San Bernardino council approves on-site crushing option for Oxbow debris over residents' objections

The San Bernardino City Council voted 5-1 to rescind Resolution 2020-265 and approve the city staff-recommended plan allowing on-site crushing and remediation of the concrete rubble at 6920 Palm Avenue, known as the Oxbow site.

The decision follows a staff presentation of a consultant study and three rounds of laboratory testing. Staff and the consultant said on-site crushing (alternative 3 in the consultant report) would generate fewer truck trips through residential neighborhoods, reduce total vehicle miles, and — with prescribed dust controls and AQMD oversight — present the least overall environmental impact of the options analyzed.

The council discussion and public comments showed deep disagreement. Dozens of residents and nearby homeowners described years of illness and nuisance from the pile and asked the council to require removal and off-site disposal rather than crushing on-site. Several speakers said the city previously obtained an abatement warrant and that earlier acts created a public-health risk. “This says that the unlawful conditions … pose a significant risk to the life, health, and safety of the residential community within a thousand feet,” a resident told the council, quoting court filings distributed to the dais.

City staff summarized the technical record: consultants sampled 10 concrete and soil points, ran tests for volatile organic compounds and metals, and reported results below applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) thresholds. Staff reported that the pile comprises roughly 60,000 tons originating from the demolished Amazon warehouse on Lugonia in Redlands and cited estimates of 33,000 cubic yards if processed and 42,000 cubic yards if unprocessed. Consultants modeled air emissions, health risk, and noise for three alternatives: (1) crush on-site then haul processed material off-site; (2) haul unprocessed material off-site for processing; and (3) crush on-site and reuse material on-site for grading. The consultant and staff recommended alternative 3 as the preferred environmental option because it minimizes round-trip truck traffic on Palm Avenue and adjacent areas.

The staff report and consultant work included practical mitigation measures: the use of an enclosed urban crushing unit designed for residential contexts; continuous water-spray suppression, tarping of stockpiles, daily street sweeping, and AQMD permits and monitoring. Staff said crushing operations would be scheduled to avoid school sessions where feasible (consultant recommended performing hauling during summer recess if hauling is used). Staff also disclosed the city’s recent expense on studies: approximately $78,000 for the consultant report and about $13,500 for the 2025 lab tests.

Opponents pressed other points: several speakers cited earlier council actions and legal filings that had sought removal of the material and fines for the property owner; others described chronic coughing among children and damaged HVAC systems. Multiple speakers and some council members expressed frustration that the site had changed ownership several times and that coverings and site security had been inconsistent.

The property owner, who said he closed on the site in early September, told the council he was willing to work with the city and neighbors on dust controls, erect fencing, place signage and a contact phone number, and move quickly to post bonds and begin grading and construction if the project is authorized. He told the council the developer’s plans and improvement drawings are ready and said he expected to start if approvals and conditions are agreed.

Council members stressed differing priorities. Supporters of the staff recommendation said crushing with strict AQMD controls and focused mitigation would shorten the timeline, reduce truck traffic overall and enable the owner to complete subdivision improvements and build homes. Dissenting council members and many public commenters said the history of the site and resident complaints made hauling the material off-site the only acceptable remedy.

The council adopted the staff-recommended action to repeal Resolution 2020-265 and move forward with the on-site crushing/remediation plan, with the requirement that AQMD permitting, a detailed mitigation plan (including tarping, water suppression, and daily street sweeping), and community outreach be in place before operations begin. Council member Ortiz cast the lone vote against the measure, urging immediate removal and off-site disposal instead.

The city manager and community development staff said the city will coordinate scheduling with AQMD, the owner and with neighborhood representatives on timing and public outreach before any work begins.

The council’s action is an operational decision about removal method and controls; it does not itself authorize construction of homes until final map and improvement bonds and standard planning approvals are posted and accepted.