. 

    The project is also expected to generate more than 3,200 permanent local jobs and some 5,450 union construction jobs, as well as $500 million in tax revenue for the county over 30 years.

    A fedex big rig truck drives along a road under blue skies. A white nondescript warehouse type building is in the background.
    A FedEx truck drives past a trucking terminal in Bloomington. The new "Bloomington Business Park" isn't the first warehouse development to come to Bloomington, but it's the largest.
    (
    Erin Stone
    /
    LAist
    )

    A spokesperson for the developer said in a statement to LAist that the property will be landscaped with mature trees and drought-tolerant plants and that electric charging infrastructure will be installed to power electric forklifts and other heavy duty electric equipment onsite.

    “If you're going to get infrastructure improvements, it's going to come out of one of two sets of hands — it's either going to come out of the business and development community," said Gary Grossich, a 45-year Bloomington resident, "or it's going to come from the residents. The residents don’t have that kind of money."

    Meaning, taxes. Unincorporated areas often lack basic infrastructure because they have less tax revenue, and the revenue that does exist is stretched across an entire county.

    Big rig truck trailers sit in a dirt lot under blue skies.
    Truck yards like this one are common in Bloomington.
    (
    Erin Stone
    /
    LAist
    )

    “So unfortunately — you can maybe call it a trade-off — for these types of infrastructure improvements that the community needs, we have to rely on the development community to bring in these types of projects because that's the only thing that's going to pencil out for that type of a huge, tens of millions of dollars of investment in a community,” Grossich said.

    Grossich owns a pizza restaurant in neighboring Colton and has lived in Bloomington for 45 years. His home is near the development.

    Grossich said he’s been against past warehouse projects in the community, but he thinks this one is the gold standard and will bring more benefit than harm.

    An older man with light skin and a grey mustache and short grey hair wears a black apron over a collared light blue shirt and light jeans. His black loafers are covered in flour. He smiles beneath a large sign on a tan stucco restaurant building that reads "Nickelodeon Pizza."
    Bloomington resident Gary Grossich stands outside his restaurant in Colton. He believes the warehouse project will bring more benefit than harm to Bloomington.
    (
    Erin Stone
    /
    LAist
    )

    A dream of becoming a city that can keep warehouses out

    Grossich serves on the Bloomington Municipal Advisory Committee, or MAC, a non-voting group of community members that liaison between the community and county supervisors.

    An older man with light skin and a grey mustache and short grey hair wears a black apron over a blue collared shirt. He stands against a wall with framed photos and plaques.
    Gary Grossich owns a pizza shop in Colton, where he grew up, and moved to Bloomington 45 years ago after purchasing his dream home with his wife.
    (
    Erin Stone
    /
    LAist
    )

    He says that’s part of the problem — because Bloomington is unincorporated it has too little political representation. He worries that if Fontana and Rialto continue to build warehouses on Bloomington’s borders — multiple projects are planned, with land already leveled to make way for them — those cities will be able to annex Bloomington and turn all of it into warehousing space.

    “The idea is that we want people that live in Bloomington to make these decisions, not people from outside,” Grossich said. “For Bloomington to ever get to the point where we can make our own decisions, it is going to be necessary to find funding. It was never the intention of the MAC to make Bloomington into any type of a warehouse central or anything like that. As a matter of fact, we wanted to preclude that from happening.”

    Ultimately, he sees this project as a necessary step for Bloomington to generate enough revenue to become its own city, so it can ideally elect people from the community who will keep further warehouse development out.

    He envisions a city that has some warehouses, but also has a thriving downtown corridor full of local businesses, restaurants and homes.

    “Each individual project, you gotta weigh the pros and cons,” Grossich said. “All projects have impacts, no matter what it is. You can build a church, it's gonna have impacts. The question really is, can you mitigate the impacts to beyond a significant level.”

    The foundation of a demolished home with rubble strewn across it. Rolling hills are int he background under blue skies. The light is golden.
    The foundation of a home demolished where the future warehouse project is planned.
    (
    Erin Stone
    /
    LAist
    )

    A dangerous precedent?  

    Joaquin Castillejos, an organizer with the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, worries that relying on warehouse development for necessary infrastructure improvements in unincorporated areas sets a dangerous precedent, and that there are not enough protections in place now to prevent future warehouse expansion into the numbered streets of Bloomington.

    He said it’s up to the county to find the needed funding for building safe infrastructure without approving a project that brings more heavy truck traffic and pollution near residential areas, schools and a park.

    Four people walk away from the camera along a wide paved road in golden light. Palm trees are in the distance, as well as rolling hills.
    People walk along a residential street. The green fencing on the right is where part of the warehouse development will be. The developer purchased a palm tree nursery.
    (
    Erin Stone
    /
    LAist
    )

    “The county has a responsibility to the residents of Bloomington to keep up with the infrastructure, to fix our streets and to make sure that it's a livable area,” he said.

    The county said in a statement to LAist that it's made "significant investments" in Bloomington in recent years, including street improvements, an affordable housing project, a sewer installation on Valley Boulevard, a new park and additional dedicated sheriff's deputies to the area, among other things.

    "There are challenges throughout the County, as with any government agency, to meet all the needs with funding not being unlimited," the statement to LAist read. "However the County has done well toward investing in Bloomington."

    Castillejos said this new warehouse project is different from others for its scale and because the county rezoned a residential area to industrial to make way for the warehouse project. Unincorporated areas in the Inland Empire such as Bloomington have been some of the few places left in a state with rising housing costs where people, like Castillejos’ family, can still afford to buy their own homes.

    Castillejos grew up in Bloomington after his family moved there from an apartment in south L.A. to achieve their dream of buying a house in the early 2000s. He lives in Pomona now, but his parents still live in Bloomington, two blocks from another large warehouse project that was built in neighboring Fontana.

    An aerial view of the roofs of vast grey warehouses, stretching far into the horizon
    Warehouses dominate the Inland Empire
    (
    Jesse Lerner
    /
    Courtesy of Riverside Art Museum
    )

    “There's nothing that they can say to justify creating an industrial zone in the middle of a residential area, but that's exactly what they did,” he said. “This project will just be the beginning of more types of developments like this, where they target residential areas in other unincorporated areas in the county.”

    Though homes have already been demolished, Castillejos hopes the current lawsuit against the project at least sends a message to future warehouse developers.

    “I'm hoping that this lawsuit shows all other developers that if you want to do a project like this,” he said, “there's going to be consequences.”

  • Dangerous currents and fire risk also in store
    Man wearing a straw hat leans on an ice cream cart in the shade of a pier on a beach.
    A beach vendor takes a break under the Santa Monica Pier last week. More heat is in store for Southern California this week and into next.

    Topline:

    A heat advisory is in place for much of Southern California from 10 a.m. Wednesday through Monday.

    The heat: Temperatures are expected to climb steadily this week. Inland valleys in L.A., Riverside and San Bernardino counties will see highs between the mid-90s and about 105 degrees. Areas closer to the coast, including downtown Los Angeles and most of Orange County, will hit the 90s, while beaches hover mostly in the upper 70s. Humidity also continues to add to the discomfort, making it harder to cool down.

    Fire risk: Despite higher-than-normal humidity, a combination of dry brush and wind will also increase the likelihood of fires sparking in some places. The risk will be concentrated in places prone to high winds, including parts of the 5 Freeway corridor in northern L.A. County, especially around the Grapevine, and southern Santa Barbara County.

    Beach conditions: Forecasters expect dangerously large waves and strong rip currents to persist through the weekend along the Southern California coast.

    Read on … to learn more about what’s driving these uncomfortable conditions.

    We hope you’ve gotten used to the hot weather, because it’s going to be here for a while.

    The National Weather Service has issued yet another heat advisory for much of Southern California, less than a week after other high-temperature warnings were lifted.

    This week’s advisory will be in place from 10 a.m. Wednesday through Monday. Forecasters expect temperatures to climb steadily over the course of Wednesday and Thursday.

    The San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley and other inland areas in L.A., as well as Riverside and San Bernardino counties, will likely see highs ranging from the mid-90s to about 105 degrees. Areas closer to the coast, including downtown Los Angeles and much of Orange County, will hit the 90s. Beaches will hover mostly in the upper 70s.

    Humidity will also add to the discomfort. Even though it’s decreasing slightly, it makes cooling down harder, especially at night.

    People who work outdoors or do not have air conditioning are especially at risk from the heat and humidity, along with people over 65, young children and other sensitive populations.

    Making sense of heat forecasts

    Southern Californians are no strangers to hot weather in the summer, but heat waves are getting hotter, longer and more frequent as the climate changes.

    So you should know the words forecasters use to describe these weather events — and the risks they pose.

    • Heat advisory: Advisories are issued when temperatures are expected to be hot enough to cause discomfort and potentially lead to heat-related illnesses, especially for more vulnerable populations like young children and the elderly.
    • Extreme heat watch: Watches are essentially forecasts for upcoming periods of extreme heat. Forecasters say heat watches often cover wide areas and will be revised into more focused warnings and advisories as conditions become clearer over time. Watches are a good time to prepare for extreme heat.
    • Extreme heat warning: Warnings are issued when heat levels are or will likely become extremely dangerous. Under extreme heat warnings, it's a good idea to avoid strenuous outdoor activity, stay hydrated and help loved ones and pets stay cool.

    Learn more >>

    Fire risk

    Forecasters are warning that conditions are ripe for fires, driven by a combination of wind and dry vegetation.

    Southern California hasn’t seen much rain recently, despite the humidity, leaving plants with little moisture and turning them into the perfect fuel.

    “Even though the air feels kind of moist, we're in the time of season where it doesn't matter. The fuels are dry and they're ready to go,” said NWS meteorologist Ryan Kittell.

    Kittel said people should take extra care with anything that could create a spark, and residents in fire-prone areas should remain aware of their surroundings in case a fire starts.

    The fire risk is likely to be concentrated in a few specific areas that will experience higher winds than others, including parts of the 5 Freeway corridor in northern L.A. County, especially around the Grapevine, and in southern Santa Barbara County.

    For most of the region, though, winds should stay fairly mild.

    Dangerous beach conditions

    Southern Californians also have to contend with some ocean-specific risks this week.

    Forecasters expect dangerously large waves and strong rip currents to hit the coastline at a time when the heat may drive more people to the beach. The conditions are expected to persist through the weekend.

    If you decide to head to the beach, it’s a good idea to ask a lifeguard for advice on the conditions before entering the water. It’s also recommended to swim only near occupied lifeguard stands, stay off of rock jetties and avoid turning your back to the waves.

    South-facing stretches of coastline will bear the brunt of the swell, which is being driven by two tropical storms churning hundreds of miles away in the Pacific Ocean.

    “Those two systems generated the winds and the waves locally that are pushing towards us, and so that's creating elevated surf and some stronger currents than normal,” Kittel said.

    The swell is not expected to cause significant coastal flooding as high tides remain relatively low.

  • Sponsored message
  • Families can take free rides during heat wave
    A grassy area with picnic tables and large trees at sunset. A small body of water is pictured in the distance.
    Free transportation to the Santa Fe Dam Recreation Area swim beach will be available this week as East LA families continue to seek relief from another heat wave and the aftermath of the Lineage warehouse fire.


    Topline:

    Free transportation to the Santa Fe Dam Recreation Area swim beach will be available this week as East LA families continue to seek relief from another heat wave and the aftermath of the Lineage warehouse fire.

    Why now: More than a month after the Lineage Logistics warehouse fire, many residents continue to report persistent odors from rotting food and cleanup efforts. Because of the ongoing air quality concerns and community complaints, Los Angeles County Parks and Recreation has canceled its local aquatic programming.

    Free rides begin Wednesday: Los Angeles County is offering complimentary transportation Wednesday through Saturday to the Santa Fe Dam Recreation Area Swim Beach in Irwindale. Pickup locations are at select Eastside parks.

    Read on . . . for more information on the free shuttle services, schedules and more. 

    This story first appeared on The LA Local.

    Free transportation to the Santa Fe Dam Recreation Area swim beach will be available this week as East LA families continue to seek relief from another heat wave and the aftermath of the Lineage warehouse fire.

    Los Angeles County is offering complimentary transportation Wednesday through Saturday at select Eastside parks so residents can enjoy a day at the lake at no cost.

    More than a month after the Lineage Logistics warehouse fire, many residents continue to report persistent odors from rotting food and cleanup efforts. Because of the ongoing air quality concerns and community complaints, Los Angeles County Parks and Recreation has canceled its local aquatic programming.

    To ensure families still have access to summer recreational activities, Los Angeles County Supervisor Hilda L. Solis directed resources toward providing the “beach bus” program to Santa Fe Dam Recreation Area Swim Beach in Irwindale.

    Read below for more information on the free shuttle services, schedules and more. 

    Pickup locations

    Belvedere Aquatic Center

    5035 1st St. East Los Angeles, CA 90022

    Obregon Park Pool

    4021 1st St. Los Angeles, CA 90063

    Salazar Park Pool 

    3864 Whittier Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90023

    City Terrace Park Pool

    1126 N. Hazard Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90063

    Shuttle dates and times 

    • Wednesday, July 22
    • Thursday, July 23
    • Friday, July 24
    • Saturday, July 25

    Morning trip: 

    • Check in at 8:30 a.m. 
    • The bus departs East LA at 9 a.m. 
    • The bus leaves Santa Fe Dam to go back to East LA at 12 p.m.

    Afternoon trip: 

    • Check in at 12:30 p.m. 
    • The bus departs East LA at 1 p.m. 
    • The bus leaves Santa Fe Dam to go back to East LA at 4 p.m. 

    What to know

    No registration or proof of address is required, but children under 12 must be accompanied by an adult. Bring your own food and drinks. Space is limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis.

  • President set for new role after $12M settlement
    Two students wearing backpacks walk across a courtyard on a college campus. The courtyard is surrounded by beige, multi-story buildings.
    Cal State San Bernardino campus on April 22, 2024.

    Topline:

    Cal State San Bernardino's outgoing president, one of two administrators at the center of a multi-million dollar discrimination lawsuit, may transfer to a different Cal State job while the university pays his salary and benefits. The Cal State Board of Trustees will review the transition plan and decide whether to approve the president’s emeritus status Wednesday.

    Discrimination lawsuit: Cal State recently spent $12 million settling the lawsuit in which two female employees at Cal State San Bernardino said they were harassed and discriminated against based on their gender by two male university administrators: Cal State San Bernardino president Tomás Morales and former Palm Desert satellite campus dean Jake Zhu. The two women, Clare Weber and Anissa Rogers, both formerly worked as high-ranking administrators at Cal State San Bernardino. During the 2021-22 school year, Weber and Rogers each confronted their male supervisors with what they believed was strong evidence of a gender pay gap and sex-based bullying in their workplaces. Both were pressured to resign almost immediately, they alleged in a 2023 lawsuit that calls the Cal State system a “cesspool of gender harassment and discrimination."

    What's next for Morales: The proposed new job and salary for Cal State San Bernardino President Tomás Morales will be announced at the Wednesday meeting. Morales is slated to get an executive transition package that would enable him to retreat to faculty and stay on the university’s payroll until he starts another Cal State job. San Bernardino’s chapter of the California Faculty Association urged the board of trustees not to approve executive transition benefits for Morales in a May statement. Morales received $655,626 in pay and benefits in 2024, the most recent figure available from TransparentCalifornia.

    An outgoing California State University president, one of two administrators at the center of a multi-million dollar discrimination lawsuit, may transfer to a different Cal State job while the university pays his salary and benefits. The Cal State Board of Trustees will review the transition plan and decide whether to approve the president’s emeritus status Wednesday.

    The proposed new job and salary for Cal State San Bernardino President Tomás Morales will be announced at the Wednesday meeting, according to Cal State spokesperson Amy Bentley-Smith. Morales received $655,626 in pay and benefits in 2024, the most recent figure available from TransparentCalifornia.

    Cal State recently spent $12 million settling the lawsuit in which two female employees at Cal State San Bernardino said they were harassed and discriminated against based on their gender by two male university administrators: Morales and former Palm Desert campus dean Jake Zhu. Cal State continues to deny any wrongdoing. Zhu is an emeritus faculty member, a title given as a gesture of appreciation for service contributed to the university, and Morales remains in good standing with the university.

    Morales resigned at the end of the school year and, because of his good standing, is eligible to receive a coveted executive transition package with faculty retreat rights. That means he can continue to work as a university faculty member.

    This Wednesday, a Cal State Board of Trustees committee will view a presentation on Morales’ transition plan. Later that day, the full board will discuss Chancellor Mildred Garcia’s recommendation to grant him the title of president emeritus.

    A ‘cesspool of gender harassment and discrimination’

    The two women, Clare Weber and Anissa Rogers, both formerly worked as high-ranking administrators at Cal State San Bernardino. Weber was appointed deputy provost and vice provost of Academic Affairs on the main campus in 2017, and Rogers served as associate dean at the satellite campus in Palm Desert starting in 2019. During the 2021-22 school year, Weber and Rogers each confronted their male supervisors with what they believed was strong evidence of a gender pay gap and sex-based bullying in their workplaces. Both were pressured to resign almost immediately, they alleged in a 2023 lawsuit that calls the Cal State system a “cesspool of gender harassment and discrimination.”

    Rogers, then-associate dean at Palm Desert working under Zhu, was terrified a firing would ruin her reputation and career prospects, and agreed to resign. Weber, then-vice provost of academic affairs, refused and was fired.

    In their joint lawsuit, they sued the Cal State Board of Trustees, Zhu and Morales.

    “The lawsuit shows systemic, sexist bullying,” Weber said in an interview. “It was primarily from President Morales.”

    Bentley-Smith said the university system has already thoroughly reviewed all of the lawsuit’s allegations and resolved the matter through the settlement.

    Weber and Rogers have submitted a public comment to the board of trustees imploring them to scrutinize Morales’ “good standing” before approving the proposed transition plan.

    Cal State president accused of berating women

    The lawsuit alleged Morales was notorious for routinely harassing and acting aggressively toward female Cal State employees. He ranted at women, excessively criticized and undermined them, attempted to intimidate them, and held women to higher standards than men, the suit complaint read.

    But faculty concerns about Morales began years before the lawsuit. A 2016 survey revealed that over 60% of Cal State San Bernardino employees felt the campus climate had worsened under Morales’ tenure. The faculty senate wrote in a 2017 resolution of “no confidence” in Morales’ performance that the survey results indicated an environment of toxicity, fear and distrust had formed under Morales’ tenure, which they added was rife with bullying, favoritism and retaliation.

    Two months before his appointment as Cal State San Bernardino’s president in 2012, while Morales served as president of the College of Staten Island, more than half of that college’s senators also approved a resolution of “no confidence” in his leadership.

    “It was a ‘his way or the highway’ vibe, particularly for women. I was berated and put down and yelled at. I had other colleagues that experienced the same thing,” Weber said.

    Walking on eggshells around Morales caused her stress and made it difficult to do her job, Weber said.

    “Sometimes I got to feeling isolated, like I was the only one, and I think probably other women did too,” Weber said.

    In late May 2022, a California State University Employees Union study demonstrated that white male Cal State employees earn about 3% more than men of color, 5% more than white women and 7% more than women of color.

    Weber wanted to see if a similar pattern applied to her job. She conducted research, consulted a compensation specialist in the campus’ human resources office, and determined that she was the lowest-paid female vice provost in the Cal State system. She also found that, with the exception of one female, and one male who made about $3,000 less than Weber, every female Cal State vice provost made less than every male vice provost.

    Weber met with her boss, then-interim Provost Rafik Mohamed, in June 2022, where she planned to discuss her concerns over the pay gap she’d identified.

    “I was scared,” she said. “I had my data, I had notes ahead of time. I wrote little encouraging messages to myself before I was in the meeting.”

    At the same time, she felt she had reason to be hopeful. She’d just spearheaded and secured the university’s regional accreditation, kicked off a new strategic plan, and, only a few weeks before, earned the highest possible score on a mid-year performance review: “exceptional leadership.”

    At the meeting, Mohamed attempted to assign her additional job duties, the suit alleged. In response, Weber asked for a 12% equity raise and suggested there was a pay disparity among genders at the university.

    Mohamed told her he would pass the concerns along. Weber also emailed the university president, Morales, with the same raise request. Four weeks later, Mohamed told Weber she would have to resign, with Mohamed stating he “could not” work with Weber, the suit alleged.

    Weber wrote an email to Morales protesting.

    “I explicitly raised concerns that these female Vice Provosts were being paid less because of their gender,” she wrote. “I have been shocked and saddened that CSU’s response to my complaints was to subject me to unprecedented and unwarranted criticism and then – just a month later – ask me to ‘resign’ from my position. This is highly offensive and totally discriminatory, and retaliatory.”

    She asked Morales to rescind the resignation request and open an investigation into the pay equity concerns.

    Weber was fired the next day, she said. She retreated to a faculty position as required by her original appointment letter.

    Mohamed did not respond to CalMatters’ request for comment.

    Morales’ office referred CalMatters to the Cal State San Bernardino Office of Marketing and Communications, which did not respond to a request for comment.

    Discrimination also alleged at Palm Desert campus

    Cal State San Bernardino hired Rogers in 2019 as an associate dean — her dream job.

    “When I interviewed, it was perfect,” Rogers said. “Then I quickly realized that I had just been immersed in hell.”

    From day one, Rogers said she perceived the culture at San Bernardino’s Palm Desert campus as male-driven and discriminatory. The campus dean, Zhu, stuck out to her in particular with his penchant for screaming at people, especially women.

    Men who worked for him would model his behaviors in his presence and at staff meetings, even those who were normally kind and supportive, Rogers said. Women struggled to speak up in meetings without being interrupted, yelled at, called “too emotional” and “sensitive,” or belittled, she said. By contrast, men were always treated with respect, she said. Eventually, Rogers said she gave up presenting her own ideas and began sneaking them in through a male colleague, from whom the ideas were often accepted.

    In addition, several employees declared in the lawsuit under penalty of perjury that Zhu would publicly treat Rogers like a secretary or assistant, though she was the second-highest ranking employee on the satellite campus.

    “It was awful,” Rogers said. “I hated going to work every day. My anxiety increased. I was constantly on guard.”

    Tensions boiled over at an informal meeting with the dean and several of Rogers’ colleagues in October 2021, at which Rogers was not present. According to various attendees who reported back to Rogers during the meeting via text and later that day in person, several men ganged up on a female interim associate dean, interrogating her for around 25 minutes about her preparations for an upcoming campus visit with a Cal State trustee. Zhu watched the verbal onslaught and did not act, various female employees who walked out of the meeting in protest alleged.

    That same day, Rogers approached Zhu in his office and told him Cal State needed to do a better job at disrupting sexism. Zhu told her she could train the men to behave differently, the suit states, though the male employees involved reported to the dean. Zhu told a different faculty member who complained to him about the meeting, social work department chair Deirdre Lanesskog, that the men were probably just trying to impress him, the suit alleged.

    An employee said under penalty of perjury in the lawsuit that Jolene Koester, who served as Cal State’s interim chancellor from 2022 to 2023, worked for Cal State to “coach” Zhu in late October 2021. A few days after approaching Zhu, Rogers also reported to Koester that Zhu exhibited sexist conduct and bullying.

    In November 2021, Mohamed instructed Rogers to tell colleagues she was resigning, citing a “leadership issue” he did not elaborate on, according to the lawsuit. He told her that was her only option if she hoped for career advancement, the suit states. On January 1, 2022, she resigned and retreated to faculty.

    “I call it fired,” Rogers said. “They told me, ‘Either leave or you will be fired.’”

    The joint lawsuit by Weber and Rogers split into two trial proceedings. A jury awarded Rogers $6 million in damages in October 2025 and Weber settled for $6 million in lieu of a trial. In court, Zhu defended his leadership techniques and said he treated everybody in the same way.

    “I raised voices to make a point, to change the tones, not in the malicious way or discriminatory way,” he said according to court transcripts.

    While testifying, Mohamed admitted that he did not report various complaints regarding Zhu’s alleged gender mistreatment because he saw the accusations as “low-grade bias,” despite being a mandated reporter of sexual harassment under Cal State policy.

    “Everybody has bias. We all harbor biases that are just ingrained in us from how we’re socialized, how we are brought up, the environments that we were reared in,” Mohamed said. “The allegation of bias in and of itself, in my view, does not require a reporting of bias, an alleged bias to Title IX. It’s the action on that bias that triggers that requirement to report.”

    Mohamed did not reply to a request for comment on his role in either of Rogers’ and Webers’ departures. Mohamed announced his retirement on July 16 in an internal email to faculty reviewed by CalMatters.

    Zhu did not respond to CalMatters’ request for comment.

    Executive transition package up for approval

    After Zhu retired in June 2023, he retreated to faculty and is now an emeritus faculty member.

    Morales is slated to get an executive transition package that would enable him to retreat to faculty and stay on the university’s payroll until he starts another Cal State job. All university executives who complete this program must remain in good standing at the start and throughout the transition assignment, according to a 2022 trustee agenda item.

    Executives are rendered ineligible if it is found that they violated university policy or engaged in serious misconduct, per the item.

    San Bernardino’s chapter of the California Faculty Association urged the board of trustees not to approve executive transition benefits for Morales in a May statement.

    The lawsuit “raises serious questions about whether President Morales should be regarded in good standing for those benefits,” said Thomas Corrigan, a communication and media professor and the union chapter’s communications coordinator. “Dr. Rogers’ and Dr. Weber’s case really stands out as a moral outrage with exceptional financial, reputational and human costs.”

    After Weber and Rogers filed their joint lawsuit in March 2023, Weber said, Cal State finally kickstarted its investigation into her 2022 pay gap complaint. The university system sent her a pay analysis two months later, stating there were seven vice provosts who earn a lower salary than Weber, including four men.

    The university’s analysis, Weber said, was a “sham.”

    “They had a male vice provost listed as earning zero pay. They had people that were at a lower rank than me in the comparison, people that would report to me,” Weber said.

    Weber said that Jeanne Durr, former interim associate vice president of Human Resources at Cal State San Bernardino, conducted the analysis; Durr did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

    In July 2023, the California State Auditor published a report assessing how the Cal State system responds to sexual harassment allegations. The auditor found several campuses closed sexual harassment cases without providing a reason, and did not consistently discipline perpetrators. The report listed 16 recommended reforms for the Cal State system, including developing standardized guidelines for sexual harassment investigations, regularly reviewing compliance with sexual harassment policy, and universalizing the case management system used by each campus.

    In 2024, a new law, Assembly Bill 1790, set a legal requirement for Cal State to follow the recommendations by July 1, 2026. As of July 2026, one recommendation has not been carried out: establishing a system to collect and analyze sexual harassment data from all campuses. The Chancellors’ Office plans to complete this by June 2027.

    Weber taught sociology for an additional four years at Cal State San Bernardino until she stepped down as agreed upon in the lawsuit settlement.

    “My faculty colleagues were wonderful,” Weber said. But “I would be lying if I said I wasn’t afraid when I went to campus. I had numerous panic attacks. I chartered my route around campus so that I wouldn’t run into any of the administrators that harmed me.”

    Rogers left her faculty position at the university within about two years.

    “In the end, it killed any desire I had to ever move forward in my career. I have absolutely zero interest, which is too bad. I was hoping to be at least a dean in my career trajectory, (but) I won’t touch that,” Rogers said. “I’ve lost faith in systems.”

    This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

  • White House admits it used keywords to kill funds
    A close up of person's hands holding a pipette with teal-colored gloves in a lab.
    University of California research professors allege federal agencies illegally canceled nearly $2 billion in research grants. A student holds a pipette in a lab at Cal State San Marcos on May 6, 2025.

    Topline:

    The Trump administration canceled $2 billion of research grants to University of California professors. Their legal team says it has proof that those terminations were unconstitutional.

    Why it matters: Federal agencies that terminated more than a thousand research grants at the University of California last year admitted that they used keywords related to diversity, gender, vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 to screen for projects that ran afoul of the Trump administration’s priorities.

    It’s an admission that lawyers for the research professors say is proof that the agencies illegally canceled nearly $2 billion in grants. And that’s a major development in a lawsuit filed by UC researchers against the Trump administration to permanently get their grants back.

    The researchers’ legal team is now asking the judge in the case to skip a trial and formally declare that the White House repeatedly violated the constitution, including the First Amendment. A court hearing on whether that’ll happen is scheduled for Oct. 20.

    The backstory: The judge in this case, Rita F. Lin, has repeatedly sided with the UC professors and issued several preliminary injunctions forcing the federal agencies to restore the grants while she reviews the full merits of the case. This includes the restoration of hundreds of grants at UCLA that the Trump administration sought to suspend over its allegations that the university tolerated antisemitism and permitted transgender women to compete on women’s sports teams.

    Read on... for more on the lawsuit.

    This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

    Federal agencies that terminated more than a thousand research grants at the University of California last year admitted that they used keywords related to diversity, gender, vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 to screen for projects that ran afoul of the Trump administration’s priorities.

    It’s an admission that lawyers for the research professors say is proof that the agencies illegally canceled nearly $2 billion in grants. And that’s a major development in a lawsuit filed by UC researchers against the Trump administration to permanently get their grants back.

    The researchers’ legal team is now asking the judge in the case to skip a trial and formally declare that the White House repeatedly violated the constitution, including the First Amendment. A court hearing on whether that'll happen is scheduled for Oct. 20.

    The federal agencies made the admission about the keywords in signed stipulations filed in federal court last week in a case called Thakur v. Trump that’s been ongoing since last spring.

    The stipulations in the court filing show the agencies “did not terminate any grants based on alleged noncompliance with the terms of the grant” and instead used “general criteria, rather than grant-specific assessment of each award’s compliance, or performance,” the lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote.

    Lawyers for the UC professors now contend that the admission proves three wide-ranging constitutional violations:

    • By using keyword searches to review hundreds of grants and terminate them en masse rather than reviewing them individually on their merits, the Trump administration targeted research it found politically disfavorable, which is a First Amendment violation.
    • In terminating 283 Department of Energy grants from states where a majority voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, and leaving untouched hundreds of grants that went to “red” states, the Trump administration wrongly punished researchers for merely living in states the White House politically opposed.
    • And by terminating billions of dollars in grants, and never rerouting that money to other grant opportunities, the Trump administration violated the constitution by not spending money in ways Congress specifically required through laws it passed on how research funds should be used.

    CalMatters emailed the U.S. Department of Justice, which acts as the legal defense for the federal agencies, on July 16 to ask whether it agrees that the federal grant-making agency stipulations mean the Trump administration violated the constitutional rights of researchers. A spokesperson for the Justice Department didn’t respond by publication time.

    History of lawsuit

    The judge in this case, Rita F. Lin, has repeatedly sided with the UC professors and issued several preliminary injunctions forcing the federal agencies to restore the grants while she reviews the full merits of the case. This includes the restoration of hundreds of grants at UCLA that the Trump administration sought to suspend over its allegations that the university tolerated antisemitism and permitted transgender women to compete on women’s sports teams.

    Those allegations were also the subject of a demand from the White House for UCLA to pay $1.2 billion or experience an additional cascade of research freezes. However, months before President Donald Trump sought that settlement, UCLA took steps to address antisemitism on campus, including commissioning a task force to recommend ways to create a more welcoming environment for Jewish students.

    Lin, a Biden appointee, faulted the administration for disregarding those efforts by UCLA in a preliminary injunction for a different but related lawsuit. The Trump administration’s justification for terminating the grants did not “mention the remedial steps UCLA had already taken to address the issues described,” Lin wrote.

    Lawyers for professors in the Thakur case now want Lin to make a final ruling, rather than a preliminary one, ordering the grants to be restored. Even if that were to happen, the federal agencies could decide to appeal Lin’s ruling to a higher court.

    The stakes are “huge,” lawyers for the professors in the Thakur case wrote. If the White House is “allowed to terminate this funding, the researchers, graduate students, and program staff that relied on the grants to pursue their lives’ work will all suffer significant damage to their reputations and careers.”

    The lawyers warn of lifesaving cures that will never be developed, new understandings of diseases that will go unexplored and the decline in the country’s global standing as an international juggernaut in publicly funded research.

    Using keywords to target disfavored grants

    The agencies admitted to using keywords in various ways, according to a CalMatters review of the new court filings.

    The Department of Transportation identified six grants for projects worth about $42 million to terminate because they sought “transportation equity,” prioritized “disadvantaged communities,” or focused on “diversifying the transportation workforce” and “equity.”

    The termination of three of those grants led by a UC Davis professor resulted in 77 researchers abandoning 79 in-progress projects. Lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote that the project leaders were also forced to lay off or scramble to replace funding for more than 40 graduate and undergraduate research assistants.

    The National Institutes of Health admitted to using an internal search tool to flag UC grants that mentioned “health equity,” "work force diversity," "structural racism," and "sexual orientation." The NIH alone suspended or canceled more than 1,000 UC grants, including nearly 700 at UCLA, related to vaccines, cancer research and disparities in health outcomes.

    That figure is newly disclosed in a court filing — last year, UCLA indicated that closer to 500 NIH grants were terminated. The health research agency also declared that it’s possible that DOGE, the short-lived federal office that billionaire Elon Musk led in 2025, used AI to target grants for termination.

    Lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote to the judge that these admissions show the agencies “identified the viewpoints they wanted to suppress, searched the grants they funded for those that expressed those viewpoints, and terminated those grants on that basis.” That violates the researchers’ First Amendment rights, the lawyers wrote.

    The Environmental Protection Agency, one of the named agencies in the suit, is in the process of settling with lawyers for the UC professors to avoid further litigation.

    A separate federal district judge in Massachusetts last week dealt the Trump administration a blow in its ability to terminate grants and withhold federal funding. The White House relied on a legal phrase in many of its funding cancellations — “no longer effectuates . . . agency priorities.”

    California and 22 other states sued, arguing that there’s no law or right for the federal government to cancel funding based on new program goals and White House desires after the grants were already awarded.

    The judge agreed.

    This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.