This article provides an overview of the public outreach activities and policy framework that have influenced the development of the Route 66 Corridor specific plan. In addition, this article delineates the planning factors, guiding principles, and objectives that form the foundation of the specific plan's land use plan, development standards, design guidelines, and other provisions.
(Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)
A primary objective of the Route 66 Corridor specific plan planning process is to establish a policy and regulatory document grounded in community participation and input. To this end, a number of opportunities for public input were offered to city residents, business and property owners, developers, and other interested parties. The outreach activities experienced consistent attendance by property owners, local businesses, and the community. The various workshops and meetings assisted in the development of the policy framework for the specific plan. The following public outreach activities were held throughout the specific plan development process:
A. 
City Council Scoping Session (City Council Workshop #1)—July 9, 2002. An initial public meeting was held to primarily receive input from the Glendora city council. The intent of the session was for the city council to define their expectations pertaining to the Route 66 Corridor specific plan and to review and clarify the Route 66 Corridor specific plan scope of work and schedule.
B. 
Property and Business Owners Workshop #1—July 29, 2002. The first of two workshops was held with the property and business owners to accomplish the following objectives: (1) provide an overview of the project; (2) review previous studies along the Route 66 Corridor; and (3) listen to and document issues, goals, priorities for the Route 66 Corridor.
C. 
Community Workshop #1—August 1, 2002. The first of two workshops was held for the Glendora community to accomplish a number of objectives, including: (1) provide an overview of the project; (2) discuss previous studies in the corridor; (3) conduct a visual preference survey to determine preferred streetscape amenities and architectural treatments; and (4) listen to and document issues, goals, priorities for the Route 66 Corridor.
D. 
City Council Update (City Council Workshop #2)—December 10, 2002. A public meeting was held with the city council to provide an update on the progress of the Route 66 Corridor specific plan process. The meeting was organized into two sections: (1) "What we've Done…" (focusing on Public Outreach Activities to date, Land Use Analysis, Urban Design/Streetscape, Design Guidelines, and the Parking Study); and (2) "What is Still Ahead…"
E. 
Property and Business Owners Workshop #2—March 20, 2003. The second of two workshops for property and business owners was held to review and elicit comments pertaining to the following: economic/market analysis; draft land use concepts; urban design/streetscape concepts; and design guidelines concept.
F. 
Community Workshop #2—March 27, 2003. The second of two workshops for the Glendora community was held to review and elicit comments pertaining to the following: economic/market analysis; draft land use concepts; urban design/streetscape concepts; and design guidelines concept.
G. 
City Council Workshop (City Council Workshop #3)—April 29, 2003. A public meeting was held to present and receive comment from the city council and the community on the framework for the Route 66 Corridor specific plan. The direction received from the meeting provided the structure for preparing the public review draft of the Route 66 Corridor specific plan.
H. 
Specific Plan Review Committee—July 2003. A specific plan review committee, consisting of members appointed by the city council was formed to review and comment on the initial draft specific plan. The specific plan review committee evaluated all components of the specific plan and compiled a consolidated report for review by the city council.
I. 
Planning Commission Public Hearing—December 2, 2003. A public hearing was held with the planning commission to receive recommendations and conditions on the public review draft of the Route 66 Corridor specific plan.
J. 
City Council Public Hearing—December 2, 2003. A public hearing was held with the city council to approve the public review draft of the Route 66 Corridor specific plan.
K. 
City Council Public Meeting—December 9, 2014. Due to community concerns over the density, height, building setbacks, parking, community character, and other issues created by projects approved under the specific plan, the council held a special meeting to review the Route 66 Specific Plan.
L. 
Community "Town Hall" Meeting—February 18, 2015. A public meeting was held where approximately one hundred residents attended and expressed dissatisfaction with development approved by the city under the Route 66 Specific Plan.
M. 
Planning Commission Public Meetings—April 21, May 19, June 16, July 21, August 18, September 1 and October 6, 2015. The planning commission held seven public meetings to review each section of the Route 66 specific plan, receive and file public comments, and develop recommendations to revise the Route 66 specific plan so that development along the corridor was more in-line with the Glendora community character.
N. 
City Council and Planning Commission Joint Public Meeting—November 15, 2015. A joint meeting of the council and commission was held to review the commission recommendations to revise the Route 66 specific plan.
O. 
Presentation of Report by Economic Planning Systems (EPS) regarding economic and marking conditions and land use feasibility analysis. Report presented to the planning commission on December 8, 2016 and to the city council on February 28, 2017.
P. 
Planning Commission Meeting—May 2, 2017. Presentation of draft revised Route 66 specific plan.
Q. 
City Council and Planning Commission Joint Meeting—May 16, 2017. Presentation of draft revised Route 66 specific plan.
R. 
Planning Commission Public Hearing—July 18, 2017.
S. 
City Council Public Hearing—August 22, 2017.
(Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)
A. 
The Route 66 Corridor specific plan policy framework provides the primary policy guidance for the specific plan. All future development and redevelopment within the Route 66 Corridor specific plan area shall be consistent with and take guidance from the principles and objectives as expressed in this article.
B. 
The policy framework for the Route 66 Corridor specific plan is organized into the following sections:
1. 
Specific Plan Planning Factors. Identifies the opportunities and constraints that influence and contribute to the successful implementation of the Route 66 Corridor specific plan.
2. 
Specific Plan Guiding Principles. Provides the broad principles that future development and redevelopment in the specific plan area shall implement.
3. 
Specific Plan Objectives. Provides more explicit policy statements that implement the specific plan's guiding principles.
(Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)
A. 
A number of opportunities, constraints, issues, concerns, and positive and negative attributes—planning factors— exist that influenced the development of the Route 66 Corridor specific plan. Planning factors that contribute to the ultimate policy actions of this specific plan. The sources of these planning factors include: recommendations made by the Alosta Corridor committee; input received by the community and the city council during workshops on Route 66 (see above); input received by the community, planning commission and city council public meetings that resulted in a substantial revision to the policies and goals of the specific plan in 2017; and observations and analysis made throughout the Route 66 Corridor specific plan process.
B. 
These planning factors, although not an exhaustive listing, form the policy foundation of the specific plan, seeking to optimize the consistency between the specific plan's policy direction and the regulations and standards contained within. Throughout the initial stages of the planning process for Route 66, the following primary planning factors have been identified for the Route 66 Corridor specific plan. The revision of the specific plan, occurring during the period from 2014-2017, substantially altered the original goals of the Route 66 specific plan. The revised vision for the corridor is reflected in the planning factors:
1. 
A significant body of work was generated under the guidance of the Alosta Corridor committee—with recommendations on property acquisition, land use, rehabilitation assistance, business attraction, business retention, streetscape, and environment—that forms a strong foundation for the Route 66 Corridor specific plan.
2. 
Between 2003 and 2014, the specific plan did not satisfy community expectations or produce anticipated results. Mixed-use development, a primary objective of the specific plan, is weaker than anticipated. Factors contributing to weak mixed-use demand include the auto-oriented nature of Route 66, and an ample supply of existing commercial space. Additionally, development incentives and bonuses resulted in comparatively large buildings leading to significant community opposition to the specific plan. Insufficient parking requirements, on-street parking credits, and parking reductions have contributed to operational problems and persisting vacant mixed-use commercial spaces.
3. 
Accelerated outsourcing of American manufacturing, the Great Recession, and the end of redevelopment in California are primary reasons that the Route 66 specific plan has not fulfilled expectations for commercial, industrial and hi-tech office development. Without redevelopment to assist in the assembly of viable commercial development sites, the economics do not support substantial private investment in these areas.
4. 
Many distinctive character areas exist within the Route 66 Corridor specific plan that require tailored land use and urban design treatments to optimize their potential and most effectively respect the existing character unique to Glendora.
5. 
Since Glendora is a community that is largely "built-out" and the Route 66 Corridor specific plan is an area that includes many small, shallow parcels, economic development and revitalization must be achieved through creative approaches that seek to optimize the potential of already "urbanized" land.
6. 
Slow expected population and job growth in Glendora and the surrounding area suggests a slow future pace of economic development and associated new real estate development, but favorable socioeconomic and demographic characteristics in Glendora may allow capture of a greater share of regional growth.
7. 
The residents of Glendora strongly desire increased dining and family entertainment opportunities within the city; creating the market to support these amenities is a key challenge within the Route 66 Corridor.
8. 
Glendora serves, and will likely continue to serve, as a bedroom community for out-commuters who work across a broad region between Los Angeles, Pasadena, Orange County, and the Inland Empire.
9. 
Future plans of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority will include the eastward extension of the Gold Line light rail transit system with a transit station in Glendora, (at the former railroad station site) providing unique development opportunities in the vicinity of the potential station.
10. 
Public and private development within the Route 66 Corridor specific plan area must be respectful of existing adjacent neighborhoods to ensure compatibility and minimize negative impacts to residential stability.
11. 
Notable opportunities to improve the aesthetics of the architecture and streetscape within the Route 66 Corridor specific plan area exist, which may contribute to enhanced economic development potential, improved sense of place, heightened community pride, and a more inviting environment for visitors.
12. 
Recognizing that public resources must be distributed for optimal cost-benefit to the community, public investment in a renewed streetscape environment must leverage an image that supports the traditional character of Glendora while promoting a positive identity and serving as a catalyst for private reinvestment.
13. 
The Glendora residential market has rebounded strongly from the Great Recession, which should lead to new residential development. Contributing to the demand for residential development is Glendora's centralized location for commuters, high-quality schools, and a general shortage of housing in the southern California region. With the growing need for a variety of housing choices to accommodate a diverse range of income groups within the community, the Route 66 Corridor specific plan area should offer opportunities for new housing (to meet goals in the housing element and to comply with state mandates) and enhancing the condition of existing affordable housing (such as mobile home parks located along Route 66).
14. 
The infrastructure system within the Route 66 Corridor specific plan area must be adequate to support future development and, therefore, the Route 66 Corridor specific plan land use buildout assumptions must take into account the need for corresponding infrastructure to support future development.
15. 
Grand Avenue and Glendora Avenue, two key corridors between Highway 210 and Route 66, serve as economic nodes connecting regional and local markets and to provide north-south gateways for the city.
16. 
Traffic speed is a greater concern than traffic congestion with the Route 66 Corridor specific plan area; therefore traffic calming and enhancing the pedestrian-orientation and safety of streets in the area is important to the community.
17. 
The area around the future Gold Line station is evolving into two functionally distinct areas. A barrier is created by the existing street layout and residential development north of the railroad track creates a natural transition from higher intensity development along Route 66 to the historic lower scale areas near to the Village.
18. 
The development review and approval process employed in the city could benefit from adopted design guidelines to provide applicants with a reference for the quality of development expected by the city.
(Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)
The following guiding principles provide the foundation for Article IV and Article VI of the Route 66 specific plan, and are intended to serve as a benchmark for the analysis of future proposals and design concepts to determine if they are supportive of the spirit and intent of this plan.
A. 
Guiding Principle 1.0. Increase and maintain an increased daytime employment and residential population.
B. 
Guiding Principle 2.0. Coordinated land use, urban design, transportation, and infrastructure planning.
C. 
Guiding Principle 3.0. Embracing flexible and diverse land uses that foster economic development opportunities for the Glendora community and contribute to a growing presence in the regional marketplace.
D. 
Guiding Principle 4.0. Retention and expansion of existing businesses while accommodating the recruitment of new businesses.
E. 
Guiding Principle 5.0. Improved pedestrian accessibility, vehicular access, and parking to establish safety and comfort throughout the Route 66 Corridor specific plan area.
F. 
Guiding Principle 6.0. Enhanced streetscape and public amenities throughout the Route 66 specific plan area.
G. 
Guiding Principle 7.0. Tailored land use regulations and design guidelines to encourage high quality development and rehabilitation.
H. 
Guiding Principle 8.0. Improved visual and functional linkages between Route 66 and the Village, Grand Avenue and Glendora Avenue.
I. 
Guiding Principle 10.0. Coordinated and focused change rather than "remove and replace" transformation to enhance sense of place and promote aesthetic improvements.
J. 
Guiding Principle 11.0. Planning policy for future development that is respectful of the historic character of and community vision for Glendora.
(Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)
The following specific plan objectives are intended to support the goals and policies of the Glendora general plan, implement the guiding principles identified above in this article, and further the overall spirit and intent of the Route 66 specific plan:
A. 
Land Use Objectives.
1. 
Specific Plan Objective LU-1. Encourage private investment in the Route 66 Corridor.
2. 
Specific Plan Objective LU-2. Establish land use districts that create unique character areas within the Route 66 Corridor.
3. 
Specific Plan Objective LU-3. Establish land use districts that encourage high quality development responsive to market demands and Glendora community objectives.
4. 
Specific Plan Objective LU-4. Establish land use regulations that support increased pedestrian activity in key focus areas.
5. 
Specific Plan Objective LU-5. Coordinate land use planning with transportation and infrastructure planning.
6. 
Specific Plan Objective LU-6. Develop incentives to encourage the consolidation of smaller parcels for reuse of underutilized land.
7. 
Specific Plan Objective LU-7. Provide specific requirements that enhance public amenities for new development, rehabilitation, and redevelopment.
8. 
Specific Plan Objective LU-8. Maximize neighborhood retail development opportunities to capture demand and compliment other land uses.
9. 
Specific Plan Objective LU-9. Allow a mix of residential land uses.
10. 
Specific Plan Objective LU-10. Allow for mixed-use, residential, and commercial development.
11. 
Specific Plan Objective LU-11. Allow a mix of land uses to capitalize on the market potential from neighboring college and university.
12. 
Specific Plan Objective LU-12. Encourage office and business park development.
B. 
Circulation, Parking and Transportation Objectives.
1. 
Specific Plan Objective CIR-1. Ensure improved pedestrian mobility, safety, and comfort.
2. 
Specific Plan Objective CIR-2. Ensure potential transportation impacts of the Route 66 Corridor specific plan are identified and mitigated to the greatest extent feasible.
3. 
Specific Plan Objective CIR-3. Ensure vehicular traffic level of service (LOS) within the Route 66 Corridor specific plan area does not exceed adopted citywide standards.
4. 
Specific Plan Objective CIR-4. Establish a correlation between development in high activity locations and access to existing and planned transportation modes.
5. 
Specific Plan Objective CIR-5. Introduce traffic calming techniques to improve pedestrian-orientation, aesthetics, and safety.
C. 
Infrastructure Objectives. Specific Plan Objective INF-1. Ensure infrastructure capacity within the Route 66 Corridor specific plan area meets future demands.
D. 
Environmental Objectives.
1. 
Specific Plan Objective ENV-1. Ensure potential environmental effects of the specific plan are mitigated to a less than significant level where feasible.
2. 
Specific Plan Objective ENV-2. Adopt a program-level environmental clearance document to utilize in subsequent development within the Route 66 Corridor specific plan area.
3. 
Specific Plan Objective ENV-3. Establish methods and strategies for the conservation of resources, including water use and drought tolerant landscaping.
E. 
Urban Design Objectives.
1. 
Specific Plan Objective UD-1. Establish a "sense of place" through quality site design, architectural design and public improvements.
2. 
Specific Plan Objective UD-2. Encourage the development of a design context for private development that reflects 40's and 50's nostalgia, art deco design, craftsman design and the citrus industry heritage of the community.
3. 
Specific Plan Objective UD-3. Ensure new development is designed in the context of the historic character of Glendora.
4. 
Specific Plan Objective UD-4. Establish a streetscape program using signage, street furniture, entry statements, and other visual amenities that conveys the traditional character of Glendora, withstands the test of time, is cost-effective, and achieves a stronger community image and identity.
5. 
Specific Plan Objective UD-5. Create gateway design treatments that establish entry statements at key high activity locations.
6. 
Specific Plan Objective UD-6. Adopt design guidelines that are applicable to new development, rehabilitation, and redevelopment.
F. 
Implementation and Administration Objectives.
1. 
Specific Plan Objective IMP-1. Establish a review process for discretionary development application.
2. 
Specific Plan Objective IMP-2. Utilize Environmental Impact Report as the primary tiering clearance document to streamline additional project-level environmental reviews.
3. 
Specific Plan Objective IMP-3. Integrate design guidelines within the design review process to streamline discretionary review.
(Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)