Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-03-22 - Supplemental BDate: 3-22-2017 To: Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission The City of Rancho Cucamonga From: Dan Titus, Alta Loma RE. Sustainable Community Action Plan Sustainable Development aka, Sustainability programs are rapidly becoming obsolete. Once in vogue, these programs and their premise are now threatened. The political environment for sustainable development has changed. The Trump administration is cutting the budgets for The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A bill has been introduced in Congress to abolish the EPA. The president has scraped The U.N. 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development instituted by president Obama. California has been the self -ordained leader on climate change since 2006. The legislature has tasked agencies with programs promoted locally through the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the San Bernardino Association of Governments (SanBag). Most of the programs promoted are voluntary; however, city staff have been directed to seek grant money in order to promote and install them locally. These subsidized programs — and there are dozens of them in Rancho Cucamonga — are unsustainable in the long run because there will be fiscal pressures for further development, implementation, operations and maintenance, of not only this plan, but all sustainability programs promoted by the city. Grant money, available through the stimulus of 2008 has dried up. Therefore, grant money that filters into SCAG will be drying up, which will put a downward pressure on centrally planned sustainable development programs promoted by the State. Cities throughout California are currently taking a wait -and -see approach regarding sustainability programs. They are side -lining many voluntary programs like the Sustainable Community Action Plan. I'm told that the Sustainable Community Action Plan will be part of the future general plan update for the city. Given the current political environment in Washington, it is imperative that the city not include any Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) in that document. DI The city states that "... there is a recognized need and desire to consider environmental sustainability issues..." The solutions presented in the plan don't bear this out. Rancho Cucamonga's Sustainable Community Action Plan promotes: • The 3Es: promoting centrally planned economies and social justice; • bicycle and pedestrian plans, • discriminatory polices promoting "green" businesses, • conservation rationing schemes for utilities • promoting arbitrary greenhouse gas reduction (GHG) goals, • to high -density development promoting: Transit -Oriented Development, and Mixed - Use Development. I have reviewed the plan at length and have concluded that it is financially unstable. Why? Because on page SO of the plan it states, "Funding and financing options may be available to support implementation efforts..." Therefore, I recommend that you table this plan indefinitely; reject it. It poses a liability to the city because it is financially unsustainable and the premise for its existence, under the new administration, is obsolete. • Copies for Planning Commission • 2 for the public record 2 /Fe co/L o� Punch Bowl Social 12635 N. Main Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA Statement of Operations March 21, 2017 Proposed Use: Punch Bowl Social is an upscale entertainment restaurant establishment that serves elevated diner food, bar services, games such as bowling, indoor bocce ball, pool and arcade games. In addition, there are large screen TVs mounted throughout the premises as well as DJ music and Karoke; though there will be no dancing. Punch Bowl Social is seeking an ABC Type 47 license. Punch Bowl Social has 7 operating locations in the US: Austin, Schaumburg (Chicago suburb), Cleveland, Denver, Detroit, Indianapolis and Portland and plan to open 6 new locations in 2017 including Rancho Cucamonga. Please visit: www.punchbowlsocial.com for more information and exciting virtual tour of the open locations. Hours of Operations: Monday — Friday: 11am to 2:00am Saturday & Sunday: 9:00 am to 2:00am Employee Training: All Punch Bowl managers, bartenders and servers will complete a Responsible Beverage Sales and Service (RBSS) program that is approved by the CA Dept. of Alcoholic Beverage Control within 30 days of being hired. Estimated employees on -site: Monday —Wednesday: 60 Thursday: 70 Friday: 103 Saturday:119 Sunday: 98 Management Staff: There will be between S and 11 managers on duty each shift. Security Personnel — Punch Bowl employees internal "Guest Ambassadors', approximately 11 on an average shift. Guest Ambassadors' greet guests, answer questions and make suggestions regarding food, drinks and service. In addition, Guest Ambassadors' are responsible for various security functions related to alcohol service or refusal to serve �C RESOLUTION NO. 17-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT NO. DRC2016-00918, A REQUEST FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT/ENTERTAINMENT VENUE — PUNCH BOWL SOCIAL, LOCATED AT 12635 NORTH MAIN STREET; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1090-531- 03. A. Recitals 1. Robert Earl Thompson Jr. and Robert Andrew Cornog Jr, owners of Seasoned Development, LLC, operating Punch Bowl Social filed an application for the issuance of Entertainment Permit No. DRC2016-00918, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Entertainment Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 22nd day of March 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. 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 March 22, 2017, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at 12635 North Main Street, which is part of the Victoria Gardens Lifestyle Center; and b. To the north, south, east and west of the subject site is a mixed use commercial lifestyle center; and C. The applicant proposes to provide entertainment consisting of karaoke and amplified music with a disc jockey; and d. The restaurant serves a full menu of items typical of a full -service restaurant; and j6`3—Iagc�,5 gf % PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-21 EP ORC2016-00916 March 22, 2017 Page 2 e. The operating hours of the restaurant are from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., Monday — Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Saturday and Sunday. Entertainment is proposed to be offered during all hours open for business and; f. The applicant employs an average of 11 guest ambassadors on each shift to roam throughout the facility to greet guests, answer questions and handle various security functions related to alcohol service or refusal to serve and; g. The Rancho Cucamonga Police Department has reviewed the application and supporting documents and has no objections to adding entertainment to the use. 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. That the conduct of the establishment and the granting of the application would not be contrary to the public health, safety, morals or welfare; and b. That the premises or establishment is not likely to be operated in an illegal, improper or disorderly manner; and C. That granting the application would not create a public nuisance; and d. That the normal operation of the premises would not interfere with the peace and quiet of the surrounding commercial center and adjacent apartment complex; and e. That the applicant has not made any false, misleading, or fraudulent statement of material fact in the required application. 4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies under as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 — Existing Facilities — which covers the permitting of existing structures that involve negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's original determination. The project consists of allowing for live entertainment that does not require an expansion or significant change to the existing pad building. Staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staffs determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application, subject to the attached conditions of approval and incorporated herein by this reference. March 22, 2017 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 VAN DAELE fR TUr RE: Planning Commission Agenda Item E6 - Resolution No. 17-22: Art in Public Places Dear Chairman Oaxaca and fellow Planning Commissioners, Van Daele Homes requests a 90-day continuance on agenda item E6 — Development Code Amendment DRC2017-00177, "Art in Public Places." This policy consideration was recently forwarded to us by the BIA and we are very concerned with the City's action in proceeding with the establishment of an Art in Public Places policy. It is disconcerting to see the City move forward with a policy that creates such a significant impact on the building community, without an opportunity to discuss the impact to future development. The City has an obligation for transparency and we request that you allow further discussion to evaluate this policy in a more comprehensive process. Van Daele is excited about the opportunity to build and work in your city. But, the increasing cost to build efficient, appealing and affordable housing is reducing the opportunities for families to experience the dream of homeownership. The Art in Public Places policy is another burden that will further increase the difficulty to provide needed, affordable housing for a growing population. We have recently been approved for a residential project and expect that the Art in Public Places policy not impact us. There should be no impact from this policy for any project with applications deemed complete. It is unfair for the City to impose additional burdens on projects with this approval. Financial commitments based on this approval are already in place, and should be protected from policies implemented after the approval is granted. We hope the City honors their approvals without changing the financial impact this policy will have on projects with applications deemed complete by City staff. Van Daele Homes is asking the City to delay implementation of the Art in Public Places policy until further discussion can be provided. Public workshops will provide the opportunity for discussion and allow the city to address concerns from the Public about the impact and benefits of this new policy. Because the policy was published less than a week before the City can take action, the optics of your process is disconcerting. Please reconsider the timing of your action, and provide the public an opportunity to further explore the impacts of the policy on new development. The City should delay any city action on this policy for 90 days. Sincerely, Tonathon Siemsen Senior Project Manager CC: Mayor and City Council City Manager John Gillison CITY OF RANCHO CUCAAIONGA MAR 2 2 297 RECEIVED - PLANNING 2900 Adams Street, Suite C25 I Riverside, CA 92504 1 951.354.2121 1 Fax 951.354.2996 VanDaele.com March 22, 2017 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 PNGNO G�CPMONGP 0 R�NN\N Re: ITEM E6 - RESOLUTION NO. 17-22: ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Dear Chairman Oaxaca and fellow Planning Commissioners, 9227 Haven Ave, Suite 350 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 ph 909.945.1884 fx 909.948.9631 www.biabuild.com The Building Industry Association of Southern California, Baldy View Chapter (BIA) respectfully requests a 90-day continuance on agenda item E6 — Development Code Amendment DRC2017-00177. "Art in Public Places." The BIA Baldy View Chapter is a non-profit trade association representing homebuilders and developers throughout Southern California. BIA advocates for all types of housing on behalf of both current and future residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. We are committed to ensuring that local jurisdictions do not adopt unlawful or excessive exaction and fees on new housing development. BIA has members that are currently in development, seeking entitlements or own property in the City and would be subject to this requirement. In January of this year, BIA expressed intense opposition to any policy that would negatively impact the affordability of new homes or place an undue burden on residents and consumers, such as a fee for art in public places. At the January 101 joint workshop with the City Council and Planning Commission, staff was directed to work with BIA and other stakeholders to identify options for alternative policies. To date, there has been no collaboration between staff, the BIA or other stakeholders to provide meaningful input on the Art Resolution. We feel that there are many outstanding questions and comments that must be formally addressed prior to adopting the resolution. Below is a non -exhaustive list of comments and question that have not been answered. 1. Cost of Living: Countywide we face a sever housing shortage, which is projected to reach 65,000 homes by 2019. This lack of new home development has significantly raised the cost of living in San Bernardino County. The cost to rent or own a home in Rancho Cucamonga is among the highest in the region and shuts the door on many first-time homebuyers. The financial burden to installation and maintain public art long-term is significant. Those significant costs will fall squarely on the backs of homeowners and renters alike, further exacerbating the chronic housing shortage. 67 An Affiliate of the National Association of Home Builders and the California Building Industry Association 2. Legal Nexus: The staff report and resolution does not clearly outline the required legal nexus a jurisdiction must establish for a new fee or tax. There is precedent in California Law (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987) requiring a clear legal nexus be established between any new fee and the services provided. The "opt -out fee" or "in -lieu fee" referenced in the staff report and established by the resolution clearly creates a new and unique monetary fee structure, which is subject to CA Gov. Code. 3. Stakeholder Engagement: The lack of stakeholder engagement by the city staff is concerning and is not in line with the best management practices of Rancho Cucamonga. BIA has requested on multiple occasions that the City establish workshops to outreach to stakeholder groups who will be immediately impacted by the new requirements. To our knowledge, none of the following groups have been contacted by staff. Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce, Apartment Association of Greater Inland Empire (AAGIE), Commercial Real Estate Development Association (NAIOP), Inland Empire Economic Partnership (IEEP), Inland Valley Association of Realtors (IVAR), local landowners or small business owners. 4. Existing Public Art Policy: The City already has an existing public art policy that is voluntarily and has resulted in numerous art installations. There has been no time or research devoted to understanding or improving on the current public art policy or gauge its success. BIA has made several recommendations that staff conduct more research to clearly establish the parameters for a successful public art program in Rancho Cucamonga. Under the current proposal there is simply no metric for success, such as an art master plan, that will clearly identify where and how funds will be spent. 5. Public Art Commission: The resolution will establish an additional layer of government review that we feel is unwarranted and unnecessary. The Public Art Commission will create delays to the development process and limit individual property rights. Judging the worthiness of art project, determining site placement, mandating a minimum cost and assessing penalties for non -maintenance of the art should not be the role of government. 6. Public Funds: Under this proposed art policy, City projects will also be required to comply with the art fee, effectively diverting public funds away from the libraries, police stations, fire stations, community centers and civic centers. Has the City informed residents that public funds will be reallocated away from public health and safety facilities? 7. Alternative Funding Options: No alternative funding options have been presented by staff in lieu of a mandate on new development and tenant improvements. We strongly recommend the City research the viability of a fundraising model (similar to the Performing Arts Foundation), a community outreach campaign through "GoFundMe" or "PayPal" and potential grant opportunities. Given the significant number of questions and concerns outline in this letter, BIA strongly recommends that the Planning Commission delay the approval of any Public Art Policy and direct staff to work with BIA on improving the proposed policy. Again, we are asking the City of Rancho Cucamonga to continue E6 — Development Code Amendment DRC2017-00177. "Art in Public Places" for 90-days and engage BIA and other stakeholders in meaningful dialog prior to any vote. Sincereelly,/� (�"m 15� Carlos Rodriguez, CEO CC: Mayor and City Council City Manager John Gillison Lewis Management Corp. 1156 North Mountain Avenue / P.O. Box 670 / Upland, California 91785-0670 (909) 985-0917 / FAX: (909) 949.6725 March 22, 2017 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: Chairman Oaxaca and Members of the Planning Commission Mq AHCHo cuCgMoN GA C 1VFQ p11NNING Subject: Planning Commission Agenda, March 22, 2017, Item E6. Resolution No. 17-22: Art in Public Places; Development Code Amendment 17.40 Dear Chairman Oaxaca and Members of the Planning Commission, The Lewis Group of Companies (Lewis) requests a continuance on the above referenced agenda item. After reviewing proposed Resolution 17-22 and attached proposed Development Code Chapter 17.40 [Public Art], Lewis has significant concerns regarding the establishment of an Art in Public Places policy in the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the form proposed in this draft Resolution 17-22 and Development Code Amendment. During the period of continuance, Lewis is proposing that staff and representatives of the Planning Commission meet with representatives of developers, property owners, and business leaders, in public workshops, so that this proposal on Public Art can be thoroughly reviewed. The immediate and long term impacts to the health of our business community, and affordability of the rental and for -sale housing supplies in the City, is a primary concem. The requirement for Public Art, as written, is an additional tax on development and an. unnecessary cost that should not be mandated on businesses, new developments or residents. Public Art, by definition, benefits the public at large and we believe placing the burden solely on new development is inequitable. There are many concerns over the structure of the proposed art vetting process and time lines. Some of our concerns are listed below: 1. The proposed membership of the Art Committee (A majority of City and Public Officials) lends itself to a non-objective review of proposals, If those proposals do not coincide with the majority's personal view of art. This structure is ripe for conflicts of interest between the Committee and the art community. We believe that membership in the committee, and its meetings, must be open and include representatives of those being taxed, namely the developers and the business communitywithin the City. 2. The amount of the fee, and method of calculation, may not allow the opportunity for adequate public discussion. While the staff report states that the fee will be set by City Council action, there are no assurances from staff, or your proposed action in approving this resolution, that this rate and method will be published ahead of the hearing or merely brought up, discussed, and voted upon by the City Council after the public comment period has been closed. 3. The proposed Implementation of Public Art in a project is onerous and appears to be structured to result in compelling applicants into paying a fee -in -lieu instead of attempting to navigate the artist selection, subjective approvals, guarantees, land dedication, indemnities, perpetual maintenance and sustainment obligations. This proposal, in its current form, is, in fact, creating a tax on development. The City's Arts Fund can be spent at the will of the majority of the Committee, in meetings without adequate participation of those paying the tax, or those whom the City purports to be benefitted. 4. The qualifications of an artist as limited to those "nationally recognized" appears to place emphasis on the price tag of the art process rather than the visual or tactile experience to be enjoyed by those observing, and interacting with, the art. Again, without no objective method of selecting the art items or artists, and only subject to the subjective determination of the Art Committee as to who and what is qualified, the applicant is at substantial risk In this process. With no defined timeframe of approval, the Committee can merely delay an applicant until the applicant submits to unreasonable demands to meet the art requirements, or acquiesces to payment of the fee. S. There are many talented local artists, architects, landscape designers and lighting artists that are capable of creating wonderful art that could be enjoyed by the public, however, by the City's proposal, this local talent is not a welcomed participant in this process. 6. The cities cited in the Staff Report ( Brea, Whittier, La Quinta, Pasadena, San Jose, San Leandro, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Santa Rosa) are generally all higher income Cities with limited opportunity for new development. Imposing this fee does nothing to help the affordability of housing in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and, in fact, raises the costs of housing on the very residents the proposal claims to want to benefit. Accordingly, Lewis is requesting an opportunity for meaningful dialog with the City of Rancho Cucamonga, to include the larger business and development community, in an open discussion on these and many other concerns relative to this proposal. Sincerely, Ift andall W. *Lewis a Executive Vice President CC: Mayor and City Council City Manager John Gillison �Z7 STRATHAM COMPANY CM OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MAR 2 2 2017 March 22, 2017 P�kNNING City of Rancho Cucamonga RECEIVED 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Item E6 - Resolution No. 17-22: Art in Public Places Dear Chairman Oaxaca and fellow Planning Commissioners, The Stratham Group of Companies requests a 90-day continuance on agenda item E6 — Development Code Amendment DRC2017-00177, "Art in Public Places." The Stratham Group of Companies would like to express our significant concerns regarding the establishment of an Art in Public Places policy in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In addition to the delayed vote we are also requesting a workshop with staff to be thoroughly briefed on the proposed art policy and the immediate impact it has on our projects. As you know conducting business in the City of Rancho Cucamonga is a rewarding experience. However, the cost of doing business within the city has consistently increase to the detriment of our business models. A requirement or in -lieu fee for Public Art is an additional and unnecessary cost that should not be mandates on businesses, new developments or residents. The Stratham Group of Companies is requesting an opportunity for meaningful dialog with staff which has not been afforded us, thus far. The resolution to establish the Art in Public Places policy was published on Thursday March 16'h, at 4:30pm, which allows little to no time for public review. Our company is a significant stakeholder and the lack of engagement with us is concerning. Again, we are asking the City of Rancho Cucamonga to hold themselves to the same high standards that are required of businesses and developments within the city. Please engage The Stratham Group of Companies in meaningful dialog before the adoption of a public art policy and delay the item for a minimum of 90-days. Sincerely, b Ali Razi, Chairman The Stratham Group of Companies CC: Mayor and City Council City Manager John Gillison 2201 Dupont Drive, Suite 300, Irvine, California 92612 • (949) 833-1554 • Fax (949) 833-7853 CALATLANTIC HOMES" March 22, 2017 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Item E6 - Resolution No. 17-22: Art in Public Places Dear Chairman Oaxaca and fellow Planning Commissioners, CalAtlantic Group, Inc. requests a 90-day continuance on agenda item E6 — Development Code Amendment DRC2017-00177, "Art in Public Places." CalAtlantic Group, Inc. would like to express our significant concerns regarding the establishment of an Art in Public Places policy in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In addition to the delayed vote we are also requesting a workshop with staff to be thoroughly briefed on the proposed art policy and the immediate impact it has on our projects. As you know conducting business in the City of Rancho Cucamonga is a rewarding experience. However, the cost of doing business within the city has consistently increase to the detriment of our business models. A requirement or in -lieu fee for Public Art is an additional and unnecessary cost that should not be mandates on businesses, new developments or residents. CalAtlantic Group, Inc. is requesting an opportunity for meaningful dialog with staff which has not been afforded us, thus far. The resolution to establish the Art in Public Places policy was published on Thursday March 16th, at 4:30pm, which allows little to no time for public review. Our company is a significant stakeholder and the lack of engagement with us is concerning. Again, we are asking the City of Rancho Cucamonga to hold themselves to the same high standards that are required of businesses and developments within the city. Please engage CalAtlantic Group, Inc. in meaningful dialog before the adoption of a public art policy and delay the item for a minimum of 90-days. Sincerely, Sean Doyle V.P. Project Manage ent, Inland Empire CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CC: Mayor and City Council MAR 2 2 2017 City Manager John Gillison JV: wNiIVL 355 E. Rincon Street, Ste. 300. Corona, CA 92879 1 CalAllanticHomes.com benchmark C O M M U N I T I E S March 22, 2017 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Item E6 - Resolution No.17-22: Art in Public Places Dear Chairman Oaxaca and fellow Planning Commissioners, Benchmark Communities (Benchmark) requests a 90-day continuance on agenda item E6 _ Development Code Antendmient DR 017 00177 "Art in Public places. Benchmark would like to express our significant concerns regarding the establishment of an Art in Public Places policy in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In addition to the delayed vote we are also requesting a workshop with staff to be thoroughly briefed on the proposed art policy and the immediate impact it has on our projects. As you know conducting business in the City of Rancho Cucamonga is a rewarding experience. However, the cost of doing business within the city has consistently increased to the detriment of our business models. A requirement or in -lieu fee for Public Art is an additional and unnecessary cost that should not be mandates on businesses, new developments or residents. Benchmark is requesting an opportunity for meaningful dialog with staff which has not been afforded us, thus far. The resolution to establish the Art in Public Places Policy was published on Thursday March 161h, at 4:30pm, which allows little to no time for public review. Our company is a significant stakeholder and the lack of engagement with us is concerning. Again, we are asking the City of Rancho Cucamonga to hold themselves to the same high standards that are required of businesses and developments within the city. Please engage Benchmark in meaningful dialog before the adoption of a public art policy and delay the item for a minimum of 90- days. Sincerely, TonITuc r Senior Project Manager Benchmark Communities CC: Mayor and City Council City Manager John Gillison CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MAR 2 2 2017 RECEIVED - PLANNING WERY' March 22, 2017 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Item E6 - Resolution No. 17-22: Art in Public Places Dear Chairman Oaxaca and fellow Planning Commissioners, Diversified Pacific Communities requests a 90-day continuance on agenda item E6 — Develoament Code Amendment DRC2017-00177. "Art in Public Places." On behalf of my company, I would like to express significant concerns regarding the establishment of an Art in Public Places policy in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In addition to the delayed vote we are also requesting a workshop with staff to be thoroughly briefed on the proposed art policy. As you know conducting business in the City of Rancho Cucamonga is a rewarding experience. However, the cost of doing business within the city has consistently increased to the detriment of our business models. The imposition of an unwarranted tax on new development in the form of an in -lieu fee for Public Art is an additional and unnecessary cost that should not be mandates on businesses, new developments or residents. I am requesting an opportunity for meaningful dialog with staff, which has not been afforded to the members of the community that are most directly and harshly impacted by this proposal. The resolution to establish the Art in Public Places policy was published on Thursday March 16`h, at 4:30pm, which allows little to no time for public review. Our company is a significant stakeholder in this community and the lack of engagement with us is concerning. Again, we are asking the City of Rancho Cucamonga to hold themselves to the same high standards that are required of businesses and developments within the city. Please engage Diversified Pacific in meaningful dialog before the adoption of a public art policy and delay the item for a minimum of 90-days. Sincerely, Phil Burum CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CC: Mayor and City Council MAR 2 2 2017 City Manager John Gillison RECEIVED - PLANNING 10621 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, Cahkmll'l 91 7S0 Telephone (909) 48 1 -1 150 FAX (909) 481-1154 CHAIR Steven D. Timmer, Esq. Attorney at Law VICE CHAIR Kenneth P. Corhan, Esq. Lewis Operating Corp. SECRETARYITREASURER D. Barton Doyle, Esq. Attorney at Law DIRECTORS Kenneth B. Bley, Esq, Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP Richard Broming Rancho Mission Viejo Matthew Carpenter Five Point Holdings BUILDING INDUSTRY LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION March 21, 2017 Chairman Francisco Oaxaca and Members of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning / Historic Preservation Commission Rancho Cucamonga City Hall 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 CITy OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MAR 21 2017 RECEIVED - PLANNING To the Attention of Lois J. Schrader, Secretary to the Commission (lois.schrader@cityofrc.us): Please include this letter in the public comment record for Agenda Item E6 at the March 22, Planning Commission Hearing Mary Lynn Coffee, Esq. RE: March 22, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing: Item E6 Nossaman LLP Development Code Amendment DRC2017-00177—City of Rancho Jenrtiter Hernandez, Esq. Cucamonga (Enacting requirements and standards for art in public Holland& Knight, LLP places) Mark Himmelstein, Esq. Nevmrycr Dillion,LLP Dear Chairman Oaxaca and fellow Planning Commissioners: Susan Hori, Esq. Manott, Phelps & Phillips, LLP The Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation (BILD) respectfully Richard Howard submits the following comments on the proposed recommendation to the KB Home City Council approving the Development Code Amendment enacting W. Wes Keusder requirements and standards for art in public places. BILD is a non-profit KmsdaHomes mutual benefit corporation and a wholly -controlled affiliate of the Building Steven LaMar Industry Association of Southern California, Inc. (`BIASC"). BIASC LegiSight, LLC represents approximately 1,200 member companies across Southern Joseph M. Manisco, Esq. California that are active in all aspects of the building industry, including Samuels Green &Steel LLP land development; builders of housing, commercial, and infrastructure Shawn Monterastelli, Esq. projects; and related entities. The purposes of BILD are, in part, to initiate Thefrvinecompany or support litigation or municipal / agency action designed to improve the Donald sajor, Esq. business climate for the building industry and to monitor and involve itself PulteGroup in government regulation critical to the industry. David C. Smith, Esq Stice&Black, LLP BILD has a particular interest in ensuring that builders and developers of all DIRECTORS EMERITUS types of projects within the City of Rancho Cucamonga are not subject to Amy Glad unlawful or excessive exactions and fees. BILD believes that the proposed Leonard Frank Les Thomas ordinance related to public art being considered by the Planning EX OFFICIO DIRECTOR Commission represents an unlawful development exaction that lacks a Peter Vanek HONORARY DIRECTORS If • Michael Balsamo 24 Executive Park, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92614 Shanda M. Beltran, Esq. 949.777.3849: Fax 949.759.3943 BILDFoundation.org Letter to Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission =` March 21, 2017I�J Page 2 of 3 reasonable relationship (nexus) between any adverse impacts associated with development and the public art requirement being imposed and that the proposal violates the U.S. and California Constitutions. The program being considered by Rancho Cucamonga, which requires most types of development to install or donate public art or pay an "in -lieu fee" is similar in nearly all respects to a program adopted by the City of Oakland. That program is currently in litigation, being reviewed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (captioned BuildingIndustry dustry Association — Bay Area v. City of Oakland). With respect, we urge the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to defer a decision on the proposed public art program until the Oakland case is resolved so as to better inform the City of Rancho Cucamonga on what aspects of the City's proposed program are permissible, if any, and what aspects of the proposal fail to pass legal muster. Our objections to the proposed public art program/fee include, but are not limited to, the following: The fact that the requirement to place and maintain art work on private property, donate art work to the city, or pay a monetary fee amounts to an exaction and taking of private property. Government exactions of this type, per the U.S. Constitution and caselaw interpreting it, are permissible only if directly mitigating a public impact arising from the development and only if roughly proportional in nature and degree to the public impact arising from the development —neither of which conditions are present with regard to the Rancho Cucamonga proposed public art ordinance (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), and Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 U.S. [133 S.Ct. 2586] (2013).) The proposal also violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by forcing developers to convey a government -approved message via art. By requiring that only City -approved public art be installed, property developers are restrained from expressing their own artistic viewpoints and would be required to convey the City's mandated form of messaging. The City has failed to abide by the substantive and procedural requirements of California's Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code §§66000-66001). In fact, the proposal fails to provide any information at all as to what the ultimate "in -lieu" fee will be, leaving the ultimate fee that will be demanded of project proponents unlawfully vague and wholly without sufficient evidentiary support, justification, basis, demonstration of reasonableness, etc. Should the Planning Commission move forward in furtherance of the proposed public art ordinance it will be doing so in an arbitrary and capricious fashion. While BILD believes that the City of Rancho Cucamonga's pursuit of more public art is an admirable goal, it should not pursue that goal on the backs of developers and, by extension, the purchasers of new homes, renters of new apartments and commercial space, and the like. If public art is a community benefit, and "important amenity" to the Letter to Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission March 21, 2017 BII,U Page 3 of 3 City as stated in the Staff Report, then the burden of providing that benefit should be bome by the entire community, not only a subset thereof. Should you have any questions on any of the above statements, or if you would like to discuss any of our concerns further, please contact me. My contact information appears below. Regards, Shanda M. Beltran, Esq. General Counsel sbeltranc(,.bildfoundation.org 949-777-3849 Cc: BILD Foundation Board of Directors Carlos Rodriguez, Chapter Executive Officer, BIASC-Baldy View Chapter Gordon Nichols, Sr. Dir. Govt. Affairs, BIASC-Baldy View Chapter I D•R•HOMN ® C1ryo March 22, 2017 �,�� �E FAN Cy City of Rancho Cucamonga M'4iP OCUCq 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 FCF/�FO ?I * *0Q P4% Subject: w Planning Commission Agenda Item E6 - Resolution No. 17-22: Art in Public Places Dear Chairman Oaxaca and fellow Planning Commissioners, DR Horton Homes requests a 90-day continuance on agenda item E6 — Development Code Amendment DRC2017-00177 "Art in Public Places." DR Horton would like to express our significant concerns regarding the establishment of an Art in Public Places policy in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In addition to the delayed vote we are also requesting a workshop with staff to be thoroughly briefed on the proposed art policy and the immediate impact it has on our projects. As you know conducting business in the City of Rancho Cucamonga is a rewarding experience. However, the cost of doing business within the city has consistently increase to the detriment of our business models. A requirement or in -lieu fee for Public Art is an additional and unnecessary cost that should not be mandates on businesses, new developments or residents. DR Horton is requesting an opportunity for meaningful dialog with staff which has not been afforded us, thus far. The resolution to establish the Art in Public Places policy was published on Thursday March 16`h, at 4:30pm, which allows little to no time for public review. Our company is a significant stakeholder and the lack of engagement with us is concerning. Again, we are asking the City of Rancho Cucamonga to hold themselves to the same high standards that are required of businesses and developments within the city. Please engage DR Horton in meaningful dialog before the adoption of a public art policy and delay the item for a minimum of 90-days. Sincerely, ORTON LOS ANGELES HOLDING COMPANY, INC Daniel W. Boyd, Vice President Entitlement CC: Mayor and City Council City Manager John Gillison 2280 Wardlow Circle • Suite 100 • Corona, CA 92880 (951) 272-9000 • Fax: (951) 272-9797 (� www.drhor[on.com N A I O P NAIO BOAR OF OFFICERS AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS _ / COMMERCIAL PEAL K6 TATE //��jjJ� PRESIDENT lee Caste, CBRE, b¢. DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION �+�RANC R4 PRESMENTELECT Mike Del Santo, Alere Property Group, LLC INLAND EMPIRE CHAPTER 81 C(J CgMQNGq TREASURER Steve Hasten, Lee & Associates - Omwo MqR SECRETARY ? y / �O/� Larry Cochrun, LOC Industrial Really C March 21, 2017 NAIOP CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE Kim Snyder, Pmlogis . if I A A IV w/1I7 /� GSteven PAST PRESIDENT Matt Englhard, Proficiency Capital LLC City of Rancho Cucamonga Ames, USAA Real Estate Company Tom AshcraR, Bridge Deveapment Partners 10500 Civic Center Dr. Thomas Bak, Trammell Crow Companies Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Todd Burnight, Carson Compalnas Tyson Chavq Prologis Chris Coetzee, CT Realty Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Item E6 — Jahn Condors. Allen Melons Lack Gamble Mallory & Nelsis LLP Summer Coulter, Colliers lmernatienal Resolution No. 17-22: Art in Public Places Eley Covarrubias, CBRE. Inc. Dan it. la Paz, CBRE, Inc. John Cable% Conor Commercial Real Estate Dear Chairman Oaxaca and fellow Planning Commissioners, Paige Fullmer West, Fullmer Construction Brian Gagne, Cl Gazeley Trevor Halverson, OCT Industrial The Commercial Real Estate Development Association, Inland Bob Jacob, HPA Architechlre Empire Chapter (NAIOP) requests a 90-day continuance on agenda Jake LeBlanc, Pamthim Development Company item E6 — Development Code Amendment DRC2017-00177. "Art Milo Lipson, Cushman & Wakefield of California in Public Places." Ward Mace, Goodman Tom Myers, Ware Malcurnb Brian Parne, Stirling Development LLC NAIOP would like to express our significant concerns regarding the Tony Perez, Oltmans Construction Co. establishment of an Art in Public Places policy in the City of Matt Phil.,. First American Title Insurance Rancho Cucamonga. In addition to the delayed vote we are also Eric Ruchle. Sllex Group requesting a workshop with staff to be thoroughly briefed on the Chris Sanford, Industrial Properly Trust proposed art policy and the immediate impact it has on our Brian Thienes, Tluenes Engineering, Inc. Terry Thompson, San Bernardino County members and clients. Jeffrey N. Trenton, Proficiency Capital LLC Kyle Valley, Majestic Realty Co. As you know conducting business in the City of Rancho Cucamonga Ron Washle, Newmark Grubb Knight Frank is a rewarding experience. However, the cost of doing business within the city has consistently increase to the detriment of our ADVISORY BOARD member's business plans. A requirement or in -lieu fee for Public Stephen ephenB Batchellep Oatcheller Equities, IM. Chuck Belden, Cushman & Wakefield of California Inc. Art is an additional and unnecessary cost that should not be David Burback, Kidder Mathews mandates on businesses, new developments or residents. Gary Edwards, Western Realco Ed Konjoyan, Majestic Realty Co. NAIOP is requesting an opportunity for meaningful dialog with staff JohnMcKeon.,iRwaetl,AernatCompany which has not been afforded us, thus far. The resolution to Kevin McKenna, Colliers International Michael Morris, RedRock Development establish the Art in Public Places policy was published on Thursday Graham Tingle,, Space Center, Inc. March 161h, at 4:30pm, which allows little to no time for public review. Our Association is a significant stakeholder and the lack of NAIOP INLAND EMPIRE STAFF engagement with us is concerning. Robert Evans, Executive Director Devon Suill, Executive Assistant 1-1 25241 Pasco de Alicia, Suite 120, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Tel: (951) 324-0350 Fax: (951) 324.0348 % b NAIOP Inland Empire March 21, 2017 Again, we are asking the City of Rancho Cucamonga to hold themselves to the same high standards that are required of businesses and developments within the city. Please engage NAIOP in meaningful dialog before the adoption of a public art policy and delay the item for a minimum of 90-days. Sincerely Robert Evans Executive Director CC: Mayor and City Council City Manager John Gillison CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MAR 2 12017 RECEIVED - PLANNING