Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/12/28 - Agenda Packet - AdjCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY DECEMBER 28, 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. Mannerino Com. Stewart Com. Tolstoy II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- December 8, 1999 December 8, 1999, Adjourned Minutes 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 Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on December 23, 1999, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. / Page 2 VICINITY MAP CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON,GA RAN HO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DEPAI~TMENT Memorandum DATE: December 23, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner SUBJECT: MINUTES OF PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATED DECEMBER 20, 1999 Attached are minutes from the December 20. 1999, Public Works Subcommittee meeting, including its recommendation. Sincerely, City Planner BB:gs December 20, 1999 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES A. CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Public Works subcommittee was held on Monday, December 20, 1999, in the Tapia Room of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 4:37 p.m. Present were Subcommittee members: Mayor Pro Tem Diane Williams and Council Member Paul Blanc. Also present were: Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, William J. O'Neil, City Engineer, Laura Bonaccorsi, Associato Park Planner, Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, Rufus Barldey B. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION BI. MINUTES: October 6, 1999 The Subcommittee approved the minutes of October 6, 1999. B2. CONSIDERATION OF 1-15 FREEWAY LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS The City Engineer gave the presentation referring to the staff report dated December 20, 1999, regarding the City's Planning Commission policy on freeway landscaping for the I-15 Freeway. The Subcommittee in reviewing the staff report noted the policy as approved by the Planning Commission was an excellent one in light of the time it was adopted in 1987. At this time them were considerable dollars available for landscaping projects as well as maintenance. The passage of Proposition 218 has changed the City's perspective on landscaping projects. The Subcommittee noted any landscape lxeatment other than that meeting Caltran's standards would require a 20-year maintenance period. The cost of this maintenance period is exorbitant and would be a definite hindrance in development of property adjacent to the freeway. In addition, the City would not be able to afford the cost of landscape maintenance which would be substantial. In lieu of the realities of today's marketplace, the Subcommittee notes the most important element lacking are regarding this issue is that of a master plan design. The Subcommittee recommends: Public Works Subcommittee Minutes December 20, 1999 Page 2 · The City Council appropriate, as early as possible, ~mds to complete a master plan design for the I-15 Corridor in accordance with Caltrans' basic landscape design concepts. · Once the master plan has been pi'epared all new development adjacent to the freeway will be conditioned to install the landscaping as approved in the master plan. · ' Development occurring prior to completion of the master plan shall pay a $1.00 a square foot of landscaped area towards the design, overhead and installation of landscape as determined by the master plan. The Sub-Committee notes that the recommended landscaping will meet the basic Caltrans' standards and will provide a scenic corridor along the 1-15 Freeway. The Sub-Committee also noted in the design master plan special treatment should be applied at specific nodes, for example: Foothill Boulevard and I-15. It will be the requirement of development adjacent to these nodes to install an upgraded landscaping and pay for future maintenance costs. In addition, the Sub-Committee instructed staff to be aggressive and work with Caltrans towards obtaining grants that will enhance this corridor. It is hoped partnerships between the City and Caltrans and where possible the development community can provide an aesthetic treatment along the 1-15 Corridor which will surely be better than the conditions as they are today. The Sub-Committee requested the Planning Commission revise their policy in accordance with the Sub-Committees recommendation, and this policy be forwarded to the City Council for full City Council approval. There will be no more issues to come before the Sub-Committee. C. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING None. D. COMMUNICATION FROM THE PUBLIC None. Public Works Subcommittee Minutes , December 20, 1999 Page 3 E. ADJOURNMENT The Public Works Subcommittee meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer Approved: TH E CIrY OF P~ANCblO CUCAHONGA Staff Report 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 ~olicy requiring all development adjacent to the 1-15 Freeway to either landscape and irdgate 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. PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE 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 District 8 Landscape Architecture Design Section. the majodty of this cost goes to irrigation. with the planting limited to one gallon or smaller size materials. None of the cost 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 price 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 trees, 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 vanling stages of processing (project/location map attached). PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMI'I'I'EE 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 de. cide if should help facilitate the landscaping, and how much money could be applied towards design, installation, and maintenance. The amount of funding will then determine who is installing the landscaping and maintaining it. The City's options, from least expensive to most expensive, are as follows: A. Work with Caltrans budqetin,q to have landscapinq proqrammed 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 1-15 cerddor. 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 majodty 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 instali iandscapin.q as projects come in. This would produce patchwork installations of upgraded landscaping, and may require int~ll installation of landscaping by either the City or Caltrans to be visually cohesive and effective. The development community would incur increased installation/maintenance costs of the upgraded landscaping, along with a long-term maintenanco agreement. The City would likely have increased maintenance costs as developments occasionally default. C. Have the City install landscapin.q. This would continue City ceilection 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. Alternative 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 through LMDs. The legal issues of determining the benefit dedved from the landscaping - local/special beneft vs. regional/general benefit would be a political nightmare. Proposition 218 would trigger 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 distdct or elections across the board in all existing 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 getting resident approval. The results of City-instalied landscaping 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 SUBCOMMI'I'rEE STAFF REPORT 1-15 FREEWAY 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 beautification 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, c:,~y, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:LB Enclosures RESOLUTION NO. 87- | 85 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF Tile CITY OF .'.':?. RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING A POLICY REQUIRING : LANDSCAPING OF FREEWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY. .~.-. ~:~ WHEREAS, the planning Con~nission finds it desirable to landscape the · . 1-15 (Devore) Freeway right-of-way because of its significance as a regional :.. 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, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission o~ the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby declare their policy to be: 1. That all new development adjacent to the 1-15 (Devore) Freeway shall be required to landscape and irrigate the freeway right-of-way adjoining their t.. development site. 2. That the landscaping and irrigation shall be tn conformance with Caltrans Master planting plan through the City o~ Rancho Cucamonga. 3. That the new development and the landscaped portion of the 1-15 Freeway shall be annexed to an existing Landscape Maintenance District or a new Landscape Maintenance District shal]-be formed a~fecttng the same properties. APPROVED AND ~OPTED THIS I~tNDAY OF Oc~obe~ , 1987. Larry~, Chal ~ ~ .. ..... ATTEST:." ~~ ......... I,' Bra~ Bullet, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Co~nisston of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commnission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Co~mmmission held on the l~th day of OCTOBER , 1987, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: CO~ISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, CHITlEA, BLAKESLEY, E~ERICK, I~CNiEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CO~ISSIONERS: NONE MAP KEY ~ COLLECTED~ NUMBER [ pROJECT AMOUNT d:) DR 88-07 $6,700.69 ~) DR 87-55 $69,654.00 (~) DR 88-32 $12,294.10 (~) CUP 88-37 $12.608.05 (~) DR 97-02 $34,911.52 d~) TR 15911 (Z) TR 15912 ~) 1'I' 15711 (~) CUP 99-55 ~) CUP 97-42 _. ~) DR 99-70 (~) CUP 99-35 (~ PM 15012 In conditioning process (3 projects) Conditloned to provide landscape or pay in-lieu fee (4 projects) Fees collected (5 projects) Freeway tandscape installed (1 project) :'