HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-09-24 - Agenda Packet
Historic Preservation Commission
and
Planning Commission
Meeting Agenda
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
September 24, 2025
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 PM
A. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Chairman Morales
Vice Chairman Boling
Commissioner Dopp
Commissioner Daniels
Commissioner Diaz
B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Planning/Historic Commission (“Planning
Commission”) on any Consent Calendar item or any item not listed on the agenda that is within the
Commission’s subject matter jurisdiction. The Planning Commission may not discuss any issue not included
on the agenda, but may set the matter for discussion during a subsequent meeting.
C. CONSENT CALENDAR
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of September 10, 2025.
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
D1. TIME EXTENSION – NEWCASTLE PARTNERS - A request for a time extension of a previously
approved Design Review (DRC2022-00301) for the construction of two new industrial/warehouse
buildings totaling 74,387 square-feet within the Neo-Industrial (NI) District, located on the north side of
6th Street between Archibald Avenue and Hermosa Avenue at 9910 6th Street; APNs: 0209-211-42
and -43. (Time Extension DRC2025-00190).
E. DIRECTOR ANNOUNCEMENTS
F. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
G. ADJOURNMENT
TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak,
given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your
position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may
present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience
should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience.
If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City
Clerk's office at (909) 477-2700. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing
impaired.
The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission,
please come forward to the podium. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After
speaking, please complete a speaker card located next to the speaker’s podium. It is important to list your
name, address (optional) and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited
to 3 minutes per individual.
If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under “Public Communications.”
As an alternative to participating in the meeting you may submit comments in writing to
Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us by 12:00 PM on the date of the meeting. Written comments will be distributed
to the Commissioners and included in the record.
AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are available at www.CityofRC.us.
APPEALS
Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission’s
decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeals filed must be in writing with the City Clerk’s
Office, state the reason for the appeal, and be accompanied by an appeal fee pursuant to the most adopted
fee schedule for all decisions for the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council).
Please turn off all cell phones while the meeting is in session.
I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby
certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted Seventy-Two (72) hours prior to
the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California
and on the City's website.
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 1 of 7
Historic Preservation Commission and
Planning Commission
Agenda
September 10, 2025
Draft Minutes
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 p.m.
The regular joint meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission was
held on September 10, 2025. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Morales at 7:00 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Planning Commission present: Chairman Morales, Vice Chairman Boling, Commissioner Dopp,
Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz.
Staff Present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura, Planning Director; Sean
McPherson, Principal Planner; Stacy Lee, Assistant Planner; Sophia Serafin, Assistant Planner;
Kirt Coury, Contract Planner; Matt Marquez, Economic Development Director; Tanya Spiegel,
Deputy Director of Economic Development; Flavio Nunez, Management Analyst II, Carina
Campos, Management Analyst II; Eddie Flores, Management Analyst I; Miguel Sotomayor,
Principal Engineer; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant.
B. Public Communications
Chairman Morales opened the public communications.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public communications.
C. Consent Calendar
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of August 27, 2025.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling. Motion carried
unanimously, 5-0.
D. Public Hearings
D1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – TAYLOR KANE ON BEHALF OF 8700 WHITE OAK APG
LLC – A request to permit Large E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center and Medium
Wholesale and Distribution uses for an existing 72,051-square-foot industrial building within the
Neo-Industrial (NI) Zone, located at 8700 White Oak Avenue; APN: 0209-145-04. This item is
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA
Section 15301 – Existing Facilities (DRC2025-00117).
Page 3
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 2 of 7
Assistant Planner Lee provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). She noted in the
presentation that there was a minor revision to the table that incorrectly listed Auto and Vehicle Sales
and Rental as the current use of the site. She reiterated that the site is currently vacant, and the
previous use was industrial. Commissioners received a redlined version of the changes on the dais
for review.
Commissioner Dopp requested clarification on whether Auto and /Vehicle Sales and Rental are
currently part of the permitted uses or conditional uses under warehouse distribution.
Planning Director Nakamura clarified that the use is not part of the current request. It was
inadvertently left in and was a typographical error.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Applicant Kane was present and available to answer questions.
Vice Chairman Boling asked the applicant when was the building vacated from previous use.
Applicant Kane responded end of May 2025.
Vice Chairman Boling asked if it is currently being marketed for lease.
Applicant Kane confirmed.
Vice Chairman Boling asked whether the use it is being marketed for is included under the proposed
uses if the Conditional Use Permit were to move forward.
Applicant Kane confirmed.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Dopp stated that he had no objections, noting that while a nearby property owner had
expressed concerns about traffic and parking, those issues were addressed in the conditions;
therefore, he is in support of it moving forward.
Commissioner Daniels commended the applicant for being proactive in getting the conditional use
permit before it is necessary, making it much easier for the applicant and the city.
Vice Chairman Boling expressed his appreciation of the applicant coming forward and getting ahead
of any issues and concerns. In the conditions of approval, Planning Condition #7, there is a reference
to a condition related to recordation of state sales and use taxes to the property if such a tenant comes
in. He strongly encouraged the owner to include that language in any potential lease agreements
with tenants so the city does not lose out on potential sales and use tax that should be due to the city.
Chairman Morales thanked the applicant for working with staff to get the proper things done and for
the public’s participation.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Daniels; seconded by Commissioner Diaz to adopt Resolution
2025-027 approving Conditional Use Permit DRC2025-00117. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
Page 4
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 3 of 7
D2. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW – JONATHAN L. ZANE ARCHITECTURE – A request
for site plan and design review of a 4,570 square foot residence with a 781 square foot garage
and 519 square foot guest house on a vacant 0.6-acre lot within the Very Low (VL) Residential
zone and Hillside and Equestrian Overlays at 8930 Reales Street, APN: 1061-801-16. The project
qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 – New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures (DRC2023-00368).
Assistant Planner Serafin provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).
Commissioner Dopp reiterated that it is expected that the applicant will fund for the trail
improvements and that the project will resemble the other equestrian trails in the area.
Assistant Planner Serafin confirmed.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Applicant Zane was present and available to answer questions.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Dopp thanked the applicant for bringing this proposal forward, stating that it is
appropriate for that type of neighborhood. He noted that the requested accommodations related
to earthwork were due to the steep topography of the site, deeming the request necessary for the
project to proceed.
Commissioner Diaz expressed that the proposed home is beautiful and shared excitement for
both the applicant and the neighborhood, noting that the development of this infill lot will bring a
new neighbor to the community.
Vice Chairman Boling mentioned that often times the commission is presented with projects that
can be very controversial (i.e., higher density then what the neighborhood would prefer). He said
it is nice to see a project like this that fits within the existing neighborhood.
Chairman Morales expressed his approval of developing the vacant site in a way that
complements the neighborhood.
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adopt Resolution
2025-026 approving Hillside Design Review DRC2023-00368. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
D3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, MASTER PLAN, DESIGN REVIEW, AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – NEWCASTLE PARTNERS – A request for development of one
industrial warehouse building totaling approximately 334,776 square feet on a 14.8-acre site
located west of Etiwanda Avenue and south of Arrow Route at 12459 Arrow Route; APN 0229-
131-24. An Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023110039) was prepared for the project.
Primary Case File No. DRC2022-00101.
Contract Planner Coury provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).
Principal Planner McPherson noted that this item will go before City Council for approval.
Co-Applicant Smith was in attendance and available to answer questions.
Vice Chairman Boling asked what the interior ceiling height is.
Page 5
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 4 of 7
Applicant Smith answered the interior ceiling height is 36 feet.
Commissioner Diaz inquired about plans for Public Art and expressed her hope that a mural
would be included.
Applicant Smith answered that they would try to do something artful.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
The following individuals from local union groups expressed their support: Jose Garcia, Jerry
Davalos, Jorge Zavala, Godfrey Wachira, David Hanson.
Their comments included the following:
• Work close to home
• Prevailing wages
• Put union people to work
For the record, it is noted that the following correspondence was received after the preparation of
the agenda packet and the following comment is noted. The actual correspondence should be
referred to for details:
• Email from Ruben Castaneda expressing support for the project.
Hearing no other comments, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Dopp stated that in terms of the design, it is consistent with high quality
warehouses seen in the past. He said there are no major problems with the request for the revised
reduced setbacks through the master plan, it appears routine for industrial areas to allow for some
of these exceptions on that level. He said regarding warehouse use, he wants to be consistent
from past projects, usually, he is more critical of warehousing in the region. What Commissioner
Dopp is usually looking for is 1) If it is harmful to residents, and 2) A desire for manufacturing. For
this project, it does not appear harmful to residents since this is an industrial area and his hope is
that the applicant finds a smaller scale manufacturer since, in his opinion, it is almost all
warehouses in that part of town. He has no objection on that front.
Commissioner Daniels complimented the architecture, noting that it integrates well with the
surrounding buildings in the area. He expressed appreciation for the color scheme, stating that
the elements work well together. He also indicated he has no concerns with the landscaping
setback waivers due to the site’s location and expressed overall support for the project.
Commissioner Diaz expressed her support for the project. She thanked the public, especially the
union labor workers, for attending on their own time and sharing their positive feedback and
highlighting the many benefits the project will bring to the city.
Vice Chairman Boling stated the design not only fits in with the surrounding buildings, but it is
uplifting on what is to be expected in future projects in that area. He appreciated the design
elements included in the building. He said the ceiling height is important for future tenants to have
a useful space and having the high ceiling will help with the warehouse and logistics distribution
that could take place there. He said as it pertains to the Master Plan that is being recommended
to City Council, there were a couple site specific development standards that have been brought
up particularly on B Street and then the parking and landscape setbacks. He confirmed with staff
that if approved, neither of those would impact the future project to the south because they would
utilize similar standards so that way there is consistency as you move north to south.
Page 6
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 5 of 7
Principal Planner McPherson confirmed.
Chairman Morales commended the applicant for securing strong union support, which is
impressive, emphasizing that the support was clearly expressed for the right reasons.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Commissioner Daniels to adopt Resolution
2025-028 approving Design Review DRC2022-00101, Conditional Use Permit DRC2025-00203
and Master Plan DRC2024-00036 with recommendation to the City Council. Motion carried
unanimously, 5-0.
E. General Business
E1. Consideration to Receive and File the Economic Development Strategy Annual Progress
Report for 2024-2025.
Economic Development Director Marquez and introduced his team; Tanya Spiegel, Flavio Nunez,
Carino Campos, and new member Eddie Flores.
The team presented a PowerPoint highlighting the City’s economic growth and increasing
diversity.
Vice Chairman Boling commended the team for their outstanding work, noting that despite being
a relatively small staff, they effectively promote the city, the region and the organization on a
national level.
General Comments:
• Page 12 of the report under Historic Resources – being the Historic Preservation
Commission they still have not received a list of the City’s recognized national state or local
historic assets and sites. He hopes that they will receive it soon.
• Positive feedback on adding Economic Development related items to the email newsletters
that get sent out to the residents. It helps keeps them informed and promotes local businesses
and highlights that you are not just focused on bringing new businesses in, but you also have the
task of business retention and business growth.
• Photos in the report are great to highlight local businesses but unless you are familiar with
that business, you do not know who it is or where it is. He suggested adding something on the
graphic to identify and showcase the business a bit more.
• Expressed appreciation for the update and seeing the many actions that have been taken
previously by the Planning Commission help to implement the strategies and goals of Economic
Development.
Commissioner Dopp expressed his appreciation for the presentation, noting that it was
encouraging to see the well-organized programs being implemented.
General Comments:
• Job Board for the local communities peaked his interest. It is nice to have a more connected
network.
• Epic Center - likes the idea of bringing in the market night. Examples of community events;
Smorgasbord LA or 626 Night Market might be good starting points to see if they do well.
He asked about the types of strategies and innovative uses being considered for potential
opportunities in these areas beyond traditional warehouse functions.
Page 7
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 6 of 7
Economic Development Director Marquez replied that they are lucky they did not go overboard
with their reliance on warehousing and distribution type of use as things have changed with the
administration in the White House. They are starting to see cities that have relied too heavily on
those types of uses are starting to feel the pinch and are seeing vacancy rates go up. He said
regarding manufacturing; they are in a good spot to attract manufacturers. They have had
conversations with existing manufacturers looking to expand. He said bringing in additional team
members will help bolster their team. A lot of their focus has been on recruiting new retailers,
restaurants and supermarkets. Moving forward, their focus will shift on new manufacturing type
uses.
Commissioner Daniels commended the team for doing such a great job with programs and
activities.
Commissioner Diaz asked if Economic Development has their own Instagram page.
Deputy Director of Economic Development Spiegel responded that they do not, they work in
partnership with the city.
Commissioner Diaz stated that a lot of people are on social media, and it is great to see the new
things happening in the city. She said the highlights on the city’s social media is a reminder of
places we may have forgotten about or have not been for a while. The report also highlighted a
lot of potential the city has to offer, and it is nice to see what is coming into the city. She especially
liked the focus on Live, Work, Play and how the Job Board can be used if someone wants to work
close to home.
Chairman Morales acknowledged that we are currently under uncertain and challenging economic
times. He noted that several other Inland Empire cities without a diversified economy are now
struggling, and it is sad to see. He expressed appreciation for the Economic Development teams
efforts in maintaining a strong, diversified, and well-planned economy, emphasizing that this
approach will help the city remain resilient during uncertain times. He also mentioned that he
enjoys reading the newsletters.
With no other comments, Commission received and filed report.
F. Commission Business
F1. Discussion of State Density Bonus Law.
Commissioner Daniels stated that he did not have much to add to the letter from the meeting a
few weeks ago. He added the comments he received except for the comment Vice Chairman
Boling brought up regarding the timeframe of when the project is deemed complete. It was not in
the nature of what was being discussed with the density bonus. He suggested to possibly have
a meeting/workshop with City Council on this specific issue instead of having them read about
that in this letter.
Planning Director Nakamura answered that we could either include that in a general transmittal
or include the transmittal with the letter being attached. She mentioned they may hear Council
say, yes, we hear you and understand, but we do not have any other options right now and it may
not result with any action.
Chairman Morales suggested incorporating “Request for Legislative Reform” into the title
It was decided that Commissioner Daniels would revise the title and forward to City Council.
Page 8
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 7 of 7
Commission took a formal vote. Moved by: Commissioner Daniels; seconded by Commission
Diaz. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
G. Director Announcements
Planning Director Nakamura announced that a meeting will be held in two weeks and noted that
several agenda items are backing up, indicating a likely busy calendar for the remainder of the
year.
H. Commission Announcements
Commissioner Daniels mentioned that he would be unable to attend the Design Review
Committee meeting on September 16th but expects to return in time for the next scheduled
meeting.
Chairman Morales requested a review of the Design Review Committee meeting attendance and
suggested considering a process that would allow any commissioner to attend when multiple
committee members are absent to ensure business proceeds on schedule.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed that it could be brought up on a future agenda.
I. Adjournment
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz, seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adjourn the
meeting. Hearing no objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant
Planning Department
Approved:
Page 9
DATE:September 24, 2025
TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
INITIATED BY:Bond Mendez, CPD, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION – NEWCASTLE PARTNERS - A request for a time
extension of a previously approved Design Review (DRC2022-00301) for
the construction of two new industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 74,387
square-feet within the Neo-Industrial (NI) District, located on the north side
of 6th Street between Archibald Avenue and Hermosa Avenue at 9910 6th
Street; APNs: 0209-211-42 and -43. (Time Extension DRC2025-00190).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 2025-030 to allow for a time
extension of a previously approved entitlement for a previously approved industrial project
(DRC2022-00301) located at 9910 6th Street.
BACKGROUND:
The 4.54-acre project site was previously used as a recycling facility with a large parking
lot/outdoor storage area. The building and its associated parking/outdoor storage area will be
demolished as part of this project. The rectangular project site has dimensions of about 315 feet
(east to west) and 520 feet (north to south). A majority of the site is paved with a parking
lot/outdoor storage area and existing vegetation is limited along the site’s frontage along 6th Street.
The Planning Commission approved the previous project entitlement (DRC2022-00301) by a
unanimous vote on November 8, 2023.
On August 18, 2025, the applicant submitted a request for a time extension citing various
macroeconomic factors. The application before the commission requests a two-year time
extension for the approved design review. The original Planning Commission staff report,
resolution and conditions of approval are attached as Exhibit B.
ANALYSIS:
The application is a request to extend the approval period of Design Review DRC2022-00301.
Permit time limits, extensions, and expirations are governed by Title 17 (Development Code),
Section 17.14.090. As outlined in this section, the approval of an extension extends the expiration
date for two years from the original permit date. After this initial permit extension, a final one-year
extension of time may be granted pursuant to the same process as set forth in this section. The
table below details the entitlement, its current expiration date and, if approved, the new expiration
date.
Entitlement Approval Date Current Expiration Date Proposed Extension Date
November 8, 2023 November 8, 2025 November 8, 2027
Page 10
Page 2 of 2
3
0
4
3
The applicant notes that the project start has been delayed due to current macroeconomic
challenges including elevated interest rates, persistent cost escalations, and high vacancy rates
in the market, but remains optimistic that conditions will improve as the Federal Reserve is
anticipated to begin reducing interest rates. The applicant anticipates beginning construction on
the site within the next 12 to 24 months; thus, the request for the 2-year time extension. No
changes to the project scope are proposed, nor permitted, with this time extension request, and
no conditions relative to the project are proposed, nor permitted, to be altered other than those
which affect time limits.
Environmental Assessment
At the time that the development project was approved at the November 8, 2023, public hearing,
the Planning Commission concluded that the project is categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and qualifies as a Class 32
exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 - In-Fill Development Projects. The time
extension does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the
categorical exemption.
Correspondence
This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to 121
property owners within a 1,500-foot radius of the project site on September 8, 2025. To date, no
comments have been received regarding the project notifications.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact directly associated with this request for a time extension other than those
discussed at the time of original project approval.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
The time extension for this project achieves the City Council’s Core Value of “Working together
cooperatively and respectfully with each other, staff and all stakeholders.” By allowing time
extension for the previously approved design review, this represents the City’s flexibility to
understand current market conditions, provide certainty to developers, and extend entitlements
to intentionally embrace and anticipate for our future by providing well-developed warehouses to
accommodate the growing need for varied industrial businesses in the City.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit 1 – Vicinity Map
Exhibit 2 – Planning Commission Staff Report and Conditions of Approval from November 8, 2023
Exhibit 3 – Time Extension Request Letter
Exhibit 4 – Draft PC Resolution 2025-030
Page 11
Exhibit A – Project Vicinity Map
Page 12
DATE:November 8, 2023
TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development
INITIATED BY:Bond Mendez, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT:DESIGN REVIEW – NEWCASTLE PARTNERS - A request to demolish an existing
office/warehouse building and its associated parking lot/outdoor storage area and
construct two industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 74,387 square-feet within the Neo-
Industrial (NI) District, located on the north side of 6th Street between Archibald Avenue
and Hermosa Avenue at 9910 6th Street; APNs: 0209-211-42 and -43. This item is
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under
CEQA Section 15332 - In-Fill Development Projects (Design Review DRC2022-00301).
(CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 25th, 2023 HPC/PC MEETING)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Design Review DRC2022-00301 through the adoption
of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions.
BACKGROUND:
The 4.54-acre project site was previously used as a recycling facility with a large parking lot/outdoor storage
area. The building and its associated parking/outdoor storage area will be demolished as part of this project. The
rectangular project site has dimensions of about 315 feet (east to west) and 520 feet (north to south). A majority
of the site is paved with a parking lot/outdoor storage area and existing vegetation is limited along the site’s
frontage along 6th Street.
The project was noticed to be heard by the Planning Commission on the October 25th, 2023, public hearing. Prior
to the presentation the applicant raised questions regarding the conditions of approval related to right of way
improvements. Staff did not have sufficient time to analyze the questions and on behalf of the applicant,
requested the item to be continued to a future date certain to allow time for staff and the applicant to analyze the
questions raised. . The Planning Commission continued the item to the date certain public hearing on November
8, 2023.
Exhibit B
Page 13
Page 2 of 7
4
1
8
8
Figure 1: Location of subject property on 6th Street.
The existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are
as follows (see Table 1 on next page):
Aerial View
Page 14
Page 3 of 7
4
1
8
8
Table 1 – Land Use Information
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Office/Warehouse and
Outdoor Storage Area
Neo Industrial
Employment Neo Industrial (NI)
North Industrial/Warehouse Industrial
Employment Industrial Employment (IE)
South Industrial/Warehouse Industrial
Employment Industrial Employment (IE)
East Industrial Complex Neo Industrial
Employment Neo Industrial (NI)
West Industrial Complex Neo Industrial
Employment Neo Industrial (NI)
PROJECT ANALYSIS:
The applicant proposes to construct two industrial buildings totaling 74,387 square feet. Building 1 measures
25,635 square feet and is located toward the southerly portion of the site, closest to 6th Street. Building 2
measures 48,752 square feet and is located toward the northerly portion of the site. No specific uses are currently
proposed for either of the two buildings. The site will be accessed via two driveways from 6th Street. The parking
and loading areas for Building 1 will not be gated, while the rear parking and loading dock area of Building 2 will
be gated. The applicant previously submitted a request for a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) to reconfigure the existing
property line between the two parcels. The lot line adjustment was necessary in order to develop the two new
buildings on the site as proposed otherwise the existing property line would conflict with building placement. The
lot line adjustment is under concurrent review and conditioned to be recorded prior to building permit issuance.
Figure 2: Site Plan.
Page 15
Page 4 of 7
4
1
8
8
The proposed building will be of concrete tilt-up construction painted with a palette of three colors. The building
will have form-lined concrete panels at various locations. Additionally, the application of varying façade planes,
windows and glass panels along the building’s office frontages adds architectural interest to the façade. The
glass paneling and color treatments creates not only a focal point for the buildings but also a celebrated entryway.
These design principles contribute to the City’s goal of achieving a design consistent with Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design (CPTED).
Figure 3: Southeast corner of property, viewpoint from 6th Street.
The project meets the intent of the Neo-Industrial land use designation of the General Plan, which is intended to
provide for light industrial uses that result in low environmental impacts. The proposed buildings meet this intent
by constructing smaller sized buildings that could accommodate a variety of low-impact industrial uses.
Landscaping is generally distributed along the project’s 6th Street frontage toward the southerly portion of the
site and within the building’s parking areas. All trees proposed along the public right-of-way and within the subject
property are at least 24-inch box in size, in compliance with the Development Code. The project will be
conditioned to incorporate landscape lighting along its street frontage to enhance the site’s nighttime aesthetics.
The incorporation of lighting and landscaping provides territorial reinforcement as well as natural access control
to the site and acts as a transition zone between the public right-of-way and the private site. These are all design
principles in compliance with CPTED. The project complies with all pertinent standards in the Neo Industrial (NI)
zone, as demonstrated in the following table (see next page):
Page 16
Page 5 of 7
4
1
8
8
Table 2 – Development Standards
Table Note: *Max 70 feet as long as building is set back 1 foot from front setback for every 1-foot building height exceeds
35 feet.
Parking: Per table 17.64.050-1 of the Development Code, the parking requirement is based on the proposed mix
of office and warehouse floor areas in the building. Parking areas for the two buildings are evenly distributed
across the entire project site, and all truck loading and truck trailer parking areas are located away from public
view. Required parking for the project was calculated with the assumption that both buildings will be tenanted
with a warehouse use and an ancillary office. Based on the minimum parking requirement calculations, building
1 will require 36 parking stalls and building 2 will require 65 parking stalls. Therefore, the project will require a
total of 101 vehicle parking stalls. The project provides 101 stalls, meeting the parking requirement with the
minimum parking provided for each building on its own respective parcel. There are a total of 7 dock doors
proposed between the two buildings. Therefore, a matching number of trailer parking stalls are also provided in
compliance with Development Code requirements. The following table breaks down the parking calculation:
Table 3 – Parking Analysis
Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Morales and Daniels)
on April 4, 2023. The Committee recommended that the project move forward to the Planning Commission with
a minor change in color scheme to better fit within the surrounding industrial developments. The applicant has
submitted revised plans based on the feedback provided which is included as Exhibit A to this report.
Development Standard Required Proposed In Compliance?
Floor Area Ratio Max 0.6 0.38 YES
Front Setback – Bicycle
Corridor/Local Street Min. 25’91’-5”YES
Interior Side Setback Min. 5’37’YES
Rear Setback Min. 0’56’-7”YES
Building Height Max 70’ *39’YES
Open Space / Landscape
Area Min. 10% 12.27% YES
Type of Use Square Footage
(Bldg 1 & 2)
Parking Ratio # of
Spaces
Required
# of
Spaces
Provided
Office 12,000
(3,500 & 8,500)4/1,000 sf 48 48
Warehouse 62,387
(22,135 & 40,252)
1 per 1,000 sf for first
20,000 sf; 1 per 2,000
sf for the next 20,000
sf; and 1 per 4,000 sf
for the remaining sf
53 53
Total 101 101
Page 17
Page 6 of 7
4
1
8
8
Public Art: Pursuant to the Development Code Chapter 17.124 – Design Provisions for Public Art, the project is
subject to the City’s public art ordinance and will be required to provide public art on the project site with a
minimum value of one dollar per square foot of commercial, office, or industrial development which results in
$74,387; or pay an in-lieu fee to the City’s public art fund equal to the minimum value of art that would otherwise
be included in the development project. A condition has been included pursuant to the Development Code that
requires the public art requirement to be met prior to occupancy.
CEQA DETERMINATION:
The Planning and Economic Development Department staff has determined that the project is categorically
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project qualifies as a
Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 - In-Fill Development Projects for the following
reasons: (1) the project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designations and all applicable General
Plan policies as well as with the applicable zoning designation and regulations, (2) the proposed development
occurs within the City limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses,
(3) the project site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, (4) approval of the
project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and (5) the
site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
The General Plan Land Use and Zoning designation for the project site are Neo-Industrail Empolyment District
and Neo-Industrial zone, respectively, which permits the development and operation of a warehouse/distribution
building of the proposed size and configuration. The project complies with the City’s development standards and
design guidelines, including setbacks, height, lot coverage, and design requirements. The project site is located
within the City limits on a site less than 5 acres and is surrounded by existing industrial development and City
infrastructure. The following are the four environmental factors that need to be analyzed in order to determine
that the project, respectively, qualifies for the Class 32 Exemption.
a) Traffic: The Trip Generation Analysis and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis (Kimley-
Horn & Associates Inc., November 2022) was prepared for the project which determined that the number
of trips generated by the project would not create a significant impact. The proposed warehouse
distribution use will create an estimated 127 daily trips with 13 AM peak hour trips and 14 PM peak hour
trips occurring on a typical weekday. The analysis also determined that for Passenger Car Equivalent
(PCE) volumes estimate 174 PCE trips with 16 AM peak hour PCE trips and 18 PM peak hour PCE trips
occurring on a typical weekday. The Project would generate a low number of daily traffic and peak hour
trips and would not cause a measurable operational effect on local roadways. Therefore, the proposed
Project is not expected to generate 50 or more trips during the AM or PM peak hour and does not require
a traffic study. The Project also includes a parking management plan (Urban Crossroads, December 2022)
to mitigate any potential parking conflicts.
b) Noise: A Noise and Vibration Analysis Report was prepared for the project (Kimley-Horn & Associates
Inc., January 2023). The analysis determined that the construction and operational noise and vibration
levels would not exceed the City’s noise thresholds and no mitigation measures were necessary.
c) Air Quality: Based on the Air Quality Assessment (Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., January 2023),
emissions generated during construction and operation of the Project would not exceed South Coast Air
Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) significance thresholds. It was determined that the project
would not exceed screening levels established by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment.
d) Water Quality: The project includes a grading and drainage plan consistent with City regulations, as well
as Best Management Practices (BMPs) outlined in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
prepared for the Project (SDH & Associates, Inc., August 2022).
Page 18
Page 7 of 7
4
1
8
8
CORRESPONDENCE:
This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to 149 property owners within a 1,500-foot radius
of the project site on October 11, 2023. To date, no comments have been received regarding the project
notifications.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
General Plan Policy LC-1.9 encourages new development projects to be built on vacant and underutilized
properties through flexible design requirements and potential incentives. The proposed industrial warehouse
buildings will enhance our premier community status by providing two well-designed warehouse buildings that
are complementary to the surrounding land uses and will provide additional employment opportunities for City
residents and the region. The project will fulfill the City Council goal of intentionally embracing and anticipating
for our future by providing well-developed warehouses to accommodate the growing need for varied industrial
businesses in the City.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Project Plans
Exhibit B – Environmental Analysis
Exhibit C – Design Review Committee Comments and Minutes (April 4, 2023)
Exhibit D – Draft PC Resolution 23-26 Design Review DRC2022-00301
Exhibit E – Draft Conditions of Approval
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
August 5, 2025
Ms. Bond Mendez
Associate Planner
Planning and Economic Development Department, City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Re: Design Review DRC2022-00301 – Entitlement Extension Requested
Dear Ms. Mendez:
Per our recent conversation, the Design Review approval (DRC2022-00301) for Newcastle Partners’
project on 6th Street in Rancho Cucamonga is currently set to expire on November 8, 2025. In
accordance with Section 17.14.090 C of the City’s Development Code, we respectfully request a two year
extension of this entitlement.
This extension is necessary to preserve our ability to complete the construction document phase with the
City and move forward with the development.
Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code – Section 17.14.090 (Permit time limits, extensions, and expiration)
C.Permit extensions. The approval of an extension extends the expiration date for two years from the
original permit date. After this initial permit extension, a final one -year extension of time may be granted
pursuant to the same process as set forth in this section.
At this time, the project is on hold due to ongoing economic headwinds, including elevated interest rates,
persistent cost escalations, and high vacancy rates in the market. These conditions have delayed the
initiation of the construction document phase. However, we are optimistic that the market will improve in
the near term, particularly as the Federal Reserve is anticipated to begin reducing interest rates.
Once the plans are approved, we will require additional time to solicit bids from general contractors,
secure financing, and prepare for construction. Therefore, in order to ensure adequate time for market
stabilization and to complete all pre-construction activities, we are requesting a two-year extension of the
Design Review and all associated approvals (DRC2022-00301).
We appreciate the City’s partnership on this project. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Courtney Smith
VP – Development and Construction
Newcastle Partners
4740 Green River Rd., #110
Corona, CA 92878
courtney@newcastlepartners.com | (951) 267-2692
Exhibit C
Page 46
RESOLUTION 2025-030
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TIME EXTENSION
DRC2025-00190, A REQUEST FOR A TIME EXTENSION OF A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW (DRC2022-00301) FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF TWO NEW INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS
TOTALING 74,387 SQUARE-FEET WITHIN THE NEO-INDUSTRIAL (NI)
DISTRICT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 6TH STREET BETWEEN
ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND HERMOSA AVENUE AT 9910 6TH STREET;
APNS: 0209-211-42 AND -43.
A.Recitals.
1. The applicant, Newcastle Partners, filed an application for the extension of the
approval of Design Review DRC2022-00301 as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the Time Extension request is referred to as "the application."
2.On the 8th day of November 2023, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 23-26 thereby approving the above-referenced entitlement subject to specific
conditions and time limits, specifically such that the Design Review was originally set to
expire on November 8, 2025.
3.On August 18, 2025, the applicant, citing macroeconomic factors, among other
concerns, submitted the subject application requesting a two year time extension of the
proposed project pursuant to Development Code Section 17.14.090.
4.On the 24th day of September 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded
said hearing on that date.
5.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B.Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on September 24, 2025, including written and oral staff
reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
Exhibit D
Page 47
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2025-030
DRC2025-00190– NEWCASTLE PARTNERS
SEPTEMBER 24, 2025
Page 2
a. The project site is located on the north side of 6th Street between Archibald
Avenue and Hermosa Avenue. The site is comprised of two (2) parcels with an existing
office/warehouse building and parking lot. The project site is rectangular in shape, with
frontage (width) of about 315 feet along 6th Street and a depth of approximately 520 feet
north to south. The frontage along 6th Street is currently improved with curb and gutter; and
b. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning designations for the
project site and adjacent properties are as follows:
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site
Office/Warehouse
and Outdoor Storage
Area
Neo Industrial
Employment Neo Industrial (NI)
North Industrial/Warehouse Industrial
Employment
Industrial Employment
(IE)
South Industrial/Warehouse Industrial
Employment
Industrial Employment
(IE)
East Industrial Complex Neo Industrial
Employment Neo Industrial (NI)
West Industrial Complex Neo Industrial
Employment Neo Industrial (NI)
c. The previously approved design review conforms to all applicable
development standards of the zone and the subject time extension conforms with
applicable provisions of the Development Code, specifically Section 17.14.090 as it was
submitted not less than 30 days prior to the date of expiration, and the original permit
findings can be made.
d. This application is a request to extend the approval period of Design Review
(DRC2022-00301) for two (2) additional years. The time extension is necessary to provide
the applicant time to secure funding for the project given macroeconomic factors. The
expiration date with the approval of Time Extension DRC2025-00190 for the Design
Review will be November 8, 2027.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in
Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The previously approved entitlement is consistent with the General Plan in
which the site is located. The underlying General Plan designation is Neo-Industrial
Employment District which encourages industrial uses with buildings featuring modern
designs. The previously approved entitlement is to construct two warehouse/distribution
buildings totaling 74,387 square feet; each building consisting of office space and
warehouse floor area. The building design features a modern design with window glazing
and concrete tilt-up walls; and
Page 48
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2025-030
DRC2025-00190– NEWCASTLE PARTNERS
SEPTEMBER 24, 2025
Page 3
b. The previously approved entitlement is in accord with the objective of the
Development Code and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located in. The
purpose of the Neo-Industrial Zone is to support a complementary mix of uses such as,
research and development, light and custom manufacturing, engineering and design
services, etc. This zone encourages light industrial activities with low environmental
impacts and supports the growth of creative industries, incubator businesses, and
innovative design and manufacturing. The development of this building will accommodate
industrial uses in the future; and
c. The previously approved entitlement complies with each of the applicable
provisions of the Development Code. The development complies with all standards outlined
in the Development Code, including building and parking setbacks, average landscape
depth, floor area ratio, parking, dock and storage area screening, landscape coverage, site
planning, and architecture; and
d. The previously approved entitlement, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The potential land uses that would be associated with the development are consistent with the land uses within the vicinity where it is located and the expectations of the community. The zoning of the property and surrounding properties are within the Neo-Industrial (NI) and Industrial Employment (IE) zones.
4. At the time that the Design Review DRC2022-0301 was approved at the
November 8, 2023 public hearing, the Planning Commission concluded that the project is
categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section
15332 - In-Fill Development Projects. The time extension does not raise or create new
environmental impacts not already considered in the categorical exemption.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and
4 above, this Commission hereby grants a two year time extension for Design Review
DRC2022-00301 for a new expiration date of November 8, 2027.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Tony Morales, Chairman
Page 49
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2025-030
DRC2025-00190– NEWCASTLE PARTNERS
SEPTEMBER 24, 2025
Page 4
ATTEST:
Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary
I, Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of
September 2025, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Page 50