Connect with us

Business

'Where does it stop?' Warehouse advance in Riverside County threatens rural lifestyle

Published

on

'Where does it stop?' Warehouse advance in Riverside County threatens rural lifestyle

Seen from above, the industrial-scale warehouses straddling Interstate 215 where it intersects Mead Valley shimmer like a sprawling lake of white concrete boxes.

In this unincorporated Riverside County community, the big-box distribution hubs responsible for fulfilling online shopping orders have long been contained to a substantial strip west of the freeway. Burlington, Living Spaces and FedEx are among nearly 50 warehouse properties located here, capitalizing on Mead Valley’s easy access to rail and freeway corridors.

Beyond this strip, though, Mead Valley residents embrace a rural lifestyle. People here raise horses and livestock; most streets are lined with gravel trails, rather than sidewalks, to accommodate riders on horseback. Besides the new Farmer Boys restaurant near the freeway, the community has few local businesses other than gas stations, feed stores and plant nurseries.

As e-commerce exploded during the COVID pandemic, more distribution centers rose along the freeway, bringing more trucks to local roadways. Still, there was an understanding that, beyond the clearly delineated industrial zone, Mead Valley residents could maintain their solitude and sweeping views, in exchange for shouldering a disproportionate share of an industry critical to America’s online shopping habit.

Advertisement

But that sacred line in the dirt — where warehouse development ends and rural living begins — could soon be blurred.

Riverside County leaders are reviewing a dozen requests that would rezone portions of rural residential land in Mead Valley to create more space for industrial warehouses.

(Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

County leaders are reviewing a dozen requests that would rezone portions of rural residential land in Mead Valley to create more space for industrial use. Developers are seeking to expand warehouse development beyond the established industrial zone; at least one proposal would result in the demolition of dozens of homes as well as dedicated open space. Others would pierce the existing boundary, bringing the potential for warehouses and their 24/7 noise and exhaust to the outskirts of existing neighborhoods, fundamentally altering residents’ lifestyles.

Advertisement

County Supervisor Kevin Jeffries, who represents the district that includes Mead Valley, said he has “deep concerns” about the proposed changes. He described drawing a “big red rectangle” over Mead Valley’s industrial zone, indicating where he believed the boundaries of warehouse development should remain.

“All the low-hanging easy parcels for warehousing are pretty much all spoken for. And so the really big, deep-pockets developers now see opportunities to try and propose to go beyond the boundaries that have been put in place for decades,” said Jeffries, who is retiring after 12 years on the board.

“It’s going to be a challenge if they cross that line and start marching into what you might call Mead Valley proper. You start moving up that way — when or where does it stop?”

Resident Karla Cervantes expressed similar concerns. Cervantes and her husband, Franco Pacheco, raise their children and sheep on two acres in Mead Valley. She worries neighborhoods will start falling like dominoes as more rural residential land is rezoned for industrial use.

“Once one neighborhood is surrounded by warehouses, then the investors will come, buy them out, and then it creeps up more and more and more,” Cervantes said.

Advertisement

The county’s general plan amendment process, a largely bureaucratic zoning review the county undertakes every eight years, could prove pivotal for residents of Mead Valley this year: Will leaders green-light the proposed zoning changes, paving the way for more warehouses — and with them more jobs and revenue flowing into county coffers? Or is this the moment that the rapid-fire proliferation of distribution centers stretching for miles in each direction along the 215 corridor finally slows?

Riverside County’s unique rezoning process is the result of a more than two-decade-old settlement with the conservation group Endangered Habitats League, which sued the county in 2003 over concerns about sprawling development.

The settlement “resulted in a way to slow-roll development in the rural areas of the county,” said county planning director John Hildebrand.

Under terms of the settlement, developers who want to request zoning changes for swaths of land from one of five major uses to another — agriculture, open space, rural, rural community or community development — are able to request that change only every eight years, during the county’s Foundation General Plan Amendment cycle.

The process was designed to provide county leaders with the opportunity to take a comprehensive look at rezoning proposals, and “look at the bigger picture instead of piecemealing it,” said Dan Silver, executive director of the Endangered Habitats League.

Advertisement

Mead Valley, a majority Latino community of about 20,500 people, already has 2,000 square feet of warehouses per person, including existing and approved warehouses and those under environmental review, according to a data analysis by Susan Phillips, director of the Robert Redford Conservancy for Southern California Sustainability at Pitzer College, and Mike McCarthy, an adjunct professor and data scientist at the college.

That’s one of the highest warehouse-per-resident ratios in the Inland Empire, according to their analysis. And the rezoning applications that developers have submitted would add more than 1,000 additional acres of warehouse projects.

In preparation for their requests, many developers have already positioned themselves as “property owners” of large parcels by getting enough local homeowners to agree to sell their land, in exchange for sizable payouts, contingent upon the county’s approval of the zoning changes.

The Planning Commission has so far heard three zoning-change requests for District 1, which includes Mead Valley; several were continued to future meetings. If supervisors approve the requests, the developers must return to get approval for specific projects.

An aerial view shows the sharp delineation between the industrial corridor and rural residential land in Mead Valley.

“It’s going to be a challenge if they cross that line and start marching into what you might call Mead Valley proper,” Supervisor Kevin Jeffries says of warehouse development.

(Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

One developer, Hillwood, is seeking a zoning change to build a million-square-foot warehouse, along with a public park, on about 65 acres of land just west of Mead Valley’s industrial corridor.

Currently known as the Cajalco Commerce Center, the proposed development would require the demolition of 26 homes and a commercial building. The developer has promised an estimated 974 jobs, as well as infrastructure improvements and landscaping along a main thoroughfare, according to the project’s draft environmental impact report. It would have a “significant and unavoidable” impact on air quality and transportation, the report said.

Paz Treviño lives on the outskirts of Mead Valley’s industrial corridor, on a two-acre lot where he sells heavy construction equipment. He has agreed to sell his property to Hillwood for $3 million, contingent on county approvals, he said. He has outgrown his current lot, he said, and with the money he stands to make from selling his land, he hopes to buy five or 10 acres elsewhere.

A member of Mead Valley’s Municipal Advisory Committee, he supports allowing more industrial development.

Advertisement

The warehouses, he said, bring jobs to a community where fewer than 8% of residents have a bachelor’s degree. He’s heard concerns about the lack of grocery stores, restaurants and healthcare facilities, and predicted those amenities would come as family incomes rise.

“We’re going to start getting the stores that people want,” he said. “But we’re not going to get those other industries — the food industries, the retail industries — without first having a stabilized middle class.”

He is frustrated with the anti-warehouse advocates trying to stand in the way of rezoning, and believes landowners such as himself should be able to profit handsomely from their investments. “It’s the landowners that have the last say, is what I say,” he said. “And if you’re not within the area, mind your damn business.”

Concrete pipe sections sit side-by-side at a construction site.

A warehouse development under construction in Mead Valley.

Shanowa De La Cruz could end up on the losing end of that equation.

Advertisement

De La Cruz, her wife and their children moved to a five-bedroom house on one acre in Mead Valley not far from Treviño’s property about three years ago. It was supposed to be their forever home, where they could raise their kids — five of six still live at home — as well as chickens, goats, ducks and a pig.

“We like our solitude. That’s why most of us live over here in Mead Valley,” De La Cruz said.

Six months after buying the property, they learned about the Cajalco Commerce Center proposal — and that some neighbors had already agreed to sell their properties to Hillwood. De La Cruz said she contacted the company and got an offer that barely covered what they paid for the home, presumably because the developer doesn’t need their property for the project.

The situation has left De La Cruz between a warehouse and a hard place: The developer would need to pay a “substantial” amount of money to get her family to move, she said. But if she stays and the proposal is approved, the development would loom nearby, infringing on their privacy and tanking their home value.

“It’s going to be one of those houses that is in between a warehouse” development, she said. “We’ve all seen those houses. No one’s going to buy that. You say, ‘Aw, pobrecito, they left them there.’”

Advertisement

Scott Morse, executive vice president with Hillwood, declined to comment on De La Cruz’s situation. He said the proposal has public support.

“We’re bringing something to the community that is needed and wanted by the community,” he said, “so that’s our compass.”

A man stands on grassy open space under a wide blue sky.

Mead Valley resident Raymond Torres says it’s “heartbreaking” to imagine the open space near his home converted for industrial development.

Raymond Torres moved away from the “hustle and bustle” of the San Diego area more than 20 years ago and eventually built two homes on a quiet street in Mead Valley.

Standing in his driveway on a clear day, he can see the San Jacinto and San Gabriel ranges, and Big Bear and Palomar mountains. Across the street from his property is open space, where he says he regularly sees owls and kangaroo rats among the grasses and native plants. His neighbors ride horses on the land; he prefers to traverse it on wheels — by dirt bike, quad or go-kart.

Advertisement

The property directly across the street from him is not proposed for rezoning, but a large swath of open land surrounding it is. The real estate and investment firm Deca has proposed rezoning 648.5 gross acres from rural residential to community development, with a mix of residential, commercial and industrial components, according to Travis Duncan, Deca’s vice president of development.

“Additionally, we intend to set aside a substantial portion of the property as open space and are excited about the mix of commerce and conservation that the project offers,” Duncan said.

Torres said it’s “heartbreaking” to imagine the land being used for development.

“It’s our neighborhood,” he said. “We have pride in it.”

The Deca proposal would also bring industrial development much closer to the home of Cervantes and Pacheco. Their two-lane street already has become a truck bypass. They are concerned warehouses will beget warehouses, eventually ending up in their backyard.

Advertisement

Mead Valley is oversaturated with warehouses and semis, they argue, and yet the community itself remains underinvested. Mead Valley would look “amazing” if it was actually benefiting from major portions of the revenue that industrial development is generating for Riverside County, Cervantes jokes. Pacheco notes that the closest Target — on the other side of the freeway — is not a retail store but a massive distribution center.

Earlier this year, Pacheco and Cervantes launched the Mead Valley Coalition for Clean Air to oppose warehouse expansion. They see the rezoning fight as a fight for Mead Valley’s future. For the residents who stay, the question is whether county leaders will rubber-stamp continued expansion of the I-215 industrial corridor, and whether that line in the dirt — between industrial and rural residential — will survive.

But Cervantes said trying to keep Mead Valley from drowning in the shimmering sea of white warehouses often feels like an uphill battle. She worries about a future with worse air quality and decreased property values, and about the limited opportunities for young people growing up amid a mass logistics hub.

“When they look to see the sun rise,” she said, “they’re going to see the sun rise on a bunch of warehouses.”

This article is part of The Times’ equity reporting initiative, funded by the James Irvine Foundation, exploring the challenges facing low-income workers and the efforts being made to address California’s economic divide.

Advertisement

Business

Courts rejects bid to beef up policies issued by California’s home insurer of last resort

Published

on

Courts rejects bid to beef up policies issued by California’s home insurer of last resort

Retired nurse Nancy Reed has been through the ringer trying to get insurance for her home next to a San Diego County nature preserve.

First, she was dropped by her longtime carrier and forced onto the state’s insurer of last resort, the California FAIR Plan, which offers basic fire policies — something thousands of residents have experienced at the hands of fire-leery insurance companies.

But what she didn’t expect was how hard it would be to find the extra coverage she needed to augment her FAIR Plan policy, which doesn’t cover common perils such as water damage or liability if someone is injured on a property.

She secured the “difference-in-conditions” policies from two insurers, only to be dropped by both before finally finding another for her Escondido home.

“I’ve lived in this house for 25 years, and I went from a very fair price to ‘we’re not insuring you anymore’ — and I’ve had three different difference-in-conditions policies,” said Reed, 71, who is paying about $2,000 for 12 months of the extra coverage. “And I’m holding my breath to see if I will be renewed next year.”

Advertisement

Now, a Department of Insurance regulation that would have required the FAIR plan to offer that additional coverage has been blocked by a state appeals court — leaving the plan’s customers to find that insurance in a market widely considered dysfunctional.

The court ruled earlier this month that the order would have forced the plan to offer liability insurance, which was not the intent of the Legislature when it established the plan in 1968 to offer essential insurance for those who couldn’t get it.

“We appreciate that the court confirmed the California FAIR Plan is designed and intended to operate as California’s insurer of last resort, providing basic property coverage when it cannot be obtained in the voluntary market,” said spokesperson Hilary McLean.

Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said he is “looking at all available options” following the decision. “I’ve been fighting so people can have access to all of the coverage the FAIR Plan is required by law to provide,” he said in a statement.

Lara has faced criticism from consumer advocates who’ve called for his resignation over his response to the state’s ongoing property insurance crisis.

Advertisement

A FAIR Plan policy covers fires, lightning, smoke damage and internal explosions, as well as vandalism and some other hazards at an additional cost. But in addition to water damage and liability protection, it doesn’t cover such common perils as theft and the damage caused by trees falling on a house.

The demand for the additional coverage — commonly referred to as a “wrap-around” policy — has become even greater than in 2021 when Lara issued the order overturned on appeal.

The FAIR Plan at the time had about 160,000 active dwelling policies following a series of catastrophic wildfires, including the 2018 fire that nearly destroyed the mountain town of Paradise. By September, that number had grown to 646,000.

The insurance department lists less than two dozen companies that offer wrap-around policies, including major California home insurers such as Mercury and Farmers and a a number of smaller carriers.

Broker Dina Smith said that to find the coverage for her home insurance clients she needs to place about 90% of them with carriers not regulated by the state — with the combined coverage typically costing at least twice as much as a regular policy.

Advertisement

“The [market] is very limited,” said Smith, a managing director at Gallagher.

Safeco has not written California wrap-around coverage since the beginning of the year and will begin non-renewing existing policies next month. Smith also said carriers are being selective, with the ones that offer the coverage often demanding exclusions, such as for certain types of water damage.

“If I’ve got a newer home with no prior claims … for liability losses, it’s going to be easy to write. If I get a home that is built in the 1950s that might still have galvanized pipes … that’s going to be a tough one,” she said.

Attorney Amy Bach, executive director of United Policyholders, a San Francisco consumer group, said the difference-in-conditions, or DIC, market is getting just as problematic for homeowners as the overall market.

“The market is not as strong as it needs to be … given how many people are in the FAIR Plan, and there aren’t as many DIC options — with the DIC companies being just as picky as the primary insurers,” she said.

Advertisement

There is also confusion about the policies, she said. Her group is considering pushing for a law next year that would clearly label the coverage so consumers better understand what they are buying.

Continue Reading

Business

Student Loan Borrowers in Default Could See Wages Garnished in Early 2026

Published

on

Student Loan Borrowers in Default Could See Wages Garnished in Early 2026

The Trump administration will begin to garnish the pay of student loan borrowers in January, the Department of Education said Tuesday, stepping up a repayment enforcement effort that began this year.

Beginning the week of Jan. 7, roughly 1,000 borrowers who are in default will receive notices informing them of their status, according to an email from the department. The number of notices will increase on a monthly basis.

The collection activities are “conducted only after student and parent borrowers have been provided sufficient notice and opportunity to repay their loans,” according to the email, which was unsigned.

The announcement comes as many Americans are already struggling financially, and the cost of living is top of mind. The wage garnishing could compound the effects on lower-income families contending with a stressed economy, employment concerns and health care premiums that are set to rise for millions of people.

The email did not contain any details about the nature of the garnishment, such as how much would be deducted from wages, but according to the government’s student aid website, up to 15 percent of a borrower’s take-home pay can be withheld. The government typically directs employers to withhold a certain amount, similar to a payroll tax.

Advertisement

A borrower should be sent a notice of the government’s intent 30 days before the seizure begins, according to the website, StudentAid.gov.

The administration ended a five-year reprieve on student loan repayments in May, paving the way for forced collections — meaning tax refunds and other federal payments, like Social Security, could be withheld and applied toward debt payments.

That move ushered in the end of pandemic-era relief that began in March 2020, when payments were paused. More than 9 percent of total student debt reported between July and September was more than 90 days delinquent or in default, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. In April, only one-third of the 38 million Americans who owed money for college or graduate school and should have been making payments actually were, according to government data.

“It’s going to be more painful as you move down the income distribution,” said Michael Roberts, a professor of finance at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. But, he added, borrowers have to contend with the fact that they did take out money, even as government policies allowed many to put the loans at the back of their minds.

After several extensions by the Biden administration, payments resumed in October 2023, but borrowers were not penalized for defaulting until last year. About five million borrowers are in default, and millions more are expected to be close to missing payments.

Advertisement

The government had signaled this year that it would send notices that could lead to the garnishing of a portion of a borrower’s paycheck. Being in collections and in default can damage credit scores.

The government garnished wages before the pandemic pause, said Betsy Mayotte, president of the Institute of Student Loan Advisors, which provides free advice for borrowers. But the 2020 collections pause was the first she was aware of, she said, and that may make the deductions more shocking for people who have not had to pay for years.

“There’s a lot of defaulted borrowers that think that there was a mistake made somewhere along the line, or the Department of Education forgot about them,” Ms. Mayotte said. “I think this is going to catch a lot of them off guard.”

The first day after a missed payment, a loan becomes delinquent. After a certain amount of time in delinquency, usually 270 days, the loan is considered in default — the kind of loan determines the time period. If someone defaults on a federal student loan, the entire balance becomes due immediately. Then the loan holder can begin collections, including on wages.

But there are options to reorganize the defaulted loans, including consolidation or rehabilitation, which requires making a certain number of consecutive payments determined by the holder.

Advertisement

Often, people who default on debt owe the smallest amounts, said Constantine Yannelis, an economics professor at the University of Cambridge who researches U.S. student loans.

“They’re often dropouts or they went to two-year, for-profit colleges, and people who spent many, many years in schools, like doctors or lawyers, have very low default rates,” he said.

This year, millions of borrowers saw their credit scores drop after the pause on penalties was lifted. If someone does not earn an income, the government can take the person to court. But, practically speaking, a borrower’s credit score will plummet.

Dr. Yannelis added that a common reason people default was that they were not aware of the repayment options. There are plans that allow borrowers to pay 10 percent of their income rather than having 15 percent garnished, for example.

The whiplash policy changes around the time of the pandemic were “a terrible thing from a borrower-welfare perspective,” Dr. Yannelis said. “Policy uncertainty is really terrible for borrowers.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Kevin Costner’s western ‘Horizon’ faces more claims of unpaid fees

Published

on

Kevin Costner’s western ‘Horizon’ faces more claims of unpaid fees

In the midst of attempting to complete filming on his western anthology ”Horizon: An American Saga,” Kevin Costner is facing another legal dispute over the production.

On Monday, Western Costume Co. sued Costner and the production companies behind the epic western, claiming unpaid costume fees and damages to some of the clothing during the filming of the series’ second episode.

“The costumes are costly to replace if damaged or not returned,” states the complaint, which included copies of invoices for about $134,000 in costume rentals. “Without a reasonable basis for doing so and/or with reckless regard to the consequences, defendants failed to pay for the rented costumes and failed to return the costumes undamaged.”

Western Costume, the iconic business based in North Hollywood, is seeking to recover roughly $440,000, including legal fees, according to the lawsuit filed Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court.

A spokesperson for Costner did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

The lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal and financial problems that have dogged the sprawling western drama, which Costner directed, co-wrote, starred in and partially funded.

In May, United Costume Corp., sued the production, claiming $350,000 in unpaid fees for the first two chapters of “Horizon.” Two months later, the costume firm filed to dismiss the suit with prejudice.

In May, Devyn LaBella, a stunt performer on “Chapter 2,” sued the production for sexual discrimination, harassment and retaliation in Los Angeles Superior Court. LaBella alleged an unscripted rape scene was filmed without the presence of a contractually mandated intimacy coordinator.

In a motion filed in August to get the suit tossed, Costner said he had reviewed LaBella’s complaint and was “shocked at the false and misleading allegations she was making.”

In October, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge denied Costner’s anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the case. The judge also denied LaBella’s claim that Costner had interfered with her civil rights through the use of intimidation or coercion with respect to her participation in the filming of a rape scene, but allowed several of her other claims to proceed.

Advertisement

The case is pending.

The production is also facing an arbitration claim for alleged breaches in its co-financing agreement with its distributor New Line Cinema and City National Bank, “Horizon” bondholder, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

In June 2024, “Chapter 1” of the planned four-part series was released in theaters followed by a streaming broadcast on HBO Max, but it was largely panned by critics.

In its review, The Times described “Horizon” as “a massive boondoggle, a misguided and excruciatingly tedious cinematic experience.”

It failed at the box office, grossing just $38.8 million worldwide, on a reported $100 million budget.

Advertisement

“Chapter 2” premiered at the Venice International Film Festival last September, but its theatrical release was pulled and remains indefinitely delayed, while the final two chapters remain in production or development, according to IMDb.

Continue Reading

Trending