Riverside County Planning Director and hearing officer John Hildebrand moved to approve plot plan number 210140 for the Diamond Hawk Distribution Center at the Aug. 11 directors hearing, after staff summarized the project and discussed environmental review and airport-related constraints.
Heidi Aguirre, project planner, told the hearing that "the project proposes a warehouse and distribution use known as Diamond Hawk Distribution Center." Aguirre said the project covers approximately 11 acres on a single parcel within the Winchester Properties Specific Plan area and is located north of Murrieta Hot Spring Road, south of Technology Drive, west of Skye Canyon Drive and east of State Route 79 (Winchester Road).
The project would be built in a single phase and would include two tilt-up shell buildings totaling 173,653 square feet — Building A about 80,095 square feet and Building B about 93,558 square feet — each divided into four suites. Site improvements described by staff include two full-access driveways on Skye Canyon Drive, perimeter vehicular circulation, 270 parking spaces (including 10 accessible spaces), 18 electric vehicle parking stalls, 11 bicycle spaces per building, three bioretention basins, screening walls, retaining walls, 25 loading docks per building in a central loading area, 26% landscaping coverage and parking shade covering 50% of spaces. The maximum building height would be 40 feet, under the 50-foot limit in the specific plan.
Aguirre told the hearing that staff had concluded the project is consistent with the Winchester Properties Specific Plan land-use and zoning standards and that a CEQA addendum had been prepared, finding no new significant environmental impacts beyond those identified in previously adopted environmental impact reports. She also reported that outreach included mailed notices to property owners within 500 feet, distribution of flyers within a 1,500-foot radius and a community meeting at the French Valley Library; "as of today, staff hasn't received any comments either in support or opposition of this project," she said.
Hildebrand noted the relevance of Assembly Bill 98 (the so-called Good Neighbor Policy for large logistics facilities) and said, "showing how it meets, the intent of AB 98 during the presentation is helpful." He raised an issue about rooftop solar and airport glare: the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) determination attached to the project currently states there will be no solar on the roof at this time, and Hildebrand advised that if rooftop solar is proposed later the developer should return to ALUC for review because of potential glare and proximity to the airport.
Aaron Crothers, who identified himself as development manager for Hammond Companies and as the applicant representative, confirmed the applicant had reviewed and agreed to the conditions of approval. Crothers said the buildings would be speculative ("spec") buildings to be held by Hammond as owner-operator and that construction and final permitting work, including coordination with Eastern Municipal Water District, was underway.
After staff presentation and brief questions, Hildebrand said, "I'll go ahead and move to approve, plot plan number 210140." The transcript records the motion but does not record a second or a roll-call vote; the hearing officer subsequently closed the public hearing and adjourned the meeting.
Background and context: the site is within Planning Area 2 (business park) of the Winchester Properties Specific Plan, which allows office, manufacturing, distribution, storage and light industrial uses. Staff said the project does not trigger Assembly Bill 98 thresholds for mandatory Good Neighbor Policy measures because the combined building area is below the bill’s cited threshold, but staff nevertheless designed the project to maintain compatibility with surrounding development. The Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the project and incorporated conditions at its May 11 meeting; staff told the hearing that ALUC’s conditions currently preclude roof-mounted solar without further ALUC review.
Details noted by staff but not resolved at the hearing included future tenants (none at present), tenant-level occupancy permits that will be required later, and coordination steps such as final engineering and utility approvals. The record presented at the hearing showed no written public opposition or support on file.
What happened next: the hearing officer moved to approve the plot plan; the transcript records the motion but does not include a recorded second or vote tally in the public hearing record provided. The project is subject to the conditions of approval and the advisory notification document described in the staff report, and any future changes — such as the addition of rooftop solar — were flagged for additional ALUC review if pursued.
(Reporting note: direct quotations and attributions are drawn from the hearing transcript.)