HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-12-21 Agenda Packet - PC-HPC CITY OF ■ . ■ * ■
Historic Preservation Commission and
Planning Commission
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
December 21 , 2020
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
7:00 p.m.
PURSUANT TO GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM'S EXECUTIVE ORDER N-29-20 THIS MEETING WILL
BE HELD AS A TELECONFERENCE MEETING
In response to the Governor's Executive Orders, the San Bernardino County Department of Public
Health requirements, and to ensure the health and safety of our residents by limiting contact that could
spread the COVID-19 virus, there will be no members of the public in attendance at the Planning
Commission Meetings. Members of the Planning Commission and staff will participate in this meeting
via teleconference.
As this is a Special Meeting, Public Communications are limited to agenda items appearing on the
Special Meeting Agenda.
In place of in-person attendance, members of the public can observe and offer comment at this
meeting via Zoom:
VIEW MEETING VIA ZOOM APP OR ZOOM.COM AT:
zoom.us/join
using Webinar ID: 943 8301 4358
-or-
YOU CAN DIAL-IN USING YOUR PHONE
UNITED STATES: + 1 (669) 900-6833
Access Code: 943 8301 4358
A. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
B. Public Communications
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Planning Commission on any item listed
on the agenda.
Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chairman,
depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak.
C. Consent Calendar
D. Public Hearings
E. General Business
E1. General Plan Update: Recommended Land Use and Community Design Strategy
F. Director Announcements
G. Commission Announcements
H. Workshops — None
I. Adjournment
TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak,
given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your
position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson
may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the
audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience.
For each of the items listed under"PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS", the public will be provided an opportunity to
speak. To address the Planning Commission via Zoom App, click the "Raise Hand" button when the item
you wish to comment on is being discussed. On Zoom via phone, you can also raise your hand by pressing
star*, then 9 on your phone dial pad when the item you wish to comment on is being discussed. Comments
will be limited to 5 minutes per individual. If a large number of individuals wish to speak on an item, the
Chairman may limit the time to 3 minutes in order to provide an opportunity for more people to be heard.
Speakers will be alerted when their time is up, and no further comments will be permitted.
As an alternative to participating in the meeting, you may submit comments in writing to
Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us by 12:OOpm on the date of the meeting. Written comments will be distributed
to the Commissioners and included in the record.
If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting,please
contact the Planning Department at(909)477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the
meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility.
Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired.
AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are available at www.CitvofRC.us.
APPEALS
Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the
Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the
City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of$3,206 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees
are established and governed by the City Council).
Please turn off all cell phones while the meeting is in session.
I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee,
hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on Thursday,
December 17, 2020, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code
54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California and on the City's website.
HPC/PC Agenda— December 21, 2020
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 21, 2020
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP Planning Director
SUBJECT: Discussion — General Plan Update: Recommended Land Use and
Community Design Strategy
BACKGROUND:
In January of this year, the City embarked on PlanRC, the City's General Plan Update process.
A general plan is a city's blueprint, or constitution, for future development and is required by state
law. It documents the city's long-range vision and establishes clear goals, objectives and actions
to guide the community through the next 10 to 20 years of change. The City must update its
General Plan periodically to keep up with changing needs and conditions of the city and region,
and changes in state law. Except for periodic development driven amendments and the required
update to the Housing Element in 2017, the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan is largely the same
document updated in 2010. The City is preparing this update now to help keep up with some
significant changes in state law regarding general plans, and to build on our success as a world
class community to create a balanced, vibrant, and innovative city, rich in opportunity for all to
thrive.
The major phases and schedule of this multi-year process are as follows:
• Spring 2020—Existing Conditions: Review existing policies and reports and identify issues
and opportunities.
• Spring-Summer 2020 — Listening and Visioning: Develop long term vision and guiding
principles for the General Plan.
• Fall 2020 — Plan Scenarios: Create and refine land use and transportation scenarios.
• Winter-Spring 2021 — Policy and Plan Development: Develop policy solutions to address
a range of topics covered in the General Plan.
• Summer-Winter 2022 — Review and Adopted: Public and decision makers to review and
consider adoption of the updated General Plan.
PlanRC is a community-based process and the PlanRC team has been conducting a robust
engagement effort with the public since January. To date, PlanRC has received input from over
2,000 community members through online surveys and virtual meetings and generated over
675,000 digital impressions through various social media platforms. Early in the year, initial
communication was focused on the purpose of a general plan, why there is a need to update the
General Plan and encouraging public participation in this multi-year process. Following this, we
held two online surveys and two multi-day virtual Forums on Our Future to identify issues and
opportunities and establish a vision and set of core community values — health, equity and
stewardship —which will lead the way in shaping the General Plan. These were presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council in August 2020. A more detailed description of the
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — RECOMMENDED LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN
STRATEGY
December 21, 2020
Page 2
purpose of the general plan update and community engagement effort through August is included
in the attached staff report on Draft Vision and Core Values, dated August 12, 2020 (Exhibit A).
Since August, we have been continuing to engage with the public. In September, we held a 10-
day virtual workshop that focused on character and place. This workshop garnered 4,194 views,
829 participants, 42,965 responses, and 714 total comments. The intent of this workshop was to
translate some the emerging themes into a visual preference survey, and allowed participants to
rate different images based on how they felt those images represented the community, and in
which neighborhood or part of town they should be located. While each area had distinct
preferences for the types of residential, commercial, and recreational developments participants
wanted to see, there were notable commonalities between all planning areas, which were
incorporated into the development of three potential future land use scenarios.
FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIOS
PlanRC's most recent engagement event, "Community Discussions: Considering our Options",
was held the week of November 16th. Nine virtual community discussions and an online survey
were hosted to explore long term land use ideas. Six sessions were promoted with the general
public, one of which was specifically held for teens and youth, and another of which was
specifically held for Spanish speakers. Three additional focused meetings were also held with the
Healthy RC Steering Committee, NAIOP (Commercial Real Estate Development Association),
and the Chamber of Commerce. Nearly 170 people engaged in the online and virtual
conversations.
The purpose of this effort was to define future land use and transportation scenarios to create a
framework for discussion about how and where Rancho Cucamonga plans for change over the
next 20 years. The future scenarios presented to the community were intended to spur dialog
about how much reinvestment the City should plan for; where growth and change should be
located; how to meet the needs of future generations; and what factors are most important to the
community when considering how the City should evolve.
While specifics of land use varied in each scenario, all three aspired to meet the City's core values
of health, equity and stewardship and used the same assumptions for development targets that
meet state mandates and projected market demands. State mandates include: 1) housing
requirements that all cities in California must meet to provide adequate amounts and types of
housing; 2) environmental requirements that ensure conservation of the natural environment and
protection from natural hazards; and 3)equity and environmental justice for community members
in all parts of the City. To ensure that the City has a strong economic base and can afford to
provide the high-quality facilities, services and amenities its residents expect, it must have a
balanced mix of commercial, industrial and residential land uses. It is also very clear from broad
community input that preserving the heritage of the community and enhancing our unique
community character is very important.
The three land use scenarios discussed with the community in November are outlined below,
each of which was intended to create a healthier environment; to reduce traffic and improve
equitable access to goods and services; to increase fiscal resiliency; and to increase housing
choice for households of all sizes, types and income levels. The scenarios varied in the extent to
which they achieve these goals by varying the amount and type of change in several areas of our
City. There were also characteristics common to all three all three scenarios, which included:
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — RECOMMENDED LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN
STRATEGY
December 21, 2020
Page 3
• Conservation of rural and natural open space character in foothills.
• Limited and context-sensitive infill in neighborhoods.
• Significant mixed-use infill and improvement along Foothill Boulevard Corridor.
• Significant infill, modernization and neighborhood improvement in the City's industrial
area.
All three scenarios ensure that future residential and commercial development north of the Foothill
Corridor would be carefully controlled to conserve the essential character of existing
neighborhoods and centers. All three scenarios envision more intense and more walkable, transit-
ready, mixed-use environments along and generally south of the Foothill Corridor. Finally, all
three scenarios envision multi-modal mobility improvements throughout the City, ranging from
completing and improving our trail network, streets that are safer for pedestrians and bicyclists,
and improved transit options.
The key differences between the scenarios are described below:
• Of the three scenarios, Scenario A distributes future housing investment most evenly
across the City. The highest intensities of new housing, mixed-use development and
transit services are concentrated in the central Foothill and south Haven corridors, around
the Metrolink Station and Victoria Gardens, with much more limited infill development on
vacant and underutilized sites north of Church Street. Scenario A provides for a wide range
of housing types throughout the City. Shopping centers are retrofitted to provide better
community gathering spaces year-round. New mixed-use places are located along transit-
served corridors near employment, commercial and civic activities. The Southeast
Industrial Area will be modernized, and the foothills will be protected and conserved, with
enhanced trail access for all residents.
Scenario A
Rural/conservation
Limited Neighborhood Infill Infill Planned
(Alta Loma) Neighborhoods
(Etiwanda)
Neighborhood Limited Neighborhoo
Infill Neighborhood Infill
Infill FDI7 rOfTQ
Moderat Mixed Use significant I Mod_VratwMixed Use
Infill & Reh'�ilrestfrient ransit oriented 'Infilleinvestment
Mined-use
Moderate &AernvestA t Industrial Infil &
FNei:g orhood �t Moderni ation
High UpacityTranat Infill
II H�hipeedRail —
■Bus Fapid raisit nrci
Planred West AIEl Lm�rtur Bus RaodTranit
W
iunr�ainedim
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — RECOMMENDED LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN
STRATEGY
December 21, 2020
Page 4
• Scenario B redirects some of the future housing investment from existing neighborhoods
north of Church Street to the entire length of the Foothill corridor and the south Haven
corridor(south of Foothill Blvd). Like Scenario A, it focuses significant new mixed-use and
housing in centers around the Metrolink Station and Victoria Gardens. It provides an even
more robust pedestrian, bike and transit network along and south of the Foothill Corridor,
better supporting high capacity transit, such as a streetcar, bus rapid transit, or light rail
transit. Also similar to Scenario A, this Scenario anticipates new mixed-use nodes along
transit-served corridors near employment, commercial services and civic activities;
upgraded shopping centers; and modernized industrial areas. Likewise, the foothills are
intended to be preserved for conservation and increasingly accessible by trails.
Scenario B
Rural/Conservation
i
Very Limited Infill Planned
Neighborhood Infill Neighborhoods
(Alta Loma) (Etiwanda)
Neighborhood Very Limited Neighborhoo .
Infill Neighborhood Infi11
Infill �i FcWcno
5ignifican Transit-brie ed•
*--o"D XuseIt�Z�e�nves mI en it
Moderate <<,. Industrial Infil &
Neig orhood _ Moderni ation
igh Capadtyiranslt
Infill •�ti '
H%hSpee hl +
7IAf10 +
BusRapdTrwlt
Plann edWe5t VIky lma=rMs Rap d Tranffi
iLnneltomed�m
• Scenario C redirects even more future housing investment from existing neighborhoods
north of Church Street and the Foothill Corridor east of I-15 and west of Haven into high
intensity, mixed-use, transit-rich nodes at Victoria Gardens and the Metrolink Station area.
Similar to Scenario B, this scenario provides significantly improved bus, bike and
pedestrian facilities throughout the City and supports higher capacity transit, such as
streetcar, bus rapid transit, or light rail transit. It also envisions a local circulator in the
center of the City to provide even stronger connections between the Metrolink Station,
Victoria Gardens, Epicenter and the Civic Center area to create a "real City Center"
environment that could truly be the hub of the Inland Empire. Scenario C focuses much of
the future housing investment in Central South and has the greatest concentration of
activities and intensity of uses in the Victoria Gardens and Metrolink Center area. Similar
to Scenario B, little change is anticipated in the neighborhoods north of Church Street and
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — RECOMMENDED LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN
STRATEGY
December 21, 2020
Page 5
much of the new housing and most of the new mixed-use centers will be located along
transit-served corridors, particularly Foothill, Haven and Milliken. Like the other scenarios,
Scenario C envisions improving older shopping centers to higher quality community
gathering places, modernization of heavy industrial areas in the Southeast, and
conserving the natural and rural open spaces of our foothills.
Scenario C
Rural/conservation
r
Very Limited z Infill Planned
Neighborhood Infill Neighborhoods
(Alta Loma) (Etiwanda)
dt
Neighborhood Very Limited Neighborhood*.
Infill Neighborhood Infill f
Infill J' , Fontana
Moderat Mixed Use _Significant _ i ModBrat$Mixed Use
Infill&R IS n`rr�stment --�� -- O ll r . % "
rahsit-Oriehted {;� Infill 6 Reinvestment
Mined-Use.14FRF
Moderate &kefnvestm�it Industrial Infil &
Neig orhood _T_ Moderni ation
3sedHighCapacityTransit Infill
1 M I Hgh Spmtl Ral .�
�■■ BwR20dTrar.5i
Ii� Plann�i4rxtValia�tcnencmr6usRapdTran
'ON' Tunneifonnedo
Lava'tirxulnr
PREFERRED SCENARIO
As a result of community input on the future land use scenarios, the PlanRC team developed a
preferred scenario for the General Plan update. A detailed summary of input received at the
November engagement event is attached to this staff report (Exhibit B). Key takeaways and
observations that helped shape the preferred scenario are as follows:
• The characteristics common to all three scenarios were well-received and supported. It
was clear that all three scenarios were built on what we heard to-date from the
community.
• The highest ranked attributes of Scenario A were that it adds walkable shops and
services in existing neighborhoods and adds new housing choices in existing
neighborhoods, provided new development is context-sensitive and meets the character
of existing neighborhoods.
• In Scenario B, there was strong support for investment along the Foothill and south
Haven corridors, and at the Metrolink Station and Victoria Gardens. There was a desire
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — RECOMMENDED LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN
STRATEGY
December 21, 2020
Page 6
for more investment in west Foothill as a mixed-use center or node, as well as interest in
investment and amenities near the Epicenter.
• In Scenario C, there was support and excitement for a creating a "downtown"
environment around Victoria Gardens, the Metrolink Station and the Epicenter, with even
more housing choice, retail and jobs in those areas.
• Participants understood and supported the need for infill planning. The consensus was
that infill development should match the look, feel and needs in specific community
planning areas. Infill development is the last opportunity for righting wrongs or missed
opportunities like lack of shopping, parks, and specific type of housing needs for certain
neighborhood.
• Regarding transit options, there was the most support for a trolley, and "fixed" transit
with dedicated lanes was also well received, but slightly less popular.
• Economic development was most significant driver of opinion when evaluating the
scenarios.
The preferred scenario best balances the input received on the three land use scenarios by: 1)
increasing goods, services and amenities in all neighborhoods; 2) focusing investment along key
corridors; and 3) focusing investment at key nodes or center in the City. It represents a policy
level approach for how and where we target investment and growth for future generations.
Preferred Scenario
Rural/Conservation
Limited Infill Planned
Neighborhood Infill Neighborhoods
(Alta Loma) (Etiwanda)
Neighborhood Limited Neighborhoo
Infill Neighborhood Infill
Infill Fontana
Sign ificg-nfI''ai nsit- ien d ,s i
1 Mix---esd-U s--91r-A�►. sus s �• -
( Rel ►estrllent
- - Moderate ^. s -Industrial Infil &..:.r,,,
W Neig orhood • I Moderni ation
Proposed High LapacilyTransit
Infill
I1111 HghspeedRail
luiro
1 111h 1 BusRapdTwit
�g� Pla%adWestVdlcV(Meb:urBusRapdTrcnat
,Booms,Tw onne un
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — RECOMMENDED LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN
STRATEGY
December 21, 2020
Page 7
RECOMMENDED LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN STRATEGY
To further advance the preferred scenario and build on the themes expressed by the community,
the PlanRC team developed the Recommended Land Use and Community Design Strategy. This
strategy responds to the overarching theme we have heard from the several rounds of community
input over the past year:
"More fun places to go, more things to do, and more ways to get there."
Building on this simple and powerful idea, as well as on the eight Land Use Goals of the 2010
General Plan which remain relevant today, this strategy framework organizes the vision for
Rancho Cucamonga's future into the following major Place Types: Neighborhoods, Corridors,
Centers, and Districts. This diagram is not a land use map; rather, it is intended to convey the
locations of concentrations of community activity centers and a framework for multi-modal access
to those centers.
Preferred Scenario Strategic Framework Diagram
r_ PLAN
CI I $
1 Legend
Land Uses(Generalized)
e _ _ � Residential
._. ._. —� �- Corridor
® „ t Wor kpldce l Industrial
Upland w.x li x� ® " t e Districts&Activity Centers
Fontaoa Special Disricts
Neighborhood Center
�� :�..� ....1 . Corridor Activity Ceraer/Node
Parks&Sch ouls
• Trail Access Point
s
- J1
' �r.t -11` - r Circulation&Mobility
I Streetscape Priority
Bicyde Circulation Priority
v
L � " I Trail Nelvuork
Ontario
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — RECOMMENDED LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN
STRATEGY
December 21, 2020
Page 8
Neighborhoods
Two of the eight Land Use Goals in the 2010 General Plan are focused specifically on
neighborhoods.
"GOAL LU-1: Ensure established residential neighborhoods are preserved and protected,
and local and community-serving commercial and community facilities meet the needs of
residents."
"GOAL LU-6: Promote the stability of southwest Rancho Cucamonga residential
neighborhoods."
Neighborhoods (shown in shades of light yellow on the Framework Diagram)are the places where
most of us live. They are predominantly residential and can include supporting amenities and
services. The neighborhoods of Rancho Cucamonga range from semi-rural neighborhoods,
historic neighborhoods with stately tree rows, older neighborhoods interspersed with industrial
business, and newer neighborhoods of single-and multi-family homes.
Because Rancho Cucamonga's neighborhoods are varied in design character, the Land Use &
Community Design chapter of the General Plan will describe the key characteristics of each,
defining a number of distinct neighborhood designations to be implemented by existing and
updated zoning. In most cases the emphasis will be on preserving and enhancing the existing
and historic character of our community's neighborhoods, and in some cases will expand the
range and quality of housing choices. In all cases the objective is to preserve the intrinsic
character and strengths of each neighborhood, and further enhance it where appropriate.
As part of the General Plan Update process to date, a good deal of analysis and outreach has
been done to clarify the unique characteristics of the existing and envisioned future
neighborhoods in each part of town, and to identify characteristics that should pervade all
neighborhoods throughout town. Key characteristics include the size and orientation of homes,
the way the streets look and function, neighborhoods amenities, and ease of access to activity
centers, jobs and major parks and open spaces. The focus of this Framework Diagram, however,
is too illustrate how all those neighborhoods will be increasingly well-connected to activity centers,
to open spaces, and to one another by the City's street and trail network and by primary corridors
of various kinds.
Districts
Districts (shown as blue areas and pink rectangles on the Framework Diagram) describe the
primary places where we work and conduct business. Districts are predominantly non-residential
with a primary activity that is functionally specialized, such as a commercial, office, or industrial
use, and can also include some supportive commercial and recreational uses and housing. These
places in Rancho Cucamonga can be organized into several different types of business districts
that improve the business environment with compatible and supportive services and improved
and appropriate transportation networks.
The defined districts respond to community requests for"a real downtown" and "more fun places
to go", and to community requests and economic and environmental imperatives for more and
better jobs for all residents. They also respond directly to two more of the eight Land Use Goals
in the 2010 General Plan:
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — RECOMMENDED LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN
STRATEGY
December 21, 2020
Page 9
"GOAL LU-5: Support a regionally serving office district that provides professional and
technical employment opportunities for the Inland Empire."
"GOAL LU-7: Encourage diverse employment-generating land uses that are clean and
modern, and that incorporate green technologies."
Most Districts are larger than centers, usually more specialized in their purpose and uses, and
often located based on adjacency to major transportation facilities, or centrally located within the
larger community or sub-region. Rather than responding to the scale and character of adjoining
neighborhoods, they are based more on an internal organizational logic and have "their own
center of gravity". The future "Downtown District" around Victoria Gardens and the Epicenter,
and the nascent "21st Century Transit-Oriented Employment District" adjacent to the expanding
Metrolink Station are clear examples of this. Recommended districts are as follows:
• Employment Districts: (blue areas on the Framework Diagram) The blue areas on the
Framework Diagram were mapped in the original 1980 General Plan simply as "Industrial
Area". As the General Plan was updated in the 1990s and early 2000s, sub areas were
designated for very heavy and less heavy industrial uses, business park environments,
and areas more oriented to office uses. In some of these areas housing and retail centers
have also been developed. A key objective of this General Plan update is to rebalance
the future land use designations of this very significant regional employment center, and
to optimize its economic, fiscal, and employment contributions to our city. Another key
objective will be to redress existing land use conflicts with neighborhoods— particularly in
the southwest (South Cucamonga) portion of the city, and to avoid new conflicts in and
around the Metrolink Transit-Oriented Employment District.
• Metrolink Transit-Oriented Employment District: (pink rectangle on the Framework
Diagram) Along one of the busiest stations in the Metrolink system — and the focus of
planning for station-adjacent transit-oriented mixed-use development for nearly a decade
— Rancho Cucamonga's Metrolink station is poised to receive a major injection of
"steroids", in the form of new high-speed rail service to Las Vegas and possibly Orange
County and San Diego, and a cutting edge autonomous electric vehicle subway
connection to Ontario International Airport.
The on-going redevelopment of the former Empire Lakes golf course adjacent to the
Metrolink Station, the proximity to the Haven Avenue "office corridor, and the potential for
changes of use and redevelopment of older industrial properties in the square mile
bounded by Milliken Avenue, the BNSF Railroad, Haven Avenue, and 4t" Street, present
the opportunity for this area to evolve into a higher intensity, transit-oriented, mixed-use,
21st century employment district with a mix of housing, maker space, office uses, and
district-serving retail uses. This area could truly become the "employment hub of the
Inland Empire", offering companies, workers and investors that option of an amenity-rich
live/work/play environment on a par with any city in California.
• Victoria Gardens Downtown District: Since its opening in 2004, Victoria Gardens has
effectively served as "downtown Rancho Cucamonga". One could argue it has also
served that function for a larger Inland Empire sub-regional area. And since the original
1980 General Plan, that site was reserved for a "regional shopping center". As can be
clearly seen from aerial photographs — and entitlement records — Victoria Gardens was
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — RECOMMENDED LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN
STRATEGY
December 21, 2020
Page 10
very intentionally laid out with simple grid of circulation routes typical of California
downtowns. The large parking lots surrounding the retail core were planned for a transition
to a more mixed-use, housing-rich environment over time, and the updated General Plan
will support and perhaps help to accelerate that evolution.
• Epicenter Sports and Entertainment District: Midway between Victoria Gardens and
the Metrolink Station lies the Cucamonga Quake's Epicenter ballpark and other
community sports facilities. Additional sports, recreation, entertainment, retail, food and
beverage and other uses could be developed around and between the existing facilities,
to create a premier destination for families looking for a fun day and/or night out.
This potential district connects via Rochester Avenue northward directly to the heart of the
planned Etiwanda Heights village center and southward to Metrolink by way of 6th Street
and possibly 8th Street as well. It is connected to Victoria Gardens by Day Creek
Boulevard and also by Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. The Day Creek Trail in
the flood control and utility corridor just west of Victoria Gardens also provides a potentially
significant active transportation corridor connecting the Epicenter and Victoria Gardens
Districts.
• Civic Center District: Located "in the crosshairs" of Rancho Cucamonga at Foothill
Boulevard and Haven Avenue, the Civic Center District is envisioned as the integration of
the existing San Bernardino County Courthouse and Rancho Cucamonga City Hall civic
center on the southeast corner, the Terra Vista Shopping Center on the northeast corner,
the historic Virginia Dare Winery on the northwest corner, and the Cucamonga Town
Square mixed-use center on the southwest corner. With very significant undeveloped
parcels adjacent to the Cucamonga Town Square center, the Haven City Market and
shopping center in transition south of the Civic Center, and potential enhancements to the
already successful properties north of Foothill Boulevard, this district has the potential to
become the western anchor to the "heart of the Foothill mixed-use corridor" between
Haven and Victoria Gardens.
• Cucamonga Town Center District: Southwest Rancho Cucamonga — in terms of the
Planning Communities confirmed through the public engagement process, South
Cucamonga — is historically underserved in many ways, including equitable access to
family-oriented activity centers, goods and services. The combination of existing
employment, commercial services, social services and civic buildings in the area along
and west of Archibald Avenue between 7t" Street and Arrow Route presents an intriguing
opportunity to begin to connect existing buildings and infill new buildings and businesses
and activities into a lively activity area in the center of old Cucamonga.
Alta Loma Town Center District: Base Line Road is the boundary between the Planning
Communities of Alta Loma, to the north, and Cucamonga, to the south. On Amethyst Avenue,
just north of Base Line, is the historic town center of the original community of Alta Loma —
originally a small commercial main street adjacent to the Alta Loma station of the Pacific Electric
Railway. Just to the northwest is the Pacific Electric Trail, the old rail right of way. Not far to the
west of Amethyst, at the intersection of Base Line and Archibald Avenue are several major
commercial centers. In this area, bounded on the north and west by the Pacific Electric Trail and
on the south and east by the neighborhoods adjacent to the shopping centers,there is a significant
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — RECOMMENDED LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN
STRATEGY
December 21, 2020
Page 11
opportunity to better connect these currently distinct centers into a more walkable, bikeable
"Westside Downtown District" and major community center of community life.
Corridors
The community's desire for"more ways to get there" has a number of key dimensions, responding
to a wide array of interests, hopes and concerns. Corridors relate to two of the eight Land Use
Goals of the 2010 General Plan:
"GOAL LU-3: Encourage sustainable development patterns that link transportation
improvements and planned growth, create a healthy balance of jobs and housing, and
protect the natural environment."
"GOAL LU-4: Establish a pedestrian-friendly Foothill Boulevard corridor that facilitates
transit use and provides a range of commercial destinations to serve both local and
regional needs."
The citywide system addressing this community request and policy imperative is a hierarchy of
multi-modal movement corridors throughout the City. Community input for more mobility and
access options range from opportunities for fun family outings without driving, opportunities to
walk or bike or take transit to jobs and community activity centers, opportunities for residents
throughout town to access community parks and foothill open spaces, mode choices that promote
health and reduce pollution, and the opportunity to enjoy more transit-oriented, car-free lifestyles
in the center of the City.
Corridors (shown in colored lines and shading as described for each type, below) are the primary
streets and public open space rights-of-way that cross the City, which enable us to move from
neighborhood to neighborhood, from home to school, shopping, work and recreation. Like most
cities built in recent decades, most of Rancho Cucamonga's primary street corridors were
originally built with automobile traffic in in mind, and without much consideration of pedestrian,
bicycle or equestrian traffic. These single-purpose streets, for the most part, are lined by
commercial parking lots and sound walls of housing tracts.
Throughout the PlanRC public engagement process, community members have expressed that
these streets should be modified to provide safer, more comfortable, and more environmentally
sustainable spaces for pedestrian, bicyclists, equestrians, and better transit service, in addition to
continuing to carry automobile traffic efficiently throughout the City. As many cities have been
finding over the past decade, these wide public rights of way and "first generation" street
improvements offer both the space and the opportunity for refinements that can evolve them ino
much safer, more comfortable places for people. Such human-scale public spaces also add great
value to new infill development in community activity centers, where commercial and recreational
amenities can open up to the street rather than hiding behind large parking lots and screen walls.
Likewise, existing public utility easements and rights of way—originally designed simply to move
stormwater safely to the Santa Ana River and enable the transmission of electrical power —
represent additional underperforming public assets that can be improved to provide green, active
transportation corridors through the City. Together with the upgraded street corridor network
these trail corridors form a much more complete, connective network for active mobility, public
health, and environmental improvement.
The Framework Diagram identifies the following city-wide corridor types:
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — RECOMMENDED LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN
STRATEGY
December 21, 2020
Page 12
• Primary City Center Corridors: (Reddish shading on the Framework Diagram) The
primary City Corridors are the Foothill Boulevard/Historic Route 66 Corridor and the Haven
Avenue Corridor south of Foothill. These corridors are prioritized for significant and
transformational change, with high quality, high frequency transit service, a much more
walkable, human-scale character, and very significant mix of more intense retail,
employment and residential uses. This is consistent with the vision in the 2010 General
Plan for mixed-use development along both corridors and a focus on office and
employment uses on Haven.
• Primary Crosstown Corridors: (Orange lines on the Framework Diagram) These
corridors include most of the other major arterial streets that transect the City north to
south and east to west, including but not limited to Milliken Avenue, Archibald Avenue,
Vineyard Avenue, Etiwanda Avenue, 41" Street, Arrow Route, and Base Line Road.
Priorities for these corridors are mainly continuing enhancements to pedestrian safety and
comfort, including increasing the street tree canopy for shade, wind protection and
greening. This will also include consideration of strategies for moderating vehicular
speeds while maintaining or even improving the traffic carrying capacity of these important
transportation arteries.
• Primary Bike Corridors: (Blue lines on the Framework Diagram) Most of the City's
arterial streets are currently mapped as bike routes, however most of these are "high
stress" bike routes due to speed of vehicular traffic and lack of buffering between cars and
bikes. These Primary Bike Corridors are generally of two types, the details of which
remain to be worked out.
o It may be possible on a few existing arterial streets—potentially including 6t"Street,
Carnelian Avenue, 19t" Street, and/or others—to reduce the number and/or width
of vehicular lanes, and perhaps remove marginally useful on-street parking — to
provide wider and better buffered "lower stress" and safer bike lanes.
o On a number of existing collector streets — such as Church Street, Victoria Lane
and perhaps others — it may be possible to pursue similar strategies to provide
safer street bike lanes to supplement those available on arterial streets for bikes.
• Primary Trail Corridors: (Green on the Framework Diagram) These are major cross-
town active transportation corridors,within existing publicly controlled rights of way. These
include the Pacific Electric Trail, San Bernardino County Flood Control Channel rights of
way, and Southern California Edison transmission line rights of way. Most of these are
already designated in the City's master plan of trails, but in response to strong community
emphasis on more alternatives for walking, biking, equestrian access between
neighborhoods and connecting to the City's foothill open spaces, a new emphasis is
placed on further improving and connecting these existing community resources to provide
far better active transportation access throughout the City.
• Trail Access Points: (The "badge"symbols with mountains)These existing, planned, and
suggested trail access points are placed at key junctions of trails, bike routes, and streets,
emphasizing the potential to complete and enhance a very robust active transportation
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — RECOMMENDED LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN
STRATEGY
December 21, 2020
Page 13
network that strongly promotes the top-level community priorities of equitable access to
all community assets and personal, community and environmental health.
Centers
Centers are intended to address the community's desire for "more fun places to go and more
things to do" - not far from home wherever one lives in Rancho Cucamonga. The following Land
Use Goal from the 2010 General Plan is still a top priority:
"GOAL LU-2: Facilitate sustainable and attractive infill development that complements
surrounding neighborhoods and is accessible to pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and
automobiles."
Centers (shown as orange and reddish circles on the Framework Diagram) describe the places
we go for shopping, dining, entertainment, and gathering as a community. Centers are nodes of
activity and include commercial/retail that can complement both neighborhoods and districts. The
centers of Rancho Cucamonga range from the regional serving and iconic Victoria Gardens, to
large community-scale shopping centers, to smaller neighborhood centers with grocery stores,
pharmacies, shops and restaurants. These places range in size and character and provide for
and support the desired services and activities of residents.
Through the community engagement process, the concept of neighborhood activity centers,
larger community-scale activity centers, and a "real downtown" resonated deeply with people of
all ages from all parts of town. Many such centers can be simply provided by on-going
enhancements to or redevelopment of existing shopping centers. And in some cases, significant
"new" activity centers may be built anew on vacant parcels or may result from weaving together
new infill development and enhancements to existing commercial centers. Based on community
input and policies in the 2010 General Plan, key factors to be considered in planning and
designing such centers included:
• Centers must be compatible in scale and character with surrounding neighborhoods.
• Centers should offer improved access on foot, by bike, by transit, in some cases by horse,
and of course by automobile.
• Smaller centers should be distributed more evenly throughout the city to bring goods and
services and activities nearer to more residents.
• Larger centers should be organized at major intersections in key locations, particularly
along Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue South of Foothill Boulevard.
A broad range of Center sizes and types are defined, ranging from large to small, and from mostly
commercial to a mix of retail, office and housing within a well-connected, walkable, transit-ready
environments. These include:
• Village Center: (Very small orange circles on the Framework Diagram) This is the
smallest center type, potentially as small as a corner cafe group of neighborhood-serving
shops. This type is similar to the original village centers at the Pacific Electric Railway
stations in Cucamonga, Alta Loma and Etiwanda, that were envisioned by the 1982
Etiwanda Specific Plan at the intersection of East and Wilson Avenues, and is included in
the recently adopted Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan. It is not a
typical suburban strip mall. It offers walking and biking access to daily needs very close to
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — RECOMMENDED LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN
STRATEGY
December 21, 2020
Page 14
residences, and a place for residents of one or more neighborhoods to shop and get
together with friends and family. Attached single-family housing and small, neighborhood-
scale multifamily housing may or may not be provided adjacent to such small centers,
depending on the context and community preferences.
• Neighborhood Center: (Larger orange circles on the Framework Diagram) This is the
medium sized center type, and in most cases simply allows for and encourages existing
shopping centers at major street intersections at the junctions of several neighborhoods
to become more attractive, more active, and more accessible from surrounding
neighborhoods on foot, by bike, and in some cases on horseback. You will note on the
Framework Diagram that most Neighborhood Centers are located at the intersections of
Primary Crosstown Corridors, Primary Bike Corridors, and many also on or near Primary
Trail Corridors. Attached single-family housing and contextually appropriate-scale
multifamily housing may be provided within or adjacent to such centers, to offer new
lifestyle options to residents who prefer proximity to such amenities and to transit. The
possibility of a "ring" of such housing around the more commercially oriented "core" of
these centers is suggested by the lighter orange outer circle. In a number of cases, multi-
family housing is already present in those areas, and may be better connected to the
commercial core over time to better accommodate pedestrian and bicycle movement.
• Community Center: (Largest orange circles on the Framework Diagram, and red circles
along Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue) These are larger centers that currently
provide and/or may in the future provide goods, services and activities to a citywide and
sub-regional market. These surely include existing and future centers along Foothill
Boulevard, and at other key locations such as Carnelian Avenue and 19t" Street in Alta
Loma, and others. Most such centers are envisioned to include — or be located adjacent
to — significant amounts of housing, in addition to commercial goods and services, food
and beverage, entertainment, and employment uses. This is particularly true of the
centers along Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue south of Foothill. In the Preferred
Scenario defined through the community engagement process, the scale and intensity of
the corridor and centers along Foothill will be generally greatest east of Haven, and on
Haven south of Foothill.
Open Space
At the very top of the list of community priorities identified through the 2020 public engagement
process is the preservation and enhancement of Rancho Cucamonga's remarkable open spaces.
The following Land Use Goal of the 2010 General Plan addresses this topic directly:
"GOAL LU-8: Encourage visually attractive hillsides where the natural environment is
protected, a sustainable level of development is ensured, and appropriate measures to
protect against hazards are in place."
Open Spaces (shown as green areas on the Framework Diagram) include our parks, trails, and
natural and rural foothill open spaces. The recently adopted Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood &
Conservation Plan — and the subsequent completion of the annexation of the easterly majority of
the foothills above Etiwanda, as reflected on the Framework Diagram—represents very significant
progress in achieving that goal.
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — RECOMMENDED LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN
STRATEGY
December 21, 2020
Page 15
The large darker green areas shown on the Framework Diagram are our large, community parks,
which provide active recreation facilities of all types for the whole community. Additional very
significant amounts of our community open space lie within our streets and trail corridors, as
described above, which will be improved and enhanced over time to contribute much more to
Rancho Cucamonga's already high quality active, healthy lifestyle opportunities. Much more open
space is found within our existing and future neighborhood parks, green spaces, squares and
plazas. As a whole, our growing green network of corridors, parks, and foothill open space will
continue to put Rancho Cucamonga at the very forefront of the region in quality of environment,
quality of life, community health, and sustainable long-term value.
NEXT STEPS:
With the input of the Planning Commission, the PlanRC team will seek direction from the City
Council in early January on the recommended land use strategy, and then build a comprehensive
and detailed land use plan that implements that strategy. General Plan policy development and
technical studies to support the environmental assessment will begin in January and continue
through spring, with the release of a public review draft General Plan and Environmental Impact
Report in early summer 2021. Community engagement efforts will continue throughout the
process, and if COVID-19 restrictions are relaxed, there may be opportunities to integrate some
pop-ups or other face to face events in 2021. Regardless, the PlanRC team is continuing to
provide a variety of robust virtual and online engagement activities throughout the process to
ensure we are hearing from all segments of the community.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive staff report, discuss, and provide comment.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A—August 12, 2020 Planning Commission Staff Report
Exhibit B — Summary Report for PlanRC Community Discussions: Considering Our Options,
November 2020
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 12, 2020
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP Planning Director
SUBJECT: Discussion —General Plan Update: Draft Vision and Core Values
BACKGROUND:
In January of this year, the City embarked on PlanRC, the City's General Plan Update process.
A general plan is a city's blueprint, or constitution, for future development. It documents the city's
long-range vision and establishes clear goals, objectives and actions to guide the community
through the next 10 to 20 years of change. A general plan is required for all cities in California by
state law. The City must update its General Plan periodically to keep up with changing needs
and conditions of the city and region. It also should be updated to reflect new local, state and
national laws. Except for periodic development driven amendments and the required update to
the Housing Element in 2017, the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan is largely the same
document updated in 2010.
The City is preparing this update now to help us keep up with some significant changes in state
law regarding general plans. The Housing Element is due to be updated and submitted to the
state in early 2022. Housing law has been updated significantly in the last few years in efforts to
help streamline the development review process and increase housing production. The increase
in housing expected from the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) will require changes
to the housing element to show how and where housing will be provided. Additionally, the land
use and transportation elements of the General Plan will also need to be updated to show how to
physically accommodate the additional housing units required.
Since the adoption of the current General Plan, numerous other laws have been passed that
require updates beyond housing. Our current circulation element is not in compliance with
Assembly Bill 1358, which was effective in 2011. AB1358 requires that General Plan circulation
elements plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users
of the streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to
the rural, suburban, or urban context of the General Plan.
Senate Bill 1000 (Leyva, 2016) require cities that have disadvantaged communities to incorporate
and environmental justice (EJ) policies into their General Plans, either as a separate EJ element
or by integrating related goals, policies and objectives throughout the other elements. Climate
change and resiliency is also a high priority subject required to be addressed in General Plans.
The project will also include a Climate Action Plan to address new State and regional goals.
PlanRC is a community-based process that will involve everyone who cares about Rancho
Cucamonga. It is not about planning for dramatic change and development, but about exploring
community values, protecting what makes us special, deciding where change is appropriate, and
Exhibit A
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT VISION AND CORE VALUES
August 12, 2020
Page
preparing for our future. The PlanRC team has been engaging with the community since January
to help establish a draft vision and set of core values upon which continued planning efforts,
outreach, and development of the General Plan will be based.
PROCESS AND SCHEDULE:
PlanRC is a multi-year process that started in January 2020. The major phases and schedule of
the process are as follows:
• Spring 2020—Existing Conditions: Review existing policies and reports and identify issues
and opportunities.
• Spring-Summer 2020 — Listening and Visioning: Develop long term vision and guiding
principles for the General Plan.
• Fall 2020 — Plan Alternatives; Create and refine land use and transportation alternatives.
• Winter-Spring 2021 — Policy and Plan Development: Develop policy solutions to address
a range of topics covered in the General Plan.
• Summer-Winter 2022 — Review and Adopted: Public and decision makers to review and
consider adoption of the updated General Plan.
To meet the State mandated Housing Element deadline noted above, it is important that the
general plan update process stay on track. The elements of a general plan are rarely independent
of each other; updating one element of the general plan (i.e. housing) often drives updates to
other elements (safety, land use, circulation, and environmental justice). For example, an update
to the housing element to add more residential units will have impacts on:
• Land use element to properly site those additional units;
• Circulation element to evaluate the impacts to the road networks;
• Safety element to reduce hazard risk; and
• Environmental Justice to ensure that our most vulnerable populations are not
disproportionately impacted.
Additionally, the state legislature has passed numerous laws since the last General Plan update
that require certain groups of elements be updated concurrently, which greatly limits the ability to
limit any one element in isolation from the rest of the General Plan. For example, Senate Bill 1241
requires the safety element be reviewed and updated concurrently with the next iteration of the
Housing Element update.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TO-DATE:
Community engagement efforts began in late January 2020, and the PlanRC web page was
launched February 27, 2020. Initial communication was focused on What is a General Plan, why
there is a need to update the General Plan and encouraging the need for public participation in
this multi-year process. PlanRC was featured and discussed in news articles, videos, the Mayor's
State of the City address, social media, eReport email blast, Rancho Reporter, City Council
Meeting kick-off, citywide staff kick-off, community ambassador training, and small group
meetings. In February the PlanRC consultant team conducted three days of stakeholder
interviews with Rancho Cucamonga industry leaders, community-based organizations, public-
serving institutions, elected officials, and other stakeholders to talk about issues and opportunities
for PlanRC.
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT VISION AND CORE VALUES
August 12, 2020
Page
From March to mid-May, communication was focused on continued education of the General Plan
process and purpose and encouraging participation in online surveys. In mid-March, however,
our approach to community engagement had to pivot due to the restraints caused by the COVID-
19 pandemic and all of the planned in-person public participation opportunities were converted to
digital/online engagement. This broad engagement effort included an online visioning survey with
over 500 respondents, online mapping exercises, virtual roadshow meetings with local
organizations and businesses, and a PlanRC educational video series.
Several themes and summary observations emerged from the online visioning survey:
• Housing and new development are threatening to many in the community— crime, visual
impacts, traffic, parks/ resources. On the other hand, many others desire more affordable
and diverse housing options to accommodate different incomes and lifestyles.
• There were many ideas shared on local transit and active transportation options.
• Abundant parks, open space, trails, and views are hugely valued by the community.
Access to and maintenance of these natural and recreational resources are of concern for
both underserved residents in Rancho Cucamonga and those who worry that growth is
affecting quality.
• People, culture, events, spaces, activities, shopping, and dining are important and
appreciated here. However, there is still a desire for more local options and places for
these activities along with equitable distribution.
• Diversity is viewed as a unique and special value and is strongly represented as
characteristic that should be more prevalent and celebrated by 2045.
• People love the cleanliness, beauty, safety and image of Rancho Cucamonga. There is a
strong desire to protect these features, and to ensure they can be enjoyed by all residents.
Approximately half those responding to the visioning survey have lived in Rancho Cucamonga for
20 years or more are age 45 and up, and the highest response rate came from census tracts in
the northeast part of the city (Etiwanda area).
At the end of June, a three-day virtual forum was held. The goal of the Forum on Our Future was
to build on results from the initial online visioning survey and engage community members in
informal dialogue. The event offered an online Kick-off Summit, virtual small group discussions
around seven topics, a webinar focused on land use and economic development, a video
presentation of a conceptual plan for Rancho Cucamonga by Cal Poly Pomona graduate
students, and a second PlanRC survey, which was open through the end of July, to further guide
the development of a vision and core values.
In contrast to those responding to the visioning survey, Round 1 of Forum on Our Future attracted
many younger residents, including teens, as well as some residents living in neighborhoods south
of Foothill Boulevard, which are less often represented. This dialogue broadened the themes of
what we have heard to date:
• Equity and environmental justice are important and were raised as key issues throughout
all topics/sessions.
• The issue of racial inequity is a significant topic that has not been discussed enough in
the community and has not been dealt with. Racial justice needs to be part of Rancho
Cucamonga's values, and there needs to be follow through in how we deal with those in
physical development.
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT VISION AND CORE VALUES
August 12, 2020
Page
• Looking at community input by region/neighborhoods is really critical. Not all areas/groups
experience the same issues (such as traffic) in the same way as they are affected
differently. We need to take a better look at how physical solutions are tailored to different
parts of the city.
• There are infrastructure needs and public safety concerns in southwest Rancho
Cucamonga, along with the need for improved sidewalks, more parks, safer parks, local
transit, etc.
• There is desire to provide fiber to more residents. Internet bandwidth is critical, especially
with COVID-19.
• Keeping workers in the city with more professional job opportunities is important, along
with providing housing options for all types of employment, not just professional. With
COVID-19, there is a need to re-assess where and how people will work.
• Abundant parks, open space, trails, and views are hugely valued by the community —
similar to survey responses. There is a need for different types of trails: 1. to enjoy nature
and exercise; and 2. getting from place to place (connect housing to things like grocery
stores).
• Parks should include more multicultural/racial and ethnic driven outreach and activities.
• Foothill Boulevard serves as physical separation and break up the city. There are
socioeconomic inequalities depending on where you live in the city.
At the end of July, Round 2 of Forum on Our Future was held to garner more participation. This
event was a continuation of the Forum on Our Future multi-day virtual event that was held from
June 29 to July 1. Round 2 was a four-day evening event of online discussion sessions covering
the same topics as discussed in Round 1. The purpose was to continue the discussion and
engage those who could not participate in the daytime event held at the end of June. Nearly 200
people participated in Round 2 of the online forum. The themes and major overall observations
from this dialogue include:
• Health. This session invited community members to explore the aspects of a healthy
community that support diversity and inclusion. Attendees talked about topics like access to
housing, parks, social services, transportation, economic opportunity and more. We discussed
struggles with health & equity in Rancho Cucamonga, and asked questions including: What
improvements and ideas do you think are needed to make Rancho Cucamonga a healthier
and more inclusive community? How can better physical planning lead to increased equity?
Overall, there were different thoughts when it came to the word Health. Some were focused
on current circumstances with COVID-19 while others touched on mental health, healthy
eating, access to health care, and even a community/sense of belonging.
• Housing. The initial PlanRC online survey highlighted that Rancho Cucamonga residents are
concerned about housing — with some hoping to limit the development of new housing, and
others wanting to see more new, affordable and diverse housing options. In this session,
attendees shared their thoughts on how Rancho Cucamonga can provide housing options
that accommodate the needs of its many families and workers, achieve designs that fit with
the community, and address a growing homelessness concern, while also meeting State
requirements. Overall, the discussion provided insight from residents of all ages. Most
common discussion included the price and affordability of housing, variety of housing for all,
and the need to ensure there is housing to accommodate the growing population in creative
ways that will allow people to stay here.
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT VISION AND CORE VALUES
August 12, 2020
Page
• Resiliency. The Rancho Cucamonga community has experienced the physical and emotional
devastation that natural disasters like windstorms and wildfires can produce. In this session,
attendees were asked to share their thoughts and opinions on how best to boost the resiliency
of Rancho Cucamonga. The session engaged attendees in discussions about disaster
preparedness (e.g. earthquakes) and challenged attendees to explore issues and
opportunities around climate change, energy conservation, sustainability and environmental
justice. Overall discussion included ways to address climate change, reduce vulnerabilities to
natural hazards, and how the city can become better prepared for disasters and be more
resilient in the face of a natural disaster.
• Mobility. How we get around the community affects our quality of life.The initial PlanRC survey
identified traffic and safety as key issues currently facing our city — but community members
also identified numerous ideas and options to move people around the city without a personal
car. Participants were invited to join this discussion to talk about how Rancho Cucamonga
can both address existing traffic and safety issues and tackle inventive, new accessible
transport possibilities for the future. Many participants provided input on how they commonly
get around town and ways to provide alternative methods of transportation to ensure their
equitable mobility options for everyone throughout the community. Options related to public
transportation, bikes, light rail and others were discussed. Some of the biggest issues were
centered around parking in residential areas, noise pollution, and improvements to some of
the traffic signals and intersections.
• Economy. According to comments on the PlanRC Survey #1, we should focus on creating
high level jobs for our community, including in the health industry. Of course, as a community,
we need to support the recovery of all our local businesses amid the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Questions asked of the attendees included - What do we need to consider to ensure a
recovery that will benefit our entire community? Attendees joined this session to share their
thoughts, ideas, and opinions on growing our Rancho Cucamonga economy. These thoughts
and opinions focused on how COVID-19 affected their jobs or businesses. Many have
experienced downsizing and financial impacts. Other discussions included how the city can
improve the economy with high end jobs and specialized training and improve the economy
with better transportation and ways to attract tourists and hotels.
• Parks and Open Space. Parks, open spaces, landscaping — active and passive — are very
important to the Rancho Cucamonga community. This session asked participants to take a
deeper dive into the topic. How can the City be more creative and inclusive in the development
of parks, open space, and landscaping? The participants shared views on how important
parks and open space meant to them and provided examples of some of their favorite features
about the City's parks. Many commented on the maintenance and views, others mentioned
the amenities such as trails, lakes, and amphitheaters. There was also discussion on how to
improve the parks and open space and if there was a need for me. Participants weighed in
and offered suggestions for additional activities, and ways to expand the parks throughout the
city.
• Arts and Culture. Rancho Cucamonga is a community with many assets and unique cultural
attributes — wine history, festivals, Quakes Baseball, theatre, parks, mountains, etc. All of
these contribute to what many would refer to as a "sense of place". How can Rancho
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT VISION AND CORE VALUES
August 12, 2020
Page
Cucamonga better celebrate its identity and focus on "placemaking" in the future? How do we
ensure we are being inclusive as we enhance our sense of community and spaces? This
discussion group was intended to involve people who are passionate about creating places
for RC residents to congregate, celebrate, and share as a community. The session was
insightful and attracted our largest group of attendees. Many touched on things that makes
Rancho Cucamonga a great place— lots of open space, place for family and friends, healthy,
public safety, among others. The discussion transitioned into thoughts on arts and culture and
the overall theme was the importance of arts and culture having the ability to bring community
together and drive economic development. Others touched on their favorite spaces for arts
and culture and how disenfranchised communities could showcase the local culture. These
conversations identified several opportunities to incorporate art better and highlighted the
importance of inclusivity.
Concurrent with the Forum on Our Future (Rounds 1 and 2), a second PIanRC online survey was
conducted. The survey was open from June 29-August 3 and received 304 responses. The
purpose of the second survey was to confirm the emerging themes, or values, expressed in the
Visioning Survey, and help better understand how these topics relate to various parts of the city
by asking which areas of the city need the most focus on each theme. Recognizing that our city
is diverse both in who we are and where we live, work, and spend our free time, this survey helped
to confirm the core values or themes expressed by respondents, as well as provide better insight
on how these topics affect different areas of the city. For example, public services and natural
hazards and resiliency were expressed as citywide issues, whereas Southwest Rancho
Cucamonga was identified as needing more focus on quality welcoming neighborhoods, diverse
housing choices, and parks and open space.
DRAFT VISION AND CORE VALUES:
As a result of these broad engagement efforts to date, a draft vision and core values were
established upon which continued planning efforts, outreach, and development of the General
Plan will be based. As the purpose of this General Plan update is to enhance our direction, rather
than reinvent our City, we have found that the City Council's vision statement for the City(provided
below), effectively captures the themes and priorities we have heard thus far from the community.
"Build on our success as a world class community to create a balanced, vibrant,
and innovative city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive."
Since its beginning, Rancho Cucamonga has pursued the ideal of creating a world class
community. With each decade and each generation, our ideas as to what makes a world class
community have morphed and evolved, but they have long been grounded in the concepts of
excellence, opportunity, and providing for a high quality of life.
To support the philosophy of the vision statement and the concepts in which it has been grounded,
three core values, or themes, emerged from dialogue with the community — Health, Equity and
Stewardship. These are the values we heard the community is most interested in shaping and
will be the lenses through which we will craft the General Plan, and the themes to look at for
proposed solutions. They will be revisited and refined throughout the PlanRC process to
continually reaffirm that the community's ideals and principles are reflected in, and supported by,
the goals, policies and strategies of the updated General Plan. These values and themes are not
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT VISION AND CORE VALUES
August 12, 2020
Page
intended to be definitive at this stage of the process, but rather provide direction based on
community input to date. They will help shape the General Plan and guide proposed solutions
and intended outcomes.
• Health. Health is the foundation on human existence, and everyone should have the
opportunity to be as healthy as possible. The zip code we live in is a greater predictor of our
life expectancy than our own DNA. Although we cannot change our genes, we can certainly
make choices about our communities through the General Plan that shape the places where
we live, work and play, and ultimately improve our chances for living long, healthy, fruitful
lives. Health is a value that Rancho Cucamonga is built on, and as such the virtues of our city
should be key factors in helping people live a thriving, healthy life.
• Ecluity. Equity is key component to creating and sustaining a world class community.
Everyone should have a fair and just opportunity to thrive and have a high quality of life.
Rancho Cucamonga is firmly committed to ensuring it is a place to live, work, shop, learn, and
play for all residents and households, regardless of age, income, gender, ability, and ethnic
background. As we maintain equity as a core value, we recognize that everyone has different
needs and abilities, and we should strive to craft a city through the General Plan that meets
the needs and abilities, and intrinsic, inalienable characteristics of all those within our
community.
• Stewardship. To secure Rancho Cucamonga's long-term success, we must commit to
sustaining our high quality of life by taking on the responsibility of ensuring the well-being of
the city in a variety of ways. This includes efficiently utilizing our finite, non-renewable natural
and financial resources. We must also position ourselves and our community in a way to adapt
effectively to shifting economic, social, and demographic trends, and resiliently rebound from
environmental, economic, and public health shocks. Stewardship captures the essence of
this responsibility, and although the term is not commonly used, it is a value the city has
maintained and must continue to maintain.
Health
Equity Stewardship
These core values will hold the fundamental reasons in which we implement future public and
private investment in Rancho Cucamonga.These values are not intended to be representative of
all of the values which our community holds. These are the themes that have been the strongest
and most frequent in discussing the future of Rancho Cucamonga with the community. Through
conversations with the ocmmunity, it has become clear that health, equity, and stewardship are
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT VISION AND CORE VALUES
August 12, 2020
Page
strongly held aspirations and these are outcomes the City should work to acheive. These will not
be the only ideas used to shape the General Plan, but they will lead the way.
NEXT STEPS:
In early September, community engagement efforts will continue with the discussion of citywide
land use scenarios, leading up to the evaluation of land use and transportation alternatives in the
fall, and selection of a preferred land use plan by end of this year. If COVID-19 restrictions are
relaxed, there may be opportunities to integrate some pop-ups or other face to face events in
2021. Regardless, the PlanRC team is continuing to provide a variety of robust virtual and online
engagement activities throughout the process to ensure we are hearing from all segments of the
community.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive staff report, discuss, and provide comment.
PL VRCAN
PIanRC Community Discussions:
Considering Our Options
November 2020
SUMMARY REPORT
INTRODUCTION
The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the City) is embarking on an exciting multi-year
planning effort to bring the community together to talk about the future and
update its General Plan. The community-based process and eventual Plan, PlanRC,
will set a long-term vision and provide policy direction and guidance to residents,
City staff, decision-makers, and the broader community. In November 2020, the City
hosted a series of community discussions that included virtual presentations, live
polling, and conversations about how and where Rancho Cucamonga should grow
and improve over the next 20 years.
Nine virtual community discussions and an online survey were hosted in November
to explore long term land use ideas. Six sessions were promoted with the general
public, one of which was specifically held for teens and youth, and another of which
was specifically held for Spanish speakers. Three additional focused meetings were
also held with the Healthy RC Steering Committee, NAIOP (Commercial Real Estate
Development Association), and the Chamber of Commerce. Nearly 170 people
engaged in the online and virtual conversations.
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
nad V.:[WormEtnfil Mli%.n� �limnp f M I�.r.-e! rMn.d MRM W.....J
I+T.1w•.I "nahbw kM xea A I�i I n N.newnooei
[%>»nsn] Ih.foMfRJ 1[«Mea1 �.I� f1�.M.1
IwKwe N� V�nrv1� r.�npo. �� ' nNe„ Moe I.�i.wv �I�iml
rx;wd Y.e IItM n MM1M ux
awa..n. we..., w..er u.e.n. ■
The interactive, community discussions explored the details of three future planning
options to consider—scenarios A, B and C—the purpose of which was to identify how
PIonRC-Considering Our Options Summary Report/1
EXHIBIT B
PL VRCAN
much reinvestment the City should plan for, where
new growth could be located, how to meet the needs
of future generations, and what factors need to be Health
considered when discussing how to change.
While specifics of land use varied in each scenario, all
three aspire to meet the City's core values of health,
equity and stewardship and use the same Equity Stewardship
assumptions for development targets that meet state
mandates and projected market demands.
Attendees were provided with an explanation of what each scenario would entail
then asked about what they liked about each one, as well as their feelings towards
each. It is important to note that participants were asked not to compare scenarios
to one another, but rather evaluate each scenario independently.
This report includes a combined summary of poll responses and community
discussion highlights, and data received from the online forum that asked the same
questions as the workshop polls. Percentages were calculated by tallying the total
number of responses to each question across all polls and the survey and dividing
responses for each answer by the total number of responses.This report is organized
into the following sections:
• Introduction
• Scenario A
• Scenario B
• Scenario C
• Transit Choices
• Influencing Factors
• Teen and Youth Comments
• General Comments
Aw
PLAN
*RCP'
*-I-. COMMUNIff
.-J DISCUSSIONS:
FEEDBACK POLL OPEN CONSIDERING OUR OPTIONS
UNTIL NOVEMBER 25TH St@ff will guide community members through open discussions
PLAN CityafMue/GeneralPlan and lIve polls about the fuLure of Rancho Cucamc,inga
R-C November •
! - - JOIN US FOR A SESSION!
CITYOFRC.US/GENERALPLAN
— Rnµf rfj
PlonRC-Considering Our Options Summary Report 2
PL VRCAN
Scenario A
Distributes future housing investment most evenly across the City to:
• Foothill and Haven
corridors, with greater
intensity in Central South Rur.Flcnn,etv.t an
• Centers of mixed use and —v
E6mited NlithWrAu l MR Will Planned
housing at Victoria Gardens (Alt.EO111e) "hbvrModc
and the Metrolink Station iEl wandeY '
area + Nel�h6orhood Limited *leighhaFha a
ci
• Vacant and underutilized I�r�l Nre�hb1.6l'hood '
sites north of Church St.• Provides improved bus, bike Mo�rr.�
Infi113 R Zn� ��{ ♦n Ini%1 R�rtvr�tmeM
•i�
-����---� Mvd rrato � [Industrial IrtRI 3
and pedestrian facilities and _ Wig hood Modem ation
supports high-capacity ""4d"su
PP
transit, such as Streetcar, e+•w
BRT, and LRT Mom w% i.1,
What do you like about Scenario A?
It relates to community input
Fulure reinvestment/change is spread throughout different areas of the City
It provides more housing choice in existing neighborhoods
It adds some walkable shops and services in existing neighborhoods
I like that it increases some housing choice along Haven corridor
I like that it increases some housing choice along Foothill corridor
The character/images shown are what I'd like to see in the future
Other
Hone of the above
0 10 20 30 A 50 A 70 80 90 160
Percentage of Responses
How do you feel about Scenario A?
really don't like it
I don't like this scenario
Neutral
I like this scenario
I really like it
0 10 20 30 40 50 50 70 80 90 160
Percentage of Responses
PIonRC-Considering Our Options Summary Report/3
PL VRCAN
Scenario A Community Comments
• "As someone who is going to be looking for a house, affordable housing for
someone like me who is younger and looking for first home. Rancho is in a
perfect location - hour from everywhere. Scenario A seemed to be better for
that."
• "Feels like we could use more unique options and would be cool to get more
unique places to shop like Claremont, downtown San Dimas."
• "Scenario A shows taller buildings - something that Rancho may need more of
to increase the density of buildings/population per acre of land and lower the
need for driving."
• "Do not want limited neighborhood infill in Alta Loma and Terra Vista as
reflected in Scenario A...prefer very limited under Scenarios B and C"
• "1 am a 26-year resident, and I think growth over last decade has been
negative not positive. There are long term impacts with traffic, and the need
for more taxation to cover infrastructure needs, that concerns me. Plans look
great on paper but long-term impact is negative to me. Looking to get away
from high density atmosphere of LA. So this is questionable to me."
• 1 like aspects of this scenario, but in Alta Loma we don't have a lot of sidewalks
and it's dangerous going to school and people come down Hermosa so fast
and increase in traffic and bike on Archibald and highland is a joke because of
all of the housing added there. Not good to encourage more people to move
in here. Some areas should stay spread out and focus apartment and condos
in other areas. Mixing them is dangerous.
• "1 think I'm going to like the other two scenarios more, so I am going to hold
my vote for liking to the two others. I do like identifying where there are spots
to beef up different transit options, but I would like to see the other options.
Maybe we need to take the poll again."
• "1 don't like this scenario because Scenario B is more equitable to access.
There is not much going on in the west side of the City in this scenario-
everything is towards Victoria Gardens.
• "1 like Scenario A because it more preserves the City as is."
• "We like that scenario seems to spread the change throughout the city rather
than impact one area. I know in Alta Loma people don't want to see too much
change."
• "When it says housing choice, are we talking about more apartments or
condos? I hope not. We are inundated. There are already so many
apartments on Haven."
• "Scenario A looks more similar to Orange County and Great Park area. If that's
the case, it feels good like there are housing options for different
generations. If is it similar to that type of development with different housing
types, that is good."
"1 don't like this one because it's important to preserve low density in Alta
Loma - half acre lots, equestrian lots, etc. Preserving low density is a big issue
for me and this one looks like it doesn't do that."
• "In Alta Loma, maybe a hybrid change the center very limited neighborhood
infill to limited? That way with Scenario A, there's still better housing
PIonRC-Considering Our Options Summary Report/4
PLAN
opportunities for all age groups to meet the state's housing needs but
preserving the Alta Loma neighborhood."
• "I was curious as to what the city does with citrus and grapevines when no
developments are built. The citrus and grapevines are part of the City's
history. When developing, does the city keep that in consideration. Do they
pull them out or keep them?"
• "I don't like this scenario because Scenario B is more equitable to access.
There is not much going on in the west side of the City in this scenario-
everything is towards Victoria Gardens.
• "I like Scenario A because it more preserves the City as is."
• "We like that scenario seems to spread the change throughout the city rather
than impact one area. I know in Alta Loma people don't want to see too much
change."
• "I don't like this one because it's important to preserve low density in Alta
Loma - half acre lots, equestrian lots, etc. Preserving low density is a big issue
for me and this one looks like it doesn't do that."
• "In Alta Loma, maybe a hybrid change the center very limited neighborhood
infill to limited? That way with Scenario A, there's still better housing
opportunities for all age groups to meet the state's housing needs but
preserving the Alta Loma neighborhood."
PIonRC-Considering Our Options Summary Report/S
PL VRCAN
Scenario B
Redirects future housing investment from existing neighborhoods north of Church
Street to:
• All segments of Foothill and Ruralf[onurv.rion
Haven corridors
• Centers of mixed use and " rhoodI Limited Intl i-h—d
NalOborhaod In fill Nei,hhorhaods -
housing at Victoria Gardens WtIl.oma11 ,Etiw md.}
and Metrolink `
N el>(hhuha°d V"y 'mff�o Meiyhhorho
• Provides improved bus, Inrill N.ghhorh°od Hill
Infll
bike and pedestrian
sT�nlifce 7isntPhori
facilities and supports high MITIM '
I.
capacity transit, such as Mad.rste n1J STFi.l Infil&
Nei, orhood Mederni al.°n
Streetcar, BRT, and LRT Iniill
What do you like about Scenario B?
It relates to community input
Future reinvestment/change is more focused along the Foothill
and Haven corridors and at Victoria Gardens and Metralink Station
It provides more housing choices,retail,and jobs along Haven
It provides more housing choices,retail,and jobs along Foothill
It provides more housing choice,retail,and jobs at Victoria Gardens
It provides more housing choice,retail,and joh around the Metralink
The character/images shown are what I'd like to see in the future
Other
None of the above
0 I 2D 30 40 50 60 7D 80 40 100
Percentage of Responses
How do you feel about Scenario B?
really don't like it
I don't like this scenario
Neutral
I like this scenario
I really like it
0 10 20 30 A A A 70 A 90 160
Percentage of Responses
PlonRC-Considering Our Options Summary Report/6
PL VRCAN
Scenario B Comments
• One participant felt that "Haven and Baseline up is too developed"
• Another participant felt that "Haven is developed to the max. Would rather
concentrate future development on Foothill." Also "prefers more development
at the Metrolink rather than Victoria Gardens."
• Overall the group felt that there are possible development opportunities
South of Foothill.
• Milliken, Haven, Archibald is meant for quickly commuting south, if it is further
developed it will cause more traffic.
• "I do like the higher transit aspect of this plan, but I don't like the idea that the
center part of the neighborhood is going along with Alta Loma. I get the
feeling residents in Alta Loma want to remain in their current condition. I live
on Ramona Ave near Baseline Road and I see a lot of commercial and a
mobile home park and I don't get the idea this part of the city is
neighborhood infill. We should provide more housing choices in that area in
the center area -where it is identified as very limited neighborhood infill. I like
the idea of the transit because I'm closer to it. But limiting to low density
doesn't make sense."
• "Housing choices around Metrolink-does it take into consideration the plans
for Empire Lakes. What is the timing of that?
• What is disturbing to me about all of the plans is that I don't see any green
space considerations and that's what people like about the area. If we do all
of this development and green spaces aren't factored in, people are going to
flock to Alta Loma and Etiwanda. Central Park is crowded and we need more
open and green spaces.
• "This scenario could cause an overload on Foothill and Haven. Like Wilshire in
LA, where there are too many tall buildings, people, shops and it's hard to
park. I live close to Haven and like to walk to movies, but I don't want it to
become a Wilshire Blvd."
• "This scenario feels like it gives more attention to all areas of corridors,
including the west end, not just around Victoria Gardens."
• "I like Scenario B knowing that we have to meet RHNA numbers and Foothill
is one of the best locations to try to meet this. As we role out possible housing
efforts along Foothill, I would hope it's being done in such a fashion that it's
not concentrated in any one location, but dispersed so that traffic can be
handled. Break corridor into four segments and add housing in an orderly
fashion so that it doesn't impact traffic."
• "With regards to the end product, when people travel through our
community we want them stop off, consume, and leave their tax dollars. We
want to keep in mind the type of businesses we will allow because some uses
create more foot traffic than others and we want that revenue coming into
the community, but we want traffic to flow so we don't encumber residents. I
like this scenario because it keeps intact certain communities within our city
and the residents want to maintain that type of feel."
• "Is there a height maximum restriction in the City?"
PIonRC-Considering Our Options Summary Report/7
PLAN
• "Scenario B I feel is excellent at equitable access to all businesses, my business
is located west foothill"
• "Thanks for this presentation and your time...I prefer Scenario B as the most
balanced between A and C"
• "I live off Etiwanda and Banyan and I don't know why old train station is not
preserved. Most Foothill cities, like La Verne, preserve their history and old
stations. Why don't we preserve our history? This could be a cafe, cyclists
pass by there. I would like to see this be preserved. This is such a big piece of
Cucamonga history.
• "Why can't city finance this? Who are the decision makers? Who decides on
this -the City Council?"
• In terms of HOAs and Mello-Roos, would scenario B increase this or not since
lesser amount of properties being developed?
• Southwest moderate neighborhood infill might not be getting enough
investment and amenities because it is tucked in the corner and isolate.
• Will there be a comparison between the good/great/excellent so we can see
how they compare?
PlonRC-Considering Our Options Summary Report/8
PL VRCAN
Scenario C
Redirects future housing
investment from existing
RrrtalJCnnseNbrion
neighborhoods north of Church
Street and from segments of yii ;rd — nfll Manned
FOOthIII to: Nri¢nhnrt—d lMIII Ve�¢M1horh—dc
[Mta Lamar [fiiwenda}
• Nodes of high intensity e e
N riRhhorhoad very Li mired Nei¢hhorhood•/•
mixed-use and housing at Will N6ghbarh—d Ivry„
Victoria Gardens and the rnfill
rA nd—w Mi-d i rr 91Sr11H�J:-= .�Ma reryM:xid I"
Metrolink Station area Mill ER 1lrtfnene r�Si49rilMW. r Inflll RrinVestmrnt
Provides improved bus, bike MMrd-a,
• Modrrarr Alt 17�r st tlnduxtri el loft$
Noi¢ onc.ad it Modern..,ion
and pedestrian facilities and
rNr-+YMAy.ayri-rr rnf 11
ie1Yr yrgKrr __
supports high capacity •-..•r ter,.=
transit, such as Streetcar, BRT, :-rMtlb-'nM awn•6..A ptl1'tA a
nn.:ar.mr � v
LRT, and Local Circulator in �.nb
center of City
What do you like about Scenario C?
It relates to community input
Future reinvesiment/change is more focused along the Foothill
and Haven corridors and at Victoria Gardens and Metralink Station
It provides more housing choices,retail,and jobs along Haven and Foothill'
It provides even more housing choice,retail,and jobs at Victoria Gardens
It provides even more housing choice,retail,and jabs at Metralink areas
like the idea of creating a'downtown"of Victoria Gardens and Metralink
The character/images shown are what I'd like to see in the future
Other
None of the above
0 10 20 30 A 50 60 70 BO 90 160
`This o0on was not provided on the online survev Percentage of Responses
How do you feel about Scenario C?
really don't like it
don't like this scenario
Neutral
I like this scenario
I really like it
0 10 20 30 a0 50 60 70 80 90 160
Percentage of Responses
PlonRC-Considering Our Options Summary Report/9
PLAN
Scenario C Comments:
• Sees more potential for development in the center of the city. It should be
addressed differently than the Alta Loma region.
• Plan A& C are similar and these options are too much of a drastic/risky
change. It would change the Rancho culture. Dislike of concentrated
development in the middle of the City.
• Dislike of adding mixed-use housing near freeways due to crime and
homelessness around these areas, would rather fill in the industrial area.
• "Downtown at Victoria Gardens we should concentrate traffic and activity
there and leave along the neighborhoods."
• "Does the Downtown area include restaurants and stuff like that? We spent
years driving to LA to get that. We went to the new restaurant Mama Por Dios
on Haven and it was so fun and felt like we were in LA, but were able to Uber
there. We want the best of both worlds- urban and suburban."
• "I like the idea of having a downtown area. I would also like to not have to
drive into Los Angeles to have fun. I like the idea of an area with activities and
its meant to gear up some excitement and fun without having to drive an
hour away to have fun."
• "I really like this option. I appreciate the attention to the urbanized areas
within the city. I like keeping the areas along the corridors and Metrolink and
Victoria Gardens to be more urban and keep the neighborhoods suburban. I
like the focus and all of the transit areas in this one."
• "Why did you focus the Downtown on Victoria Gardens instead of other areas
where we have raw land around Foothill and Haven? Victoria Garden is
already a downtown."
• "I'm answering all questions from the perspective of someone who works in
Rancho, not lives there. I have given you a lot of taxpayer dollars. Anything
you can do around Victoria Gardens and to provide more central hubs would
be great. I think Victoria Gardens is the best shopping area anywhere outside
of Orange County. You did such a great job and you could more of that in that
area and it would be a success."
• "I like Scenario C possibly because it's going to be the trend and we are going
to be the most influential city in the west end of the Inland Empire. I would
like to see a third asterisk in the old town of Alta Loma area as an anchor to
support some of the businesses in that area. We have a potential to build that
out as an old town. The benefit it has right now is the trail. I would love to see
a smaller asterisk there to do something at a smaller scale to accommodate
the residents there, along Amethyst near fire station and record store. This
has potential be the old town of Rancho Cucamonga. We are trending in the
direction of Scenario C."
• "I do like the idea of a downtown for the walkability and more places to eat."
• "I like the fiscal resiliency of this scenario. I like the wide range of services that
the city offers, even in pandemic, and having a downtown will help improve
the value of land. I grew up in San Diego, and my friends only know the Inland
Empire by the Bass Pro Shop that you can see from the freeway, but I would
love to be able to have a downtown like Pasadena or Downtown Redlands."
PIonRC-Considering Our Options Summary Report/70
PLAN
• "I like that this scenario caters the millennials. It was a great place to raise my
daughter and great for families, but it needs to cater better to singles and
younger people because they don't see it that way. It's a bedroom
community. And this would help reduce traffic."
• "As long we don't lose our vision for our community and we think about why
people want to live in Rancho. A big part of that is concern about density. I'm
not sure what you have planned in yellow dotted areas at top."
• "We really like how overall throughout the city the scores are good for schools,
our schools are good everywhere, and we want the housing in the Southeast
to attract more people to send their schools there and encourage people to
send their schools there. I mean where The Report is going in -that area."
• "Sometimes it's a benefit to have housing throughout entire city that is more
accessible to different incomes. In my opinion, it's a benefit to have some
areas that are more expensive to draw in those types of residents to the city.
For example, Alta Loma has bigger lot sizes and more expensive homes, so
higher income families that are looking to move here may look at that.
Preserving different areas for a whole range of residents, including higher
income residents, would allow for the whole range. It we increase density in
that area, it will decrease the draw for certain residents. The beauty of Alta
Loma is that there are bigger lots, less traffic, etc."
• "Are we are going to build more shopping areas other than just more at
Victoria Gardens? It gets really congested there on the weekends. Would we
build more places like Victoria Gardens in all three scenarios?"
PIonRC-Considering Our Options Summary Report/77
PLAN
VIRC
Transit Choices
After questions about each scenario, participants were asked the following questions
about transit.
All three scenarios will focus on improved bus, bike and pedestrian facilities.
Which of the following new transit choices would you like to see as an
option in the future for areas in and around Rancho Cucamonga?
Streetcar mixed in with the regular flow of traffic
Bus Rapid Transit(BRT)with its awn designated travel lane
A Light Rail train with a fixed rail line along major corridors
Other
All of the above
Hone of the above
0 10 20 30 40 50 b0 70 SO 90 160
Percentage of Responses
Comments about Transit
• Two community members preferred the idea of the streetcar to reduce traffic
and had more flexibility on where it is able to travel.
• "High speed light rail is not favorable along the foothill corridor. Light rail
from the Metrolink station adjacent to the 15 FWY connecting the East side of
town going north is a Jess intrusive impact to traffic"
• "appreciate the city looking at our future planning...it good to see you are
taking traffic into consideration with these proposed scenarios"
• "Would definitely like to see more transportation options, especially safe
connecting bike Janes"
• "I prefer the idea of not having anything on the surface, due to taking up too
much space and too polluting. Might lower traffic on the surface too.The issue
may be earthquakes, unless it's made earthquake proof"
• "I don't like the idea of transits, as those are expensive to build and create
issues for scheduling at times. The more people can walk, as the comments
on the presentation said, the better.The Jess the shops are in residential areas,
the more peaceful (quieter)/less trashy/possibly safer it is"
• "These transportation ideas look like Long Beach - not sure if that's good for
the city"
• "I have an issue with rails with streetcars and also the conflict with passengers.
They're usually in walking areas and I'm always a little fearful of being in front
of one"
• "Streetcar mixed in with general traffic would be a big plus because it
wouldn't have a big impact but would allow seniors to get around. Also, I like
fight rail and we could benefit from extending to west end of our city. The
survey did not allow me to choose two answers. We may just have a funding
issue with fight rail but I like it. Also, we should consider that pre-Covid I didn't
PIonRC-Considering Our Options Summary Report/72
PLAN
work in Rancho, but now I do during Covid. This needs to be considered in
your surveys. Many people now both live and work in Rancho."
• "A streetcar is more in keeping with the theme and feel of the areas as
opposed to being mass transit. It has an intimate feel and is more the feel of
Rancho Cucamonga."
• "I like the idea of streetcar because it minimizes the amount of change that
would need to take place to be a workable solution. San Dimas has a
dedicated lane for Bus Rapid Transit, but it's not used enough, so it uses up a
land and actually takes away from circulation. Fixed rail would cause the
same problem if it's not used enough, whereas a streetcar would maximize
circulation."
• "I strongly suggest we NOT put a street car in vehicle traffic lanes as discussed
earlier. It's very unsafe and I seriously doubt anyone other than the homeless
would ride it"
• "Underground parking garages will open up a lot of open space in larger new
developments"
• "light rail is very important to the growth of the city"
• "Coming from Boston street cars are a short term solution that also cause
more traffic issues as growth occurs."
• "Improved bike trails and mixed use areas will decrease congestion and lessen
the need for mass transit and road expansion."
• "The problem with railroad is our public transit system is not designed to
combine with light rail. once you arrive at rail station, the distance to go home
(safety concerns + who's coming into the city?"
• Bus Rapid Transit is built first which draws more development as well as light
rail."
Influencing Factors
Participants were also asked which factors were the most important to them when
evaluating each scenario.
Which of the following were most influential
in your evaluation of the Scenarios? (Select up to 3)
Protecting the natural environment and resources
Providing far a wide array of housing choice to allow people to stay in]awn
Supporting new transit opportunities
Providing for economic development and job growth
Increasing citywide equity and health
Providing for walkable shops and restaurants
Supporting outdoor recreation and open space/parks
Improving quality of life
Other
0 10 20 30 40 50 A 70 BO 90 160
Percentage of Responses
PIonRC-Considering Our Options Summary Report 73
PLAN
VIRC
Teen and Youth Comments
During the workshop held specifically for teens and youth, the following comments
and concerns were brought up:
• Wanted extension of metro gold line -would benefit many students and
workers
• Expressed concerns about creating additional schools, noted lack of options in
South Rancho Cucamonga
• Expressed concerns about how to deal with homelessness and issues with
equity, doesn't want plan to just address aesthetic issues
• Noted plan should not just be about bringing more jobs, but specifically
focusing on attracting more high-skilled jobs as manufacturing jobs are
diminishing due to automation.
• "In my opinion, it is an ideal view for how the future can play out. however, my
only concern is how more development of housing will affect the pricing of
housing. I'm all for more housing options without the city, but I'm just
concerned if it'll make housing more expensive in the city instead. but, i agree
with housing development in south rancho would be great :) "
• "I'd like to see more of an urban approach in the South, especially with the
Metrolink station nearby. I also believe it's important to ensure that housing
stays affordable. So hopefully there's a middle-ground!"
• "The only cool thing to do here is go to VG or Haven - need to have more
opportunities for a variety of community activities. Sense of place. Suburbs
tend to be alienating, especially if you don't drive and public transportation is
limited."
General Comments
Workshop attendees also had an opportunity to provide additional feedback.
Comments are included below:
• Participants are eager to see renderings and photos of what the possible
changes could look like.
• A participant who worked on previous General Plans in the City would like to
continue to retain home values in the northern portion of the City. Wants to
continue having a certain acreage &size home in that area of the City to keep
the value of the home.
• Another participant was concerned over housing development and feels that
HOAs and gated communities are detrimental to the equity and access in RC.
Feels that these create division in our community.
• Other general concerns included underestimating the importance of view
preservation in the City, wanting more of a discussion on recreation and
environmental impacts of each plan, and worries about the City outgrowing
Foothill.
PIonRC-Considering Our Options Summary Report/74
PLAN
• "If the city continues to grow at the pace it has we will have a higher density
population so I appreciate that we are preparing for that development."
• "When considering / planning for affordable housing options, please
remember to retain the feel of Rancho Cucamonga by keeping the buildings
to a maximum of three stories (maximum). We can't afford to have housing
blocks that look like congested areas of Los Angeles."
• "I was just in San Diego this weekend and what I loved about the
neighborhood in North Park area was that the bike lanes were connected
with parks and the neighborhood was great for shopping, restaurants, and
small businesses. Getting around town was so much fun and public art was
also incorporated throughout the neighborhood - murals on walls."
• "I'm just off Foothill on west end & it's not clear to me what that's going to do
to my neighborhood. trust me living near a shopping center is awful with
trash & homeless people &theft"
• "Rancho needs higher densities in certain areas.This general plan update
is really good for the future of the city."
• "Whatever new development happens, please make enough parking for
people living there plus a 2 Ms car and friends visiting. apt house on Foothill &
Hermosa or Ramona is a disaster. existing houses no have no parking in front
of their homes."
• "more housing is fine but it's not affordable! my kids can't afford to live here."
• "My concern with a down town is safety for the surrounding homes around
Victoria gardens"
• "Sure don't want to turn Rancho into downtown LA"
• "Higher densities will provide us a chance to grow our housing stock and our
local economy while still retaining open space.
• "Are there architectural design standards or guidelines? I realize that beauty is
in the eye of the beholder, but the recent apartment/town house buildings
along Foothill and on Church east of Haven, are just downright ugly.They
already look like they are halfway to being tenements."
• "From my personal perspective, the City has always done a great job of
balancing different uses. I am a frequent visitor of the hospitality, retail, and
food offerings in the City. The vast majority of the City has Class A housing
and a great range of housing options. I believe the SEIQ corridor is well
situated in terms of locale - close to freeway and away from any sensitive
receptors. I support a general plan amendment that gives an opportunity for
all sectors to thrive."
• "The more density and more people there are, there is a more littering and
trash. Is that something that is addressed in the general plan -
maintenance?"
• "Giving us a sense of place is important. I really support having more intense
development in certain parts of the city and creating a downtown."
• "What is disturbing to me about all of the plans is that I don't see any green
space considerations and that's what people like about the area. If we do all
of this development and green spaces aren't factored in, people are going to
flock to Alta Loma and Etiwanda. Central Park is crowded and we need more
open and green spaces."
PIonRC-Considering Our Options Summary Report/1S
PLAN
• "I think it is important to preserve a low density (very limited) area of the
community. That is a huge draw for residents in that area, and something the
City should be able to offer residents. I worry increasing the density will bring
down the value and enjoyment of these areas. Maybe a compromise would
be keeping North of the 210 very limited, and allowing below the 210 limited."
• "as a resident of Alta Loma I am okay with very limited or limited development
in the area."
• "Downtown Rancho Cucamonga would be the place to be in the IE I am very
excited for plans for a larger downtown."
• "The concern I have is the affordability in the future. More housing
opportunities for all age groups is what will keep the city to have continued
energy. Rancho's housing is already on the high side in my opinion. Of course
the preservation of certain areas of Ranch should also be considered."
• "With that in mind,wouldn't it benefit the City to have the whole range of
housing. Not just housing everyone can afford, but housing areas to draw
high end/more expensive houses as well. Having a more expensive area that
draws higher income households would benefit the City in my opinion"
• "Repurpose existing vacancies in creative, mixed use ways."
• "pictures of high-rise buildings make me nervous."
• "I'm not in favor of high density housing but, I do think the transportation
aspect would be helpful: I think we have enough high density housing. It is
starting to look like Los Angeles with all the high rise buildings"
• "As far as I would like more of development to be done around foothill route
66 and develop a RC downtown but it concern me when it comes to traffic
and parking specially that most of us used commute driving and not using
transportation.
• "The city is lacking a true downtown area and is much needed"
• "I think the Victoria gardens area is considered a well-developed area in
comparison to the foothill route 66 west area which I think needs more
development and having a downtown area there will attract more business
and have more diversity."
• As we look and plan out the vision and goals for RC in the next 20-years I am
quite concerned as a 26-year resident of this great city with the recent
sprouting of high density housing projects around the city. How can you add
more to our local population and not create a necessity for expanded public
safety services and personnel along with other aspects of infrastructure to
handle this rise of new residents without having to raise taxes and fees for the
rest of us?
• Are you considering any upscale condos or townhouses?
• One of my major concerns for the City is over-populating. There have been
rumors of the City allowing high-density developments where there is
currently a low-density zoning/plan. An example is the Eastern boundaries of
the City. I think high-density developments in these areas would have drastic
negative effects for the City and surrounding residents (congestion, traffic,
lowered home values...). Is the City considering high-density developments in
previous low-density areas?
PIonRC-Considering Our Options Summary Report/76
PLAN
• As a 25 year resident of Rancho Cucamonga I have had the privilege of
watching the city develop. In the past Cucamonga has always had the small
town vibe. Open spaces ....citrus groves and vineyards.These are the qualities
that have invited many to want to live here. Myself included. But the city I
starting to lose that and mirror all the other surrounding communities. Streets
lined from end to end with parked cars because developers were allowed to
NOT allocate enough parking spaces. High density.....condominiums and
townhouses are the new norm. Please look at communities such as
laguna....malibu. They see the value in preserving open spaces. Can Rancho
Cucamonga do that too.??
PIonRC-Considering Our Options Summary Report/77