Rowland Unified board opposes City of Industry zoning change after sustained public outcry over data centers
Loading...
Summary
After more than a dozen public comments raising water, air‑quality, fire‑safety and community‑impact concerns, the Rowland Unified School District Board adopted a resolution opposing City of Industry Zoning Code Amendment No. 25‑02 and related high‑intensity industrial development, including data centers and battery projects.
The Rowland Unified School District Board of Education voted April 9 to adopt a resolution opposing City of Industry Zoning Code Amendment No. 25‑02 and related high‑intensity industrial development, after a lengthy public‑comment period in which community members urged the board to press for full environmental review.
The resolution followed a string of public commenters who told the board they feared data centers and battery storage projects would strain local water and power systems, increase truck traffic, produce heat and persistent noise, and pose fire and toxic‑release risks near schools. "So we'd like to oppose and have you oppose the data center," speaker David Melkin told the board during public comment.
Advocates for careful review included Bridal Macias, vice president of the Puente Hills‑area coalition, who cited the California Environmental Quality Act and said agencies must "fully study and disclose environmental impacts before approving a project." Macias urged the board to pass a resolution so school districts’ concerns become part of the administrative record under CEQA, which can trigger a more detailed environmental impact report.
Other residents described past local industrial projects with long‑term environmental and health effects and asked the district to attend or observe City of Industry meetings. "They will take what they want and leave our towns weaker," one speaker said, appealing to the board to act on behalf of students and neighborhoods.
Board members who spoke during the item framed the resolution as a formal expression of concern rather than an action that can by itself change municipal zoning. One board member explained the vote would register the district’s opposition to the zoning change and ask that agencies consider the district’s evidence and request an independent environmental review.
The board moved and seconded the resolution and, on voice vote, the motion carried. The board’s action joins other districts and community groups asking for fuller environmental review, and board representatives said staff could attend City of Industry proceedings as observers.
The district’s superintendent had previously flagged zoning and development issues as having "the potential to impact every student every day," and several commenters linked the potential developments to risks to students with medical vulnerabilities and to local infrastructure. The board did not adopt a regulatory ban — it adopted a resolution expressing opposition and urging reliance on CEQA processes and additional scrutiny.
Next steps identified during the meeting included making the district’s written resolution part of the administrative record and directing staff to monitor City of Industry proceedings and environmental review filings; the district said it would consider sending staff to observe relevant city council meetings.
