Title 21 — ZoningChapter 21.10 — ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN

Article VII — Implementation and Administration

Glendora Zoning Code · 2026-06 edition · ingested 2026-07-06 · Glendora

§ 21.10.440. Specific plan phasing.

The development and/or redevelopment of the Route 66 Corridor specific plan project area will be a multi-year effort. The preferred land use development concept and associated improvements necessary are envisioned to occur over a twenty-year period. Therefore, future development and/or redevelopment in the project area will be responsive to prevailing market conditions making forecasts of the timing and extent of future conditions challenging. Although a phasing plan is not appropriate for this type of project, the Route 66 Corridor specific plan will provide substantial guidance for future capital improvement programming and other city-initiated improvements. (Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)

§ 21.10.450. Applicability.

The provisions of this article are applicable to the considerations of development activity and land use within the boundary of the Route 66 Corridor specific plan and associated subdistricts.

The regulations, development standards and guidelines as contained in the specific plan shall apply in their entirety in the review of new development proposals. In the review of proposals involving the modification of existing development, however, it is recognized that existing site conditions may constrain the extent to which these development standards and guidelines can be met. Acceptable modifications for existing development are noted in their respective sections. (Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)

§ 21.10.460. General plan amendments.

In 2003, upon adoption of the specific plan, the city amended the Glendora General Plan to provide necessary modifications to provide consistency between the general plan and specific plan. The city adopted the following amendments to ensure consistency:

Amending the general plan (GPA03-04), creating a specific plan zone SP-3 (ZC03-03), adopting a specific plan (ZA03-05) and design guidelines (M03-17).

Concurrent with adoption of the 2017 revised specific plan, the following amendments are adopted: Amending the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance (PLN16-0045), (PLN17-0022). (Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)

§ 21.10.470. Zoning code/map amendments.

The zoning classifications in the Route 66 Corridor specific plan area, prior to the adoption of the specific plan including C-3, R-3/MHP, PR, MS, CM, C-3/H, CM/MHP, C-2, C-3/MHP, R4, M1 and R-3 classifications were repealed within the specific plan project area, and the zoning map amendment shall indicate new Route 66 Corridor specific plan zoning classification "SP-3" including the BG, GMU, TCMU, RSC, CRR, LHG and TCO subdistricts.

In 2016, the city amended the boundaries of the TCMU subdistrict and rezoned certain areas to R-3 and MS (PLN16-0045). In 2017, the city amended the TCMU again modifying its boundaries pursuant to zone amendment (PLN17-0022).

All land use regulations, development standards, and other provisions of the Route 66 Corridor specific plan in its entirety shall apply as expressly stated in this plan. For development criteria and regulations that are not amended or superseded by this specific plan, the provisions of the Glendora Municipal Code shall prevail. (Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)

§ 21.10.480. Administration and enforcement.

It shall be the duty of the director of planning to enforce the provisions as set forth in the Route 66 Corridor specific plan. All officers, employees, and officials of the city who are vested with the duty or authority to issue permits or licenses shall conform with the provisions of the Route 66 Corridor specific plan, and shall not issue any permit or license or approve any use or building which would be in conflict with the Route 66 Corridor specific plan. Any permit, license or approval issued that is in conflict with the requirements of the Route 66 Corridor specific plan shall be considered null and void. (Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)

§ 21.10.490. Relationship to zoning code.

The provisions contained in this specific plan constitute the primary land use and development standards for the project area. These regulations are applied in addition to the provisions as set forth in the Glendora Municipal Code. As part of the implementation of this specific plan, the Glendora Municipal Code shall be amended to include the Route 66 Corridor specific plan ("SP-3") and associated subdistricts.

(Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)

§ 21.10.500. Amendments to the specific plan.

The Route 66 Corridor specific plan may be amended utilizing the procedure by which it was originally adopted. In addition, the amendment shall demonstrate that it meets the intent of the specific plan's goals and objectives or provide a finding that the amendment enhances the plan or is necessary to implement the goals and objectives. All sections or portions of the specific plan to be changed or that may be affected by the change must be included in the specific plan amendment. A concurrent amendment to the general plan would not be required provided the city council determines that substantive changes would not influence the goals, objectives, policies or programs of the Glendora general plan. (Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)

§ 21.10.510. Development review procedures.

The review and approval of projects and uses shall be subject to provisions contained within the specific plan and the Glendora Municipal Code.

(Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)

§ 21.10.520. Specific plan EIR and mitigation monitoring.

  • A. The Route 66 Corridor specific plan will be prepared in conjunction with a program-level EIR, which identifies potential impacts resulting from the proposed development and establishes mitigation measures that reduce them to a less than significant level, where feasible.

  • B. As the lead agency, the city will implement a monitoring program for the approved mitigation measures. To assist in this monitoring effort, a mitigation monitoring program will be developed by the city as part of environmental findings and included in the final specific plan approved by the city council. The approved mitigation monitoring program shall comply with applicable sections of the Glendora Municipal Code.

  • C. The Route 66 Corridor specific plan EIR will serve as the primary environmental document for the Route 66 Corridor specific plan and all future development undertaken within the plan area. The EIR is anticipated to be the definitive environmental document for project implementation within the specific plan area, including serving as a project EIR for purposes of infrastructure improvements. Developments that require discretionary review (i.e., projects subject to the approval of a special development permit) will be examined in consultation with the EIR to determine what additional environmental documentation must be prepared. Developments that do not require additional discretionary review will not be subject to additional environmental documentation. However, the project applicant will be required to submit documentation substantiating said development is allowed and in conformance with the specific plan, and the potential environmental effects are within the parameters and timeframe (year 2020) analyzed within the specific plan EIR.

  • D. Future development projects proposed within the specific plan area may be required to prepare their own environmental documentation pursuant to state law. However, subsequent site-specific projects may use the "tiering" concept, as provided by Section 15385 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The tiering concept is a process by which the city, as lead agency, can adopt the programmatic EIR focusing on the "big picture," and can then use streamlined CEQA review for subsequent individual development projects in the Route 66 Corridor specific plan area. This streamlined CEQA review may be used for each site-specific future development so long as the project is consistent with the decisions of the EIR, the mitigation measures described in the EIR, and the city's general plan and zoning code. This tiering concept allows the city to address the broad environmental issues detailed in this EIR during the planning stages of the proposed specific plan. Future site-specific development projects are evaluated on a project-specific basis, and may be excused from repeating the broad environmental analysis examined in this comprehensive, programmatic EIR for the entire proposed Route 66 Corridor specific plan area.

  • (Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)

§ 21.10.530. Severability.

If any portion of the Route 66 Corridor specific plan is, for any reason, held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and the invalidity of such provision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of the Route 66 Corridor specific plan. (Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)

§ 21.10.540. Public improvement financing strategy.

The public improvement financing strategy presented in this section is intended to provide a realistic estimate of the costs of implementing certain public improvements identified in the Route 66 Corridor specific plan. The identification of these

improvements will allow the city to anticipate improvement needs and subsequently plan for funding and implementation. Provision of this financing strategy will assist the city in strategically positioning itself to compete for discretionary funding by having identified public improvements that directly relate to a comprehensive regulatory land use plan.

This section provides a summary of capital cost of the proposed improvement program as indicated in Article IV of this specific plan. Capital costs are based upon an assumed level of development occurring during the planning period 2003-2020. In addition, this section provides an overview of potential funding sources, inclusive of existing, discretionary and new funding/financing strategies. (Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)

§ 21.10.550. Estimated cost of improvements.

  • A. Sewer Infrastructure Improvements. Sewer infrastructure costs included those costs associated with on-site and off-site improvements necessary to mitigate sewer infrastructure impacts associated with the proposed development plan. As discussed in Article IV of this specific plan, no immediate need for sewer infrastructure upgrades have been observed. The development plans suggests the periodic monitoring of sewer infrastructure facilities at various stages of redevelopment to ensure future demand does not exceed existing capacities.

  • B. Domestic Water Infrastructure Improvements. Domestic water infrastructure cost estimates have been estimated based upon the portion of the existing water distribution system affected by development within the specific plan area. As shown in Exhibit 4-17 of this specific plan, domestic water system upgrades will be required throughout the corridor. Table 7-2: Domestic Water System Improvement Costs provides a summary of improvement costs.

Domestic Table 7-2
Water System Improvement Costs
Table 7-2
Water System Improvement Costs
Water Facility
Description
Pipeline Diameter Quantity (LF) Unit Cost per LF Estimated
Construction Cost
PVC (C900) 8″ 1532 $40/LF $61,280
CMLNC 10″ 504 $50/LF $25,200
CMLNC 12″ 9817 $60/LF $589,020
CMLNC 14″ 17,791 $70/LF $1,245,370
CMLNC 16″ 519 $80/LF $41,520
TOTAL $1,962,390

Notes:

Unit Costs per lineal foot based upon general industry standards and included all cost associated with demolition and construction of new pipelines and support facilities.

  • C. Stormdrain System Improvements. Stormdrain system improvement costs have been estimated based upon the portion of the existing stormdrain system affected by future development within the specific plan project area. As shown on Exhibit 4-20, the following recommended improvements will ensure adequate storm water conveyance.

Unit costs and quantities have been estimated based upon typical industry standards and consider complete improvement costs, including pavement removal and replacement, trenching, pipe, traffic control, and catch basins. Table 7-3: Stormwater Drainage Improvement Costs, provides a summary of improvement costs.

Table 7-3
Stormwater Drainage Improvement Costs
Table 7-3
Stormwater Drainage Improvement Costs
Table 7-3
Stormwater Drainage Improvement Costs
Water Facility
Description
Pipeline Diameter Quantity
(LF)
Unit Cost per LF Estimated
Construction Cost
(1)
Vermont Avenue/Route 66 Defciencies
Option 1
RCP 30″ 1700 $230/LF
Catch Basin N/A N/A $5,000
TOTAL $400,000
Option 2
RCP 24″ 1700 $200/LF
Catch Basin N/A N/A
TOTAL $350,000
Elwood/Route 66 Defciencies
Option 1
Table 7-3
Stormwater Drainage Improvement Costs
Table 7-3
Stormwater Drainage Improvement Costs
Table 7-3
Stormwater Drainage Improvement Costs
--- --- --- --- ---
Water Facility
Description
Pipeline Diameter Quantity
(LF)
Unit Cost per LF Estimated
Construction Cost
(1)
RCP 30″ 600 $230/LF
Catch Basin N/A N/A $5000
TOTAL $150,000
Option 2
RCP 30″ 700 $230/LF
Catch Basin N/A N/A $5000
TOTAL $170,000

Note:

(1) Estimated cost includes costs for mobilization, demolition and construction. Source: RBF Consulting, July 2003.

  • D. Streetscape/Community Design Improvement Costs. Streetscape/community design improvement cost estimates have been estimated based upon the recommended improvements identified in Article IV of this specific plan. Improvement costs for streetscape and community design improvements include costs associated with project mobilization (job site preparation), demolition, construction/hardscape, irrigation, planting and consultant design fees. The following tables provide a summary of improvement costs. More detailed, line item cost estimates are on file with the city of Glendora.

    1. Barranca Gateway.

      • Table 7-4 provides a summary of improvement costs for all improvements identified in Exhibit 4-4: Barranca Gateway Improvements.
Table 7-4
Barranca Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Table 7-4
Barranca Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Table 7-4
Barranca Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Table 7-4
Barranca Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Item # Description Quantity Units Unit Cost ($) Total ($)
1 Mobilization 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00
2 Demolition 1 LS $71,195.00 $71,195.00
3 Construction/ Hardscape 1 LS $231,200.00 $231,200.00
4 Irrigation 1 LS $52,500.00 $52,500.00
5 Planting 1 LS $54,395.00 $54,395.00
6 Consultant Design Fees 1 LS $47,000.00 $47,000.00
Subtotal $476,290.00
Contingency (25%) $119,072.50
TOTAL $595,362.50

Note: Since the LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others or over the Contractor(s)' method of determining prices, or over the competitive bidding or market conditions, its Opinions of Probable Construction Cost provided herein are to be made on the basis of its experience and qualifications and represents its best judgment as an experience and qualified professional, familiar with the construction industry; but the LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual project or construction cost will not vary from its opinion of probable cost. If prior to the Bidding or Negotiation Phase, OWNER wishes greater assurance to Project Cost, it shall employ an independent cost estimator.

  1. Grand Avenue Gateway Improvement Costs.

Table 7-5 provides a summary of improvement costs for all improvements identified in Exhibits 4-7, 4-8 and 4-9.

Table 7-5
Grand Avenue Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Table 7-5
Grand Avenue Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Table 7-5
Grand Avenue Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Table 7-5
Grand Avenue Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Table 7-5
Grand Avenue Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Item # Description Quantity Units Unit Cost ($) Total ($)
1 Mobilization 1 LS $75,000.00 $75,000.00
2 Demolition 1 LS $283,515.00 $283,515.00
3 Construction/ Hardscape 1 LS $656,930.00 $656,930.00
4 Irrigation 1 LS $248,500.00 $248,500.00
Table 7-5
Grand Avenue Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Table 7-5
Grand Avenue Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Table 7-5
Grand Avenue Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Table 7-5
Grand Avenue Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Table 7-5
Grand Avenue Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
--- --- --- --- --- ---
Item # Description Quantity Units Unit Cost ($) Total ($)
5 Planting 1 LS $295,750.00 $295,750.00
6 Consultant Design Fees 1 LS $170,000.00 $170,000.00
Subtotal $1,730,895.00
Contingency (25%) $432,723.75
TOTAL $2,163,618.75

Note: Since the LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others or over the Contractor(s)' method of determining prices, or over the competitive bidding or market conditions, its Opinions of Probable Construction Cost provided herein are to be made on the basis of its experience and qualifications and represents its best judgment as an experience and qualified professional, familiar with the construction industry; but the LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual project or construction cost will not vary from its opinion of probable cost. If prior to the Bidding or Negotiation Phase, OWNER wishes greater assurance to Project Cost, it shall employ an independent cost estimator.

  1. Glendora Avenue Gateway.

    • Table 7-6 provides a summary of improvement costs for all improvements identified in Exhibit 4-10: Glendora Gateway Improvements.
Table 7-6
Glendora Avenue Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction
Table 7-6
Glendora Avenue Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction
Table 7-6
Glendora Avenue Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction
Table 7-6
Glendora Avenue Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction
Costs
Item # Description Quantity Units Unit Cost ($) Total ($)
1 Mobilization 1 LS $70,000.00 $20,000.00
2 Demolition 1 LS $259,795.00 $71,195.00
3 Construction/ Hardscape 1 LS $877,470.00 $231,200.00
4 Irrigation 1 LS $113,500.00 $52,500.00
5 Planting 1 LS $122,735.00 $54,395.00
6 Consultant Design Fees 1 LS $150,000.00 $47,000.00
Subtotal $1,593,500.00
Contingency (25%) $398,375.00
TOTAL $1,991,875.00

Note: Since the LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others or over the Contractor(s)' method of determining prices, or over the competitive bidding or market conditions, its Opinions of Probable Construction Cost provided herein are to be made on the basis of its experience and qualifications and represents its best judgment as an experience and qualified professional, familiar with the construction industry; but the LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual project or construction cost will not vary from its opinion of probable cost. If prior to the Bidding or Negotiation Phase, OWNER wishes greater assurance to Project Cost, it shall employ an independent cost estimator.

  1. Lone Hill Gateway Improvement Costs.

    • Table 7-7 provides a summary of improvement costs for all improvements identified in Exhibit 4-10: Lone Hill Gateway Improvements.
Table 7-7
Lone Hill Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Table 7-7
Lone Hill Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Table 7-7
Lone Hill Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Table 7-7
Lone Hill Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Item # Description Quantity Units Unit Cost ($) Total ($)
1 Mobilization 1 LS $16,000.00 $16,000.00
2 Demolition 1 LS $43,945.00 $43,945.00
3 Construction/ Hardscape 1 LS $192,135.00 $192,135.00
4 Irrigation 1 LS $39,500.00 $39,500.00
5 Planting 1 LS $38,235.00 $38,235.00
6 Consultant Design Fees 1 LS $36,000.00 $36,000.00
Subtotal $365,815.00
Contingency (25%) $91,453.00
Table 7-7
Lone Hill Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Table 7-7
Lone Hill Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Table 7-7
Lone Hill Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Table 7-7
Lone Hill Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
--- --- --- --- --- ---
Item # Description Quantity Units Unit Cost ($) Total ($)
TOTAL $457,268.00

Note: Since the LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others or over the Contractor(s)' method of determining prices, or over the competitive bidding or market conditions, its Opinions of Probable Construction Cost provided herein are to be made on the basis of its experience and qualifications and represents its best judgment as an experience and qualified professional, familiar with the construction industry; but the LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual project or construction cost will not vary from its opinion of probable cost. If prior to the Bidding or Negotiation Phase, OWNER wishes greater assurance to Project Cost, it shall employ an independent cost estimator.

5. Optional Items.

Table 7-8 provides a summary of line item improvement costs for various streetscape features, including those associated with screen wall treatments.

Table 7-8
Optional Items Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Table 7-8
Optional Items Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Item # Description Quantity Unit Cost ($)
1 Neighborhood rock monuments, including associated work EA $8,000.00
2 Acorn style pedestrian lights, including concrete footing EA $5,200.00
3 Metal bench EA $1,100.00
4 Metal trash receptacle EA $950.00
5 River rock veneer screen wall with precast concrete cap and rock
veneer pilasters with precast concrete cap
LF $150.00
6 River rock veneer screen wall with precast concrete cap, wood
pickets and rock veneer pilasters with precast concrete cap
LF $150.00
7 Sign with thematic banner attachments EA $800.00
8 Directional sign EA $650.00
9 Street sign EA $550.00
10 Pedestrian information sign EA $1,500.00
11 Parking lot entry sign EA $550.00

Note: Since the LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others or over the Contractor(s)' method of determining prices, or over the competitive bidding or market conditions, its Opinions of Probable Construction Cost provided herein are to be made on the basis of its experience and qualifications and represents its best judgment as an experience and qualified professional, familiar with the construction industry; but the LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual project or construction cost will not vary from its opinion of probable cost. If prior to the Bidding or Negotiation Phase, OWNER wishes greater assurance to Project Cost, it shall employ an independent cost estimator.

(Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)

§ 21.10.560. Potential funding and financing mechanism.

Funding and financing for projects identified in Section 21.10.540 of this article will require a comprehensive and creative financing approach through the utilization of a variety of financing mechanisms including debt financing, equity financing, loan guarantees and tax credits.

Table 7-9 provides a comprehensive listing of available funding and financing programs available from state and federal agencies, as well as private entities. It should be noted that funding and financing programs are dynamic and change according to available funds, changes in state and federal law among other factors. Table 7-9 should be supplemented when new programs become available.

Table 7-9
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
Table 7-9
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
Table 7-9
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
State of California Programs
Financing/Funding Method Description Potential Uses of Funding
Real Estate Development
Table 7-9
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
Table 7-9
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
Table 7-9
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
--- --- ---
State of California Programs
Financing/Funding Method Description Potential Uses of Funding
California Pollution Control Financing
Authority (CPCFA)—California Recycle
Underutilized Sites (Cal Reuse) Loans
Assistance to borrowers with the reuse and
redevelopment of underutilized properties
with real or perceived contamination issues
(brownfelds). Cal ReUSE addresses a
funding and information gap in the
redevelopment of brownfelds to help bring
these properties into productive reuse.
Reasonable and necessary brownfeld
project costs, including;
Site assessment
Technical assistance
Planning for the remediation of hazardous
material
Obtaining access to privately held property
to conduct an assessment
California Debt Limit Allocation Committee
(CDLAC)—Tax-Exempt Private Activity Bond
Debt Limit Allocation
Administers the annual tax-exempt private
activity bond debt limit allocation program
for California. The bonds issued are
purchased by the private sector and are an
obligation of the issuing entity (not the state
or federal government). Agencies and
organizations authorized to issue tax-
exempt private activity bonds or mortgage
credit certifcates must receive an allocation
from CDLAC.
A variety of programs are eligible for the
issuance of tax-exempt private activity
bonds:
Multifamily rental housing
Single-family housing
Extra credit teach home purchase program
Small-Issue industrial development bonds
Exempt facilities
California Public Employees' Retirement
System (CalPERS)—California Urban Real
Estate (CURE) Investments
The CURE strategy is focused on
addressing both the housing shortage as
well as a lack of general development in
urban infll locations throughout California.
Residential, offce, retail, entertainment,
hotel, and mixed-use projects.
Other projects that beneft certain economic
groups or geographic areas, such as;
Low-income housing
Multifamily low-income housing
Economic development and redevelopment
Urban infll and "smart growth" strategy
Pooled Money Investment Account (PMIA)—
Community Reinvestment Loan Purchases
The purchase of these loans provided
original lenders with new capital to make
additional loans to low- and moderate-
income homeowners and to stabilize lower-
income neighborhoods.
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee—
Federal State Low-Income Housing Tax
Credits
Encourages private investment in rental
housing.
Tax credits can be allocated to new
construction projects or for the acquisition
and rehabilitation of certain projects.
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
--- --- ---
Financing/Funding Method Description Potential Uses of Funding
Business Development
California Pollution Control
Financing Authority—California
Capital Access Program for Small
Business
Small business loan program that provides an
important source of capital for small business that
may otherwise have diffculty in obtaining funding.
Provides incentives for a lender to make small
business loans by establishing a loss revenue
account as for of loan portfolio insurance.
Finance acquisition of land the construction or
renovation of buildings, the purchase of
equipment, working capital, and other capital
projects. There are limitations on real estate loans
and refnancing.
California Industrial Development
Financing Advisory Commission—
Tax-Exempt Industrial
Development Bonds
Assist California manufacturing businesses in
funding capital expenditures for acquisition or
expansion. Allows business to borrow funds at
competitive rates through the issuance of tax-
exempt bonds enhanced by a letter of credit or as
a private placement for small issues. Various
subcategories of funding are available.
Acquisition of land, buildings, equipment,
landscaping, design costs and permits.
Consumer Power and
Conservation Financing Authority
—Energy Financing Industrial
Development Bonds
Encourage effcient use of energy resources,
contribute to manageable energy costs, and
support the manufacture and development of
renewable technologies.
Acquisition of land, facilities and equipment.
Infrastructure
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
--- --- ---
Financing/Funding Method Description Potential Uses of Funding
California Technology, Trade and
Commerce Agency—Infrastructure
State Revolving Fund Loans
Provides low cost fnancing to public agencies for
a wide range of infrastructure projects.
Public infrastructure including, but not limited to;
streets, drainage, transit, water distribution,
sewage.
Industrial Development Bonds Allows manufacturers and processors to fnance
acquisition and expansion projects at very low
interest rates through tax-exempt bond issuance.
Acquisition and rehab.
Section 501(c)(3) Revenue Bonds Tax-exempt revenue bond fnancing is available to
non-proft corporations.
Capital expenditures, debt refnancing,
expenditure reimbursement.
Other Programs—Stare, Federal and Private Entities
Table 7-9
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
Table 7-9
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
Table 7-9
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
Economic Development
Administration (EDA) Loans and
Grants
Grants to communities for site preparation and
construction of water and sewer facilities, access
roads, railroad spurs, etc.
Construction of water and sewer facilities and
access roads.
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
(DOT)
Provides funds to the states to develop and
maintain recreational trails and trail-related
facilities for both non-motorized and motorized
recreational trail uses.
Recreational trails and trail-related facilities.
Transportation Effciency Act for
the 21st Century (H.R. 2400)
TEA-21 gives local governments unprecedented
fexibility in developing a mix of highway corridor
enhancements, with funds for such projects as
public transit, bikeways, highway enhancements,
recreation, historic preservation, scenic byways,
and other alternatives to address transportation
and community needs. Contact source for funding
amounts. States and localities are permitted to
use federal dollars (provided primarily from the
gas tax) for more fexibly to meet their
transportation needs. More comprehensive
planning, taking into account such factors as
desired land use patterns and environmental
effects, is required as a prerequisite to federal
funding.
Public transit, bikeways, highway enhancements
to address transportation and community needs.
U.S. Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA)
Transportation & Community and
System Preservation Pilot
Program (TCSP)
Comprehensive initiative of research and grants
to investigate the relationships between
transportation and community and system
preservation and private sector-based initiatives.
States, local governments, and metropolitan
planning organizations are eligible for these
discretionary grants.
Grants to plan and implement strategies that
improve the effciency of the transportation
system; reduce environmental impacts of
transportation; reduce the need for costly future
public infrastructure investments; ensure effcient
access to jobs, services, and centers of trade;
and examine private sector development patterns
and investments that support these goals.
National Trails Endowment The American Hiking Society manages a fund of
money created by contributions to an annual
endowment fund for trails. Money from the
endowment will be made available to
organizations for which foot trails are a primary
focus.
Establish and maintain pedestrian foot trails.
Environmental and Mitigation
Fund
The California State Department of Transportation
(CALTRANS) has established this state fund for
beautifcation improvements to roadsides to
mitigate the effects of transportation projects.
Beautifcation improvements for roadsides.
Environmental Enhancement and
Mitigation Program (EEMP)
Grants (Prop111)
Three categories of projects are eligible, among
them "highway landscaping and urban forestry."
The city can pursue this for the purchase,
installation, and maintenance of street trees.
Projects must be designed to mitigate the
environmental impacts of modifed or new public
transportation facilities but do not have to be
within the road right-of-way.
Provision of highway landscaping and urban
forestry for roadsides and transportation facilities.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Program Grants
Federal grants for various purposes including
state and local program research,
demonstrations, development, and
implementation.
Research, demonstrations, development and
implementation of various environmental based
programs including water pollution, conservation,
solid waste disposal, etc.
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
--- --- ---
Financing/Funding Method Description Potential Uses of Funding
Infrastructure State Revolving
Fund Program
The Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISRF)
Program provides low-cost fnancing to public
agencies for a wide variety of infrastructure
projects. ISRF Program funding is available in
amounts ranging from $250,000 to $10,000,000,
with loan terms of up to 30 years. Interest rates
are set on a monthly basis.
Eligible project categories include city streets,
county highways, state highways, drainage, water
supply and food control, educational facilities,
environmental mitigation measures, parks and
recreational facilities, port facilities, public transit,
sewage collection and treatment, solid waste
collection and disposal, water treatment and
distribution, defense conversion, public safety
facilities, and power and communications
facilities.
Table 7-9
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
Table 7-9
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
Table 7-9
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
FTA Metropolitan Planning
Program
Operated by the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), this program provides fnancial assistance,
through the states, to Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPO) to support the costs of
preparing long-range transportation plans
required as a condition of obtaining Federal
Capital Program and Urbanized Area Formula
Program grants for transit projects.
Planning, engineering, design, and evaluation of
transportation projects. Technical studies relating
to management, operations, capital requirements,
innovative fnancing opportunities, and economic
feasibility; evaluation of previously assisted
projects; and other similar or related activities
preliminary to and in preparation for the
construction, acquisition or improved operation of
transportation systems, facilities and equipment
including the planning for "livability" features such
as improved pedestrian and bicycle access to the
station and shops and community services in the
station area, incorporating arts and artistic design
in stations and surrounding areas, and other
improvements that enhance the usability and
community-friendliness of the transit system
environment.
Up to a maximum of 20 percent of the preliminary
engineering and design costs for a transportation
facility.
Transportation and Community
and System Preservation Pilot
Program
Comprehensive program to assist in planning,
developing, and implementing strategies to
integrate transportation and community and
system preservation plans and practices.
Improve the effciency of the transportation
system, reduce environmental impacts of
transportation, reduce the need for costly future
public infrastructure investments, ensure effcient
access to jobs, services and centers of trade, and
examine development patterns and identify
strategies to encourage compatible private sector
development patterns.
California Infrastructure and
Economic Development Bank
(CIEDB)
The CIEDB was created in 1994 to promote
economic revitalization, enable future
development, and encourage a healthy climate for
jobs in California. The CIEDB has broad authority
to issue tax-exempt and taxable revenue bonds,
provide fnancing to public agencies, provide
credit enhancements, acquire or lease facilities,
and leverage state and federal funds.
The Infrastructure Bank has broad authority to
issue tax-exempt and taxable revenue bonds,
provide fnancing to public agencies, provide
credit enhancements, acquire or lease facilities,
and leverage state and federal funds. The
Infrastructure Bank's current programs include the
Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISRF)
Program and the Conduit Revenue Bond
Program.
Impact Fees and Exactions Dedications of land and impact fees are exactions
which lessen the impacts of new development
resulting from increased population or demand on
services.
Dedication of land and fees in lieu of dedication;
subdivision reservation for public use;
development architectural review; and fees.
City General Fund It is not uncommon for cities that are seeking to
revitalize their community to commit a certain
amount of the general fund to the effort over a
period of years.
Improvements and ongoing projects or programs
which have general community-wide benefts.
General Obligation Bonds Tax-supported bonds used to fnance the
acquisition and construction of public capital
improvements.
Public buildings, roads, infrastructure
improvements and community centers.
Development Fees Counties and cities may impose development
fees on landowners in a "beneft area" to pay for a
proportionate share of the public facilities required
to serve a development.
Used for "necessary public services" which
include parks and open areas.
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
--- --- ---
Financing/Funding Method Description Potential Uses of Funding
Development Incentive Programs Incentives encourage the private sector to provide
the desired public improvement.
Public improvements.
General Taxes Taxes include excise taxes, utility user taxes, and
property tax to generate revenue.
Various community improvements.
Other Private Donations Private donations for a variety of different types of
projects are generally available from foundations,
institutions and corporations that have major
interests in these areas.
Various depending upon interest of private
donors.
Revenue Bonds Debt undertaken wherein payback is tied to
specifc revenue streams. This form of debt does
not require a public vote.
Common uses include industrial development,
housing and social services.
EPA—Clean Water Revolving
Fund
Low interest-loan program established by the
Federal Clean Water Act
Loans for projects that address point and
nonpoint sources of water pollution
State Waters Resources Control
Board Nonpoint Source Water
Pollution Control
Established by the federal Clean Water Act § 319,
these grants are for the implementation of state
nonpoint source pollution control programs. Each
state passes through a portion of these funds to
other entities for implementing specifc NPS
management practices. State Water Quality
agencies are the lead agencies for these grant
programs.
Projects that solve water quality problems.
Table 7-9
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
Table 7-9
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
Table 7-9
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
Safe Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund
Low-interest loan program established by the
1996 Safe Drinking Water Amendments. U.S. EPA
provides funds to each state to establishing
ongoing loan programs. The state administers the
State Revolving Fund (SRF) and makes loans to
drinking water systems for projects which will
ensure that drinking water remains safe and
affordable. States may also fund wellhead and
source water protection projects.
Loans for drinking water systems.
Solid Waste Assistance Funds Grants to fund program development or pilot
projects which promote waste reduction, recycled-
content products, markets for recycled materials,
or assist in the development of solid waste
management plans and the clean-up of open
dumps.
Incorporate EPA initiatives and priorities with
source reduction, product stewardship, reuse,
recycling, composting, and/or recycled product
procurement projects. Stimulate market for
diffcult-to-recycle materials such as tires,
construction/demolition debris, green waste and
electronics.
Water Quality 104(b)(3) Grants Grants to support critical National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) water
quality related projects.
Water quality projects.
Water Quality Assessment and
Planning
Grants established by the federal Clean Water Act
§ 205/§ 604, these funds will support water quality
assessment and planning projects which will lead
to implementable actions that promote healthy
aquatic ecosystems.
Projects which foster local watershed
management efforts that protect and enhance
aquatic environmental conditions. Projects which
result in Total Maximum Daily Loads calculations
for impaired waters on State Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) list.
Tea-21 Job Access And Reverse
Commute Grants
The Job Access and Reverse Commute grant
program assists states and localities in developing
new or expanded transportation services that
connect welfare recipients and other low income
persons to jobs and other employment related
services. Job access projects are targeted at
developing new or expanded transportation
services such as shuttles, vanpools, new bus
routes, connector services to mass transit, and
guaranteed ride home programs for welfare
recipients and low income persons. Reverse
commute projects provide transportation services
to suburban employment centers from urban, rural
and other suburban locations for all populations.
Expand transportation services.
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
--- --- ---
Financing/Funding Method Description Potential Uses of Funding
The National Endowment for the
Arts Challenge America
Leadership Initiative
The National Endowment for the Arts will make a
limited number of grants for design competitions
to stimulate excellence in design in the public
realm. The goal is to invest in projects that
promote and use design to make communities
across the nation more livable. This initiative is
intended to bring institutions from across the
country together with the best design talent, to
raise the expectations and aspirations for public
work, and to increase popular awareness of the
importance of design in daily life. The Endowment
will consider competitions for projects in areas of
design that include: architecture, urban planning,
industrial design, and/or landscape architecture.
Projects may include, but are not limited to,
competitions for schools, museums, performing
arts spaces, municipal buildings, parks,
waterfronts, bridges, highway rights-of-way, public
housing, emergency service vehicles, innovative
building technologies, transportation facilities, or
large-scale master plans.
For design competitions in the public realm.
Funding is not for construction.
Adopt-a-Light Program (Tree,
Bench, etc.)
The city can recover costs of public
improvements.
As a unique method for paying for street lighting
fxtures, or any other streetscape element, a small
projected plaque sign could be affxed to the light
pole with the name or logo of the local
merchant/business/person/entity who purchased
the fxtures. This program can also be applied to
historic plaques, benches, trees, paving surfaces,
and banners.
Business Improvement Areas
(BIA)
Self-taxing business districts. BIAs include
Business Improvement Districts (BIDs), Local
Improvement Districts (LIDs) and other such
fnancial districts.
Business and property owners pay for capital
improvements, maintenance, marketing, parking,
and other items as jointly agreed to through
systematic, periodic self-assessment.
The Energy Foundation The Energy Foundation will support regional
transportation reform through analysis, policy
research, regulatory work, and advocacy. The
Foundation will explore policy options that
promote alternatives to increased single
occupancy vehicle use and to new highway
construction. The foundation will also support
analysis and advocacy to promote increased
vehicle fuel effciency.
Transportation policy analysis.
Table 7-9
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
Table 7-9
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
Table 7-9
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
The Gunk Foundation Grants for
Public Arts Projects
The Gunk Foundation aims to support the
production of non-traditional public art projects
related to public space. Support for artwork
displayed in spaces of public transportation, city
streets, or work places is given. Non-traditional,
thought-provoking public work that is site specifc.
Grants are provided for works of public art that
are non-traditional and have a meaningful
connection to the space they are in. The
committee will not fund art education, art festivals,
art therapy, mural projects, community gardens,
restoration projects, architectural design projects,
traditional commemorative sculpture/painting, or
traditional theater projects.
American Greenways Eastman
Kodak Grant Program
The program encourages action-oriented
greenway projects. Keys to determining which
projects will receive grants are the importance of
the project to local greenway development efforts,
how likely the project is to produce tangible
results, and the extent to which the grant results
in matching funds from other resources.
Grants to stimulate the planning and design of
greenways.
Leaf-It-To-Us: Kid's Crusade for
Trees!
This tree planting grant program is a statewide
campaign designed to provide opportunities to
involve California's primary and secondary school
students to become more knowledgeable in the
benefts trees play in providing for livable
communities, improving the global environment,
and making improvements to their local learning
Tree planting.
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
--- --- ---
Financing/Funding Method Description Potential Uses of Funding
environment. The program provides funds for
community tree planting projects initiated and
undertaken by school kids in partnership with
school volunteers for local governments to
purchase trees, which are environmentally
tolerant and high quality. Trees must be on public
property, and projects must be completed within
18 months of project award. The city can apply
and receive awards for up to four years in a row.
Urban Forestry Grant Program:
Trees for the Millennium
This program provides grants for local
governments to purchase trees, which are
environmentally tolerant and high quality. Trees
must be on public property, and projects must be
completed within 18 months of project award. The
city can apply and receive awards for up to four
years in a row.
Purchase trees.
Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965—Grant
The basic grant rate may be up to 50 percent of
the project cost. Severely depressed areas may
receive supplementary grants to bring the Federal
contribution up to 80 percent of the project cost;
recognized Indian tribes may be eligible for up to
100 percent assistance. Additionally, eligible
areas located within and actively participating in
the operations of Economic Development Districts
are, subject to the 80 percent maximum Federal
grant limit, eligible for a 10 percent bonus on
grants for public works projects. On average,
EDA's investment covers about 50 percent of
project costs.
Project include: (1) Infrastructure for industrial
park development; (2) port development and
expansion; (3) infrastructure necessary for
economic development (e.g., water/sewer
facilities); (4) renovation and recycling of old
industrial buildings; (5) construction of vocational-
technical facilities and skill centers; (6)
construction of incubator facilities; (7)
redevelopment of brownfelds; and (8) eco-
industrial development. Investments in facilities
such as water and sewer system improvements,
industrial access roads, industrial and business
parks, port facilities, railroad sidings, distance
learning facilities, skill-training facilities, business
incubator facilities, redevelopment of brownfelds,
eco-industrial facilities, and telecommunications
infrastructure improvements needed for business
retention and expansion. Eligible activities include
the acquisition, rehabilitation, design and
engineering, or improvement of public land or
publicly-owned and operated development
facilities, including machinery and equipment.
Projects may also include infrastructure for
broadband deployment and other types of
telecommunications-enabling projects and other
kinds of technology infrastructure. Eligible
projects must fulfll a pressing need of the area
and must: (1) improve the opportunities for the
successful establishment or expansion of
industrial or commercial plants or facilities; (2)
assist in the creation of additional long-term
employment opportunities; or (3) beneft the
unemployed/underemployed residents of the area
or members of low-income families. In addition, all
proposed investments must be consistent with the
currently approved Comprehensive Economic
Development Strategy for the area in which the
project will be located, and the applicant must
have the required local share of funds committed
and available. Also, the project must be capable
of being started and completed in a timely
manner.
Table 7-9
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
Table 7-9
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
Table 7-9
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Sustainable Development
Challenge Grants
This EPA grant program is designed to encourage
people, organizations, governments and
businesses to work cooperatively to develop
fexible, locally-oriented approaches that link
place-based environmental management with
sustainable development and revitalization. The
program funds projects that improve the
The program could potentially fund the
demonstration of a wide variety of
environmentally and economically sustainable
projects in all environmental media and program
areas. These projects could help identify those
practices which show promise of being truly
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
--- --- ---
Financing/Funding Method Description Potential Uses of Funding
environment, build sustainable futures for
communities, help local economies and
encourage partnerships among community
groups, businesses, government and others. It
looks for projects yielding the greatest
environmental and economic benefts, and
leverage the most community investment and
resources.
sustainable and those which are not and should
be avoided.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Underground Storage Tank
Trust Fund Program Grant
EPA's Offce of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response oversees two grant programs dealing
with underground storage tanks. The State
Underground Storage Tanks (UST) Program
provides project grants to assist state
governments in the development and
implementation of underground storage tank
programs, so as to build their capacity to operate
their programs in lieu of the federal program. A
high priority is to encourage owners and operators
to upgrade or replace their tanks well in advance
of the deadline. Owners and operators of UST
systems have until December 22, 1998, to
upgrade, replace or close substandard systems.
The Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)
Trust Fund Program provides project grants
(cooperative agreements) to support state
corrective action and enforcement programs that
address releases from underground storage tanks
containing petroleum. Funds are used to provide
resources for the oversight and cleanup of
petroleum releases from underground storage
tanks where owners and operators are unknown,
unwilling or unable to take corrective actions
themselves. States may also oversee responsible
party cleanups. A ten percent state cost share is
required.
The program can be used not only to solve the
immediate problem of leaking underground
petroleum storage tanks, but also to raise public
awareness of the pollution threat to groundwater.
Water Recycling Facilities
Planning Grant Program
These funds can be used by public agencies for
low-interest loans for the design and construction
of projects and grants for facilities planning.
Loans for Water recycling projects. Grants for
planning studies.
Department of Water Resources
Proposition 13 Water
Conservation Program
The Water Bond 2000 measure, Proposition 13
(approved in March 2000), provides loan and
grant funding for Urban and Agricultural Water
Conservation, Infrastructure Rehabilitation
(reduction in distribution system water losses),
and Groundwater Recharge and Storage projects
or feasibility studies.
Low interest loans and grants for construction
projects, and grants for feasibility studies to public
agencies and incorporated mutual water
companies.
California Pollution Control
Financing Authority Sustainable
Communities Loan and Grant
Program
The SCGL program has been designed to be
fexible and encourage creativity. Funding will be
awarded to communities that wish to implement
policies, programs and projects using sustainable
development principles. All projects must
encompass sustainable development principles to
be eligible for funding. Examples of eligible
projects include: (1) Specifc plans, or portions of
specifc plans that direct the nature of
development and revitalization within the
boundaries of a required general plan consistent
with sustainable development principles. (2)
Alternative transportation studies, urban design
studies, fnance plans, redevelopment plans and
engineering studies that facilitate sustainable
development. (3) Projects such as a community
center, park enhancements, or infrastructure
improvements that are key elements of a
comprehensive community or neighborhood
SCGL may fund specifc plans, portions of specifc
plans, alternative transportation studies, fnance
plans, redevelopment plans, engineering studies,
public projects and other projects that promote
sustainable development principles.
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
--- --- ---
Financing/Funding Method Description Potential Uses of Funding
environment, build sustainable futures for
communities, help local economies and
encourage partnerships among community
groups, businesses, government and others. It
looks for projects yielding the greatest
environmental and economic benefts, and
leverage the most community investment and
resources.
sustainable and those which are not and should
be avoided.
Table 7-9
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
Table 7-9
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
Table 7-9
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Underground Storage Tank
Trust Fund Program Grant
EPA's Offce of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response oversees two grant programs dealing
with underground storage tanks. The State
Underground Storage Tanks (UST) Program
provides project grants to assist state
governments in the development and
implementation of underground storage tank
programs, so as to build their capacity to operate
their programs in lieu of the federal program. A
high priority is to encourage owners and operators
to upgrade or replace their tanks well in advance
of the deadline. Owners and operators of UST
systems have until December 22, 1998, to
upgrade, replace or close substandard systems.
The Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)
Trust Fund Program provides project grants
(cooperative agreements) to support state
corrective action and enforcement programs that
address releases from underground storage tanks
containing petroleum. Funds are used to provide
resources for the oversight and cleanup of
petroleum releases from underground storage
tanks where owners and operators are unknown,
unwilling or unable to take corrective actions
themselves. States may also oversee responsible
party cleanups. A ten percent state cost share is
required.
The program can be used not only to solve the
immediate problem of leaking underground
petroleum storage tanks, but also to raise public
awareness of the pollution threat to groundwater.
Water Recycling Facilities
Planning Grant Program
These funds can be used by public agencies for
low-interest loans for the design and construction
of projects and grants for facilities planning.
Loans for Water recycling projects. Grants for
planning studies.
Department of Water Resources
Proposition 13 Water
Conservation Program
The Water Bond 2000 measure, Proposition 13
(approved in March 2000), provides loan and
grant funding for Urban and Agricultural Water
Conservation, Infrastructure Rehabilitation
(reduction in distribution system water losses),
and Groundwater Recharge and Storage projects
or feasibility studies.
Low interest loans and grants for construction
projects, and grants for feasibility studies to public
agencies and incorporated mutual water
companies.
California Pollution Control
Financing Authority Sustainable
Communities Loan and Grant
Program
The SCGL program has been designed to be
fexible and encourage creativity. Funding will be
awarded to communities that wish to implement
policies, programs and projects using sustainable
development principles. All projects must
encompass sustainable development principles to
be eligible for funding. Examples of eligible
projects include: (1) Specifc plans, or portions of
specifc plans that direct the nature of
development and revitalization within the
boundaries of a required general plan consistent
with sustainable development principles. (2)
Alternative transportation studies, urban design
studies, fnance plans, redevelopment plans and
engineering studies that facilitate sustainable
development. (3) Projects such as a community
center, park enhancements, or infrastructure
improvements that are key elements of a
comprehensive community or neighborhood
SCGL may fund specifc plans, portions of specifc
plans, alternative transportation studies, fnance
plans, redevelopment plans, engineering studies,
public projects and other projects that promote
sustainable development principles.
Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms Potential Funding and Financing Mechanisms
--- --- ---
Financing/Funding Method Description Potential Uses of Funding
sustainable development plan. (4) Funding for
local communities to hire individuals at various
stages of planning depending on the needs of the
community. An example would be hiring a new
staff member or consultant to assist an individual
community with the design and/or implementation
of a particular plan for development or
revitalization using sustainable development
principles. (5) Funding for communities to hire
technical experts to identify, assess, and complete
applications for state, federal and private
economic assistance programs that fund
sustainable development and sound
environmental policies and programs. Rather than
focus on one prescriptive approach.

(Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)

§ 21.10.570. Implementation priorities.

Implementing the Route 66 Corridor specific plan entails partnerships between public agencies, residents, property owners, business representatives, and other interests for prioritization of opportunities that exist within the Route 66 Corridor specific plan area. The purpose of this section is to set forth an initial set of implementation priorities pertaining to streetscape, land use and façade rehabilitation, that will help public and private interests to focus on immediate opportunities for revitalization of the Route 66 Corridor specific plan area. It is important that the implementation priorities are reviewed on an annual basis to ensure they reflect current trends and conditions.

  • A. Streetscape Improvement Phasing. Streetscape improvements are prioritized using a two-tiered approach, the first of which focuses on immediate improvements applicable to the entire Route 66 Corridor specific plan project area, with the second focusing on specific subareas within the Route 66 Corridor specific plan project area.

    1. Immediate Priority Streetscape Improvement Projects.

      • a. Priority #1: Banner Installation.

Discussion: As presented in Article IV, a banner program is recommended to help further identify and "brand" the Route 66 Corridor specific plan project area and strengthen the sense of place.

Action: Upon adoption of the specific plan, a banner design should be selected (see Exhibit 4-14: Route 66 banner concepts) and installed on existing light poles to quickly "brand" the corridor and immediately improve the image of Route 66. Banner installation may be subject to Southern California Edison approval.

  • b. Priority #2: Screenwall Installation.

Discussion: Design concepts are presented in Article IV for screenwalls to provide the Glendora community with an ability to screen existing uses or facilities that may not contribute to the desired visual character of the Route 66 Corridor specific plan project area. Cost estimates for these improvements are provided in Table 7-8.

Action: Upon adoption of the specific plan, candidate locations for screenwalls within the Route 66 Corridor specific plan project area should be identified, followed by construction of the screenwalls. Placing an initial priority for this component will facilitate negotiation with property owners and identify necessary right-of-way acquisition.

  • B. Priority Subareas for Phased Streetscape Improvements. As illustrated in Exhibit 7-1: Priority Subareas—Phased Streetscape Improvements, the following five subareas have been prioritized within the Route 66 Corridor specific plan project area to receive streetscape enhancements as funding and other resources become available.

    1. Priority Area #1: Grand Avenue Gateway.

Discussion: The Grand Avenue gateway provides the primary north/south gateway to the Route 66 Corridor. Streetscape enhancements are a top priority for the Grand Avenue gateway as it is envisioned to serve as the primary commercial/retail district within the city through the provision of higher intensity commercial development that caters to the local and regional market. Cost estimates for these improvements are shown in Table 7-5.

Action: Identify, pursue, secure, and allocate resources to the design and construction of streetscape improvements, corner treatments, neighborhood entries, rock walls, and other community design enhancements for the Grand Avenue gateway subarea.

  1. Priority Area #2: Barranca Avenue Gateway.

Discussion: The Barranca Avenue gateway provides the western "front door" into the city and is envisioned to provide a high-level of street-oriented development and strong pedestrian comfort for nearby college students and area residents. Cost estimates for these improvements are shown in Table 7-4.

Action: Following streetscape enhancements to the Grand Avenue gateway subarea, identify, pursue, secure, and allocate resources to the design and construction of streetscape improvements, corner treatments, gateway medians, and other pedestrian design details for the Barranca Avenue gateway subarea.

  1. Priority Area #3 Glendora Avenue Gateway.

Discussion: The Glendora Avenue gateway plays a central role in improving the functional and visual connection between the Route 66 Corridor and the Glendora Village area. Cost estimates for these improvements are shown in Table 7-6.

Action: Following streetscape enhancements to the Barranca Avenue gateway subarea, identify, pursue, secure, and allocate resources to the design and construction of streetscape improvements, corner treatments, gateway medians, and other community design details for the Glendora Avenue gateway subarea.

  1. Priority Area #4: Glendora Avenue Village Connection.

Discussion: The Glendora Avenue Village connection is a pivotal area for maintaining and enhancing a pedestrianfriendly zone between the Village, the future transit area and Route 66. Cost estimates for these improvements are shown in Table 7-6.

Action: Following streetscape enhancements to the Glendora Avenue gateway subarea, identify, pursue, secure, and allocate resources to the design and construction of streetscape improvements and other community design details for the Glendora Avenue Village connection subarea.

  1. Priority Area #5 Lone Hill Gateway.

Discussion: The Lone Hill gateway is the eastern gateway of Glendora's Route 66 Corridor and serves to feature views to the San Gabriel Mountains while reinforcing attractive commercial development and neighborhood compatibility. Cost estimates for these improvements are shown in Table 7-7.

Action: Following streetscape enhancements to the Glendora Avenue Village connection subarea, identify, pursue, secure, and allocate resources to the design and construction of streetscape improvements, corner treatments, gateway medians, and other community design details for the Lone Hill gateway subarea.

  • C. Priority Subareas and Target Sites for Reuse. The Route 66 Corridor specific plan project area contains many reuse opportunities for underutilized properties. As illustrated in Exhibit 7-2: Priority Subareas and Target Sites for Reuse, fifteen sites have been initially identified by the city as priorities for reuse based upon a variety of factors including strategic location, economic and market conditions, environmental considerations, and property owner interest. Of the fifteen target sites, ten are organized into five priority subareas to provide public and private sectors with an additional level of prioritization when considering resource allocation and implementation direction.

All target sites offer the Route 66 Corridor specific plan project area with opportunities to establish new design and land use precedents that carryout the Glendora community's vision for the area. As such, all target sites will receive heightened focus by the city with respect to marketing and outreach, as well as special design review concessions and other reuse incentives.

  • D. Priority Subareas for Façade Rehabilitation. The city currently administers a grant program for façade rehabilitation that it funds on a yearly basis. Based upon a visually evident need by existing buildings for façade improvements to reflect the image enhancement objectives embodied in the Route 66 Corridor specific plan, the following three façade rehabilitation priority subareas have been identified (as illustrated in Exhibit 7-3: Priority Subareas for Façade Rehabilitation).

    1. Priority Subarea A: The area generally located along Route 66, east of Glendora Avenue and west of Lorraine Avenue.

    2. Priority Subarea B: The area generally located along Route 66 and Vermont Avenue west of Glendora Avenue and east of Grand Avenue.

    3. Priority Subarea C: The area generally located along Route 66, west of Grand Avenue and east of Barranca Avenue.

The priority subareas include buildings that either show signs of blight, appear outdated, or that otherwise are not architecturally compatible with the design image presented in the Route 66 Corridor specific plan. Buildings within these subareas, especially those containing locally owned and operated businesses, will receive increased priority for façade rehabilitation grants made by the city.

(Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)