Resolution No. FD 2025-024 - Page 2 of 11
6 1
3 3
6 1
3 3
shown on the Annexation Map as previously approved by the Board of Directors, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the Secretary and shall remain open for public inspection.
A general description of the Territory included in the District is hereinafter described as follows:
All that property and territory as originally included within the District and as subsequently annexed to the District, as such properties were shown on original maps of the District and the territories subsequently annexed to the District, all as approved by this Board of Directors and designated by the name of the District, reference is made to the attached and incorporated Exhibit “A” (the “Annexation Map”). Copies of such maps are on file in the Office of the Secretary and have also been filed in the Office of the County Recorder.
4. Services and Facilities Authorized to be Financed by the District. The services that are authorized to be financed by the District from the proceeds of special taxes levied within the existing District are generally described in Exhibit “B” (the “Services and Facilities”) attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and all costs associated the District, administration of the District, the determination of the amount of special taxes to be levied, the costs of collection any special taxes, and costs otherwise incurred in order to carry out the authorized purposes of the District. If and to the extent feasible the Services and Facilities shall be provided in common within the existing District and the Territory.
5. Special Taxes. It is the further intention of this Board of Directors body that, except where funds are otherwise available, a special tax sufficient to pay for the Services and Facilities and related incidental expenses authorized by the Act, secured by recordation of a continuing lien against all non- exempt real property in the Territory, will be levied annually within the boundaries of such Territory. For further particulars as to the rate and method of apportionment of the proposed special tax, reference is made to Exhibit “C” (the “Special Tax Formula”), which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and which sets forth in sufficient detail the method of apportionment of such special tax to allow each landowner or resident within the proposed Territory to clearly estimate the maximum amount that such person will have to pay.
The special tax proposed to be levied within the Territory shall be equal to the special tax levied to pay for the Services and Facilities in the existing District, except that a higher or lower special tax may be levied within the Territory to the extent that the actual cost of providing the Services and Facilities in the Territory is higher or lower than the cost of providing those Services and Facilities in the existing District. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the special tax may not be levied at a rate which is higher than the maximum special tax authorized to be levied pursuant to the special tax formula.
The special taxes herein authorized shall be collected in the same manner as ad valorem property taxes and shall be subject to the same penalties, procedure, sale and lien priority in any case of delinquency, as applicable for ad valorem taxes; however, as applicable, this legislative body may, by resolution, establish and adopt an alternate or supplemental procedure as necessary. Any special taxes that may not be collected on the County tax roll shall be collected through a direct billing procedure by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, acting for and on behalf of the District.
Upon recordation of a Notice of Special Tax Lien pursuant to Section 3114.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, a continuing lien to secure each levy of the special tax shall attach to all non-exempt real property in the Territory and this lien shall continue in force and effect until the special tax obligation is prepaid and permanently satisfied and the lien canceled in accordance with law or until collection of the tax by the legislative body ceases.
The maximum special tax rate authorized to be levied within the District shall not be increased as a result of the annexation of the Territory to the District.
Resolution No. FD 2025-024 - Page 3 of 11
6 1
3 3
6 1
3 3
6. Public Hearing. NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT ON THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025, AT THE HOUR OF 7:00 O'CLOCK P.M., IN THE REGULAR MEETING PLACE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, BEING THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD WHERE THIS BOARD OF
DIRECTORS WILL CONSIDER THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ANNEXATION OF THE TERRITORY
TO THE DISTRICT, THE PROPOSED RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL
TAX TO BE LEVIED WITHIN THE TERRITORY AND ALL OTHER MATTERS AS SET FORTH IN THIS RESOLUTION OF INTENTION. THAT AT THE ABOVE-MENTIONED TIME AND PLACE FOR PUBLIC
HEARING ANY PERSONS INTERESTED, INCLUDING TAXPAYERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS,
MAY APPEAR AND BE HEARD, AND THAT THE TESTIMONY OF ALL INTERESTED PERSONS FOR
OR AGAINST THE ANNEXATION OF THE TERRITORY OR THE LEVYING OF SPECIAL TAXES WITHIN THE TERRITORY WILL BE HEARD AND CONSIDERED.
ANY PROTESTS MAY BE MADE ORALLY OR IN WRITING. HOWEVER, ANY PROTESTS
PERTAINING TO THE REGULARITY OR SUFFICIENCY OF THE PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE IN
WRITING AND SHALL CLEARLY SET FORTH THE IRREGULARITIES OR DEFECTS TO WHICH OBJECTION IS MADE. ALL WRITTEN PROTESTS SHALL BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO THE TIME FIXED FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. WRITTEN PROTESTS MAY BE WITHDRAWN AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
7. Majority Protest. If a written majority protest against the proposed annexation of the Territory to the District is filed, and such protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than a majority, no further proceedings shall be undertaken for a period of one year from the date of the decision by the Board of Directors on the issues discussed at the public hearing.
8. Election. If following the public hearing described in the Section above, the Board of Directors determines to proceed with the annexation of the Territory to the District, a proposition shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the Territory. The vote shall be by registered voters within the Territory; however, if there are less than 12 registered voters, the vote shall be by landowners, with each landowner having one vote per acre or portion thereof within the Territory.
9. Notice. Notice of the time and place of the public hearing shall be given by the City Clerk by causing the publication of a Notice of Public Hearing in a legally designated newspaper of general circulation, said publication pursuant to Section 6061 of the Government Code, with said publication to be completed at least seven (7) days prior to the date set for the public hearing.
A copy of this Resolution shall be transmitted to the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as required by the Act.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 2025.
Resolution No. FD 2025-024 - Page 4 of 11
6 1
3 3
6 1
3 3
EXHIBIT “A”
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-1
ANNEXATION MAP
Resolution No. FD 2025-024 - Page 5 of 11
6 1
3 3
6 1
3 3
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-1
BOUNDARY MAP
Resolution No. FD 2025-024 - Page 6 of 11
6 1
3 3
6 1
3 3
EXHIBIT “B”
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-1
DESCRIPTION OF THE SERVICES AND FACILITIES
The Services.
It is the intention of the Board of Directors to finance certain types of fire services (the “Services”) that are in addition to those currently provided in or required for the Territory and are necessary to meet the increased demand for such fire services resulting from new development within the Territory and will not be replacing services already available to the Territory. A general description of the Services to be financed is as follows:
The performance of functions, operations, maintenance, and repair activities in order to provide fire protection and suppression services to the Territory.
The Facilities.
It is the intention of this Board of Directors to finance the purchase, construction, expansion, improvement, or rehabilitation of certain types of fire facilities (the “Facilities”) that are in addition to those currently provided to serve the Territory and are necessary to meet the increased demand for such fire services resulting from new development within the Territory and will not be replacing facilities already available to serve the Territory. A general description of the types of the Facilities to be financed is as follows:
Fire protection and suppression facilities and equipment, rescue equipment, with a useful life of five (5) years or more, including collection and accumulation of funds to pay for anticipated facilities cost shortfalls and reserves for repair and replacement to the extent that such facilities are necessary to meet the increased demand for such facilities resulting from new development within the Territory.
Resolution No. FD 2025-024 - Page 7 of 11
6 1
3 3
6 1
3 3
EXHIBIT “C”
FOOTHILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-1
RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX
The rate and method of apportionment of the special tax authorized to be levied within Community Facilities District No. 88-1 (the “CFD No. 88-1 Rate and Method”) as originally established for and as applied to the taxable properties within such community facilities district is as follows:
“The Resolution of Intention refers to this Exhibit for an explanation of the rate and method of apportionment of the Special Tax so as to allow each landowner or resident within the proposed Community Facilities District to estimate the maximum annual amount that would be required for payment for such landowner’s or resident’s property.
PROPERTY CATEGORIES
There are three categories of property subject to special taxation, which are identified as follows:
1. DEVELOPED PROPERTY All property identified as a single Tax Assessor’s parcel for which property a building permit has been issued as of May 31 of any year.
2. APPROVED PROPERTY All property which of as May 31 of any year is subject to an approved Development Agreement with either the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the County of San Bernardino, an approved
Annexation Agreement with the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or a recorded Final Subdivision Map or Final Parcel Map, but for which no building permit has been issued.
3. VACANT PROPERTY All other property, excluding property which, as of the date of the election to authorize the levy of the Special Tax, is: (i) owned by public entity; (ii) owned by a regulated public utility and being utilized for transmission or distribution purposes; or (iii) zoned as open space.
Resolution No. FD 2025-024 - Page 8 of 11
6 1
3 3
6 1
3 3
TAXING CLASSIFICATIONS AND
MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATES
The taxing classifications for the above Property Categories and the maximum authorized Special Tax rates for fiscal year 1988-1989 are as follows:
TAXING CLASSIFICATION MAXIMUM TAX RATE
1. DEVELOPED PROPERTY
A. Residential Class I
(More than 3,590 square feet of
dwelling unit living area) *
$292 per year
B. Residential Class II
(3,077 – 3,589 square feet of
dwelling unit living area) *
$225 per year
C. Residential Class III
(2,564 – 3,076 square feet of
dwelling unit living area) *
$180 per year
D. Residential Class IV
(2,308 – 2,563 square feet of
dwelling unit living area) *
$157 per year
E. Residential Class V
(2,051 – 2,307 square feet of
dwelling unit living area) *
$135 per year
F. Residential Class VI
(1,795 – 2,050 square feet of
dwelling unit living area) *
$124 per year
G. Residential Class VII
(less – 1,795 square feet of
dwelling unit living area) *
$112 per year
H. Commercial or Industrial Property
$449 per acre per year or $0.04
per SF or building area,
whichever is greater **
2. APPROVED PROPERTY $200 per lot or parcel
3. VACANT PROPERTY $10 per acre ***
Resolution No. FD 2025-024 - Page 9 of 11
6 1
3 3
6 1
3 3
* The square footage of dwelling unit living area shall mean the square footage of internal living space, exclusive of garages and other structures not used as living space, as shown on the building permit(s) issued for the dwelling unit.
** The square footage of a commercial or industrial building area shall mean the gross square footage for the building as reflected in the building plans upon which any building permits for the building were issued.
*** The acreage of a Vacant Property shall be the gross acreage exclusive of any acreage dedicated or offered for dedication to a public agency.
ESCALATION OF MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATES
The maximum annual Special Tax rates applicable to all Developed Property shall be subject to escalation each July 1 commencing July 1, 1989, by the change factor calculated annually by the State of California Department of Finance for the purpose of increasing appropriations limits of State and local governments. In the event that the Department of Finance or its successor ceases to calculate the annual change factor, such Special Tax rates shall be subject to annual escalation not to exceed the increase in the Consumer Price Index as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Los Angeles Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area for the preceding twelve (12) month reporting period.
The maximum Special Tax rates applicable to all Approved Property and Vacant Property shall not be subject to escalation.
METHOD OF APPROTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX
The Special Tax shall be levied annually on all taxable property within one of the above identified Property Categories so long as Special Tax revenues are necessary to pay authorized expenses of the Community Facilities District, which may include, without limitation, payment of debt service on any bonded indebtedness of the Community Facilities District; replenishment of any required reserve fund for any such future public improvements, services or debt service; direct payment for public improvements; or payment of the operational and maintenance expenses of providing fire suppression and protection services to properties within the Community Facilities District.
The annual levy of the Special Taxes shall be apportioned as follows:
STEP 1: Fifty percent (50%) of the estimated ad valorem property tax revenue to be collected from properties within the Community Facilities District in the subject fiscal year which are allocable to the Foothill Fire Protection District shall be allocated to pay the estimated expenses of the Community Facilities District for the subject fiscal year. The remainder of the estimated expenses shall be referred to as the Net CFD Expenses.
STEP 2: That equal percentage of the maximum authorized Special Tax rate applicable to all Developed Property Taxing Classifications necessary to generate Special Tax revenues equal to the Net CFD Expenses shall be levied on all Developed Property.
STEP 3: If additional Special Tax revenues are still necessary to generate the Net CFD Expenses, that percentage of the maximum authorized Special Tax rate applicable to all Approved Property necessary to generate the additional Special Tax revenues to equal Net CFD Expenses shall be levied on Approved Property.
Resolution No. FD 2025-024 - Page 10 of 11
6 1
3 3
6 1
3 3
STEP 4: If additional Special Tax revenues are still necessary to generate the Net CFD Expenses, that percentage of all the maximum authorized Special Tax rate applicable to all Vacant Property necessary to generate the additional Special Tax revenues to equal Net CFD Expenses shall be levied on all Vacant Property.
STEP 5: If additional Special Tax revenues are still necessary to generate the Net CFD Expenses, the Community Facilities District shall:
A. Compare (i) the Special Tax rate which would be levied on each Developed Property pursuant to STEP 2 above with (ii) the product resulting from multiplying the square footage of the Developed Property times the Base Maximum Special Tax. The Base Maximum Special Tax means an amount equal to $0.0025 per square foot subject to escalation at the same rate and at the same time applicable to the maximum Special Tax rates for Developer Property.
B. If the product described in (ii) above exceeds the Special Tax rate described in (i) above for any Developed Property, the Community Facilities District shall increase the Special Tax rate levied on each such Developed Property in equal percentages up to the rate not to exceed the product described in (ii) above necessary to generate the additional Special Tax revenues to equal Net CFD Expenses.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the minimum Special Tax which shall be levied on all taxable properties within the Community Facilities District each Fiscal Year shall be:
DEVELOPED PROPERTY: $1.00 per dwelling unit for residential uses $1.00 per acre for commercial/industrial uses
APPROVED PROPERTY: $1.00 per lot or parcel
VACANT PROPERTY: $1.00 per acre
The ad valorem property tax contribution identified in Step 1 shall be reduced in any Fiscal Year by the amount by which the sum of such contribution and the minimum Special Taxes would exceed the estimated expenses of the Community Facilities District for such Fiscal Year * * *
The “Report” of the Special Tax Consultant, to be approved as a part of the record upon the conclusion of the public hearing pertaining to the formation of the Community Facilities District, shall set forth supplementary details pertaining to the Rate and Method of Apportionment of the Special Tax and shall provide controlling guidance in the interpretation and implementation of this Rate and Method of Apportionment.”
Resolution No. FD 2025-024 - Page 11 of 11
6 1
3 3
6 1
3 3
* * *
Application of the CFD No. 88-1 Rate and Method to Annexation No. 88-25-1 The maximum special tax authorized to be levied for Fiscal Year 2025/26 within that area annexed to Community Facilities District No. 88-1, known and designated as Annexation No. 88-25-1 is as follows:
MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATES
FISCAL YEAR 2025/26
TAXING CLASSIFICATION MAXIMUM TAX RATE
1. DEVELOPED PROPERTY
A. Residential Class I
(More than 3,590 square feet of
dwelling unit living area)
B. Residential Class II
(3,077 - 3,589 square feet of
dwelling unit living area)
C. Residential Class III
(2,564 - 3,076 square feet of
dwelling unit living area)
D. Residential Class IV
(2,308 - 2,563 square feet of
dwelling unit living area)
E. Residential Class V
(2,051 - 2,307 square feet of
dwelling unit living area)
F. Residential Class VI
(1,795 - 2,050 square feet of
dwelling unit living area)
G. Residential Class VII
(less - 1,795 square feet of
dwelling unit living area)
$3,020.97 per acre per year or
$0.24421 per square foot or
building, whichever is greater
2. APPROVED PROPERTY $200 per lot or parcel
3. VACANT PROPERTY $10 per acre
$751.37 per year
H. Commercial or Industrial Property
$1,962.78 per year
$1,505.04 per year
$1,201.04 per year
$1,052.70 per year
$900.85 per year
$832.06 per year
The maximum special tax rates set forth above are subject to escalation pursuant to the CFD No. 88-1 Rate and Method commencing July 1, 1989.
6 1
3 4
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
ANNEXATION TO EXISTING
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DISTRICT
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-1
ANNEXATION NO. 88- 25-1
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board Of Directors (the "Legislative Body") of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (the "Fire Protection District") is desirous to annex territory to an existing Community Facilities District pursuant to the provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, the existing Community Facilities District having been designated as Community Facilities District No. 88-1, and the territory proposed to be annexed to be designated as Community Facilities District No. 88-1, Annexation No. 88-25-1 (the "Annexation Area").
DESCRIPTION OF ANNEXATION AREA
The Annexation Area shall consist of all of that area of land which is included within the boundaries as shown on a map designated as Annexation No. 88-25-1 for the above referenced Community Facilities District.
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES
The proposed services to be provided to serve the Annexation Area are generally described as follows:
The performance of functions, operations and maintenance and repair activities in order to provide fire protection and suppression services .
Such services shall be shared between the existing Community Facilities District and the Annexation Area.
A general description of the types of the Facilities to be financed by the Annexation is as follows:
Fire protection and suppression facilities and equipment, rescue equipment, with a useful life of five (5) years or more, including collection and accumulation of funds to pay for anticipated facilities cost shortfalls and reserves for repair and replacement to the extent that such facilities are necessary to meet the increased demand for such facilities resulting from new development within the Territory.
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN SCHEDULED FOR THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025, AT THE HOUR OF 7 O'CLOCK P.M., IN THE REGULAR
MEETING PLACE OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY, BEING THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LOCATED AT 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730. AT SUCH TIME THE LEGISLATIVE BODY WILL HEAR
ALL EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY BY ALL INTERESTED PERSONS, PROPERTY OWNERS, VOTERS AND TAXPAYERS, RELATING GENERALLY TO THE FOLLOWING:
6 1
3 4
A. Authorization to annex the Annexation Area to the existing Community Facilities District; B. Authorization to levy special taxes in the Annexation Area.
ALL PERSONS INTERESTED, INCLUDING PROPERTY OWNERS AND REGISTERED
VOTERS, MAY APPEAR AND PRESENT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY RELATING TO THE
ANNEXATION OF ANNEXATION AREA TO THE EXISTING COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT. ANY PROTEST PERTAINING TO THE REGULARITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO
ANNEX THE ANNEXATION AREA TO THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT MUST BE IN
WRITING, AND SHALL BE FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AT THE ADDRESS SET FORTH ABOVE ON OR BEFORE THE TIME SET FOR THE HEARING. IF A MAJORITY PROTEST IS TIMELY FILED AGAINST
THE ANNEXATION OF THE ANNEXATION AREA, THE LEGISLATIVE BODY SHALL ABANDON THE PROCEEDINGS OR MODIFY THE PROCEEDINGS. IF SAID MAJORITY
PROTEST IS LIMITED TO CERTAIN SERVICES OR SPECIAL TAX, THOSE SERVICES OR THAT TAX SHALL BE ELIMINATED BY THE LEGISLATIVE BODY.
SPECIAL TAX
The services and facilities shall be financed through the levy of special taxes on all property within the existing Community Facilities District, as well as the Annexation Area. A copy of the rate and method of apportionment of the special tax is on file in the Office of the Fire Chief and is available for inspection during normal office hours.
ELECTION
Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board will conduct a special election on October 15, 2025, where the annexation proposition shall be submitted to the qualified electors, being the property owners, with each owner having one (1) vote per acre or portion thereof of land owned within the proposed annexed territory.
INQUIRIES
For any questions relating to the proceedings or any particulars, please contact the following designated person:
MIKE MCCLIMAN, FIRE CHIEF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730
For further particulars, reference is made to the Resolution of Intention to Annex Territory to an Existing Community Facilities District and the original Report of the Tax Consultant, as said documents have been approved and are on file with the transcript of these proceedings and open for public inspection.
Publish:
Kim Sevy, Secretary
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District,
Acting on behalf of Community Facilities
District No. 88-1
DATE: September 3, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Miguel Sotomayor, Principal Engineer
SUBJECT: Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following:
ORDINANCE NO. 1045
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 16.36.09 OF THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, AND ADDING CHAPTER 17.84 TO
THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING
UNDERGROUNDING OVERHEAD UTILITIES, AND MAKING A
DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION FROM CEQA
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Council waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1045.
BACKGROUND:
The introduction and first reading of the above-entitled Ordinance was conducted at the Regular City Council Meeting August 20, 2025. Votes at first reading: AYES: Kennedy, Hutchison, Scott, Stickler, Michael.
ANALYSIS:
Please refer to the August 20, 2025, City Council Staff Report.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Please refer to the August 20, 2025, City Council Staff Report.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
Please refer to the August 20, 2025, City Council Staff Report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Undergrounding Ordinance No. 1045
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO. 1045
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA AMENDING CHAPTER 16.36.09
OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE AND
ADDING CHAPTER 17.84 TO THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING
UNDERGROUNDING OVERHEAD UTILITIES, AND
MAKING A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION FROM
CEQA
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. Adoption of Chapter 17.84. Chapter 17.84 (“Underground Utilities”) of Article IV (“Site Development Provisions”) of Title 17 (“Development Code”) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby added to read in full as follows:
“17.84 Underground Utilities.
17.84.010. Undergrounding Utilities. Except as provided in Section 17.84.060 or where payment of an in-lieu fee is authorized, all new and existing overhead utility lines shall be installed underground in conjunction with any development, including the removal of the related supporting poles adjacent to and within the limits of the development as provided in this Chapter, at the applicant’s expense.
A. Arrangements, including the payment of all costs for undergrounding, shall be made by the applicant with the serving utilities.
B. Undergrounding shall be completed:
1. Prior to the acceptance of related street improvements; or
2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy if no related street improvements are required.
17.84.020. In-Lieu Fee. In those circumstances where the City Engineer decides that undergrounding is impractical, the applicant may satisfy the undergrounding requirement by paying an in-lieu fee in accordance with the formula set forth in Section 17.84.050. The in-lieu fee shall be paid to the city prior to the approval of the final subdivision map, or building permit, whichever occurs first. The City Engineer may determine undergrounding is impractical if any of the following conditions exist:
A. The length of the lines to be places underground will be less than three hundred (300) feet and the utility lines have not been placed underground on any property abutting the subject property;
6 1
0 3
B. Severe disruption to existing off-site improvements or heavy congestion of utility lines would make impractical service to properties under separate ownership; or
C. Any other condition that City Engineer finds exists and will make undergrounding impractical.
17.84.030. Poles Containing 66KV or Larger Electrical Lines. 66KV or larger electrical lines shall not be undergrounded unless the City Engineer and applicant agree to do so.
17.84.040. Limits of Responsibility. Undergrounding shall include the development’s entire frontage and extend to: (i) the first existing pole off-site from the development’s boundaries (across the street for corner properties), (ii) a new pole erected at a development’s boundary (across the street for corner properties), or (iii) an existing pole within five feet of a development’s boundary, except a corner.
17.84.050. Fee Amount. The in-lieu fee amount shall be equal to the amount identified in a detailed project specific construction cost estimate approved by the City Engineer and prepared by a qualified engineer registered in the State of California. The cost for preparation of the required construction cost estimate shall be borne by the applicant.
17.84.060. Exemptions.
A. The following developments shall be exempt from undergrounding utility lines as required by this Chapter:
1. The addition of functional equipment to existing developments, such as: loading docks, silos, satellite dishes, antennas, water tanks, air conditioners, cooling towers, enclosures of outdoor storage area, parking and loading area, block walls and fences, etc.
2. Building additions or new free standing buildings of less than 25% of the floor area of the existing building(s) on the same assessor’s parcel, or 5,000 square feet, whichever is less.
3. Exterior upgrading or repair of existing developments, such as:
reroofing, addition of trellis, awnings, landscaping, equipment screening, repainting and exterior finishes, etc.
4. Interior tenant improvements and non-construction CUPs.
5. Projects consisting of the construction of one (1) single family residence on an existing parcel.
6 1
0 3
6. Existing overhead utility lines located in public and private rights- of way, including but not limited to streets, trails, alleys, and utility easements where heavy congestion of utility lines would make impractical service to properties under separate ownership.
7. Residential subdivisions of ten or fewer single family residential parcels, where utility lines extend at least 600 feet offsite from both project boundaries.
8. Where otherwise preempted by state law.
B. Notwithstanding the foregoing, there is no exemption to the requirement to underground overhead utilities under this Chapter for projects within the boundaries of:
1. (i) General Plan Focus Area 1: Downtown Rancho Cucamonga (Victoria Gardens & Epicenter); (ii) General Plan Focus Area 2:
Civic Center; (iii) General Plan Focus Area 3: HART District; and (iv) General Plan Focus Area 8: Southeast Industrial Area, as all such focus areas are defined by the general plan and shown in a resolution approved by the City Council.
2. Any specific plan or master plan adopted by the City Council.
17.84.070. In-Lieu Fee Expenditure.
A. Funds collected from in-lieu fees shall be spent in the region in which the development from which the funds were collected is located. For purposes of this Chapter, the regions shall be identified in a map that is approved by the Council in a resolution and the official copy shall be on file in the Engineering Division.
B. Once the City has collected sufficient funds from in-lieu fees within a region to underground a section of utility lines, the City may underground a section of utility lines within that region.
17.84.080. Appeals.
A. An applicant adversely affected by the City Engineer’s determination that undergrounding is or is not impractical pursuant to Section
17.84.020 or contesting the amount of the in-lieu fee may appeal such determinations to the City Council.
B. All appeals shall be in writing and shall state the reason why utility undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical or the in-lieu fee was unreasonable or erroneously calculated. Appeals in instances finding undergrounding is not impractical shall include a preliminary estimate of cost, in writing, from the serving utilities.
6 1
0 3
C. An applicant may initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal with the City Clerk within 20 days after the date on which the City Engineer takes the action appealed from and paying the applicable fee, which shall be set by resolution.
D. The City Council shall thereupon fix a time and place for hearing such appeal. The City Clerk shall give notice to the appellant of the time and place of hearing by serving the notice personally or by depositing it in the United States Post Office in the city, postage prepaid, addressed to such persons at their last known addresses.
E. The City Council shall have the authority to determine all questions raised on such appeal.
F. City Council determinations are final.”
Section 2. Amendment of Chapter 16.39.090. Chapter 16.36.090 (“Required Improvements; Utilities”) of Title 16 (“Subdivisions”) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as set forth below.
“16.36.090 Required improvements; utilities.
All new and existing overhead utility lines are subject to and shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 17.84 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.” Section 3.The development code amendment set forth in Section 1 above generally requiring the undergrounding of new utility facilities in new development, with certain exceptions, is consistent with the general plan, including for example, Goal S-5.6 which provides: “Underground Utilities. Promote under-grounding of utilities for new development, major remodels, and redevelopment.”
Section 4.Repeal of Planning Commission Resolution 87-96. Upon the date that this Ordinance takes effect, Planning Commission Resolution 87-96 and related policies of the City’s Engineering Division with conflicting processes for undergrounding utility lines in developments are hereby repealed.
Section 5.Projects deemed complete or entitled as of the effective date of this Ordinance that have not implemented their undergrounding requirements specified in applicable entitlement conditions of approval may request review of such conditions by the Engineering Director and Planning Director for a determination of whether any changes in applicable Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code or other applicable regulations pertaining to utility undergrounding would either (i) eliminate the undergrounding requirements or (ii) allow for compliance with undergrounding requirements through payment of an in-lieu fee. Notwithstanding Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.14.100, the Directors are jointly authorized to amend or waive
6 1
0 3
the applicable condition of approval if they find that either condition (i) or (ii) described above applies.
Section 6.CEQA. The City Council finds that pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15378(a), the proposed Ordinance is not considered a “Project” under CEQA because it does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. This is due to the fact that the Ordinance does not change any practice or procedure, but rather clarifies and codifies existing practice. Furthermore, the proposed action is exempt from the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment because most new development in the City is required to underground utilities along their frontage and this does not change that requirement.
The City Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15302(c) which exempts from review the replacement or reconstruction of existing utility systems and/or facilities involving a negligible or no expansion of capacity. For existing utility systems that are required to be placed underground, there will be a negligible or no expansion of capacity. The City Council further finds that the adoption of the Ordinance is categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15302(d) which exempts from review the replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity replaced including conversion of overhead electric utility distribution facilities to underground including connection to existing overhead electric utility distribution lines where the surface is restored to the condition existing prior to the undergrounding.
For any new development where the undergrounding of utilities is required, the City Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(d) which exempts from review the construction of and location of new small facilities and structures including water main, sewage, electrical, gas, and other utility extensions including street improvements, of reasonable length to serve such construction.
Section 7.Severability. The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.
6 1
0 3
Section 8.Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. ___________________________________
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
I, Kim Sevy, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the ____________, 2025, and was passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on ____________, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS:
DATE: September 3, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director Claudia Vargas, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Consideration of Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance No. 1046, to Adopt Zoning Map Amendment to Change the Zoning Map Designation for Tracts 16072, 16072-1, 16072-2, and 16072-3, Located at the North West Corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue, from Neighborhood Estate 2 (NE-2) to Low Residential (L), to Ensure Consistency with the Configuration and Development Standards of a Previously Approved 359 Lot Single-Family Residential Subdivision, Consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Traditional Neighborhood. This Project Qualifies for an Exemption Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as the Proposed Zoning Map Amendment will not have any Direct Impact on the Environment. (DRC2025-00141) (ORDINANCE NO. 1046) (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission recommends the City Council conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 1046, to be read by title only, to amend the city zoning map for parcels in tracts 16072, 16072-1, 16072- 2 and 16072-3 from Neighborhood Estate 2 (NE-2) to Low Residential (L) and making a determination of exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act.
BACKGROUND:
Site Characteristics and Land Use/Zoning
The project site comprises of approximately 150.79 acres across Tracts 16072, 16072-1, 16072- 2, and 16072-3. It is located on Wilson Avenue, between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue, in the northeastern portion of the city. The parcels are rectangular in layout and currently graded, subdivided into 359 single family residential lots.
The existing land use, General Plan, and zoning designations for the project site and surrounding properties are as follows:
3 0
1 9
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant Traditional Neighborhood Currently: Neighborhood Estates 2 (NE-2)
North Vacant General Open Space and
Facilities
Flood Control/Utility
Corridor (FU/UC)
South CVWD Facility/
Residential
General Open Space and
Facilities Very Low (VL)/Parks (P)
East Vacant Traditional Neighborhood Neighborhood Estates 2 (NE-2)
West Single-Family
Residence Suburban Neighborhood Low Residential (L)
Figure 1 – Site Map
Legislative Context
The project site was originally entitled under Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16071, which was approved by the Planning Commission on May 12, 2004, and subsequently by the City Council on June 16, 2004. The project was subdivided into 359 single family residential lots. Due to a combination of local and state mandated time extensions under the Subdivision Map Act, there were a series of extensions of the tentative maps and by 2021, the final maps had not been recorded.
3 0
1 9
In December 2021, the City adopted the current General Plan, which designates the project area as Traditional Neighborhood. To implement the new General Plan, the City adopted a new Development Code and updated the Zoning Map in May 2022. The project area was assigned the Neighborhood Estates 2 (NE-2) zoning designation to maintain consistency with the updated land use policy. At that time, the tract maps still had not be recorded. In August and December of 2023, the final maps were officially recorded for all 4 tracts.
In 2024, following the recordation of the Final Maps, two developers submitted development applications proposing single-family residential housing consistent with the approved subdivision.
During staff’s review of these development applications, it became apparent that the form-based development standards of NE-2 zone were incompatible with the recorded subdivision layout.
Specifically, standards such as rear-loaded garages and block requirements conflicted with the conventional suburban design established by the original map.
To resolve this regulatory inconsistency, the City initiated a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the subject tracts from Neighborhood Estates 2 (NE-2) to Low Residential (L). This zoning designation more accurately reflects the standards and layout approved under the original entitlement and aligns with the zoning of the adjacent established neighborhood to the west.
The proposed Zoning Map Amendment was heard by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing during the Commission’s regular session on July 23rd, 2025. During that meeting, the Planning Commission and members of the public in attendance heard a staff presentation on the proposed amendment. Two members of the public asked general questions about the purpose of the map and density permitted under the proposed zone. It was explained that the proposed density is consistent with the general plan and other adjacent single family residential zones.
There were no other comments from the public. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to adopt Resolution 2025-018 recommending that the City Council approve the proposed map amendment.
ANALYSIS:
The City proposes a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning designation of Tract 16072, 16072-1, 16072-2 and 16072-3 from Neighborhood Estate 2 (NE-2) to Low Residential (L). This change is necessary to align the zoning with the existing 359 lot subdivision, originally approved in 2004 under the residential development standards of the retired Etiwanda North Specific Plan.
The current Neighborhood Estate 2 (NE-2) zone’s form-based development standards conflict with the approved lot structure and design envisioned under the Etiwanda North Specific Plan.
This includes design requirement such as rear-loaded garages and a variety of housing types that do not match the recorded subdivision layout. In contrast, the Low Residential (L) zone reflects conventional suburban development standards that align with the original subdivision design. This rezoning would resolve the development challenges associated with applying Neighborhood Estate 2 (NE-2) standards to the lots.
Consistency with the General Plan
The subject parcels maintain a General Plan land use designation of Traditional Neighborhood, which permits up to 8 dwelling units per acre. The Low Residential (L) zone allows up to 6 dwelling units per acre, which aligns with the Traditional Neighborhood designation. The existing subdivision of 359 lot on approximately 150.79 acres results in a density of approximately 2.3 units per acre, well within the allowable range. No changes to the General Plan designation are proposed.
3 0
1 9
Environmental Review
Pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines, where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the activity in question may have significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The proposed Zoning Map Amendment does not authorize any physical development or site disturbance and will not result in a physical change to the environment. It merely updates the zoning designation to align with the configuration and development standards of an existing 359 lot single-family residential subdivision that was approved by the City Council in 2004 and finalized through recordation of the Final Map in 2023.
The new zoning designation is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation of Traditional Neighborhood.
Correspondence
Prior to this hearing, 549 notices were mailed to property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site on August 19, 2025. On August 20, 2025, notices were published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. The project site was posted with physical notices on August 20, 2025. To date, planning staff has not received any comments.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed Zoning Map Amendment does not authorize physical development or construction.
As such, there is no direct fiscal impact to the City associated with this action. Any future development of the site will be subject to a separate review and may involve applicable fees or assessments at that time.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
The proposed amendment achieves the City Council’s Core Values of “Working together cooperatively and respectfully with each other, staff, and all stakeholders” and “Relentless pursuit of improvement”. By proactively initiating this zoning map amendment, the city is addressing a regulatory inconsistency and ensuring that land use regulations are aligned with approved subdivisions and the General Plan. This action reinforces public trust and demonstrates a commitment to thoughtful, collaborative planning.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Minutes from the July 23rd, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting Attachment 2 – Planning Commission Resolution 2025-018
Attachment 3 – Ordinance No. 1046
Historic Preservation Commission and
Planning Commission
Agenda
July 23, 2025
Final Minutes
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 p.m.
The regular jointmeeting of the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission was held on July 23, 2025. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Morales at 7:00 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Planning Commission present: Chairman Morales, Vice Chairman Boling, Commissioner Dopp.
Absent: Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz.
Staff Present: Katherine Read, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura, Planning Director; Jason Welday, Engineering Director; Sean McPherson, Principal Planner; Justin Garcia, Deputy Director of Engineering; Shane Adams, Deputy Fire Marshal; Sophia Serafin, Assistant Planner; Claudia Vargas, Associate Planner; Bond Mendez, Associate Planner; Miguel Sotomayor, Principal Engineer; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant.
B. Public Communications
Chairman Morales opened the public communications.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public communications.
C. Consent Calendar
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of May 28, 2025.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling. Motion carried 3- 0-2 approved the minutes. Absent: Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz.
D. Public Hearings
D1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TENTATIVE MAP, & DESIGN REVIEW – HAMILTON LANDDEVELOPMENT – A request to subdivide 1.02 acres of land into 19 numbered lots and 1 lettered lot including site plan and design review of 19 single-family, detached residential units with 1 unit restricted for Very Low Income affordable housing in accordance with State Density Bonus Law for a site located between 19th Street and Hamilton Street in the Medium (M) Residential zone at 10295 19th Street; APN: 1076-121-17. The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects.
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20761 and Design Review DRC2024-00249).
HPC/PC Final Minutes – July 23, 2025
Attachment 1
Assistant Planner Serafin provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). She noted that the Conditionsof Approvalwere revised to include additionalclarifyinglanguage. A redline version was placed on the dais.
Planning Director Nakamura shared that a letter was received this afternoon by Alta Loma School District expressing concerns about school safety. The letter had been distributed to Commissioners via email and was also placed on the dais for their review. She indicated that the Conditions of Approval related to Engineering Condition #5 will help provide further study on any potential impacts.
Commissioner Dopp mentioned that there is already a lot of traffic on 19thand now this is adding another ingress/egress out of that area. He asked Engineering what kind of thought was put in place to handle that extra turn off of 19th, given that Mayberry is exactly to the north of that parcel.
Engineering Director Welday responded that the final plans for the project will be required to evaluate any changes to the striping in order to ensure conflicts are avoided to that left turn and there are no issues between Mayberry driveway street interaction.
Vice Chairman Boling stated that there will be additional traffic studies required in order to ascertain what traffic mitigation measures might be needed along 19thStreet.
Engineering Director Welday responded that a design exercise will be conducted to ensure the design accommodates those considerations.
Vice Chairman Boling stated that no decision has been made yet because that analysis has not been completed.
Engineering Director Welday responded that they have looked at it as part of the development review and they are comfortable they can fit in the turn lanes that may be needed to make it work.
Vice Chairman Boling asked if it is determined that there would be a conflict, would there be a possibility of having a right-in/right-out for the Hamilton project.
Engineering Director Welday answered that they do not currently have it conditioned that way but that would be an option they would look at.
Chairman Morales asked Planning Director Nakamura for a brief summary of the State Density Bonus Law and how it impacts the city.
Planning Director Nakamura provided an overview of the State Density Bonus Law and how it impacts the city’s limitations in the development review process.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Applicant Hamilton provided a brief PowerPoint presentation with key points on the project. 19- units, 4 Bonus units and 1 unit is very low-income affordable. (copy on file).
Commissioner Dopp stated that for the record, the commissioners are generally not opposed to housing projects or creating more affordable units. He shared that the commissioners attended a conference recently, and they discussed urban strategies and how to create more synergic communities and addressed the affordability crisis. He asked how affordable will this project be for the average family, since having one unit does not really make it an affordable project.
HPC/PC Final Minutes – July 23, 2025
Applicant Hamilton said the very low-income unit will be in the $100,000 - $200,000 range. He said what they found out is there is a big demand for detached houses for young families.
Commissioner Dopp asked if he had a price point in mind.
Applicant Hamilton responded that the units are between 1,500 and 1,550 square feet and are expected to be priced around $700,000.
Commissioner Dopp asked if he thinks it is affordable for people in their 20 and 30’s.
Applicant Hamilton answered that it is as affordable as it can be.
Commissioner Dopp stated that they are using all these waivers to maximize their revenue and that it is their right but then decided that every single plan on one side of the street is going to look exactly the same and then on the other side of the street will look the same, with almost no variety.
Is it too much to ask to have some variety in this project and make it more architecturally vivid.
Applicant Hamilton explained that the changes were made in response to the Design Review Committee comments, aiming for a more cohesive project in line with the architect’s vision.
Commissioner Dopp responded that the state law grants him that right and respectively disagreed with that assessment.
Vice Chairman Boling stated during the Design Review Committee meeting there were a number of issues that were brought up and suggestions to address some of those concerns. He asked how they would characterize the project before them tonight as compared to what was presented at the Design Review Committee. He asked what changes, if any were made.
Applicant Hamilton answered they added a second-floor plan and made additional enhancements to the elevations on the end units by adding some additional windows and siding.
Vice Chairman Boling asked if the color scheme between 1 and 2 had changed.
Applicant Hamilton answered no.
Vice Chairman Boling asked if any amenities were added elsewhere throughout the project.
Applicant Hamilton answered no.
Vice Chairman Boling went through all 29 Waivers being proposed and asked the Applicant to provide how each waiver, if not approved, would preclude construction.
Applicant Hamilton answered to most of the questions, if not all, by stating it is a physical constraint or impossibility.
Vice Chairman Boling asked about Wavier number # 29; the minimum number of floor plans elevations variations, two floor plans would be required and three elevations. He asked if he is providing two floor plans but only one elevation.
Applicant Hamilton answered they have three different elevations, including the enhanced right and enhanced left design.
Vice Chairman Boling asked if he added a second-floor plan, after the Design Review Committee meeting.
HPC/PC Final Minutes – July 23, 2025
Applicant Hamilton confirmed.
Vice Chairman Boling asked if Waiver number #29 could potentially be withdrawn.
Applicant Hamilton replied if that is how staff interprets it, then potentially yes.
Vice Chairman Boling commented that this is the highest number of waivers he recalls seeing on a residential project without a master plan or development agreement and there are only 19 units.
Chairman Morales stated the applicant mentioned he has completed several of these attainable housing developments and asked whether any of them featured more diverse architecture and color schemes, or if they were all similarly minimal in design.
Applicant Hamilton answered he has done both.
Chairman Morales asked if he thinks having at least three-color schemes would help make it look better.
Applicant Hamilton responded that they would be open to adding a third color scheme.
Alta Loma School District Board Member Rebecca Davies expressed concerns about student’s safety and traffic congestion near the elementary school at Hamilton Street and requests a gate to prevent through traffic.
Resident and friend of the Applicant, Steve Landis, expressed support of the project, stating that it would be a positive addition to the area. He added that from a financial standpoint, if nothing is done now, the site may never be developed.
Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Dopp noted that while the applicant’s intent to reduce home prices is commendable, the core frustration lies in the sheer volume of those requests. Although the project meets a real housing need, it shows little innovation in design or planning. Instead, it seems the applicant focused primarily on maximizing legal allowances to push the project through.
Commissioner Dopp talked about the gate. He expressed sympathy for Deer Canyon Elementary and understands the dynamics on Hamilton Street in itself and concerns of what adding an extra street will have on the community. He said that it is not being ignored but he is just unsure about having a gate there, sometimes they add more problems than they actually solve. He asked staff if there is a way to put in the conditions for a traffic study and have a conversation if there might be ways to solve this problem or alternate solutions.
Planning Director Nakamura acknowledged the concerns and stated that discussions have taken place with the school district. She emphasized the need to avoid unintended consequences from new development and said evaluations will be conducted prior to construction to assess potential impacts, and that the situation will continue to be monitored as it progresses. She also remarked that the Engineering Department is typically very responsive in addressing concerns as they arise.
HPC/PC Final Minutes – July 23, 2025
Vice Chairman Boling addressed a couple of the comments made by the applicant. It was indicated that 1 out of 4 units were affordable, specific to the density bonus units. He wanted to make sure that was clear so no one in the audience or the general public think that 1 out of 4 of all the units are going to be affordable or attainable. The applicant also indicated, during his presentation, that one home for one lot relegates us into a reduction to the standards. He asked the applicant are we not subdividing this parcel into individual lots for each unit and is that not normally how residential is developed one unit per lot, unless it is an ADU. He said there are plenty of instances throughout the city where one unit is on one lot and deviations, waivers and requests of this magnitude are not profitable. He expressed he does agree that the choice of product definitely drives a number of units, and the choice of his product has driven a significant number of waivers and reductions, and it feels like the only codes that we are following are Building and Safety Codes and Fire Codes. Development codes are out the window.
Vice Chairman Boling addressed a comment to Alta Loma School District and the concerns that were brought up by the Board Member. He said it is always interesting when a new development comes into a neighborhood that has an existing school, and the school is concerned about additional traffic and potential safety issues that might come forth as a result of adding new housing. However, what is often forgotten, is that decades ago when existing residential housing was there and a school was not, residents that lived in the neighborhood prior to the school, had significant concerns about a new school going in and what traffic hazards and increased safety measures were going to transpire. He said as it pertains to state law and the challenges the commission faces, this is more geared to the general public and partially to staff.
Vice Chairman Boling said in regards to the Design Review Committee meeting there were several concerns from residents, as well as commissioners, about this project; inadequate parking, setbacks, lack of amenities, density, singular style for all units leading to a cut and paste look and we also heard from residents the sentiment the city probably should not build housing units like this but beyond our city boundaries, Rancho Cucamonga and other cities are being blamed for not producing enough housing in response to a declared housing crisis but it is actually private market forces coupled with state mandates that control the outcome of what gets built and when, not the city. He said Rancho Cucamonga is not trying to over develop or compromise the character of our neighborhoods, but rather, trying to follow complex state laws while fighting an uphill battle to keep or regain local control over residential development matters.
Vice Chairman Boling stated what we are dealing with here is the untenable scenario of state bureaucrats and developers taking over how our community is built. We the city are often the ones forced to implement the consequences of a one size fits none state policy or mandates passed in Sacramento which then affects our neighborhoods. He said if the community is upset from this reality, he strongly encourages them to hold their state elected officials accountable and push for reform. He said here in Rancho, we are doing everything we can to navigate the state- imposed requirements while trying to protect the character and quality of life that makes Rancho Cucamonga a world class city.
Chairman Morales mentioned that the applicant is willing to do three color schemes and asked staff how we can take him up on his offer.
Planning Director Nakamura responded if the commissioner would like to entertain this, staff has prepared a Condition of Approval that could be added to the project. It would state; prior to the issuance of building permits, a minimum of three-color schemes shall be provided subject to Planning Director review and approval.
Vice Chairman Boling asked the Assistant City Attorney that of the remaining waivers that are on the table, is there any legal grounds for us denying any of the remaining waivers that have been requested.
HPC/PC Final Minutes – July 23, 2025
Assistant City Attorney Read explained that per state law, the standard is you have to make specific findings based on substantial evidence that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on public health or safety, and this requires significant quantifiable direct and unavoidable impacts based on objective identified written public or health safety standards. She recalled the applicant mentioned Waiver number #29 potentially being removed from the list. She recommended that the Chairman ask the applicant to come back up to state that on the record.
Chairman Morales invited the applicant back to the podium.
Applicant Hamilton stated that as long as what we have are considered two floor plans and three elevations, then we do not seem to need that wavier.
Planning Director Nakamura stated she had staff do additional research on this and they do not believe the current enhancement was considered an additional elevation, it would have to be of a separate design. She said the wavier can be proposed and modified since they did provide two floor plans because they had the primary and reverse floor plan but that it would need to maintain the elevations as only one was provided.
Vice Chairman Boling stated Waiver number #29 could be amended to reflect the request of three distinct elevations being waived as opposed to the two floor plans.
Applicant Hamilton agreed.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2025-019 to approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20761 and Design Review DRC2024-00249 with the amendments to the Conditions of Approval adding three-color schemes and the affirmation amendments to Conditions #3 and #6 for Planning, and #5 for Engineering and staffing conditions to amend Waiver number #29 to element the wavier for two floor plans. Motion carried 3-0-2. Absent: Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz D2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, MASTER PLAN, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, DESIGN REVIEW, MINOR EXCEPTION – TRUE LIFE COMPANIES - A request for site plan and architectural review of a mixed-use project comprised of 50 multi-family units including 10 live/work units, and a tentative tract map for condominium purposes located on approximately 2.3 acres of land within the Neighborhood General 3 (NG3) Zone, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Amethyst Avenue; APN: 0208-432-16. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Section 15332 SUBTT20708, Design Review DRC2024-00108, Master Plan DRC2024-00109, Minor Exception DRC2025-00055).
AssociatePlannerMendez provideda PowerPointpresentation (copy on file).
CommissionerDopp asked staff if there were conversationswith the developerabout traffic calming devices on that major north-south street near the development, like speed humps to make it a bit more difficultfor the averagevehicleto see it as a short cut.
Associate Planner Mendez responded that while there is nothing preventing vehicles from driving through, the section of Ruby Avenue includestwo speed humps that will help reduce vehiclespeeds and slow traffic down.
Vice ChairmanBolingasked staff for clarificationon the speed hump for Ruby Avenue.
HPC/PC Final Minutes – July 23, 2025
HPC/PC Final Minutes – July 23, 2025
AssociatePlannerMendezclarifiedthat the extensionof Ruby Avenuewith the speedhumps applies only on the project site.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
True Life Properties Vice President Gordon Jones introduced Applicant David Stearn who provided a brief PowerPoint presentation to the Commissioners. (copy on file).
CommissionerDopp asked the applicant what work experience does their firm have with live/work units, and what do they see in terms of potential out there to develop those units. He said, for the record, it has been his contentionthat live/work units usuallydo not hit the metricfor retail. This is not a site that is super conduciveto retail, but the mixed-use componentstill needs to be there.
Applicant Stearn answered they have a fair amount of experience with it. He mentioned there are some challenges with this site such as the grade being 4 ft. below Base Line. Also, they have an existing retaining wall the city built that preserves that grade, and they have the access easement they share with assisted living facility. He said that makes a true retail site challenging here.
There are a couple of unique things the city asked for them to do; 1) There is a restriction renting them out. 2) It is not set up for food uses. He said as a benefit, there are two entrances with a separate residential entrance from the entrance to the commercial space.
Commissioner Dopp asked whether anything would prevent someone from using the space for storage.
Applicant Stearn responded that Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ( CC&R’s) include provisions for annual garage inspections to ensure they are being used for actual parking rather than storage and noted that these measures can be expanded.
Commissioner Dopp expressed concern about the units facing a major corridor and emphasized the importance of establishing clear guidelines to prevent owners from making unauthorized modifications.
Vice Chairman Boling clarified that the parking management plan includes provisions for periodic inspection of the garage spaces. He noted that enforcement would primarily be handled by the Homeowners Association (HOA), with city enforcement serving as backup if necessary.
The following persons commented on the project: Suzanne Luegering, Jennifer Diaz, Kristine Hatanaka, Travis T van Bibber, and Ronald Rempel.
Included the following concerns/comments:
Traffic
Trash
Design does not fit with neighborhood
Ruby Avenue connection
Setback
Homeless
Privacy
Parking
Crime/Safety
Replace with a park
For the record, it is noted that the following correspondences were received after the preparation of the agenda packet and the following general concerns are noted. The actual correspondence should be referred to for details:
Letter from California Housing Defense Fund reminding the city of its obligation to abide by the relevant state laws.
Email from Kristine Hatanaka expressed concerns about safety, traffic, parking, noise pollution, crime and obstructed views.
Email from James and Karen Cordova expressed concerns on the parking and traffic.
Email from Patrick and Angelina Soto noted concern about backyard view and building mass, amenity area setback and parking.
Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Applicant Stearn responded to the setback concern, stating that considerable time was spent ensuring all utilities worked. He added that they made every effort to honor 30-foot setback from the property line.
Commissioner Dopp noted public testimony was heard. He said he would like to have more conversations with developers that are open, and flexible. He said we are going to look at the project that is placed in front of them with the parameters given by the General Plan. Some of the resident’s concerns about setbacks are reasonable and some concessions were made by the developer. He asked staff if there is a way to add a condition or through code compliance to ensure those units are used as live/work.
Planning Director Nakamura reiterated his concern that the live/work unit will not actually be used as work use space. She noted that the applicant plans to include this requirement in the deed restrictions as part of the CC&Rs upon purchase. She added that enforcement could potentially begin with the HOA and, if necessary, be followed by the city.
Associate Planner Mendez added that this site does require a non-residential component because the project is including3,000 sq. ft. of non-residentialfloor place, the propertyis held to that. It could not be legally converted or used as a residential space. If that were to happen, there would be a responseto that through Code Enforcementto correctthat action because that space itself also has separateoccupancyfrom the residentialcomponentof that unit.
Vice Chairman Boling stated that we heard an example presented by the developer of what could be built in order to put things in perspective that they have scaled back, and they did a good job of identifying the maximum extreme on this site and we heard residents speak to the extreme on the other side. He said, a developer could do a more intense project and alternatively, residents could all pony up the money, buy it from the developer and leave it vacant. He said that when he first heard about this project, his concern was the northbound ingress/egress. He understood initially there may not have been an alignment of Amethyst for this project and that would have been horrendous to have an offset entry, that was concerning to him, but it has been worked out through an agreement with the residential housing facility.
Vice Chairman Boling addressed one of the concerns that came up a few times by residents, that this type of project being placed here; project good, placement bad. He said in traditional urban planning you have to have some kind of transition from single-family residential to something else because it cannot all be single-family residential. At Base Line, if you look across the street, you have a shopping center and at Archibald, you have true retail. He said having mixed-use serves as a buffer, as something to take you from this to that. The project, as proposed, is in between and is even more residential than retail in that the 10 live/work units cannot support true retail.
HPC/PC Final Minutes – July 23, 2025
You cannot put food or retail store front where your customer base is coming through constantly, since there is not enough parking, and the visibility is not good. It is not conducive to that type of retail business. He said what it is conducive to is professional services. Those type of businesses in this development are less impactful to the surrounding community than if it had been built out with a more traditional retail space. He noted that he applauds them for providing something less.
Vice Chairman Boling stated that we saw a project earlier tonight and in contrast with another developer, this developer had reduced the bedroom in one unit in order to address the city and community concerns of meeting the parking requirements. That is profit margin they had taken out. They addressed landscaping in order to help with privacy and visibility to the neighboring houses. They relocated HVAC units to address noise concerns from the community. They addressed some of the privacy issues, they changed the number of windows and the type of windows and the placement in order to help ensure greater privacy. He said those types of compromises are what makes this process work. As opposed to state mandates and having the developer force us to approve projects some might consider to be lousy. He expressed how he appreciated the communities’ inputs, and he hopes they appreciate that some developers are listening and are working to try their best to address their concerns. The commissioners work hard on behalf of the community as dedicated volunteers, striving to ensure that the highest- quality projects are brought into the community.
Chairman Morales expressed his support for building for-sale homes rather than apartments noting that homeowners are more likely to take pride over ownership. He thanked the residents for their participation and efforts in helping to improve the development. He also expressed appreciation for the developer’s responsiveness to the concerns raised by the community and for listening to their needs.
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adopt Resolution 2025-021 to recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20708, Design Review DRC2024-00108, Master Plan DRC2024-00109 and Minor Exception DRC2025- 00055. Motion carried 3-0-2. Absent: Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz D3. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Section 16.36.09 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, repeal Planning Commission Resolution 87-96, and add Chapter 17.84 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code concerning undergrounding overhead utilities. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). This item will be forwarded to City Council for final action.
PrincipalEngineerMiguel Sotomayorprovideda PowerPointpresentation (copy on file).
CommissionerDopp asked whetherthe commissionerswill see at any point what the determinations have been on undergroundingon a specificproject.
Planning Director Nakamura responded that it could be included if that determination is made early on during the review process.
Commissioner Dopp recommended including it as an addendum. He asked about the six regions in-lieu fees previously collected, if they would get deposited into the respective bank.
Engineering Director Welday explained that since the fees were collected citywide, they would likely be allocated to projects within the six regions as needs arise. If a project is underfunded, the regional bank would be used to cover the gap.
HPC/PC Final Minutes – July 23, 2025
Commissioner Dopp said he noticed parts of the south side of Foothill are not included in the focus areas and asked what the reason was for not being included, especially on the eastern end of town.
Principal Engineer Sotomayor explained that the focus areas correspond to those identified in the GeneralPlan.
Commissioner Dopp explained that his reasoning is based on the idea that if Foothill is being presented as the major corridor, it should logically be the primary focus area.
Engineering Director Welday added that the focus areas are aligned with the General Plan the way the ordinance is currently written. He said there is also a provision in the ordinance that requires undergrounding in adopted specific plan areas. He said for most part, the areas along Foothill have been undergrounded and the areas that have not been undergrounded likely would not fall into any of the categories for exemptions anyway.
Vice Chairman Boling clarified that we have projects that would require undergrounding but not right now because it is unfeasible for that particular developer to do it, in which case, they would pay in-lieu fees. He asked if there are projects that would be exempt from having to pay in-lieu fees.
PrincipalEngineer Sotomayor confirmed that there would be and said it would be spelled out in the ordinance.
Vice Chairman Boling reaffirmed there will be three types of projects that would be under consideration; 1) Those that would require undergrounding, 2) Those that would pay the in-lieu fees which would be used at a future time when sufficient funds are collected to pay for the total underground project, 3) Those projects that would be accepted. He asked what would happen if money is being used that was collected in another area of town in order to make up some deficiency that exists, and now that area has to be underground and the money had already been spent.
Engineering Director Welday explained that the dollars that have been collected are not delegated to any particular region, they are delegated city wide. He said they would have to go back and look at nearly 50 years of transactions to try to untangle that. The cleanest way to do it is to look at it as there is still a general benefit within those regions and going forward, they would segregate it into the regions and before that they would have to use it as a bank to supplement the projects that are in each of those regions.
Vice Chairman Boling asked what happens to the undergrounding of the area where that first project 50 years ago paid their in-lieu fees, and now and now it is going to be undergrounded.
Where did those dollars come from.
Engineering Director Welday said he is not sure he is following, adding that there seems to be a lot of hypotheticals.
Vice Chairman Boling stated it seems like we are leap frogging the money, but we will figure it out.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
HPC/PC Final Minutes – July 23, 2025
For the record, it is noted that the following correspondence was received after the preparation of the agenda packet expressing support of the proposed ordinance. The actual correspondence should be referred to for details:
Letter from Esoteric Homes
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Dopp mentioned that streamlining parts of the process makes a lot of sense. He emphasized that as a discussion moves forward to City Council, it is important to understand the outcomes of projects, especially when utilities like wiring are involved, so they can develop a holistic vision of what future developments might look like.
Vice Chairman Boling expressed his appreciation for the callout regarding the exemptions related to the focus areas. He also said he valued the clearly defined appeal process, noting that it will certainly help developers and project applicants. He added that these measures encourage responsible development in streamlined infill projects and expressed gratitude for the hard work of the Engineering department.
Chairman Morales stated that the commissioners had previously reviewed some projects that required undergrounding, which raised concerns due to limited frontage. He noted this will fix it and make it better.
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adopt Resolution 2025-022 to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Section 16.36.09 and adding Chapter 17.84 to the Municipal Code. Motion carried 3-0-2. Absent: Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz
D4. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA – A request to amend the zoning map designation for Tracts 16072, 16072-1, 16072-2, and 16072-3, totaling approximately 150.79 acres, to amend the zoning designation from neighborhood Estate 2 (NE- 2) to Low Residential ( L), and ensure consistency with the configuration and development standards of a previously approved 359 lot single-family residential subdivision, in a manner consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Traditional Neighborhood. This project qualifies for an exemption under State CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), as the proposed zoning map amendment will not have any direct impact on the environment. Tracts 16072, 16072- 1, 16072-2, and 16072-3. (Zoning Map Amendment DRC2025-00141).
AssociatePlannerClaudia Vargas provideda PowerPointpresentation (copy on file).
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Resident Stephen P. Gutierrez expressed concerns about noise, increased traffic, trash and crime.
Resident Erick Space had questions about zoning and requested clarification if any new lots would be created.
Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed that no new lots would be created and amending the zoning designation would allow the developer to use the same development standards and the homes to the west.
HPC/PC Final Minutes – July 23, 2025
HPC/PC Final Minutes – July 23, 2025
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2025-018 to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance to amend the zoning map as presented in the Zoning Map Amendment DRC2025-00141. Motion carried 3-0-2. Absent:
Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz.
E. Director Announcements
Planning Director Nakamura announced we have been awarded the Award of Merit which makes us the second-best Planning Agency in the State of California this year. She also mentioned that the next Planning Commission meeting will take place in the Tri-Communities Room due to construction in the Council Chambers.
F. Commission Announcements - None
H. Adjournment
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling, seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adjourn the meeting. Hearing no objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant
Planning Department
Approved:
Attachment 2
1 ORDINANCE NO. 1046
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONING MAP
AMENDMENT DRC2025-00141, A REQUEST TO AMEND
THE ZONING MAP DESIGN ATION FOR TRACTS 16072,
16072-1, 16072-2, AND 16072- 3, TO TALING
APPROXIMATELY 150.79 ACRES , TO CHANGE THE
ZONING DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD ESTATE
2 (NE -2) TO LOW RESIDENTIAL (L), AND ENSURE
CONSISTENCY WITH THE CONFIGUR ATION AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF AN EXISTING 359 LOT
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, IN A
MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESI GNATION OF TRADITIONAL
NEIGHBORHOOD, AND FINDING AN EXEMPT ION FROM
CEQA UNDER SECTION 15061(B)(3) OF THE CEQA
GUIDELINES
T
he City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Rec itals.
A. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the “City”) is proposi ng to amend the official Zoning Map to change the zoning designation for Tracts 16072, 16072-1, 16072- 2, and 16072-3, which collectively comprise approximately 150.79 acres. These tracts are located within the northeastern portion of the City and were previously subdivided into 359 parcels for single- family residential development. The Final Maps for these tracts were recorded between August and December of 2023.
B. The City has prepared Zoning Map Amendment DRC2025-00141, as described in the title of this Ordinance, to implement the zone changes. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Zoning Map Amendment is referred to as the “application” or “Amendment.”
C. The City is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California.
D. The Amendment changes the zoning designation of the subject tracts from Neighborhood Estate 2 (NE -2) to Low Residential (L) to better align with the original subdivision configuration and applicable General Plan Land use designation of Traditional Neighborhood.
E. On July 23, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed continued public hearing with respect to the Amendment and, following the conclusion thereof, adopted Resolution No. 25-018 recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt said Amendment.
Attachment 3
2 F. On September 3rd, 2025, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the amendment and concluded said hearing on that date.
G. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
SECTION 2. O rdinance.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows:
A. Re citals . The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts s et forth in the Recitals, Section 1, of this Ordinance are true and correct.
B. Findings.
1) Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-reference public hearing, this Council hereby finds and concludes that the proposed Amendment is in conformance with the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs. The existing General Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject parcels is Traditional Neighborhood, which allows up to 8 dwelling units per acre.
The proposed Low Residential (L) zoning allows up to 6 dwelling units per acre and is an appropriate im plementing zone. The Amendment restores consistency between the Zoning Map and the 359- lot subdivision approved in 2004 and recorded in 2023. The Amendment provides development standard more appropriate to the configuration of the approved Final Maps and support implementation of the General Plan’s housing goals. 2) The Amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Amendment assigns the zoning designation of Low Residential (L), which most closely reflects the development standard under which the subdivision was originally approved in 2004 under the now retired Etiwanda North Specific Plan. No construction or physical modification are proposed under this action, and future developments will be reviewed under a separate application in accordance with current City processes. 3) The Amendment has been processed, including, but not limited to, public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
C. CE
QA . The City finds that the Amendment is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states that where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the activity may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The application is for a Zoning Map Amendment only and does not authorize any physical development.
The proposed zoning change aligns with the existing subdivision of 359 lots approved in 2004 and is consistent with the current General Plan land use designation of Traditional Neighborhood. Therefore, the application will not have any specific impacts on the environment.
3 D. Approval of Zoning Map Amendment DRC2025-00141. Based on the findings set forth in this Ordinance and the totality of the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby approves Zoning Map Amendment DRC2025-00141 as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
E. Z oning Map Amendment . The City Council hereby amends the official Zoning Map reflecting the amendments set forth in Exhibit A.
F. S everability . The City Council declares that, should any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance for any reason is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
G. E
nforcement . Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal of any other Ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof.
H. E
ffective Date . This Ordinance shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption and shall be published or posted as required by law.
I. P ublication . The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause it to be published in the manner required by law.
J. Nothing in this Ordinance is intended to conflict with the City’s approvals of the Final Maps for Tract s 16072,16072-1, 16072- 2, and 16072- 3. Such maps are intended to be consistent with the Amendment adopted under this Ordinance.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025.
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
4 I, Kim Sevy, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 23rd day of September, 2025, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
5
DATE: September 3, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering/City Engineer Alberto Felix, Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Consideration to Receive and File the Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study and to Direct Staff to Pursue Options to Implement the Improvements. (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council:
Receive and file the Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study; and Direct staff to pursue options to implement the improvements through the use of Measure I or other grant opportunities.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Rancho Cucamonga has been working with Brightline West (BLW) and the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) since 2020 to bring high-speed passenger rail from Las Vegas, Nevada to Rancho Cucamonga, California. This first-in-the-nation 218-mile high-speed passenger rail line (over 186 mph) will begin/end in Las Vegas, Nevada, near the west end of the city, parallel to the 15-freeway corridor, with stops in Apple Valley and Hesperia before reaching its other beginning/end at Cucamonga Station in the HART District of Rancho Cucamonga. BLW’s station at Cucamonga Station is expected to be approximately 80,000 square feet with over 5,000 parking spaces for Brightline and Metrolink customers.
The train station will be collocated with the existing Cucamonga Station for Metrolink (Los Angeles to San Bernardino) and with a transfer, BLW passengers will have access to anywhere along the Metrolink line, including to downtown Redlands or Los Angeles, as well as direct access to Ontario International Airport through the SBCTA ONT Connector tunnel, or through the West Valley Connector to Victoria Gardens. BLW’s project is expected to generate more than $10 billion in economic impact across the two states, with over 35,000 construction jobs and 1,000 permanent jobs. The trains are fully electric with overhead catenary lines that use most of the power from emissions free sources and are built by Siemens here in the United States. Those same trains will remove over 400,000 tons of CO2 per year and reduce vehicle miles traveled by over 700,000,000 per year.
The introduction of the BLW high-speed rail station at Cucamonga Station presented the need to assess and evaluate impacts related to anticipated increased traffic volumes on Milliken Avenue between the SR-210 and the I-10 Freeways. The City was also keen to gain understanding and insight into the type and level of improvements that would be needed to accommodate the
2 9
5 1
increased traffic on Milliken Avenue as well as to provide for adequate traffic circulation to, from, and within Cucamonga Station. Therefore, on February 15, 2023, the City Council approved a funding agreement between SBCTA and the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the preparation of the Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study (Study), and on April 17, 2024 the City Council approved a professional services agreement with Fehr & Peers to complete the task. Fehr & Peers has completed the study and has provided findings and strategies for the City to be able to fully understand and plan for the future impact of the BLW station and service operation.
ANALYSIS:
To better understand the potential traffic impacts of the new BLW station on the City’s street network, the Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study includes the analysis of anticipted trip generation and distribution of new trips related to the planned high-speed passenger rail station, evaluation of the Level of Service (a measure of the anticipated travel delay of a street or at an intersection based on traffic volumes, patterns and street configuration) for major and critical minor intersections along Milliken Avenue between the SR-210 and I-10 Freeways, determination of additional capacity needs along Milliken Avenue, and conceptual plans and cost estimates for those capacity improvements based on the results of the traffic analysis. Throughout the completion of the study, SBCTA has been a working partner with the City and was given the opportunity to provide comments before finalizing the report. A copy of the finalized study is provided as Attachment 1.
The analysis prepared by Fehr & Peers, in consultation with City Staff, assumed a lower public transit mode split and a higher self-drive mode when compared to the assumptions in the Environment Impact Study (EIS) prepared by the Federal Transit Administration for the BLW project. The revised mode split better reflects local understanding of travel patterns and thus provides a more realistic trip estimate of how many passengers would arrive at the Cucamonga station using public transit versus the number of passengers that would drive and park at the station compared to the EIS.
The Study found anticipated impacts to eight (8) intersections along Milliken Avenue due to the addition of the BLW high-speed rail station service operation. Of those impacted, six (6) intersections are fully within City of Rancho Cucamonga jurisdiction, one (1) is shared with the City of Ontario, and one (1) is within Caltrans jurisdiction:
Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road
Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard
Milliken Avenue and Arrow Route
Milliken Avenue and Azusa Court
Milliken Avenue and 7 th Street
Milliken Avenue and 6 th Street
Milliken Avenue and 4 th Street (Shared with Ontario)
Milliken Avenue and I-10 Westbound Ramps/Ontario Mills Parkway (Caltrans jurisdiction) The total estimated improvements along Milliken Avenue are approximately $23 million, including intersections outside of Rancho Cucamonga. The study has outlined a phased approach to minimize both budgetary and quality of life impacts to the City and those traveling along the Milliken corridor, respectively. While most of the improvements are related to signal timing and
2 9
5 1
the addition of travel lanes, the study also recommends a new signal be constructed at Milliken Avenue and Azusa Court. Brightline West has already agreed to construct the new traffic signal as part of the construction of the high-speed rail station project. The City will partner with the neighboring agencies and work on a path of implementing the recommended improvements outside of the City’s jurisdiction.
In summary, the study recommends improvements for each of the following intersection in two phases:
Recommended Phase 1 Improvements - $11,901,200
Milliken Avenue / Foothill Boulevard
oSignal timing changes
oSignal modifications
Milliken Avenue / Azusa Court
oInstall a traffic signal (Brightline West to construct) oRight-of-way acquisition and lane additions
Milliken Avenue / 7 th Street
oSignal modifications
oRight-of-way acquisition and lane additions
Milliken Avenue / Arrow Route
oSignal timing changes
oSignal modifications
oRight-of-way acquisition and lane additions
Recommended Phase 2 Improvements - $10,840,800
Milliken Avenue / Base Line Road
oSignal timing changes
Milliken Avenue / 6 th Street
oSignal modifications
oRight-of-way acquisition and lane additions
Milliken Avenue / 4 th Street
oSignal timing changes
oSignal modifications
oRight-of-way acquisition and lane additions
Milliken Avenue / I-10 Westbound Ramps
oSignal timing changes
oAdd turn lane
Attachment 1 provides a more detailed description of improvements for each intersection as well as a cost estimate for each location. Recommended improvements are proposed to be added to the City’s Major Projects Program as part of our Projects in the Rough list (i.e., the list of projects identified as needed in the near future but currently unfunded) and the conceptual plans and cost estimates prepared by Fehr & Peers will be used to pursue grants and other outside funding sources.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact for this action at this time. However, the study has identified $23 million in infrastructure improvements that are anticipated to be needed. At this time (apart from the traffic signal being constructed by Brightline West) these improvements are unfunded. Therefore, the City will need to pursue funding either through allocation of funding from a future update to
2 9
5 1
Measure I (if approved by voters), other grant programs, or a combination of both. As funding sources are identified for some or all of the improvement and becomes available, staff will recommend updates to the Major Projects Program through the annual budgeting process.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
This item addresses the City Councils mission by working to provide a safe, efficient, accessible, and equitable transportation system that serves the mobility needs of all users. Further, this item will ensure that the City intentionally embraces and anticipates the future.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
R
ancho Cucamonga
High Speed Rail
Station Access Study
Prepared for:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
July 2025
OC24-1057
ATTACHMENT 1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 1 Project Characteristics ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Level of Service (LOS) Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Multi-Modal Access Analysis........................................................................................................................................... 2 Next Steps............................................................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Report Organization ............................................................................................................................................................ 7
2. Project Characteristics .............................................................................................................. 8
2.1 Project Scenario Development ........................................................................................................................................ 8
2.2 Project Mode Split ................................................................................................................................................................ 9
2.3 Project Trip Generation ....................................................................................................................................................10
2.4 Project Trip Distribution ...................................................................................................................................................16
2.5 Project Trip Assignment ...................................................................................................................................................16
3. Analysis Methodologies ......................................................................................................... 23
3.1 Analysis Scenarios...............................................................................................................................................................23
3.2 Data Collection ....................................................................................................................................................................23
3.3 Traffic Forecasting ..............................................................................................................................................................24
3.4 LOS Analysis Methodology .............................................................................................................................................25
3.5 Intersection LOS Criteria ..................................................................................................................................................26
3.6 LOS Analysis Assumptions ..............................................................................................................................................26
4. Traffic Operations Assessment .............................................................................................. 29
4.1 Existing Roadway Facilities ..............................................................................................................................................29
4.2 Existing Year (2024) Intersection Operations ...........................................................................................................30
4.3 Opening Year (2027) Intersection Operations ........................................................................................................33
4.4 Future Year (2050) Intersection Operations .............................................................................................................38
4.5 Queueing Analysis ..............................................................................................................................................................44
5. Roadway Improvements ......................................................................................................... 46 Intersection 3: Milliken Avenue and Baseline Road ......................................................................................................46 Intersection 4: Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard .............................................................................................47
Intersection 5: Milliken Avenue and Arrow Route ........................................................................................................48 Intersection 6: Milliken Avenue and Azusa Court .........................................................................................................51 Intersection 7: Milliken Avenue and 7 th Street................................................................................................................54 Intersection 8: Milliken Avenue and 6 th Street................................................................................................................57 Intersection 9: Milliken Avenue and 4 th Street................................................................................................................60 Intersection 10: Milliken Avenue and I-10 WB/Ontario Mills Parkway .................................................................64
6. Bicycle and Pedestrian Access ............................................................................................... 67
6.1 Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................................................................67
6.2 Existing and Planned Pedestrian Facilities ................................................................................................................71
6.3 Recommended Improvements ......................................................................................................................................71
7. Public Transportation Access ................................................................................................. 74
7.1 Existing and Planned Transit Services .........................................................................................................................74
7.2 Recommended Improvements ......................................................................................................................................77
8. Implementation and Next Steps............................................................................................ 79
8.1 Next Steps ..............................................................................................................................................................................79
8.2 Phasing ....................................................................................................................................................................................79 Phase 1: Opening Year Improvements ......................................................................................................................79 Phase 2: Future Year Improvements ..........................................................................................................................80
Appendices
Appendix A: Streetlight Data Trip Distribution Figures
Appendix B: Existing (2024) Turning Movement Counts
Appendix C: Pending and Approved Development Projects
Appendix D: LOS Worksheets
Appendix E: Queue Worksheets
Appendix F: Intersection Improvement Constraint and Cost Estimate Fact Sheets
List of Figures
Figure 1: Project Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 2: Project Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 3: Passenger Car Project Trip Distribution ................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 4: Shuttle Project Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 5: Opening Year (2027) All Vehicles on Site Project Trip Assignment ............................................................ 19 Figure 6: Opening Year (2027) Shuttles Scenario Project Trip Assignment ............................................................... 20 Figure 7: Future Year (2050) All Vehicles on Site Project Trip Assignment ................................................................ 21 Figure 8: Future Year (2050) Shuttles Scenario Project Trip Assignment .................................................................... 22 Figure 9: Rancho Cucamonga Layered Roadway Network ............................................................................................... 28 Figure 10: Existing (2024) Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements ..................................................................... 31 Figure 11: Opening Year (2027) No Project Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements .................................. 34 Figure 12: Opening Year (2027) Plus Project All Vehicles on Site Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements ................................................................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 13: Opening Year (2027) Plus Project Shuttles Scenario Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 14: Future Year (2050) No Project Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements ....................................... 39 Figure 15: Future Year (2050) Plus Project All Vehicles on Site Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 16: Future Year (2050) Plus Project Shuttles Scenario Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements 41 Figure 17: Milliken Avenue and Arrow Route Intersection Improvements Conceptual Design ......................... 50 Figure 18: Milliken Avenue and Azusa Court Intersection Improvements Conceptual Design .......................... 53 Figure 19: Milliken Avenue and 7 th Street Intersection Improvements Conceptual Design ................................ 56 Figure 20: Milliken Avenue and 6 th Street Intersection Improvements Conceptual Design ................................ 59 Figure 21a: Milliken Avenue and 4 th Street Intersection Improvements Conceptual Design ............................. 62 Figure 21b: Milliken Avenue and 4 th Street Intersection Improvements Conceptual Design ............................. 63 Figure 22: Milliken Avenue and I-10 WB/Ontario Mills Parkway Intersection Improvements Conceptual Design ........................................................................................................................................................................... 65 Figure 23: Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................................. 70 Figure 24: Proposed Station Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements .................................................................. 73 Figure 25: Existing and Planned Transit Services .................................................................................................................. 75
List of Tables
Table 1: Rancho Cucamonga Station Existing and Proposed Transit Services ............................................................ 3 Table 2: Opening Year (2027) Project Mode Split ................................................................................................................ 10 Table 3: Future Year (2050) Project Mode Split ..................................................................................................................... 10 Table 4: On-Site Parking Supply Evaluation............................................................................................................................ 11 Table 5: Opening Year (2027) All Vehicles On-Site Scenario Trip Generation Estimates ...................................... 12 Table 6: Opening Year (2027) Shuttles Scenario Trip Generation Estimates ............................................................. 13 Table 7: Future Year (2050) All Vehicles On-Site Scenario Trip Generation Estimates .......................................... 14 Table 8: Future Year (2050) Shuttles Scenario Trip Generation Estimates .................................................................. 15 Table 9: Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Grades ............................................................................................................. 25 Table 10: Existing Year (2024) Intersection Operations ...................................................................................................... 32 Table 11: Opening Year (2027) Intersection Operations.................................................................................................... 37 Table 12: Future Year (2050) Intersection Operations ........................................................................................................ 42 Table 13: Opening Year (2027) and Future Year (2027) Plus Project 95 th Percentile Queuing Results ........... 44 Table 15: Queue Jump Feasibility Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 77 Table 16: Opening Year (2027) Improvements Cost Estimates ....................................................................................... 79 Table 17: Future Year (2050) Improvements Cost Estimates............................................................................................ 80
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
1 Executive Summary
Fehr & Peers prepared this transportation study to analyze the proposed access to and from Rancho Cucamonga Station in Rancho Cucamonga, California. In addition to serving existing Metrolink and Omnitrans transit services, the station will function as the southern terminus of the Brightline West High Speed Rail train service between Southern California and Las Vegas, Nevada.
This study evaluated 11 intersections along Milliken Avenue between SR-210 and I-10 to determine if improvements would be required to maintain intersection operations above the City’s Level of Service (LOS) thresholds. This study also evaluated pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit access to and from the station.
Project Characteristics
Trip generation estimates were prepared that accounted for the various modes of travel passengers would utilize to access the station. Trip generation was also refined to account for the planned parking structure on-site and potential under-supply of on-site parking in the future year.
Two trip generation scenarios were studied: All Vehicles on Site and Shuttles. The All Vehicles on Site scenario assumes that all future parking demand will be accommodated on-site, which would require additional parking capacity and results in higher vehicle activity near the station. The Shuttles scenario assumes no additional on-site parking supply will be constructed in the future year and that up to 62 percent of parking demand will park off-site within five miles of the station area. These passengers would utilize shuttles to travel between off-site parking facilities and the station. The location of off-site parking has not been identified.
In the Opening Year (2027), the Brightline West High-Speed Rail is expected to generate between 431 and 631 peak hour vehicle trips, with project volumes highest in the Weekday PM peak hour. By 2050, this rises to between 715 and 1,483 peak hour vehicle trips, peaking during the Friday PM peak hour.
Level of Service (LOS) Analysis
The study evaluated Opening Year (2027) and Future Year (2050) intersection LOS for three peak hour periods (AM, PM, and Friday PM) and two trip generation scenarios. These LOS results were compared to no project LOS results.
• Under Existing (2024) Conditions, all study intersections operate above their LOS threshold except:
◦ Milliken Avenue and Arrow Route (Weekday AM, Weekday PM) ◦ Milliken Avenue and 4th Street (Weekday PM)
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
2 • Under Opening Year (2027) Plus Project Conditions, three intersections operate below their LOS threshold:
◦ Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard (Weekday PM)
◦ Milliken Avenue and Arrow Route (Weekday AM, Weekday PM) ◦ Milliken Avenue and Fourth Street (Weekday PM)
• Under Future Year (2050) Plus Project Conditions, six intersections operate below their LOS threshold:
◦ Milliken Avenue and Baseline Road (Weekday AM)
◦ Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard (Weekday PM, Friday PM) ◦ Milliken Avenue and Arrow Route (Weekday AM, Weekday PM, Friday PM) ◦ Milliken Avenue and 6th Street (Weekday PM, Friday PM) ◦ Milliken Avenue and 4th Street (Weekday AM, Weekday PM, Friday PM) ◦ Milliken Avenue and I-10 WB/Ontario Mills Parkway (Weekday PM, Friday PM) Improvements to traffic signal timing, traffic signal hardware, and lane geometry are recommended for eight intersections, which are detailed in Chapter 6.
Multi-Modal Access Analysis
Bicycle and pedestrian access to and from the station is currently served by a Class II bike lane and sidewalk along Milliken Avenue. Improvements are recommended to connect to the City’s active transportation network including a Class I shared use path along Milliken Avenue and pedestrian safety improvements.
The station is served by two Omnitrans fixed route bus routes and Metrolink commuter rail. Future transit projects including the West Valley Connector bus rapid transit (BRT) and ONT Connector will provide additional transit service to the station. Improvements to signal operations and on-site transit circulation are recommended to improve transit reliability in the study area.
Next Steps
The City should review the recommended improvements and begin the process to incorporate them into the Capital Improvement Plan. These improvements will require environmental review, engineering design, utility coordination, and right-of-way acquisition prior to construction. Funding sources will also need to be identified.
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
3 1. Introduction
Fehr & Peers completed a transportation study for the Cucamonga Station project (Project) located at the northwest corner of Azusa Court and Milliken Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California (City).
This report summarizes the methodology, findings, and conclusions of the analysis. The analysis comprises of a Level of Service (LOS) assessment, identification of recommended improvements for deficient intersections, and a review of multi-modal access to and from the Project. Fehr & Peers and Mark Thomas also prepared cost estimates and identified barriers to implementation for proposed improvements.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project is located at the northwest corner of Azusa Court and Milliken Avenue, currently occupied by the Metrolink Rancho Cucamonga Station. The Rancho Cucamonga Station will function as a regional transportation hub for the Inland Empire and broader Southern California region and is the proposed southern terminus of the Brightline West high-speed rail line to Las Vegas, Nevada that is expected to begin in 2027. The Rancho Cucamonga Station will also be served by existing and proposed public transportation services including the Metrolink San Bernardino Line, Omnitrans fixed route buses, and the Omnitrans West Valley Connector bus-rapid-transit (BRT) line between Pomona and Victoria Gardens. The station will also be the northern terminus of the proposed ONT Connector personal-rapid- transit project between the Rancho Cucamonga Station and Ontario International Airport. Existing and proposed transit services are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Rancho Cucamonga Station Existing and Proposed Transit Services Transit Service Existing Frequency Proposed Frequency Project Status Metrolink San Bernardino
Line Every 30-60 minutes Every 30 minutes Operation
Omnitrans Fixed Route
Buses
Route 82: Every 60 minutes
Route 380: Every 35-60
minutes
Route 82: Every 60 minutes
Route 380: Every 35-60
minutes
Operation
Omnitrans West Valley
Connector BRT N/A Peak: Every 10 minutes
Off-Peak: Every 15 minutes Under Construction
Brightline West High-Speed
Rail N/A Every 45-60 minutes Design/
Pre-Construction1
ONT Connector Personal
Rapid Transit N/A “On-demand” personal
shuttles Environmental Review
Note: 1Brightline West is currently under construction in Las Vegas. Pre-construction activities underway in California.
Source: Metrolink, Omnitrans, Brightline West, 2024.
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
4 As part of the Brightline West project, proposed station improvements include a new 3,450 space parking structure for Brightline West passengers, a designated kiss-and-ride/taxi/rideshare pick-up and drop-off area, a new station building for ticketing and passenger waiting, and other buildings associated with train operations. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 1.
Access to the station is provided from Azusa Court, which connects with Milliken Avenue. Secondary access is provided by 7th Street and Anaheim Place. Regional traffic to and from the site utilizes Milliken Avenue to connect with Interstate 10, Interstate 15, and State Route 210.
1.2 Study Area
As shown in Figure 2, the study area focuses on the Milliken Avenue corridor, an arterial roadway that provides connections to regional highways and prominent destinations within the cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario. Study intersections were selected based on project trip generation and trip distribution estimates. Intersection operations were analyzed at 11 major intersections along Milliken Avenue:
1. Milliken Avenue and SR-210 WB Ramps
2. Milliken Avenue and SR-210 EB Ramps
3. Milliken Avenue and Baseline Road
4. Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard
5. Milliken Avenue and Arrow Route
6. Milliken Avenue and Azusa Court
7. Milliken Avenue and 7th Street
8. Milliken Avenue and 6th Street
9. Milliken Avenue and 4th Street
10. Milliken Avenue and I-10 WB Ramps
11. Milliken Avenue and I-10 EB Ramps
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
5 Figure 1: Project Site Plan
Miliken Ave
Miliken Ave
Base Line Rd
Foothill Blvd
Arrow Route
Azusa Ct
7th St
6th St
4th St
10 15
210
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 Figure 2
Project Site and Study Intersections
Project Site
Study Intersections#
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
7 1.3 Report Organization
The report is divided into the remaining chapters as described below:
Chapter 2 – Project Characteristics presents relevant Project information such as the analysis scenarios, project trip generation, mode share, distribution, and assignment.
Chapter 3 – Analysis Methodology describes the data collection processes, methods, assumptions, and criteria used to prepare future year traffic forecasts and analyze level of service (LOS).
Chapter 4 – Traffic Operations Assessment describes existing and planned roadway facilities and the LOS results for the Existing (2024), Opening Year (2027), and Future Year (2050) analysis scenarios.
Chapter 5 – Roadway Improvements details recommended improvements to facilitate side access and at intersections that are forecasted to operate below the LOS threshold.
Chapter 6 – Bike and Pedestrian Access analyzes existing and planned bike and pedestrian facilities in the study area and provides recommendations for active transportation access to and from the station.
Chapter 7 – Transit Access reviews existing and planned transit services in the study area and identifies recommendations for enhancing transit access to and from the station.
Chapter 8 – Implementation and Next Steps presents construction constraints and planning level cost estimates for the recommended improvements identified in Chapters 5-7.
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
8 2. Project Characteristics
This chapter provides an overview of the proposed Project components and addresses the proposed Project’s trip generation, distribution, and assignment characteristics, allowing for an evaluation of the Project’s effect on the surrounding roadway network. The amount of traffic associated with the Project was estimated using a five-step process:
1. Project Scenario Development – Understanding project operations and identifying peak travel times for trips to and from the Project site.
2. Project Mode Split – Reviewing what travel modes riders will use to access the station.
3. Trip Generation – Estimating the amount of vehicle traffic entering/exiting the project site.
4. Trip Distribution – Determining the direction of trips approaching and departing the site.
5. Trip Assignment – Trips were then assigned to specific roadway segments and intersection turning movements.
2.1 Project Scenario Development
Fehr & Peers referenced the proposed Brightline West operating schedule and Streetlight origin- destination data to analyze travel patterns between Southern California, the High Desert, and Las Vegas (see Appendix A). This data helped identify the peak travel times which would have the highest potential for generating street traffic. Through this analysis and coordination with City staff, Fehr & Peers determined that the most critical periods for evaluating trip generation and distribution are:
Typical Weekday AM Peak (reflecting typical weekday morning peak hours) Typical Weekday PM Peak (typical weekday evening peak hours) Friday PM Peak (reflecting the higher demand of Las Vegas-bound passengers on Friday evenings)
Sunday PM Peak (reflecting the higher demand of Rancho Cucamonga-bound passengers on Sunday evenings)
These peak periods are anticipated to capture the largest share of travelers and coincide with the periods where overall traffic volumes are highest. This approach enabled the development of traffic scenarios focused on the most significant times for station use, ensuring infrastructure would be appropriately sized to accommodate overall peak demand. While demand is expected to vary over the course of the year and peak during major holidays, these scenarios were excluded to avoid oversizing roadways for peak weekends.
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
9 2.2 Project Mode Split
Mode split refers to the way people travel to and from a project, including by personal car, pick-up/drop- off, and public transit. Fehr & Peers reviewed mode split assumptions in the Brightline West Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and existing mode split data for trips within Rancho Cucamonga to develop a project mode split. Consistent with the EIS, it is assumed that 23 percent of all Brightline passengers will transfer to or from Metrolink regional trains to complete their trips. Mode split was analyzed for the remaining trips that would begin or end at the Rancho Cucamonga station.
The study establishes separate mode splits for high-speed rail passengers (those traveling to and from Las Vegas), commuters (those traveling to and from the High Desert), and Brightline employees. Following consultations with City staff, Fehr & Peers determined a lower public transit mode split and a higher self- drive and park mode split would be more appropriate compared to the assumptions in the EIS. Transit mode shares of four percent and eight percent for high-speed rail passengers and commuters, respectively, were assumed in the opening year. These were developed by considering:
Existing Rancho Cucamonga transit mode share (two percent), San Bernardino County commute transit mode share (one percent), and statewide commute transit mode share (five percent) Limited existing transit service in the area
Different propensities for transit between commuters (who would be using transit for a first/last mile connection) and high-speed rail riders (who would be traveling long distances with luggage) Between opening and future years, the transit mode split is forecasted to increase due to increased transit service in the area including the West Valley Connector bus rapid transit (BRT) and BRT along Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue.
Tables 2 and 3 list the proposed mode split and average vehicle occupancy (AVO) for project trips in the opening and future year, respectively. Note that the share of commuters self-driving and parking is also expected to increase as the number of commuters traveling to the High Desert for employment is expected to increase.
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
10 Table 2: Opening Year (2027) Project Mode Split
HSR Riders Commuters Employees
Mode Share AVO Mode Share AVO Mode Share AVO
Self-Drive and
Park 77% 1.85 15% 1.18 100% 1.18
Pick Up/Drop
Off 4% 1.85 21% 1 0% N/A
Taxi/TNC 15% 1.85 55% 1 0% N/A
Public Bus/
Charter Bus 4% 20 8% 20 0% N/A
Walk/Bike <1% 1 1% 1 0% N/A
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
Twenty three percent of all project trips were assumed to be Metrolink transfer to HSR service. The mode split presented in this table are the remaining HSR project trips.
Table 3: Future Year (2050) Project Mode Split
HSR Riders Commuters Employees
Mode Share AVO Mode Share AVO Mode Share AVO
Self-Drive and
Park 71% 1.85 30% 1.18 100% 1.18
Pick Up/Drop
Off 4% 1.85 15% 1 0% N/A
Taxi/TNC 15% 1.85 44% 1 0% N/A
Public Bus/
Charter Bus 10% 20 10% 20 0% N/A
Walk/Bike <1% 1 1% 1 0% N/A
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
Twenty three percent of all project trips were assumed to be Metrolink transfer to HSR service. The mode split presented in this table are the remaining HSR project trips.
2.3 Project Trip Generation
Trip generation refers to the process of estimating the amount of vehicular traffic a project would add to the surrounding roadway system. Estimates for the Project scenarios were created for the four peak hour conditions identified in Section 2.1.
Trip generation was estimated using ridership estimates provided in the Brightline West EIS and accounted for the adjusted project mode split and AVO described previously. Parking supply was also evaluated to determine the number of self-drive and park vehicle trips that can be accommodated on- site. As shown in Table 4, 14 percent of parking demand is not accommodated on-site in the opening year; this rises to 62 percent in the future year. Consistent with the Brightline West EIS, these vehicles are
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
11 anticipated to park at off-site parking facilities within five miles of the project site and use shuttles to access the station.
Table 4: On-Site Parking Supply Evaluation
Opening Year (2027) Future Year (2050)
Parking Supply (# of spaces) 3,450 3,450
Peak Parking Demand (# of spaces) 3,995 8,970
HSR Riders (# of spaces) 3,814 8,503
Commuters (# of spaces) 81 367
Employees (# of spaces) 100 100
Difference (Demand – Supply) 545 5,520
Percent of Parking Demand Not Accommodated On-Site 14% 62% Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
Based on this finding, Fehr & Peers developed two trip generation scenarios for each peak period:
• All Parking On-Site Scenario – Assumes all parking demand will be accommodated on site. This represents a “highest traffic volume” scenario and would require construction of additional on- site parking supply, which has not currently been identified in the proposed station area plan. • Shuttles Scenario – Assumes on-site parking facilities are fully occupied during peak periods (most weekends). Trips that cannot be accommodated by on-site parking demand are supported by shuttle service to off-site parking locations (specific locations have not been identified but are assumed to be primarily south of the station).
Trip generation estimates are presented in Tables 5-6 for Opening Year (2027) conditions and Tables 7-8 for Future Year (2050) conditions. Sunday evening trip generation estimates were developed; however, given the lower adjacent street traffic volumes compared to weekdays, further LOS analysis was not completed.
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
12 Table 5: Opening Year (2027) All Vehicles On-Site Scenario Trip Generation Estimates
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Friday PM Peak Hour Sunday PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
HSR Riders
Self-Drive/
Park 75 50 124 90 135 225 214 54 268 54 214 268
Pick Up/
Drop Off 6 6 12 12 12 24 14 14 28 14 14 28
Taxi/TNC 24 24 48 44 44 88 52 52 104 52 52 104
Public Bus 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2
Commuters
Self-Drive/
Park 11 7 18 4 16 20 3 11 14 1 3 4
Pick Up/
Drop Off 30 30 59 34 34 68 24 24 48 7 7 14
Taxi/TNC 78 78 155 89 89 177 62 62 123 19 19 38
Public Bus 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Employees Self-Drive/
Park 8 18 25 15 10 25 15 10 25 15 10 25
TOTAL 232 214 447 290 342 631 386 228 613 163 321 484
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
13 Table 6: Opening Year (2027) Shuttles Scenario Trip Generation Estimates
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Friday PM Peak Hour Sunday PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
HSR Riders
Self-Drive/
Park 64 43 107 78 116 194 185 46 231 46 185 231
Pick Up/
Drop Off 6 6 12 12 12 24 14 14 28 14 14 28
Taxi/TNC 24 24 48 44 44 88 52 52 104 52 52 104
Public Bus 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2
Commuters
Self-Drive/
Park 9 6 15 4 14 18 2 10 12 1 3 4
Pick Up/
Drop Off 30 30 59 34 34 68 24 24 48 7 7 14
Taxi/TNC 78 78 155 89 89 177 62 62 123 19 19 38
Public Bus 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Employees Self-Drive/
Park 8 18 25 15 10 25 15 10 25 15 10 25
Shuttles 2 2 4 3 3 6 4 4 8 3 3 6
TOTAL 223 208 431 280 324 603 360 223 583 159 295 453
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
14 Table 7: Future Year (2050) All Vehicles On-Site Scenario Trip Generation Estimates
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Friday PM Peak Hour Sunday PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
HSR Riders
Self-Drive/
Park 128 85 213 154 231 384 512 128 641 131 525 656
Pick Up/
Drop Off 12 12 24 22 22 44 36 36 72 37 37 74
Taxi/TNC 45 45 90 81 81 162 135 135 270 139 139 278
Public Bus 2 2 4 3 3 6 5 5 10 4 4 8
Commuters
Self-Drive/
Park 51 34 85 16 66 82 16 62 78 3 10 13
Pick Up/
Drop Off 50 50 100 48 48 96 46 46 92 8 8 16
Taxi/TNC 148 148 296 142 142 284 134 134 268 23 23 46
Public Bus 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0
Employees Self-Drive/
Park 15 36 51 31 20 51 28 23 51 25 25 51
TOTAL 451 413 864 497 613 1,112 913 570 1,483 370 771 1,142
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
15 Table 8: Future Year (2050) Shuttles Scenario Trip Generation Estimates
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Friday PM Peak Hour Sunday PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
HSR Riders
Self-Drive/
Park 49 33 82 59 89 148 197 49 246 50 202 252
Pick Up/
Drop Off 12 12 24 22 22 44 36 36 72 37 37 74
Taxi/TNC 45 45 90 81 81 162 135 135 270 139 139 278
Public Bus 2 2 4 3 3 6 5 5 10 4 4 8
Commuters
Self-Drive/
Park 20 13 33 6 25 32 6 24 30 2 9 11
Pick Up/
Drop Off 50 50 100 48 48 96 46 46 92 8 8 16
Taxi/TNC 148 148 296 142 142 284 134 134 268 23 23 46
Public Bus 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0
Employees Self-Drive/
Park 15 36 51 31 20 51 28 23 51 25 25 51
Shuttles 17 17 34 37 37 54 41 41 82 38 38 76
TOTAL 358 356 715 420 458 879 629 494 1,123 327 485 812
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
16 2.4 Project Trip Distribution
Project trip distribution refers to the directions of approach and departure that vehicles would use to travel to and from the Project site. Local knowledge of the study area, Streetlight travel pattern data and statistics, and the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM+) were used to develop a Project trip distribution. Separate trip distributions were prepared for passenger cars and shuttles.
Approximately 80 percent of passenger car trips are anticipated to be regional and utilize the following freeway interchanges:
• I-10 and Milliken Avenue
• I-15 and Fourth Street
• I-15 and Foothill Boulevard
• SR-210 and Milliken Avenue
Figure 3 presents the proposed project trip distribution of passenger cars and Figure 4 presents the project trip distribution of shuttles.
2.5 Project Trip Assignment
Based on the trip generation and trip distribution estimates developed and described above, Project trips were assigned to the study area roadway network. Opening Year (2027) and Future Year (2050) Project trip assignments for the four study scenarios are provided in Figures 5 through 8.
Passenger Car and Pick-Up/Drop-Off
T
rip Distribution
Figure 3
Baseline Rd
Foothill Blvd
Arrow Route
6th St
4th St
7th St
Milliken Ave Day Creek Blvd
Haven Ave
1%
10%
1%
2%
15%
13%
2%
1%
2%
15%20%
1%
2%
2%
10%
2%
1%
!"15
!"10
!"10
!"15
·210 ·210
X%
Station Area
Trip Distribution
Shuttle/Public Transportation
T
rip Distribution
Figure 4
Baseline Rd
Foothill Blvd
Arrow Route
6th St
4th St
7th St
Milliken Ave Day Creek Blvd
Haven Ave
!"15
!"10
!"10
!"15
·210 ·210
0%
5%
0%
5%
15%
10%
0%
0%
5%
15%15%
0%
10%
5%
10%
5%
0%
X%
Station Area
Trip Distribution
Figure 5
Project Trip Assignment
Opening Year (2027) Plus Project All Vehicles On Site AM/PM/Friday PM 29 (45)[31]
2 (4)[3]
0 (0)[0]
2 (3)[4]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
24 (30)[39]
1. Milliken Ave/SR-210 WB
31 (49)[34]
23 (35)[24]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
31 (38)[51]
26 (33)[43]
0 (0)[0]
2. Milliken Ave/SR-210 EB
2 (4)[3]
54 (84)[58]
2 (4)[3]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
2 (3)[4]
0 (0)[0]
57 (71)[94]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
2 (3)[4]
3. Milliken Ave/Base Line Rd
6 (8)[6]
58 (92)[64]
22 (33)[23]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
6 (7)[9]
0 (0)[0]
61 (77)[102]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
23 (28)[37]
4. Milliken Ave/Foothill Blvd
0 (0)[0]
86 (133)[93]
7 (10)[7]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
90 (112)[148]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
7 (9)[11]
5. Milliken Ave/Arrow Route
164 (134)[167]
0 (0)[0]
93 (143)[100]
89 (182)[141]
97 (121)[159]
0 (0)[0]
6. Milliken Ave/Azusa Ct
44 (54)[78]
164 (134)[167]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
46 (76)[49]
0 (0)[0]
89 (182)[141]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
7. Milliken Ave/7th St
0 (0)[0]
203 (181)[236]
0 (0)[0]
3 (4)[5]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
3 (4)[3]
130 (249)[184]
2 (4)[3]
2 (3)[4]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
8. Milliken Ave/6th St
210 WB On-Ramp 210 WB Off-Ramp
Milliken Ave
Base Line Rd
Milliken Ave
Foothill Blvd
Milliken Ave
Arrow Route
Milliken Ave
Azusa Ct
Milliken Ave
7th St
Milliken Ave
6th St
Milliken Ave
0 (0)[0]
94 (114)[151]
0 (0)[0]
70 (19)[21]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
15 (65)[63]
79 (127)[82]
36 (57)[39]
39 (48)[64]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
9. Milliken Ave/4th St
4th St
Milliken Ave
0 (0)[0]
57 (69)[91]
0 (0)[0]
37 (45)[60]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
34 (53)[36]
45 (74)[46]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
10. Milliken Ave/I-10 WB/Ontario Mills
I-10 WB Ramps Ontario Mills Parkway
Milliken Ave
0 (0)[0]
8 (9)[11]
49 (60)[80]
0 (0)[0]
40 (67)[41]
5 (7)[5]
11. Milliken Ave/I-10 EB Ramps
I-10 EB Ramps
Milliken Ave
210 EB Off-Ramp 210 EB On-Ramp
Milliken Ave
aaccc
cce
adf
cce
adf
aaccc
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aaccccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
accf
aacccf
accf
accc
af
cccf
acce
ae
acce
ae
aacccf
aaccf
aacccf
aaccf
aaccccf
aacccf
aaccce
aacccf
aaccccf
aacf
aaccccf
aaccf
aacccc
aaf
ccccf
LEGEND
# Study Intersection (Existing)
AM Peak Hour Traffic VolumeXX
PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume(XX)
Lane Configuration
acf
Friday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume[XX]Project Site
Figure 6
Project Trip Assignment
Opening Year (2027) Plus Project Shuttle Scenario AM/PM/Friday PM 28 (43)[30]
2 (3)[3]
0 (0)[0]
2 (3)[4]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
23 (29)[37]
1. Milliken Ave/SR-210 WB
30 (46)[33]
22 (33)[24]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
30 (37)[47]
25 (32)[41]
0 (0)[0]
2. Milliken Ave/SR-210 EB
2 (3)[3]
52 (79)[57]
2 (3)[3]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
2 (3)[4]
0 (0)[0]
55 (69)[88]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
2 (3)[4]
3. Milliken Ave/Base Line Rd
5 (8)[5]
56 (85)[63]
21 (31)[22]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
6 (7)[8]
0 (0)[0]
59 (75)[96]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
22 (28)[34]
4. Milliken Ave/Foothill Blvd
0 (0)[0]
82 (124)[90]
6 (10)[7]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
87 (110)[138]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
7 (8)[11]
5. Milliken Ave/Arrow Route
160 (130)[157]
0 (0)[0]
88 (134)[97]
89 (177)[140]
94 (118)[149]
0 (0)[0]
6. Milliken Ave/Azusa Ct
41 (52)[71]
160 (130)[157]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
47 (72)[49]
0 (0)[0]
89 (177)[140]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
7. Milliken Ave/7th St
0 (0)[0]
196 (175)[220]
0 (0)[0]
3 (4)[4]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
2 (4)[2]
131 (242)[184]
2 (3)[3]
2 (3)[4]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
8. Milliken Ave/6th St
SR-210 WB
Milliken Ave
Base Line Rd
Milliken Ave
Foothill Blvd
Milliken Ave
Arrow Route
Milliken Ave
Azusa Ct
Milliken Ave
7th St
Milliken Ave
6th St
Milliken Ave
0 (0)[0]
89 (110)[140]
0 (0)[0]
70 (19)[20]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
14 (65)[62]
82 (124)[83]
35 (53)[39]
37 (46)[60]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
9. Milliken Ave/4th St
4th St
Milliken Ave
0 (0)[0]
54 (67)[84]
0 (0)[0]
35 (43)[56]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
33 (50)[36]
49 (74)[47]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
10. Milliken Ave/I-10 WB/Ontario Mills
I-10 WB Ontario Mills
Milliken Ave
0 (0)[0]
8 (9)[10]
46 (58)[74]
0 (0)[0]
45 (67)[43]
4 (7)[4]
11. Milliken Ave/I-10 EB Ramps
I-10 EB Ramps
Milliken Ave
SR-210 EB
Milliken Ave
aaccc
cce
adf
cce
adf
aaccc
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aaccccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
accf
aacccf
accf
accc
af
cccf
acce
ae
acce
ae
aacccf
aaccf
aacccf
aaccf
aaccccf
aacccf
aaccce
aacccf
aaccccf
aacf
aaccccf
aaccf
aacccc
aaf
ccccf
LEGEND
# Study Intersection (Existing)
AM Peak Hour Traffic VolumeXX
PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume(XX)
Lane Configuration
acf
Friday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume[XX]Project Site
Figure 7
Project Trip Assignment
Future Year (2050) Plus Project All Vehicles On Site AM/PM/Friday PM 55 (81)[75]
5 (6)[6]
0 (0)[0]
5 (5)[10]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
46 (51)[93]
1. Milliken Ave/SR-210 WB
60 (87)[81]
43 (63)[58]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
60 (66)[119]
51 (56)[103]
0 (0)[0]
2. Milliken Ave/SR-210 EB
5 (6)[6]
103 (150)[139]
5 (6)[6]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
5 (5)[10]
0 (0)[0]
111 (122)[222]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
5 (5)[10]
3. Milliken Ave/Base Line Rd
9 (13)[12]
113 (162)[151]
39 (57)[53]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
10 (11)[19]
0 (0)[0]
121 (132)[242]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
43 (47)[84]
4. Milliken Ave/Foothill Blvd
0 (0)[0]
161 (232)[216]
13 (19)[17]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
174 (190)[345]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
14 (15)[28]
5. Milliken Ave/Arrow Route
248 (213)[362]
0 (0)[0]
174 (251)[233]
158 (278)[263]
187 (205)[373]
0 (0)[0]
6. Milliken Ave/Azusa Ct
86 (94)[183]
248 (213)[362]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
91 (138)[128]
0 (0)[0]
158 (278)[263]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
7. Milliken Ave/7th St
0 (0)[0]
324 (296)[524]
0 (0)[0]
5 (6)[11]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
5 (7)[7]
239 (402)[378]
5 (6)[6]
5 (5)[10]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
8. Milliken Ave/6th St
SR-210 WB
Milliken Ave
Base Line Rd
Milliken Ave
Foothill Blvd
Milliken Ave
Arrow Route
Milliken Ave
Azusa Ct
Milliken Ave
7th St
Milliken Ave
6th St
Milliken Ave
0 (0)[0]
175 (191)[344]
0 (0)[0]
74 (23)[31]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
18 (70)[69]
152 (231)[215]
69 (101)[94]
75 (82)[149]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
9. Milliken Ave/4th St
4th St
Milliken Ave
0 (0)[0]
105 (114)[205]
0 (0)[0]
70 (77)[139]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
64 (95)[88]
88 (136)[127]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
10. Milliken Ave/I-10 WB/Ontario Mills
I-10 WB Ontario Mills
Milliken Ave
0 (0)[0]
12 (13)[21]
93 (101)[184]
0 (0)[0]
80 (124)[116]
8 (12)[11]
11. Milliken Ave/I-10 EB Ramps
I-10 EB Ramps
Milliken Ave
SR-210 EB
Milliken Ave
aaccc
cce
adf
cce
adf
aaccc
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aaccccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
accf
aacccf
accf
accc
af
cccf
acce
ae
acce
ae
aacccf
aaccf
aacccf
aaccf
aaccccf
aacccf
aaccce
aacccf
aaccccf
aacf
aaccccf
aaccf
aacccc
aaf
ccccf
LEGEND
# Study Intersection (Existing)
AM Peak Hour Traffic VolumeXX
PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume(XX)
Lane Configuration
acf
Friday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume[XX]Project Site
Figure 8
Project Trip Assignment
Future Year (2050) Plus Project Shuttles Scenarioo AM/PM/Friday PM 48 (60)[65]
4 (4)[5]
0 (0)[0]
4 (4)[6]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
37 (43)[64]
1. Milliken Ave/SR-210 WB
52 (64)[70]
37 (46)[51]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
48 (55)[83]
41 (47)[70]
0 (0)[0]
2. Milliken Ave/SR-210 EB
4 (4)[5]
89 (110)[121]
4 (4)[5]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
4 (4)[6]
0 (0)[0]
89 (102)[153]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
4 (4)[6]
3. Milliken Ave/Base Line Rd
9 (10)[11]
97 (118)[131]
35 (43)[47]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
9 (9)[14]
0 (0)[0]
97 (110)[165]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
35 (39)[59]
4. Milliken Ave/Foothill Blvd
0 (0)[0]
141 (171)[189]
11 (14)[15]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
141 (158)[238]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
11 (13)[19]
5. Milliken Ave/Arrow Route
218 (187)[266]
0 (0)[0]
152 (184)[204]
137 (226)[235]
152 (171)[257]
0 (0)[0]
6. Milliken Ave/Azusa Ct
65 (74)[118]
218 (187)[266]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
77 (104)[110]
0 (0)[0]
137 (226)[235]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
7. Milliken Ave/7th St
0 (0)[0]
274 (252)[370]
0 (0)[0]
5 (5)[8]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
5 (5)[6]
205 (321)[334]
4 (4)[5]
4 (4)[6]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
8. Milliken Ave/6th St
SR-210 WB
Milliken Ave
Base Line Rd
Milliken Ave
Foothill Blvd
Milliken Ave
Arrow Route
Milliken Ave
Azusa Ct
Milliken Ave
7th St
Milliken Ave
6th St
Milliken Ave
0 (0)[0]
141 (162)[241]
0 (0)[0]
73 (21)[26]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
18 (67)[68]
128 (179)[185]
59 (75)[81]
60 (69)[103]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
9. Milliken Ave/4th St
4th St
Milliken Ave
0 (0)[0]
85 (97)[144]
0 (0)[0]
56 (65)[97]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
55 (71)[76]
73 (108)[109]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
0 (0)[0]
10. Milliken Ave/I-10 WB/Ontario Mills
I-10 WB Ontario Mills
Milliken Ave
0 (0)[0]
11 (11)[16]
74 (86)[128]
0 (0)[0]
65 (99)[99]
8 (9)[10]
11. Milliken Ave/I-10 EB Ramps
I-10 EB Ramps
Milliken Ave
SR-210 EB
Milliken Ave
aaccc
cce
adf
cce
adf
aaccc
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aaccccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
accf
aacccf
accf
accc
af
cccf
acce
ae
acce
ae
aacccf
aaccf
aacccf
aaccf
aaccccf
aacccf
aaccce
aacccf
aaccccf
aacf
aaccccf
aaccf
aacccc
aaf
ccccf
LEGEND
# Study Intersection (Existing)
AM Peak Hour Traffic VolumeXX
PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume(XX)
Lane Configuration
acf
Friday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume[XX]Project Site
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
23 3. Analysis Methodologies
The following is a discussion of the approach and analysis methodologies associated with traffic forecasting and LOS analysis.
3.1 Analysis Scenarios
Fehr & Peers studied peak hour intersection LOS at the previously identified study intersections for the following seven scenarios:
• Existing (2024) Conditions: Existing traffic volumes and lane geometries were used to evaluate existing conditions.
• Opening Year (2027) No Project Conditions: Consists of traffic volumes during the opening year of the Project without volumes generated by the proposed Project. The opening year volumes were developed through interpolation of the cumulative forecasts and include traffic volumes of all approved and related projects within two miles of the project. • Opening Year (2027) With Project Conditions – All Vehicles on Site: Traffic generated by the Project was added to Opening Year conditions with everyone parking on site. • Opening Year (2027) With Project Conditions – Shuttles: Traffic generated by the Project was added to Opening Year conditions with on-site parking and off-site parking shuttle trips. • Future Year (2050) No Project Conditions: Consists of cumulative forecasts developed for the study area using the travel demand model (SBTAM+) and includes cumulative projects and funded infrastructure improvements in the study area.
• Future Year (2050) With Project Conditions – All Vehicles on Site: Traffic generated by the Project was added to Future Year conditions with everyone parking on site. • Future Year (2050) With Project Conditions – Shuttles: Traffic generated by the Project was added to Future Year conditions with on-site parking and off-site parking shuttle trips.
Peak hour analysis was focused on the three weekday periods (Weekday AM, Weekday PM, Friday PM) as these are anticipated to be the periods when adjacent street traffic volumes are highest.
3.2 Data Collection
Traffic counts were collected in May 2024 during a typical weekday morning peak period (7:00-9:00 AM), typical weekday evening peak period (4:00-6:00 PM), and Friday evening peak period (4:00-6:00 PM) at the 11 existing study intersections listed in Chapter 1. Counts were collected during fair weather, while school was in session. The turning movement counts are provided in Appendix B.
Existing conditions were also documented in the field to understand potential right-of-way and design constraints.
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
24 3.3 Traffic Forecasting
The latest version of the San Bernardino County Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM+) was used to develop Future Year (2050) forecasts. SBTAM+ is based off the SCAG regional travel demand model (which utilizes the 2024 SCAG RTP/SCS and forecasts traffic volumes on roadway segments for the entire six-county SCAG region). The SCAG model was refined to provide additional detail for San Bernardino County and was calibrated for use in San Bernardino County by ensuring that the model can replicate existing traffic volumes on County roadways after refinement. SBTAM+ is validated to 2019 with a planning horizon year of 2050 and is considered the most appropriate tool for testing changes in land use and roadway network in San Bernardino County.
The future year SBTAM+ is consistent with the 2024 SCAG Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and Plan RC. Outside of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, this model assumes datasets consistent with the 2024 SCAG RTP/SCS with a base year of 2019 and a future year of 2050, each with land use and roadway network assumptions for the given year.
Fehr & Peers reviewed planned transportation improvements assumed in the model. Following consultation with City staff, Fehr & Peers removed the following projects from the model as they are not guaranteed to be constructed by the future year:
• RTP ID: 2000152 I-15 Arrow Route Interchange
• RTP ID: 4160049 Ontario International Airport (ONT) Loop – Direct Transit Connection between Ranch Cucamonga Metrolink Station and ONT
3.3.1 Turning Movement Forecasts
The Base and Future Year models can produce intersection volume forecasts. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 765 prescribes a variety of methods to develop turning movement forecasts from travel demand model outputs. In this study, the absolute difference between the Base and Future Year model outputs were used in conjunction with Existing (2024) traffic volumes to develop Future Year (2050) forecasts. This method, known as the difference method, is a state of the practice approach consistent with NCHRP Report 765. To provide a conservative analysis, negative growth was zeroed out to ensure that traffic volumes remained the same or increased based on expected growth.
Opening Year (2027) forecasts were developed by linearly interpolating between Existing (2024) traffic volumes and Future Year (2050) forecasts and include all pending and approved projects within a two- mile radius of the Project site.
The list of pending and approved projects is provided in Appendix C, and all approved development projects were assumed to be in operation by 2027. ITE Trip Generation, 11th Edition rates were applied to each project that was anticipated to affect peak hour intersection operations at the study intersections.
The approved development trips were assigned to the study area based on professional judgment and knowledge of the land uses and their typical peak hour travel patterns.
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
25 3.4 LOS Analysis Methodology
Intersection operating conditions in the study area were evaluated using the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 7th Edition methodology, which is considered the state-of- the-practice methodology for evaluating intersection operations and is consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the County of San Bernardino requirements. 1 Fehr & Peers used the Synchro 12 software package to facilitate the HCM calculations.
The HCM 7th Edition methodology for signalized intersections estimates the average control delay for vehicles at the intersection. After the quantitative delay estimates are complete, the methodology assigns a qualitative letter grade that represents the operations of the intersection. These grades range from LOS A (minimal delay) to LOS F (excessive congestion). LOS E represents at-capacity operations. Descriptions of the LOS letter grades for signalized and unsignalized intersections are provided in Table 9.
Table 9: Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Grades
Level
of
Service
Description
Signalized
Delay
(Seconds)
Unsignalized
Delay
(Seconds)
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length < 10.0 < 10.0
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths
> 10.0 to
20.0 > 10.0 to 15.0
C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear > 20.0 to
35.0 > 15.0 to 25.0
D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable
> 35.0 to
55.0 > 25.0 to 35.0
E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences
> 55.0 to
80.0 > 35.0 to 50.0
F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths > 80.0 > 50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2022).
The intersection operations analysis excluded traffic spillover onto Milliken Avenue from on-site queueing at the Brightline Station. A separate station access assessment memorandum was prepared to evaluate on-site circulation and queueing.
1 Synchro 12 prepares delay estimates and reports referencing the HCM 6 th Edition Methodology, which are consistent with HCM 7th Edition Methodology for isolated intersection analysis used in this study.
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
26 3.5 Intersection LOS Criteria
Based on the City’s TIA Guidelines, the following performance criteria were used to determine deficiencies at study facilities:
• City of Rancho Cucamonga – The City’s General Plan (Plan RC) Policy MA-2.8 provides the following guidance related to LOS: Maintain LOS D for priority modes on each street; LOS E or F may be acceptable at intersections or segments for modes that are not prioritized. Figure 9 shows the City’s layered network complete street system and pinpoints the priority modes of travel for specific roadway classifications. Milliken Avenue is classified as an Arterial Roadway, prioritizing automobiles and allowing bikes, pedestrians, and transit. For purposes of this study, LOS D was utilized to identify acceptable operations for automobiles. • City of Ontario – The Ontario Plan (The City’s General Plan) Policy M1.5 establishes an LOS E or better threshold at all intersections in the City during peak hours. The City also maintains a list of “enhanced intersections” where LOS thresholds can be exceeded if improvements are constrained.
The intersection of Milliken Avenue and I-10 WB/Ontario Mills Parkway is considered an “enhanced intersection.” For the purposes of this study, LOS E was utilized to identify acceptable operations.
• Caltrans – Caltrans no longer defines acceptable LOS standards with their latest adoption of the Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide (TISG), May 2020. This study assumed Caltrans controlled intersections were deficient if they met the City of Rancho Cucamonga or City of Ontario Project deficiency criteria.
Improvements were identified under opening and future year so that intersection operations conform with the Cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario LOS standards, respecitvely.
3.6 LOS Analysis Assumptions
The following parameters are consistent with the City’s TIA Guidelines and were utilized in the LOS analysis:
• Heavy Vehicle Percentages were based on traffic counts collected in the field in May 2024 for all intersections and scenarios.
• Existing signal timings were used in all Existing (2024) and Opening Year (2027) analysis scenarios.
Existing signal timing was provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Caltrans. • Uncoordinated signal’s timings were optimized for future scenarios. If a signal is part of a coordinated system, the existing coordinated cycle length is maintained for future scenarios unless changing the cycle length was part of a recommended improvement. • Existing Peak Hour Factors (PHFs) were used in all Existing (2024) and Opening Year (2027) analysis scenarios. A PHF of 0.95 was used in all Future Year (2050) scenarios, unless the existing PHF was greater than 0.95.
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
27 • Saturation flow rates were set to the flow rates recommended in the City’s Guidelines for all Existing, Opening Year, and Future Year analysis scenarios. • Lost time of 2 seconds per phase.
Campus Ave
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway
Metrolink
16th St
Cherry Ave
East Ave
Highland Ave
San Bernardino Ave
Base Line Rd
%&'(1 0
C I T Y O F
U P L A N D
C I T Y O F
O N TA R I O
C I T Y O F
F O N TA N A
Archibald Ave
Haven Ave
Milliken Ave
Foothill Blvd
Carnelian St
Arrow Hwy
Church St
Terra Vista Pkwy
6th St
Rochester Ave
Sapphire St
Hermosa AveHellman Ave
Banyan St
S A N B E R N A R D I N O N A T I O N A L F O R E S T
C I T Y O F
F O N TA N A
S a n G a b r i e l M o u n t a i n s
Deer
Canyon
Day
Canyon
East
Etiwanda
Canyon San
Sevaine
Canyon
County
Canyon
Chaffey
College
n¤
Vineyard Ave
19th St
Hillside Rd
DEMENS CREEK
CHANNEL
CUCAMONGA
CREEK
DAY CREEK CHANNEL
ETIWANDA
CREEK
CHANNEL
SAN SEVAINE WASH
DAY CREEK CHANNEL
DEER
DEER CREEK
CHANNEL
CANYON
ETIWANDA
CREEK
CHANNEL
Almond St
Amethyst Ave
Beryl St
Church St
Wilson Ave
Lemon Ave
Victoria St
Day Creek Blvd
Wardman Bullock Rd
Powerline Rd
Metrolink
Station
Etiwanda Ave
Victoria
Gardens
4th St
Jersey Blvd9th St
Turquoise Av
The
Epicenter
·|}þ210
%&'(1 0
%&'(1 5
//6 6
S P H E R E O F I N F L U E N C E
0 1 20.5 Miles
°
Fehr & Peers, 2021
O N TA R I O I N T E R N AT I O N A L A I R P O R T
Freeway
Arterial Roadway
Transit Corridor
Collector Street
Bicycle Corridor
Multi-Use Trail
Metrolink
Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Railroads
Local Streets
Parks
Figure 9: Layered Roadway Network
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
29 4. Traffic Operations Assessment
This section summarizes the study area intersection operations under Existing (2024), Opening Year (2027), and Future Year (2050) Conditions. Peak hour analysis was focused on the three weekday periods (Weekday AM, Weekday PM, Friday PM) as these are anticipated to be the periods when adjacent street traffic volumes are highest.
4.1 Existing Roadway Facilities
Regional Roads
Regional roads in the Project vicinity include:
• Interstate 15 Freeway (I-15): I-15 is an interstate highway that runs in the north/south direction.
Within the region, I-15 connects the Inland Empire to San Diego, the High Desert, and Southern Nevada. I-15 is located east of the project site and near the project study area, which is generally an 8-lane facility (four in each direction). Access to I-15 near the Project study area is provided at the Fourth Street and Foothill Boulevard interchanges.
• Interstate 10 Freeway (I-10): I-10 is an interstate highway that runs in the east/west direction.
Within the region, I-10 connects the Inland Empire to Los Angeles, Coachella Valley, and points eastward. I-10 is located south of the Project site and near the Project study area is generally a 10-lane facility (five in each direction). Access to I-10 near the Project study area is provided at the Milliken Avenue interchange.
• State Route 210 Freeway (SR-210): SR-210, also known as Foothill Freeway, is a controlled-access freeway that runs in the east/west direction connects Los Angelos to Inland Empire. I-210 is located north of the Project site and near the Project study area is generally an 8-lane facility (four in each direction). Access to SR-210 near the Project study area is provided at the Milliken Avenue interchange.
Local Access Roads
Local access roads in the Project vicinity include:
• Milliken Avenue: Milliken Avenue is classified as an Arterial Roadway and a truck route in the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s 2021 General Plan update and is a 6- to 8-lane facility with a raised median. Milliken Avenue runs in a north/south direction and is located directly east of the Project site. Near the Project site, the posted speed limit is generally 50 miles per hour. • Azusa Court: Azusa Court is classified as a local roadway in the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s 2021 General Plan update and is a 2-lane facility. Azusa Court runs in an east/west direction and provides primary access to the Project site. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour.
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
30 • 7th Street: 7th Street is classified as a Collector Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s 2021 General Plan update and is a 2-lane facility. 7th Street runs in the east/west direction and is located south of the Project site. 7 th Street provides direct access to the Resort North Specific Plan and secondary access to the Project site.
• Haven Avenue: Haven Avenue is classified as a Boulevard and a truck route in the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s 2021 General Plan update and is a 6-lane facility with a raised median. Haven Avenue runs in the north/south direction and is located west of the Project site. Near the Project site, the posted speed limit is generally 50 miles per hour. • Baseline Road: Baseline Road is classified as an Arterial Roadway in the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s 2021 General Plan update and is a 6-lane facility with a raised median. Baseline Road runs in the east/west direction and is located north of the project site. Near the Project site, the posted speed limit is generally 50 miles per hour.
• Foothill Boulevard: Foothill Boulevard is classified as a Boulevard in the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s 2021 General Plan update and is a 6-lane facility with a raised median. Foothill Boulevard runs in an east/west direction and is located north of the project site. Near the Project site, the posted speed limit is generally 50 miles per hour. • Arrow Route: Arrow Route is classified as an Arterial Roadway in the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s 2021 General Plan update and is a 4-lane facility with a striped median. Arrow Route runs in an east/west direction and is located north of the project site. Near the project site, the posted speed limit is generally 50 miles per hour.
• 6th Street: 6th Street is classified as a Bicycle Corridor and a truck route in the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s 2021 General Plan update and is a 4-lane facility with raised median. 6th Street runs in the east/west direction and is located south of the Project site. Near the project site, the posted speed limit is generally 45 miles per hour.
• 4th Street: 4th Street is classified as an Arterial Roadway and a truck route in the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s 2021 General Plan update and is a 6- to 8-lane facility with raised median. 4th Street runs in the east/west direction and is located south of the Project site. Near the Project site, the posted speed limit is generally 50 miles per hour. 4 th Street runs along the city border between the Cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario, with Rancho Cucamonga maintaining the northern half of the roadway and Ontario maintaining the southern half of the roadway.
4.2 Existing Year (2024) Intersection Operations
Existing (2024) traffic volumes are presented in Figure 10 (Weekday AM, Weekday PM, and Friday PM).
These traffic volumes along with existing intersection lane configurations and signal timings were used to calculate the LOS for the study intersections during each peak hour. The findings of this analysis are presented in Table 10 and detailed intersection LOS worksheets are presented in Appendix D.
Figure 10
Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Counts
Existing Conditions (2024) AM/PM/Friday PM
424 (491)[555]
710 (480)[460]
204 (153)[160]
864 (455)[343]
353 (133)[112]
7 (4)[5]
236 (274)[174]
1. Milliken Ave/SR-210 WB
875 (934)[911]
316 (356)[306]
262 (106)[108]
4 (10)[7]
627 (281)[327]
787 (519)[391]
310 (157)[125]
2. Milliken Ave/SR-210 EB
85 (157)[177]
569 (902)[855]
65 (168)[165]
268 (287)[274]
418 (1,098)[1,084]
100 (118)[107]
411 (146)[202]
876 (375)[336]
125 (124)[104]
139 (117)[158]
938 (524)[863]
214 (84)[133]
3. Milliken Ave/Base Line Rd
97 (241)[239]
271 (1,248)[1,110]
70 (343)[277]
48 (209)[201]
623 (1,693)[1,487]
96 (147)[161]
198 (98)[120]
795 (375)[380]
194 (99)[102]
94 (130)[161]
1,360 (917)[1,109]
184 (141)[144]
4. Milliken Ave/Foothill Blvd
142 (178)[162]
329 (1,644)[1,298]
72 (399)[300]
61 (146)[167]
384 (925)[895]
99 (165)[149]
149 (115)[99]
813 (548)[533]
81 (62)[74]
111 (100)[139]
977 (509)[625]
177 (130)[104]
5. Milliken Ave/Arrow Route
720 (1,989)[1,667]
12 (36)[26]
77 (31)[24]
940 (1,027)[924]
6. Milliken Ave/Azusa Ct
70 (24)[32]
656 (1,816)[1,531]
15 (6)[7]
54 (132)[91]
1 (2)[0]
26 (65)[72]
4 (10)[9]
921 (1,037)[944]
22 (1)[5]
7 (32)[17]
1 (1)[0]
8 (9)[18]
7. Milliken Ave/7th St
130 (142)[174]
532 (1,317)[1,188]
70 (98)[72]
122 (352)[247]
219 (569)[402]
90 (196)[126]
280 (175)[167]
574 (792)[759]
133 (145)[119]
96 (210)[172]
278 (290)[344]
52 (70)[84]
8. Milliken Ave/6th St
SR-210 WB
Milliken Ave
Base Line Rd
Milliken Ave
Foothill Blvd
Milliken Ave
Arrow Route
Milliken Ave
Azusa Ct
Milliken Ave
7th St
Milliken Ave
6th St
Milliken Ave
164 (225)[283]
574 (1,139)[1,004]
85 (266)[241]
90 (228)[252]
294 (834)[810]
115 (309)[232]
69 (97)[135]
544 (809)[696]
126 (234)[228]
223 (173)[188]
726 (730)[852]
255 (394)[300]
9. Milliken Ave/4th St
4th St
Milliken Ave
109 (186)[165]
648 (1,206)[1,042]
247 (357)[322]
434 (826)[681]
111 (187)[160]
256 (117)[176]
133 (261)[222]
501 (1,073)[927]
83 (285)[248]
13 (83)[95]
93 (194)[211]
111 (171)[204]
10. Milliken Ave/I-10 WB/Ontario Mills
I-10 WB Ontario Mills
Milliken Ave
129 (342)[280]
487 (1,461)[1,222]
523 (293)[310]
404 (104)[121]
224 (613)[486]
642 (744)[818]
11. Milliken Ave/I-10 EB Ramps
I-10 EB Ramps
Milliken Ave
SR-210 EB
Milliken Ave
STOP
aaccc
cce
adf
cce
adf
aaccc
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aaccccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
accf
aacccf
accf
ccc
f
cccf
acce
ae
acce
ae
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aaccf
aaccccf
aacccf
aaccce
aacccf
aaccccf
aacf
aaccccf
aaccf
aacccc
aaf
ccccf
LEGEND
# Study Intersection (Existing)
AM Peak Hour Traffic VolumeXX
PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume(XX)
Lane Configuration
acf
Friday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume[XX]Project Site
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
32 Under Existing (2024) conditions, all intersections operate at or above their LOS threshold except:
• Milliken Avenue and Arrow Route (Weekday AM, Weekday PM) • Milliken Avenue and 4th Street (Weekday PM)
Table 10: Existing Year (2024) Intersection Operations
Intersection LOS
Threshold Peak Hour
Existing Conditions (2024)
LOS Average Delay
(s)
1 Milliken Avenue and SR-210 WB Ramps D
AM C 22.3
PM C 21.7
Friday PM C 21.8
2 Milliken Avenue and SR-210 EB Ramps D
AM C 34.7
PM B 16.5
Friday PM B 18.2
3 Milliken Avenue and Baseline Road D
AM D 38.9
PM D 37.4
Friday PM D 36.5
4 Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard D
AM D 37.7
PM D 52.0
Friday PM D 45.3
5 Milliken Avenue and Arrow Route D
AM E 75.7
PM E 61.3
Friday PM D 52.0
6 Milliken Avenue and Azusa Court D
AM B 14.3
PM C 15.5
Friday PM B 13.8
7 Milliken Avenue and 7th Street D
AM B 16.2
PM B 11.1
Friday PM A 8.4
8 Milliken Avenue and 6th Street D
AM C 32.0
PM D 44.5
Friday PM C 34.1
9 Milliken Avenue and 4th Street D
AM D 44.0
PM E 63.0
Friday PM D 51.1
10 Milliken Avenue and I-10 WB Ramps E
AM D 40.9
PM D 51.1
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
33 Intersection LOS
Threshold Peak Hour
Existing Conditions (2024)
LOS Average Delay
(s)
Friday PM D 46.0
11 Milliken Avenue and I-10 EB Ramps E
AM C 33.2
PM C 30.0
Friday PM C 30.7
Note: Bolded indicates intersection operations exceed LOS threshold.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
4.3 Opening Year (2027) Intersection Operations
As described in Chapter 3, the traffic volumes for Opening Year (2027) consist of existing counts plus the addition of growth derived from SBTAM+ and the addition of pending and approved development projects. Figure 11 presents the traffic forecasts utilized for Opening Year (2027) No Project Conditions while Figures 12 and 13 present the traffic forecasts for Opening Year (2027) Plus Project Conditions (all vehicles on site and shuttles, respectively).
The Opening Year (2027) peak hour volumes were used to calculate LOS for the study intersections during each peak hour. Detailed intersection LOS worksheets are presented in Appendix D.
Figure 11
Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Counts
Opening Year (2027) No Project AM/PM/Friday PM
440 (510)[560]
730 (530)[510]
230 (170)[170]
910 (490)[390]
360 (160)[140]
10 (0)[10]
240 (280)[190]
1. Milliken Ave/SR-210 WB
900 (970)[950]
330 (360)[320]
270 (130)[130]
0 (10)[10]
630 (290)[330]
820 (550)[430]
330 (180)[150]
2. Milliken Ave/SR-210 EB
90 (160)[180]
580 (930)[880]
70 (180)[180]
280 (290)[280]
430 (1,110)[1,100]
100 (120)[110]
420 (150)[200]
900 (400)[360]
140 (130)[110]
140 (120)[160]
960 (540)[840]
220 (90)[130]
3. Milliken Ave/Base Line Rd
110 (250)[240]
300 (1,260)[1,140]
80 (360)[300]
50 (220)[210]
640 (1,720)[1,540]
100 (150)[170]
210 (100)[120]
800 (390)[400]
200 (100)[110]
100 (130)[160]
1,410 (950)[1,120]
200 (150)[150]
4. Milliken Ave/Foothill Blvd
150 (190)[180]
350 (1,660)[1,360]
80 (410)[330]
60 (160)[170]
410 (940)[910]
120 (170)[160]
160 (120)[100]
840 (580)[570]
100 (70)[80]
120 (110)[150]
990 (520)[630]
190 (140)[120]
5. Milliken Ave/Arrow Route
760 (2,030)[1,750]
10 (40)[30]
80 (30)[30]
1,000 (1,070)[980]
6. Milliken Ave/Azusa Ct
70 (40)[40]
690 (1,850)[1,600]
20 (10)[10]
70 (140)[110]
0 (0)[0]
30 (70)[70]
30 (30)[30]
960 (1,060)[980]
20 (0)[10]
10 (30)[20]
0 (0)[0]
10 (10)[20]
7. Milliken Ave/7th St
160 (160)[190]
570 (1,370)[1,260]
100 (100)[80]
120 (350)[260]
240 (580)[430]
120 (230)[160]
290 (180)[170]
600 (820)[790]
130 (150)[120]
100 (210)[180]
290 (300)[350]
70 (80)[100]
8. Milliken Ave/6th St
SR-210 WB
Milliken Ave
Base Line Rd
Milliken Ave
Foothill Blvd
Milliken Ave
Arrow Route
Milliken Ave
Azusa Ct
Milliken Ave
7th St
Milliken Ave
6th St
Milliken Ave
190 (240)[290]
630 (1,200)[1,080]
110 (280)[250]
100 (240)[260]
300 (860)[840]
140 (320)[260]
70 (110)[140]
600 (850)[750]
130 (240)[240]
230 (180)[190]
740 (730)[840]
260 (410)[330]
9. Milliken Ave/4th St
4th St
Milliken Ave
160 (220)[200]
700 (1,260)[1,120]
260 (380)[340]
470 (840)[720]
120 (190)[170]
290 (140)[190]
160 (310)[270]
580 (1,120)[990]
90 (290)[260]
10 (90)[100]
110 (220)[240]
130 (180)[210]
10. Milliken Ave/I-10 WB/Ontario Mills
I-10 WB Ontario Mills
Milliken Ave
150 (370)[320]
590 (1,560)[1,340]
530 (310)[330]
440 (120)[140]
240 (620)[500]
760 (820)[880]
11. Milliken Ave/I-10 EB Ramps
I-10 EB Ramps
Milliken Ave
SR-210 EB
Milliken Ave
STOP
aaccc
cce
adf
cce
adf
aaccc
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aaccccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
accf
aacccf
accf
ccc
f
cccf
acce
ae
acce
ae
aacccf
aaccf
aacccf
aaccf
aaccccf
aacccf
aaccce
aacccf
aaccccf
aacf
aaccccf
aaccf
aacccc
aaf
ccccf
LEGEND
# Study Intersection (Existing)
AM Peak Hour Traffic VolumeXX
PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume(XX)
Lane Configuration
acf
Friday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume[XX]Project Site
Figure 12
Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Counts
Opening Year (2027) Plus Project All Vehicles On Site AM/PM/Friday PM 469 (555)[591]
732 (534)[513]
230 (170)[170]
912 (493)[394]
360 (160)[140]
10 (0)[10]
264 (310)[229]
1. Milliken Ave/SR-210 WB
931 (1,019)[984]
353 (395)[344]
270 (130)[130]
0 (10)[10]
661 (328)[381]
846 (583)[473]
330 (180)[150]
2. Milliken Ave/SR-210 EB
92 (164)[183]
634 (1,014)[938]
72 (184)[183]
280 (290)[280]
430 (1,110)[1,100]
102 (123)[114]
420 (150)[200]
957 (471)[454]
140 (130)[110]
140 (120)[160]
960 (540)[840]
222 (93)[134]
3. Milliken Ave/Base Line Rd
116 (258)[246]
358 (1,352)[1,204]
102 (393)[323]
50 (220)[210]
640 (1,720)[1,540]
106 (157)[179]
210 (100)[120]
861 (467)[502]
200 (100)[110]
100 (130)[160]
1,410 (950)[1,120]
223 (178)[187]
4. Milliken Ave/Foothill Blvd
150 (190)[180]
436 (1,793)[1,453]
87 (420)[337]
60 (160)[170]
410 (940)[910]
120 (170)[160]
160 (120)[100]
930 (692)[718]
100 (70)[80]
120 (110)[150]
990 (520)[630]
197 (149)[131]
5. Milliken Ave/Arrow Route
164 (134)[167]
760 (2,030)[1,750]
93 (143)[100]
99 (222)[171]
177 (151)[189]
1,000 (1,070)[980]
6. Milliken Ave/Azusa Ct
114 (94)[118]
854 (1,984)[1,767]
20 (10)[10]
70 (140)[110]
0 (0)[0]
76 (146)[119]
30 (30)[30]
1,049 (1,242)[1,121]
20 (0)[10]
10 (30)[20]
0 (0)[0]
10 (10)[20]
7. Milliken Ave/7th St
160 (160)[190]
773 (1,551)[1,496]
100 (100)[80]
123 (354)[265]
240 (580)[430]
120 (230)[160]
293 (184)[173]
730 (1,069)[974]
132 (154)[123]
102 (213)[184]
290 (300)[350]
70 (80)[100]
8. Milliken Ave/6th St
SR-210 WB
Milliken Ave
Base Line Rd
Milliken Ave
Foothill Blvd
Milliken Ave
Arrow Route
Milliken Ave
Azusa Ct
Milliken Ave
7th St
Milliken Ave
6th St
Milliken Ave
190 (240)[290]
724 (1,314)[1,231]
110 (280)[250]
170 (259)[281]
300 (860)[840]
140 (320)[260]
85 (175)[203]
679 (977)[832]
166 (297)[279]
269 (228)[254]
740 (730)[840]
260 (410)[330]
9. Milliken Ave/4th St
4th St
Milliken Ave
160 (220)[200]
757 (1,329)[1,211]
260 (380)[340]
507 (885)[780]
120 (190)[170]
290 (140)[190]
194 (363)[306]
625 (1,194)[1,036]
90 (290)[260]
10 (90)[100]
110 (220)[240]
130 (180)[210]
10. Milliken Ave/I-10 WB/Ontario Mills
I-10 WB Ontario Mills
Milliken Ave
150 (370)[320]
598 (1,569)[1,351]
579 (370)[410]
440 (120)[140]
280 (687)[541]
765 (827)[885]
11. Milliken Ave/I-10 EB Ramps
I-10 EB Ramps
Milliken Ave
SR-210 EB
Milliken Ave
aaccc
cce
adf
cce
adf
aaccc
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aaccccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
accf
aacccf
accf
accc
af
cccf
acce
ae
acce
ae
aacccf
aaccf
aacccf
aaccf
aaccccf
aacccf
aaccce
aacccf
aaccccf
aacf
aaccccf
aaccf
aacccc
aaf
ccccf
LEGEND
# Study Intersection (Existing)
AM Peak Hour Traffic VolumeXX
PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume(XX)
Lane Configuration
acf
Friday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume[XX]Project Site
Figure 13
Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Counts
Opening Year (2027) Plus Project Shuttle Scenario AM/PM/Friday PM 468 (553)[590]
732 (533)[513]
230 (170)[170]
912 (493)[394]
360 (160)[140]
10 (0)[10]
263 (309)[227]
1. Milliken Ave/SR-210 WB
930 (1,016)[983]
352 (393)[344]
270 (130)[130]
0 (10)[10]
660 (327)[377]
845 (582)[471]
330 (180)[150]
2. Milliken Ave/SR-210 EB
92 (163)[183]
632 (1,009)[937]
72 (183)[183]
280 (290)[280]
430 (1,110)[1,100]
102 (123)[114]
420 (150)[200]
955 (469)[448]
140 (130)[110]
140 (120)[160]
960 (540)[840]
222 (93)[134]
3. Milliken Ave/Base Line Rd
115 (258)[245]
356 (1,345)[1,203]
101 (391)[322]
50 (220)[210]
640 (1,720)[1,540]
106 (157)[178]
210 (100)[120]
859 (465)[496]
200 (100)[110]
100 (130)[160]
1,410 (950)[1,120]
222 (178)[184]
4. Milliken Ave/Foothill Blvd
150 (190)[180]
432 (1,784)[1,450]
86 (420)[337]
60 (160)[170]
410 (940)[910]
120 (170)[160]
160 (120)[100]
927 (690)[708]
100 (70)[80]
120 (110)[150]
990 (520)[630]
197 (148)[131]
5. Milliken Ave/Arrow Route
160 (130)[157]
760 (2,030)[1,750]
88 (134)[97]
99 (217)[170]
174 (148)[179]
1,000 (1,070)[980]
6. Milliken Ave/Azusa Ct
111 (92)[111]
850 (1,980)[1,757]
20 (10)[10]
70 (140)[110]
0 (0)[0]
77 (142)[119]
30 (30)[30]
1,049 (1,237)[1,120]
20 (0)[10]
10 (30)[20]
0 (0)[0]
10 (10)[20]
7. Milliken Ave/7th St
160 (160)[190]
766 (1,545)[1,480]
100 (100)[80]
123 (354)[264]
240 (580)[430]
120 (230)[160]
292 (184)[172]
731 (1,062)[974]
132 (153)[123]
102 (213)[184]
290 (300)[350]
70 (80)[100]
8. Milliken Ave/6th St
SR-210 WB
Milliken Ave
Base Line Rd
Milliken Ave
Foothill Blvd
Milliken Ave
Arrow Route
Milliken Ave
Azusa Ct
Milliken Ave
7th St
Milliken Ave
6th St
Milliken Ave
190 (240)[290]
719 (1,310)[1,220]
110 (280)[250]
170 (259)[280]
300 (860)[840]
140 (320)[260]
84 (175)[202]
682 (974)[833]
165 (293)[279]
267 (226)[250]
740 (730)[840]
260 (410)[330]
9. Milliken Ave/4th St
4th St
Milliken Ave
160 (220)[200]
754 (1,327)[1,204]
260 (380)[340]
505 (883)[776]
120 (190)[170]
290 (140)[190]
193 (360)[306]
629 (1,194)[1,037]
90 (290)[260]
10 (90)[100]
110 (220)[240]
130 (180)[210]
10. Milliken Ave/I-10 WB/Ontario Mills
I-10 WB Ontario Mills
Milliken Ave
150 (370)[320]
598 (1,569)[1,350]
576 (368)[404]
440 (120)[140]
285 (687)[543]
764 (827)[884]
11. Milliken Ave/I-10 EB Ramps
I-10 EB Ramps
Milliken Ave
SR-210 EB
Milliken Ave
aaccc
cce
adf
cce
adf
aaccc
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aaccccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
accf
aacccf
accf
accc
af
cccf
acce
ae
acce
ae
aacccf
aaccf
aacccf
aaccf
aaccccf
aacccf
aaccce
aacccf
aaccccf
aacf
aaccccf
aaccf
aacccc
aaf
ccccf
LEGEND
# Study Intersection (Existing)
AM Peak Hour Traffic VolumeXX
PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume(XX)
Lane Configuration
acf
Friday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume[XX]Project Site
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
37 As shown in Table 11, the following two intersections are projected to operate below their LOS threshold under Opening Year (2027) No Project conditions:
• Milliken Avenue and Arrow Route (Weekday AM, Weekday PM) • Milliken Avenue and 4th Street (Weekday PM)
Under Opening Year (2027) Plus Project conditions, the following three intersections are projected to operate below their LOS threshold:
• Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard (Weekday PM)
• Milliken Avenue and Arrow Route (Weekday AM and Weekday PM) • Milliken Avenue and 4th Street (Weekday PM)
Table 11: Opening Year (2027) Intersection Operations
Intersection LOS
Threshold
Peak
Hour
Opening Year No
Project (2027)
Opening Year Plus
Project All Vehicles
(2027)
Opening Year Plus
Project Shuttles
(2027)
LOS Average
Delay (s) LOS Average
Delay (s) LOS Average
Delay (s)
1 Milliken Avenue
and SR-210 WB
Ramps
D
AM C 22.5 C 24.9 C 24.9
PM C 20.9 C 22.6 C 22.6
Friday PM C 21.4 C 22.4 C 22.3
2 Milliken Avenue
and SR-210 EB
Ramps
D
AM C 34.4 D 36.4 D 36.3
PM B 16.9 B 17.5 B 17.5
Friday PM B 18.2 B 18.9 B 18.8
3 Milliken Avenue
and Baseline Road D
AM D 39.4 D 40.9 D 40.8
PM D 37.7 D 38.4 D 38.4
Friday PM D 36.7 D 37.3 D 37.3
4 Milliken Avenue
and Foothill
Boulevard
D
AM D 37.7 D 39.2 D 39.1
PM D 52.8 E 56.1 E 55.9
Friday PM D 45.7 D 47.6 D 47.4
5 Milliken Avenue
and Arrow Route D
AM E 71.8 E 70.2 E 70.3
PM E 57.8 E 68.1 E 67.2
Friday PM D 47.3 D 47.7 D 47.7
6 Milliken Avenue
and Azusa Court D
AM B 14.3 C 24.7 C 24.1
PM C 15.6 B 12.6 B 12.2
Friday PM C 15.6 A 9.2 A 9
7 Milliken Avenue
and 7th Street D
AM B 16.5 B 17.2 B 17.2
PM B 10.2 B 12.9 B 12.8
Friday PM A 9.8 B 13.1 B 12.8
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
38 Intersection LOS
Threshold
Peak
Hour
Opening Year No
Project (2027)
Opening Year Plus
Project All Vehicles
(2027)
Opening Year Plus
Project Shuttles
(2027)
LOS Average
Delay (s) LOS Average
Delay (s) LOS Average
Delay (s)
8 Milliken Avenue
and 6th Street D
AM C 31.7 C 31.4 C 31.5
PM D 45.4 D 48.1 D 48
Friday PM C 33.9 D 35.2 D 35.2
9 Milliken Avenue
and 4th Street D
AM D 42.8 D 44.6 D 44.5
PM E 63.0 E 65.0 E 64.8
Friday PM D 52.4 D 53.6 D 53.5
10 Milliken Avenue
and I-10 WB
Ramps
E
AM D 44 D 44 D 44
PM E 61.7 E 65.9 E 65.7
Friday PM D 51.2 E 55.0 D 54.7
11 Milliken Avenue
and I-10 EB Ramps
E
AM C 27.2 C 27.7 C 27.6
PM C 26.0 C 26.0 C 25.9
Friday PM C 25.9 C 26 C 26
Note: Bolded indicates intersection operations exceed LOS threshold.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
4.4 Future Year (2050) Intersection Operations
The traffic volumes for Future Year (2050) consist of forecasts derived using the difference method from SBTAM+ model runs to represent 2050 conditions. Figure 14 presents the traffic forecast utilized for Future Year (2050) No Project Conditions. Figures 15 and 16 present the traffic forecasts utilized for Future Year (2050) Plus Project Conditions (all vehicles on site and shuttle scenarios, respectively).
Operations analysis Detailed LOS worksheets can be found in Appendix D. Note that Weekday PM and Friday PM no project forecasts are identical as SBTAM+ is only able to generate forecasts for typical weekdays. Utilizing the Weekday PM forecasts for the Friday PM scenarios provides a conservative estimate for Friday traffic volumes.
Figure 14
Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Counts
Future Year (2050) No Project AM/PM & Friday PM
570 (640)
840 (900)
440 (270)
1,260 (760)
430 (330)
10 (10)
300 (350)
1. Milliken Ave/SR-210 WB
1,100 (1,230)
420 (420)
310 (310)
10 (10)
670 (370)
1,080 (770)
480 (340)
2. Milliken Ave/SR-210 EB
170 (190)
700 (1,110)
90 (270)
350 (340)
550 (1,210)
120 (140)
460 (190)
1,060 (580)
250 (160)
190 (150)
1,140 (670)
280 (110)
3. Milliken Ave/Base Line Rd
180 (280)
480 (1,380)
140 (480)
60 (280)
800 (1,960)
110 (210)
270 (130)
880 (540)
250 (140)
140 (150)
1,750 (1,180)
280 (220)
4. Milliken Ave/Foothill Blvd
200 (300)
520 (1,820)
110 (520)
70 (230)
580 (1,050)
240 (210)
250 (150)
1,060 (820)
220 (150)
200 (220)
1,060 (630)
320 (210)
5. Milliken Ave/Arrow Route
1,060 (2,350)
40 (60)
90 (40)
1,460 (1,430)
6. Milliken Ave/Azusa Ct
100 (140)
920 (2,090)
40 (30)
150 (230)
10 (10)
50 (90)
210 (180)
1,240 (1,270)
40 (10)
10 (50)
10 (10)
30 (10)
7. Milliken Ave/7th St
380 (310)
850 (1,770)
310 (150)
100 (350)
390 (680)
320 (450)
330 (200)
830 (1,050)
150 (160)
110 (230)
350 (390)
190 (180)
8. Milliken Ave/6th St
SR-210 WB
Milliken Ave
Base Line Rd
Milliken Ave
Foothill Blvd
Milliken Ave
Arrow Route
Milliken Ave
Azusa Ct
Milliken Ave
7th St
Milliken Ave
6th St
Milliken Ave
350 (380)
1,040 (1,690)
280 (350)
180 (300)
350 (1,050)
290 (440)
120 (180)
1,040 (1,180)
190 (320)
270 (240)
850 (770)
340 (530)
9. Milliken Ave/4th St
4th St
Milliken Ave
530 (500)
1,070 (1,710)
350 (520)
740 (990)
200 (240)
580 (290)
370 (650)
1,170 (1,490)
110 (370)
30 (110)
240 (420)
260 (240)
10. Milliken Ave/I-10 WB/Ontario Mills
I-10 WB Ontario Mills
Milliken Ave
310 (600)
1,340 (2,280)
610 (450)
740 (250)
380 (650)
1,630 (1,370)
11. Milliken Ave/I-10 EB Ramps
I-10 EB Ramps
Milliken Ave
SR-210 EB
Milliken Ave
STOP
aaccc
cce
adf
cce
adf
aaccc
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aaccccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
accf
aacccf
accf
ccc
f
cccf
acce
ae
acce
ae
aacccf
aaccf
aacccf
aaccf
aaccccf
aacccf
aaccce
aacccf
aaccccf
aacf
aaccccf
aaccf
aacccc
aaf
ccccf
LEGEND
# Study Intersection (Existing)
AM Peak Hour Traffic VolumeXX
PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume(XX)
Lane Configuration
acf
Friday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume[XX]Project Site
Figure 15
Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Counts
Future Year (2050) Plus Project All Vehicles On Site AM/PM/Friday PM 625 (721)[715]
845 (906)[906]
440 (270)[270]
1,265 (765)[770]
430 (330)[330]
10 (10)[10]
346 (401)[443]
1. Milliken Ave/SR-210 WB
1,160 (1,317)[1,311]
463 (483)[478]
310 (310)[310]
10 (10)[10]
730 (436)[489]
1,131 (826)[873]
480 (340)[340]
2. Milliken Ave/SR-210 EB
175 (196)[196]
803 (1,260)[1,249]
95 (276)[276]
350 (340)[340]
550 (1,210)[1,210]
125 (145)[150]
460 (190)[190]
1,171 (702)[802]
250 (160)[160]
190 (150)[150]
1,140 (670)[670]
285 (115)[120]
3. Milliken Ave/Base Line Rd
189 (293)[292]
593 (1,542)[1,531]
179 (537)[533]
60 (280)[280]
800 (1,960)[1,960]
120 (221)[229]
270 (130)[130]
1,001 (672)[782]
250 (140)[140]
140 (150)[150]
1,750 (1,180)[1,180]
323 (267)[304]
4. Milliken Ave/Foothill Blvd
200 (300)[300]
681 (2,052)[2,036]
123 (539)[537]
70 (230)[230]
580 (1,050)[1,050]
240 (210)[210]
250 (150)[150]
1,234 (1,010)[1,165]
220 (150)[150]
200 (220)[220]
1,060 (630)[630]
334 (225)[238]
5. Milliken Ave/Arrow Route
268 (233)[382]
1,060 (2,350)[2,350]
194 (271)[253]
178 (318)[303]
277 (245)[413]
1,460 (1,430)[1,430]
6. Milliken Ave/Azusa Ct
186 (234)[323]
1,168 (2,303)[2,452]
40 (30)[30]
150 (230)[230]
10 (10)[10]
141 (228)[218]
210 (180)[180]
1,398 (1,548)[1,533]
40 (10)[10]
10 (50)[50]
10 (10)[10]
30 (10)[10]
7. Milliken Ave/7th St
380 (310)[310]
1,174 (2,066)[2,294]
310 (150)[150]
105 (356)[361]
390 (680)[680]
320 (450)[450]
335 (207)[207]
1,069 (1,452)[1,428]
155 (166)[166]
115 (235)[240]
350 (390)[390]
190 (180)[180]
8. Milliken Ave/6th St
SR-210 WB
Milliken Ave
Base Line Rd
Milliken Ave
Foothill Blvd
Milliken Ave
Arrow Route
Milliken Ave
Azusa Ct
Milliken Ave
7th St
Milliken Ave
6th St
Milliken Ave
350 (380)[380]
1,215 (1,881)[2,034]
280 (350)[350]
254 (323)[331]
350 (1,050)[1,050]
290 (440)[440]
138 (250)[249]
1,192 (1,411)[1,395]
259 (421)[414]
345 (322)[389]
850 (770)[770]
340 (530)[530]
9. Milliken Ave/4th St
4th St
Milliken Ave
530 (500)[500]
1,175 (1,824)[1,915]
350 (520)[520]
810 (1,067)[1,129]
200 (240)[240]
580 (290)[290]
434 (745)[738]
1,258 (1,626)[1,617]
110 (370)[370]
30 (110)[110]
240 (420)[420]
260 (240)[240]
10. Milliken Ave/I-10 WB/Ontario Mills
I-10 WB Ontario Mills
Milliken Ave
310 (600)[600]
1,352 (2,293)[2,301]
703 (551)[634]
740 (250)[250]
460 (774)[766]
1,638 (1,382)[1,381]
11. Milliken Ave/I-10 EB Ramps
I-10 EB Ramps
Milliken Ave
SR-210 EB
Milliken Ave
aaccc
cce
adf
cce
adf
aaccc
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aaccccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
accf
aacccf
accf
accc
af
cccf
acce
ae
acce
ae
aacccf
aaccf
aacccf
aaccf
aaccccf
aacccf
aaccce
aacccf
aaccccf
aacf
aaccccf
aaccf
aacccc
aaf
ccccf
LEGEND
# Study Intersection (Existing)
AM Peak Hour Traffic VolumeXX
PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume(XX)
Lane Configuration
acf
Friday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume[XX]Project Site
Figure 16
Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Counts
Future Year (2050) Plus Project Shuttles Scenario AM/PM/Friday PM 618 (700)[705]
844 (904)[905]
440 (270)[270]
1,264 (764)[766]
430 (330)[330]
10 (10)[10]
337 (393)[414]
1. Milliken Ave/SR-210 WB
1,152 (1,294)[1,300]
457 (466)[471]
310 (310)[310]
10 (10)[10]
718 (425)[453]
1,121 (817)[840]
480 (340)[340]
2. Milliken Ave/SR-210 EB
174 (194)[195]
789 (1,220)[1,231]
94 (274)[275]
350 (340)[340]
550 (1,210)[1,210]
124 (144)[146]
460 (190)[190]
1,149 (682)[733]
250 (160)[160]
190 (150)[150]
1,140 (670)[670]
284 (114)[116]
3. Milliken Ave/Base Line Rd
189 (290)[291]
577 (1,498)[1,511]
175 (523)[527]
60 (280)[280]
800 (1,960)[1,960]
119 (219)[224]
270 (130)[130]
977 (650)[705]
250 (140)[140]
140 (150)[150]
1,750 (1,180)[1,180]
315 (259)[279]
4. Milliken Ave/Foothill Blvd
200 (300)[300]
661 (1,991)[2,009]
121 (534)[535]
70 (230)[230]
580 (1,050)[1,050]
240 (210)[210]
250 (150)[150]
1,201 (978)[1,058]
220 (150)[150]
200 (220)[220]
1,060 (630)[630]
331 (223)[229]
5. Milliken Ave/Arrow Route
238 (207)[286]
1,060 (2,350)[2,350]
172 (204)[224]
157 (266)[275]
242 (211)[297]
1,460 (1,430)[1,430]
6. Milliken Ave/Azusa Ct
165 (214)[258]
1,138 (2,277)[2,356]
40 (30)[30]
150 (230)[230]
10 (10)[10]
127 (194)[200]
210 (180)[180]
1,377 (1,496)[1,505]
40 (10)[10]
10 (50)[50]
10 (10)[10]
30 (10)[10]
7. Milliken Ave/7th St
380 (310)[310]
1,124 (2,022)[2,140]
310 (150)[150]
105 (355)[358]
390 (680)[680]
320 (450)[450]
335 (205)[206]
1,035 (1,371)[1,384]
154 (164)[165]
114 (234)[236]
350 (390)[390]
190 (180)[180]
8. Milliken Ave/6th St
SR-210 WB
Milliken Ave
Base Line Rd
Milliken Ave
Foothill Blvd
Milliken Ave
Arrow Route
Milliken Ave
Azusa Ct
Milliken Ave
7th St
Milliken Ave
6th St
Milliken Ave
350 (380)[380]
1,181 (1,852)[1,931]
280 (350)[350]
253 (321)[326]
350 (1,050)[1,050]
290 (440)[440]
138 (247)[248]
1,168 (1,359)[1,365]
249 (395)[401]
330 (309)[343]
850 (770)[770]
340 (530)[530]
9. Milliken Ave/4th St
4th St
Milliken Ave
530 (500)[500]
1,155 (1,807)[1,854]
350 (520)[520]
796 (1,055)[1,087]
200 (240)[240]
580 (290)[290]
425 (721)[726]
1,243 (1,598)[1,599]
110 (370)[370]
30 (110)[110]
240 (420)[420]
260 (240)[240]
10. Milliken Ave/I-10 WB/Ontario Mills
I-10 WB Ontario Mills
Milliken Ave
310 (600)[600]
1,351 (2,291)[2,296]
684 (536)[578]
740 (250)[250]
445 (749)[749]
1,638 (1,379)[1,380]
11. Milliken Ave/I-10 EB Ramps
I-10 EB Ramps
Milliken Ave
SR-210 EB
Milliken Ave
aaccc
cce
adf
cce
adf
aaccc
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aaccccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
aacccf
accf
aacccf
accf
accc
af
cccf
acce
ae
acce
ae
aacccf
aaccf
aacccf
aaccf
aaccccf
aacccf
aaccce
aacccf
aaccccf
aacf
aaccccf
aaccf
aacccc
aaf
ccccf
LEGEND
# Study Intersection (Existing)
AM Peak Hour Traffic VolumeXX
PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume(XX)
Lane Configuration
acf
Friday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume[XX]Project Site
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
42 As shown in Table 12, the following four intersections are projected to operate below their LOS threshold in Future Year (2050) No Project Conditions:
• Milliken Avenue and Arrow Route (Weekday AM, Weekday PM) • Milliken Avenue and 6th Street (Weekday PM)
• Milliken Avenue and 4th Street (Weekday AM, Weekday PM) • Milliken Avenue and I-10 WB/Ontario Mills Parkway (Weekday PM) Under Future Year (2050) Plus Project Conditions, the following six intersections are projected to operate below their LOS threshold:
• Milliken Avenue and Baseline Road (Weekday AM)
• Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard (Weekday PM, Friday PM) • Milliken Avenue and Arrow Route (Weekday AM, Weekday PM, Friday PM) • Milliken Avenue and 6th Street (Weekday PM, Friday PM) • Milliken Avenue and 4th Street (Weekday AM, Weekday PM, Friday PM) • Milliken Avenue and I-10 WB/Ontario Mills Parkway (Weekday PM, Friday PM) Table 12: Future Year (2050) Intersection Operations
Intersection LOS
Threshold
Peak
Hour
Future Year No
Project (2050)
Future Year Plus
Project All Vehicles
(2050)
Future Year Plus
Project Shuttles
(2050)
LOS Average
Delay (s) LOS Average
Delay (s) LOS Average
Delay (s)
1 Milliken Avenue
and SR-210 WB
Ramps
D
AM C 27.2 C 29.7 C 29
PM C 22.7 C 28.6 C 25.9
Friday PM - - C 27.1 C 28.6
2 Milliken Avenue
and SR-210 EB
Ramps
D
AM D 36.8 D 42.6 D 40.9
PM C 22.2 C 24.4 C 23.8
Friday PM - - C 26.4 C 24.6
3 Milliken Avenue
and Baseline Road D
AM D 49.4 E 63.4 E 63.4
PM D 49.4 D 50.3 D 49.9
Friday PM - - D 50.1 D 50
4 Milliken Avenue
and Foothill
Boulevard
D
AM D 43 D 45.7 D 45.1
PM D 53.8 E 61.2 E 59.5
Friday PM - - E 64.4 E 61.3
5 Milliken Avenue
and Arrow Route D
AM E 70.1 E 71 E 70.4
PM F 101.6 F 113.5 F 107.3
Friday PM - - F 123.8 F 109.5
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
43 Intersection LOS
Threshold
Peak
Hour
Future Year No
Project (2050)
Future Year Plus
Project All Vehicles
(2050)
Future Year Plus
Project Shuttles
(2050)
LOS Average
Delay (s) LOS Average
Delay (s) LOS Average
Delay (s)
6 Milliken Avenue
and Azusa Court D
AM C 19.9 C 31.4 B 19.7
PM C 20.3 C 24.7 C 20.8
Friday PM - - D 50.6 C 24.4
7 Milliken Avenue
and 7th Street D
AM C 23.8 C 31.7 C 32.7
PM C 21 C 32.6 C 31.8
Friday PM - - D 49.2 C 33.4
8 Milliken Avenue
and 6th Street D
AM D 46.7 D 45.4 D 45.5
PM F 80.5 F 100.7 F 97.6
Friday PM - - F 119.1 F 106.4
9 Milliken Avenue
and 4th Street D
AM E 57.9 E 63.7 E 61.6
PM F 88.6 F 107.7 F 101.6
Friday PM - - F 126.8 F 107.8
10 Milliken Avenue
and I-10 WB
Ramps
E
AM E 72.9 E 76.7 E 73.9
PM F 85.1 F 97.9 F 95.9
Friday PM - - F 106.8 F 99.6
11 Milliken Avenue
and I-10 EB Ramps
E
AM E 56.3 E 62.9 D 52.1
PM C 29.3 C 31.9 C 31.7
Friday PM - - C 31.7 C 32
Note: Bolded indicates intersection operations exceed LOS threshold. Friday PM results are not shown for Future Year No Project as the LOS results are the same as Weekday PM.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
44 4.5 Queueing Analysis
Left- and right-turn queues for critical movements were analyzed at the two site access study intersections: Milliken Avenue and Azusa Court and Milliken Avenue and 7 th Street. 95th percentile queues reported in Synchro 12 were compared against available storage capacities. Table 13 shows the queueing analysis results under Opening Year (2027) and Future Year (2050) Plus Project conditions. Detailed queueing analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix E.
Table 13: Opening Year (2027) and Future Year (2027) Plus Project 95th Percentile Queuing Results
Intersection Movement Storage
Length (ft) Peak Hour
Opening
Year (2027)
All Vehicles
on Site
Opening
Year (2027)
Shuttles
Future Year
(2050) All
Vehicles on
Site
Future Year
(2050)
Shuttles
6. Milliken
Ave and
Azusa Ct
NBL
(Inbound) 200
AM 200 198 415 334
PM 106 98 265 237
Friday PM 75 68 519 331
SBR
(Inbound) 180
AM 53 51 97 96
PM <25 <25 91 76
Friday PM <25 <25 138 115
EBL
(Outbound) 270
AM 106 101 151 134
PM 174 164 206 155
Friday PM 130 127 191 170
EBR
(Outbound) 150
AM 43 43 43 41
PM 174 168 55 51
Friday PM 65 65 63 52
7. Milliken
Ave and 7th
Street
NBL
(Inbound) 270
AM 136 109 253 194
PM 74 74 153 155
Friday PM 104 99 323 188
EBL
(Outbound) 210
AM 78 78 144 144
PM 152 152 226 225
Friday PM 122 122 224 226
EBT/R
(Outbound) 230
AM <25 <25 52 50
PM <25 <25 62 59
Friday PM <25 <25 79 59
Note: 95th Percentile queue reported in feet from Synchro 12 using HCM 6tth Methodologies. Storage length based on existing measurements or assumptions based on available right-of-way. Bold indicates 95th percentile queue exceeds available storage length.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
45 Queueing analysis does not account for potential impacts with on-site vehicle queueing including parking structure queueing or passenger pick-up/drop-off queueing. Queues at the Milliken Avenue and Azusa Court intersection may exceed those reported due to these conditions. Fehr & Peers recommends additional study to understand the on-site queuing. It is likely that on-site traffic control personnel to assist with vehicle circulation and minimize queueing during periods of highest demand (e.g. holiday weekends) may be required.
Improvements are described in the following section to address potential queueing concerns for the station access intersections of 7 th Street and Azusa Court on Milliken Avenue.
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
46 5. Roadway Improvements
Fehr & Peers identified potential improvements at deficient intersections to enhance access to and from the station. Improvements are described below and include changes to signal timing, new signal equipment, additional turn lanes, and additional through lanes at intersections.
Conceptual design figures for the recommended improvements are provided in Figures 17 through 22.
Additional details on construction constraints and cost estimates are provided in Appendix F.
Intersection 3: Milliken Avenue and Baseline Road
This intersection is forecasted to operate at LOS E in the Future Year (2050) AM peak hour without improvements. Changes to signal timing are recommended in the future year to improve intersection operations to LOS D.
Recommended Improvements
• Optimize signal splits by lengthening the NB/SB through phases • Update cycle length to 120 seconds
Operational Analysis
Scenario Peak
Hour
OY Plus Project No
Improvements
OY Plus Project with
Improvements
FY Plus Project No
Improvements
FY Plus Project with
Improvements
LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) All Vehicles
on Site
AM - - - - E 63.4 D 46.0
PM - - - - D 50.3 D 41.9
Friday
PM - - - - D 50.1 D 42.0
Shuttles
AM - - - - E 63.4 D 46.4
PM - - - - D 49.9 D 41.5
Friday
PM - - - - D 50.0 D 41.7
Notes: OY: Opening Year; FY: Future Year. No opening year results are presented as this intersection operates acceptably in the opening year with the Project and no improvements are required.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
Constraints
These improvements can be completed within the existing right-of-way and with existing traffic signal hardware.
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
47 Intersection 4: Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard This intersection is forecasted to operate at LOS E in the Opening Year (2027) PM peak hour and the Future Year (2050) PM and Friday PM peak hours without improvements. Changes to signal timing and signal hardware are recommended to improve intersection operations to LOS D.
Recommended Improvements
• Optimize signal splits by lengthening the EBL, EBT, and NBT phases • Update signal phasing to have the EBL phase lead and the WBL phase lag during the PM and Friday PM peak hours
• Install NBR right turn overlap. This requires the restriction of the WB U-turn movement.
Operational Analysis
Scenario Peak
Hour
OY Plus Project No
Improvements
OY Plus Project with
Improvements
FY Plus Project No
Improvements
FY Plus Project with
Improvements
LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) All Vehicles
on Site
AM D 39.2 D 38.9 D 45.7 D 45.4
PM E 56.1 D 53.0 E 61.2 D 50.3
Friday
PM D 47.6 D 46.1 E 64.4 D 53.8
Shuttles
AM D 39.1 D 38.8 D 45.1 D 44.9
PM E 55.9 D 52.9 E 59.5 D 50.4
Friday
PM D 47.4 D 46.1 E 61.3 D 52.0
Notes: OY: Opening Year; FY: Future Year
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
Constraints
These improvements can be completed within the existing right-of-way. Two signal heads will need to be replaced with 5-head right-turn overlap signal heads, which can be completed with the existing signal poles and signal controllers.
Cost Estimates
Category Cost
Traffic Signal Modification $100,000
PS&E/Design, Construction Management, Soft Costs (33%) $33,000 Contingency (25%) $25,000
Total $158,000
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025.
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
48 Intersection 5: Milliken Avenue and Arrow Route
This intersection is forecasted to operate at LOS E or F during all peak hours in the Opening Year (2027) and Future Year (2050) without improvements. Changes to signal timing, signal hardware, and lane geometry are recommended to improve intersection operations to LOS D.
Recommended Improvements
• Optimize signal splits by lengthening the NBT, SBT, EBT, and WBT phases • Increase cycle length to 120 seconds
• Install NBR right turn overlap. This requires the restriction of the WB U-turn movement. • Add second EBL turn lane
• Add second WBL turn lane
• Add fourth NB through lane from 400’ south of the intersection to 750’ north of the intersection Operational Analysis
Scenario Peak
Hour
OY Plus Project No
Improvements
OY Plus Project with
Improvements
FY Plus Project No
Improvements
FY Plus Project with
Improvements
LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) All Vehicles
on Site
AM E 70.2 D 40.3 E 71.0 D 43.4
PM E 68.1 D 40.1 F 113.5 D 50.3
Friday
PM D 47.7 D 38.4 F 123.8 D 51.3
Shuttles
AM E 70.3 D 40.3 E 70.4 D 43.3
PM E 67.2 D 40.0 F 107.3 D 49.0
Friday
PM D 47.7 D 38.4 F 109.5 D 49.9
Notes: OY: Opening Year; FY: Future Year
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
Constraints
Design of curb ramp radii must accommodate the turning movements of large vehicles, such as trucks, by following City standard drawings
The use of retaining curbs will be required
Utility and roadside equipment will need to be relocated including utility manholes, catch basins, fire hydrants, traffic signal poles, and streetlights.
A total of 4,000 square feet of new right-of-way is required, primarily in the southeast quadrant
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
49 Civil Cost Estimates (2024 Dollars)
Category Cost
Roadway Construction Improvements $1,580,000
Traffic Signal Modification $400,000
Utility Relocations and Service Costs $30,000
Right of Way $650,000
PS&E/Design, Construction Management, Soft Costs (33%) $653,400 Contingency (25%) $495,000
Total $3,808,400
Source: Mark Thomas, 2025.
MILLIKEN AVE
SPEED LIMIT: 50 MPH
ARROW ROUTE
SPEED LIMIT: 50 MPH
11'11'12'12'11'12'11'11'4'11'
5'
11'
11'
11'
11'
11'
11'6'
7'
11'
11'
11'11'
11'
11'
5'
11'
4' 11' 11' 11' 11' 11' 11' 11'
INSTALL NEW
SIGNAL POLE
INSTALL NEW SIGNAL
POLE AND RIGHT TURN
OVERLAP SIGNAL HEAD
INSTALL NEW
SIGNAL POLE
INSTALL NEW SIGNAL
POLE AND RIGHT TURN
OVERLAP SIGNAL HEAD
INSTALL NEW
SIGNAL POLE
11' 11' 5' 11'
11' 5'
N.T.S.
Rancho Cucamonga HSR Station Access
Milliken Avenue and Arrow Route
Proposed Conditions
Figure 17
CONCEPTUAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONAL
DETAILED ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING DESIGN REQUIRED.
EXISTING CURB
PROPOSED CURB (RECONSTRUCTION)
EXISTING SIGNAL
PROPOSAL SIGNAL
REMOVE EXISTING CURB
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
51 Intersection 6: Milliken Avenue and Azusa Court
This intersection provides primary access to the station. In addition to installing a new signal, changes to lane configurations are recommended to minimize queueing.
Recommended Improvements
• Install traffic signal with protected left turn phasing • Add second NBL turn lane
• Add second EBL turn lane
Operational Analysis
Scenario Peak
Hour
OY Plus Project No
Improvements
OY Plus Project with
Improvements
FY Plus Project No
Improvements
FY Plus Project with
Improvements
LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) All Vehicles
on Site
AM C 24.7 C 26.2 C 31.4 B 17.0
PM B 12.6 A 7.6 C 24.7 B 16.3
Friday
PM A 9.2 A 6.0 D 50.6 B 18.5
Shuttles
AM C 24.1 C 26.1 B 19.7 B 15.5
PM B 12.2 A 7.4 C 20.8 B 13.8
Friday
PM A 9.0 A 5.9 C 24.4 B 15.5
Notes: OY: Opening Year; FY: Future Year
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
Constraints
Design of curb ramp radii must accommodate the turning movements of large vehicles, such as buses, by following City standard drawings
The use of retaining curbs will be required
There is a shifting taper at this intersection that conforms before the Metrolink bridge on the north side of the intersection to protect it in place
Utility and roadside equipment will need to be relocated including catch basins and streetlights A total of 7,700 square feet of new right-of-way is required, primarily in the northwest quadrant
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
52 Civil Cost Estimates (2024 Dollars)
Category Cost
Roadway Construction Improvements $1,630,000
Traffic Signal Installation $650,000
Utility Relocations and Service Costs $30,000
Right of Way $950,000
PS&E/Design, Construction Management, Soft Costs (33%) $752,400 Contingency (25%) $570,000
Total $4,582,400
Source: Mark Thomas, 2024.
12'12'11'5'12'
12'12'11'4'12'
5'12'11'11'11'12'
AZUSA COURT
SPEED LIMIT: 25 MPH
MILLIKEN AVENUE
SPEED LIMIT: 50 MPH
CONSTRUCT NEW
SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
INSTALL BICYCLE
SIGNAL FOR
SHARED USE PATH
INSTALL BICYCLE
SIGNAL FOR
SHARED USE PATH
CONSTRUCT NEW
12' SHARED USE PATH
FROM 7TH STREET
TO STATION
12'
12' 11' 11' 5'
11' 11' 11' 11' 11' 5'
N.T.S.
CONCEPTUAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONAL
DETAILED ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING DESIGN REQUIRED.
Rancho Cucamonga HSR Station Access
Milliken Avenue and Azusa Court
Proposed Conditions
Figure 18
EXISTING CURB
PROPOSED CURB (RECONSTRUCTION)
EXISTING SIGNAL
PROPOSAL SIGNAL
REMOVE EXISTING CURB
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
54 Intersection 7: Milliken Avenue and 7 th Street
This intersection provides secondary access to the station. Changes to signal hardware and lane configurations are recommended to minimize queueing.
Recommended Improvements
• Install flashing yellow arrow/protected-permissive left turn phasing for EBL and WBL movements • Add second NBL turn lane
• Widen WB 7th Stret to two lanes between Milliken Avenue and Anaheim Place. Second WB Lane turns right to Anaheim Place.
Operational Analysis
Scenario Peak
Hour
OY Plus Project No
Improvements
OY Plus Project with
Improvements
FY Plus Project No
Improvements
FY Plus Project with
Improvements
LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) All Vehicles
on Site
AM B 17.2 B 12.4 C 31.7 B 17.6
PM B 12.9 B 10.4 C 32.6 C 28.3
Friday
PM B 13.1 B 10.8 D 49.2 C 33.8
Shuttles
AM B 17.2 B 12.4 C 32.7 B 16.4
PM B 12.8 B 10.3 C 31.8 C 27.9
Friday
PM B 12.8 B 10.6 C 33.4 C 28.8
Notes: OY: Opening Year; FY: Future Year
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
Constraints
Design of curb ramp radii must accommodate the turning movements of large vehicles, such as buses, by following City standard drawings
The use of retaining curbs will be required
Utility and roadside equipment will need to be relocated including streetlights, traffic signal control cabinets, fire hydrants, and an electric vault
A total of 4,100 square feet of new right-of-way is required, primarily in the northwest and northeast quadrants
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
55 Civil Cost Estimates (2024 Dollars)
Category Cost
Roadway Construction Improvements $1,380,000
Traffic Signal Modification $650,000
Utility Relocations and Service Costs $15,000
Right of Way $130,000
PS&E/Design, Construction Management, Soft Costs (33%) $669,900 Contingency (25%) $507,500
Total $3,352,400
Source: Mark Thomas, 2024.
12' 11' 11' 11' 10' 11'
11'12'12'11'5'10'
MILLIKEN AVENUESPEED LIMIT: 50 MPH
7TH STREET
SPEED LIMIT: 25 MPH
CONSTRUCT NEW
12' SHARED USE PATH
FROM 7TH STREET
TO STATION
CONVERT EXISTING
10' SIDEWALK TO
SHARED USE PATH
RECONSTRUCT CURB
RAMPS TO PROVIDE
DIRECTIONAL CURB
RAMPS
INSTALL EB/WB FLASHING YELLOW
ARROW SIGNAL HEADS AND
MODIFY SIGNAL AS SHOWN
6'
20'
11'19'
14'
11' 11'
12'
11' 11' 6'
11' 11' 11' 11' 5'
N.T.S.
CONCEPTUAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONAL
DETAILED ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING DESIGN REQUIRED.
Rancho Cucamonga HSR Station Access
Milliken Avenue and 7th Street
Proposed Conditions
Figure 19
EXISTING CURB
PROPOSED CURB (RECONSTRUCTION)
EXISTING SIGNAL
PROPOSAL SIGNAL
REMOVE EXISTING CURB
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
57 Intersection 8: Milliken Avenue and 6th Street
This intersection is forecasted to operate at LOS F in the Future Year (2050) PM and Friday PM peak hours without improvements. Changes to signal hardware and lane geometry are recommended in the future year to improve intersection operations to LOS D.
Recommended Improvements
• Install EBR right turn overlap. This requires restriction of the NB U-turn movement. • Add fourth NB through lane from 500’ south of the intersection to 750’ north of the intersection Operational Analysis
Scenario Peak
Hour
OY Plus Project No
Improvements
OY Plus Project with
Improvements
FY Plus Project No
Improvements
FY Plus Project with
Improvements
LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) All Vehicles
on Site
AM - - - - D 45.4 D 37.2
PM - - - - F 100.7 D 48.2
Friday
PM - - - - F 119.1 D 50.1
Shuttles
AM - - - - D 45.5 D 37.3
PM - - - - F 97.6 D 46.8
Friday
PM - - - - F 106.4 D 47.7
Notes: OY: Opening Year; FY: Future Year. No opening year results are presented as this intersection operates acceptably in the opening year with the Project and no improvements are required.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
Constraints
Design of curb ramp radii must accommodate the turning movements of large vehicles, such as trucks, by following City standard drawings
The use of retaining curbs will be required
Widening to the south of the intersection may cause potential building setback and off-street parking issues, which will be evaluated during the final design process Utility and roadside equipment will need to be relocated including streetlights, traffic signal control cabinets, fire hydrants, utility access points, and storm drains A total of 1,900 square feet of new right-of-way is required, primarily in the southeast quadrant
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
58 Civil Cost Estimates (2024 Dollars)
Category Cost
Roadway Construction Improvements $1,130,000
Traffic Signal Modification $300,000
Utility Relocations and Service Costs $75,000
Right of Way $290,000
PS&E/Design, Construction Management, Soft Costs (33%) $471,900 Contingency (25%) $357,500
Total $2,624,400
Source: Mark Thomas, 2024.
MILLIKEN AVE
SPEED LIMIT: 50 MPH
6TH ST
SPEED LIMIT: 45 MPH
11' 5'11'11'
11'11'11'5'11'
12' 12'12'11' 12'11' 14'
11' 12' 11' 11' 11'
11' 11'11' 12'
11' 11' 11' 11' 5'
11'9'6' 5' 12'
6' 5'
11'11'11'5'
7'7'
11' 11'
INSTALL NEW
SIGNAL POLE
INSTALL NEW SIGNAL
POLE AND RIGHT TURN
OVERLAP SIGNAL HEAD
INSTALL NEW
SIGNAL POLE
INSTALL RIGHT TURN
OVERLAP SIGNAL HEAD
CONVERT EXISTING 10'
SIDEWALK TO SHARED
USE PATH
N.T.S.
CONCEPTUAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONAL
DETAILED ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING DESIGN REQUIRED.
EXISTING CURB
PROPOSED CURB (RECONSTRUCTION)
EXISTING SIGNAL
PROPOSAL SIGNAL
REMOVE EXISTING CURB
Rancho Cucamonga HSR Station Access
Milliken Avenue and 6th Street
Proposed Conditions
Figure 20
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
60 Intersection 9: Milliken Avenue and 4 th Street
This intersection is forecasted to operate at LOS E in the Opening Year (2027) PM Peak Hour and LOS E or F in the Future Year (2050) AM, PM, and Friday PM peak hours without improvements. Changes to signal phasing, signal hardware, and lane geometry are recommended to improve intersection operations to the maximum extent practicable.
With improvements, the intersection is still forecasted to operate at LOS E in the Future Year (2050) PM and Friday PM Peak Hours. Additional study is recommended at this intersection, including considering alternative intersection configurations.
Recommended Improvements
• Optimize signal splits by lengthening the NBT, SBT, EBT, and WBT phases • Increase cycle length to 150 seconds
• Install EBR right turn overlap. This requires restriction of the NB U-turn movement • Add third WBL turn lane
• Add third SBL turn lane
• Add one SBR turn lane
• Add one EBR turn lane
• Add fourth WB through lane from 430’ east of the intersection to Empire Court (1,200’ west of the intersection)
• Convert existing EBR trap-right turn lane to fourth EB through lane. Widen EB receiving lanes to four lanes between Milliken Avenue and Gurnee Avenue (730’ east of the intersection) Operational Analysis
Scenario Peak
Hour
OY Plus Project No
Improvements
OY Plus Project with
Improvements
FY Plus Project No
Improvements
FY Plus Project with
Improvements
LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) All Vehicles
on Site
AM D 44.6 D 49.7 E 63.7 D 50.8
PM E 65.0 D 53.4 F 107.7 E 73.8
Friday
PM D 53.6 D 54.1 F 126.8 E 78.2
Shuttles
AM D 44.5 D 49.7 E 61.6 D 52.7
PM E 64.8 D 53.3 F 101.6 E 71.9
Friday
PM D 53.5 D 54.1 F 107.8 E 76.3
Notes: OY: Opening Year; FY: Future Year
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
61 Constraints
Design of curb ramp radii must accommodate the turning movements of large vehicles, such as trucks, by following City standard drawings
Driveway reconfigurations shall be designed in accordance with City standards The proposed design requires an offset of the eastbound through lanes through the intersection.
The design of this lateral shift should be reviewed during the final design process and conform to MUTCD standards. These standards include:
o A maximum offset gap of 6-feet through the intersection o A minimum shifting taper of 1:50
Utility and roadside equipment will need to be relocated including overhead electric transmission lines, streetlights, traffic signal control cabinets, fire hydrants, utility access points, and storm drains
A total of 15,100 square feet of new right-of-way is required, primarily in the northwest and southeast quadrants
Civil Cost Estimates (2024 Dollars)
Category Cost
Roadway Construction Improvements $2,300,000
Traffic Signal Modification $700,000
Utility Relocations and Service Costs $125,000
Right of Way $2,040,000
PS&E/Design, Construction Management, Soft Costs (33%) $990,000 Contingency (25%) $750,000
Total $6,905,000
Source: Mark Thomas, 2024.
INSTALL NEW
SIGNAL POLEINSTALL NEW
SIGNAL POLE
INSTALL NEW SIGNAL
POLE AND RIGHT TURN
OVERLAP SIGNAL HEAD
INSTALL NEW SIGNAL
POLE AND RIGHT TURN
OVERLAP SIGNAL HEAD
INSTALL NEW
SIGNAL POLE
INSTALL NEW
SIGNAL POLE
11' 5' 11' 11' 11' 11' 11' 10' 10' 4'11' 11' 11' 11' 5' 12'
5'
11'11'
10'10'4'
12'
14'12'11'11'11'11'12'11'11'11'18'
12'
11'
11' 10'
11'
5'
11'
11' 11'
12'
11'
11'
11'11'
11'
11'
11'
11'
RECONSTRUCT
RAMP
N.T.S.
CONCEPTUAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONAL
DETAILED ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING DESIGN REQUIRED.
Rancho Cucamonga HSR Station Access
Milliken Avenue and Fourth Street
Proposed Conditions (Milliken Avenue)
Figure 21a
EXISTING CURB
PROPOSED CURB (RECONSTRUCTION)
EXISTING SIGNAL
PROPOSAL SIGNAL
EXISTING CURB LINE
INSTALL NEW
SIGNAL POLE INSTALL NEW
SIGNAL POLE
INSTALL NEW SIGNAL
POLE AND RIGHT TURN
OVERLAP SIGNAL HEAD
INSTALL NEW SIGNAL
POLE AND RIGHT TURN
OVERLAP SIGNAL HEAD
INSTALL NEW
SIGNAL POLE
INSTALL NEW
SIGNAL POLE
11'5'11'11'11'
11'
11'10'10' 4'
11'11'
11'11'
5'
12'5'11'11'10'10'4'12'
14'
12'
11'
11'
11'
11'
12'
11'
11'
11'
18'
12' 11' 11' 10' 11'5'11' 11' 11' 12' 11' 11'
11'11'11'11'11'11'
RELOCATE HIGH-VOLTAGE
TRANSMISSION LINE AND
STREET LIGHTS
RECONSTRUCT
RAMP
Rancho Cucamonga HSR Station Access
Milliken Avenue and Fourth Street
Proposed Conditions (Fourth Street)
Figure 21b
N.T.S.
CONCEPTUAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONAL
DETAILED ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING DESIGN REQUIRED.
EXISTING CURB
PROPOSED CURB (RECONSTRUCTION)
EXISTING SIGNAL
PROPOSAL SIGNAL
EXISTING CURB LINE
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
64 Intersection 10: Milliken Avenue and I-10 WB/Ontario Mills Parkway This intersection is forecasted to operate at LOS F in the Future Year (2050) PM and Friday PM peak hours without improvements. Changes to signal timing and lane geometry are recommended to improve intersection operations to LOS E.
Recommended Improvements
• Optimize signal splits by lengthening the NBL, NBT, and SBT phases • Add third EBL turn lane
Operational Analysis
Scenario Peak
Hour
OY Plus Project No
Improvements
OY Plus Project with
Improvements
FY Plus Project No
Improvements
FY Plus Project with
Improvements
LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) All Vehicles
on Site
AM D 44.0 D 42.2 E 76.7 E 72.1
PM E 65.9 D 46.9 F 97.9 E 72.6
Friday
PM E 55.0 D 45.7 F 106.8 E 76.0
Shuttles
AM D 44.0 D 42.1 E 73.9 E 72.1
PM E 65.7 D 46.8 F 95.9 E 70.7
Friday
PM D 54.7 D 45.7 F 99.6 E 71.3
Notes: OY: Opening Year; FY: Future Year
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
Constraints
The design of the new radius of the westbound off-ramp must comply with the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, which will be confirmed during the final design phase Utility and roadside equipment will need to be relocated including drainage inlets, traffic signal poles, and traffic signs
Improvements can be completed within the existing right-of-way
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
65 Civil Cost Estimates (2024 Dollars)
Category Cost
Roadway Construction Improvements $580,000
Traffic Signal Modification $250,000
Utility Relocations and Service Costs $0
Right of Way $0
PS&E/Design, Construction Management, Soft Costs (33%) $273,900 Contingency (25%) $207,500
Total $1,311,400
Source: Mark Thomas, 2024.
MILLIKEN AVE
SPEED LIMIT: 50 MPH
I-10 WESTBOUND RAMPS
16'12'12'12'12'12'11'12'12'22'
12'12'13'11'12'15'11'16'
13'11'11'12'12'11'12'12'12'12'14'
8'13'12'
12' 12' 12' 12' 12'
14'4'
7'
N.T.S.
CONCEPTUAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONAL
DETAILED ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING DESIGN REQUIRED.
Rancho Cucamonga HSR Station Access
Milliken Avenue and I-10 WB/Ontario Mills Parkway
Proposed Conditions
Figure 22
EXISTING CURB
PROPOSED CURB (RECONSTRUCTION)
REMOVE EXISTING CURB
EXISTING SIGNAL
PROPOSAL SIGNAL
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
67 6. Bicycle and Pedestrian Access
This section summarizes bicycle and pedestrian access to and from the station area including existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Recommendations to improve active transportation access are also provided.
6.1 Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities
According to the Community Mobility chapter of Plan RC (2021), the City’s existing bicycle network is comprised of 34.5 miles of bike paths/trails (Class I), 31.75 miles of bike lanes (Class II), and 34.25 miles of bike routes (Class III). California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) also permits separated bikeways (Class IV), which are currently not part of the City’s bicycle network. These facilities are described below.
Class I Bikeways (Bike Paths)
Class I bicycle facilities are bicycle trails or paths that are off-street and separated from automobiles. They are a minimum of eight feet in width for two-way travel and include bike lane signage and designated street crossings where needed. A Class I Bike Path may parallel a roadway (within the parkway) or may be a separate right-of-way that meanders through a neighborhood or along a flood control channel or utility right-of-way.
Class II Bikeways (Bike Lanes)
Class II bicycle facilities are striped lanes that provide bike travel and can be either located next to a curb or parking lane. If located next to a curb, a minimum width of five feet is recommended. However, a bike lane adjacent to a parking lane can be four feet in width. Bike lanes are exclusively for the use of bicycles and include bike lane signage, special lane lines, and pavement markings.
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
68 Class III Bikeways (Bike Routes)
Class III Bikeways are streets providing for shared use by motor vehicles and bicyclists. While bicyclists have no exclusive use or priority, signage by the side of the street and sometimes stenciled on the roadway surface alerts motorists to bicyclists sharing the roadway space and denotes that the street is an official bike route.
Class IV Bikeways (Separated Bikeways)
Class IV bicycle facilities, sometimes called cycle tracks or separated bikeways, provide a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway and are protected from vehicular traffic via separations (e.g., grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, on-street parking). California Assembly Bill 1193 (AB 1193) legalized and established design standards for Class IV bikeways in 2015.
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
69 Within the Project area, multiple roadway facilities currently have Class II bike lanes:
• Milliken Avenue
• Baseline Road
• Foothill Boulevard
• Arrow Route
• 6th Street
• 4th Street (Westbound Only)
PlanRC, the City’s General Plan, identifies several bicycle priority corridors near the station area including 6th Street, Jersey Boulevard, The Resort Parkway, Spruce Avenue/Red Oak Street, and the Day Creek Channel. Key projects identified in the ActiveRC implementation plan that are near the station area include:
• Spruce Avenue and Red Oak Street Ped/Bike Enhancements (Foothill Boulevard to Jersey Boulevard)
• 6th Street Cycle Track (Haven Avenue to Charles Smith Avenue) Figure 23 shows the existing and proposed bicycle facilities adjacent to the station area.
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
71 6.2 Existing and Planned Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, signalized crossings, and multi-use pathways. Sidewalks are currently provided along both sides of Milliken Avenue and most other roadways throughout the study area.
As part of the Resort North Specific Plan, pedestrian improvements are proposed to the southwest of the station area including a pedestrian corridor between 6 th Street and the Ranco Cucamonga station. A pedestrian undercrossing is proposed just east of the 6 th Street and The Resort Parkway intersection.
6.3 Recommended Improvements
Milliken Avenue Shared Use Path
To improve connectivity between the 6 th Street separated bikeway and the station area, a Class I shared use path along the western side of Milliken Avenue is recommended between 6 th Street and Azusa Court.
This will require the reconstruction and widening of the existing sidewalk from 5 to 12 feet between Azusa Court and 7th Street. South of 7th Street, the existing sidewalk is 10 feet wide, which is consistent with the minimum guidelines for a shared use path. 2
Additional signage and pavement markings along the shared use path and at intersections are recommended to improve awareness of bicyclists and pedestrians and minimize pedestrian-bicyclist conflicts on the shared use path.
Bicycle Conflict Markings and High Visibility Crosswalks Consistent with City standards, bicycle conflict markings are recommended for conflict areas with right turning vehicles, driveways, and other areas where bicycle and vehicle paths of travel cross. Conceptual design figures provided in Section 5 indicate locations at study intersections where conflict markings are recommended.
High visibility crosswalk markings are recommended for crosswalks with higher levels of pedestrian activity. This includes the crosswalks for the proposed shared use path along Milliken Avenue and at all crosswalks along Azusa Court.
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) is a pedestrian safety countermeasure that gives pedestrians a head start before vehicles, making them more visible to turning drivers. LPI operates by providing the “Walk” signal in advance of the vehicle green signal (typically three to seven seconds before).
LPI is recommended for all signalized intersections in the study area and can be implemented when other signal timing parameters are being updated.
2 Caltrans Highway Design Manual Section 1003.1
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
72 On-Site Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
Project on-site circulation improvements should accommodate the movement of pedestrians and cyclists, recognizing additional activity will take place in the station area. Fehr & Peers recommends extending the Milliken Avenue multi-use path along the north side of Azusa Court to provide direct access to the station area while minimizing right-of-way impacts and reducing the need for an unsignalized pedestrian crossing on Azusa Court. Pedestrian crossings along Azusa Court should be well marked and incorporate pedestrian prioritization measures including raised crosswalks and rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs).
The City should work with Brightline West during the station design process to ensure pedestrian and bicycle access is well designed. Pedestrian movements should be separated from vehicle movements and passenger pick-up/drop-off to the maximum extent practicable. Pedestrian routes between the bus loop and train station should be prioritized. Additional bike parking, including bike lockers, can be installed to support multi-modal access.
12'
12'
11'
5'
12'
12'
12'
11'
4'
12'
5'12'11'11'11'12'
12'
10'11'
11' 12'
12' 11'
5' 10'
AZUSA COURT
SPEED LIMIT: 25 MPH
MILLIKEN AVENUE
SPEED LIMIT: 50 MPH
MILLIKEN AVENUE
SPEED LIMIT: 50 MPH
7TH STREET
SPEED LIMIT: 25 MPH
INSTALL LEADING
PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL (LPI)
INSTALL BICYCLE
SIGNAL FOR
SHARED USE PATH
INSTALL BICYCLE
SIGNAL FOR
SHARED USE PATH
CONSTRUCT NEW
12' SHARED USE PATH
FROM 7TH STREET
TO STATION
CONSTRUCT NEW
12' SHARED USE PATH
FROM 7TH STREET
TO STATION
CONVERT EXISTING
10' SIDEWALK TO
SHARED USE PATH
RECONSTRUCT CURB
RAMPS TO PROVIDE
DIRECTIONAL CURB
RAMPS
INSTALL LEADING
PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL (LPI)
12'
12'
11'
11'
5'
11'
11'
11'
11'
11'
5'
20'11'19'
14'
11' 11'
12'
11'11'6'
11'
11'
11'
11'
5'
11' 11'
12'6'
1":40'
CONCEPTUAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONAL
DETAILED ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING DESIGN REQUIRED.
Rancho Cucamonga HSR Station Access
Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
Milliken Avenue: Azusa Court to 7th Street
Figure 24
EXISTING CURB
PROPOSED CURB (RECONSTRUCTION)
EXISTING SIGNAL
PROPOSAL SIGNAL
REMOVE EXISTING CURB
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
74 7. Public Transportation Access
This section details existing and proposed public transit services to and from the Rancho Cucamonga station. Transit improvements are also recommended along Milliken Avenue to facilitate shuttle trips and improve transit travel time reliability.
7.1 Existing and Planned Transit Services
Existing and planned transit services are operated by multiple transit agencies and are described below.
Figure 24 shows the existing and planned transit services serving the station.
7.1.1 Omnitrans
OmniTrans Transit Agency provides local transit service throughout San Bernardino County, including the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Bus transit services are available in the city through fixed-route and demand- response services. Bus routes that run through the city connect to the neighboring cities of Fontana, Upland, Ontario, Montclair, Eastvale and Chino. Within Rancho Cucamonga, bus routes run on major roadways, including Fourth Street, Milliken Avenue, and Foothill Boulevard.
Existing Services
The following transit routes serve the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink station:
Route 82 provides transit service between Victoria Gardens and the Fontana Metrolink Transit Center via Foothill Boulevard, Milliken Avenue, Jurupa Avenue, Sierra Avenue, Citrus Avenue, and Sierra Lakes Parkway. The route operates approximately 60 minutes on weekdays between 4:30 AM and 10:30 PM and every 65 minutes on weekends between 7 AM and 8 PM.
Route 380 provides a direct connection between the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink station and Ontario International Airport via 6th Street and Haven Avenue. Service runs every 35-60 minutes between 4:30 AM and 11:30 PM on weekdays and 7:30 AM to 9:30 PM on weekends.
West Valley Connector Bus Rapid Transit
The West Valley Connector is a planned bus rapid transit (BRT) service between the Pomona Regional Transit Center and Victoria Gardens via Holt Boulevard, Inland Empire Boulevard, Milliken Avenue, and Foothill Boulevard. The service will provide direct connections to the cities of Pomona, Montclair, and Ontario.
Service is expected to operate every 10 minutes during the peak commute period and every 15 minutes off-peak. Transit improvements within the City of Rancho Cucamonga include enhanced stations and transit signal priority. The West Valley Connector BRT will stop at Rancho Cucamonga station.
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
76 7.1.2 Metrolink
Metrolink is the regional commuter rail provider for the Southern California region, operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA).
Existing Services
The Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink station is served by the Metrolink San Bernardino Line, which connects Downtown Los Angeles and Los Angeles Union Station with Downtown San Bernardino. The route also serves the cities of El Monte, Baldwin Park, Covina, Pomona, Claremont, Montclair, Upland, Fontana, and Rialto.
Service on the Metrolink San Bernardino Line operates every 30-60 minutes on weekdays from 4:00 AM to 10:00 PM and every 60-180 minutes on weekends from 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM.
Planned Services
Additional service expansion is proposed along the Metrolink San Bernardino Line as part of the Southern California Optimized Rail Expansion (SCORE) Program. Current improvements include additional track sidings and at-grade crossing improvements just west of the Rancho Cucamonga station. The SCORE program includes plans for at least two trains per hour per direction on the San Bernardino line.
7.1.3 Other Transportation Services
ONT Connector
The ONT Connector is an underground personal rapid transit connection proposed between the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station and Ontario International Airport (ONT). The corridor will be operated by Omnitrans and feature autonomous, zero-emission vehicles traveling on an “on-demand” basis travelling in an underground tunnel. The proposed station at the Rancho Cucamonga station will be located in the northwest corner of the station area.
The project is currently undergoing the environmental review process. Funding for design and construction has not yet been identified.
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
77 7.2 Recommended Improvements
Queue Jumps
Queue jump lanes allow buses to bypass
vehicle queues at intersections. These can be
implemented at locations with right turn
pockets and when right turn volumes and
queues are low. Queue jumps are combined
with active signal priority that provides a
leading bus interval, allowing buses to get a
head start before vehicles. Queue jumps can be
provided for Omnitrans buses and any shuttles
serving the station.
Due to the high number of transit vehicles
serving the station area, including potential shuttles for passengers that park off-site, queue jumps are recommended in the study area. Queue jumps are recommended at intersections with right turn volumes less than 400 vehicles per hour and when 95 th percentile right turn queues do not exceed 200 feet. Table 15 lists the intersections where queue jumps can be considered.
Table 15: Queue Jump Feasibility Analysis
Intersection Movement Highest FY Peak
Right Turn Volume
Longest FY Right
Turn Queue (ft) Recommended
4. Milliken Avenue and Foothill
Boulevard
NB 537 476’ No
SB 270 194’ Yes
5. Milliken Avenue and Arrow
Route
NB 539 425’ No
SB 250 149’ Yes
8. Milliken Avenue and 6th Street
NB 310 79’ Yes
SB 335 172’ Yes
9. Milliken Avenue and 4th Street
NB 350 241’ No
SB 250 141’ Yes
Note: FY = Future Year (2050). Queue jumps would utilize right turn pockets.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
Active Transit Signal Priority
Transit Signal Priority (TSP) modifies traffic signal timing when transit vehicles are present to improve transit reliability and travel time. TSP is effective at intersections with long queues where transit may be frequently impacted by signal operations. TSP utilizes onboard and wayside technology to inform the traffic signal controller of an approaching bus.
Queue Jump Example (Source: NACTO)
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
78 Two TSP treatments are recommended for the corridor:
Green Extension: This treatment provides extra time for a detected transit vehicle to clear an intersection.
It is recommended for intersections where buses are not turning, and queue jump lanes are not provided.
Phase Reservicing: This treatment provides the same phase twice in a signal cycle to expedite the movement of transit vehicles. Transit phase reservice is recommended for the NBL movement at the Milliken Avenue and Azusa Court intersection.
On-Site Transit Circulation
The existing Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink station bus loop is located to the west of the proposed parking structure and provides a total of five bus bays. The proposed station improvements maintain the bus loop and provide direct pedestrian access between the bus loop and the train station.
As part of the station area improvements, Fehr & Peers recommends installation of additional signage and pavement markings to prevent non-public transit vehicles from using the bus loop for pick-up and drop-off. To provide additional capacity for private vehicle passenger pick-up and drop-off, off-site parking shuttles can also utilize the bus loop for the loading and unloading of passengers.
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
79 8. Implementation and Next Steps
This section outlines implementation of the recommended improvements including next steps and phasing.
8.1 Next Steps
The City of Rancho Cucamonga should program these improvements in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. Improvements will require environmental review, engineering design, utility coordination, and right- of-way acquisition prior to construction. Appendix F provides additional details on constraints and next steps for improvements at each intersection.
The proposed roadway improvements, shared use path, and transit improvements are intended to improve intersection traffic operations and multimodal access and are not expected to provide additional through roadway capacity. Therefore, Fehr & Peers does not anticipate that the improvements would generate induced VMT that would require a full environmental impact report. During the environmental entitlement process, the City should confirm and document the nature of the improvements and that they would not generate induced VMT that could cause a significant transportation impact.
Additional resource areas including air quality and noise should be reviewed to determine the appropriate environmental clearance required.
8.2 Phasing
Phase 1: Opening Year Improvements
Initial improvements shown in Table 16 are recommended at the two site access intersections and the two intersections to the north of the station area. These improvements should be completed prior to the completion of the Brightline West project as part of the first package of construction.
Table 16: Opening Year (2027) Improvements Cost Estimates Project 2024 Cost ($1,000s)
Milliken Avenue and Azusa Court Signalized Intersection $4,582,400 Milliken Avenue and 7th Street Intersection Improvements $3,352,400 Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard Intersection Improvements $158,000 Milliken Avenue and Arrow Route Intersection Improvements $3,808,400 Total Phase 1 $11,901,200
Source: Mark Thomas, 2024.
Rancho Cucamonga High Speed Rail Station Access Study
July 2025
80 Phase 2: Future Year Improvements
Improvements at the remaining intersections are recommended to be implemented in a second phase following the opening of the Brightline West project. 2024 cost estimates for Phase 2 are provided in Table 17.
Table 17: Future Year (2050) Improvements Cost Estimates Project 2024 Cost ($1,000s)
Milliken Avenue and Baseline Road Intersection Improvements - Milliken Avenue and 6th Street Intersection Improvements $2,624,400 Milliken Avenue and 4th Street Intersection Improvements $6,905,000 Milliken Avenue and I-10 WB/Ontario Mills Parkway Intersection Improvements $1,311,400 Total Phase 2 $10,840,800
Source: Mark Thomas, 2024.
DATE: September 3, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Elisa Cox, Assistant City Manager
Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager - Community Development Matt Marquez, Economic Development Director
Zack Neighbors, Building & Safety Services Director
SUBJECT: Quarterly Development Update - Second Quarter 2025. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive a presentation from staff on development-related activities for the second quarter of 2025 (April through June).
BACKGROUND:
In 2023 staff began providing Quarterly Development Updates (QDU) to the City Council. The purpose of these reports is to regularly inform the Council and the community about development- related activities. While annual reports such as the General Plan progress report, offer some insights into development activities (including the number of permits issued and housing units constructed), quarterly updates effectively deliver information on development activities over a shorter time frame. These updates also allow staff to include additional information, such as economic development activities and customer service data, which are not typically covered in annual reports but are essential to the City’s community development efforts.
ANALYSIS:
The QDU presented to the City Council will include summaries of activities from the Building & Safety, Planning, and Economic Development departments. This includes, but is not limited to, details on entitlement approvals by use type, updates on key development projects, and reporting on building permit and plan check activities.
Staff's formal presentation to the City Council will provide further details on development-related activities, and staff will continue to present this information to Council on a quarterly basis.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
This item addresses the Council’s following core values:
1. Providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all
2. Relentless pursuit of improvement
3. Building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere ATTACHMENTS:
None.