SAN - Sustainsustain.scag.ca.gov/Documents/CBResources/SANBAG... · SANBAG Transportation – Land Use Integration Project PREFACE PREFACE Now is the time for each city in the San

SSAANNBBAAGG TTRRAANNSSPPOORRTTAATTIIOONN --

LLAANNDD UUSSEE IINNTTEEGGRRAATTIIOONN

March 2008

Prepared for

Southern California Association of Governments 818 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90017

San Bernardino Associated Governments 1170 W. 3rd Street, 2nd Floor

San Bernardino, CA 92410

Prepared by

GRUEN ASSOCIATES 6330 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 200

Los Angeles, CA 90048

In Association with

Parsons Transportation Group The Robert Group

Economics Research Associates This project was funded by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Compass Blueprint Demonstration Project Program. Compass Blueprint provides tools to cities to evaluate planning options and stimulate development consistent with the region’s goals. SCAG provides cities with support to help with visioning, infill analysis, policy assistance, economics and marketing, and develop communication tools. The preparation of this report was funded in part through grants from the United States Department of Transportation-Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration-under provisions of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Additional assistance was provided by the State of California State Business, Transportation and Housing Agency through the California Regional Blueprint Planning Grant.

SANBAG Transportation – Land Use Integration Project PREFACE

PPRREEFFAACCEE

Now is the time for each city in the San Bernardino Valley to PLAN for healthier, more sustainable communities with land use policies addressing transportation and land use integration. Even though the housing and retail markets have recently slowed down, it is critical that each city plans for greater mobility choices (transit, bicycle, and pedestrian) and a compact, diverse mix of uses within close proximity to transit stations under consideration in the SANBAG Draft Long Range Transit Plan. Among the benefits are improved air quality, decreased congestion, positive economic development, healthier lifestyles, and improved quality of life. It is especially appropriate as several of the cities (Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, and Rialto) are currently updating their General Plans and several others (Colton and Ontario) are updating their Specific Plans. The following report outlines concepts and considerations to include in each city’s planning process.

SANBAG Transportation – Land Use Integration Project TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

TABLES OF CONTENTS

Page No. 1.0 OVERVIEW.....................................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THIS PROJECT ..........................................................................1-2 1.3 OUTREACH PROCESS .................................................................................................................1-2 1.4 THE LONG RANGE TRANSIT PLANNING PROCESS (LRTP).....................................................1-3 1.5 VISION FOR OPPORTUNITY SITES.............................................................................................1-8 1.6 PROCESS FOR SITE SELECTION OF OPPORTUNITY SITES...................................................1-9

1.6.1 Initial Sites ..............................................................................................................................1-9 1.6.2 Vacant Land .........................................................................................................................1-15 1.6.3 Selected Site for Each City...................................................................................................1-15

1.7 THE TOD VISION .........................................................................................................................1-21 1.7.1 TOD Characteristics and Definitions ....................................................................................1-21 1.7.2 Support for Transit Villages at the Federal, State, and Regional Level ...............................1-21 1.7.3 Examples of Relevant TODs................................................................................................1-23 1.7.4 Densities and Intensities of TODs and Benefits...................................................................1-30 1.7.5 Reduction of Parking Requirements in Areas with Transit and Parking Management ........1-33

1.8 IMPLEMENTATION ......................................................................................................................1-36 1.8.1 Transit-Oriented Development Implementation Initiatives ...................................................1-36 1.8.2 Transit-Oriented Development Public/Private Funding and Incentives Initiatives ...............1-37

1.9 NOW IS THE TIME TO PLAN FOR THE FUTURE ......................................................................1-39

2.0 HIGHLAND OPPORTUNITY SITE .................................................................................................2-1 2.1 VISION – Mixed-Use Town Center Served By Premium Transit In The Future .............................2-1 2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS............................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 CURRENT CITY PLANS.................................................................................................................2-3

2.3.1 General Plan...........................................................................................................................2-3 2.3.2 Zoning.....................................................................................................................................2-4 2.3.3 Parking ...................................................................................................................................2-4 2.3.4 Redevelopment Area and Project Plans for the area.............................................................2-4 2.3.5 Streetscape Improvements ....................................................................................................2-4

2.4 EXISTING AND PLANNED TRANSIT AND ACCESS....................................................................2-4 2.5 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................2-5 2.6 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS......................................................................................................2-5

2.6.1 City Staff .................................................................................................................................2-6 2.6.2 Competing Areas....................................................................................................................2-7 2.6.3 Local Indian Tribes .................................................................................................................2-8 2.6.4 Planning Commissioner .........................................................................................................2-8 2.6.5 Property Owners ....................................................................................................................2-9

2.7 MARKET ASSESSMENT................................................................................................................2-9


ii

2.8 ALTERNATIVE SITE CONCEPTS ...............................................................................................2-10 2.9 PLANNING COMMISSION/DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WORKSHOP ........................................2-14 2.10 REFINED LAND USE AND CIRCULATION CONCEPT ..............................................................2-16 2.11 FUTURE MASS TRANSIT CONCEPT FOR HIGHLAND.............................................................2-19 2.12 NEXT STEPS / IMPLEMENTATION.............................................................................................2-19 3.0 RIALTO OPPORTUNITY SITE.......................................................................................................3-1 3.1 VISION – Mixed-Use Downtown District Surrounding the Metrolink Station ..................................3-1 3.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS WITHIN ½ MILE OF STATION..............................................................3-2 3.3 CURRENT CITY PLANS.................................................................................................................3-4

3.3.1 General Plan...........................................................................................................................3-4 3.3.2 Zoning.....................................................................................................................................3-5 3.3.3 Parking ...................................................................................................................................3-6

3.4 SITES SELECTED FOR THE COMPASS BLUEPRINT IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT .............3-6 3.5 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS......................................................................................................3-6 3.6 MARKET ASSESSMENT................................................................................................................3-7

3.6.1 Market Highlights....................................................................................................................3-7 3.6.2 Strategies ...............................................................................................................................3-8

3.7 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................3-8 3.8 ALTERNATIVE SITE CONCEPTS .................................................................................................3-8

3.8.1 Site 5a ....................................................................................................................................3-8 3.8.2 Site 5b ..................................................................................................................................3-11

3.9 FUTURE MASS TRANSIT CONCEPT FOR DOWNTOWN RIALTO...........................................3-13 3.10 STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS .......................................................................................................3-14 3.11 NEXT STEPS / IMPLEMENTATION.............................................................................................3-14

3.10.1 Policies / Guidelines to Consider Including in the General Plan Update .............................3-15 3.10.2 Implementation Policies / Guidelines to Consider Relative to Opportunity Sites 5a and 5b3-17 3.10.3 Funding Sources ..................................................................................................................3-17

4.0 FONTANA OPPORTUNITY SITE ..................................................................................................4-1 4.1 VISION – A Compact Mixed-Use, Pedestrian-Oriented Neighborhood..........................................4-1 4.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS................................................................................................................4-2 4.3 CURRENT CITY PLANS.................................................................................................................4-4

4.3.1 General Plan...........................................................................................................................4-4 4.3.2 Zoning and Development Code..............................................................................................4-5 4.3.3 Redevelopment Project Area .................................................................................................4-8

4.4 EXISTING AND PLANNED TRANSIT AND ACCESS....................................................................4-8 4.5 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................4-8 4.6 ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................................................4-9 4.7 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS....................................................................................................4-10

4.7.1 City Staff ...............................................................................................................................4-10 4.7.2 Property Owners (Two of the three owners) ........................................................................4-10

4.8 SITE CONCEPT............................................................................................................................4-11


iii

4.9 FUTURE MASS TRANSIT CONCEPTS FOR SITE 11 IN FONTANA .........................................4-15 4.10 NEXT STEPS / IMPLEMENTATION.............................................................................................4-15

4.10.1 Implementing Policies to Consider Adding in the General Plan Transportation Element Under Goal #2 .................................................................................................................................4-16 4.10.2 Implementing Guidelines to Consider Relative to Future Planning for the Opportunity Site4-16

5.0 ONTARIO OPPORTUNITY SITE ...................................................................................................5-1 5.1 VISION – A memorable, regional destination place within a walkable and pedestrian-friendly district ........................................................................................................................................................5-1 5.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS / OPPORTUNITIES ......................................................................5-2 5.3 CURRENT CITY AND LAWA PLANS.............................................................................................5-4

5.3.1 General Plan...........................................................................................................................5-4 5.3.2 Meredith Specific Plan............................................................................................................5-4 5.3.3 LAWA .....................................................................................................................................5-4

5.4 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS......................................................................................................5-6 5.5 MARKET ASSESSMENT................................................................................................................5-6

5.5.1 Market Highlights....................................................................................................................5-6 5.5.2 Strategies to Plan Now...........................................................................................................5-7

5.6 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................5-8 5.7 RELATIVE SIZE OF SITE...............................................................................................................5-9 5.8 ALTERNATIVE SITE CONCEPTS ...............................................................................................5-10

5.8.1 Urban design features of the Mixed-Use Urban District common to all alternatives............5-10 5.8.2 Potential Multi-modal phased transportation improvements common to all alternatives. ....5-11 5.8.3 Alternative 1 – Mixed-Use District With Urban Retail/Office Core Sub District....................5-12 5.8.4 Alternative 2 – Mixed-Use District Focused On Urban Parks And A Future Potential Gold Line Station.......................................................................................................................................5-15

5.9 NEXT STEPS / IMPLEMENTATION.............................................................................................5-17 5.9.1 Implementation Policies to Consider Adding in the General Plan Update...........................5-17 5.9.2 Implementation Policies to Consider Adding in the Specific Plan Update ...........................5-19

6.0 COLTON OPPORTUNITY SITE.....................................................................................................6-1 6.1 VISION – A mix of uses within ½ of transit station .........................................................................6-1 6.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS.......................................................................................................6-2 6.3 CURRENT CITY PLANS.................................................................................................................6-4

6.3.1 General Plan and West Valley Specific Plan .........................................................................6-4 6.3.2 Zoning.....................................................................................................................................6-5 6.3.3 Redevelopment Area..............................................................................................................6-5

6.4 SITE SIZE AND OWNERSHIP .......................................................................................................6-6 6.5 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS......................................................................................................6-6 6.6 MARKET ASSESSMENT................................................................................................................6-6 6.7 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................6-7 6.8 ALTERNATIVE SITE CONCEPTS .................................................................................................6-7 6.9 FUTURE MASS TRANSIT CONCEPTS FOR SITE 21 IN COLTON ...........................................6-12


iv

6.10 NEXT STEPS / IMPLEMENTATION.............................................................................................6-12 6.10.1 Policies / Guidelines to Consider Including in the Specific Plan Update .............................6-13 6.10.2 Implementing Policies / Guidelines to Consider Relative to Opportunity Site 21.................6-13

7.0 RANCHO CUCAMONGA OPPORTUNITY SITE...........................................................................7-1 7.1 VISION – Mixed-Use Development Surrounding a Transit Stop ....................................................7-1 7.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS................................................................................................................7-2 7.3 CURRENT CITY PLANS.................................................................................................................7-3

7.3.1 General Plan...........................................................................................................................7-3 7.3.2 Visual Improvement Plan (VIP) for Foothill Boulevard – Historic Route 66 ...........................7-4 7.3.3 Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan.............................................................................................7-4 7.3.4 Zoning.....................................................................................................................................7-4 7.3.5 Parking ...................................................................................................................................7-5 7.3.6 Redevelopment Area..............................................................................................................7-5

7.4 SITE SIZE AND OWNERSHIP .......................................................................................................7-5 7.5 EXISTING AND PLANNED TRANSIT AND ACCESS....................................................................7-7 7.6 CITY STAFF INTERVIEWS ............................................................................................................7-7 7.7 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................7-7 7.8 ALTERNATIVE SITE CONCEPTS .................................................................................................7-8 7.9 COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS AND CITY STAFF.................................................7-18

7.9.1 City Staff ...............................................................................................................................7-18 7.9.2 Property Owners ..................................................................................................................7-18

7.10 NEXT STEPS / IMPLEMENTATION.............................................................................................7-18 7.10.1 Policies to Consider in General Plan Update .......................................................................7-19 7.10.2 Implementing Policies / Guidelines to Consider Relative to Opportunity Site 22.................7-20

8.0 SOCIO ECONOMIC DATA FOR THE LRTP .................................................................................8-1 8.1 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ...................................................................................................8-1 8.2 TRAFFIC/ACCESS ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................8-1

8.2.1 City of Highland (Compass Blueprint Site #1)........................................................................8-2 8.2.2 City of Rialto (Compass Blueprint Sites #5a and #5b)...........................................................8-3 8.2.3 City of Fontana (Compass Blueprint Site #11).......................................................................8-4 8.2.4 City of Ontario (Compass Blueprint Site #19) ........................................................................8-5 8.2.5 City of Colton (Compass Blueprint Site #21)..........................................................................8-6 8.2.6 City of Rancho Cucamonga (Compass Blueprint Site #22) ...................................................8-7

8.3 PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATABASES.............................................8-8 8.3.1 City of Highland (Site 1) .........................................................................................................8-9 8.3.2 City of Rialto (Site 5a and Site 5b) .......................................................................................8-10 8.3.3 City of Fontana (Site 11) ......................................................................................................8-11 8.3.4 City of Ontario (Site 19)........................................................................................................8-11 8.3.5 City of Colton (Site 21) .........................................................................................................8-12 8.3.6 City of Rancho Cucamonga (Site 22)...................................................................................8-13


v

9.0 PERSONS AND SOURCES CONSULTED ...................................................................................9-1 9.1 SOURCES CONSULTED ...............................................................................................................9-1 9.2 PERSONS CONSULTED ...............................................................................................................9-2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS APPENDICES I. Outreach Meetings II. General Transit-Oriented Development Policies and Guidelines III. Market Demand Analysis

Highland Rialto Ontario Colton

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER 1 Table 1.1: Examples of Transit-Oriented Developments and Mixed-Use Areas in the Western United States .......................................................................................................................................................1-24 Table 1.2: Examples of TOD Density.......................................................................................................1-31 Table 1.3: Estimated Densities of the Examples of TODs in the Pearl District of Portland, Oregon.......1-31 Table 1.4: TOD Principles and Benefits...................................................................................................1-34 Table 1.5: Transit-Oriented Developments Implementation Techniques Matrix......................................1-38 Table 1.6: Transit-Oriented Developments Implementation Funding Matrix ...........................................1-38

CHAPTER 2 Table 2.1: Town Center Concept Refined – Summary Tabulation .................................................. ……2-20 Table 2.2: Transit-Oriented Developments Implementation Techniques Matrix......................................2-22 Table 2.3: Transit-Oriented Developments Implementation Funding Matrix ...........................................2-22

CHAPTER 3 Table 3.1: Transit-Oriented Development Implementation Techniques Matrix .......................................3-17 Table 3.2: Transit-Oriented Development Implementation Implementation Funding Matrix ...................3-18

CHAPTER 4 Table 4.1: Summary of Zoning Guidelines for General Commercial Zone and Activity Center Overlay ...4-6 Table 4.2: Town Square Concept - Summary Chart Tabulation..............................................................4-15

CHAPTER 5 Table 5.1: Alternative Scales for Development..........................................................................................5-8 Table 5.2: Transit-Oriented Developments Implementation Techniques Matrix......................................5-20 Table 5.3: Transit-Oriented Developments Implementation Funding Matrix ...........................................5-20


vi

CHAPTER 6 Table 6.2: Transit-Orineted Developments Implementation Techniques Matrix......................................6-15 Table 6.3: Transit-Oriented Developments Implementation Techniques Matrix......................................6-16

CHAPTER 7 Table 7.1: Alternative 1 – Development Tabulation.................................................................................7-10 Table 7.2: Alternative 2 – Development Tabulation.................................................................................7-18 CHAPTER 8 Table 8.1: Employment Forecast - Highland............................................................................................8-10 Table 8.2: Population Growth - Highland .................................................................................................8-10 Table 8.3: Employment Forecast - Rialto.................................................................................................8-10 Table 8.4: Population Growth - Rialto ......................................................................................................8-10 Table 8.5: Employment Forecast - Fontana.............................................................................................8-11 Table 8.6: Population Growth - Fontana ..................................................................................................8-11 Table 8.7: Employment Forecast - Ontario ..............................................................................................8-12 Table 8.8: Population Growth - Ontario ...................................................................................................8-12 Table 8.9: Employment Forecast - Colton ...............................................................................................8-12 Table 8.10: Population Growth - Colton...................................................................................................8-12 Table 8.11: Employment Forecast – Rancho Cucamonga ......................................................................8-13 Table 8.12: Population Growth – Rancho Cucamonga ...........................................................................8-13

LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER 1 Figure 1.1: Draft Long Range Transit Plan ................................................................................................1-5 Figure 1.2: Progress Matrix (continued)...................................................................................................1-11 Figure 1.3: Progress Evaluation Matrix....................................................................................................1-17 Figure 1.4: Transit Village Concept..........................................................................................................1-22

CHAPTER 2 Figure 2.1: Half-mile Radius around the Proposed BRT Station ...............................................................2-2 Figure 2.2: City of Highland General Plan Land Use.................................................................................2-3 Figure 2.3: Town Center Land use Concept ............................................................................................. 2-4Figure 2.4: Main Street Concept –Alternative 1 – Phase 1......................................................................2-12 Figure 2.5: Main Street Concept – Alternative 1 – Phase 2.....................................................................2-12 Figure 2.6: Town Square Concept – Alternative 2 – Phase 1..................................................................2-13 Figure 2.7: Town Square Concept – Alternative 2 – Phase 2..................................................................2-13 Figure 2.8: Church Street Focus – Alternative 3 – Phase 1 ....................................................................2-15 Figure 2.9: Church Street Focus – Alternative 3 – Phase 2 ....................................................................2-15 Figure 2.10: Town Square Concept Refined – Phase 1 ..........................................................................2-17 Figure 2.11: Town Square Concept Refined – Phase 2 ..........................................................................2-17


vii

CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.1: Half-mile Radius around the Proposed Metrolink Station........................................................3-3 Figure 3.2: Metrolink Parking Expansion Study.........................................................................................3-4 Figure 3.3: General Plan Land Use Map ...................................................................................................3-5 Figure 3.4: Downtown Specific Plan Zoning Map ......................................................................................3-5 Figure 3.5: Location of Compass Blueprint Sites 5a and 5b......................................................................3-6 Figure 3.6: Site Plan - Ground Floor Plan..................................................................................................3-9 Figure 3.7: Typical Residential Level .........................................................................................................3-9 Figure 3.8: Building Section ........................…………………………………………………………………….3-9 Figure 3.9: Site Plan - Ground Floor Plan................................................................................................3-10 Figure 3.10: Typical Residential Level .....................................................................................................3-10 Figure 3.11: Building Section ...................................................................................................................3-10 Figure 3.12: Typical Residential Layout – Ground Level .........................................................................3-10 Figure 3.13: Building Section ...................................................................................................................3-10 Figure 3.14: Site Plan - Ground Floor Plan..............................................................................................3-11 Figure 3.15: Typical Underground Parking ..............................................................................................3-11 Figure 3.16: Building Section ...................................................................................................................3-11 Figure 3.17: Site Plan...............................................................................................................................3-12 Figure 3.18: Alternative A - Section .........................................................................................................3-13 Figure 3.19 Alternative B – Section .........................................................................................................3-13

CHAPTER 4 Figure 4.1: The Compass Blueprint Site and Surrounding TOD Neighborhood with a ½ mile radius.......4-2 Figure 4.2: Subject site (in color) with the parcels divided up into three property owners ........................4-3 Figure 4.3: General Plan Land Use Map ...................................................................................................4-4 Figure 4.4: Zoning District Map..................................................................................................................4-5 Figure 4.5: Alternative 1- Mixed Use (Primarily Residential with Ground Floor Retail) .............................4-9 Figure 4.6: Alternative 2- Mixed Use (Office / Residential / Ground Floor Retail) ...................................4-10 Figure 4.7: Phase 1 Town Square Concept.............................................................................................4-11 Figure 4.8: Phase 2 Town Square Concept.............................................................................................4-13 Figure 4.9: Cross Section through Baseline Road and Site 11 ...............................................................4-13

CHAPTER 5 Figure 5.1: Compass Blueprint Site 19 and context. .................................................................................5-2Figure 5.2: Compass Blueprint Ontario Site #19 and potential TOD area.................................................5-3 Figure 5.3: Master Plan for the Ontario International Airport (September 5, 2007)...................................5-5 Figure 5.4: Size of Meredith site in relation to other similar developments in Southern California. ........5-10 Figure 5.5: Alternative 1 – Mixed Use District with Urban Retail/Office Core Sub District ......................5-13 Figure 5.6: Alternative 2 – Mixed Use District focused on Urban Parks and a future potential Gold Line Station ......................................................................................................................................................5-15


viii

CHAPTER 6 Figure 6.1: Half-mile radius around the proposed BRT Station. The selected site (Site 21) is shaded in yellow .........................................................................................................................................................6-2 Figure 6.2: Opportunities and Constraints .................................................................................................6-3 Figure 6.3: City of Colton, RDA Project Areas...........................................................................................6-5 Figure 6.4: Alternative 1, Central Park, Phase 1........................................................................................6-9 Figure 6.5: Alternative 1, Central Park, Phase 1........................................................................................6-9 Figure 6.6: Alternative 2 - New Boulevard, Phase 1................................................................................6-11 Figure 6.7: Alternative 2 - New Boulevard, Phase 2................................................................................6-11 Figure 6-8: Aerial Vision of Colton Superblock Specific Plan Update .....................................................6-14 Figure 6-9: Specific Plan Update Vision for Public Gathering Space ......................................................6-15

CHAPTER 7 Figure 7 1: Half-mile radius around the proposed BRT Station. The selected site (Site 22) is shaded in green ..........................................................................................................................................................7-2 Figure 7.2: General Plan – Land Use Plan ................................................................................................7-4 Figure 7.3: Redevelopment Area Plan.......................................................................................................7-6 Figure 7.4: Property Owners of Selected Site............................................................................................7-6 Figure 7.5: Alternative 1, Phase 1............................................................................................................7-10 Figure 7.6: Alternative 1, Phase 2............................................................................................................7-10 Figure 7.7: Proposed Residential Densities for Alternative 1 ..................................................................7-12 Figure 7.8: Alternative 2, Phase 1............................................................................................................7-14 Figure 7.9: Alternative 2, Phase 2............................................................................................................7-15 Figure 7.10: Transition in Density and Height from Existing Neighborhoods ..........................................7-17

CHAPTER 8 Figure 8.1: City of Highland, Site 1 ............................................................................................................8-2 Figure 8.2 City of Rialto, Sites 5a and 5b ..................................................................................................8-3 Figure 8.3: City of Fontana, Site 11 ...........................................................................................................8-4 Figure 8.4: City 0f Ontario, Site 19.............................................................................................................8-5 Figure 8.5: City of Colton, Site 21 ..............................................................................................................8-6 Figure 8.6: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Site 22........................................................................................8-7

CHAPTER 4: SANBAG Transportation – Land Use Integration Project FONTANA OPPORTUNITY SITE

4-1

4 FFOONNTTAANNAA OOPPPPOORRTTUUNNIITTYY SSIITTEE

4.1 VISION – A Compact Mixed-

Use, Pedestrian-Oriented Neighborhood

The Compass Blueprint Site (Site 11) is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Baseline Road and Sierra Avenue. The Draft San Bernardino County Long-Range Transit Plan (LRTP) indicates premium transit such as BRT along Baseline Road and Sierra Avenue. The vision for Baseline Road and Sierra Avenue site and the surrounding area is a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). A TOD is a compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented neighborhood. These neighborhoods are commonly built around a transit stop. In this case, the TOD neighborhood is proposed around an existing bus stop and proposed Bus Rapid Transit Lines (BRT) situated at the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Baseline Road. A mix of uses such as retail, office, and residential is envisioned within a 1/2 mile radius of the proposed BRT station at the Compass Blueprint Site which is within a short walking distance of the station (Figure 4.1).

A mixed use project with a restaurant and corner plaza provides a human-scale pedestrian-friendly environment.

This mixed-use project varies building height for compatibility with existing uses in Pasadena.

The Fontana Opportunity Site is envisioned as a “Town Square” with ground level retail and restaurant uses facing a major portion of Sierra Avenue and Baseline, offices, multi-family

residential development, and vibrant and attractive public gathering spaces in a pedestrian-oriented setting directly adjacent to a transit station.


4-2

New mixed-use development is also planned in the Promenade Specific Plan and Gabriella Project along Sierra Avenue, north and south of Baseline Avenue. Downtown Fontana and the Fontana Metrolink Station are approximately 1 and

1½ miles respectively, from the site along Sierra Avenue. 4.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Figure 4.1 illustrates the site’s existing conditions and context.

Source: Gruen Associates Figure 4.1: The Compass Blueprint Site and Surrounding TOD Neighborhood with a ½ mile radius.


4-3

The eight-acre Compass Blueprint Site 11 is currently vacant, flat and consists of six individual parcels with three separate owners (Figure 4.2).

The ½ mile radius includes other vacant properties, a gas station, multi-family residential, and single family residential.

Existing adjacent uses to the south and west include vacant properties, a church, and single family residences.

Currently, local bus service Route 10 runs on Baseline Road from the City of Fontana to City of San Bernardino with a 30-minute headway and Route 67 runs from the City of Ontario to City of Fontana on Baseline Road with a 60-minute headway.

The City is currently widening and installing infrastructure along Baseline Road and Sierra Avenue.

Figure 4.2: Subject site (in color) with the parcels divided up into three property owners

View of site looking north with multi-family residential across from Baseline Road.

View of site looking west towards vacant properties and single-family residential beyond


4-4

4.3 CURRENT CITY PLANS The relevant City plans for Compass Blueprint Site 11 follow: 4.3.1 General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Designation: CG General

Commercial (Figure 4.3) o Intended for retail, wholesale and

service activities. o Administrative, corporate and

medical offices permitted. FAR for General Commercial is 0.1 to

1.0 o FARs at the upper range are

intended primarily for office type uses.

The Sierra Corridor Commercial Redevelopment Project Area

Activity Center Overlay Boulevard Overlay

Community Design Element Create a Sense of Place Unify city and create identity through the

design of streetscape, edges, nodes, landmarks and paths.

A City Defined by Transportation o Influenced by local and regional

transportation systems with three major freeways, commercial arterials, and railroad lines

o Metrolink Station o Foothill Boulevard is the Historic

Route 66) with automotive themes o The abandoned Pacific Electric

Inland Empire Trail to be transformed into a trail incorporating transportation and agricultural themes

Figure 4.3: General Plan Land Use Map


4-5

4.3.2 Zoning and Development Code Zoning: C-2 General Commercial and Activity Center Overlay District The site is located in both a C-2 General Commercial Zone and an Activity Center Overlay District (Figure 4.4). If the development standards of both designations are in conflict, then the provisions of the Activity Center Overlay District shall apply. A summary of the development standards for the General Commercial Zone and the Activity Center Overlay District is provided in Table 4.1.

In Activity Centers, mixed-use projects are encouraged. Recommended uses are shopping centers, entertainment centers, professional offices, restaurants, residential, with a focus on pedestrian spaces and integration into the neighborhood. The mix of uses is intended to serve the needs of the immediate residential neighborhood. Residential development at medium (7.7 to 12 du/Ac for multi-family) or multi family (12.1 to 24 du/Ac) densities are permitted if development is part of a project developed under a Specific Plan.

Figure 4.4: Zoning District Map


4-6

Table 4.1: Summary of Zoning Guidelines for General Commercial Zone and Activity Center Overlay

Zoning Guidelines 1 C-2 Gen. Commercial Activity Center Overlay

FAR Minimum 0.1 Maximum 1.0

Minimum 0.25 Maximum 1.5 2

Density 0.1- 1.0 Minimum 7.7 du/Ac Maximum 24 du/Ac

Setbacks

Front (Baseline Ave and Sierra Ave): 25 ft

Interior side abut residential: 25 ft Interior side abut other: 0 ft Rear abut residential: 25 ft Rear abut other: 0 ft

Front and Interior Side: 0 ft (except 15 ft front setback if residential on ground floor and 15’ interior side setback if abuts a residential zone)

Rear: 0 ft (except 15 ft when residential uses are located at rear of building and 15 ft interior side abuts residential zoning designation)

Height 3 60 ft 60 ft Lot Coverage Maximum 50% Maximum 50% Private Open Space n/a

Minimum 100 sf of private open space for each residential unit in a mixed-use project

Storage Facilities for Residential Unit n/a

Minimum 200 cubic ft of private and secure storage space for each residential unit in a mixed-use project

(1) For the Activity Center Overlay District regulation’s relation to the underlying zoning of C-2 General Commercial, the provisions for the Activity Center Overlay apply in addition to the provisions of the C-2 zone. If the provisions of the Activity Center regulations are in conflict with the provisions in C-2, the provisions of the Activity Center Overlay shall apply. (2) The FAR shall be a maximum of 1.5 with a minimum required FAR of 0.25. To encourage mixed use, the FAR for non-residential uses shall comply with the maximum FAR required and the residential uses shall comply with the maximum FAR requirement, but the combined uses need not comply with the maximum FAR requirement. Residential and non-residential uses may be combined to satisfy the minimum FAR requirement. (3) There is height requirement in the Activity Center Overlay, so the underlying height requirement of C-2 General Commercial shall apply (60 ft)


4-7

Boulevard Overlay District Along with the General Commercial zone and Activity Center Overlay designations, the site is also part of a Boulevard Overlay District with the following intentions: Encourage retail activity at major

intersections by concentrating commercial uses at roadway intersection.

Locate boulevard-style residential (townhomes, apartments), offices, services, mixed use midblock, away from intersection.

Consolidate lots to allow for unified, cohesive site development.

FAR for non-residential uses: 0.1 to 1.0 Residential Intensity: 7.7 to 24 du/Ac for

residential uses

This historic packing house was converted into the Claremont Museum of Art, live/work loft units, restaurants, a jazz café, and specialty retail in Claremont, California. Parking Retail: 1 space per 175 sf for first 5,000

sf; 1 space per 200 sf for next 5,000 sf; 1 space per 225 for additional area greater than 10,000 sf.

Office: 1 space per 200 sf for medical or dental offices; 1 space per 250 sf for professional or unspecified office.

Duplex, multiple-family dwelling, condominium or townhouse:

- Studios and One bedroom units: 1.5 spaces per unit

- Two bedrooms: 2.0 spaces per unit

- Three or more bedrooms: 2.5 spaces per unit of which one space shall an enclosed garage and one shall be in a covered space.

- Guest parking: 1 space per 3 units, with a minimum of 3 spaces

Reduction in the number of parking spaces required may be granted for multiple uses on a lot by Planning Commission

Reduction in the number of parking spaces may be granted by the Planning Commission in one of two ways: o Multiple Uses subject to the following

findings: o Adequate off-street parking will be

provided for the proposed use - Environmental impacts will not be

increased by modification of standards

- A parking study has been prepared by a Traffic Engineer and found acceptable

o Joint Use Parking. - Hours of parking demand do not

overlap - Number of spaces are sufficient

to meet peak parking demand of


4-8

any combination of simultaneous uses

4.3.3 Redevelopment Project Area The Sierra Corridor Commercial Redevelopment Project Area The eastern portion of the subject site

that fronts Sierra Avenue is located in a Redevelopment Area.

FAR for non-residential uses: 0.1 to 1.0 4.4 EXISTING AND PLANNED

TRANSIT AND ACCESS The Draft LRTP shows the following premium transit in the project site area: Vision 1 New Premium Bus Route

heading north-south on Sierra Avenue connecting with the existing Fontana Transportation Center (Metrolink) and transportation on Valley Boulevard.

Vision 1 New Premium Bus Route heading east-west on Baseline Road between Sierra Avenue and Church Street in Highland.

4.5 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Plan a Transit-Oriented Development consistent with SCAG’s Compass Blueprint 2% policies and the City of Fontana’s General Plan’s vision, goals and policies, which include the following: Plan a creative and appropriate mix of

residential, retail, entertainment and office uses.

Wide tree lined sidewalk provide ample space for pedestrian in Culver City mixed-use neighborhood Plan a community consistent with the

character and image of Fontana, by “Creating Identity from Diversity” in its physical development, clearly marking formal entries and edges, and providing a mix of activities, services and entertainment destinations along with quality and flexible design.

Provide shopping and dining opportunities that will activate existing aging commercial corridors; in particular, the corner of Sierra Avenue and Baseline Road.

Special feature such as water elements activate a public space In addition, the following are additional goals and objectives.


4-9

Phase non-residential development with surface parking initially and structure or underground parking in the future in order to intensify development when premium transit is available.

Provide retail, restaurant and other pedestrian-oriented uses on the ground level with primarily residential and office above where appropriate and economically feasible.

Place buildings with entrances oriented to the public sidewalks along major streets with parking to the rear and side.

Provide pedestrian-friendly outdoor passageways and gathering spaces filled with trees, attractive outdoor furniture and water features.

Buildings oriented towards the public sidewalk help create a walkable environment

4.6 ALTERNATIVES Two alternatives were prepared for Site 11 and reviewed with City staff and property owners. Figures 4.5 and 4.6 show initial alternatives which were reviewed with stakeholders.

Source: Gruen Associates Figure 4.5: Alternative 1- Mixed Use (Primarily Residential with Ground Floor Retail)


4-10

Source: Gruen Associates Figure 4.6: Alternative 2- Mixed Use (Office / Residential / Ground Floor Retail) 4.7 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS Interviews with stakeholders include the following comments: 4.7.1 City Staff North and east of Baseline Road and

Sierra Avenue are two proposed projects: The Promenade Specific Plan and the Gabriella Project.

The vision for Sierra Avenue is to create communities from the 210 freeway to downtown and the Metrolink Station.

Recommends for Site 11 retail and residential.

Suggests 4 stories for this site. Believes Sierra Avenue has potential for

BRT, especially with the existing high bus ridership

4.7.2 Property Owners (Two of the three owners)

Considered mixed-use in the past and is not sure if the site was ready for this type of development.

Interested in mixed-use and potentially office, but isn’t sure that more residential is needed, especially with a Young Homes development nearby along Walnut Avenue.

Concerned if property owners would be required to build affordable housing. City of Fontana staff indicated that affordable housing is not required.

Wanted to know if market analysis had taken place. (For the Compass Blueprint, a market analysis for this site was not undertaken. However, with the 210 Freeway expansion, arterial roads being expanded, increases in entitlements through a Specific Plan, and the City’s i


4-11

investments in the downtown area, market potential is there sometime in the future).

One of the property owners preferred residential use.

4.8 SITE CONCEPT – A Town Square The Town Square vision combines all the parcels into an integrated conceptual development plan with the following features: Phase 1 (Figure 4.7)

Three- to four-story buildings with ground level retail, neighborhood serving retail, restaurants with outdoor dining and coffee shops encircling a

Town Square visible from Baseline Road. Above the ground level, uses would be offices and residential units. One of the building’s ground floor would be large enough (10,000 sq ft) to contain a small neighborhood market such as a Trader Joe’s or a Tesco. Building entrances face the Town Square and an enhanced streetscape along Baseline Road leading to the bus stops.

The Town Square, envisioned as a vibrant, attractive public gathering space would have wide tree-lined sidewalks with ample pedestrian amenities, outdoor dining, an interactive fountain as a focal point, and textured paving in the surface parking areas.

Source: Gruen Associates Figure 4.7: Phase 1 Town Square Concept


4-12

Restaurant-goers sit in café-style seating overlooking tree-lined sidewalks in Claremont, California.

A grocery store anchors the ground floor of this mixed-use development in Portland, Oregon.

Events such as a Farmer’s Market,

outdoor movies, concerts and other outdoor activities could occur in the Town Square Plaza.

Initially in Phase 1, surface parking would serve the initial non-residential users which in later phases surface parking would be used for additional development and structured parking.

Tree-lined walkways link together the Town Square, its adjoining uses, and the surface parking.

In addition, also in Phase 1 or a later phase, a moderate to high density residential development of two- to three-story townhouses and live work units and four-story residential structures with below grade parking is proposed adjacent to Sierra Avenue in the southern portion of the area.

Primary access to the site would be from a roadway connecting Baseline Road opposite the entrance to the Promenade and from Sierra Avenue, as well as on Montgomery Avenue.

Phase 2 (Figure 4.8) The surface parking lot along Baseline

Road would be developed with four-story office buildings with ground level retail and restaurants oriented to the streetscape and a parking structure.

A tree-lined walking path connects to the Town Center Square and the proposed BRT station on Sierra Avenue.

The surface parking lot at the western portion of the property would be developed as four-story residential structures, a parking structure and podium open space with pool and green areas (Figure 4.9).

The residential density of the entire site would be approximately 24 units/acre and the FAR would be 1.33, excluding parking structures (Table 4.2).


4-13

Source: Gruen Associates Figure 4.8: Phase 2 Town Square Concept

Source: Gruen Associates Figure 4.9: Cross Section through Baseline Road and Site 11

Proposed massing of Phase 2 looking southwest

Proposed massing of town square and interactive fountain looking south with ground floor retail and offices or residential above.


4-14

Rendering: William Block An artist rendering showing architectural and landscaping concepts, including a BRT stop.

3-story mixed-use development in Phoenix, Arizona.

This mixed-use development in Portland, Oregon incorporates neighborhood-serving retail along with residential uses.

4.9 FUTURE MASS TRANSIT

CONCEPTS FOR SITE 11 IN FONTANA

The site is currently served by Omnitrans Bus Route 67 and Route 10. Route 67 travels from the City of Ontario to the City of Fontana via Baseline Road and operates

currently on a 60 minute peak weekday headway. Route 10 travels from the City of Fontana to the City of San Bernardino via Baseline Road and operates currently on a 30 minute peak weekday headway. Future Mass Transit Concepts for Site 11 in Fontana are as follows.


4-15

Table 4.2: Town Square Concept - Summary Chart Tabulation

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 + 2 Retail 52,040 42,365 94,405 Office 40,000 54,840 94,840 Total Non-Residential 92,040 97,205 189,245 Residential Sq Ft 177,120 64,315 241,435 Residential Units (Entire Site) 145 52 197

Residential Density (Entire Site) in du/ac 1 18 - 24

Building Coverage 2 0.27 - 0.43FAR All Uses 0.83 - 1.33

(1) Density for the Residential Block only is 38 du/ac (2) Entire Site excluding parking structures; with parking structures 0.55 Community Circulator Service. The

disbursed nature of activity centers in the City of Fontana may warrant the development of community circulator mass transit service that connects Site 11 with a variety of key centers in the Sierra Avenue Corridor. The Circulator would be on a fixed route and time table with designated stops.

Two BRT Lines on Baseline (East-West) and Sierra (North-South). A proposed high speed BRT line would operate south- north along Sierra Avenue on the eastern side of Site 11. A second BRT line is envisioned to operate along Baseline Road along the northern side of the site. A BRT station could be sited at the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Baseline Road. This BRT line is intermediate to long range (8 years or more in the future).

Improved Omnitrans Fixed Route Bus Service. Omnitrans adds or modifies service on a periodic basis based upon requests it receives from member

jurisdictions. Omnitrans Bus service could be increased to serve individual sites in the future if a jurisdiction makes a strong case for the modification to Omnitrans.

4.10 NEXT STEPS / IMPLEMENTATION As mentioned previously, SANBAG is preparing its Long Range Transit Plan (LRTP) with several potential BRT corridors in Fontana including Sierra Avenue and Baseline Road. Located at the intersection of these two potential BRTs, future uses on the Fontana opportunity site would have increased mobility to downtown, to the Fontana Metrolink Station, and to the entire region. The City’s General Plan and zoning indicates the opportunity site as both an Activity Center overlay and a Boulevard overlay which allow a range of densities up to 24 units/acre and a range of FAR’s up to 1.5. Due to this site’s location relative to future transportation, the site offers an excellent opportunity to demonstrate a


4-16

phased transit-oriented development tailored to the site’s unique characteristics. The phased conceptual integrated plan was proposed for the City and the three property owners to begin a dialogue as to potential uses, building program, site access, and linkages to create a sense of place and activities connected to future transit. Although only one potential site in Fontana is illustrated in this report, other proposed transit corridors in the LRTP, such as sites along Foothill Boulevard would typically have transit/stops approximately every mile providing multiple opportunities to create appropriate transit-oriented land uses with walking distances of the transit stations. 4.10.1 Implementing Policies to consider

adding in the General Plan Transportation Element Under Goal #2

GOAL #2 of the General Plan reads as follows: A regional network of multi-modal transportation facilities including an improved citywide public transit system is provided that ensure the safe and efficient movement of vehicles, people and goods throughout the City of Fontana and to and from the region, and provides mobility to all City residents and helps reduce vehicular trips City-wide. Add to the current policies the following:

11) To promote a healthy sustainable community and encourage transit ridership over auto travel, target areas within ½ mile (a ten minute walk) of premium transit station/stops1 for the highest employment/retail intensities and residential densities while preserving established low density residential neighborhoods and other neighborhood features. 12) Create strong pedestrian and bicycle linkages to premium transit stations/stops. 13) Support and provide space for attractively designed premium station/stops. 4.10.2 Implementing Guidelines to

Consider Relative to Future Planning for the Opportunity Site

To achieve an integrated, concentrated

mixed-use development on the opportunity site, provide incentives for the consolidation of the three properties currently under separate ownership. These incentives could be increased FAR’s, increased densities (the highest FAR’s and densities permitted in the Boulevard and Activity Overlay area) and reductions in parking requirements to reflect increased transit use.

Provide active public gathering spaces as a focal point on the site and use these spaces for special events, an interactive fountain, outdoor dining, other pedestrian amenities and parking.

1 Premium transit includes Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), Light Rail Transit (LRT), and Commuter Rail.


4-17

Plan the development for future phases of more intense development in the future when premium transit is available and the market supports structured parking.

Provide design guidelines with phased design concepts including: o A Pedestrian-friendly Environment

and Facilities - A continuous pedestrian and

bicycle network should link the neighborhood to the transit stop.

- Sidewalks should be wide enough for street trees and pedestrian amenities.

- Streetscape should feature enhancements such as landscaping, special paving, street furniture, and water features.

- Pedestrian-oriented uses should be situated on the ground level fronting sidewalks.

- Wayfinding signage, visual cues, and public art should communicate activities in the TOD and linkages to transit.

o Innovative, Well-Designed Parking

and Access - Surface parking along streets

should be screened by a hedge, a low masonry wall with vines, or with a vine-covered trellis.

- Parking garages should be screened with generous landscaping and canopy trees surrounding.

- Parking access should be from side streets and from alleys, where feasible.

- Pedestrian paths should be provided through parking lots connecting all uses.

o Design Character / Architectural

Character and Massing - Building facades should be

articulated using techniques such as stepping back of upper floors, changes in plane, recessed windows, bay windows, balconies, trellises, varied roof lines, and changes in color.

- Visual interest at street level should be created using techniques such as staggering the frontage of the building, recessing doors and windows, providing awnings and canopies, and using transparent clear glass.

A mixed-use block of ground level boutique stores and offices above as an extension to downtown Claremont


4-18

- Building placement and design should emphasize each street as an urban space through varying building facades, materials and colors, contemporary and pedestrian-friendly design, awnings, special corner treatments of buildings, and lighting.

- A network of open spaces such as landscaped sidewalks, paseos, plazas, terraces, courtyards, gardens, and decks should be incorporated into TODs and connected together, where possible, forming an open space network on a site.

- Common open spaces should be centrally located and preferably be designed as courtyards, plazas and outdoor rooms.

- Special features such as water elements and public art should be included to activate public spaces and provide a unique identity for an area.

- Building entries should be oriented to the major street frontage and directly from the public sidewalk.

- Entries should be emphasized with an increased height, recessed volumes, trellises, overhangs, or other distinctive features.

- Private development and public spaces should be compatible and complementary with visual and physical cues that demark the public space from the private space.

- Signage should be distinctive clear, and uniformly applied.

*NOTE: Photos if not cited were taken by Gruen Associates Staff and are a part of Gruen Associates image library.

CHAPTER 5: SANBAG Transportation – Land Use Integration Project ONTARIO OPPORTUNITY SITE

5-1

5 OONNTTAARRIIOO OOPPPPOORRTTUUNNIITTYY SSIITTEE

5.1 VISION – A memorable,

regional destination place within a walkable and pedestrian-friendly district

The vision for the Compass Blueprint Ontario Site #19, also called the Meredith Site, is to create a memorable, regional destination place featuring varied and lively recreational, shopping, office, residential, and entertainment uses within a walkable and pedestrian-friendly district. This Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) would be a vibrant, mixed-use district served by multimodal transportation facilities. The site’s unique location and size provide opportunities to establish a grand and distinctively urban type of development incorporating high density development, high intensity commercial uses, hospitality, entertainment and outdoor green space. Nearby existing regional draws such as the Ontario International Airport, Ontario Mills Mall, the Ontario Convention Center and the Guasti-Cucamonga Regional Park would be linked to the development through

Retail, movie theaters, live theaters and restaurants within the Metro Red Line subway stop make the Hollywood and Highland complex in Hollywood, California a destination place.

Parks with trees and lively fountains serve as gathering spaces for the surrounding residential uses.

A grand and distinctively high intensity/density mixed-use development served by multi-modal transportation facilities is envisioned for the Ontario Opportunity Site. Located close to the

International Airport and other regional draws the site would be a destination place featuring varied and lively recreational, shopping, office, residential, and hospitality uses.


5-2

transit and landscape connections. Development would provide linkages to nearby parks, create new parks, and take advantage of the views to the San Bernardino Mountains. In contrast to the surrounding development which has a suburban character with wide arterial streets and surface parking lots, the project would instead be composed of intimately-scaled walkable districts with mixed-use developments consisting of more frequent but narrower streets with attractive landscaped sidewalks adjacent. Within the development would be a network of parks integrated with activity centers that would make this site one of the premier destination places and regional focal points for the Inland Empire. The two alternative concepts depicted in this working paper are to stimulate conversation in the City of Ontario for Planning of Site 19 but also for input to other major planning efforts underway: the Ontario Airport Master Plan, SANBAG’s Long Range Transit Plan, the extension of the Gold Line and the City’s General Plan Update. Once the City staff and officials incorporate their comments in this working paper, it should be shared with those preparing these other plan / studies to achieve true land use and transportation integration. 5.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS /

OPPORTUNITIES Among the site’s main attributes are its high visibility and easy accessibility due to the

proximity of the San Bernardino Freeway (I-10). In the future, the site could become even more easily accessed through the proposed Gold Line Extension running through the site or adjacent to the site and planned HOV Lanes within the San Bernardino Freeway. In addition, the site is the last large vacant site in Ontario within a major concentration of active regional serving uses. Currently, a review of the site conditions includes: The vacant and flat approximately 250

acre site is located directly north of the San Bernardino Freeway between Archibald Avenue and Vineyard Avenue (Figures 5.1 and 5.2).

A flood control channel runs through the center of the site in a north-south direction.

Adjacent uses include a mix of residential, commercial and industrial uses to the north, a park to the east, a major freeway to the south, and residential to the west.

Other nearby destinations include the Ontario International Airport, Ontario Mills, the Ontario Convention Center, and the

Ontario Event Center under construction. The entire site is under single ownership.

View of site looking north towards the San Bernardino Mountains..


5-3

Source: Gruen Associates and SANBAG Figure 5.1: Compass Blueprint Site 19 and Context.

Source: Gruen Associates and SANBAG Figure 5.2: Compass Blueprint Ontario Site #19 and Potential TOD area.


5-4

For the purposes of this study, the potential future Gold Line light rail extension to the Ontario Airport is proposed to run along the existing flood control channel through the site. This and other locations for the future extension to the Gold Line to the Ontario Airport are under study such as along Archibald Avenue and Vineyard Avenue would serve the site as well.

The site consists of the following parcels (by APN Numbers):

5.3 CURRENT CITY AND LAWA

PLANS Potential development of the site would be guided by the City of Ontario’s General Plan, the Zoning Code, and the Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) Ontario Airport Master Plan. 5.3.1 General Plan The General Plan designates the site as

General Commercial. The City of Ontario is currently updating

their General Plan. They are one year into a two-year program. The visioning is complete and they are starting the alternatives definition process.

5.3.2 Meredith Specific Plan According to the Municipal Zoning Code,

the site is designated under the “2265 Specific Plan i.e. the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan”.

The Meredith International Centre Specific Plan adopted in May 1981 will be updated. Current Specific Plan requirements include: o Intended to be a high-density urban

development with a maximum of 800 residential units, 400,000 sq ft of retail, 2,850,000 sq ft of office, and 900,000 sq ft of hotel (1,200 rooms). This is equivalent to a FAR of approximately 0.47.

o The highest residential density permitted by the Specific Plan is 40 du/Ac.

o Building heights up to 225 ft; however, the specific plan appendix indicates FAA restrictions limit height from 75 ft to 125 ft.

5.3.3 LAWA LAWA is a branch of the City of Los

Angeles, whose Board of Commissioners and staff operate and maintain the Ontario Airport.

LAWA is in the process of updating the Ontario Airport Master Plan and preparing a Draft EIR. These documents are anticipated to be made public in the Fall of 2008. Figure 5.3 includes the proposed plan for LAWA included in the Notice of Preparation of the EIR.

011031125 011031124 011031137 011031138 011032129 011032105 011031115 011031121 011031136 011031126 011032128 011032126 011031133 011031100 011032127 011031128


5-5

Source: HNTB; LAWA Website Figure 5.3: Master Plan for the Ontario International Airport (September 5, 2007) A Scoping Meeting for the Master Plan

took place September 5, 2007. A partial descrption of the project includes: o A transportation center is proposed

on the west side of Archibald Avenue south of the I-10 freeway.

o An Automated People Mover (APM) is proposed to connect the High Speed Rail Station Regional Transportation Interface, located on East Airport Drive just west of Archibald Avenue, to the Airport Terminal, the Convention Center, and the proposed ConRAC Facility south of East Airport Drive and east of Haven Avenue.

o The current runway is proposed to be relocated and reconfigured.

o The Pacific Gateway Cargo Center is in development south of East Airport Drive and west of Vineyard Avenue.

o Linear expansion of existing passenger terminals and gates is anticipated.

A grocery store anchors the ground floor with residential above at the Market Lofts in Downtown Los Angeles.


5-6

This inviting entry plaza to the Metro Red Line Subway stop in Hollywood, California is part of an integrated mixed-use TOD development. 5.4 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS In conversations with City staff on May 1, 2007, the Compass Blueprint Planning Team obtained relevant information about Ontario and the selected site. A summary of comments follows: City staff envisions more intense

development on this site, with mid to high-rise office and residential buildings greater than three-stories with parking below.

Current growth scenario for site under consideration (impacts not analyzed yet) include: o Mixed Use Retail

- 39.1 acres - 1.0 FAR - 1,702,826 sq ft

o Mixed Use Office - 117.3 acres - 1.0 FAR - 5,108,479 sq ft

The City would like to connect the Meredith Site with its historic district and with the arena via shuttles, buses or other local transit modes.

The interchange at Vineyard and the 1-10 would have to be re-designed for better access to the Meredith Site.

The City desires a phased development. Phase 1 would be east of the canal to Archibald Avenue and may include two or three car dealers, and large scale retail uses like the Ontario Mills and Phase 2 would be developed as Ontario’s new urban destination with theaters, offices, retail, and high-density retail with a public gathering space linked to Main Street.

5.5 MARKET ASSESSMENT 5.5.1 Market Highlights Preliminary market highlights for the Ontario site have been prepared by ERA. The following represents a summary of their findings in May 7, 2007. This area is projected as one of the

strongest markets in the Inland Empire with stable growth to be established as a regional center.

According to the SCAG projections, the area would have 34,000+ jobs in the year 2005-15.


5-7

Young families will comprise most of the near term growth.

Approximately 6.28 million sq ft of retail space currently exists and another 2.38 million sq ft is already proposed.

Current office GLA is 4.2 million s.f. with vacancies creeping up to 11.2 %. Rents are marginally higher then County wide average. Approximately 2 million s.f. of office space is already planned for the area.

Approximately 18,500 homes are in the pipeline (or in the entitlement process). An average new home price is in the range of $270+/- per s.f.

Approximately 3,000 hotel rooms currently exist in the area and another 1,200 are already planned to be added in the near future.

In February of 2008, ERA updated the socio-economic data to include a range of densities for potential development. Table 5.1 lists the initial ERA Scale (a lower density concept), a middle scale, and high density scale. 5.5.2 Strategies to Plan Now ERA’s recommendations have been considered in the creation of a land-use program for the development of alternative concepts for the site. The Market assessment has been updated by ERA to reflect the downturn in the housing market. However, with the site of this size, it is critical to plan now so development may occur efficiently when the market is ready.

To encourage a transit oriented ‘Town Center’ with increased densification opportunities in the future.

To support a non-residential mix to capture internal as well as regional demand.

To distinguish retail and dining by focusing on ‘higher end’ markets and product types which are limited, but exclusive.

Retail and restaurants are located on the bottom floors with residential above in Pasadena California’s Paseo Colorado To create public space and amenities

which play an important role. To encourage future lodging and

hospitality uses to capitalize on the site’s proximity to the airport (more hotels may take a longer time to come into the market).

To support future high density offices (with moderate density development in the initial stage).


5-8

Table 5.1: Alternative Scales for Development

Initial ERA Scale (Aug.

2007) Middle Scale High Density Concept

Scale (Dec. 2007)

Hotel 0.294 million sf 0.300 million sf Included Retail 0.265 million sf 0.984 million sf 1.7 million sf Office 0.637 million sf 2.872 million sf 5.1 million sf

Residential 1,680 Dus 2,012 Dus 2,345 Dus

(1,840 million sf) (2,213 million sf) (2,570 million sf)

3.044 million sf 6.370 million sf 9.370 million sf

Jobs 2,658 +- 9,236 +- 15,111 +-

Residents 3,360 +- 4,024 +- 4,690 +- Source: ERA Associates and Gruen Associates The Meredith Site is not within a

redevelopment project area. Its success will be largely related to the scale of densities of entitlements which will come forth from a new Specific Plan.

A coordinated infrastructure development program, including utilities is also essential.

5.6 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES To determine the land use and economic development potential for the site, the following goals and objectives are: Prepare a land use and transportation

integration concept for an urban destination which capitalizes on the site’s unique location adjacent to the San Bernardino Freeway, Ontario International Airport, the planned Cucamonga-Guasti Regional Park to the east, Ontario Mills, and the proposed Ontario Special Events Center.

Consider an update of the Meredith International Center, Specific Plan “Concept” to reflect existing market and physical conditions and the City’s and stakeholder’s new vision.

Create a more compact, urban, pedestrian-friendly, and walkable environment served by multi-modal transportation (auto, shuttle, bus, train, bicycle, and pedestrian) in contrast to the more automobile dominated development in the surrounding areas.

Plan for mixed-use development on the site including mid and high rise offices, retail, high density residential, entertainment, cultural facilities, and public gathering spaces.

Plan for developments which are phased with infrastructure including transportation improvements.

Design the streetscape and each project considering sustainability.


5-9

A sidewalk in Berkeley, California is flanked by trees, landscaping and outdoor cafes.

Pedestrians enjoy the pedestrian plaza in Brazil.

A major boulevard is lined with trees, wide sidewalks, and multi-story buildings in Barcelona.

Drought-tolerant and California natives can be incorporated into the landscape, like this sidewalk in Phoenix, Arizona. 5.7 RELATIVE SIZE OF SITE The relative scale of the Meredith Site can be compared to similar types of developments around Southern California. The diagram in Figure 5.4 shows the Meredith Site along with different developments at the same scale. Century City, a mixed-use urban development of 176 acres in West Los Angeles, is similar in size to the Meredith Site. There is approximately

Century City, as shown in this bird’s eye view, is a mixed-use neighborhood similar in acreage to the Meredith Site. Due to airport land use regulations, buildings in the Meredith site would not reach this height. .


5-10

Source: Gruen Associates and Goggle Earth Figure 5.4: Size of Meredith site in relation to other similar developments in Southern California. 14 million square feet of commercial andoffice space in the 117 acre commercial district, with a Floor Area Ratio of approximately 2.8. Within the residential portion of Century City, currently there are approximately 1700 residential units, ranging from 3 stories to 27 stories. Another 870 residential units are proposed. 5.8 ALTERNATIVE SITE CONCEPTS The two alternatives propose possible site concepts for the Meredith Site. There are urban design and transportation features common to both alternatives, as well as an alternative unique to each concept.

5.8.1 Urban design features of the Mixed-Use Urban District common to all alternatives

Features common to all alternatives include: Creation of a memorable place A grid of streets with small walkable

blocks (300’ to 400’ blocks) Tree-lined boulevards with wide

sidewalks Pedestrian connections to the future

Regional Park Main shopping street(s) connecting

major public gathering spaces Gold Line Extension along the flood

control channel with a station at Inland Center Drive


5-11

The highest densities and intensities developed within ¼ mile of the station

Sub-districts focused on a unique feature such as a public gathering

space Residential development located along

4th Street, viewing the regional park and away from the freeway

Most commercial development with surface parking initially which will be developed later at higher intensities

Retail and restaurants fronted by a plaza with interactive fountain

A pedestrian-only paseo is featured in Paseo Colorado located in Downtown Pasadena, California

This residential building includes solar collectors as exterior building materials as well as many other sustainable features. 5.8.2 Potential Multi-modal phased

transportation improvements common to all alternatives

Potential multi-modal transportation improvements to consider are organized by likely implementation: Inland Center Drive intersection with

Vineyard Avenue would be moved to the north to facilitate interchange improvements at the I-10 and Inland Center road from Vineyard I-10 Interchange would be realigned. The character of Inland Center Drive would be a boulevard with a landscaped median, tree lined parkways and sidewalks on each side and a place for a shuttle.

Passengers at a Light Rail Station wait under a canopy of trees in Downtown San Jose, California.


5-12

Community shuttle north and south of the I-10 Freeway in conjunction with LAWA linking the site, the Airport, the arena, Ontario Mills, and the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink or Ontario Metrolink stations

Improved Omnitrans bus routes Interchange improvements at Vineyard

Avenue and Archibald Avenue HOV on I-10 possibility with drop ramps

to potential transfer centers BRT on Holt Avenue, North Archibald

Avenue to Transfer Center and east on Inland Center Road (+ 10 years)

Gold Line Extension through site (+ 15 years)

The Metro Orange Line in the San Fernando Valley demonstrates successful Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) with an exclusive right-of-way.

A distinctive glass shelter welcomes visitors to the entrance of this subway station.

5.8.3 Alternative 1 – Mixed-Use District with Urban Retail/Office Core Sub District

Alternative 1 (Figure 5.5) envisions a world class, vibrant mixed-use district divided into three sub-districts, each with its own unique identity rendered through its streetscape, parks, and uses. Each district would have a special distinct image and would be organized around a network of pedestrian-friendly, tree-lined streets. A network of parks, paseos, and tree-lined pedestrian-friendly sidewalks connect these districts. The central core would have a retail/entertainment element that includes ground-floor restaurants, cafes, retail and entertainment spaces. Directly adjacent to the north of the core and furthest away from the San Bernardino Freeway would be the residential-emphasis sub-district. The alternative consists of the following sub districts: Mixed-Use Retail/Entertainment

Emphasis Sub District o Located in the center of the site, the

district would have ground level retail/restaurants facing narrow streets with attractive streetscape, outdoor dining, theaters, performing places, public art, and other amenities (streetscape similar to 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica or Victoria Gardens in Rancho Cucamonga).

o Office buildings would be located above the restaurants and retail buildings would be up to nine stories. There would also be live-work,


5-13

Source: Gruen Associates Figure 5.5: Alternative 1 – Mixed Use District with Urban Retail/Office Core Sub District

entertainment, civic and community facilities. The FAR would be up to 2.0 in the core.

Mixed-Use Residential Emphasis Sub District o Residential development with

moderate densities ranging from 30 to 60 du /acre would be planned near 4th Street and higher densities from 60 to 100 du/acre would be adjacent to the planned regional

park and near the proposed Gold Line Station.

o The district also would have areas allocated for neighborhood serving retail such as coffee shops, day care, bakeries, shoe repairs, etc and professional offices.

Mixed-Use Office Emphasis Sub District o This sub district would consist of

office buildings and hotels up to 12 stories with buildings facing the


5-14

boulevards and streets and buildings oriented to gathering spaces.

o Buildings and their entrances would be located close to the boulevards and streets on wide landscaped sidewalks. Ground floor retail is encouraged but not required. Parking would be located close to the freeway or underground. There would be view corridors to the mountains. The FAR would range from 0.5 to 1.5 in this sub district.

Urban Design In the heart of the Mixed-Use Retail Emphasis Sub District is a linear pedestrian, entertainment street along which the theaters, retail, restaurants, clubs, office towers would focus similar to the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica or Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills is recommended. 5 Two north-south and two east-west

Boulevards would provide a framework grid with narrower grid streets in between.

6 A series of small parks and gathering spaces are linked together by wide sidewalks with canopy trees and paseos.

7 Public architecture and vehicular, transit, and pedestrian grade separated crossings of Inland Center Drive and the I-10 Freeway should be aesthetically designed to depict a contemporary and flight aesthetic melding this destination place with the rapidly growing airport and at the same time creating a gateway to the

development.

Large-scale sculptures, a water setting, and distinctive contemporary architecture make a dramatic statement at the Guggenheim Museum of Bilbao.

Gathering spaces may accommodate activities such as outdoor markets and dining.

Phasing In today’s market, land values support surface parking; however in the future as land values increase, parking structures and below grade parking will be feasible and will be necessary to achieve the FARs in the vision for the TOD. Surface parking is planned for Phase 1 which would be converted to dense development in later phases when premium transit is provided. Initial development plans should illustrate plans for intensification in the future.


5-15

5.8.4 Alternative 2 – Mixed-Use District focused on Urban Parks and a future potential Gold Line Station

In Alternative 2 (Figure 5.6), the centerpiece for this scheme would be a large central park similar in scale to the Millennium Park in Chicago or the parks in the Pearl District of Portland. As the cultural and recreational heart of the community,

this park would be activated by performing spaces, informal playing fields, interactive fountains and gardens. In addition, surrounding street level restaurants with outdoor dining and shops further enliven this urban park. There is the potential to integrate the flood control channels within the park scheme, creating a green network of parks around this new community.

Source: Gruen Associates Figure 5.6: Alternative 2 – Mixed Use District focused on Urban Parks and a future potential Gold Line Station


5-16

Sub Districts and Urban Design The alternative consists of the following sub districts: Grand Park Sub District

o The heart of the community would have a central park (10 - 20 acres) similar to features in the Millennium Park in Chicago with taller office buildings and perhaps a hotel overlooking the park.

o The streets facing the park would have ground level retail and restaurants with outdoor dining.

o Within the park there would be civic uses (some which would be architecturally designed as contemporary icons or destination attractions), performing spaces, informal playing fields, and gardens. The FAR would be up to 1.5 in the Grand Park Sub District.

Chicago’s Millennium Park features a large-scale outdoor concert lawn, fountains, gardens, sculpture and other recreational uses. Image source: Chicago Sun-Times

Both children and adults enjoy the interactive fountains located in widely used urban parks Le Parc de Bercy in Paris


5-17

Gold Line Station Sub District o This sub district would have a high

density/ intensity mixed-use village character similar to parts of Downtown San Diego.

o Directly adjacent to the Gold Line station a mix of offices, retail and restaurants are planned.

o The northern portion of the district would be mid and high-density residential with views of the regional park and the development would be in walking distance of the Gold Line Station. The FAR would be up to 2.0.

Park View Sub District o The district would have mid-high

density residential towers overlooking the regional park, bordered by the Gold Line. In particular, designs that establish a generally continuous street edge along the regional park are encouraged.

Neighborhood retail on the ground level with residential uses above

Airport Serving Commercial Sub District o This sub district would have a mix of

commercial uses (retail, office, restaurant, hotel) serving/supporting the airport and would be developed in the initial phases.

4th Street Residential Sub District o The sub district would have

residential development with moderate densities ranging from 40 to 60 du /acre.

Parks in France incorporate green areas, pedestrian-friendly paths and trees surrounded by mid to high-rise buildings. Phasing As in Alternative 1, this alternative is planned initially for surface parking and some structure parking. The surface parking later would be converted to intense development around the Gold Line Station. 5.9 NEXT STEPS / IMPLEMENTATION 5.9.1 Implementation Policies to

Consider Adding in the General Plan Update

While the City is updating its General Plan and SANBAG is updating its LRTP it is the opportune time to incorporate transportation


5-18

and land use integration concepts in the City of Ontario. The LRTP would typically have station stops approximately every mile on Light Rail Lines similar to the Gold Line or on BRT Lanes proposed along major arterials. This provides multiple opportunities to create appropriate land use densities and intensities within walking distance from transit stations. Figure 1.1: Draft Long Range Transit Plan in Chapter One shows station locations under consideration in Ontario. The General Plan Update should provide land use and transportation policies for these stations/stops along premium transit lines. Policies should be flexible as they need to be tailored to the unique site and market conditions of each site. Policies suggested include: To increase mobility and contribute to a

healthy, livable community, encourage Transit-Oriented Development along major transit corridors. o Concentrate within ½ mile of

premium transit station/stops1, mixed-use commercial/residential uses, retail, restaurants, offices, multi-family residential, entertainment, and civic uses while protecting established low density residential.

o Target areas within ½ mile of premium transit station/stops for the

1Premium transit includes light rail, heavy passenger rail, bus rapid transit (BRT), monorail, or other similar mode. Express bus such as Metro Rapid Bus in Los Angeles may also be considered Premium.

highest employment/retail intensities and densities relieving pressure to develop established single family neighborhoods in the City.

o Provide incentives for increased density within ½ mile of premium transit station/stops such as density bonuses, FAR increases, reductions in parking requirements, and expedited review.

o Create strong pedestrian and bicycle linkages to the premium transit station/stops thereby reducing auto trips.

o Support attractively designed premium station/stops with transit/pedestrian amenities.

o Develop urban design and planning guidelines and parking management strategies that promote non-auto transportation and quality live, work, and play environments.

o Locate along major streets pedestrian friendly uses and building entrances.

o Locate parking behind buildings or on the side.

o Provide people gathering spaces, amenities, and wide tree-lined sidewalks along major transit corridors.

Plan for concentrated developments within ½ mile of proposed transit corridors which can be phased for increased intensities/densities, when transit is available. o Limit new low density/intensity

development within the ½ mile area.


5-19

o Provide space for future transit stations/stops and establish and implement streetscape improvements and tree-lined pedestrian/bicycle pathways.

o Locate surface parking areas that serve the 1st phase development away from the walkable environment along the street, and for future building sites with more intense development.

Work with Omnitrans and SANBAG in locating premium transit corridors, stations, and planning appropriate adjacent Transit-Oriented Development tailored to each site’s unique conditions.

5.9.2 Implementation Policies to

Consider Adding in the Specific Plan Update

Although the two Alternatives are conceptual only, they provide an overall direction as well as the goals and objectives for developing policies for the General Plan Update. Suggested policies to consider include: Support Gold Line Extension

Alternatives that include a Gold Line Station on the Meredith Site (Compass Blueprint Site #19) and at the airport.

Create on the site a compact, urban, pedestrian-friendly and walkable

environment served by multi-modal transportation (auto, shuttle, bus, train, bicycle, and pedestrian) in contrast to the more automobile dominated development in surrounding areas.

Plan for mixed-use developments on the site including mid- and high rise offices, retail, moderate and high density residential, entertainment, cultural facilities, and public gathering spaces.

Plan for developments which may be phased for more intense developments as infrastructure and transportation improvements are developed.

Incorporate urban design features to create a world-class, memorable destination place including vibrant public gathering spaces, public parks, a fine grained grid of tree-lined streets, and a pedestrian network linking all uses and transit stops.

The following Tables 5.2 and 5.3 illustrate potential implementation techniques on funding sources for development of this opportunity site.


5-20

1 TIF = Redevelopment Project Tax Increment Financing 2 IID = Infrastructure Improvement District Tax Increment Financing 3 CFD = Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (Assessment) 4 FSBF = Possible Future State Bond Financing (New issues will need to be approved.) 5 CIP = Local (city/municipal) Capital Improvement Program 6 DAPF = City/Developer Development Agreement Partnership Funding 7 NMTC = U.S. Treasury New Markets Tax Credits (will need to be reauthorized) 8 CWTF = New and Future Countywide Transportation Funds (from authorized sales tax proceeds) 9 ADPIF = Possible Airport District Peripheral Infrastructure Funding (a concept) 10 OFG = Other Federal Grants (U.S. EDA, LPWG; U.S. CDBG; etc.) 11 LT/PPS or L = Land Trade/Public Property Sale or Lease 12 DRT = Development Rights Transfer

Table 5.2: Transit-Oriented Developments Implementation Techniques Matrix (An Overview) Light Rail Transit (LRT)

Ontario 1) Site scales 250 acres 2) In redevelopment project No 3) In current Specific Plan Yes (from 1981) 4) Current development agreement No 5) On site/adjacent adequate utilities No 6) High regional visibility Yes 7) Town/city center concept Yes 8) Current development market Delayed by

Recession 9) New TOD right of way required Yes 10) TOD/city concept density High 11) Potential forecast of development initiation 2012+ 12) Needs recovery of land values Yes 13) Major regional adjacent impact issues Yes

(Ontario Airport expansion)

14) Existing public purpose land relocation or sale No Source: Economics Research Associates Table 5.3: Transit-Oriented Developments Implementation Funding Matrix LRT

Ontario 1 - 2 IID 3 CFD 4 FSBF 5 CIP 6 DAPF 7 NMTC 8 CWTF 9 ADPIF 10 OFG 11 _ 12 DRT

Source: Economic Research Associates *NOTE: Photos if not cited were taken by Gruen Associates Staff and are a part of Gruen Associates image library.

CHAPTER 6: SANBAG Transportation – Land Use Integration Project COLTON OPPORTUNITY SITE

6-1

6 CCOOLLTTOONN OOPPPPOORRTTUUNNIITTYY SSIITTEE

6.1 VISION – A mix of uses within

½ mile of transit stations The Compass Blueprint Colton Site #21, located on the southwest corner of the intersection of San Bernardino Avenue and Pepper Avenue, is also bordered by the I-10 Freeway and the City of Rialto. The vision for the site is a transit-oriented development (TOD), a vibrant, walkable, compact, mixed-use district focused around premium transit stations and served by multi-modal transportation facilities. The Draft San Bernardino County Long Range Plan envisions premium transit along San Bernardino Avenue, Pepper Avenue, and Valley Boulevard with potential transit stations on the site on San Bernardino Avenue and Pepper Avenue (Figure 6.1). The mix of uses within ½ mile of the transit station envisioned for Site 21 are influenced by the Arrowhead Regional Medical Center to the east of the site on Pepper Avenue, the sites freeway location, and transit-supportive uses. They include medical support uses, offices, retail, restaurants, business-park, hotel, entertainment, moderate and high-density residential.

A wide tree-lined sidewalk with landscaping fronting a residential development

Park-like spaces of varied character and use would be interspersed with the higher intensity development

A vibrant and walkable community within ½ mile of transit stations is envisioned with a mix of medical support offices, retail, restaurants, business park, hotel, entertainment, and moderate

to high-density residential uses influenced by adjacent land uses.


6-2

Source: Gruen Associates Figure 6.1: Half-mile radius around the Proposed BRT Station. The selected site (Site 21) is shaded in yellow. 6.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The following describes existing conditions and context: Site 21, known as the Colton

Superblock, is 250 acres of undeveloped and under-developed lands north of I-10, south of San Bernardino Avenue and bounded on the west by the City of Rialto and on the east by Pepper Avenue.(Figure 6.2)

Existing uses on the site include along Pepper Avenue McNeilus Truck and Manufacturing and two religious facilities; along San Bernardino Avenue the Carpenter’s Union and George

Brown Park, (a city park also known as West Park); along Valley Boulevard Moss Brothers Ford, which has over 100 employees, and various mostly older automotive and industrial uses. Interior to the Superblock uses include the County of San Bernardino Department of Social Services, EJC Sheet Metal, and the Colton Golf Club, an 18-hole privately owned course built in the 1960’s and designed by Robert Trent Jones, Sr.

The topography of the site is relatively flat with the property sloping from San Bernardino Avenue to the freeway. Views of the mountains to the south are


6-3

Source: Gruen Associates Figure 6.2: Opportunities and Constraints

visible from San Bernardino Avenue, the highest portion of the site.

Development of the site has been constrained by the discovery of the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly Habitat. The City has been in discussion with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services for a conservation area or habitat for this species. The conservation area or future habitat preserve will be on the east of the Arrowhead Regional Medical Center.

Vehicular access to the site is from two I-10 freeway interchanges, at Pepper Avenue and Riverside Avenue, as well as from San Bernardino Avenue. There are plans to improve the Pepper Avenue interchange with I-10 by moving Valley

Boulevard to the north. There is a signalized intersection on Pepper Avenue at the entrance to the Arrowhead Regional Medical Center. Access to the Superblock at this signal is constrained by McNeilus Truck and Manufacturing. Wildrose Avenue, Wood Pine Avenue and Indigo Avenue are internal streets and Eucalyptus Avenue is a partially continued north-south street through the site. Also all these streets have utilities.

Particulate matter from freeway and railroad impose barriers to some users on the site.

The 1/2–mile radius of the site contains Arrowhead Regional Medical Center (San Bernardino County Hospital) with


6-4

373 beds, the Hermosa Cemetery, Rialto City Park and Playhouse, single and multi-family development north of San Bernardino Avenue, a shopping center in the northeast corner of San Bernardino Avenue and Pepper Avenue, and several “Big Box” users in Rialto on Riverside Avenue.

View of the site

View of the San Bernardino Department of Social Services, located on Woodpine Ave. on the Superblock. 6.3 CURRENT CITY PLANS 6.3.1 General Plan and West Valley

Specific Plan The Land Use Map from the General

Plan designates the entire site as Specific Plan

o The West Valley Specific Plan, adopted in January 1993, permits the following: - Business Industrial Park (BIP),

Regional Retail (RR), Hospitality Retail/Medical Support (HRM) and Open Space (OS)

- Flexible land use boundaries to respond to market conditions

- Building heights up to 75 ft - For north of Valley Boulevard,

mixed use including Business Park, Hospitality Retail, Medical Support and Open Space

- Regional retail south of Valley Boulevard

o Residential uses are currently not permitted on the site.

o Streetscape guidelines along each major street include: - Valley Boulevard, 96 ft ROW,

with four travel lanes, a 17 ft wide raised median with Palm trees an shrubs, 6 ft wide parkways with Palms, and 6 ft sidewalks. In addition, 10 ft to 15 ft of landscaped setback on private property

- Pepper Avenue, 114 ft ROW. With 6 travel lanes, a 17 ft wide raised median with Queen Palms, and Lantana, 6.5 ft parkways with Jacaranda trees, and 5 ft sidewalks. In addition, a 15 ft landscape setback on private property

- San Bernardino Avenue, 72 ft ROW, with 4 travel lanes and on-street parking, a painted two-way


6-5

median, 6 ft parkway with flowering trees such as Bradford Pear, and 6 ft sidewalks. In addition, a 10 ft landscape setback on private property.

- Wildrose Avenue – 72 ft ROW, with 4 lanes of travel, 6 ft sidewalks adjacent to the curb, 6 ft landscaped areas with median height trees such as Brisbane Box. In addition, a private landscaped setback of 10 ft.

6.3.2 Zoning The area is primarily zoned Industrial

Park, with some portions of the area south of Valley Boulevard zoned General Commercial and Light Manufacturing.

6.3.3 Redevelopment Area A map of the Redevelopment Project Area shows the subject site in relation to the City (Figure 6.3). The entire 285 acres of the site lies in the West Valley Redevelopment Project Area.

Figure 6.3: City of Colton, RDA Project Areas


6-6

6.4 SITE SIZE AND OWNERSHIP The 285 acre is comprised of the following four privately-owned parcels (in APN): 20833108 20833117 20833123 20833118

6.5 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS In conversations with City staff, some elected officials, hospital administrators, and the school district administration, the Compass Blueprint Planning Team obtained relevant information about Colton and the selected site. A summary of comments follows: City staff and elected officials envision

uses that generate tax increment and sales tax i.e. more office, more retail, theaters, other entertainment, and hotels.

On this site, the City officials desire offices including medical opposite the hospital, retail destination uses and residential away from the freeway.

The City officials also suggested redeveloping the Colton Golf Club and relocating the City Park.

McNeilus Truck and Manufacturing may be able to be relocated

The highway interchange at Pepper Avenue is planned to be improved.

The hospital is planning an addition of three stories and 60,000 sq ft between

their patient tower and their behavioral health building.

The school district has a school to the east of the hospital and a property north of the hospital.

The city would like this site to be an activity center and link to the BRT. A connection to Metrolink station along Riverside is desirable as well.

City officials would like SANBAG to concentrate efforts on transportation in Colton.

6.6 MARKET ASSESSMENT Preliminary market analysis for the Colton site has been prepared by Economics Research Associates (ERA). The following represents a summary of their preliminary findings: This area is projected as probable area

for office buildings. Perhaps this area is also or could be

more auto row. Massive competition for large retail

clusters exist. Retail repositioning of known

sites/locations. Large-Scale recreation/entertainment

competition Education/Cultural/Conferencing Hotels-Medical centers and complexes

generate two star hotel markets Socio-demographic changes are

happening Close-by market region – North of I-10 Office centers – New office centers most

likely in governmental clusters adjacent


6-7

to recent Medical centers and Airport hubs, building tends to be multi tenant

ERA’s recommendations have been considered in the creation of a land-use program for the development of alternative concepts for the site. This 285 acre site with freeway visibility on a regional scale, could become the new “Colton Center” at densities not previously built in the City. Density potentials are much higher than may be anticipated, and could yield significant new permanent jobs in the City.

6.7 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Goals and objectives proposed by the Consultant Team and confirmed by City Staff include: Create a more compact, urban,

pedestrian-friendly, and walkable environment served by multimodal transportation (auto, shuttle, bus, train, bicycle, and pedestrian) in contrast to the more automobile dominated development in the surrounding areas.

Plan for mixed use development on the site including mid and high rise medical offices, retail, high density residential, and public gathering spaces.

Design the streetscape and each project considering sustainability.

Phase development with infrastructure including premium transit.

Modify the General Plan and West Valley Specific Plan to include residential near San Bernardino Avenue and characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development.

Bus Rapid Transit system, Curitiba, Brazil 6.8 ALTERNATIVE SITE CONCEPTS Development Strategy The Development Strategy is to focus

initial development along San Bernardino Avenue and Pepper Street where infrastructure exists and there is already a positive image established by the Arrowhead Regional Medical Center (Hospital) and the residential neighborhoods north of San Bernardino Avenue. Development could also continue in the business park designations along Wildrose Avenue.

Wide landscaping sidewalk with outdoor dining

Later steps would include improvements to the freeway interchange, property


6-8

consolidation along Valley Boulevard, and infrastructure and streetscape improvements in the center of the property and along the frontage of Valley Boulevard.

Two land use and circulation alternatives were prepared for review and comments: Phase 1 for both Alternative 1 (Figure

6.4) and Alternative 2 (Figure 6.6) includes: o Retention of existing City owned

park and Colton Golf Club in current locations

o Development sites for commercial uses (retail, office, and medical office) opposite the Hospital. Primarily surface parking initially, but site plans developed to include more intensive uses in the future with parking structures

o Potential development of multi-family residential along San Bernardino Avenue requiring a change in the General and Specific Plans

o Potential for additional business park uses along Wildrose Avenue and Valley Boulevard

o Streetscape improvements on San Bernardino Avenue and Pepper Avenue to improve character of the area

o Eucalyptus Avenue extended through the site (Utilities are already in this ROW)

o Mitigation measures for the off-site Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly Habitat implemented

High density residential next to a park

Retail center should have public gathering space with pedestrian amenities and links throughout the Superblock. Alternative 1 - Phase 2 (Figure 6.5),

Central Park Alternative includes: o BRT from the west along San

Bernardino Avenue to Pepper Avenue and along Valley Boulevard to the east

o BRT stations adjacent to the Hospital entrance on Pepper Avenue and along San Bernardino Avenue near the City owned park

o Indigo Avenue extended from San Bernardino Avenue to Valley Boulevard with a new central park as the focus for the new offices, mixed use, and multi-family development


6-9

Figure 6.4: Alternative 1, Central Park, Phase 1

Source: Gruen Associates Figure 6.5: Alternative 1, Central Park, Phase 1


6-10

o The City owned park redeveloped for mixed use high density residential over ground level retail

o The Golf Club redeveloped for office uses and a new central park

o Intense retail, restaurants, and entertainment uses at the intersection of Pepper Avenue and Valley Boulevard

A neighborhood park with informal playing fields Alternative 2 – Phase 2 (Figure 6.7),

New Boulevard Alternative includes:

o BRT from the west along San Bernardino Avenue to Pepper Avenue, and then Valley Boulevard east of Pepper Avenue

o A potential BRT station adjacent to the Hospital entrance intersection on Pepper Avenue, as well as a BRT station along San Bernardino Avenue near the City owned park

o A new east-west landscaped Boulevard through the center of the property linking with the signal at the entrance to the Arrowhead Regional

Medical Center on Pepper Avenue. This would create an internal roadway linking much of the site to Pepper Avenue and a proposed BRT station. To achieve this the Mc Neilus building will need to be demolished and the business relocated elsewhere

o The City owned park reconstructed to the south along the planned east-west Boulevard freeing up more land for moderate to high density housing near the BRT station on San Bernardino Avenue. The new park becomes a public gathering space for the entire superblock plus continues to satisfy its retention basin function

o The Golf Club redeveloped for office uses and the park

Pearl District, Portland, Oregon, includes relatively dense residential with retail and large open space areas.

o Relatively high density/intensity mixed uses (offices, residential, ground level retail on the east side of Eucalyptus Avenue).

F


6-11

Source: Gruen Associates Figure 6.6: Alternative 2 - New Boulevard, Phase 1

Source: Gruen Associates Figure 6.7: Alternative 2 - New Boulevard, Phase 2


6-12

6.9 FUTURE MASS TRANSIT CONCEPTS FOR SITE 21 IN COLTON

The site is currently served by Omnitrans Bus Route 1 and Route 22. Route 1 travels from the ARMC to the City of San Bernardino to Del Rosa and operates currently on a 15 minute peak weekday headway from the ARMC to downtown San Bernardino and a 30 minute peak weekday headway from downtown San Bernardino to Del Rosa. Route 22 travels from North Rialto to the ARMC via Riverside Ave and operates currently on a 20 minute peak weekday headway. Future Mass Transit Concepts for Site 21 in Colton are as follows: Community Circulator Service. The

disbursed nature of activity centers in the City of Colton may warrant the development of community circulator mass transit service that connects Site 21 with a variety of key centers in the Community. The Circulator would be on a fixed route and time table with designated stops.

BRT Line from Montclair to San Bernardino along San Bernardino Avenue and Pepper Avenue. A proposed high speed BRT line would operate east-west along San Bernardino Avenue on the northern side of Site 21. A BRT station could be sited near the intersection of San Bernardino Avenue

and Indigo Avenue. The BRT Line would jog south on Pepper Ave and a second BRT station could be sited at the Intersection of Pepper Ave and the entrance to the Arrowhead Regional Medical Center.

Conversion to Rail. This BRT line is intermediate to long range (8 years or more in the future). Eventually if the ridership grows to higher levels in the long range, the BRT line could be replaced by a rail transit mode in the long range.

Improved Omnitrans Fixed Route Bus Services. Omnitrans adds or modifies service on a periodic basis based upon requests it receives from member jurisdictions. Omnitrans Bus service could be increased to serve individual sites in the future if a jurisdiction makes a strong case for the modification to Omnitrans

6.10 NEXT STEPS / IMPLEMENTATION The City of Colton is updating the West Valley Specific Plan and SANBAG is preparing its Long Range Transit Plan (LRTP). Therefore, it is the opportune time to incorporate transportation / land use integration concepts with appropriate intensities/densities at key locations in the City of Colton. The proposed BRT stations in the LRTP would provide multiple opportunities to create appropriate land uses within walking distances of the BRT stations on this large opportunity site in Colton.


6-13

6.10.1 Policies / Guidelines to Consider Including in the Specific Plan Update

To increase mobility and contribute to a

healthy, livable community, encourage Transit-Oriented Development adjacent to proposed BRT stations. o Concentrate within ½ mile of BRT

stations, mixed-use commercial/residential uses, retail, restaurants, offices, medical support, multi-family residential, entertainment, flex space and civic uses while protecting established low density residential.

o Target areas within ½ mile of BRT stations for the highest employment/retail intensities and densities relieving pressure to develop established single family neighborhoods in the City.

o Provide incentives for increased density within ½ mile of BRT stations such as density bonuses, FAR increases, reductions in parking requirements, and expedited review.

o Create strong pedestrian and bicycle linkages to the BRT stations thereby reducing auto trips.

o Support attractively designed BRT stations with transit/pedestrian amenities.





Plan for concentrated developments within ½ mile of proposed BRT stations which can be phased for increased intensities/densities, when transit is available. o Limit new low density/intensity

development within the ½ mile area. o Provide space for future transit

stations/stops and establish and implement streetscape improvements and tree-lined pedestrian/bicycle pathways.



6.10.2 Implementing Policies /

Guidelines to Consider Relative to Opportunity Site 21

The City of Colton has contracted with a

consultant team to update the West


6-14

Valley Specific Plan. The analysis, concepts and ideas from the COMPASS Blueprint Plan were a starting point for this update. Figures 6-8 and 6-9 are progress renderings from these updates. Some of the policies developed as a part of this effort and incorporated in the Specific Plan update include: o Plan for an integrated, concentrated

mixed-use development on the opportunity site with commercial uses closer to the freeway.

o Encourage building entrances and facades to front on tree-lined

sidewalks, discourage parking facing major arterials, and consider a reduction of parking requirements when premium transit is available.

o Locate multi-family residential uses away from the freeway and towards San Bernardino Avenue.

o Link multi-family residential uses in the northern portion of the site to parks, transit, and local neighborhood streets through a series of interconnected network of tree-lined pedestrian paths.

Source: JHA Consulting Figure 6-8: Aerial Vision of Colton Superblock Specific Plan Update


6-15

Source: JHA Consulting Figure 6-9: Specific Plan Update Vision for Public Gathering Space The following tables illustrate potential implementation techniques on funding sources for development of this opportunity site. Table 6.2: Transit-Oriented Developments Implementation Techniques Matrix (An Overview) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Colton 1) Site scales 285 acres 2) In redevelopment project Yes 3) In current Specific Plan Being prepared 4) Current development agreement No 5) On site/adjacent adequate utilities Limited 6) High regional visibility Yes 7) Town/city center concept Yes 8) Current development market Delayed by

recession 9) New TOD right of way required No 10) TOD/city concept density Medium

(higher for Colton) 11) Potential forecast of development initiation 2011+ 12) Needs recovery of land values Yes 13) Major regional adjacent impact issues Positive (Arrowhead

Regional Medical Center)

14) Existing public purpose land relocation or sale Yes (park relocation) Source: Economics Research Associates


6-16

1 TIF = Redevelopment Project Tax Increment Financing 2 IID = Infrastructure Improvement District Tax Increment Financing 3 CFD = Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (Assessment) 4 FSBF = Possible Future State Bond Financing (New issues will need to be approved.) 5 CIP = Local (city/municipal) Capital Improvement Program 6 DAPF = City/Developer Development Agreement Partnership Funding 7 NMTC = U.S. Treasury New Markets Tax Credits (will need to be reauthorized) 8 CWTF = New and Future Countywide Transportation Funds (from authorized sales tax proceeds) 9 ADPIF = Possible Airport District Peripheral Infrastructure Funding (a concept) 10 OFG = Other Federal Grants (U.S. EDA, LPWG; U.S. CDBG; etc.) 11 LT/PPS or L = Land Trade/Public Property Sale or Lease 12 DRT = Development Rights Transfer

Table 6.3: Transit-Oriented Developments Implementation Funding Matrix BRT Ontario 1 TIF 2 - 3 CFD 4 FSBF 5 CIP 6 DAPF 7 NMTC 8 CWTF 9 - 10 OFG 11 _LT/PPS or L 12 DRT

Source: Economic Research Associates *NOTE: Photos if not cited were taken by Gruen Associates staff and are a part of Gruen Associates image library.

CHAPTER 7: SANBAG Transportation – Land Use Integration Project RANCHO CUCAMONGA OPPORTUNITY SITE

7-1

7 RRAANNCCHHOO CCUUCCAAMMOONNGGAA

OOPPPPOORRTTUUNNIITTYY SSIITTEE 7.1 VISION – Mixed-Use

Development Surrounding a Transit Stop

Compass Blueprint Site 22 is located in Rancho Cucamonga on the south side of Foothill Boulevard generally between Haven Avenue and Hermosa Avenue just west of an existing flood control channel (Figure 7.1). Situated less than ½ of a mile away from the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, next to a proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stop on Foothill Boulevard and next to a recently built mixed-use development, this site has excellent potential for a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). A TOD is a compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented neighborhood, which is commonly built around a transit stop. The vision for this selected Compass Blueprint site is a mixed-use development with retail, restaurants, office, and multi-family residential within a 5 minute walk from the proposed BRT stop at Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard.

Pedestrian connections through buildings are encouraged.

A mixed-use project with a corner plaza served by transit provides a human scale pedestrian friendly environment.

The Rancho Cucamonga Opportunity site located within walking distance from the proposed BRT stop is envisioned as a mixed-use development with retail, restaurants, offices, and multi-

family residential. A network of bicycle and pedestrian paths link the uses together.


7-2

Source: Gruen Associates and SANBAG Figure 7 1: Half-mile radius around the proposed BRT Station. The selected site (Site 22) is shaded in green 7.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The following further describes the site’s existing conditions and context: The site is mostly flat and is primarily

vacant land with some existing uses including a liquor store and vineyards.

A flood control channel (Deer Creek) borders the eastern portion of the site with a mixed-use development directly adjacent to the east.

Uses within a ½ mile radius of the site include a mixed-use development directly adjacent to the east, the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center and Terra Vista, a community planned for over 8,000 residential units and 300 acres of commercial uses.

The site is also within 1,000 ft. from Virginia Dare Winery and 400 ft. from the DeLarson-Mitchell House, cultural resources in the area.


7-3

Portions of Foothill Blvd, also known as Route 66, have a landscaped median and an attractive streetscape with landscaping and street furniture that emphasizes the Route 66 theme and Rancho Cucamonga’s wine heritage The streetscape is not complete adjacent to the site.

Vehicular access to the site would be at a signalized intersection on Foothill Boulevard opposite Center Street, however, a liquor store parking occupies this portion of the site.

The site’s topography slopes approximately 26 feet from a high point near Foothill Boulevard to the southern boundary.

View of site looking southeast

View of subject site in the foreground with the concrete channel and existing mixed-use development to the rear.

Existing liquor store on the site

7.3 CURRENT CITY PLANS The following summarizes the current City plan requirements. Refer to each plan for additional details, uses permitted, and precise standards. 7.3.1 General Plan The land use designations for the site

are Office and Low Medium Residential (Figure 7.2)

Maximum Residential Density for Low Medium is 4-8 du/acre. o Intended for single-family detached

development o May also include single-family zero

lot line units and duplexes Office intensity allows for 0.4-1.0 FAR.

o Focus offices near centers of commercial activity

o Avoid building individual and isolated office buildings

o Supportive retail and restaurants may be allowed for employees

Maximum Density for Residential in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan is 30 units/acre.


7-4

Figure 7.2: General Plan – Land Use Plan 7.3.2 Visual Improvement Plan (VIP) for

Foothill Boulevard – Historic Route 66

Provides concepts for eight Activity Centers and the Suburban Parkway enhancement areas at Route 66.

Gives suggestions on streetscape furniture, Route 66 icons, artwork and other visual enhancements.

7.3.3 Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Foothill Boulevard District, Sub-Area 3

o Setbacks from Foothill (front): - 1st floor building: 45 feet - 2nd floor building: 50 feet - Parking: 30 feet minimum (45

feet average) o Rear property line setback: 25 feet if

adjacent to existing or planned residential development

o Interior side property line setback: 25 feet if adjacent to existing or planned residential development

o Minimum on-site landscaping requirement: 15% minimum.

o Height - Within 50 feet of street yard curb

face: 20 feet - Within 100 feet of a Residential

District (SFR): 25 feet o Maximum site coverage (net lot

area): 40 %

7.3.4 Zoning CO (Commercial/Office) and LM (Low

Medium Residential) Residential density: 4-8 du/acre Intensity: 0.4-1.0 FAR Setbacks:

o 1st Floor Building: 45 feet o 2nd Floor building: 50 feet


7-5

o Parking: 30 feet minimum (45 feet average)

Height: CO and LM: 20' within 50' of street; 25' within 100 ft of Res. District (CO only); 35' for other locations; and 45' for towers, campaniles, rotundas

7.3.5 Parking Cluster development (condominium,

townhome, etc.) semi-detached single family o Studio: 1.3 off-street parking spaces

per unit o One bedroom: 1.5 off-street parking

spaces per unit o Two bedrooms: 1.8 off-street parking

spaces per unit o Three or more bedrooms: 1.9 off-

street parking spaces per unit o Four or more bedrooms: 2.3 off-

street parking spaces per unit o Guest parking: 1 off-street

uncovered parking space for each 4 units

50% of total required covered spaces shall be within enclosed garage structures.

Commercial, Retail and Service Uses: o Shopping centers of less than

twenty-five thousand square feet: The parking required will be the sum of parking requirements for the individual uses.

Commercial, Retail and Service Uses: o Shopping centers of less than six

hundred thousand square feet, but

more than twenty-five thousand square feet of gross leasable area: 5 parking spaces for each 1000 square feet of gross leasable area.

Offices: 1 space per 250 square feet of gross floor area o If offices (including medical and

dental) are over ten percent of gross leasable area, a special parking study shall be prepared.

7.3.6 Redevelopment Area The subject site is located within the

Redevelopment Project Area for Rancho Cucamonga

A map of the Redevelopment Project Area shows the subject site in relation to the City (Figure 7.3).

7.4 SITE SIZE AND OWNERSHIP The 17.6 acre is comprised of the

following four privately-owned parcels (APN) having three owners: o 20833108 o 20833117 o 20833123 o 20833118

The three individual ownerships are

shown in Figure 7.4.


7-6

Figure 7.3: Redevelopment Area Plan

Figure 7.4: Property Owners of Selected Site.


7-7

7.5 EXISTING AND PLANNED TRANSIT AND ACCESS

Currently, the site is served by

Omnitrans local bus service with routes on Foothill Blvd and Haven Ave.

According to the SANBAG Draft Long Range Transit Plan, a BRT stop is proposed for the corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard.

Access to Site 22 would be from Foothill Boulevard to the north with Center Avenue to continue south into the site.

7.6 CITY STAFF INTERVIEWS Initial City staff comments include: This project can be used as a “test

case” for the General Plan’s Land Use Element for Foothill Boulevard. A General Plan Update is underway and in the early stages.

The current General Plan does have a land use designation for mixed-use. Designation for this site may need to be changed to mixed-use or another designation in the General Plan Update.

30 du/acre is currently the highest residential density allowed in Rancho Cucamonga, according to the General Plan Land Use Plan.

There are opportunities to incorporate a Class I Bike Lane within the site.

7.7 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Goals and Objectives proposed by the Consultant Team and confirmed by City Staff include: Provide alternatives for development

that illustrates a compact mixed-use development consistent with SCAG 2% policies and TOD principles: o Encourage a mix of retail, offices,

entertainment, and housing uses. o Local retail and offices close to

Foothill Boulevard with ground level retail and restaurants having entrances directly from the landscaped setback along Foothill Boulevard.

o Locate parking behind retail facilities, to the side or underground.

o Provide people gathering spaces, amenities, wide tree-lined sidewalks, pedestrian scale features and linkages.

Phase development as the market matures and when transit is available.

Plan for compatibility with the adjacent single-family neighborhood.

Provide bicycle and pedestrian linkages between the mix of uses on the site and to the proposed BRT station.

Consider appropriate solar orientation of buildings, open spaces and other “green” features to address energy concerns.

Consider TOD concepts in the General Plan Update and subsequent zone changes.


7-8

7.8 ALTERNATIVE SITE CONCEPTS The following two alternative site concepts for a TOD include a Phase 1 mixed-use project primarily with surface parking for commercial uses and a Phase 2 mixed-use project with structured parking for commercial uses (Figures 7.5, 7.6, 7.7 and 7.8). For both alternatives, the main entrance into the development is proposed south of Center Avenue, an existing street north of the site perpendicular to Foothill Boulevard. In both alternatives, it is assumed that the residential density would exceed the current City plans and that a premium transit station would be located at Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue.

For the two alternatives, parking tabulations were calculated at: Phase 1

o Commercial: 5 spaces per 1,000 sq ft

o Office: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq ft o Residential: 1.8 spaces per unit + 1

space per 4 units for guest parking Phase 2

o A 20% reduction or more in required parking

This alternative could be an extension of the adjacent mixed-use Town Center.

Alternative 1: Office/Retail Center with a network of landscape pedestrian/bicycle paths linking multi-family residential and transit. Phase 1, shown in Figure 7.5, includes: o Two 3-story, mixed-use buildings

(ground floor retail/restaurants with offices above fronting on Foothill Boulevard). The ground floor would have space for an anchor tenant and smaller shops and restaurants facing the landscaped setback along Foothill Boulevard and an entrance plaza opposite Center Avenue.

o The southern portion of the property consists of 2-story town home units on the west to provide a sensitive transition from the existing single-family neighborhood bordering the site on the west and the 3-story, multi-family residential buildings. Parking is provided in garages in the town homes with access from an alley and is underground for the 3-story, multi-family buildings. Guest parking is along the streetscape. The residential community is shown in one phase but it could be phased depending on market conditions.

o A network of landscaped pedestrian paths, bicycle paths, and local private streets link the employment, housing and entertainment uses together and to the proposed BRT station at Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue, as well as the more intense commercial and civic uses near this intersection. A landscaped multi-use pedestrian/bicycle path


7-9

parallels the existing flood control channel. From Foothill Boulevard, the tree-lined extension of Center Avenue terminates in a circulation loop and a small neighborhood park for the residential neighborhood. This park is part of a network of pedestrian paths with the main “spine” running north-south framed by the 3-story residential buildings. Secondary informal greenways run east-west between the townhouses units and connecting to the main spine and the multi-use trail along the flood control channel.

o Major vehicular access to the property is opposite Center Avenue and an additional Foothill Boulevard access at the west property line. Two emergency access points are shown connecting to Hampshire and Devon Streets to the west. If desired by the adjacent residential neighborhood, these streets could remain closed except during an emergency.

Phase 2, shown in Figure 7.6, includes:

o Three additional mixed-use buildings and parking structures would be added to the surface parking lots increasing the floor area ratio and placing more people living and working in walking distance of a BRT transit station.

o As Phase 2 would likely be concurrent or follow the premium transit, the amount of parking

provided would be reduced by 20% or more.

o To screen views of the parking structure, additional townhouses and/or live work units face the residential loop.

The alternative is generally consistent with the City’s intensity and building heights permitted along Foothill Boulevard. However, in keeping with the vision for a TOD, the residential density proposed is considerably higher than the current General Plan land use designation for the site but within the maximum residential density permitted in the City’s General Plan for high-density residential. Table 7.1 shows the development program for this development concept. Figure 7.7 shows the proposed residential densities of the site compared to adjacent uses.

Parking structure on major streets should have pedestrian –friendly uses on the ground level.


7-10

Source: Gruen Associates Figure 7.5: Alternative 1, Phase 1

Source: Gruen Associates Figure 7.6: Alternative 1, Phase 2

Table 7.1: Alternative 1 – Development Tabulation

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 + 2 Retail 21,520 22,080 43,600

Office 39,420 51,400 90,820

Total Non-Residential 60,940 73,480 134,420

FAR Non-Residential 0.20 - 0.44

Residential Sq Ft 389,370 101,500 490,870

Residential Units (South Portion) 339 - 339

Residential Units (North Portion) - 80 80

Residential Units (Entire Site) 339 80 419 Residential Density (South Portion) in du/Ac 32 - 32

Residential Density (Entire Site) in du/Ac 19 - 24

FAR All Uses 0.59 - 0.82


7-11

Source: Gruen Associates View of Alternative 1 massing looking south showing the proposed extension of Center Avenue with the neighborhood park as the terminus.

Source: Gruen Associates View of Alternative 1 looking east on Foothill Avenue


7-12

Source: Gruen Associates

Figure 7.7: Proposed Residential Densities and Massing for Alternative 1 Alternative 2: A more intense mixed-use

development focused along on active streetscape and a neighborhood park.

This alternative would have pedestrian – oriented character along the residential streets and consist of 2 to 5-story structures.


o Two 5-story, mixed-use buildings (ground floor retail/restaurants with offices above fronting on Foothill Boulevard). As in Alternative 1, the ground floor would have space for an anchor tenant and smaller shops and restaurants facing the landscaped setback of Foothill Boulevard and an entrance plaza adjacent to a Center Avenue entrance. Surface parking supports these Phase 1 uses at approximately 4 spaces per 1,000 sq ft for office and 5 spaces per 1,000 sq ft for retail.

o The southern portion of the property consists of 2-story east facing townhouse units with garages along the western edge of the property adjacent to the existing single-family neighborhood and two to five-story


7-13

multi-family courtyard buildings with underground parking. Guest parking is along the streetscape. As in Alternative 1, the southern residential portion of the project is shown as one phase however it could be phased depending on market conditions or phased to be more intense when premium transit is available.

o As in Alternative 1, a network of bicycle and pedestrian paths link the uses together and to a proposed premium transit station on Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue. The multi-use bicycle and pedestrian path is along the flood control channel with residential buildings overlooking the paths. A neighborhood park is located toward the southern portion of the property integrated with a series of smaller parks and courtyards and pedestrian paths.

o Center Avenue extension is the main entrance to the development along with a second entrance from Football Boulevard. Center Avenue extension loops to serve the mixed-use community and would have heavily landscaped sidewalks, street furniture and diagonal parking creating an attractive pedestrian environment along which to walk. As in Alternative 1, emergency access could be provided from either Hampshire or Devon Streets.


o Three additional 5-story mixed-use buildings (ground level retail, restaurants and offices above), live-work units, and two above grade parking structures, all added in the surface parking of Phase 1 increasing the overall intensity of the development. Due to transit, parking is reduced to 3 spaces per 1,000 sq ft or less for non-residential uses.

Public gathering space would be a part of both alternatives. o Residential units and live-work units

encircle parking structure screening it from view.

As the last vacant site near the key intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue, this site affords the opportunity to provide a more compact development within walking distance of a proposed transit station. Table 7.2 illustrates the development program. This alternative has greater density and building height than the current General Plan allows in the City. Consideration should be given to including a mixed-use designation with greater height and intensity in the General Plan update. Figure 7.10 shows the proposed residential densities of the site compared to adjacent uses.

Pb


7-14


Figure 7.8: Alternative 2, Phase 1


7-15


Figure 7.9: Alternative 2, Phase 2


7-16

View of Alternative 2 massing looking south showing the proposed extension of Center Avenue with housing beyond.

View of Alternative 2 looking south showing bicycle path along drainage canal leading to Foothill Blvd streetscape and the transit station.


7-17

View of Alternative 2 looking east on Foothill Avenue

Figure 7.10: Transition in Density and Height from Existing Neighborhoods Diagram (left) and Massing (right) showing sensitivity of residential density from existing single family development (low-medium density) transitioning to the proposed two-story townhomes (medium density) then to the proposed higher density development further eastward adjacent to the existing mixed-use development east of the channel.


7-18

Table 7.2: Alternative 2 – Development Tabulation

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 + 2 Retail 21,520 37,870 59,390

Office 78,840 123,560 202,400

Total Non-Residential 100,360 161,430 261,790

FAR Non-Residential (North Portion) 0.33 - 0.86

Residential Sq Ft 661860 70620 732480

Residential Units (South Portion) 525 - 525

Residential Units (North Portion) - 57 57

Residential Units (Entire Site) 525 57 582

Residential Density (South Portion) in du/Ac 50 -

Residential Density (Entire Site) in du/Ac 30 - 33

FAR All Uses (Entire Site) 0.99 - 1.30

7.9 COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS AND CITY STAFF

Interviews with stakeholders on March 4, 2008 include the following comments: 7.9.1 City Staff The existing liquor store was formerly a

winery. It could have historical value although the building does not have a historical designation and is not part of a designated list. The City would assess the historical value of the building as an application is received.

Plans for the development on the site should be sensitive to the heritage of the site. Suggestions include a winery theme, or interpretive feature in the new design.

Inclusionary housing is required on all Low-Medium and Medium-High density

housing. At least 25% of the housing needs to be affordable.

7.9.2 Property Owners High density for development would be

appropriate. In support for a bicycle trail and open

space next to the channel. Suggest building over the flood control

channel to connect with the mixed-use development to the east.

Residential should be located close to Foothill Boulevard.

7.10 NEXT STEPS / IMPLEMENTATION The City of Rancho Cucamonga is updating its General Plan and SANBAG is preparing its Long Range Transit Plan (LRTP). Therefore, it is the opportune time to incorporate transportation / land use


7-19

integration concepts and intensities at key locations in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This working paper and a powerpoint presentation produced under SCAG’s Compass Blueprint program were requested by the City and its General Plan consultant to assist in familiarizing the community with the LRTP process, the transit-oriented development vision, and potential alternative concepts for the identified opportunity site. Although only one opportunity site was illustrated in this document, the proposed transit corridors in the LRTP would typically have stations/stops approximately every mile providing multiple opportunities to create appropriate land uses within walking distances of the transit stations. 7.10.1 Policies to Consider in General

Plan Update To increase mobility and contribute to a

healthy, livable community, encourage Transit-Oriented Development along major transit corridors. o Concentrate within ½ mile of

premium transit station/stops1, mixed-use commercial/residential uses, retail, restaurants, offices, multi-family residential, entertainment, and civic uses while protecting established low density residential.

1 Premium transit includes light rail, heavy passenger rail, bus rapid transit (BRT), monorail, or other similar mode. Express bus such as Metro Rapid Bus in Los Angeles may also be considered Premium

o Target areas within ½ mile of premium transit station/stops for the highest employment/retail intensities and densities relieving pressure to develop established single family neighborhoods in the City.

o Provide incentives for increased density within ½ mile of premium transit station/stops such as density bonuses, FAR increases, reductions in parking requirements, and expedited review.

o Create strong pedestrian and bicycle linkages to the premium transit station/stops thereby reducing auto trips.

o Support attractively designed premium station/stops with transit/pedestrian amenities.





Plan for concentrated developments within ½ mile of proposed transit corridors which can be phased for increased intensities/densities, when transit is available.


7-20

o Limit new low density/intensity development within the ½ mile area.

o Provide space for future transit stations/stops and establish and implement streetscape improvements and tree-lined pedestrian/bicycle pathways.


7.10.2 Implementing Policies /

Guidelines to Consider Relative to Opportunity Site 22

To achieve an integrated, concentrated

mixed-use development on the opportunity site, provide incentives for the consolidation of the three properties currently under separate ownerships.

In the General Plan Update, modify the land use designations for this site to “mixed-use” or create a new designation for Transit Village / TOD / Activity Center. These designations would allow for increased development potential (FAR) and densities for the compact mixed-use, pedestrian friendly concepts proposed.

In the General Plan Update, Transit Concept Plan (Exhibit III-6), consider extending the Transit Activity Center west of Haven Avenue to include the site.

For compatibility with existing residential west of the site, place two story buildings adjacent to the existing single family neighborhood to the west, include a wall and landscape screening as a buffer on the property line and minimize non-emergency vehicular traffic on local neighborhood streets. Figure 7.10 illustrates the proposed massing of the alternatives.

Incorporate a bike and pedestrian path along the flood control channel leading to Foothill Blvd. and connections from the development to these paths.

Locate retail, restaurants, and neighborhood serving uses facing a tree-lined pedestrian path along Foothill Blvd. with offices and residential units above.

Locate multi-family residential uses in the southern portion of the property linked by an interconnected network of landscaped pedestrian paths, small parks, courtyards, bike paths, and local neighborhood streets.

Create a new vehicular access intersection at a signal on Foothill Blvd. and Center Drive as well as right-turn in and right-turn out from Foothill Blvd. at the west property line.

Provide an active public gathering space as a focal point for the project when the project’s entrance from Foothill Blvd.

Modify the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and relevant zoning to encourage building entrances and facades to front on tree-lined sidewalks along Foothill Blvd, to discourage parking facing


7-21

Foothill Blvd, and to reduce parking requirements when premium transit is available.

Utilized appropriate design guidelines included in Appendix II.


*NOTE: Photos if not cited were taken by Gruen Associates staff and are part of Gruen Associates image library.

SANBAG Transportation – Land Use Integration Project

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 8: SANBAG Transportation – Land Use Integration Project SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR THE LRTP

8-1

8 SSOOCCIIOO--EECCOONNOOMMIICC DDAATTAA

FFOORR TTHHEE LLRRTTPP 8.1 Transportation Planning The Draft Long Range Transit Plan (LRTP) for the San Bernardino Valley currently being developed by Parsons identifies existing, planned and potential mass transportation corridors and improvements. In early 2007, five LRTP Alternatives were developed. These include a Baseline (existing plus funded) and Planned Transit Alternatives, as well as three Vision Alternatives that contain seven Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Lines, and a number of Metrolink Extensions and Urban/Commuter Rail Extensions. These new mass transit corridors penetrate an extensive portion of both the east and west valley affording many cities with the opportunity to benefit from the development of premium transit facilities and services. Parsons was selected by Gruen Associates to provide transportation planning, traffic/access analysis, and engineering issues in support of potential development opportunity sites along these potential corridors for SANBAG’s Transportation - Land Use Integration Project. Once potential opportunity sites were determined, station locations were able to be identified

to best provide transit service to these sites. Factors in placing the station locations near the Compass Blueprint sites included local development visions and land use concepts, and were developed during the stakeholder interviews. Using the land use concepts and economic development potential for each of the sites, Parsons was then able to begin development of the socio-economic database to be utilized in travel demand modeling. Figures 8.1 through 8.6 illustrate each opportunity site, proposed transportation improvements, proposed station locations, and percentage of each site within its traffic analysis zones (TAZ).

8.2 Traffic/Access Analysis As part of the stakeholder interviews, Parsons helped coordinate potential station locations to serve local interests. This local input helped guide access and traffic requirements for the sites, and helped involve local jurisdictions into the overall plan for the development sites. Conceptual engineering and feasibility was analyzed by field surveys and input from stakeholders.


8-2

8.2.1 City of Highland (Compass Blueprint Site #1)

Existing Omnitrans bus service to the site is provided along Base Line and Palm Avenue.

Compass Blueprint Site #1 is planned to be serviced with a BRT station at the intersection of Base Line and Church Avenue adjacent to the site.

Figure 8.1: City of Highland, Site 1


8-3

8.2.2 City of Rialto (Compass Blueprint Sites #5a and #5b)

Existing Omnitrans bus service to both sites is provided along Riverside Avenue and by a Metrolink station on Riverside Avenue.

The Compass Blueprint sites are planned to be serviced with a BRT station to the north of both sites at Riverside Avenue along the Baldwin Park Branchline, a distance of 0.3 miles from Site 5a and 0.4 miles from Site 5b. The sites are already served by the Rialto Metrolink Station at Palm Avenue.

Figure 8.2 City of Rialto, Sites 5a and 5b


8-4

8.2.3 City of Fontana (Compass Blueprint Site #11)

Existing Omnitrans bus service to the site is provided along Sierra Avenue with an existing bus stop near the intersection of Sierra at Baseline Street.

Compass Blueprint Site #11 is planned to be serviced with a BRT station near the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Baseline Street.

Figure 8.3: City of Fontana, Site 11


8-5

8.2.4 City of Ontario (Compass Blueprint Site #19)

Existing Omnitrans bus service to the site is provided to the north of the site along 4th Street, and along Vineyard Avenue on the west side of the site.

Compass Blueprint Site #19 is planned to be serviced with a BRT station at Archibald Avenue and Inland Empire Boulevard. One potential alignment for the extension of the Metro Gold Line from Montclair to the Ontario Airport could include a rail station on the flood control channel at Inland Empire Boulevard.

Figure 8.4: City 0f Ontario, Site 19


8-6

8.2.5 City of Colton (Compass Blueprint Site #21)

Existing Omnitrans bus service to the site is provided along San Bernardino Avenue, Pepper Avenue and Valley Boulevard. Compass Blueprint Site #21 is planned to be serviced by two BRT stations, one along

San Bernardino Avenue adjacent to the north side of the site and one near the Arrowhead Regional Medical Center along Pepper Avenue, providing access to both the site and the Medical Center.

Figure 8.5: City of Colton, Site 21


8-7

8.2.6 City of Rancho Cucamonga (Compass Blueprint Site #22)

Existing Omnitrans bus service to the site is provided to the east of the site along Haven

Avenue and Foothill Boulevard and to the south along Arrow Highway. Compass Blueprint Site #22 is planned to be serviced with a BRT station at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue.

Figure 8.6: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Site 22


8-8

8.3 Process for Developing Socio-Economic Databases

The current SCAG travel demand model contains socio-economic data used to support trip generation rates for the baseline year 2005, and for the planned 2030 year. SANBAG uses a more refined zone system to forecast the growth through the Year 2030 in the San Bernardino Valley. The San Bernardino Valley Model (SBVM), a focus model based on the SCAG model, is used to forecast traffic in the San Bernardino Valley. SANBAG has already estimated the growth potential, to year 2030, of all of the TAZs in the San Bernardino Valley, assuming regional growth estimates and the availability of land throughout the valley. This growth is reflected in a dataset of socioeconomic variables (population, employment, etc.) that are used as input to the travel demand model. The next step in the SCAG Compass process is to replace the base SANBAG growth for the areas in and around the SCAG Compass sites with higher density development associated with the Compass Blueprint. For the purposes of this analysis, the additional growth associated with the Compass sites will be offset by reductions in growth throughout the remainder of each city to maintain the total growth in each city. The result of this exercise will be an alternative dataset of socioeconomic variables that can be used by the travel demand model to measure the potential impact on the transit system that could

result from the implementation of the Compass Blueprint 2% Strategy Program. Source data regarding site development was obtained from Gruen Associates and ERA for the Compass Blueprint Sites reflecting the projected density of land use types and square footage of the proposed developments. Goals of the Socio Economic Databases include: Support Travel Demand Modeling for

the San Bernardino Valley and the San Bernardino Long Range Transit Plan

Update Travel Demand Model to accurately project intensified growth at station locations and along Transit Corridors.

Updating the year 2030 model began with identifying the TAZs in the SBVM containing the potential development site and all TAZs located within a ½ mile radius of the station location. The TAZs containing the identified potential development sites were updated using the square footage and densities of each employment type and residential space. Retail and non-retail employment were calculated for each Compass Blueprint site using the economic analysis outlined in earlier chapters of this report. For Compass sites where the economic analysis did not provide specific forecasts of employment, the employment potential was calculated by using factors derived from the 2003 trip generation manual. For each employment category, the square feet of each development type were multiplied by


8-9

conversion factors - employees per square foot of development. Residential population was then estimated by first calculating the number of multi-family dwelling units that would result from development of the residential area (i.e. multiplying the acres of residential land by the proposed residential density in dwelling units per acre). Then, the multi-family dwelling units were factored by an average household size of 2 persons per household to estimate the total population for each Compass Blueprint site. To simulate additional potential development within a ½ mile radius of the stations, existing and planned land use data from SANBAG was viewed in GIS to locate current vacant areas and the planned land use category for the vacant parcels. Both existing and planned land use information obtained from SANBAG provided information by assessor’s parcels, resulting in identifying parcels that could potentially develop to density levels similar to the Compass Blueprint site. Total square footage of each land use types were calculated utilizing the population and employment densities for the potential development sites analyzed previously. The Compass Blueprint for Colton and Ontario were not analyzed for any additional potential development due to the large acreage of the Compass Blueprint site, and densities for the Fontana site were based on densities developed under a proposed Specific Plan development and mixed-use project adjacent.

Once the core socio-economic variables of employment and residential population were determined, other socio-economic variable were calculated by applying zonal factors from the original SCAG data. For example, household workers were estimated by calculating the percent of workers in the household population for the original SBVM zone, and applying that percentage to the revised household population for the zone. 8.3.1 City of Highland (Site 1) Site 1 in the City of Highland is located in SBVM TAZ 4075. The base level of growth forecast by SANBAG for this TAZ is displayed below, along with the revised growth associated with Site 1 and the additional development potential beyond the SCAG Compass Site 1. The employment forecast for Compass Site 1 is based on ERA’s economic analysis for this site (Table 8.1). In order to offset the growth in the area around the potential station associated with Site 1, growth in the rest of the City of Highland is assumed to be adjusted by the factors in Table 8.2.


8-10

Table 8.1: Employment Forecast - Highland

Single Family Dwelling Units

Multi-Family Dwelling Units

Retail Employment

Non-Retail Employment

Base SANBAG Growth 3 7 310 94 Compass Site Growth 0 129 238 700 Other Growth Potential 0 516 75 119 Growth Change -3 638 3 725 Source: ERA

Table 8.2: Population Growth - Highland

Single Family Dwelling Units

Multi-Family Dwelling Units

Retail Employment

Non-Retail Employment

Base SANBAG Growth 5,419 1,139 5,975 3,770 Compass Growth Change -3 638 3 725 Revised Growth 5,419 504 5,972 3,045 Growth Factor 1.000 0.442 0.999 0.808 Source: ERA 8.3.2 City of Rialto (Site 5a and Site 5b) Sites 5a and 5b in the City of Rialto are located in SBVM TAZs 3421 and 3422. The base level of growth forecast by SANBAG for these TAZs is displayed below, along with the revised employment forecast associated these sites and the additional development potential beyond the SANBAG

forecast for SCAG Compass Sites 5a and 5b (Table 8.3) In order to offset the growth in the area around the potential station associated with Sites 5a and 5b, growth in the rest of the City of Rialto is assumed to be adjusted by the factors in Table 8.4.

Table 8.3: Employment Forecast - Rialto

Single Family Multi-Family Retail Non-Retail Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Employment Employment

Base SANBAG Growth 0 63 186 17 Compass Site Growth 0 194 20 257 Other Growth Potential 0 555 97 2,877

Growth Change 0 686 -69 3,117

Table 8.4: Population Growth - Rialto Single Family Multi-Family Retail Non-Retail Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Employment Employment

Base SANBAG Growth 7,899 2,814 8,002 18,187 Compass Growth Change 0 686 -69 3,117

Revised Growth 7,899 2,128 8,071 15,070 Growth Factor 1.000 0.756 1.009 0.829


8-11

8.3.3 City of Fontana (Site 11) Site 11 in the City of Fontana is located in SBVM TAZ 3286. The base level of growth forecast by SANBAG for this TAZ is displayed below, along with the revised growth associated with Site 11 and the additional development potential beyond the SCAG Compass Site 11. The retail employment potential for Site 11 is based on the Gruen estimate of 94,400 SF of retail development, assuming a FAR of 0.6 and

one retail employee per 1000 SF of retail development. The non-retail employment is based on the Gruen estimate of 94,800 SF of office development and 4.8 employees per 1000 SF of office development (Table 8.5). In order to offset the growth in the area around the potential station associated with Site 11, growth in the rest of the City of Fontana is assumed to be adjusted by the factors in Table 8.6.

Table 8.5: Employment Forecast - Fontana Single Family Multi-Family Retail Non-Retail Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Employment Employment Base SANBAG Growth 68 0 87 26 Compass Site Growth 0 197 57 455 Other Growth Potential 0 679 85 0 Growth Change -68 876 55 429

Table 8.6: Population Growth - Fontana Single Family Multi-Family Retail Non-Retail Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Employment Employment Base SANBAG Growth 15,359 4,763 6,214 23,558 Compass Growth Change -68 876 55 429 Revised Growth 15,359 3,955 6,159 23,129 Growth Factor 1.000 0.830 0.991 0.982 8.3.4 City of Ontario (Site 19) Site 19 in the City of Ontario is located in SBVM TAZ 1968. The base level of growth forecast by SANBAG for this TAZ is displayed below, along with the revised growth associated with Site 19. The employment forecasts (Table 8.7) for Site 19 are based on ERA’s high density scale for development of this site.

There is no additional development beyond the SCAG Compass Site 21 assumed for this area. In order to offset the growth in the area around the potential station associated with Site 11, growth in the rest of the City of Fontana is assumed to be adjusted by the factors in Table 8.8.


8-12

Table 8.7: Employment Forecast - Ontario Single Family Multi-Family Retail Non-Retail Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Employment Employment Base SANBAG Growth 10 115 3269 14 Compass Site Growth 0 2,345 1,0201 15,1111 Growth Change -10 2,230 -2,249 15,097 1. Depending on market conditions, potential employment could be higher and non retail lower on this site.

Table 8.8: Population Growth - Ontario Single Family Multi-Family Retail Non-Retail Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Employment Employment Base SANBAG Growth 31,433 16,275 25,680 61,253 Compass Growth Change -10 2,230 -2,249 15,097 Revised Growth 31,433 14,055 27,929 46,156 Growth Factor 1.000 0.864 1.088 0.754 8.3.5 City of Colton (Site 21) Site 21 in the City of Colton is located in SBVM TAZs 3403 and 3404. The base level of growth forecast by SANBAG for these TAZs is displayed below, along with the revised growth associated with Site 21: The employment forecast for Compass Site 21 is based on the high density concept of ERA’s Alternative 1 for this site (Table 8.9).

There is no additional development beyond the SCAG Compass Site 21 assumed for this area. In order to offset the growth in the area around the potential station associated with Site 21, growth in the rest of the City of Colton is assumed to be adjusted by the factors in Table 8.10.

Table 8.9: Employment Forecast - Colton Single Family Multi-Family Retail Non-Retail Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Employment Employment Base SANBAG Growth 0 14 428 2,760 Compass Site Growth 0 2,341 631 4,178 Growth Change 0 2,327 203 1,418

Table 8.10: Population Growth - Colton Single Family Multi-Family Retail Non-Retail Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Employment Employment Base SANBAG Growth 4,923 7,957 6,933 22,679 Compass Growth Change 0 2,327 203 1,418 Revised Growth 4,923 5,630 6,730 21,261 Growth Factor 1.000 0.708 0.971 0.937


8-13

8.3.6 City of Rancho Cucamonga (Site 22)

Site 22 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga is located in SBVM TAZ 2016. The base level of growth forecast by SANBAG for this TAZ is displayed below, along with the revised growth associated with Site 22 and the additional development potential beyond the SCAG Compass Site 22. The potential for employment in Site 22 is based on Gruen’s Alternative 1, Phase 1 & 2 (Table 8.11). In order to offset the growth in the area around the potential station associated with Site 22, growth in the rest of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is assumed to be adjusted by the factors in Table 8.12.

8.4 Next Steps The net impact of the changes to the model dataset is to move more than 8,000 new dwelling units and more than 18,000 new jobs into development centers that are better served by transit, instead of spreading the development throughout the region. The revised model dataset will allow SANBAG to use the travel demand model to measure the potential impact on the transit system that could result from the implementation of the Compass Blueprint 2% Strategy Program.

Table 8.11: Employment Forecast – Rancho Cucamonga Single Family Multi-Family Retail Non-Retail Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Employment Employment Base SANBAG Growth 0 96 0 960Compass Site Growth 0 419 26 436Other Growth Potenial 0 1,090 0 0Growth Change 0 1,413 26 -524

Table 8.12: Population Growth – Rancho Cucamonga Single Family Multi-Family Retail Non-Retail Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Employment Employment Base SANBAG Growth 3,799 4,549 10,361 29,692Compass Growth Change 0 1,413 26 -524Revised Growth 3,799 3,136 10,335 30,216Growth Factor 1.000 0.689 0.997 1.018

SANBAG Transportation – Land Use Integration Project

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 9: SANBAG Transportation – Land Use Integration Project PERSONS AND SOURCES CONSULTED

9-1

9 PPEERRSSOONNSS AANNDD SSOOUURRCCEESS

CCOONNSSUULLTTEEDD 9.1 PERSONS CONSULTED Pria Hidisyan, SCAG Wayne Moore, SCAG Sandee Scott, SCAG Ty Schuiling, SANBAG Ryan Graham, SANBAG Steve Smith, SANBAG Cameron Brown, SANBAG Joanne Cook, SANBAG Rohan Kuruppu, Omnitrans Mervin Acebo, Omnitrans John Jaquess, City of Highland Community Development Director Larry Mainez, City of Highland Planning Department Joe Hughes, City of Highland City Manager Richard Hiller, City of Highland Planning Commissioner Larry McAllan, City of Highland SANBAG Council Representative Ricardo Sandoval, City of Highland Engineering Department

Karen Gaffneg, Chamber of Commerce Mark Zimmerman, KZ Holdings, Property Owner Pat Meyer for WMC Buster, Inc. Construction, Property Owner Bill Buster, Property Owner Mark Zimmerman, Property Owner Charles Kavanaugh, Property Owner Britt W. Wilson, Morongo Band of Mission Indians Representative, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Gina Gibson, City of Rialto Planning Department Mike Story, City of Rialto Director of Development Services Henry T. Garcia, City Manager John Dutrey, City of Rialto Redevelopment Agency Grace Vargas, Rialto Mayor and City SANBAG Representative Ed Scott, Council Member and Rialto Business Owner Dennis Barton, Transportation Commissioner


9-2

Debra Robertson, City of Rialto SCAG Representative Sam Gennawey, Hogle-Ireland Norma Cano, Rialto Business Improvement District Association Jose Ometeotl, Tierra West Advisors Denis R. Bilodeau, DKS Associates Chris Beynon, Moore Iacofano Golstman Paul Balbach, City of Fontana Engineering Department Salvador Quintanilla, City of Fontana Planning Department Kevin Ryan, City of Fontana Planning Department Don Williams, Director of Community Development Debbie M. Brazill, City of Fontana Administration Richard Sandoval, City of Fontana Engineering Department Ingrid Huang, Property Owner Abol Hosseinioun, Property Owner Barbara Millman, City of Ontario Planning Department Melanie Mullis, City of Ontario Planning Department

Jerry L. Blum, City of Ontario Planning Director Gregory C. Devereaux, City of Ontario City Manager Amanda Rhinehart, City of Colton Administration Mark Nuaimi, City of Colton Assistant Manager Candace E. Cassel, City of Colton Economic Development Director Christopher Winters, City of Colton Planning Department Rina Leung, City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department Candyce Burnett, City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department James Troyer, City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Director Corky Nicholson, City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department David Mandela, Property Owner Brad Bueller, Consultant to David Mandela Rosalie Mandela, Property Owner Mr. and Mrs. Albert Wong, Property Owners

9.2 SOURCES CONSULTED

Arrington, G.B.(2007) The Results Are In: Residential TODs Produce 50% Fewer Car Trips. Arrington, G.B. (2004) Transit Oriented Development. PB Placemaking California Department of Transportation (2002) Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study, Special Report Parking and TOD: Challenges and Opportunities. Sacramento, CA California Department of Transportation (2002) Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study: Factors for Success in California. Sacramento, CA Cervero, R. and Bernick M. (1997) Transit Villages in the 21st Century. McGraw-Hill. New York


9-3

Cervero, R. (2007) Ensuring Full Potential Ridership from Transit-Oriented Development. The Urban Land Institute and the Center for Transit Oriented Development. City of Claremont, http://www.ci.claremont.ca.us City of Los Angeles Planning Department (2007) Staff Recommendation Report Case: CPC-2007-2216-CA City of Portland Bureau of Planning, http://www.portlandonline.com/planning/ City of Portland Bureau of Planning (2005) North of Lovejoy Project: Recommended Zoning Changes Dittmarr, H. and Ohland, G. (2004) The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development. Island Press. Washington D.C. Dunphy, R., Myerson, D. and Pawlukiewicz., M. (2003) Ten Principles for Successful Development Around Transit. The Urban Land Institute. Washington D.C. Federal Highway Administration (2005) Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) Federal Transit Administration (1994) Livable Communities Initiative, taken from http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/livbro.html Gordon, R. (2007) S.F. Plans market rates for prized parking spaces. San Francisco Chronicle Gordon, R. (2007) Transliink backers consider letting people pay for parking with card. San Francisco Chronicle Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, http://www.metro.net Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com Moule and Polyzoides Architects, http://www.mparchitects.com Omnitrans Bus Routes, http://www.omnitrans.org Pasadena Star News, http://pasadenastarnews.com Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), SCAG, 2004 Shoup, D. (1999) The Trouble with Minimum Parking Requirements. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 33, pp. 549-574 Shoup, D. and Kolozsvari, D. (2003) Turning Small Change into Big Changes. Access 23, pp 2-7 Solimar Research Group, Inc. (2006) Exposition Line Infill Development Potential Analysis SANBAG Draft Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) (2008) Parsons Transportation Group Southern California Association of Governments (2007) 2% Strategy. www.compassblueprint.org/2percent Traditional Neighborhood Development West, http://www.tndwest.com Transportation Research Board (Ensuring Full Potential Ridership from Transit-Oriented Development (TCRP H-25A) www.trb.org/TRBNet/ProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=1157


9-4

Transportation Research Board (2007) TCRP Report 95: Transit Oriented Development : Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, Chapter 17 Transportation Research Board (2005) TCRP Report 102: Transit Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), http://www.epa.org Unity Council, Fruitvale Village, http://www.unitycouncil.org/fruitvale/index.htm Vincent, R. (2007) Sequel planned at iconic corner; Work begins today on a huge multiuse complex that may revitalize Hollywood and Vine. Los Angeles Times West Coast TNDs (2006) www.tndwest.com Highland Municipal Code Highland General Plan Rialto General Plan Rialto Municipal Code Downtown Rialto Specific Plan Draft Rialto Downtown Vision and Strategic Plan, MIG, 2008 Rialto Downtown Vision and Strategic Plan Workshops, MIG, 2007-08 Metrolink Parking Expansion Study Fontana General Plan Fontana Municipal Code Ontario General Plan Ontario Municipal Code Ontario International Airport Master Plan, 2003 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan, 1981 Street Improvement Plans for Sierra Ave and Baseline Colton General Plan Colton Municipal Code Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Foothill Boulevard Historic Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan See Market Demand Study, Appendix III for other sources.

AACCKKNNOOWWLLEEDDGGMMEENNTTSS

TASK FORCE COMMITTEE Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)

Pria Hidisyan, SCAG Project Manager Wayne Moore, Chief Financial Officer San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG)

Ty Schuiling, Director of Planning and Programming Ryan Graham, Transportation Planning Analyst Steve Smith, P.E., Planning Chief Cameron Brown, Data Program Administrator City of Colton

Task Force Representative: Amanda Rhinehart, Assistant to the City Manager Mark Nuaimi, Assistant City Manager Candace E. Cassel, Economic Development Director Christopher Winters, Planning Assistant City of Fontana

Task Force Representative: Salvador Quintanilla, Assistant Planner Don Williams, AICP, Director of Community Development Kevin Ryan, Senior Planner

City of Highland

Task Force Representative: John Jaquess, Community Development Director Lawrence A. Mainez, City Planner City of Ontario

Task Force Representatives: Barbara Millman, Principal Planner, and and Melanie Mullis, Senior Planner Jerry L. Blum, Planning Director City of Rancho Cucamonga

Task Force Representatives: Rina Leung, Senior Planner and Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner James Troyer, Planning Director City of Rialto

Task Force Representative: Gina Gibson, Senior Planner Mike Story, Director of Development Services

CONSULTANT TEAM

Gruen Associates

Elaine V. Carbrey, AIA, AICP, Project Manager Michael Concepcion, Urban Designer, Planner Meghna Khanna, Urban Designer, Planner Sukriti Agarwal, Urban Designer, Planner Matthew Parrent, Graphics Designer, Planner Alejandra Zamora, Urban Designer, Planner Larry Schlossberg, AIA, Partner-in-Charge Parsons Transportation Group

Larry Wesemann, Transportation Planner, Senior Vice President Eric Bierce, Senior Transportation Planner Derek McGill, Associate Transportation Planner The Robert Group

Clarissa Filgioun, Vice President Kristine Grillo, Project Manager Barbara Jefferies, Graphics Designer Economics Research Associates

David A. Wilcox, FAICP, Senior Vice President Amitabh Barthakur, AICP, Principal Judith Taylor, Senior Associate