HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/12/22 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 22, 1999 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chamber
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Chairman McNiel __ Vice Chairman Macias __
Com. Mannedno __ Com. Stewart __ Com. Tolstoy __
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December 8, 1999
December 8, 1999, Adjourned Meeting
IV. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
A. CONSIDERATION OF 1-15 FREEWAY LANDSCAPING
REQUIREMENTS
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items
to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an
11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only
with the consent of the Commission.
I, Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho
Cucarnonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the
foregoing agenda was posted on December 16, 1999, at least 72 hours prior to
the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center
Drive,/~ancho Cucamonga.
Page 2
VICINITY MAP
I'[' :':':':':'
CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
THE . CIT'f~ OF . . . ,
.RANC~IO CUCAL1ONGA
StaffRe rt
DATE: December 22, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
BY: Laura J. Bonaccorsi, Associate Park Planner
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF 1-15 FREEWAY LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this report is-to identify issues and concerns with the current policy requiring
freeway landscaping along the I-15 corridor.
BACKGROUND:
GENERAL: In 1987 the Planning Commission passed a resolution (attached) establishing a
policy requiring all development adjacent to the 1-15 Freeway to either landscape and irrigate
freeway right-of-way adjoining their site, or pay an in-lieu fee. The policy was implemented to
ensure that landscaping along the corridor would surpass Caltrans' basic level of landscaping
for erosion control only and be consistent with the substantial upscale landscaping required
throughout the rest of the City. Ideally, the intent was to establish a freeway landscape
perimeter to screen objectionable views, mitigate noise, and in general provide an attractive
buffer/edge.
ISSUES: The City currently does not have a freeway landscape master plan. To avoid
inconsistent designs and/or piecemeal installations by development, the City is collecting an in-
lieu fee of $2.00/sf for the freeway landscaping. The development community has expressed
frustration with the resolution requirements and has requested that the fee be eliminated. Tied
to the collection of these funds is the City's statutory obligation to expend them in a reasonable
time frame (SB 1693).
Caltrans will only accept upgraded landscaping for maintenance after the installing party has
maintained it for 20 years. The development community views this as an unreasonable burden
on top of the cost for the upgraded landscaping. Upgraded landscaping installed by the City with
in-lieu fees would also be subject to this requirement. Additionally, the City would also have to
take over maintenance of any areas abandoned by development for the remainder of the
maintenance period. As they currently exist, the City's Landscape Maintenance Districts
(LMDs) would have difficulty absorbing the additional cost for any freeway maintenance.
ITEM A
PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMI'FI'EE STAFF REPORT
1-15 FREEWAY LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
December 22, 1999
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
CALTRANS LANDSCAPING: If Caltrans were to landscape the freeway (although no funds are
budgeted for the near future), they would be compelled to provide landscaping based upon the
maximum funding allocated by the state. The amount of $.62/sf, provides for basic landscape
installation and one year of maintenance, and $.78/sf provides for three years of maintenance.
The state figures would also typically be applied to larger scale projects. (12 acres and over)
where an economy of scale could be realized. According to the Caltrans Distdct 8 Landscape
Architecture Design Section, the majority of this cost goes to irrigation, with the planting limited
to one gallon or smaller size materials. None of the cast covers Caltrans project design,
construction administration or overhead. The development community has argued that they
would like to use these figures for their estimates and designs, as Caltrans would immediately
accept maintenance of facilities designed within their financial parameters.
LANDSCAPING INSTALLED BY PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT: In comparison, the City of
Rancho Cucamonga is a community known for its high design standards. Both City and
development projects alike are required to provide larger size plant materials and sometimes
accent rockwork or art. When applied to the freeway right-of-way, these design elements carry
a higher pdce tag and the 20-year maintenance pedod. The landscaping at the Jurupa exit in
Ontario is a good example of this. Caltrans has stated that special maintenance elements,
such as art, decorative fencing, or palm tr~es, would not be accepted by Caltrans in the future,
and thus permanent maintenance of such amenities would need to be addressed.
Only one project, Auto Nation, has installed a Caltrans landscape along 1-15, at the Fourth
Street on/off ramp. This area was isolated from the main portion the freeway right-of-way and
adjacent to a City gateway monument. The developer was required to install landscaping
instead of paying the in-lieu fee
THE IN-LIEU FEE: In the absence of any freeway design concept and specific project, the City
has been collecting an in-lieu of construction fee for the landscaping. While this relieves
developers of the landscape design, installation and subsequent 20 years of maintenance, it
burdens both the City and developer with requiring a minimum fee of $2.00/sf.* to provide:
1. Master plan
2. Construction plans, Specifications and cost estimates
3. Construction administration
*The $2.00 per square foot was considered a low to medium estimate for installation alone,
based upon input from three major landscape architectural firms and City capital project bids.
The current fee for freeway landscaping may actually fall short of what will be needed to
construct the ultimate design.
Since the resolution was passed in 1987, in-lieu fees have been collected from five projects and
several others are in varying stages of processing (project/location ma, p attached).
PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMI'I'FEE STAFF REPORT
1-15 FREEWAY LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
December 22, 1999
Page 3
SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION:
The City needs to decide if freeway landscaping is still desired. If so, then the City needs to
decide if should help facilitate the landscaping, and how much money could be applied towards
design, instaUation, and maintenance. The amount of funding will then determine who is
instaliing the landscaping and maintaining it. The City's options, from least expensive to most
expensive, are as follows:
A. Work with Caltrans budqetinq to have landscapinfi profirammed for our area Given the
ramifications of proposition 218, the City may wish to rethink absorbing .any freeway
maintenance if Caltrans would consider budgeting landscaping of the I-15 corridor. The
results would be modest, "basic Caltrans landscaping", uniformly applied on a large scale,
with all maintenance performed by Caltrans. Developer in-lieu fees would not be required.
A variation of this concept would be to rely on Caltrans and development for the majority of
modest 'basic Caltrans landscaping" to be installed, but utilize available grants for the
design and construction to enhance specific highly visible area at interchanges. However,
ongoing maintenance costs may fall upon the City to cover upgraded improvements.
B. Have the developers install landscapinq as proiects come in. This would produce patchwork
installations of upgraded landscaping, and may require intdl installation of landscaping by
either the City or Caltrans to be visually cohesive and effective. The development
community would incur increased installatioNmaintenance costs of the upgraded
landscaping, along with a long-term maintenance agreement. The City would likely have
increased maintenance costs as developments occasionally default.
C. Have the City install landscapin.q. This would continue City collection of fees and absorption
of design, construction, administrative costs and 20 years of maintenance. The fees would
be driven by a current cost estimate based upon an approved master plan.
Construction would have to cover broad areas to be visually effective, and so the project(s)
would require substantial capital outlay by the City, since few development projects will have
paid fees. Altemative funding sources such as grants would need to be targeted and
secured. The use of City funds would likely pre-empt or impact other City projects.
Freeway maintenance would have to be provided throu9h LMDs, The legal issues of
determining the benefit dedved from the landscaping - local/special benefit vs.
regional/general benefit would be a political nightmare, Proposition 218 would tdgger
elections if the districts adjacent to the freeway were asked to absorb the substantial
extensive landscaping. To distribute the costs City-wide might require a new district or
elections across the board in all existin9 districts. The City's legal counsel would have to
study the issues and provide additional information, but the end result will be higher taxes, if
the City was successful in gettin9 resident approval.
The results of City-installed landscapin9 would be an upgraded freeway landscape,
uniformly applied on a large scale. The political and financial ramifications however, make
this the most difficult method to accomplish freeway landscaping.
PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE STAFF REPORT
I-15 FREEVVAY LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
December 22, 1999
Page 4
Should it be determined that City-facilitated landscaping is desired, staff recommends that a
" : consultant be used to develop a freeway beauti~cation master plan, perhaps funded with
Beautification Funds. If the City chooses not to pursue landscaping any longer, then the
Planning Commission would need to take appropriate action to rescind the resolution and
refund the collected fees.
Respectfully submitted,
William J, O'Neil
c~City Engineer
WJO:LB
Enclosures
RESOLUTION NO. 87-185
A RESOLUTION OF TIlE pLANNING COMMISSION OF TIlE CITY OF
.'.:.: RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING A POLICY REQUIRING
: LANDSCAPING OF FREEWAY RIGlIT-OF-WAY.
i'.'~ WHEREAS, tile planning Con,remission finds it desirable to landscape the
· . 1-15 (Devore) Freeway right-of-way because of its significance as a regional
T.. transportation corridor through the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and
"' WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds this resolution necessary to
give property owners and developers notice of this policy.
NOW, TIIEREFORE DE IT RESOLVED. that time planning Commission of time
City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby declare th6ir policy to be:
1. That all new development adjacent to the 1-15
(Devote) Freeway shall be required to landscape and
. irrigate the freeway right-of-way adjoining their
development site.
'.' 2. That the landscaping and irrigation shall be in
conformance wtth Cal trans Master P1 anti ng P1 an
~. through the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
' 3. That the new development and the landscaped portion
of time 1-15 Freeway shall be annexed to an existing
Landscape Maintenance District or a new Landscape
Maintenance District shal.l' be formed affecti.g time
same properties.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED TIIIS i~thDAY OF OcLobcr ., 1987.
PLANNING CODIMISSION OF TIlE CITy OF RANClIO CUC/V'IONGA
ATTEST:
r~~
I,' Bra Deputy Secretary of the planning Colm. ission of time City of
Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by tile Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the planning Co,,IHssion held
on the lhth. day of OCTOBEI~ , 1987, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMblISSXQNEI1S: TOLSTOY, CHITlEA, DLAKESLEY, E~IEIIICK, ~CIllEL
NOES: COMMXSSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
d) DR 88-07 $6,700.69
(~) DR 87-55 $69,654.00
(~) OR 88-32 $12,294.10
~ CUP 88-37 $12,608.05
(~) DR 97-02 $34,911.52
(~) TR 15911
(Z) TR 15912
~) 'T 15711
~) CUP 99-55
(~ CUP 97.*42
_. (~) DR 99-70
(~ CUP 99-35
(~) >M 15012
") [] r pay in-lieu fee (4 project
J ~-'
"J r) [] Fees collected (5 projects)
] Freeway landscape installed (1 project)
,1 ,J