Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-02-24 - Supplementals BRe c, oiz d. ev/° Project#: SUBTPM19666 DRC2015-00756, DRC2015-00757, DRC2015-00758, DRC2015-00759, DRC2015-00760 Project Name: Parcel Map to subdivide lot into two parcels Location: 10877 FOOTHILL BLVD - Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, Sign Permit Notice of Filing, Tree Removal Permit, Uniform Sign Program ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 31.Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all California Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Services Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance and final acceptance granted prior to occupancy. 32. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 33. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 34. Revised Site Plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 35. The applicant shall comply with all Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board and Federal EPA water requirements. 36. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mailboxes. Multi -family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 37. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided at a rate equivalent to 5 percent of all required motorized vehicle parking, with a minimum of one rack with a capacity for two bicycles. 38. Textured pavement shall be provided across circulation aisle, pedestrian walkway, and plaza. They shall be of brick/tile pavers, exposed aggregate, integral color concrete, or any combination thereof. Full samples shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU) shall be the electrical service provider for this development. RCMU will handle the cost for all offsite infrastructure needed, including all of the trenching and cabling and a new transformer to service the buildings. The Developer will handle the costs to have SCE remove their services from the location including on -site substructures such all trenches, conduits (distribution and service conduits), and concrete products (pads, slab boxes, pull boxes and encasement). www.CityolRcros Printed: 1176/2016 � � � � � Page 4 of 10 I Topic Recommendation c: The pilot should offer drivers a choice in account managers. rn v Out-of-state vehicles should be included in the pilot and simulate payment for driving on California roads. o The pilot should test an open system design. V •c The pilot should test the interoperability of California's system with that of other states. rn The pilot should include individuals, households, businesses, and at least one government O agency. oa The pilot should include a cross-section of at least 5,000 vehicles that are reflective of the fleet currently using California's road network. t FThe pilot should offer methods to exempt miles driven on private road or out of state. Topic Recommendation UThe pilot should feature specific governance, accountability, and legal protection approaches for protecting privacy. n- The pilot should test ten data security features: Authentication, Authorization, Encryption, 10'C m Data Modification Notification, Data Masking, Data Storage, Data Transmittal, Data y Destruction, General IT Network Security, and Third Party Data Security System Verification. Y C The pilot should check for anomalies in mileage reporting; such as ensuring mileage permits and odometer readings are current, and reviewing electronic logs of the automated distance u w measurement operational concepts. c w Income equity implications of a road charge - Once the road charge pilot project yields data about the types of vehicles owned, mileage driven and opinions held by the participants, 4 more in-depth analysis should be conducted on impacts on lower -income persons. The TAC Y recommends this issue be taken up in any future phase of road charge policy development a) a)work. E Potential differential impacts on urban vs. rural residents - The TAC recommends that othis issue be carefully monitored during the pilot, and that impacts of the road charge on rural drivers when compared with their urban counterparts should be assessed. The ea recommended composition of the volunteer pool reflects this concern and oversamples rural participants to ensure sufficient data is available to fully assess the impacts of the road charge on rural drivers. Payment Simulation Options for the Pilot - TAC recommends the simulation of payments be o tested during the pilot utilizing online and mail payment options, studying the administrative ° costs of each. Lam, Rate Setting for the Pilot - The TAC recommends that in order to adequately assess the O ability to invoice based on per -mile rates, a revenue neutral rate should be developed for the pilot program. Operational Concepts Concept 1: Time Permit Concept 2: Mileage Permit Loncept 3: Odometer Charge (post -pay) oncept 4: Automated Mileage Reporting With No Location Data Concept 5: Automated Mileage Reporti With General Location Corresponding Technology Time Permit Technology Mileage Permit Technology Odometer Technology Usage -based Insurance Devices Smartphone App In -Vehicle Telematics Other Location -based Devices �a7Ci✓ � Ll�eli../r7' TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION & PUBLIC WORKS POLICY COMMITTEE EIIGffidGHTS Thursday, January 21, 2016 Sacramento Convention Center, 1400 J Street, Room 202, Sacramento Presented by Lou Munoz, Planning Commission, City of Rancho Cucamonga, member of above policy committee. City Priorities for Use of Cap and Trade Auction Revenues Summary: The committee was briefed on the Cap -and -Trade program and the allocation of auction revenues. The Governor's FY 2016-17 budget proposal includes $3.1 billion for Cap and Trade auction revenues. The proposal funds many of the same programs as the FY 2014-15 budget, but also several new programs/categories of programs. League staff is seeking input from the policy committees and Board on city priorities for the use of these funds in FY 2016-17. League staff recommended that committee members (and member cities) discuss the programs that require an annual appropriation (401/o of the total allocation) and establish priority funding areas. After discussion and various motions the committee recommended with three dissenting votes, the following priorities: • Transportation/transit • Waste diversion • Transformational climate communities program — dedicated local government fund for top 5% of disadvantage communities — possibly expand to include more cities • Low carbon transportation and fuels — fleet modernization rebates • Urban forestry and urban greening • Energy efficiency in public building — expand to include city buildings • Water and energy efficiency rebates • Energy efficiency upgrades/weatherization League Mission Statement and Strategic Goals for 2016 The committee reviewed the League's 2015 Strategic Goals. This year there are three main strategic goals: 1) Increase Funding for Critical Transportation and Water infrastructure, 2) Improve Housing Affordability, and 3) Update the Local Government Tax Structure to Respond to the New Economy and Stimulate Economic Growth. Fast Fuel Infrastructure � ~� 0AL(m C 0>ft-t, u T 1—t \y 71 Si t2 I C T Bill Boyce, Manager Electric Transportation, SMUD, provided a briefing on SMUD's electric vehicle charging station program. SMUD has advanced its effort to build out a network of charging stations to prepare for future growth in use of electric vehicles. Although electric vehicle mileage range is improving, many still have `range anxiety." A network of vehicle charging stations will ease anxiety and boost consumer confidence. SMUD is working to streamline installation and improve charging standards as well as installing charging stations in low-income areas. Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act Summary: In December, both houses of Congress overwhelmingly approved the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, a five-year, $305 billion transportation authorization, which was signed into law by President Obama on December 4, 2015. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act increases highway wending by 15 percent and transit spending by 18 percent Governor Brown's 2016-17 and AB 1591 (Frazier) Transportation Funding Proposals Summary: The Governor's 2016-17 transportation funding proposal is nearly identical to the proposal released in early September 2015. The budget proposes an additional $36 billion over the next 10 years, or an additional $3.6 billion in annual funding with the emphasis being placed on repairing and maintaining the existing infrastructure, with some of this funding set aside for investments in public transit. Assemblymember Jim Frazier, the Assembly Transportation Committee Chair released his own funding proposal in AB 1591. The proposal aims to raise over $7 billion annually with emphasis being placed on trade corridor improvements as well as road maintenance and repair. Taxicab and Transportation Network Company Regulation Summary: The committee unanimously approved a combination of having a balanced regulatory framework over both the taxi and TNC industries, and encourages the PUC to include the biometric identification data from TNC drivers and to have TNC companies conduct vehicle safety inspections. The committee recommends supporting a policy where both industries would be regulated by the state's PUC, while giving cities the ability to regulate both industries, when any given city finds that state regulation is insufficient for their communities. The committee expressed concerns about diluting the funding by spreading it into too many programs. There was general agreement about the first four priorities, and some committee members expressed specific support for urban forestry and urban greening as well as energy efficiency measures (especially solar and weatherization for older housing). There was a motion and second to support the first five priorities listed, but a substitute motion and second was made to support all eight priorities. The substitute motion passed Transportation Funding The committee welcomed Senator Jim Beall and thanked him for his commitment to transportation funding and infrastructure investments. This past October, Senator Beall was recognized by the League of California Cities as a Legislator of the Year. Senator Beall provided his thoughts on the need and urgency of identifying funding for both deferred maintenance and new projects. Committee members also shared their thoughts on what is important to cities on this issue. Road User Charge Pilot Program — Update The committee welcomed Mr. Jim Madaffer, Chair, Road Charge Technical Advisory Committee as he provided an update on the Road Charge Pilot Program headed by the California Transportation Committee which is studying the potential use of a road charge in lieu of a gas tax. The committee had questions about the potential privacy and technical issues involved in a road use charge. Members were encouraged to visit http://www.califomiaroadchargepilot.com/ and participate in the program. The committee will be updated as the pilot program progresses. 2016 Draft Work Program The Committee reviewed the proposed 2016 work program and discussed adding the following items for further research and briefings: • Driverless Vehicles • Automated speed enforcement • Homelessness task force update • Railroad quiet zones Motion to move and second the adoption of the 2016 Work Plan California Road Charge HELP FIX CALIFORNIA'S ROADWAYS, ONE MILE ATATIME. OUR ROADWAYS ARE DETERIORATING As Californians, our transportation system is facing a serious problem. Historically, annual investment in roadway maintenance and preservation hasn't kept pace with needs. Making the problem worse, the money collected to pay for roadway maintenance and repair has declined each year since 2007. Having less money to repair our roadways means that our transportation system will continue to get worse each year without funds to maintain them. WHY IS THIS HAPPENING? Aging Roadways - The majority of our major roadways are more than 40 years old and have reached or exceeded their design life. The older our aging roadway system gets, the more repairs it needs. Shrinking Funding - The base excise gas tax (currently a fixed 18 cents per gallon of gas sold) is the primary source of funding used to pay for road repairs. The base excise gas tax has not been raised in more than 20 years. Inflation has decreased the buying power of the gas tax by approximately 50 percent. In other words, 18 cents in 1994 is worth about 9 cents today. Increased Costs - Despite major efforts to reduce costs and increase efficiencies, the cost of maintaining and replacing our roadways continues to rise significantly. More Fuel -Efficient Vehicles - High fuel -efficiency cars, like hybrids and electric vehicles, are currently paying little or no base excise gas tax. They are contributing only a fraction to the overall cost of road repairs. Today, nine out of the top 15 hybrid markets in the U.S. are located in California. As a result, less gas is sold, which means less money is available to pay for road repairs and maintenance. VMT Growth Revenue loss due to increased fuel efficiency (New CAFE standards) HOW SERIOUS IS THE PROBLEM? A 2012 RAND Corporation publication states, "Transportation funding shortfalls will grow even more acute in the coming years as improved vehicle fuel economy and the adoption of alternative -fuel vehicles will reduce federal and state fuel tax revenues by billions of dollars per year." Because these trends will continue, now is the best time to begin studying alternative funding mechanisms before it is too late. According to the 2015 Ten -Year State Highway Operation and Protection Program Plan, Caltrans will need approx- imately $80 billion over the next ten years to address current and future needs of the state highway system —a projected funding shortfall of nearly $57 billion in available revenue. WHAT IS THE GOAL OFAN IDEAL FUNDING SOURCE An ideal funding source for roadway maintenance would be equitable (fair to everyone), sustainable (reliable and stable over time), and support future innovation. California's reliance on the gas tax is clearly unsustainable. WHATARE SOME FUNDING OPTIONS? Increase the Gas Tax: Increasing the state gas tax is simple, and the option is certainly available. Could it be done? Yes, it could be done in the short term, but -attempts to raise the gas tax have been unsuccessful for more than 20 years. Could it raise enough money? Yes, a significant increase could generate the needed short-term funding, but as more fuel -efficient and electric vehicles use the roads, this option would not raise the necessary funding without frequent increases. Due to the widening differences in contributions by vehicles of varying fuel economies, this option would also place more burden of funding our road maintenance and repair on those driving less fuel -efficient cars. ©Increase the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) or the Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF): By law, the VLF and VRF are dedicated to specific activities. The VLF pays for local government services. The VRF pays for motorist services such as the CHP and the DMV. Currently, no VLF or VRF funds are available for maintenance or preservation of our roadways. Could it be done? Yes, but it would likely be very publicly and politically unpopular. California voters have repeatedly turned this option down at the polls. Also, a VLF or VRF increase doesn't account for actual road usage. A motorist who drives 2,000 miles per year pays the same amount as someone who drives 20,000 miles per year. Could it raise enough money? Yes, but the increase would need to be set quite high (perhaps double its current fee level), and new legislation would need to be created to redirect a portion of the funding to road repairs and maintenance. ©Tolling: Tolls are user fees charged to drivers who choose to drive in special express lanes or on dedicated toll roads. Could it be done? Not on a broad scale. Federal law restricts tolling on existing roads and would certainly be unpopular. Land for new toll facilities is scarce. California has several dedicated toll roads and tolled express lanes in metropolitan areas. Senate Bill (SB) 194 signed into law in October 2015 expands the potential for toll facilities in California, however tolling is predominately viewed as a method for increasing efficiency of the system and not as a revenue generating option. The revenues generated by these facilities support maintenance, operations and in some cases, debt payments of those facilities. Could it raise enough money? No. Tolls can help build, finance and maintain new and existing toll roads, but they won't generate enough money to pay for the rest of the transportation system. Road Charge (RC): A Road Charge is a "user pays" funding concept where drivers pay for maintenance and upkeep of the State roadway network based on how much they drive. This is much like water, electricity and other utilities. The more you use, the more you pay. In the case of RC, drivers pay for their roadway usage based on distance they drive on public roads. This method appears to be equitable as it charges based on road usage, regardless of the type and fuel efficiency of the vehicle driven. Could it be done? Yes. After 12 years of study and two pilot programs, the state of Oregon passed legislation in 2013 to begin transitioning from the gas tax to a RC model. Although a California RC model would likely have some differences from what Oregon has done, it is feasible. Could it raise enough money? Yes, provided the rates are set adequately and that there is an automatic indexing mechanism to adjust the rates as needed to keep pace with inflation and increasing road repairs and maintenance costs. WHAT'S HAPPENING ATTHE FEDERAL LEVEL? In December, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. It is the first long-term authorization since 2005's SAFETEA-LU, which expired in 2009. In the FAST Act, Congress recognized the need to explore a user fee model (road charge) as an option to maintain the long-term solvency of the Federal Highway Trust Fund. The enactment of the FAST Act created a five-year, $95 million grant program which is eligible to a state or group of states to test the design, acceptance, and implementation of a future road charge alternative revenue mechanism. WHAT ARE OTHER STATES DOING? California is not alone. At least 22 other states are struggling with shortfalls in their transportation funding, which is due primarily to an over -reliance on the gas tax. Other states that have studied an RC model, such as Oregon, Washington and Nevada are finding that RC has the potential to deliver reliable, long-term funding that is also fair. IS CALIFORNIA GOING TO IMPLEMENT RC? At this point, no decisions have been made, other than to conduct a Demonstration Program to study the feasibility of RC as a potential source of equitable and sustainable funding for maintaining and preserving our roadway system. On September 29, 2014, Governor Brown signed SB 1077 into law. Under the requirements of SB 1077, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) formed a RC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The TAC reviewed alternatives and developed recommendations on the design and evaluation criteria for a RC Demon- stration Program, presenting them to the Secretary of the State Transportation Agency (CaISTA) in December 2015. Based on the recommendations of the TAC, by July 1, 2016, CaISTA will implement a Demonstration Program to identify and evaluate issues related to the potential implementation of a RC program in California. CaISTA will report on the results of the Demonstration Program to the CTC and Legislature prior to June 30, 2017. Average Annual Cost of Select Items The amount the average California driver pays to support maintenance and repair of our roadways is significantly less than what they spend for other necessities. IIIINUM Sign Up To Accept Your Volunteer Formal KEY QUESTIONS ABOUT RC How does the California RC pilot work? The California RC pilot is a field trial of road charging concepts. Volunteers throughout California will test various road charging methods to identify and evaluate issues related to the potential implementation of a RC program and to assess the potential for mileage -based revenue collection for California's roads and highways as an alternative to the gas tax system. At a minimum, the pilot will: 1.Analyze alternative means of collecting road usage data, including manual alternatives that do not rely on electronic vehicle location data. 2. Collect a minimum amount of personal information including location tracking information, necessary to implement the road charge program. 3. Ensure that processes for collecting, managing, storing, transmitting, and destroying data are in place to protect the integrity of the data and safeguard the privacy of drivers. Will the pilot cost volunteers money? No, there will be no out of pocket costs required for pilot participants. In fact, the pilot will not actually collect fees from participants, but will give participants the choice of submitting a simulated payment via mail or a secure website for testing purposes. Does RC require a location -based device in every car? No, a location -based device is not required for RC. California is studying a number of ways to measure distance travelled without location -based technology, ranging from flat annual fees to manual odometer reading to automated reporting of distance only (without vehicle location information). Q mm Choose tloaj You Report Your Miles Choose Your Reporting Technology What about privacy? select Your Gave: Tell Us What Account You Think Manager I 1 SB 1077 specifically requires that privacy implications are taken into account, especially with regard to location data. Privacy issues were addressed through the TAC process and privacy protections will be incorporated in the pilot. How will the RC be tested during the pilot? The pilot will give participants several options for reporting mileage, including several which do not require technology in the vehicle and one which does not require any mileage reporting. These options include: • Time permit: Similar to a vehicle registration fee, the participant purchases unlimited road use for a specific period of time. • Mileage permit: The participant pre -pays to drive a certain number of miles. Odometer charge: The participant pays a fee per mile based on periodic odometer readings. Automated mileage reporting: In -vehicle equipment reports mileage traveled to a third party account manager which invoices the participant. The equip- ment also provides an option of allowing for reporting of general location data so the participant is credited for travel out-of-state or on private roads. Technology options recommended by the TAC for this option include in -vehicle telematics, smartphone apps, and plug-in devices for the vehicle's OBD-II data port How can I volunteer for the pilot program? Signing up for pilot is easy. Our website will step you through the volunteer sign-up process at www.CalifomiaRoadChargePilot.com.