Developer Iddo Benzeevi won support from Moreno Valley planners Tuesday night, June 30, for his mega-warehouse proposal to transform the east part of the city with the massive World Logistics Center.

At its third public hearing, following hours of public testimony and debate, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the 40.6 million-square-foot warehouse complex that would be built south of Highway 60 between Redlands Boulevard and Gilman Springs Road.

The 4.2-square-mile World Logistics Center would be the largest development in the city, taking up 10 percent of the city’s land mass and equal to the size of 700 football fields. Between 15 and 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 city staff report.

After the vote, Benzeevi thanked the commission for the opportunity to proceed with the project.

“I want you to know we’re very committed to this community and there’s no one who will work harder for this community than us,” he said.

The project must now go to the council for final approval. The council had tentatively discussed a late August hearing but could also move it up to mid-July.

Benzeevi has said the project will transform the city, saying it will revive the Moreno Valley’s economy and provide much-needed local jobs. He said it would bring 20,000 jobs and $2.5 billion in economic activity.

Opponents say the jobs figures are inflated, noting that Benzeevi’s last project, the 1.8 million-square-foot Skechers warehouse, has produced about half of the 1,000 promised jobs.

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.

Planning commissioners debated traffic and air quality concerns, but ultimately it came down to jobs.

Planning Commission Chairman Brian Lowell said the benefits of the project outweighed any negatives.

“We need to stand up and say, ‘Yes, we want this project, we want our piece of the pie. We want this city to be better,’ ” he said.

The only no vote came from Commissioner Patricia Korzec, who said she feared Moreno Valley is becoming a city of warehouses.

“Looking at the big picture, we’re taking a tenth of the city and turning it into another big block development,” she said. “Is this the future we want for Moreno Valley?”

Her comments were met with a loud chorus of boos from project supporters, prompting her to reply, “I won’t be bullied.”

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.

The project will require a general plan amendment; rezoning of land from rural, residential and commercial to industrial; and a specific plan that would allow for the development to take place.

City officials also must issue findings that the environmental study was properly done and that its negative environmental impacts are outweighed by its benefits.

In recent weeks, a number of state and local agencies have called on Moreno Valley to redo parts of its environmental impact report, stating that it fails to adequately study how the project would affect traffic, air pollution, health risks and risks to protected habitat.

According to the South Coast Air Quality Management District, failure to meet federal air quality standards could result in sanctions, including the loss of federal transportation dollars.

The environmental study would be key to anticipated legal challenges, if the project is approved.

Two previous hearings were dominated by presentations from developer Benzeevi, city staff, consultants and about 70 residents speaking both for and against the project.

Resident Lindsay Robinson, an opponent, said the project’s traffic, noise and air pollution impacts are too much.

“It’s important the health, the well-being and quality of life that we deserve,” she said. “This project is going to destroy that for too many.”

Project supporter Juan Malfavon said the project is needed to provide jobs for today’s students.

“Where are those kids gong to go for jobs, if not here?” he asked.

The Tuesday meeting was commissioners’ first opportunity to question city staff in depth as they went over the lengthy environmental impact report.

In a discussion on air quality, commission Chairman Lowell brought up a critical letter from the California Air Resources Board that called the project study “legally inadequate.”

“That statement sits really heavy with me,” he said.

State air pollution officials stated in the letter that the study did not properly address the potential health risks of air pollution or explore measures to reduce pollution through zero or near-zero emission machinery.

The state agency also criticized the study’s assertion that a study by the Boston-based Health Effects Institute found that new diesel technology has virtually eliminated cancer risk, saying that is not the view accepted by air pollution agencies.

Kent Norton, a senior environmental planner with LSA Associates, the firm that prepared the environmental report, responded that the health risk assessment was done according to regulatory standards.

Even disregarding the Boston study, Norton said there is no “significant cancer risk” from the project.

Commissioners also questioned how the city would enforce requirements that the trucks to and from the development use 2010 or newer diesel technology.

Planning Official Richard Sandzimier responded that the warehouse complex would be required to keep a log of all vehicle trips and the operator could face sanctions including fines and loss of a building permit if it fails to comply.