HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021/01/06 - Special Meeting PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
SPECIAL MEETING WORKSHOP
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
January 6, 2021 – 3:00 PM
Cultural Center, Celebration Hall
12505 Cultural Center Drive,
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
In response to the Governor's Executive Orders and the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health
requirements, there will be no members of the public in attendance at the Special City Council Meeting. Members
of the City Council/Fire District and staff may participate in this meeting via a teleconference.
In place of innosrep attendance, members of the public are encouraged to watch from the safety of their
homes by using the zoom meeting information below:
Join or Watch on ZOOM
Zoom.com and select “Join a Meeting”
Webinar ID: 822 7856 0505
Please Note: Zoom requires a name and email address.
To remain anonymous, use Attendee and attendee@cityofrc.us
Members of the public wishing to speak during public communication may call at the start of the meeting by
dialing (909)7742751. Calls will be answered in the order received.
A. CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call: Mayor Michael
Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy
Council Members Hutchison, Scott and Spagnolo
B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council on any item listed on the agenda. State law
prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive
testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less,
as deemed necessary by the Mayor, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak.
C. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION
C1.Discussion – General Plan Update: Recommended Land Use and Community Design
Strategy.
D. ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATION
I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby
certify under penalty of perjury that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on at least
twentyfour (24) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California, 12505 Cultural Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga and on the City's website.
LINDA A. TROYAN, MMC
CITY CLERK SERVICES DIRECTOR
If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City
Clerk's office at (909) 4772700. 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.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGASPECIAL MEETING WORKSHOPCITY COUNCIL AGENDAJanuary 6, 2021 – 3:00 PMCultural Center, Celebration Hall12505 Cultural Center Drive,Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739InresponsetotheGovernor's Executive Orders and the San Bernardino County Department of Public Healthrequirements, there will be no members of the public in attendance at the Special City Council Meeting. Membersof the City Council/Fire District and staff may participate in this meeting via a teleconference.In place of innosrep attendance, members of the public are encouraged to watch from the safety of theirhomes by using the zoom meeting information below:Join or Watch on ZOOMZoom.com and select “Join a Meeting”Webinar ID: 822 7856 0505Please Note: Zoom requires a name and email address.To remain anonymous, use Attendee and attendee@cityofrc.usMembersofthepublicwishingtospeakduringpubliccommunicationmaycallatthe start of the meeting bydialing (909)7742751. Calls will be answered in the order received.A. CALL TO ORDERPledge of AllegianceRoll Call: Mayor Michael Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy Council Members Hutchison, Scott and SpagnoloB. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONSThis is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council on any item listed on the agenda. State lawprohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receivetestimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less,as deemed necessary by the Mayor, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak.C. ITEMS OF DISCUSSIONC1.Discussion – General Plan Update: Recommended Land Use and Community DesignStrategy.
D. ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATION
I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby
certify under penalty of perjury that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on at least
twentyfour (24) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California, 12505 Cultural Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga and on the City's website.
LINDA A. TROYAN, MMC
CITY CLERK SERVICES DIRECTOR
If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City
Clerk's office at (909) 4772700. 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.
DATE:January 6, 2021
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director
SUBJECT:Discussion – General Plan Update: Recommended Land Use and
Community Design Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the staff report, discuss, and provide comment.
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.
Page 2
4
6
0
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
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.
On December 21, 2020, information on the three potential future land use scenarios and how the
three scenarios developed into a preferred scenario was presented to the Planning Commission
at a Special Meeting. Overall, the preferred scenario was well received by the Planning
Commission. There was a strong appreciation for the outreach efforts with the community and
how the result of the preferred scenario plan represented the input and feedback from the
community. Additionally, the Commission acknowledged that the plan represented the
overarching theme of the General Plan and put the City’s best foot forward to thrive by providing
more jobs, more vibrancy, and a good balance of future opportunities while protecting the
characteristics that are cherished by the community.
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.
Page 3
4
6
0
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:
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:
The following information describes each scenario in more detail.
Page 4
4
6
0
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
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
Page 5
4
6
0
Scenario B
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 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.
Page 6
4
6
0
Scenario C
ANALYSIS:
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 for more
investment in west Foothill as a mixed-use center or node, as well as interest in investment
and amenities near the Epicenter.
Page 7
4
6
0
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
RECOMMENDED LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN STRATEGY
Page 8
4
6
0
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.
Neighborhoods
Page 9
4
6
0
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:
“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.”
Page 10
4
6
0
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 4th 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 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
Page 11
4
6
0
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 7th 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 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
Page 12
4
6
0
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:
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, 4th 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.
Page 13
4
6
0
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 6th Street,
Carnelian Avenue, 19th 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
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
Page 14
4
6
0
“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 café 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 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 19th Street in Alta Loma, and others. Most
Page 15
4
6
0
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.
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 City Council on the recommended land use strategy, the PlanRC team will
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 pop-up workshops or other in-person 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.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Click or tap here to enter text.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
The City Council set a specific goal of Completing the General Plan and Housing Element through
an inclusive process by the end of 2022. The General Plan Update has and continues to further
this goal by remaining on schedule and continuing to engage with the public throughout the
Page 16
4
6
0
process. The preparation of the preferred land use scenario and strategic framework diagram is
a vital step in the development of the land use plan and many other components of the General
Plan that will soon follow. The General Plan Update is currently on track for review and adoption
by the Fall / Winter of 2021.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Summary Report for PlanRC Community Discussions: Considering Our Options,
November 2020
PlanRC – Considering Our Options Summary Report | 1
PlanRC 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.
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
PlanRC – Considering Our Options Summary Report | 2
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
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
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
PlanRC – Considering Our Options Summary Report | 3
Scenario A
Distributes future housing investment most evenly across the City to:
• Foothill and Haven
corridors, with greater
intensity in Central South
• Centers of mixed use and
housing at Victoria Gardens
and the Metrolink Station
area
• Vacant and underutilized
sites north of Church St.
• Provides improved bus, bike
and pedestrian facilities and
supports high-capacity
transit, such as Streetcar,
BRT, and LRT
PlanRC – Considering Our Options Summary Report | 4
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”
• “I 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.”
• I 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.
• “I 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.”
• “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.”
• “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.”
• “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
PlanRC – Considering Our Options Summary Report | 5
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.”
PlanRC – Considering Our Options Summary Report | 6
Scenario B
Redirects future housing investment from existing neighborhoods north of Church
Street to:
• All segments of Foothill and
Haven corridors
• Centers of mixed use and
housing at Victoria Gardens
and Metrolink
• Provides improved bus,
bike and pedestrian
facilities and supports high
capacity transit, such as
Streetcar, BRT, and LRT
PlanRC – Considering Our Options Summary Report | 7
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?”
PlanRC – Considering Our Options Summary Report | 8
• “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 café, 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?
PlanRC – Considering Our Options Summary Report | 9
Scenario C
Redirects future housing
investment from existing
neighborhoods north of Church
Street and from segments of
Foothill to:
• Nodes of high intensity
mixed-use and housing at
Victoria Gardens and the
Metrolink Station area
• Provides improved bus, bike
and pedestrian facilities and
supports high capacity
transit, such as Streetcar, BRT,
LRT, and Local Circulator in
center of City
PlanRC – Considering Our Options Summary Report | 10
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.”
PlanRC – Considering Our Options Summary Report | 11
• “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?”
PlanRC – Considering Our Options Summary Report | 12
Transit Choices
After questions about each scenario, participants were asked the following questions
about transit.
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 less 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 lanes”
• “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 less 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
light 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 light rail but I like it. Also, we should consider that pre-Covid I didn’t
PlanRC – Considering Our Options Summary Report | 13
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.
PlanRC – Considering Our Options Summary Report | 14
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.
PlanRC – Considering Our Options Summary Report | 15
• “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.”
PlanRC – Considering Our Options Summary Report | 16
• “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?
PlanRC – Considering Our Options Summary Report | 17
• 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.??
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 1
Rancho Cucamonga
General Plan Update
Citywide Preferred Land Use Scenario
January 2021
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 2
What is a General Plan?
•State-required “constitution” of the City
•Establishes the City’s vision and priorities for the next 25-35 years
•Guides future actions (policy choices + development applications)
•Preserves and enhances community strengths
•Addresses several topics of concern
•Enables the community to come together to develop a shared vision for the future
•8 required Elements or Topics:
5. Conservation
6. Safety
7. Open Space
8. Environmental Justice
1. Land Use
2. Circulation
3. Housing
4. Noise
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 3
Why Update the General Plan?
•Update existing General Plan
o Apply what learnings from the past
o Address emerging trends & ideas
•Hold a “community conversation” about
the future
•Address new State requirements
•Integrate the General Plan with other documents and processes
•Focus on implementation and clear
decision-making
•Address critical topics affecting Rancho
o Economic development
o Housing
o Wildfire risk
o Mobility
o Health and equity
o Community character and sense of place
o Resilience from the Covid-19 Pandemic
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 4
Process and Engagement To Date
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 5
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 6
Stakeholder
Interviews
Online
Survey #1
SURVEY #2
Forum on
Our Future
#1 & #2
DISCOVERY & VISIONING
Virtual
Workshop:
Character
& Place
CHARACTER & LAND USE
Discussion &
Online
Survey:
Considering
Our Options
Jun-Jul 2020
Nov 2020Sept 2020
Mar-May 2020
Roadshows
PLANRC COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
18 300
240500
829
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 7
Project Website Online Surveys & Polls Webinars
Educational Videos Online Mapping Virtual Meetings & Events
Community Engagement Activities
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 8
PLANRC COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
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
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 9
Character & Design Virtual Workshop | Highlights
•Strong support for the “planning communities” structure
•Preferences consistent across the planning communities:
o Housing types compatible with traditional neighborhood design
o Development connected to activated and public open spaces
o Outdoor plazas, amenities and ample room for outdoor dining
o Tree -lined streets & multi-purpose trails
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 10
Guiding Community Themes
HOUSING NEIGHBORHOOD AMENITIES
QUALITY OF LIFE
ACTIVITY CENTERS
COMMUNITY & CULTURE
MOBILITY
HEALTH
EQUITY
JOBS
RESILIENCE & SUSTAINABILITY
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 11
“Don’t forget about us folks
in the Cucamonga area”
“I much prefer parks, village type shopping
and unique restaurants with plenty of greenery
and trees. I would like to see smaller outdoorsy
areas to walk and get dinner.”
“I am a 10 year resident … with the
cost of housing I am probably
going to have to leave.”
“I would like to see the view
sheds to the mountains
preserved and embraced with
pedestrian friendly mixed use
artist lofts, maker-spaces and
public art corridors that
connect each community
planning area in innovative
ways…”
“What we're talking about is housing people can afford.
Regular hard working people can not afford to live in Rancho
Cucamonga, or most of the IE.”
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 12
“More connections
from the Deer Creek
channel across
Baseline…between
Rancho Cucamonga &
Upland, we have an
opportunity at
Cucamonga Creek
Trail to connect to
more places & other
trails near the 210
freeway…”
“It would be nice if
there were sidewalks
that were prioritized
for our school age
children to be able
walk to school…”
“The only reason I don't take the bus is it
takes maybe twice the amount of time. If
there was an alternative, I would work my
schedule around taking it because I don't
really like driving my car.”
“We should have a practice of having bike lanes
and sidewalks for those members of our
community who are not old enough drive or
who can not drive if they are on the other end of
the age spectrum.”
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 13
“We need to be able to sustain our
population with food and jobs,
encourage pedestrian and biking
traffic and build community within the
community. Multiuse zoning is
essential and maximizing open space”
“Suburbs that are urbanizing in specially
selected areas of their cities are
experiencing tremendous prosperity
and sustainable growth.”
“Extremely important to cater to
millennials and tech industry”.
“I wish there was a "downtown"
area where restaurants and
nightlife could be abundant and
focused its’ looks around Rancho's
history”
.
“More grocery and shopping in
the southwestern part of city.”
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 14
Land Use Scenarios
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 15
Purpose
of the
Land Use
Scenarios
Confirm the framework for decisions
about how and where RC plans for the
future over the next 20 years . . .
•How much reinvestment should we plan
for?
•Where could new growth be located?
•How do we meet the needs of future
generations?
•What factors need to be considered when
discussing how we change?
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 16
Meeting
Projected
Future
Needs &
State
Mandates
HOUSING JOBS FISCAL HEALTH
NATURAL
ENVIRONMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE
COMMUNITY
CHARACTER
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 17
Health
StewardshipEquity
Understanding the Scenarios
CORE VALUES
•Meet Goals for a Healthier Environment
o Reduce Green House Gas (GHG) and Vehicle
Miles Traveled(VMT); Improve Air Quality
•Reduce Traffic & Improve Equitable Access
to Goods and Services
o Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled(VMT); Increase
Transit-Supportiveness
•Increase Fiscal Resiliency
o Increase Value per Acre, Tax Revenue, and
Jobs
•Increase Housing Choice
o Increase distribution and type of housing types
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 18
Scenario A Scenario C
•All three scenarios were crafted to meet the City’s core values of
Health, Equity and Stewardship.
•All three scenarios used the same assumptions for development
targets that meet State mandates and projected market demands.
Scenario B
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 19
Scenario A Scenario CScenario B
Distributes future housing investment
most evenly across the City to:
•Foothill and Haven corridors, with
greater intensity in Central South
•Centers of mixed use and housing
at Victoria Gardens and the
Metrolink Station area
•Vacant and underutilized sites
north of Church St.
Redirects future housing investment
from existing neighborhoods north
of Church St to:
•All segments of Foothill and
Haven corridors
•Centers of mixed use and
housing at Victoria Gardens
and the Metrolink Station area
Redirects future housing investment
from existing neighborhoods north of
Church St and from segments of
Foothill to:
•Nodes of greatest intensity mixed-
use and housing at Victoria
Gardens and the Metrolink
Station area
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 20
Scenario A –Community Input
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 21
Scenario A –Community Input
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 22
Scenario B –Community Input
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 23
Scenario B –Community Input
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 24
Scenario C –Community Input
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 25
Scenario C –Community Input
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 26
A B C
Most Popular Attributes of Scenarios A, B & C
•Adds walkable shops and
services in existing
neighborhoods
•Adds new housing choices in
existing neighborhoods
•Distributes new investment and
improvement throughout the City
•Focuses significant reinvestment/
change along Foothill, Haven, at
Victoria Gardens and Metrolink
•Provides more housing choices,
retail and jobs along Foothill and
around Metrolink
•Like the idea of a “downtown”
around Victoria Gardens and
Metrolink and The Epicenter
•With even more housing choice,
retail and jobs in that area.
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 27
Common to all Alternative
Scenarios
•Rural/Conservation
•Infill Planned Neighborhoods
(Etiwanda)
•Neighborhood Infill
•Moderate Neighborhood Infill
•Industrial Infill & Modernization
•Significant Transit-Oriented
Mixed-Use Infill & Reinvestment
•Concentrated nodes at VG
and Metrolink Station
Preferred Scenario
Rural/Conservation
Neighborhood
Infill
Neighborhood
Infill
Infill Planned
Neighborhoods
(Etiwanda)
Moderate
Neighborhood
Infill
Industrial Infill &
Modernization
Significant
Transit-Oriented
Mixed -Use Infill
& Reinvestment
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 28
From Scenario A: Limited
Neighborhood Infill in Alta
Loma and Central North
•Adds walkable shops and
services in existing
neighborhoods
•Adds new housing choices in
existing neighborhoods
•Distributes new investment
and improvement
throughout the City
Preferred Scenario
Rural/Conservation
Limited
Neighborhood Infill
(Alta Loma)
Neighborhood
Infill
Neighborhood
Infill
Limited
Neighborhood
Infill
Infill Planned
Neighborhoods
(Etiwanda)
Moderate
Neighborhood
Infill
Industrial Infill &
Modernization
Significant
Transit-Oriented
Mixed -Use Infill
& Reinvestment
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 29
From Scenario B: Extend
Significant Transit-Oriented
Mixed-Use Infill & Reinvestment
to both ends of Foothill Blvd
•Focuses significant
reinvestment/ change along
Foothill, Haven, at Victoria
Gardens and Metrolink
•Provides more housing
choices, retail and jobs along
Foothill and around Metrolink
Preferred Scenario
Rural/Conservation
Limited
Neighborhood Infill
(Alta Loma)
Neighborhood
Infill
Neighborhood
Infill
Limited
Neighborhood
Infill
Infill Planned
Neighborhoods
(Etiwanda)
Moderate
Neighborhood
Infill
Industrial Infill &
Modernization
Significant Transit-Oriented
Mixed -Use Infill & Reinvestment
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 30
From Scenario C: Highly
concentrated nodes of activity
at VG and Metrolink
•Like the idea of a
“downtown” around Victoria
Gardens and Metrolink and
The Epicenter
•With even more housing
choice, retail and jobs in that
area.
Preferred Scenario
**
Rural/Conservation
Limited
Neighborhood Infill
(Alta Loma)
Neighborhood
Infill
Neighborhood
Infill
Limited
Neighborhood
Infill
Infill Planned
Neighborhoods
(Etiwanda)
Moderate
Neighborhood
Infill
Industrial Infill &
Modernization
Significant Transit-Oriented
Mixed -Use Infill & Reinvestment
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 31
Additional Input: Add other
concentrated nodes of activity
•W Foothill Blvd south of
Redhill
•Civic center area
•Epicenter area
Preferred Scenario
**
Rural/Conservation
Limited
Neighborhood Infill
(Alta Loma)
Neighborhood
Infill
Neighborhood
Infill
Limited
Neighborhood
Infill
Infill Planned
Neighborhoods
(Etiwanda)
Moderate
Neighborhood
Infill
Industrial Infill &
Modernization
Significant Transit-Oriented
Mixed -Use Infill & Reinvestment
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 32
•Careful but meaningful infill to bring more goods and services and activity centers within reach of residents throughout town.
•Very significant infill and public improvements bringing lots of new housing choices, retail amenities, and more and better jobs to the Foothill and Haven Corridors.
•Industrial modernization to bring more and better jobs.
•Public improvements and infill development to generate a “real downtown” environment around Victoria Gardens, The Epicenter, and the Metrolink Station Area.
•Conservation of natural/rural open spaces
Preferred Scenario
**
Rural/Conservation
Limited
Neighborhood Infill
(Alta Loma)
Neighborhood
Infill
Neighborhood
Infill
Limited
Neighborhood
Infill
Infill Planned
Neighborhoods
(Etiwanda)
Moderate
Neighborhood
Infill
Industrial Infill &
Modernization
Significant Transit-Oriented
Mixed -Use Infill & Reinvestment
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 33
Conservation
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 34
Neighborhoods, Housing and Amenities
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 35
Limited Neighborhood Infill
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 36
Limited Neighborhood Infill
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 37
Jobs and Modernized Employment Districts
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 38
Mixed -Use Infill and Reinvestment
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 39
Moderate Mixed-Use Infill and Reinvestment
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 40
Intense Mixed-Use Activity Centers
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 41
Intense Transit-Oriented Downtown District
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 42
Preferred Scenario Summary
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 43
Recommended Land Use & Community Design Strategy
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 44
Land Use & Community Design Strategy Framework
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 45
Strategic Framework –Rural/Conservation
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 46
Strategic Framework –Neighborhoods
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 47
Strategic Framework –Neighborhoods
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 48
Strategic Framework –Neighborhoods
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 49
Strategic Framework –Districts
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 50
Strategic Framework –Corridors
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 51
Strategic Framework –Centers
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 52
Strategic Framework –Special Districts
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 53
Strategic Framework –Trails
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 54
Value Per Acre Analysis
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 55
Next Steps
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update
Next Steps
•Policy Direction/Engagement |Winter 2021-22
•Development of General Plan |Spring-Summer 2021
•Public Review Period |Fall 2021
•Adoption |Winter 2021-22
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 57
www.CityOfRC.us/GeneralPlan
Twitter: @CityofRC
Instagram: @CityofRanchoCucamonga
909-477-2750
Value per acre map of
Auckland, New Zealand
Dollars and $ense of City Development
What is a City?
Photo: James Harrison
What is a City?
Incorporate (inˈkôrpəˌrāt)
VERB
Constitute (a company, city,
or other organization) as a
legal corporation.
Source: Oxford Dictionary
Land Production
Old Penneys
For 40 years this
building remained
vacant…… its tax value
in 1991 was just over
$300,000
Today the building is valued at over $11,000,000
an increase of
over 3500%
in 15 years
The lot is less than 1/5 acre
Asheville Walmart Downtown
$11,000,000 Tax Value
Asheville Walmart Downtown
$11,000,000 Tax Value
$20,000,000 Tax Value
Total Property Taxes/Acre
Land Consumed (acres)
City Sales Taxes/Acre
Residents/Acre
Jobs/Acre
$11,000,000
Asheville Walmart Downtown
Tax Value
$20,000,000 Tax Value
$6.5K $634K
$48K $84K
90
746
0
$11,000,000 0.234
Total Property Taxes/Acre
Land Consumed (acres)
City Sales Taxes/Acre
Residents/Acre
Jobs/Acre
$11,000,000
Asheville Walmart Downtown
Tax Value
$20,000,000 Tax Value
$6.5K $634K
$48K $84K
90
746
0
$11,000,000 0.234
Total Property Taxes/Acre
Land Consumed (acres)
City Sales Taxes/Acre
Residents/Acre
Jobs/Acre
$11,000,000
Asheville Walmart Downtown
Tax Value
$20,000,000 Tax Value
$6.5K $634K
$48K $84K
90
746
0
$11,000,000 0.234
Total Property Taxes/Acre
Land Consumed (acres)
City Sales Taxes/Acre
Residents/Acre
Jobs/Acre
$11,000,000
Asheville Walmart Downtown
Tax Value
$20,000,000 Tax Value
$6.5K $634K
$48K $84K
90
746
0
$11,000,000 0.234
Total Property Taxes/Acre
Land Consumed (acres)
City Sales Taxes/Acre
Residents/Acre
Jobs/Acre
$11,000,000
Asheville Walmart Downtown
Tax Value
$20,000,000 Tax Value
$6.5K $634K
$48K $84K
90
746
0
$11,000,000 0.234
$48k $84k
0 90
74 6
$634k$6.5k
Total Property Taxes/Acre
Land Consumed (acres)
City Sales Taxes/Acre
Residents/Acre
Jobs/Acre
$20,000,000 Tax Value
$11,000,000 Tax Value
Wheat Cannabis
San Bernardino County
Selection Area
Selection Area
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
N
Source: San Bernardino County Assessor Office
Mostly Desert
N
Selection Area
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
San Bernardino County Selection
Source: San Bernardino County Assessor Office
Rancho Cucamonga
Total Value
San Bernardino County, CA
N
Source: San Bernardino County Assessor Office
Redlands
Rancho Cucamonga
San Bernardino
Fontana
Ontario
Total Taxable
Value ($)
Value Per Acre
San Bernardino County, CA
N
Source: San Bernardino County Assessor Office
Redlands
Rancho Cucamonga
San Bernardino
Fontana
Ontario
Regional Analytic
Redlands within the Metro
N
Riverside County
San Bernardino County
Redlands
Los Angeles
Los Angeles County
2017 Data
Regional Analytic
Redlands within the Metro
NSan Bernardino CountyLos Angeles
RedlandsLos Angeles CountyRancho
Cucamonga
2017 Data
Value Per Acre
San Bernardino, CA
N
San Bernardino Coun
t
y
,
C
A
Redlands
Rancho Cucamonga
San Bernardino
Fontana
Ontario
Source: San Bernardino County Assessor Office
Value Per Acre
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
N
Source: San Bernardino County Assessor Office
Ontario Town Square
$7,443,985 per acre
Metro 102
$13,900,678 per acre
Arte
$6,146,163 per acre
Property Tax Productivity - Multi-Family
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Rancho Cucamonga Walmart
Ontario
Ontario
$1,597,127per acre
Property Tax Productivity - Downtown
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Rancho Cucamonga Walmart
Taqueria Tamazula
Lindo #2
$13,980,897 per acre
Local Baker
$11,901,444 per acre
Wilson Jewelers
$20,729,037per acre
Multi-façade Retail
$ 5,208,616 per acre
Fontana
Upland
Ontario
Redlands
$1,597,127per acre
Front St Plaza
Espadin Block
$18,943,352 per acre
Truax Building
$28,260,123 per acre
Source: Google
Rancho Cucamonga Walmart
Property Tax Productivity
Temecula, CA
2019 Data
$19,304,594 per acre$1,597,127per acre
Rancho Verde Village
Area: 11.01
Tax Value: $19,975,770
Total VPA: $1,815,088
Villiagio on Route 66
Area: 10.58
Tax Value: $3,648,460
Total VPA: $344,815
=
2 acres of Rancho Verde
Village would equal the
10.58 acre Villiagio
Property Tax Productivity
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Rancho Verde Village
Area: 11.01
Tax Value: $19,975,770
Total VPA: $1,815,088
Villiagio on Route 66
Area: 10.58
Tax Value: $3,648,460
Total VPA: $344,815
=
2 acres of Rancho Verde
Village would equal the
10.58 acre Villiagio
Property Tax Productivity
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
3.25 acres of Arte would equal
11.01 acres of Rancho Verde Village
Arte
Area: 4.58
Tax Value: $28,144,320
Total VPA: $6,146,163 Rancho Verde Village
Area: 11.01
Tax Value: $19,975,770
Total VPA: $1,815,088
=
Property Tax Productivity
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
3.25 acres of Arte would equal
11.01 acres of Rancho Verde Village
Arte
Area: 4.58
Tax Value: $28,144,320
Total VPA: $6,146,163 Rancho Verde Village
Area: 11.01
Tax Value: $19,975,770
Total VPA: $1,815,088
=
Property Tax Productivity
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Value Per Acre
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Source: San Bernardino County Assessor Office
N
Victoria Gardens
Value Per Acre
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Source: San Bernardino County Assessor Office
Previous Value: $28 million
($6m/acre)
N
Victoria Gardens
Value Per Acre
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Source: San Bernardino County Assessor Office
Previous Value: $28 million
($6m/acre)
N
Victoria Gardens
Value Per Acre
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Source: San Bernardino County Assessor Office
Previous Value: $28 million
($6m/acre)
New Value: $68 million
($15m/acre)
N
Victoria Gardens
Value Per Acre
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Source: San Bernardino County Assessor Office
N
Victoria Gardens
Value Per Acre
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
N
Source: San Bernardino County Assessor Office
Concentrated Mixed
Use Activity
Mixed Use Destination Nodes
Industrial Infill & Redevelopment
Corridor Center
Moderate Mixed Use Infill &
Redevelopment
Rural/Conservation
Victoria Gardens
The Resort
Concentrated Mixed
Use Activity
Mixed Use Destination Nodes
Industrial Infill & Redevelopment
Corridor Center
Moderate Mixed Use Infill &
Redevelopment
Rural/Conservation
Victoria Gardens
The Resort
Value Per Acre
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
N
Source: San Bernardino County Assessor Office
Riverside County
(Inland Empire Portion)
1.5 million
San Bernardino County
(Inland Empire Portion)
1.5 million
ONT
Eastvale
Inland Empire
3 million population
Population Comparison
Inland Empire and Comps.
Source: San Bernardino County Assessor Office (2020)
Riverside County Assessor Office (2019) Riverside County
Ontario
TemeculaSan Bernardino County
Corona
Rancho
Cucamonga
Fontana
Riverside
Redlands
San Bernardino
Value Per Acre
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Current
Total City Value $28.9B
Peak City Value/Acre $14.6M
Scenario Sites
Average Value/Acre $1.8M
Value Per Acre
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Current Preferred Scenario
Total City Value $28.9B $31.0B
Peak City Value/Acre $14.6M $55.8M
Scenario Sites
Average Value/Acre $1.8M $8.4M
Value Per Acre
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Current Preferred Scenario Increase of Current
Total City Value $28.9B $31.0B 107%
Peak City Value/Acre $14.6M $55.8M 382%
Scenario Sites
Average Value/Acre $1.8M $8.4M 455%
New Value Created: $2.1 billion
Value Per Acre
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Current Preferred Scenario Increase of Current
Total City Value $28.9B $31.0B 107%
Peak City Value/Acre $14.6M $55.8M 382%
Scenario Sites
Average Value/Acre $1.8M $8.4M 455%
Land
Area
88%
12%
Appendix
Quantitative research and economic analysis.
Value Per Acre
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Concentrated Mixed Use Activity
Mixed Use Destination Nodes
Industrial Infill & Redevelopment
Corridor Center
Moderate Mixed Use Infill &
Redevelopment
Rural/Conservation
N
Source: San Bernardino County Assessor Office