After three years of controversy that has divided residents, Moreno Valley officials voted Wednesday, Aug. 19 to dramatically transform the city’s east side with what would be one of the largest warehouse complexes in the country.

The council’s 3-2 vote came at the end of three marathon meetings, at which supporters and opponents debated the need for jobs versus traffic and air pollution impacts from thousands of trucks the 2,300-acre project south of the 60 between Redlands Boulevard and Gilman Springs Road will bring.

“This project is a game-changer of proportional magnitude not only for the city but the entire region,” Mayor Jesse Molina said, minutes before the vote just after 11 p.m.

UPDATE: A day after approval, World Logistics Center threatened with lawsuit

He was joined by councilmembers Yxstian Gutierrez and Jeffrey Giba in voting for it, while LaDonna Jempson and George Price voted no.

Supporters whooped and hollered after the voting, chanting, “Iddo, Iddo, Iddo,” in support of developer Iddo Benzeevi.

Price, in whose district the project is located, said he was concerned that the city is putting all its eggs in one basket and that the promised jobs would not materialize.

“This is the most important decision in the history of Moreno Valley and I’m concerned there’s still a lot of work that needs to be done before this project can be approved,” Price said. “There’s still a lot of uncertainties.”

Council members earlier in the night peppered city staff and Benzeevi, the CEO of developer Highland Fairview, at length with questions on several aspects of the proposal – such as his company’s track record, which road and other improvements he will make, and what type of jobs will be created.

When fully built, the 40.6 million-square-foot World Logistics Center would be the largest development in the city, taking up 10 percent of the city’s land mass and equaling the size of 700 football fields. From 15 to 25 unidentified tenants would occupy the center. The first half of the complex would be built by 2022, with the remainder by 2030, according to a project report.

Benzeevi said the project would “prime the pump” for the city’s economy, providing 20,000 jobs, 13,000 construction jobs and $2.5 billion a year in economic activity.

Supporters see the proposal as an opportunity to reverse the city’s low job rate that leaves many commuting out of town.

But critics say the project would bring only low-paying jobs to a city that has already approved several warehouse projects in recent years.

They also say that the traffic generated by the project – estimated at 68,721 vehicles a day, including 14,006 trucks – would overwhelm area roads and freeways and increase air pollution and health risks.

A final environmental impact report released in May found that the project would have significant unavoidable regional impacts on traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and other quality-of-life issues.

Councilwoman Jempson said she hoped that residents will get past the bitter battles the project has stirred and return to normalcy.

“It has caused so much division in our city — this is not good,” she said. “It does not make us look good. The division, the fighting, the social media attacks; it just broke my heart.”

During the debate, Gutierrez asked Benzeevi to address the question of whether the project would provide mostly menial jobs.

The developer responded that the warehouses would feature jobs at a variety of skill levels – from entry level to management – and added that the logistics industry allows for upward mobility.

Before casting his vote, Gutierrez said he was convinced the benefits would outweigh the negatives.

Councilman Price, in whose district the project would be built, offered some of the most pointed questioning.

He expressed concerns over a provision that gives staff some discretion over approval of individual buildings that must be submitted for approval later in the process.

“I want to make sure council is aware of those and has input if we have concerns,” Price said.

Price said he also had a major concern about plans to extend Cactus Avenue to the project and limit access on Alessandro Boulevard. That change would essentially switch major traffic from Alessandro to Cactus, which Price said has many more homes than Alessandro.

“It doesn’t make any sense to me,” he said.

Price also asked planning staff to address criticism from state and regional air quality officials that the project environmental study was underestimating the health effects and misusing a single study to claim that diesel particulates don’t cause cancer.

Planning Official Richard Sandzimier replied that consultants looked at multiple studies and believed their assessment to be correct.

The California Air Resources Board and South Coast Air Quality Management District have called the city’s study “legally inadequate” and said it needs major revision. They have sought measures that would make the project less polluting, such as use of trucks with zero or near-zero emission technology.

In response to Price’s question of whether to conduct an additional environmental study as requested by the agencies. Benzeevi rejected the idea.

“They will sue anyway,” he said.

Both Price and Councilwoman LaDonna Jempson also touched on the traffic issues that have regional agencies such as Caltrans and the Riverside County Transportation Commission concerned.

The agencies have asked the city to require the developer to contribute funds to ensure that freeways and roads that see increased congestion will be improved.

Sandzimier said the city met with those agencies but could not come to an agreement.

Benzeevi said his company will pay its fair share but that the regional agencies must do more to provide funding for projects that benefit the city and help pay for those improvements.

“We need you to stand up for Moreno Valley in a much more robust way,” Benzeevi told the council, saying they needed to demand more from the regional agencies for transportation projects.

Jempson asked Benzeevi to provide more information on what type of tenants would occupy the center. Benzeevi said no tenants have been confirmed, and agreements to lure them will depend on market conditions and how fast the project is approved.

Many of the questions centered on technical issues surrounding the multiple project documents before the city.

The project required a general plan amendment, rezoning of land and a specific plan that would allow for the development to take place. Site-specific building plans would come later in the process and require separate approval, mostly at a staff level.

As part of the approval, the council issue findings that the environmental study was properly done and that its environmental impacts are outweighed by its benefits. The council also approved a development agreement that extends the developer’s rights to build the project for at least 15 years.