Calimesa planning commission backs annexation package amid dispute over water service

The Calimesa Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council pursue annexation 25‑1 and related land‑use actions, despite objections from Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District and several Cherry Valley residents who urged the commission to preserve the area’s rural character and correct water‑service information in the environmental review.

Kelly Lucia, Calimesa’s Community Development Director, told the commission that the landowner‑initiated proposal (submitted by I‑10 Logistics Owner LLC on behalf of Brookfield) comprises a northern annexation of about 234 acres and a southern annexation of about 79.4 acres and that no new development is proposed as part of the annexation. Lucia said staff aims to assign like‑for‑like general plan and zoning designations and explained a proposed warehouse overlay (ZTA 25‑4) that would legalize existing industrial buildings larger than Calimesa’s usual 250,000‑square‑foot limit by permitting warehouses up to 1.1 million square feet within the overlay.

City Manager Will Cobo outlined an operating covenant the applicant has offered to share a portion of county property‑tax receipts with the city in exchange for public benefits. Cobo said the covenant would yield an estimated $590,000 in net revenue in the first year, $730,000 in year two and roughly $2 million annually later, while a conservative fiscal analysis estimates about $394,000 in city service costs.

Public commenters raised objections focused on water service and community character. Mark Swanson, director of engineering for Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District, asked the commission not to recommend approval “unless it's either removed or modified” so that the southern area remains under his district’s sphere of influence and requested that the environmental document be corrected where it lists Yucaipa Valley Water District as the provider. Dan Jaggers, general manager of Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District, said the record misidentifies the district responsible for the southern parcels and urged Yucaipa Valley Water District to “decouple” its bundled sewer/water/recycled‑water policy so separate service arrangements would be possible.

Several Cherry Valley residents told the commission the annexation would harm the community’s rural character, raise traffic and fire‑safety concerns, and that notification to residents was insufficient. Sharon Hamilton said she was surprised not to learn about the proposal earlier and urged the commission to consider Cherry Valley Boulevard as a natural boundary; Joan Cameron described the area as a wildlife corridor and worried about large warehouses near homes.

Staff responded that the current applications largely bring existing uses into the city as they are today and that any future changes would be subject to discretionary land‑use approvals and separate environmental review. Lucia said the consultant’s plan of service identified Yucaipa Valley Water District as the most logical water provider because sewer and water infrastructure already exist on Cherry Valley Boulevard and that determining ultimate service boundaries is a LAFCO decision. The CEQA consultant noted that the existence of public controversy does not itself require an environmental impact report and that the negative declaration can be revised prior to City Council consideration.

After commissioners asked questions about revenue shares and the effects on existing residents, the commission adopted a set of resolutions recommending that the City Council approve Environmental Assessment EA‑25‑8 (a negative declaration), General Plan Amendment GPA‑25‑2, pre‑zoning ZC‑25‑2, Zone Text Amendment ZTA‑25‑4 (warehouse overlay), and Conditional Use Permits CUP‑25‑4 and CUP‑25‑5. The motion was seconded and passed with all present commissioners voting in favor.

The Planning Director noted that the operating covenant and any tax‑sharing agreement would be considered separately by the City Council and that final determinations about service providers and LAFCO approvals will occur in subsequent proceedings. The commission adjourned and set its next regular meeting for Monday, July 13, 2026, at 6:00 p.m.