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