Hemetmobilityhub draft

DRAFT - JANUARY 2018

HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

Acknowledgements City Council Michael Perciful, Mayor Karlee Meyer, Pro Tem Linda Krupa, Councilmember Bonnie Wright, Councilmember Russ Brown, Councilmember Riverside Transit Agency Rohan Kuruppu, Director of Planning Kristin Warsinski, Planning and Programing Specialist Jim Kneepkens, Director of Marketing Consultant Team Psomas, Civil Engineering RNL Design - now Stantec, Architecture KTUA, Planning and Landscape Architecture The Concord Group, Market Analyst Ways2Go, Public Relations Hoffman Consulting, Governmental Affairs SCST, Geotechnical

Project Development Team John Aguilar, The County of Riverside, Deputy Director Housing Mervyn Manalo, The County of Riverside, Housing Specialist III Robert Yates, Riverside County Transportation Commission, Multi-Modal Services Director Ron Running, City of Hemet, Project Planner Derek Wieske, City of Hemet, City Engineer Rich Biber, Hemet Valley Medical Center, CEO, Community Outreach Officer Eric Dickson, City of Hemet Police Department, Police Lieutenant Deanna Elliano, City of Hemet, Community Development Director Kristen Jensen, City of Hemet, Public Works Director Chris Gray, WRCOG, Director of Transportation Rob Moran, The County of Riverside, Economic Development Manager

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In January 2017, the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a consultant to develop a conceptual plan for the Hemet Mobility Hub (Mobility Hub), consistent with the Hemet Downtown Specific Plan (Specific Plan).

Psomas was selected through a competitive RFP process. This Hemet Mobility Hub Conceptual Plan Report (Report) summarizes the process to develop the preferred conceptual plan for the Mobility Hub including: the existing site opportunities, assets, and constraints and liabilities; the program development; the economic/market feasibility; the alternative conceptual plans/site options studied; the preferred conceptual plan; and the next steps including funding opportunities, environmental review process, and permitting requirements.

The Hemet-San Jacinto Valley has a population of approximately 150,000.

Hemet’s population comprises approximately 82,748 according to the US Census 2016 American Community Survey and is expected to grow to 123,420 residents by 2040 (per the Specific Plan), a 49 percent increase. As a result of this rapid growth and the current sustainability trends and requirements, demand for transit is expected to grow throughout Riverside County. The recently approved Specific Plan by the City of Hemet (City) anticipates this demand and has recommended that a Mobility Hub within the Transit Oriented District (TOD) block be planned to meet future local and regional needs for mobility choices (bus, rail, car sharing, ride hailing, bike sharing, drop-off locations, biking, and walking). In addition, the potential extension of a Metrolink commuter rail service into Hemet will be encouraged and enhanced by future rail service.

The Specific Plan calls for the Mobility Hub to be located on a portion of City owned lands at the north end of downtown Hemet. This site would enable the Mobility Hub to be central to the Hemet Civic Center, the County Administrative Center, the Hemet Valley Hospital Complex, and the historic center of downtown. A large portion of the site will be slated for transit supportive development through public/private partnerships. The development is anticipated to include housing, retail, office, and public plazas, all designed to encourage synergy around the Mobility Hub. To assist in developing the conceptual plan for the Mobility Hub, a Project Development Team (PDT) was formed. The PDT consisted of representatives from the Riverside County, Riverside County Transportation Commission, City of Hemet, Hemet Valley Medical Center, and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). In addition, two public workshops and a walking tour were held, along with other public outreach efforts, to inform the public of the project and to solicit their feedback.

In collaboration with the consultant team, the PDT came up with four conceptual plans, with the Mobility Hub located in one of four quadrants of the site.

The plans were discussed and evaluated with the PDT, the community at-large, City staff, and RTA staff to gather their input. An Evaluation Criteria matrix was devised and used as a tool to rate the different options. After thorough analysis and extensive public input, a consensus was reached that Option D (the South Site) is the preferred conceptual plan, favoring a short distance to the commercial core of Hemet’s historic downtown, having the best visibility from the civic center on Devonshire Avenue, having the best connectivity to the area’s destinations, and being the safest and most supportive of bus, vehicle, pedestrian, and bike access.

Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW Project Description and Need. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Project Goals (safety, connection, access, sustainable and synergistic) . . . . . 4 Project Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Site Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Evolution of Downtown Hemet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Key Elements from the Downtown Specific Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 General Connectivity Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Promenade Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Site Opportunities, Assets, Constraints and Liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 CHAPTER 2 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT Mobility Hub. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Mobility Hub Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Transit Operational Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Bus Lines and Future Transit Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Typical Layout of Mobility Hubs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Safety and Security. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Mobility Hub Program and Amenities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Economic/Market Input and Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Current Market Conditions for Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Current Market Conditions for Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Current Market Conditions for Retail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Suggested Mix of Feasible Development to be Considered. . . . . . . . . . . . 23 CHAPTER 3 COMMUNITY OUTREACH Outreach Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Walking Tour Visioning Exercise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Public Workshop #1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Various Local Group/Committee Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 1 on 1 Interviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Online Surveys/Website. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Public Workshop #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Bus Tour. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Council Workshop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Synopsis of What Was Heard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

CHAPTER 4 SITE OPTIONS Range of Alternatives Considered. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Major Project Elements Developed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Multi-modal Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Bus Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Private/Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Urban Design Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Activated Public Plazas and Promenades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 External Circulation Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Internal Circulation Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Multi-modal Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Private / Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Bus Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Urban Design Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Activated Plazas and Promenades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 External Circulation Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Internal Circulation Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Initial Conceptual Plans for Site Selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Option A – West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Option B – North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Option C – East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Option D – South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 No Build Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Comparison of Walktime Connectivity and Destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Site Selection Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Categories of Ranking Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 CHAPTER 5 PREFERRED CONCEPTUAL PLAN Overall Site Plan Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

External Circulation Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Internal Circulation Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bus Support Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Multi-Modal Support Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Activated Public Area Descriptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Urban Design Feature Descriptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Private and Economic Development Descriptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68

CHAPTER 6 NEXT STEPS Project Next Steps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Funding Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Funding Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Environmental Review Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Permitting Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72 72 72 72 72

List of Figures Figure 1.

Regional Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 2. Local Context Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 3. Specific Plan Summary Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 4. Connectivity Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 5. Rail Corridor Cross Sections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 6. Conceptual Platform and Hub Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 7. Community Bus Routes and Stops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 8. Origins and Destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 9. Pedestrian Connections Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 10. Existing and Proposed Bike Connections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 11. Site Visibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 12. Market Area Delineations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 13. Alternative Sites Considered. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 14. Conceptual Site Plan Option A - West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 15. Conceptual Site Plan Option B - North. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 16. Conceptual Site Plan Option C - East. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 17. Conceptual Site Plan Option D - South. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 18. Walktime Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Figure 19. Refined Site Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Figure 20. External Circulation Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Figure 21. Internal Circulation Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Figure 22. Bus Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Figure 23. Multi-Modal Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Figure 24. Activated Public Plazas and Promenades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Figure 25. Urban Design Features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Figure 26. Private and Economic Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

List of Tables Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

2

Project Program and Amenities Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Land Use Assessment – Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Land Use Assessment – Residential. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 City-Owned Sites Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Proximity to Major Destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Ranking and Final Results of Alternative Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . 52 Funding Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

CITY OF HEMET

Project Overview

1

CHAPTER 1 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

3

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND NEED

RTA in partnership with the City, is proposing a new Mobility Hub in Hemet.

According to the 10-Year Network RTA COA Plan, the “Hemet-San Jacinto Valley” is expected to see the highest rates of population growth in RTA’s system.

The project is part of the Specific Plan, designed to enrich and strengthen the community and to provide mobility choices and housing choices as well. The central component of this project is a state-of-the-art Mobility Hub and associated development, placed on 14.5 acres of properties owned by the City of Hemet, within the TOD of the Specific Plan. The Mobility Hub will be designed with emerging technologies, energy sources, and multiple modes of mobility solutions in mind.

Non-traditional modes such as shared bikes, shared vehicles, transportation network companies (Uber and Lyft), and pedestrian access will play a pivotal role in the planning process. The entire Specific Plan development will be fueled by multiple public and private partnerships, and will be positioned to compete for a variety of funding sources, including state and federal grants.

The Mobility Hub will connect passengers from local and commuter routes, as well as provide connections to various other modes of transportation including bus, rail, car sharing, hail sharing, bike sharing, drop-off locations, biking, and walking.

Dial-A-Ride and fixed-route bus services will provide multiple transfer opportunities for riders. RTA is leading the planning efforts and final design for this hub and will also initiate the construction of the Mobility Hub facilities. Many other communities have experienced similar successes with this model for TOD as a catalyst to enhance transportation options and promote future development that can help its downtown become more economically stable while at the same time offer real options for housing, commercial development, jobs, and mobility options.

4

CITY OF HEMET

PROJECT GOALS (SAFETY, CONNECTION, ACCESS, SUSTAINABLE AND SYNERGISTIC)

Amenities for the Mobility Hub must provide commuters with comfort, aesthetic appeal, safety, and security to encourage maximum use of the facilities. Shelters are needed to provide protection from seasonal elements and should include adequate seating. Bike lockers and racks as well as bike-sharing programs would provide those who arrive by non-motorized methods the option to transfer to other modes of transportation. The Mobility Hub needs to be well-lit, safe, fully accessible, aesthetically designed, with directional and informational signage to assist users with reaching their final destinations. Bicycle and pedestrian connections to the Mobility Hub project are planned by the City as shown in the Specific Plan and by the WRCOG Regional Active Transportation Plan.

PROJECT PROCESS

RTA retained the Psomas team to initiate conceptual planning and design for the Mobility Hub on City owned properties. Programming of key project components were determined with RTA, and a specific site location analysis was performed to determine the preferred location within the TOD. Connectivity to other modes of transportation, and other parts of the Specific Plan area, were also considered. A focused public outreach effort was conducted (see outreach section), which built upon the City’s previous planning efforts. Coupled with the conceptual planning efforts, a market analysis (see market analysis) was performed to determine the viability of private development on the remainder of the properties owned by the City.

SITE LOCATION

Hemet is located in Riverside County’s San Jacinto Valley, approximately 80 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles and approximately 35 miles from downtown Riverside (Figure 1).

The site of the Mobility Hub is located south of East Oakland Avenue, west of Buena Vista Street, north of Devonshire Avenue, and east of State Street. The 14.5-acre City owned site consists of large, vacant, and underutilized parcels (Figure 2).

The City-owned sites include: Parcels A-E that were identified in the Specific Plan.

Figure 1. Regional Map

CHAPTER 1 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

5

E

Figure 2. Local Context Map 6

CITY OF HEMET

EVOLUTION OF DOWNTOWN HEMET

The area downtown that is characterized as the Downtown Village District in the Specific Plan is the heart of the historic commercial core of Hemet. The streets follow a grid pattern and are pedestrian friendly with sidewalks, street trees, and a pedestrian scale to the buildings and surroundings. The buildings have a traditional style of architecture and have a “Main Street” aesthetic. North Harvard Street has been recently improved and is an example of the pedestrian orientation of the public Right-of-Way (ROW) and architecture. Many of downtown’s historic buildings are located in this area. The following are important destinations in the area: •• Historic Hemet Theater •• Hemet Stock Farm •• Hemet Museum in the historic Santa Fe Depot building •• Victoria Bridal Museum/Hemet Valley Art Association/Old Opera House

•• •• •• •• ••

Bank of Hemet Building Unity Valley Church Meier House Weston Park Episcopal Church of the Good Shepard

CHAPTER 1 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

7

KEY ELEMENTS FROM THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN

The Specific Plan is a regulatory and guiding document that provides direction for downtown growth. The main purpose of the Specific Plan is to spur revitalization, foster economic growth, and promote a healthy community. The Specific Plan vision is for downtown to be a vital economic center where residents can live, work, learn, and play. The primary objectives of the Specific Plan are to preserve the historical assets, maintain downtown’s single-family neighborhoods, encourage infill projects, promote transit oriented land uses near the proposed Mobility Hub, and enhance multi-modal linkages around downtown.

Transit Oriented District Zone

The site is zoned Transit Oriented District, which promotes TOD, such as office and higher density residential. Residential uses should primarily be on the eastern side of the tracks to coincide with the adjacent Buena Vista neighborhood. Larger developments should provide public gathering places as well as pedestrian linkages to the transit Mobility Hub and surrounding zones. According to the Specific Plan, the building height maximum is four stories or 50 feet. The residential density maximum is 30 dwelling units/acre, however, bonus densities are allowed under the Specific Plan.

Improved Linkages and Pedestrian Paths

The Specific Plan calls for an improved pedestrian linkage from the TOD site south to the Civic Center, the historic downtown, the Hemet Stock Farm site, and along the rail ROW. These linkages are proposed to be part of the Ramona Loop (Figures 3 and 4), a one-mile trail that is proposed to connect the key destinations of downtown Hemet and open spaces to one another. The trail is proposed to be educational, with interpretive signs and plaques displaying the history of downtown Hemet.

The loop can also serve as an exercise path, with exercise equipment and distance markers along the route.

8

CITY OF HEMET

South of the Mobility Hub site, Latham Avenue between Alessandro and North Thompson Streets is proposed to be an improved pedestrian scaled street. Harvard, Carnival, Juanita, Buena Vista, and Franklin Streets, between and including Alessandro and North Thompson Streets are all designated as pedestrian scaled streets with improved connections. Gateways are proposed at the intersections of North State Street and Latham Avenue, Florida and Inez Streets, Florida and Buena Vista Streets, and East Oakland Avenue and North State Street.

GENERAL CONNECTIVITY REQUIREMENTS

In addition to the proposed linkages described above, it is important that Juanita Street be considered for improved connections from downtown to the Mobility Hub site. It is also important that a linkage be created mid-block between Carmalita and Juanita Streets, connecting the Mobility Hub, the civic center, and the historic downtown.

PROMENADE REQUIREMENTS

As described in the Specific Plan, the Promenade (referred to as the Linear Park in the Specific Plan), is proposed to be an active, linear path for walking and cycling that would utilize the excess railroad ROW or be adjacent to this ROW. The current rail line is inactive, although not formally decommissioned. Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is conducting a Next Generation Rail Study which will determine future rail plans for Riverside County. As shown on the cross sections in Figure 5, the rail ROW is large enough to accommodate a second track, platforms, adjacent pathways and connections as well as urban design treatments either within or adjacent to the corridor. This cross section is for communication and feasibility purposes and is not yet part of a recommendation, considering RCTC’s jurisdictional role. It is simply a diagram showing that the overall corridor is wide enough to be used for several transportation related components, and if possible, instead of sitting empty for the next few decades, could be utilized for other purposes without restricting the options for recommissioning freight line use or commuter use in the future.

E

Figure 3. Specific Plan Summary Map CHAPTER 1 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

9

E

Figure 4. Connectivity Map 10

CITY OF HEMET

Figure 5. Rail Corridor Cross Sections * * RCTC is conducting a Next Generation Rail Study, which will determine future rail plans for Riverside County. These solutions are shown here to indicate how the ROW could look but are not under the control of this study, and would need to be approved by RCTC prior to implementation.

CHAPTER 1 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

11

SITE OPPORTUNITIES, ASSETS, CONSTRAINTS AND LIABILITIES

The City has several parcels available for consideration. Each site has unique opportunities and challenges with their use. One of the first steps in this study was to identify and analyze the positive and negative attributes of each option. The community, City, RTA staff, and the design team identified various opportunities, constraints, and liabilities for the site. Below is a short summary of these topic areas:

Constraints and Liabilities

The curve of the tracks The distance to downtown The proximity to single family homes The existence of businesses and police department on the site The lack of street frontage for Parcel A that is surrounded by commercial uses The proximity to the Civic Center The existence of low property values and low current demand for uses The crossing of the tracks to access the eastern part of the site The deteriorating conditions and low investment in facilities along Oakland Avenue •• The lack of sidewalk on Harvard Street •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

Opportunities and Assets

The City owns the property A large part of the property is vacant The relative flatness of the site A supportive Specific Plan An existing street grid system with appropriately scaled blocks Portions of the site are in close proximity to downtown and the Civic Center Existing sidewalk on surrounding streets (except Harvard Street) Large parcels The potential to help small businesses with new business opportunities or more customers in the area to support existing businesses •• The ability to revitalize the old downtown with more street traffic, pedestrian traffic, and economic infusion •• The potential to improve the quality of life •• Line of site for Police Department •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

12

CITY OF HEMET

Program Development

2

CHAPTER 2 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

13

MOBILITY HUB

Bus Lines and Future Transit Plans

A Mobility Hub is a place where multiple modes of transportation, technology, and transit supportive land uses can come together. It provides a quality transportation option, typically in the heart of a downtown area, for transit riders, area residents, local business, and visitors to access civic services and retail establishments.

RTA currently provides service for over a million passengers in the RTA service area each year. Over 55,000 of these passenger trips occur within the City of Hemet.

The majority of these riders are youth/students and seniors. The future Mobility Hub will consolidate current on-street transfer of routes 27, 31, 32, 33, 42, 74, 79, 212, and 217 into a central location, increasing efficiencies and safety for the passengers, and minimizing on-street transfers.

Transit Operational Requirements

Typical Layout of Mobility Hubs

Mobility Hub Defined

RTA aims to connect passengers from local and commuter routes at the Mobility Hub, as well as provide connections to various other modes of transportation. These include RTA’s Dial-A-Ride and fixed-route bus services that will use this hub to provide several transportation opportunities for riders. These options include bus, bike parking and bike sharing, ridesharing pick-up and drop-off locations, and car parking lots.

For a Mobility Hub to work properly, its layout must assure that buses will move freely, that the interface between modes will occur efficiently and safe and supporting functions are close by. Figure 6 is a diagram of the typical layout of a Mobility Hub, with the efficient flow of buses as one of the top priorities in site location and site planning.

Safety and Security

RTA understands the public needs to feel safe while using any transit service or station. There are a number of strategies and techniques being considered by the design team to fully activate the proposed site by adding vibrant public spaces for recreation, music, art, and entertainment. The facility will need ample lighting around the station, in the parking lots, and pathways leading up to the station.

Another design technique minimizes visual screens like walls, shrubs and other taller growth, in order to maintain a clear line of sight for people entering and exiting the transit facility, as well as for local police to visually access the facility. The project is proposing to install closed circuit TV cameras, as well as having security personnel on-site during transit operational hours and other common elements used at transit centers to enhance safety. In general, following adopted standards of site design through what is commonly known as CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) principles, is the best way to assure safety and comfort.

Over time, the planned mix of development projects around the station will follow and will attract more people to the businesses, restaurants, and other services. These “eyes on the street� create a natural deterrence to undesirable activities and help the police department through quick notification of problems that may arise.

Figure 6. Conceptual Platform and Hub Diagram 14

CITY OF HEMET

E

Figure 7. Community Bus Routes and Stops CHAPTER 2 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

15

Mobility Hub Program and Amenities

The Mobility Hub is proposed to be equipped with appropriate passenger amenities, including schedules, maps, information, passenger shelters and seating, and appropriate security necessary to provide a pleasant passenger environment. It is

Table 1.

a primary goal to design the Mobility Hub to be sustainable and incorporate solar power lighting. Additionally, electric vehicle charging stations will be incorporated into the Mobility Hub design.

Project Program and Amenities Matrix

PROGRAM ELEMENTS

NOTES

Mobility Transit Station Standard Bus (42')

Bus bay dimensions per RTA design guidelines

Articulated Bus (65’)

Bus bay dimensions per RTA design guidelines

Layover Bays

For buses not immediately departing the hub

Bus Pad

8" Concrete pad with reinforcement

Curb Height

6" or 8"

Sidewalk/Platform

Concrete or concrete pavers

Tactile Warning

Accessible curb ramps

Sidewalk/Platform Cross Slope

2% max., 4' minimum accessible walkway

Access/Curb Ramps

As required by California Building Code and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards for transportation facilities – 8% max.

Crosswalks/Other Site Improvements

Crosswalks as required by proposed design

Canopy

Protection from sun and rain

Vertical Wind/Sun Screens

Protection from sun, wind and rain – maintain visibility through screens, dependent on sun studies

Modal Access Amenities Bicycle Storage/Racks

Perforated bike lockers- rectangular in shape

Bus Bay Marker

Bus stop

Route information

Schedule and maps

Kiss and Ride and Drop-off Areas

Passenger drop-off, taxis, Uber, Lyft, etc.

Driver relief vehicles and/or supervisor spaces

Bike Storage Lockers

With semi-transparent sides to avoid illegal use or storage of materials

Bike and Car Share Parking

If considered to be viable

NEV Parking

Priority parking spaces

16

CITY OF HEMET

(Table 1. Cont.) Project Program and Amenities Matrix PROGRAM ELEMENTS

NOTES

Site Amenities Seating

Individual and continuous benches, Intermediate arm rests (to deter sleeping) quantity enough for 8 people per bay

Leaning Rail

In addition to or in place of bench seating

Trash Receptacle

Number and capacity required, party responsible for trash collection, recycling program, etc.

Wayfinding

"You are here" locater/community information

Railing or Planters

Dependent on design

Restrooms

Driver only restrooms preferred by RTA vs. providing public restrooms

Signage

Route map, schedule, fare information, RTA contact information, locally relevant information, station identifiers, regulatory signage, ADA signage/braille. Include historic interpretive signs along the promenade and at some of the station waiting platform areas.

Real Time Arrival Display (VMS)

Next bus, digital variable message display signs, etc.

Ticket Vending Machine/Ticket Validator

Tap card or vending machines, located on sidewalk/platform

PA System

Emergency announcements

Wi-Fi

Typically free or sponsored

Lighting

This includes parking lots, pathways and platform lighting requirements - at least 1 foot candle in most areas would be appropriate to meet typical security standards

Security Guard Station

Number of guards, size of station, preferred location will be determined

CCTV

Determine policy, party responsible for monitoring

Emergency Call Button (Blue Light)

Determine policy

Art/Personalization

Integrated art or stand alone – determine policy. Have shown 2-3 places for art, one on the platform, one along the promenade and one in the park/plaza

Advertising

Incorporation into shelters, kiosks, and integrated panels. Determine policy

Branding

Align with current RTA branding efforts

Landscape

Native, drought resistant shade is the most important aspect here along with security and definition of wayfinding. Not limited to the use to natives, but water-wise low maintenance plants should be utilized where possible

Accessibility

Design to California Building Code and ADA standards for transportation facilities.

Accessible parking, path of travel, ramps, braille signage, speakers, lighting levels, etc.

CHAPTER 2 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

17

ACCESS

Access to transit facilities generally spans several modes such as driving, bus transfer, walking, or cycling to and from the transit hub. A higher than average access mode to the Mobility Hub will be on foot or by being dropped off by another driver.

Longer distance daily commutes often include the ability to park a private vehicle during the day in order to meet one segment of the first and last mile needs of a transit user. However, the best type of transit rider customer is one that does not need a parking space all day.

Any effective Mobility Hub will need to address many mode access types. Based on future trends, increased use of shared vehicles, rideshare/hailshare, and bikeshare programs should be considered. Drop off zones for hail share, taxi, carpool, and private vehicle drop off modes should also be a high priority to accommodate in order to avoid the need for substantial parking resources. If adequate, connected, and safe bike facilities and storage options are provided, more individuals are likely to access the Mobility Hub by way of bikes. Some of these bikes in the future are likely to be battery assisted or may be scooters, motorcycles, or neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs). NEVs are beginning to be more prevalent (especially based on the aging population) as a viable means of street legal use. Golf cart style electric vehicles are good for short trips and on roads below 35 miles per hour.

Overall, pedestrian connections are perhaps the most critical access mode to properly accommodate. This is for reasons of convenience, viable connectivity, and safety. All transit users, drivers, carpoolers, and cyclists become pedestrians for some part of their access trip. The proximity of the Mobility Hub and the adjacent future TOD makes walking highly desirable and feasible. Commonly accepted standards are that most people will dedicate 10 to 15 minutes for walking to transit, depending on the conditions along the route and the environmental conditions of weather and safety perception.

Figure 8 shows a composite of a 15-minute walktime starting at the transit center and leading along roadways and pathways to distant destinations. The composite walk area has been created by overlaying all four possible centers of the Mobility Hub, to identify the maximum extent of walking for 15-minutes using existing walking facilities.

18

CITY OF HEMET

Figure 8 also shows the location of major destinations that can be found in or near the walkshed of the Mobility Hub. In later sections of this study, a 5, 10, and 15-minute walktime has been used, recognizing that not all potential transit users are willing to walk these distances. For development to be supportive of a larger number of residents that are likely to use transit, a 5 minute walktime is highly beneficial. The destinations on Figure 8 have been divided between typical public community based service destinations, healthcare destinations, historic interest and educational destinations, religious activities, and retail destinations. Although one point on the map has been used for retail destinations, they are actually distributed throughout the downtown area.

Figure 9 indicates the major missing walking facilities that need to be connected in order to support safe and comfortable access of the various optional Mobility Hub sites. The red arrows indicate the most logical points of connecting the community to the site. However, intersections are of the highest importance for safe and convenient roadway crossings. Intersections are a major factor in determining the safety of the crossing and the length of time needed to cross a street. The current uncontrolled intersections have been shown on this map and represent the need for improvement in crossing distance, connectivity, and controlled conditions (stop signs, signals with crosswalks, or hybrid signals for pedestrians).

Figure 10 shows the proposed bike facilities that are considered for inclusion on streets in the future. Currently, no bike facilities exist in the downtown area around the site. These facilities are important to encourage potential transit riders that may wish to access transit by way of cycling. The transitshed of potential riders goes from 1/2 mile to up to 5 miles away once a person is on a bike.

Figure 11 shows the visibility of the various site location potentials, as seen from adjacent streets (see the green areas indicating locations of visibility into the site).

As discussed earlier, visibility into the site is essential for improving security and reducing homeless problems. Visibility is critical for law enforcement officers, by transit employees, and by transit users accessing the station. Most pedestrians or cyclists are wary of going into an area they cannot fully see. These maps take the center of each of the potential sites, and determine what can be seen from this point, and vice-versa, what can see this point from the adjacent areas. As can be seen on this figure, the north and south sites are the most visible, with the south site having the greatest visibility from Devonshire Avenue.

Figure 8. Origins and Destinations

E

CHAPTER 2 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

19

E

Figure 9. Pedestrian Connections Needed 20

CITY OF HEMET

E

Figure 10. Existing and Proposed Bike Connections

CHAPTER 2 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

21

Figure 11. Site Visibility 22

CITY OF HEMET

ECONOMIC/MARKET INPUT AND FEASIBILITY Introduction

Understanding the nuances of local market conditions is very important in determining market feasibility. At the same time, understanding national and regional trends in real estate development and demographic influences on these trends is equally important. RTA hired the Concord Group as part of the Psomas team since they have this local understanding and sensitivity. In addition, the Concord Group enables clients to identify possibilities and avoid potential pitfalls in the development and financing process by providing results-driven insight aimed at maximizing profitability while minimizing risk. The Concord Group relies on incisive research, accurate interpretation of market trends, and creative problem-solving.

This approach is critical for making informed decisions for agencies such as RTA and the City.

Overview

The Concord Group completed a market analysis that focused on the opportunity that the Mobility Hub has to capture market demand, catalyze residential and commercial market growth, and facilitate private investment in the historic Downtown.

In the next five years, growth in employment and younger family demographics are projected to help strengthen the local economy of Hemet. This will create demand for workforce housing, retail, and community space that will provide retail space for local businesses. Additionally, significant demand exists for senior rental product. These development opportunities at the Mobility Hub have the potential to help revitalize and strengthen historic downtown Hemet and the surrounding areas.

Current Market Conditions for Housing

Hemet’s housing market has displayed strong signs of recovery in recent years. In Riverside County as a whole, building permits reached post-recession peak volume in 2016. More locally, new home prices in San Jacinto Valley and Hemet have grown 10-15 percent annually over the past five years. While new home sale volumes have remained steady in recent years, resale volume has grown 4 percent per year in Hemet since 2011. The rental housing market is trending upwards as well, with 5.2 percent year over year rent growth in San Jacinto Valley. Occupancies have been trending upwards, reaching a healthy 96 percent through 1Q17. Overall, the continuing improvement of development trends (growth in employment, households, and income) is projected to drive further recovery towards a housing market conducive to future development, although the Mobility Hub concept is more favorable for rental product compared to detached residential.

Current Market Conditions for Office

Riverside County employment has grown 21.5 percent since 2011, with projected further growth of 19.7 percent by 2040. Total employment has surpassed 2006 peak levels, improving conditions for office development. While office inventory has remained stagnant, office lease rates displayed signs of recovery, increasing 14 percent year over year. However, negative net absorption of office space in recent years and no overall lease rate growth post-recession create considerable risk to near-term office development. Development of office located above retail uses could be feasible in later phases once a more “critical mass” is established.

Current Market Conditions for Retail

The retail market is improving, with lease rates up in each of the last two years and occupancy rates remaining strong at 93 percent. Strong demand exists for additional square footage totaling 68,000 square feet annually over the next five years. A significant amount of total spending outflow could potentially be captured with new retail development in Hemet. While a considerable amount of proposed projects are in the pipeline, the well-positioned location has upside for new retail development.

Suggested Mix of Feasible Development to be Considered

The Concord Group’s analysis of each use resulted in the following conclusions about development opportunity at the TOD site: Strong Opportunity: Workforce/Senior Rental Residential Retail

Community Space Moderate Opportunity: Market-Rate Rental Residential

Office Weak Opportunity:

Detached For-Sale Residential

Development opportunities will continue to improve as the Specific Plan and surrounding projects, such as the redevelopment of the large Hemet Stock Farm, will bring critical mass to downtown. The TOD site’s visibility, location, and accessibility are strengths. Infrastructure improvements associated with the Mobility Hub will lead to greater opportunities to leverage public-private investment on City owned and adjacent private properties.

Sources: Costar, MLS, Spotlight, local brokers, TCG

CHAPTER 2 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

23

Table 2.

24

Land Use Assessment – Commercial

CITY OF HEMET

Table 3.

Land Use Assessment – Residential

CHAPTER 2 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

25

Table 4.

26

City-Owned Sites Evaluation

CITY OF HEMET

Figure 12. Market Area Delineations

CHAPTER 2 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

27

Page intentionality left blank

28

CITY OF HEMET

Community Outreach

3

CHAPTER 3 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

29

OUTREACH OVERVIEW

Public engagement and outreach are key elements for a successful project. The goal of the public outreach for this project was to engage the public and identify community needs, goals, and concerns and incorporate them into the project at early stages in the design. As such, the design team, (made up of seven consultants managed by Psomas Civil Engineers) along with RTA, formed a local PDT to help the design team develop an effective public outreach plan. The PDT members were selected from various organizations that had significant knowledge of what will become the vision and implementation of the Mobility Hub. Six meetings were held between June and September to help form the outreach and communication plan. This plan was comprised of nine key components.

Advertisements

As part of the outreach efforts, several advertisements were published in local newsletters, such as The Valley News, The Valley Chronicle, Informador Del Valle, and the Mobile Home Park Magazine.

Walking Tour Visioning Exercise

The first outreach event for the Mobility Hub was a walking tour visioning exercise held on May 31, 2017. This tour invited key stakeholders and agency project managers to walk the TOD block and visualize the potential development and Mobility Hub. The walking tour was led by Ron Running, City of Hemet, and Kristin Warsinski, RTA.

30

CITY OF HEMET

Public Workshop #1

The first public workshop, which was held on July 25, 2017 at the James Simpson Memorial Center, focused on introducing the project to the public and soliciting input on various design elements. The design team was on hand, providing input on the Mobility Hub’s location and design options. The design team also listened to the community’s comments and encouraged feedback from the community. Feedback received during this workshop was while developing the design options.

Various Local Group/Committee Meetings

RTA and the design team identified different agencies and local groups to discuss the project with and ask for feedback. A list of local groups that the design team met with include: •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

Caltrans District 8 Diamond Valley Arts Council Eastern Municipal Water District Hemet Community Concert Arts Association Hemet Hospital Hemet ROCS, Volunteer Hemet Unified School District Hemet Valley Art Association Hemet-San Jacinto Chamber of Commerce Riverside County Flood Control Riverside County Community Action Partnership

•• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

Riverside County EDA Riverside County Office on Aging Riverside County Sheriff’s Dept.

Riverside Ending Homelessness Salvation Army SCAG SCRRA – MetroLink Soboba Band of Lusieno Indians T Now Advisory Group Valley Restart

1 on 1 Interviews

In addition to the public workshops and local group meetings, RTA and the design team agreed to meet with local business owners and other members of the community one on one. A list of local businesses that requested meetings included: •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

All Alloy Scrap Metal Recycling AMR Anady Engraving B&W Pipe Supply B.J. Sporting Goods BJ’s Equipment and Rentals Bloom & Rudibaugh, A.P.C. Buena Vista Pet Clinic Eva’s Flowers FM Lock & Safe Grace Chapel Growing Concerns, Stock Farm owner and Garrett Associates CPA Habitat for Humanity Hemet Christian Assembly Hemet Farmers Market/Destinations Hemet Heritage Foundation, DVAC Hemet Mobile Home Park

•• Hemet Valley Medical Center •• Hemet/San Jacinto Valley Chamber of Commerce •• Jimmy D’s Car Care Center •• Patterson House Museum •• Ramona Bowl •• Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) •• Smitty’s Auto Paints •• SW Riverside Co. Assoc. of Realtors •• Swain’s Electric Motor services •• U-Haul •• Valley Restart, DVAC •• Westend Cushion Co •• Western Union •• Winchester-Homeland Municipal Advisory Council •• Wutzler Machine Shop

CHAPTER 3 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

31

Online Surveys/Website

July 2017 | Issue 1

A dedicated project page was created on RTA’s website (www.RiversideTransit. com/HemetHub) which provides detailed project information, graphics, maps of the proposed station design elements, answers to frequently asked questions, and more. Further encouraging engagement, the project page contains a designated area where visitors could submit questions and comments about the project.

Prior to the second community workshop, an online survey was announced and posted to the website. The goal of the survey was to get feedback on the best location for the Mobility Hub, and preferred architectural style and themes.

Public Workshop #2

The second and final public workshop was held on September 20, 2017 at the James Simpson Memorial Center. The goal of this workshop was to provide the public with design options for project site selection. The feedback from this workshop was used to facilitate selecting one site as the locally preferred location for the Mobility Hub. INSIDE THIS ISSUE

Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), in partnership with the City of Hemet, is preparing to design a new mobility hub in the City of Hemet. The project is part of the Downtown Hemet Specific Plan, which is designed to enrich and strengthen the community for years to come. Thanks to feedback from city leaders and community members, the project is expected to play a pivotal role in shaping the way public transportation is delivered in the region.

Two public workshops are planned for this project and will be held at the Simpson Center, located at 305 E. Devonshire Ave. in Hemet. The workshops will be on July 25 and September 20 from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. Each workshop will have a project orientation presentation at 5:30 p.m. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a workshop, or any person with limited English proficiency who requires language assistance, should contact the Customer Information Center at (951) 565-5002.

www.RiversideTransit.com/HemetHub

32

CITY OF HEMET

Hemet’s Vision for a Thriving Downtown is Getting Closer to Reality!

How Can You Get Involved?

Public Workshops, Stakeholder Interviews and Opportunities for Public Input Transit Oriented District (TOD) Zone Safety and Security by Design Project Funding Sources and Schedule

Bus Tour

RTA hosted a bus tour for key stakeholders to the Perris Multi-Modal Facility and the Mercado and Verano Apartments TOD housing project. Both were examples of how a transit facility helped initiate redevelopment in a downtown area. The Perris station was built in 2010, followed by a downtown street redevelopment that now supports thriving local businesses, civic offices, and senior housing.

Council Workshop

On September 26, 2017, in a special City Council session prior to the normal council meeting, RTA and Psomas presented the Mobility Hub as a needed infrastructure improvement and a catalyst for downtown redevelopment. Rohan Kuruppu, Director of Planning for RTA, described the project as one that will consolidate all transit routes with the inclusion of public spaces, increase mobility options for Hemet, and act as a catalyst for redevelopment. The City Council voted unanimously to move the project forward and for the City and RTA to return with a final summary report and project delivery strategy.

Synopsis of What Was Heard

Below is a summary of the concerns that were voiced from the community: •• Safety and security/crime •• Homeless people •• Gangs •• Mattresses/trash dumping •• Prostitutes •• Inadequacies of Hemet Valley Mall transit stops Benefits to be Incorporated There was common input from varying community members about the project benefits. Many envision the Mobility Hub as a chance to have better access to jobs, medical services, and educational institutions. Many in the community see the opportunity for more direct and frequent service to other parts of RTA’s network including Moreno Valley, UCR, University Medical Center, Perris Valley Metrolink Line, San Jacinto Valley, and Corona. The Mobility Hub would provide a consolidated location for transit connections, integrated within a vibrant new development setting.

The community wanted to see an increase in amenities, such as more shelters, benches, and trash receptacles as part of the Mobility Hub. It is important to the community for these amenities to be sustainable through extensive use of solar powered amenities.

CHAPTER 3 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

33

The community also had several comments for improvements to the TOD block.

These include more walking paths and bike trails throughout the community.

Initial Preference for Sites The design team presented four potential site locations to the community for thoughts and feedback. A complete description of all four options is in chapter 4 Initial Conceptual Plans for Site Selection.

Of the four site locations presented, Option D located north of Devonshire Avenue and east of the railroad tracks was selected as the preferred location.

34

CITY OF HEMET

Site Options

4

CHAPTER 4 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

35

RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

It is important in any land use/development plan to study several alternatives before choosing a recommended site or project direction. What may at first seem to be small differences between alternatives, may in fact turn out to be much larger once analyzed in more detail.

Four different options were considered in developing the Mobility Hub. The options consist of different layouts/placement of the Mobility Hub and the other transit oriented uses across Parcels A-D. The benefits and opportunities were researched and analyzed for each option and they were scored with an evaluation matrix (see Table 6). Note Parcel E was merged into Parcel D as part of the evolution of the project.

The best way to help determine the most beneficial of multiple sites, is a comparison of the alternatives using a variety of factors, organized in a matrix. A simple mathematical model can be developed that helps to point out the major differences between sites. To start this process, there must be an agreement on the metrics that will be used to compare these alternatives. This was accomplished by the consultant team and RTA. Factors that are general to Mobility Hubs and other factors that are specific to site comparisons were developed. They generally fell into four categories of factors that can be measured.

36

CITY OF HEMET

Once the metrics had been agreed upon, then the community and the team were asked to provide input on which factors were the most important to their concerns or perspectives. These weighting factors are used to increase the relative importance of each factor, by way of multiplying the weighting factor against the score or ranking of that factor. The numbers used are decimal numbers, since often in real life, factors are not several times more important than other factors, but are generally along a gradient of things being up to twice to four times as important.

The scoring shown on the Table 6 on page 52, is an indication of the team’s overall weighting of the factors, with higher numbers being considered up to four times as important as the lowest ranking of .5.

One way of assuring a rational alternative selection process, is to provide and agree upon the weighting before they have been used to multiply against the ranking factors of each metric. This way, individuals will not try to adjust the weighting factors in order to reach a conclusion that they may have initially felt was the best selection. Another way of assuring a rational site selection, is through the use of several metrics that can be measured. If one particular metric has a wide range of opinions on how well it is met with each alternative, then the overall results are not easily changed by one factor.

Figure 13. Alternative Sites Considered CHAPTER 4 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

37

MAJOR PROJECT ELEMENTS DEVELOPED

Another way of looking at site selection and site plan development, is to look at the individual components of the physical aspects of the site plans that can be developed for each site alternative. The team has generated several categories of elements that each site plan for each alternative site will need to include.

Multi-modal Support

This category includes the factors needed to accommodate the variety of mode choices that may be used to get to or from the Mobility Hub. The success of a bus transfer or hub, is partly determined by how easy and centrally located this facility is to potential transit riders. Therefore, it is commonly accepted as one of the most important factors in the design and planning of a Mobility Hub.

Bus Support

Corners cannot be cut on the essential geometry of bus movements and parking nor can they be cut on the essential infrastructure needed to support the entry, loading, layover, or leaving from a Mobility Hub. Movement in and out of the facility must be very efficient, since it will be repeated many times a day. It is also critical that the bus movements are close to but not intertwined with pedestrian movements. Safety is very important, so clearly defined spaces for pedestrians, buses, and private vehicles or bikes are needed.

Private/Economic Development

The private/economic development category is critical for TOD projects such as this. The efficiency and safety of the Mobility Hub may not be affected by adjacent development, but the potential affect on ridership will be. This category includes improvements for local services, retail shops, and jobs, that are oriented towards the local resident and transit user.

Urban Design Features

Some feel that aesthetic treatments associated with design are nonessential elements of a Mobility Hub. However, clarity of how a site is arranged, the idea of a sense of place that draws a person into the site and the desire to encourage someone to live, buy, work, shop, eat or take transit, are often related to visual cues organized around urban design treatments.

Activated Public Plazas and Promenades

Similar to urban design, the way that public spaces are arranged and how they are viewed from surrounding areas help to determine how and if they will be used.

These spaces can also be used by the non-transit user and they can help support commercial activities that make it clear that the public is invited and welcomed at the Mobility Hub.

38

CITY OF HEMET

INTERNAL CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS

EXTERNAL CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS

ACTIVATED PUBLIC PLAZAS & PROMENADES

URBAN DESIGN FEATURES

PRIVATE/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

BUS SUPPORT

MULTI-MODAL SUPPORT

External Circulation Improvements

Roadways and pathways needed to bring people to the Mobility Hub are covered under this category. They include vehicular and bus roadway access, pedestrian access as well as bike access. It includes how a street is configured for various uses along segments as well as how and where intersections and pedestrian crossings are handled.

Internal Circulation Improvements

Similar to the external circulation improvements, these on-site improvements are more about destination oriented handling of vehicles, bikes, buses, and pedestrians.

Multi-modal Support

Images that identify different types of supporting infrastructure for mobility options and access.

CHAPTER 4 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

39

Bus Support

Precedent photos showing bus station amenities and features.

40

CITY OF HEMET

Private / Economic Development

Form and character images of a range of possible development types.

Urban Design Features

Amenities can represent functional needs as well as aesthetic interest and add to the unique sense of place.

CHAPTER 4 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

41

Activated Plazas and Promenades

These images relate to the “Ramona Loop� or Promenade trail that would be used by bikes and pedestrians. The lower images show some forms of public spaces and gathering areas.

42

CITY OF HEMET

External Circulation Improvements

Photos of roadways and supporting circulation elements to the site.

Internal Circulation Improvements

Photos of parking and walkway facilities to support internal circulation.

CHAPTER 4 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

43

INITIAL CONCEPTUAL PLANS FOR SITE SELECTION

To determine the best location for the future Mobility Hub within the available City-owned parcels, the design team looked at four potential site plan options as well as a no-build option. Common among all proposed schemes is an at-grade pedestrian crossing at the existing railroad ROW and a north-south greenway along that same ROW. Variables include connectivity to Hemet’s existing downtown, efficiency of bus operations, impacts to existing vehicular circulation and non-vehicular connectivity for potential future TOD on the remaining parcels.

No Build Option

The City does have the option to leave all the City-owned parcels as they are today, with no transit improvements or other development. However, in this case, the available federal and local funding allotted for the project would have to be returned to the funding agencies. The City would lose all economic or physical benefits anticipated from these funds, and would be severely hampered in advancing the transit-related goals stated in their Specific Plan. Transit inefficiencies and lack of transit connections would remain. A final consideration, although non-tangible, is the strategic impact of a new transit facility. The creation of a Mobility Hub underlines transit as a high priority for the City, and promotes TOD; this local action could weigh favorably toward regional decisions regarding future MetroLink service, potentially bolstering Hemet’s chance of additional rail service.

Option A – West

The first site plan option locates the Mobility Hub on the west side of the existing railroad ROW on City-owned Parcel A. On the east side of the railroad ROW, Parcels B, C, D, and E will house the majority of potential future TOD uses, including multilevel retail and office in a courtyard configuration along Devonshire Avenue. By locating retail and office spaces along Devonshire Avenue, the scale and character of existing downtown Hemet can extend into the site and create inviting connections. A promenade for biking and walking will connect from the downtown, through the site along the railroad ROW to Oakland Avenue. Vehicles will access the future development and shared parking areas from an extension of Juanita Street north along Parcels D and E, and a drive off Buena Vista Street adjacent to Date Street to access Parcel C. From a pedestrian point of view, this option places the Mobility Hub near the Stock Farm housing development that may occur on the west side of State Street.

However, the existing railroad ROW acts as a significant barrier between the Mobility Hub and adjacent TOD uses. A mid-block pedestrian crossing of the tracks and clear wayfinding signage would be necessary to promote the connection between these uses. The isolation of the Mobility Hub in this option represents a significant challenge in terms of security as well. It will be harder to monitor visually from the existing police department located on the south side of Devonshire Avenue, and patrons may feel less secure with fewer “eyes on the street” coming from the TOD and downtown areas.

Option A does have some advantages, in terms of overall development opportunity and bus operations. By placing the Mobility Hub on Parcel A, the more desirable Parcels B-E are conserved for TOD uses and allows for continuous market-driven development along Devonshire Avenue, facing the existing downtown.

Operationally, by routing bus traffic via Harvard Street from the south and Meier Street from the west, bus traffic is diverted off the busier Devonshire Avenue and State Street, increasing route efficiency and creating more of a dedicated space for the Mobility Hub. Buses can make right-hand turns from Meier Street to State Street or from Harvard Street to Devonshire Avenue. However, if operations require a protected left turn onto either of these busy streets, traffic signals will still be required. Bus travel on Meier and Harvard Streets will also require substantial street improvements including asphalt replacement and extending sidewalks.

44

CITY OF HEMET

Figure 14. Conceptual Site Plan Option A - West

Benefits of this option: •• Transit circulation on State Street •• Not adjacent to single-family residential •• Large area for TOD Challenges of this option: •• Poor pedestrian linkages to housing and services •• Substantial street improvements for bus travel •• Potential bus/vehicle stacking on Meier Street •• The crossing of the tracks would be required between the Mobility Hub and the TOD pedestrians CHAPTER 4 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

45

Option B – North

Option B locates the Mobility Hub on Parcel B, with bus access directly off Oakland Avenue. Vehicle access to the surface parking on Parcel C, to be shared by the Mobility Hub and other potential TOD uses, is off Buena Vista Street. Potential future development including retail, office space and housing occupies Parcels A, C, D and E. As in Option A, a north-south promenade along the existing railroad ROW and a new at-grade pedestrian crossing of the ROW promotes pedestrian connectivity.

Advantages of Option B include direct and efficient bus access from Oakland Avenue, the potential for shared parking, and preservation of Devonshire Avenuefronting parcels for development. A significant disadvantage of this option is the developability of Parcel A, with extremely limited site access, minimal visibility, and industrial adjacencies. This parcel represents a challenge for traditional TOD uses. Option B also exhibits a number of the same additional disadvantages as Option A: distance from Hemet town center (even further than Option A), challenging connectivity to Parcel A, and poor visibility from the existing police station.

The distance between buses and rider accessing from different streets, may be initially confusing to potential riders but should not prove a significant hindrance to regular users.

Option C – East

Option C locates the Mobility Hub on Parcel C, with bus access off Buena Vista Street. As in the preceding option, this configuration also utilizes shared surface parking to be used by both transit riders and adjacent development. Potential future development including retail, office space, and housing occupies Parcels A, B, D and E. As in all options, this configuration includes a promenade along the existing railroad ROW, as well as an at-grade pedestrian crossing of the tracks.

Advantages of this option include the potential for shared parking and an intuitive entry location for both buses and riders. This configuration also preserves desirable Devonshire Avenue-fronting parcels for TOD, and offers a more central transit location, with equal walking distances to Parcels B, C and the northern portion of Parcel D. Disadvantages include bus traffic (and increased noise) on Buena Vista Street, a primarily residential street. As in preceding options, connectivity with Parcel A is challenging, as is the distance and lack of visibility to downtown Hemet.

46

CITY OF HEMET

Option D – South

Option D places the Mobility Hub on Parcel D, with bus access off Devonshire Avenue. Multilevel retail and office space buildings would occupy a portion of Devonshire Avenue, with additional TOD uses on Parcels A, B, and C. Shared surface parking for the Mobility Hub and the other TOD uses would be accessed from driveways off Devonshire Avenue and Buena Vista Street. This option requires the build-out of Juanita and Date Streets as full roadways, as well as a new signal at the Devonshire Avenue/Carmalita Street intersection to facilitate left turning bus movements into and out of the Mobility Hub. Intersection control would also be required at the Devonshire Avenue/Juanita Street intersection for pedestrian access.

In this option, the Mobility Hub is more central to the other potential TOD uses and closer to the existing downtown than in the preceding three options. The Mobility Hub is also better integrated with potential TOD, with the promenade, open plazas and landscaped green spaces creating definition and linkage between uses. The Mobility Hub can be easily accessed from the downtown, from the Senior center, and from most uses on the other parcels without crossing the railroad tracks.

Clear visibility from the existing police department and the highly used Devonshire Avenue provide a greater sense of security to transit patrons. In the event that only a small portion of the available parcels can be developed early on, the positioning of the Mobility Hub near the downtown will provide a more cohesive development that can be extended north in the future.

Site Option D is not without obstacles. Locating the Mobility Hub along Devonshire Avenue will increase pedestrian and vehicle traffic along this street, and bus drivers will need to be conscious of stacking across the railroad ROW when accessing the Mobility Hub from the west. Parcel A will also be somewhat isolated from the rest of the proposed TOD uses on the site. An at-grade pedestrian crossing of the existing railroad ROW remains necessary to make Parcel A a viable TOD location.

Figure 15. Conceptual Site Plan Option B - North

Benefits of this option: •• Fast access to the Mobility Hub •• Buffered from existing land uses in area •• Aids in minimizing blight along Oakland Avenue Challenges of this option: •• A sizable distance to downtown •• Does not have good visibility from Devonshire Avenue •• Disjointed land uses •• Impacts existing police dept. site •• Need to cross tracks to get to the Parcel A Transit Oriented Development

CHAPTER 4 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

47

Figure 16. Conceptual Site Plan Option C - East

Benefits of this option: •• Large area for transit oriented development •• Assists in decreasing blight along Oakland Avenue •• Activates Devonshire with potential commercial development Challenges of this option: •• Too far from downtown •• Lacks good visibility from Devonshire Avenue •• Impacts existing police department site •• Access from a residential street •• Impacts single-family residential

48

CITY OF HEMET

Figure 17. Conceptual Site Plan Option D - South

Benefits of this option: •• Proximity to downtown •• Provides pedestrian linkages to downtown •• In the sight lines of the police station •• Does not require crossing the tracks except at Devonshire Avenue •• Extends Promenade and Juanita Street into proposed Main Street style retail (supports Specific Plan) Challenges of this option: •• Increased pedestrian and vehicular traffic along Devonshire Avenue •• Far distance from the potential commercial/office on Parcel A CHAPTER 4 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

49

Comparison of Walktime Connectivity and Destinations

Option D far outranked the others as the best option for its superior connectivity to the Central Business District (CBD) (see Table 6 and Figure 18). It is within a 5-minute walk to the southeast corner of Stock Farm and the Civic Center. It is within a ten minute walk of the Old Opera House, the Diamond Valley Arts Council, the Hemet Museum, the Bank of Hemet building, the historic Hemet Theater, the retail/commercial along Florida Avenue, City Hall, Unity Valley Church, Hemet Christian Assembly, the Grace Chapel, Weston Park, the Santa Fe Education Center, Meier House, Pentecostal Holiness Church, and Stock Farm. Table 5 summarizes the number of destination points that are within walking distance of each of the four site options. The closer distances are more heavily weighted than those that are farther. Overall, Site D represents the best site alternative based solely on proximity to major destinations.

SITE SELECTION CRITERIA Categories of Ranking Factors

The Evaluation Criteria matrix is broken into four categories: Operations and Safety, Community Planning and Access, Urban Design, and Market Feasibility (see Table 6). Within each of these categories are criteria as follows: Operations and Safety •• Efficient bus movements/controlled through signal •• Segregated bus movements away from vehicles •• Platform short distance from drop-off •• Routing through neighborhood is avoided •• Hub entrance is away from railroad crossings

Table 5.

COUNT

10-MINUTE

POINTS

COUNT

1.5 A

2

3

TOTAL

POINTS

COUNT

POINTS

15

16

1 13

13

B

1

1.5

14

14

15

15.5

C

2

3

14

14

16

17

D

3

4.5

15

15

18

19.5

50

CITY OF HEMET

Urban Design •• Highly visible stations as seen by transit users •• Highly visible connection to Harvard Street businesses •• Open space and parks connect the downtown to the Mobility Hub •• High visibility into parks/Mobility Hub to improve monitoring •• Mobility Hub and TOD situated to support retail Market Feasibility •• Marketable location for retail visibility with parking •• Retail location close to Mobility Hub to capture transit business •• New development adjacent to existing compatible uses •• Multiple access points and visibility of housing developments

Results

Option D had the highest overall ranking, with a total score of 32.5, and the highest ranking in three categories: Community Planning and Access, Urban Design, and Market Feasibility. It came in second place for Operations and Safety to Option A. This is due to Option A being on the west side of the tracks and therefore the buses will not have to cross the tracks, which makes for a more efficient and safe movement. Option A had the second highest overall ranking with a total score of 16.5. It scored the highest in Operations and Safety but came in a distant second in the other categories.

Proximity to Major Destinations 5-MINUTE

Community Planning and Access •• Short distance from center of platform to CBD •• Ability to connect with walkways leading to downtown •• Short distance from center of platform to TOD housing •• Ability to connect Mobility Hub to TOD at street crossing •• Visibly connected to Civic Center •• Short distance to County Community Services to the north •• Short distance to Stock Farm redevelopment •• Improved roadway crossings usable by pedestrians

Option D is the clear preferred option based on the matrix and by the review and analysis of the City staff, RTA staff, the design team, the PDT members, and the community. It is the closest and best connected to downtown Hemet, it has the highest visibility, and has the greatest market feasibility.

Figure 18. Walktime Comparison

CHAPTER 4 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

51

Table 6.

Ranking and Final Results of Alternative Comparisons EVALUATION CRITERIA

1.00

2.00

1.5

0.5

-0.5

0.5

0.5

-0.5

0.75

0.75

-0.5

0.5

0.5

-1

Multiple access points & visibility of housing development

0.5

1.00

New development adjacent to existing compatible uses

1

0.5

1.00

Retail location close to hub to capture transit business

0.5

1.50

Marketable location for retail visibility with parking

-0.5 -0.75

0.50

MARKET FEASIBILITY

Transit center & TOD situated to support retail

1 1.5

High visibility into parks / hub to improve monitoring

0.75

Open space and parks connect the downtown to the hub

0.5

1

0.50

Highly visible connection to Harvard businesses

0.5

1.00

Highly visible stations as seen by transit users

1.5 0.75

1.50

Improved roadway crossings usable by pedestrians

1.5 2.25

1.50

URBAN DESIGN

Short distance to Stock Farm redevelopment

1.50

Short distance to County community services to the north

0.75

2.00

Visibly connected to sr. center, library & civic facilities

1.5

1

0.50

Ability to connect Hub to TOD at street crossing

1

1.50

Short distance from center of platform to TOD Housing

1.5 2.25

Ability to connect with walkways leading to downtown

0.50

Short distance from center of platform to CBD

1.00

Hub entrance is away from railroad crossings

1.50

COMMUNITY PLANNING & ACCESS

Routing through neighborhoods is avoided

WEIGHTING FACTOR

Platform short distance from drop-off

RANKED COMPARISONS

Segragated bus movements away from vehicles

OPTIONAL SITE

Efficient Bus movements /controlled through signal

OPERATIONS & SAFETY

1.50

1.50

1.00

1.00

0.50

0.5

1

0.5

1.5

1.5

0.75

1.5

0.5

1.5

0.75

Option A- West

Unweighted Raw Score Weighted Score

Weighted Sub-total per Category

Option B- North

Unweighted Raw Score Weighted Score

Weighted Sub-total per Category

5.00

Weighted Sub-total per Category

0.25

Weighted Sub-total

4.25

0.5

1.5

1

1

0.5

-0.5

-0.5

1

0.5

-0.5

1.5

1

0.5

-0.5

-0.5

0.5

0.5

-0.5

0.5

-0.5

0.5

1

0.75

1.5

0.5

1.5

0.25

-1

-0.75

1.5

0.75

-0.5

0.75

0.5

0.75

-0.5

-0.5

0.5

1

-0.75

0.75

-0.5

0.5

0.5

Weighted Sub-total per Category

Option C- East

Unweighted Raw Score Weighted Score

7.00

4.50

Weighted Sub-total per Category

2.00

Weighted Sub-total per Category

-0.25

Weighted Sub-total

1

-0.5

1

-0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

1

1

0.5

-0.5

-0.5

0.5

-0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

-0.5

1

0.5

0.5

-0.75

0.5

-1

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.75

-0.5

-0.5

0.5

-1

0.75

0.75

0.5

-0.5

0.5

3.50

Weighted Sub-total per Category

-0.75

Weighted Sub-total

Score

Total Weighted

0.5

Weighted Sub-total per Category

Total Weighted

B: 7.50

0.5

1.50

Score

A: 16.50

1.25

0.75

Weighted Sub-total per Category

Total Weighted

Score

1.25

C: 5.50

Total Weighted

Option D- South

Unweighted Raw Score Weighted Score

1

1

1

1

1

1.5

1.5

1

1.5

1.5

-0.5

0.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1

0.5

1.5

1

0.5

1.5

0.5

3

2.25

1.5

2.25

1.5

-0.25

0.25

2.25

1.5

1.5

1.5

3

2.25

2.25

1.5

1

0.25

Weighted Sub-total per Category

5.00

Weighted Sub-total per Category

12.75

Weighted Sub-total per Category

9.75

Weighted Sub-total

5.00

Score

D: 32.50

Option E- No Build

Unweighted Raw Score Weighted Score

0 0

0

0

0

0 0 0 Weighted Sub-total per Category

0

0

0

0

0

0 0.00

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 Weighted Sub-total per Category

-0.5

0

-0.75 -0.75

0

0

-0.5

0

0 -0.5 0 Weighted Sub-total per Category

0

-0.5

0 -0.50

-0.75

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5 -0.5 Weighted Sub-total

-0.5 -0.25 -2.00

EVALUATION CRITERIA SCORING LEGEND Clearly best solution

1.5

Fully meets criteria

WEIGHTING CRITERIA SCORING LEGEND Greatest importance multiplier

52

CITY OF HEMET

2

High importance multiplier

1 1.5

Partially meets criteria Important multiplier

0.5 1

Not applicable or neutral Slightly important multiplier

0 0.5

Does not meet criteria Minor importance multiplier

-0.5 0.25

Total Weighted Score

E: -3.25

Preferred Conceptual Plan

5

CHAPTER 5 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

53

OVERALL SITE PLAN DESCRIPTION

As discussed in the previous chapter, Site “D” is the preferred site based on the alternatives analysis, public input, working group and city council support. This chapter discusses the site plan and design detail only for this preferred alternative.

The overall site plan recognizes the linear nature of the site, with its linear features of the rail line (north and south) and the linear nature of Devonshire Avenue (east and west). This site plan orientation allows for an interface between the street along Devonshire Avenue and road entrances, parking lot entrances, storefronts, open space, and the promenade walkway to be present at the road’s edge.

54

CITY OF HEMET

It is essential that retail development has a place at the edge of the street. Other uses that do not need to be present along the edge of the road should be oriented in a linear arrangement away from it. The proposed development sets a street wall for the project that is typical of “Main Street” types of development. The corridors between these walls are hallways and doorways into the depth of the parking lot and the car and bus interface is well along an exchange edge that promotes this interface. This way, parking is visible but not dominant, and roadway entrances are identifiable but do not negatively affect the character of Devonshire Avenue.

Figure 19. Refined Site Plan

CHAPTER 5 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

55

EXTERNAL CIRCULATION DESCRIPTION

The external system of circulation is almost entirely anchored by improvements to Devonshire Avenue. The roadway is currently lacking in edge definition, and does not accommodate pedestrians or bikes. The intent of the plan is to complete lane diets to bring them more into line with 10-12 foot lane widths, add improved walkway systems leading east and west, and accommodate bike lanes with proposed buffering along the edge where parallel parking will be accommodated.

Although it is possible to make this treatment work within the existing ROW, there are advantages to creating wider than normal walking environments to support the public uses and private interfaces with proposed development. The north edge of Devonshire Avenue should require a slight expansion of the ROW to make on-street parking, bike lanes, vehicular turning movements, and a safe and comfortable front interface with the proposed street wall/storefront of the new development. Two important crossing points are essential for access and safety. These crossings will occur at North Carmalita and North Juanita Streets. Pedestrian improvements are necessary to connect with downtown and are envisioned to include bulb-outs, high visibility crosswalks, and controlled intersections. The extension of the Promenade or “Ramona Loop� will occur on the west side of the Carmalita intersection improvement.

2

56

CITY OF HEMET

9

6

Figure 20. External Circulation Improvements

6 9

2

CHAPTER 5 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

57

INTERNAL CIRCULATION DESCRIPTION

Internal circulation will be focused on getting people to and from the buses, parked vehicles, drop off locations, and to possible new development north of the site.

This would include circulation through and around the parking lot and on the west and east side of the Mobility Hub. East to west walking routes are more directed and controlled than north to south movement. This is a result of the need to control access to the center platform areas since bus movements are frequent in this area and movements need to be free of conflict.

15

58

CITY OF HEMET

3

13

Figure 21. Internal Circulation Improvements

15

3

13

CHAPTER 5 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

59

BUS SUPPORT DESCRIPTION

Ample room is essential for making sure that bus movements are efficient and safe and that the Mobility Hub will work for transit riders, bus drivers, and RTA staff as well. If not planned properly with adequate space, one difficult movement would need to be repeated dozens of times a day. The proposed site plan takes well tested configurations of platforms and bus aisle space and applies them to this site. One critical element is to make sure that private vehicular movements do not occur in the bus movement areas. Clear signage is critical and visibility into the overall site is equally important. The proposed site plan includes the needed shelters, bus driver amenities, small office space for security personnel, and a comfortable waiting environment for transit riders.

4

7

60

CITY OF HEMET

Figure 22. Bus Support

7

4

CHAPTER 5 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

61

MULTI-MODAL SUPPORT DESCRIPTION

The use of the bus as the primary mode of transportation through the Mobility Hub, is clear and obvious. But the richness of mobility options will only occur when several other mode choices are offered. Connections from the point of origin (a person’s residence) to a destination point (where a person wants to go), is made more difficult to access if greater distances exist. At the central core of a Mobility Hub, is its connections with many modes of travel. Most of these modes provide the access to transit. Walking is the key mode that will occur at the Mobility Hub. Dropoffs as part of a “kiss and ride” facility or for hail share service is the secondary way that transit riders are likely to access the station. Bike use access and the occasional scooter or NEV will also represent an important mode to transit connections.

Facilities for parking bikes (bike corals or bike storage units) are important as are the drop-off lanes and curb edge interface to the Mobility Hub platforms. These areas must function well at night and be fully ADA accessible. They must use CPTED safety principles of design and should be perceived as being open and inviting.

10

62

CITY OF HEMET

11

16

Figure 23. Multi-Modal Support

11

10

16

CHAPTER 5 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

63

ACTIVATED PUBLIC AREA DESCRIPTIONS

Placemaking is a skill not generally associated with typical engineering approaches to site development. Design is about aesthetics, but more importantly, about creating a sense of place that is contextual with characteristics found in the area and in the integration of design, form, and composition that creates spaces that are well used, attractive, and remembered. The elements under this category should be tied together as a set of areas where the public can gather and where strong connections between them are clear. The promenade or “Ramona Loop Trail� (and any other type of urban forestry edge) are important active transportation connections, define spaces, provide shade and unifies the areas. This promenade needs a flared park area at the north and south ends to attract people to this loop. The spaces around the retail/office/lofts must be perceived as public spaces that can help to support the adjacent outside uses of the business establishments. Another east to west circulation point will be needed if any new private development will occur west of the tracks, on Parcel A. Although the rail line is currently not being operated, it is likely that restrictions on crossing these tracks may need to be recognized. If the California Public Utilities Commission requires it, an at grade crossing should be considered just north of the Mobility Hub platforms. With future development and the possible future use of the rail line for Metrolink, a more permanent crossing will be needed and could include an over the tracks bridge, connected to parking garages or mixed use development on the opposite sides of the track.

14

17

64

CITY OF HEMET

Figure 24. Activated Public Plazas & Promenades

14

17

CHAPTER 5 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

65

URBAN DESIGN FEATURE DESCRIPTIONS

Like placemaking, urban design features are needed to provide a focal point of interest and to help to make the location memorable and easy to navigate. The features should be located at the entrances to the Mobility Hub, the promenade, and the retail areas. These areas will provide the attention grabbing aspects of getting the public to come to the Mobility Hub, the public spaces, and the businesses. They can include artful design of physical elements, done in a grand and prominent manner, or they can include public art as well.

19

18

12

66

CITY OF HEMET

Figure 25. Urban Design Features

19

12

18 CHAPTER 5 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

67

PRIVATE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTIONS

8

Development of the remaining parcels of the site may consist of private/public partnerships for development of mixed uses. The market feasibility report indicates a certain amount and type of development that is considered to be feasible.

The Specific Plan has provided zoning and development standards for these areas.

However, describing through site plans, elevations, or perspectives is difficult at such an early stage. The only guidance that can be provided from this level of the study is that these uses need to include a significant number of residents, which provide support for uses that keep the ground floor and outside areas activated with uses to offset potential homeless concerns. The connectivity to these sites is important, but a change between fully public space, semi-public space, semi-private space, and private space needs to be very clear.

1

5

68

CITY OF HEMET

Figure 26. Private & Economic Development

5 1

8

CHAPTER 5 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

69

Potential uses of plaza could include a Farmer’s Market.

The retail edge needs to be designed to be interesting and encourage access.

70

CITY OF HEMET

Next Steps

6

CHAPTER 6 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

71

PROJECT NEXT STEPS Steps Completed: Market Analysis Site Assessment of TOD Block Public Outreach Initial Site Planning Design Concepts City Council Presentation City Council Approval on Site Location

Next Steps: City Council Approval of Concept Plan Final Design Permitting within City of Hemet Mobility Hub Construction

FUNDING FOUNDATION

The Hemet Mobility Hub project will be a partnership between the City of Hemet and RTA. The design phase of the Mobility Hub project is funded through earmark grants from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) distributed by WRCOG.

FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

Additional funding of the project and its various elements, will likely require different funding sources and grants. The tables on the following pages are typical grants that could be pursued for active transportation, transit improvements, community development, urban greening, and stormwater runoff infrastructure.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS

RTA is in the process of determining the appropriate project specific environmental document for the proposed Mobility Hub and potential retail and office space, pursuant to the mandates of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. Psomas has conducted a preliminary review of the proposed project, the Specific Plan, and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the Specific Plan, and has coordinated with the City and RTA regarding the anticipated entitlement and CEQA processes. It has preliminarily been determined by the City that a project-specific IS/MND should be prepared for the Mobility Hub, but the required environmental review for any private development that is consistent with the Specific Plan and within the scope of the analysis in the previously prepared IS/MND would be limited to project-specific analysis outlined in the IS/MND.

PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS

Prior to going to construction, the design team will develop architectural and engineering documents to present to the City for entitlements and other approvals.

Following the approval of this report a complete set of construction documents will be created.

The Mobility Hub design and construction is subject to City reviews and permitting. The design team will coordinate with the City’s engineering department, utilities department, fire marshal, and planning department.

The other elements of the TOD other than those shown on Parcel “E” next to the Mobility Hub, will be handled by the City and will require private/public partnerships and agreements with a master developer or builder. These efforts are separate from RTA but are essential to be integrated and coordinated with the RTA since they are critical in helping to generate transit ridership that will result in a return on investment for RTA in terms of transit riders, will add “eyes on the street,” and will catalyze other investment.

72

CITY OF HEMET

Funding Opportunities

FUNDING SOURCE

FUNDING ORIGIN

FUNDING USES Typical Approaches Maint. & Operations

HOW TO FIND, FRAME, AND FUND A PROJECT

CIP Development

Table 7.

ATYPICAL APPROACHES FIRST & LAST MILE

URBAN FORESTRY

BACK TO NATURE

LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT

a

a

CULTURE AND HISTORY

Federal Funding Sources Land and Water Conservation Fund

U.S. National Park Service/California Dept. of Parks and Recreation

a

Urban Community Forestry Program

U.S. National Park Service

a

Surface Transportation Program

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)/Caltrans

a

a

a

Transportation Alternative Program

FHWA

a

a

a

Highway Safety Improvement Program

FHWA/Caltrans

a

a

a

EPA Brownfields Clean Up and Assessments

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

a

a

a

Sustainable Communities Planning Grant and Incentive Program

U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

a

Urban Revitalization and Livable Communities Act

HUD

a

Community Development Block Grants

HUD

ACHIEVE, Communities Putting Prevention to Work, Pioneering Communities

Center for Disease Control and Prevention

Urban and Community Forest Program

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

a

Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grants

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Public and Indian Housing

a

a

Safe Routes to School, Mini-grants

National Center for Safe Routes to School and Caltrans

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

CHAPTER 6 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

73

FUNDING ORIGIN

Typical Approaches Maint. & Operations

FUNDING SOURCE

FUNDING USES

CIP Development

HOW TO FIND, FRAME, AND FUND A PROJECT

ATYPICAL APPROACHES FIRST & LAST MILE

URBAN FORESTRY

BACK TO NATURE

LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT

Metropolitan and Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

a

Urbanized Area Formula Grants

FTA

a

Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Grants

FTA

a

Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities

FTA

a

a

a

TOD Planning Pilot Grants

FTA

a

a

a

Recreational Trails Program

CA Dept. of Parks and Rec.

a

a

a

Community Based Transportation Planning, Environmental Justice and Transit Planning

Caltrans

a

a

a

Active Transportation Planning Grants (ATP)

Caltrans

a

a

a

Regional Improvement Program

Caltrans

a

a

a

Safe Routes to School Programs(SR2S)

Caltrans

a

a

a

Traffic Safety Grants

CA Office of Traffic Safety

a

a

Sustainable Communities Planning, Regional SB 375

Strategic Growth Council/Dept of Conservation

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

CULTURE AND HISTORY

a

a

State Funding Sources

74

CITY OF HEMET

a

a

a

a

a

a

FUNDING ORIGIN

Typical Approaches Maint. & Operations

FUNDING SOURCE

FUNDING USES

CIP Development

HOW TO FIND, FRAME, AND FUND A PROJECT

ATYPICAL APPROACHES FIRST & LAST MILE

URBAN FORESTRY

BACK TO NATURE

LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT

CULTURE AND HISTORY

Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation

California Natural Resources Agency and Caltrans

a

California Cap and Trade Program

Cal EPA, Air Resources Board

a

Urban Forestry Program (Leafing Out, Leading Edge and Green Trees Grants)

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE)

a

Special Parks and Recreation Bond Revenues

Regional MPOs/Local Cities

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

Special Transportation Bonds and Sales Tax Initiatives

Regional MPOs/Local Cities

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

Advertising Sales/Naming Rights

Local Jurisdictions

a

a

a

a

Community Facilities District (CFD), Infrastructure Financing District (IFD), Facilities Benefit Assessment District (FBA)

Local Jurisdictions

a

a

a

a

Sustainable Planning Grants: ATP

SCAG

a

a

Sustainable Planning Grants: Green Region Initiatives

SCAG

a

a

Sustainable Planning Grants: Integrated Land Use

SCAG

a

a

Business Improvement (BID), Maint. Districts (MAD) Property Based Improvement Districts (PBID) Landscape Maint. District (LMD)

Non-profits, business organizations or City

a a

a

a

a

a

Local Funding Sources

a

a

a a

a

a

a a

a

a

a a

a

a

a

CHAPTER 6 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

75

FUNDING USES Typical Approaches

ATYPICAL APPROACHES URBAN FORESTRY

BACK TO NATURE

LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT

CULTURE AND HISTORY

Maint. & Operations

FIRST & LAST MILE

CIP Development

HOW TO FIND, FRAME, AND FUND A PROJECT

Easement Agreements/Revenues

Local Jurisdictions

a

a

General Fund

Local Jurisdictions

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

General Obligation Bonds

Local Jurisdictions

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

Intergovernmental Agreements

Local Jurisdictions

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

Lease Revenues

Local Jurisdictions

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

Mello Roos Districts

Local Jurisdictions

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

Residential Park Improvement Fees

Local Jurisdictions

a

a

a

a

a

a

Park Impact Fees

Local Jurisdictions

a

a

a

a

a

a

Traffic Impact Fees

Local Jurisdictions

a

a

a

a

a

a

In-Lieu Fees

Local Jurisdictions

a

a

a

a

a

a

Private Development Agreements

Local Jurisdictions

a

a

a

a

a

a

Surplus Real Estate Sale Revenues

Local Jurisdictions

a

a

a

a

a

a

Revenue Bond Revenues

Local Jurisdictions

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

Sales Tax Revenues

Local Jurisdictions

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

FUNDING SOURCE

76

CITY OF HEMET

FUNDING ORIGIN

a

a

a

FUNDING USES Typical Approaches

ATYPICAL APPROACHES URBAN FORESTRY

BACK TO NATURE

LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT

CULTURE AND HISTORY

Maint. & Operations

FIRST & LAST MILE

CIP Development

HOW TO FIND, FRAME, AND FUND A PROJECT

Transient Occupancy Tax Revenues

Local Jurisdictions

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

Utility Taxes

Local Jurisdictions

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

California ReLeaf Urban Forestry Grant

California ReLeaf

a

Grants for Parks

California State Parks Foundation

a

a

a

America’s Historical Planning Grants

National Endowment for the Humanities

a

Corporate Sponsorships

Corporate Citizens

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

Private Sector Partnerships

Private Corporations

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

Non-Profit Partnerships

Non-Profit Corporations

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

Foundation Grants

Private Foundations

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

Private Donations

Private Individuals

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

Irrevocable Remainder Trusts

Private Individuals

a

a

a

a

Targeted Fund-raising Activities

Local Jurisdictions

a

a

a

a

FUNDING SOURCE

FUNDING ORIGIN

Private Funding Sources

a a

a

a

a

a

CHAPTER 6 – HEMET MOBILITY HUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN REPORT

77