DOCSLIB.ORG

System-Wide Transit Corridor Plan for the San Bernardino Valley

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
System-Wide Transit Corridor Plan for the San Bernardino Valley System-Wide Transit Corridor Plan for the San Bernardino Valley sbX E Street Corridor BRT Project Prepared for: Omnitrans Prepared by: Parsons Patti Post & Associates October 2010 This page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 5 1.1 SAFETEA-LU ............................................................................................................ 6 1.2 2004 System-Wide Plan ............................................................................................ 7 1.3 Development of the E Street Corridor ....................................................................... 7 1.4 California SB 375 .................................................................................................... 17 1.5 San Bernardino County Long Range Transit Plan ................................................... 18 1.6 Regionally Approved Travel Demand Model ........................................................... 21 1.7 Roles and Responsibilities ...................................................................................... 21 1.8 Opportunities to Shape Development/Redevelopment ............................................ 21 1.8.1 Economic Development ............................................................................. 21 1.8.2 Transit-Oriented Developments ................................................................. 22 1.8.3 Density Targets ......................................................................................... 24 CHAPTER 2 IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR CORRIDORS ............................................................ 29 2.1 Identification Criteria ............................................................................................... 29 2.2 Identification of Major Corridors .............................................................................. 30 CHAPTER 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 47 3.1 Existing Demographic Profile .................................................................................. 47 3.1.1 Corridor Demographics ............................................................................. 47 3.2 Traffic Conditions .................................................................................................... 51 3.3 Land Use Plans and Policies .................................................................................. 51 3.3.1 Existing Land Use Patterns ....................................................................... 51 3.3.2 General Plan Land Use ............................................................................. 54 3.4 Land Use Plans and Policies Survey....................................................................... 54 3.4.1 Specific Plan and Planned Development Areas ......................................... 58 3.4.2 Key Activity Centers .................................................................................. 61 3.4.3 Redevelopment Areas ............................................................................... 61 3.5 Current Transit Services ......................................................................................... 61 CHAPTER 4 TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS ................................ 73 4.1 Model Methodology ................................................................................................. 73 4.2 Year 2035 Future Conditions .................................................................................. 80 4.3 Year 2035 Model Application and Results ............................................................... 88 CHAPTER 5 SYSTEM-WIDE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN ......................................................... 97 5.1 Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................... 97 5.2 Corridor Comparison ............................................................................................... 98 5.2.1 Corridor 1: E Street.................................................................................. 100 5.2.2 Corridor 2: Foothill Boulevard East ......................................................... 100 5.2.3 Corridor 3: Foothill Boulevard West ........................................................ 101 5.2.4 Corridor 4: Euclid Avenue ....................................................................... 101 5.2.5 Corridor 5: San Bernardino Avenue ........................................................ 102 5.2.6 Corridor 6: Holt Ave/4th Street ................................................................ 102 5.2.7 Corridor 7: Grand/Edison Avenues ......................................................... 103 5.2.8 Corridor 8: Sierra Avenue ....................................................................... 103 5.2.9 Corridor 9: Riverside Avenue .................................................................. 103 System-Wide Transit Corridor Plan i Table of Contents 5.2.10 Corridor 10: Haven Avenue .................................................................... 104 5.3 Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................................... 104 5.4 Conclusions and Phasing Plan.............................................................................. 104 5.5 Potential Extensions and Enhanced Connectivity.................................................. 107 5.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 108 Appendix Appendix A – Existing Plans and Policies .......................................................................................... 109 List of Exhibits Exhibit ES-1 System-Wide Plan Routes .............................................................................................. 2 Exhibit 1-1 System-Wide Plan Development Process ....................................................................... 7 Exhibit 1-2 E Street sbX Alignment ................................................................................................... 9 Exhibit 1-3 Center Running Station Design ..................................................................................... 10 Exhibit 1-4 Draft Center Running Station Plan ................................................................................ 11 Exhibit 1-5 Draft Center Running Station Elevation ........................................................................ 11 Exhibit 1-6 Draft Side Running Station Plan ................................................................................... 13 Exhibit 1-7 Draft Side Running Station Elevation ............................................................................ 13 Exhibit 1-8 View of the Station from Above ..................................................................................... 15 Exhibit 1-9 Station Detail ................................................................................................................ 15 Exhibit 1-10 sbX BRT Vehicles ......................................................................................................... 17 Exhibit 1-11 LRTP Vision Alternative ................................................................................................ 19 Exhibit 1-12 LRTP Sustainable Land Use Alternative ....................................................................... 20 Exhibit 1-13 TOD Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 23 Exhibit 2-1 System-Wide Plan Routes ............................................................................................ 31 Exhibit 2-2 E Street Corridor ........................................................................................................... 33 Exhibit 2-3 Foothill Boulevard East ................................................................................................. 34 Exhibit 2-4 Foothill Boulevard West ................................................................................................ 35 Exhibit 2-5 Euclid Corridor .............................................................................................................. 37 Exhibit 2-6 San Bernardino Ave Corridor ........................................................................................ 38 Exhibit 2-7 Holt Avenue/ 4th Street Corridor ................................................................................... 40 Exhibit 2-8 Grand/Edison Corridor .................................................................................................. 41 Exhibit 2-9 Sierra Corridor .............................................................................................................. 42 Exhibit 2-10 Riverside Avenue Corridor ............................................................................................ 44 Exhibit 3-1 San Bernardino Valley Employment Density ................................................................. 49 Exhibit 3-2 San Bernardino Valley Population Density .................................................................... 50 Exhibit 3-3 Existing Traffic Congestion ..........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • IEDC Data Standards for San Bernardino County
    TABLE 1 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS Population Five Year Projection 2000 2008 2009 2013 Population by Age Group Under - 17 551,976 605,352 609,972 650,474 18 - 34 418,811 555,767 552,116 606,492 35 - 54 476,248 559,899 552,040 618,066 55 - 74 192,482 266,520 275,549 349,543 75 - Older 65,300 76,443 78,243 90,279 % Distribution by Age Group Under - 17 32.29% 29.30% 29.50% 28.10% 18 - 34 24.50% 26.90% 26.70% 26.20% 35 - 54 27.86% 27.10% 29.69% 26.70% 55 - 74 11.26% 12.90% 13.33% 15.10% 75 - Older 3.82% 3.70% 3.76% 3.90% Median Age 30.4 30.8 30.98 32.2 Percent Change 1990-2000 20.50% Percent Change 2000-2008 20.90% Percent Change 1990-2008 45.70% Percent Change 2008-2013 12.00% Households Number 464,737 620,777 617,191 677,480 Median Household Income 42,881 53,036 56,079 60,218 Household Income Distribution Under - $35,000 142,096 202,994 191,038 212,554 $35,001 - $50,000 68,920 98,457 88,026 105,302 $50,001 - $75,000 113,856 162,651 121,455 176,125 $75,001 - Above 140,792 201,131 216,672 232,172 Workforce Education Attainment (25 - 64 Years of Age) Percentage % Under - 12 Years 10.27 12 - 15 Years 15.23 12 Years Only 25.11 Some College 25.95 Associate Degrees 7.6 Subtotal 84.16 College Graduates 15.82 16 Years - More 5.45 16 Years Only 10.37 Total 15.82 TABLE 2 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS Civilian Labor Force 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Unemployment Rate (for month & year use most 5.20% 4.80% 6.00% 8.00% 13.90% recent information available and seasonally adjusted annual average) Non-Agricultural Employment
    [Show full text]
  • Virtual Construction Update Meeting March 30, 2021 | 6 PM Using Zoom & Submitting Questions
    Virtual Construction Update Meeting March 30, 2021 | 6 PM Using Zoom & Submitting Questions This meeting is being recorded. Video file will be posted on our web site at metro.net/crenshaw Public video and mics are disabled. We cannot hear you or see you. Submit a question/comment via text: Please ask questions and submit comments via the Q&A feature or text us. Welcome, thank you for joining us! 10 min Project Overview Annette Cortez, Community Relations Manager 10 min North Segment Ron Macias, Principal Community Relations Officer 10 min South Segment Saroya Sandiford, Principal Community Relations Officer 15 min On The Move Riders Program Brittany Mullins, Principal Community Relations Officer Sidney Urmancheev, Transportation Associate 10 min Business Support Programs Kyle Wagner, (Interim) Business Interruption Fund Manager 5 min Eat Shop Play Program Jesus Galeno, Transportation Associate Robyn Lopez, Community Relations Officer 30 min Moderation / Q&A Isai Rosa, Principal Community Relations Officer 3 COVID-19 Compliance 4 Project Overview Walsh Shea Corridor Constructors (WSCC) Main Line & Stations Contractor​ Hensel Phelps Herzog (HPH) Southwestern Maintenance Yard Contractor​, Completed March 2019​ • 8.5-mile light-rail servicing the Cities of Los Angeles, Inglewood and El Segundo​ • 8 new stations:​ • 3 underground​ • 4 at-grade​ • 1 aerial • Life of Project Budget: $2.148 Billion • Project has reached 98% completion 5 Northern Segment Overview Crenshaw Bl between Metro E Line (Expo) and 67th St Structural Elements of Stations • Three underground • One at-grade Civil Elements of Tunnels and Trackwork​ • Dual parallel bored tunnels​ • Hyde Park “Cut and Cover” tunnel Street Restoration Segments • Underground station areas​ • Hyde Park underground tunnel Underground Station Construction Underground Station Construction • Expo/Crenshaw Station • Martin Luther King Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Gold Line Report
    STRATEGIC PLANNING STUDY REPORT FOR METRO GOLD LINE FOOTHILL EXTENSION TO LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PREPARED FOR Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority Funded By San Bernardino Associated Governments and The Southern California Association of Governments December 2008 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority Southern California Association of Governments San Bernardino Associated Governments San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors Los Angeles World Airports PREPARED BY: KOA Corporation In Association with: STV Incorporated J.L. Patterson & Associates, INC. Consensus Planning Group, Inc. CITYWORKS DESIGN Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension to LA/Ontario International Airport Strategic Planning Study Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... E-1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................................................. E-1 PLANNING TEAM APPROACH AND PUBLIC OUTREACH .......................................................................................................... E-1 THE ALIGNMENTS ........................................................................................................................................................................ E-2 ADDITIONAL STUDY CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) What Is the MUTCD?
    National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Bus/BRT Applications Introduction • I am Steve Andrle from TRB standing in for Randy McCourt, DKS Associates and 2019 ITE International Vice President • I co-manage with Claire Randall15 TRB public transit standing committees. • I want to bring you up to date on planned bus- oriented improvements to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) What is the MUTCD? • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) – Standards for roadway signs, signals, and markings • Authorized in 23 CFR, Part 655: It is an FHWA document. • National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) develops content • Sponsored by 19 organizations including ITE, AASHTO, APTA and ATSSA (American Traffic Safety Services Association) Background • Bus rapid transit, busways, and other bus applications have expanded greatly since the last edition of the MUTCD in 2009 • The bus-related sections need to be updated • Much of the available research speaks to proposed systems, not actual experience • The NCUTCD felt it was a good time to survey actual systems to see what has worked, what didn’t work, and to identify gaps. National Survey • The NCUTCD established a task force with APTA and FTA • Working together they issued a survey in April of 2018. I am sure some of you received it. • The results will be released to the NCUTCD on June 20 – effectively now • I cannot give you any details until the NCUTCD releases the findings Survey Questions • Have you participated in design and/or operations of
    [Show full text]
  • El Monte Station Connections Foothilltransit.Org
    metro.net El Monte Station Connections foothilltransit.org BUSWAY 10 Greyhound Foothill Transit El Monte Station Upper Level FT Silver Streak Discharge Only FT486 FT488 FT492 Eastbound Metro ExpressLanes Walk-in Center Discharge 24 25 26 27 28 Only Bus stop for: 23 EMT Red, EMT Green EMS Civic Ctr Main Entrance Upper Level Bus Bays for All Service B 29 22 21 20 19 18 Greyhound FT481 FT Silver Streak Metro Silver Line Metro Bike Hub FT494 Westbound RAMONA BL RAMONA BL A Bus stop for: EMS Flair Park (am/pm) Metro Parking Structure Division 9 Building SANTA ANITA AV El Monte Station Lower Level 1 Bus Bay A Bus Stop (on street) 267 268 487 190 194 FT178 FT269 FT282 2 Metro Rapid 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Bus Bay 577X Metro Silver Line 8 18 Bus Bay Lower Level Bus Bays Elevator 76 Escalator 17 Bike Rail 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 EMS Bike Parking 270 176 Discharge Only Commuter 770 70 Connection Parking Building 13-0879 ©2012 LACMTA DEC 2012 Subject to Change Destinations Lines Bus Bay or Destinations Lines Bus Bay or Destinations Lines Bus Bay or Street Stop Street Stop Street Stop 7th St/Metro Center Rail Station Metro Silver Line 18 19 Hacienda Heights FT282 16 Pershing Square Metro Rail Station Metro Silver Line , 70, 76, 770, 1 2 17 18 37th St/USC Transitway Station Metro Silver Line 18 19 FT Silver Streak 19 20 21 Harbor Fwy Metro Rail Station Metro Silver Line 18 19 Pomona TransCenter ÅÍ FT Silver Streak 28 Alhambra 76, 176 6 17 Highland Park 176 6 Altadena 267, 268 9 10 Puente Hills Mall FT178, FT282 14 16 Industry Å 194, FT282 13 16 Arcadia 268,
    [Show full text]
  • South Coast AQMD Continues Smoke Advisory Due to Bobcat Fire and El Dorado Fire
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 16, 2020 MEDIA CONTACT: Bradley Whitaker, (909) 396-3456, Cell: (909) 323-9516 Nahal Mogharabi, (909) 396-3773, Cell: (909) 837-2431 [email protected] South Coast AQMD Continues Smoke Advisory Due to Bobcat Fire and El Dorado Fire Valid: Wednesday, September 16, through Thursday, September 17, 2020 This advisory is in effect through Thursday evening. South Coast AQMD will issue an update if additional information becomes available. Two major local wildfires as well as wildfires in Northern and Central California are affecting air quality in the region. A wildfire named the Bobcat Fire is burning north of Azusa and Monrovia in the Angeles National Forest. As of 6:50 a.m. on Wednesday, the burn area was approximately 44,393 acres with 3% containment. Current information on the Bobcat Fire can be found on the Incident Information System (InciWeb) at https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/7152. A wildfire named the El Dorado Fire is burning in the San Bernardino Mountains near Yucaipa in San Bernardino County. As of 6:51 a.m. on Wednesday, the burn area was reported at 18,092 acres with 60% containment. Current information on the El Dorado Fire can be found on the Incident Information System at: https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/7148/. In addition, smoke from fires in Central California, Northern California, Oregon, and Washington are also being transported south and may impact air quality in the South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley. Past and Current Smoke and Ash Impacts Both the Bobcat Fire and the El Dorado fires are producing substantial amounts of smoke on Wednesday morning.
    [Show full text]
  • Other Transit Systems / Ostros Sistemas De Tránsito
    OTHER TRANSIT SYSTEMS / OSTROS SISTEMAS DE TRÁNSITO Amtrak Laguna Beach Transit (LB Transit) Omnitrans (OT) Serves local, regional and Serves Laguna Beach and Serves the San Bernardino Valley national regions Dana Point (800) 966-6428 (800) USA-RAIL (872-7245) (949) 497-0746 omnitrans.org amtrak.com lagunabeachcity.net Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Anaheim Resort Transit Long Beach Transit (LBT) Serves Riverside County and Serves the Anaheim and Serves Long Beach, Signal Hill, the Village at Orange Anaheim Resort area Cerritos and Lakewood (800) 800-7821 (714) 563-5287 (562) 591-2301 riversidetransit.com rideart.org lbtransit.com Foothill Transit (FT) Metrolink Commuter Rail Serves La Habra, Brea, San Gabriel & Serves Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Pomona Valleys in LA County San Bernardino and Riverside Counties (800) 743-3463 (800) 371-LINK foothilltransit.org (800) 371-5465 metrolinktrains.com LA County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Norwalk Transit (NT) Serves greater Serves Norwalk, Cerritos, Bellflower, Los Angeles County area Santa Fe Springs and Whittier (323) GO-METRO (562) 929-5550 (323) 466-3876 ci-norwalk.ca.us metro.net On Demand. Unlimited Local Rides. $5 All Day. OC Flex is OCTA’s on-demand, curb-to-curb shuttle service serving parts of Aliso Viejo, Laguna Niguel and Mission Viejo as part of a pilot program. Take unlimited rides within the zone to school, shopping, and fun for $5 or less per day. Grab an early-morning coffee, run afternoon errands, and go out for a date night dinner and movie – all for one super-low fare. Use the OC Flex App to book your trip, get a day pass, and view your ride’s arrival time.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Bus Rapid Transit Feasiblity Study
    TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 MODES AND TRENDS THAT FACILITATE BRT ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Microtransit ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Shared Mobility .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Mobility Hubs ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 2.4 Curbside Management .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 3 VEHICLES THAT SUPPORT BRT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Automated Vehicles .................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Amendment #19-27
    October 13, 2020 Amendment #19‐27 Mr. Bruce De Terra Chief, Division of Transportation Programming Department of Transportation Transportation Programming, MS‐82 1120 “N” Street Sacramento, CA 94274‐0001 SUBJECT: AMENDMENT #19‐27 TO THE 2019 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (FTIP) Dear Mr. De Terra: Under authority granted to me by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Council, I hereby approve and transmit amendment #19‐27 for projects in Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties. Included in this amendment package is a narrative describing the projects being amended, project listing reports, and a financial plan. No conformity determination analysis was needed for any of the projects in this amendment. This amendment: Is consistent with the Connect SoCal ‐ 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS); Does not affect the regional emissions analysis of the FTIP; Does not affect the timely implementation of the Transportation Control Measures; and Does not adversely impact financial constraint. Furthermore, SCAG through its function as the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has found the attached projects to conform to the applicable State Implementation Plan. In addition, SCAG has completed the interagency consultation and the public participation process for this amendment on October 8, 2020. No comments were received during the public review period. Page 2 Letter to Bruce De Terra October 13, 2020 If you have any questions, please contact Pablo Gutierrez of my staff at (213) 236‐1929 or via e‐mail at [email protected] Sincerely, SARAH JEPSON Director of Planning Enclosures SJ:pg cc: Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Omnitrans Offers Free Vaccination Shuttles
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Nicole Ramos April 5, 2021 Dir. of Marketing & Communications Office: 909.379.7155 Mobile: 909.229.2410 [email protected] Omnitrans Offers Free Vaccination Shuttles (San Bernardino, CA) Beginning Tuesday, April 6, Omnitrans will offer free shuttle service to COVID-19 vaccination sites in Ontario and San Bernardino to those with vaccine appointments, five days per week. “Omnitrans has been providing essential transportation service since the beginning of the COVID- 19 pandemic, and we are pleased to continue to do our part to help protect the health and safety of our community and support the reopening of our region,” said CEO/General Manager Erin Rogers. The Ontario shuttle will pick customers up at the Montclair Transit Center for transportation to the Ontario Convention Center, one of the region’s largest vaccination sites. The shuttle will operate every 40 minutes, beginning at 9:25 a.m., Tuesday through Saturday. Twelve bus routes from three agencies (Omnitrans, Foothill Transit, Riverside Transit Agency) and Metrolink trains connect at the Montclair Transit Center, allowing for convenient regional connections to the shuttle. In San Bernardino, a shuttle will pick up customers at the San Bernardino Transit Center (SBTC) for transportation to the vaccination site at Arroyo Valley High School. The shuttle will operate every 30 minutes, beginning at 9:40 a.m., Tuesday – Saturday. Nineteen bus routes from five agencies (Omnitrans, Beaumont Transit, Mountain Transit, Riverside Transit Agency, Victor Valley Transit) and Metrolink trains connect at the SBTC, allowing for convenient regional connections to the shuttle. Shuttle trips are free to the community.
    [Show full text]
  • The Value of Bus Rapid Transit: Hedonic Price Analysis of The
    The Value of Bus Rapid Transit: Hedonic Price Analysis of the EmX in Eugene, Oregon Peter Hodel & Megen Ickler Presented to the Department of Economics, University of Oregon, as partial fulfillment of requirements for honors in Economics. Under the supervision of Professor Joe Stone Abstract Transportation investments can increase the welfare of a city or region in order to create economic development. Often public transportation has the potential for economic development in three ways; sustaining and maintaining dense development and growth in the downtown core; allocating land use and development; creating and stimulating economic growth and employment opportunities. These are measured along the transit line through increase in property values, increased development projects, and changes in business activity (Neuwirth, 143). Other contributing factors to transit decisions include objectives and values, effects on various groups, downtown development and environmental quality. Different modes accomplish these goals with various efficiencies depending on their characteristics. This paper will introduce an examination of the bus rapid transit (BRT) line in the Eugene area based on changes in residential property values. Specifically, the purpose is to determine benefits in terms of the property values changes before and after the implementation of the line. We considered residential sale prices from 2002- 2012 and analyzed trends of house values across varying distances. We found a significant, negative correlation between distance from a property and the Franklin EmX line. There was no significant trend to draw from in regards to the Gateway extension but this value may have simply not had enough time to capitalize into the surrounding properties.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix E: Cultural Resources Technical Report
    SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYWIDE PLAN DRAFT PEIR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Appendices Appendix E: Cultural Resources Technical Report June 2019 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYWIDE PLAN DRAFT PEIR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Appendices This page intentionally left blank. PlaceWorks CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYWIDE PLAN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 2019 PREPARED FOR PlaceWorks PREPARED BY SWCA Environmental Consultants E-1 E-2 CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYWIDE PLAN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for PlaceWorks 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92707 Attn: Colin Drukker Prepared by Alex Wesson, B.A., Chris Millington, M.A., RPA and Nicole Kromarek, B.A. SWCA Environmental Consultants 51 W. Dayton Street Pasadena, California 91105 (626) 240-0587 www.swca.com Contact: Chris Millington, Project Manager SWCA Project No. 31474 SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 18-270 February 2019 E-3 This page intentionally left blank. E-4 Cultural Resource Technical Report for the San Bernardino Countywide Plan, San Bernardino County, California EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose and Scope: In support of the forthcoming San Bernardino Countywide Plan, PlaceWorks retained SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) to summarize the existing conditions of cultural resources within the study area, evaluate potential impacts that could occur to these resources because of the Countywide Plan, and to provide mitigation measures for potential impacts. The study area is composed of all unincorporated lands that are subject to the County of San Bernardino’s land use jurisdiction; also referred to as the “County Control Area,” the study area is approximately 1,623,988 acres (2,537 square miles) in area, or 12.627 percent of the approximately 12,861,026-acre (20,105- square mile) county.
    [Show full text]