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)
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)
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)
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were repealed within the specific plan project area, and the zoning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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
|
Table 7-2
Domestic 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
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Water Facility Description
|
Pipeline Diameter
|
Quantity
(LF)
|
Unit Cost per LF
|
Estimated Construction Cost (1)
|
|
Vermont Avenue/Route 66 Deficiencies
| ||||
|
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 Deficiencies
| ||||
|
Option 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
|
$170,000
|
|
Note:
| |
|---|---|
|
(1)
|
Estimated cost includes costs for mobilization, demolition and
construction.
|
|
Source: RBF Consulting, July 2003.
| |
D.
Streetscape/Community
Design Improvement Costs. Streetscape/community design improvement
cost estimates have been estimated based upon the recommended improvements
identified in Article IV of this specific plan. Improvement costs
for streetscape and community design improvements include costs associated
with project mobilization (job site preparation), demolition, construction/hardscape,
irrigation, planting and consultant design fees. The following tables
provide a summary of improvement costs. More detailed, line item cost
estimates are on file with the city of Glendora.
1.
Barranca
Gateway.
Table 7-4 provides a summary of improvement costs for all improvements
identified in Exhibit 4-4: Barranca Gateway Improvements.
|
Table 7-4
Barranca Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction
Costs
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Item #
|
Description
|
Quantity
|
Units
|
Unit Cost ($)
|
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
|
|
|
|
$595,362.50
|
|
Note: Since the LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT has no control
over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished
by others or over the Contractor(s)' method of determining prices,
or over the competitive bidding or market conditions, its Opinions
of Probable Construction Cost provided herein are to be made on the
basis of its experience and qualifications and represents its best
judgment as an experience and qualified professional, familiar with
the construction industry; but the LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT cannot and
does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual project or construction
cost will not vary from its opinion of probable cost. If prior to
the Bidding or Negotiation Phase, OWNER wishes greater assurance to
Project Cost, it shall employ an independent cost estimator.
|
2.
Grand
Avenue Gateway Improvement Costs.
Table 7-5 provides a summary of improvement costs for all improvements
identified in Exhibits 4-7, 4-8 and 4-9.
|
Table 7-5
Grand Avenue Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction
Costs
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Item #
|
Description
|
Quantity
|
Units
|
Unit Cost ($)
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
$2,163,618.75
|
|
Note: Since the LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT has no control
over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished
by others or over the Contractor(s)' method of determining prices,
or over the competitive bidding or market conditions, its Opinions
of Probable Construction Cost provided herein are to be made on the
basis of its experience and qualifications and represents its best
judgment as an experience and qualified professional, familiar with
the construction industry; but the LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT cannot and
does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual project or construction
cost will not vary from its opinion of probable cost. If prior to
the Bidding or Negotiation Phase, OWNER wishes greater assurance to
Project Cost, it shall employ an independent cost estimator.
|
3.
Glendora
Avenue Gateway.
Table 7-6 provides a summary of improvement costs for all improvements
identified in Exhibit 4-10: Glendora Gateway Improvements.
|
Table 7-6
Glendora Avenue Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction
Costs
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Item #
|
Description
|
Quantity
|
Units
|
Unit Cost ($)
|
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
|
|
|
|
$1,991,875.00
|
|
Note: Since the LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT has no control
over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished
by others or over the Contractor(s)' method of determining prices,
or over the competitive bidding or market conditions, its Opinions
of Probable Construction Cost provided herein are to be made on the
basis of its experience and qualifications and represents its best
judgment as an experience and qualified professional, familiar with
the construction industry; but the LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT cannot and
does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual project or construction
cost will not vary from its opinion of probable cost. If prior to
the Bidding or Negotiation Phase, OWNER wishes greater assurance to
Project Cost, it shall employ an independent cost estimator.
|
4.
Lone
Hill Gateway Improvement Costs.
Table 7-7 provides a summary of improvement costs for all improvements
identified in Exhibit 4-10: Lone Hill Gateway Improvements.
|
Table 7-7
Lone Hill Gateway Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction
Costs
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Item #
|
Description
|
Quantity
|
Units
|
Unit Cost ($)
|
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
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
|
|
|
$457,268.00
|
|
Note: Since the LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT has no control
over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished
by others or over the Contractor(s)' method of determining prices,
or over the competitive bidding or market conditions, its Opinions
of Probable Construction Cost provided herein are to be made on the
basis of its experience and qualifications and represents its best
judgment as an experience and qualified professional, familiar with
the construction industry; but the LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT cannot and
does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual project or construction
cost will not vary from its opinion of probable cost. If prior to
the Bidding or Negotiation Phase, OWNER wishes greater assurance to
Project Cost, it shall employ an independent cost estimator.
|
5.
Optional
Items.
Table 7-8 provides a summary of line item improvement costs
for various streetscape features, including those associated with
screen wall treatments.
|
Table 7-8
Optional Items Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction
Costs
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Item #
|
Description
|
Quantity
|
Unit Cost ($)
|
|
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)
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
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
State of California Programs
| ||
|
Financing/Funding Method
|
Description
|
Potential Uses of Funding
|
|
Real Estate Development
| ||
|
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
(brownfields). Cal ReUSE addresses a funding and information gap in
the redevelopment of brownfields to help bring these properties into
productive reuse.
|
Reasonable and necessary brownfield 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 certificates 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 infill
locations throughout California.
|
Residential, office, retail, entertainment, hotel, and mixed-use
projects.
|
|
Other projects that benefit certain economic groups or geographic
areas, such as;
| ||
|
Low-income housing
| ||
|
Multifamily low-income housing
| ||
|
Economic development and redevelopment
| ||
|
Urban infill 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
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
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 difficulty 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 refinancing.
|
|
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 efficient 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
| ||
|
California Technology, Trade and Commerce Agency—Infrastructure
State Revolving Fund Loans
|
Provides low cost financing 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 finance 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 financing is available to non-profit
corporations.
|
Capital expenditures, debt refinancing, expenditure reimbursement.
|
|
Other Programs—Stare, Federal and Private Entities
| ||
|
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 Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (H.R. 2400)
|
TEA-21 gives local governments unprecedented flexibility 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 flexibly 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 efficiency
of the transportation system; reduce environmental impacts of transportation;
reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure investments;
ensure efficient 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 beautification improvements to
roadsides to mitigate the effects of transportation projects.
|
Beautification 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 modified
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.
|
|
Infrastructure State Revolving Fund Program
|
The Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISRF) Program provides
low-cost financing 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 flood 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.
|
|
FTA Metropolitan Planning Program
|
Operated by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), this program
provides financial 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 financing 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 efficiency of the transportation system, reduce
environmental impacts of transportation, reduce the need for costly
future public infrastructure investments, ensure efficient 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 financing 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 financing 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 benefits.
|
|
General Obligation Bonds
|
Tax-supported bonds used to finance 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 "benefit 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.
|
|
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 specific 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 specific NPS management practices.
State Water Quality agencies are the lead agencies for these grant
programs.
|
Projects that solve water quality problems.
|
|
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 difficult-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.
|
|
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 fixtures,
or any other streetscape element, a small projected plaque sign could
be affixed to the light pole with the name or logo of the local merchant/business/person/entity
who purchased the fixtures. 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
financial 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 efficiency.
|
Transportation policy analysis.
|
|
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
specific.
|
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 benefits trees
play in providing for livable communities, improving the global environment,
and making improvements to their local learning 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.
|
Tree planting.
|
|
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 brownfields; 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 brownfields, 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 fulfill 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) benefit 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.
|
|
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 flexible,
locally-oriented approaches that link place-based environmental management
with sustainable development and revitalization. The program funds
projects that improve the 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 benefits,
and leverage the most community investment and resources.
|
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 sustainable
and those which are not and should be avoided.
|
|
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Underground Storage Tank
Trust Fund Program Grant
|
EPA's Office 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 flexible 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)
Specific plans, or portions of specific 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, finance
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 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.
|
SCGL may fund specific plans, portions of specific plans, alternative
transportation studies, finance plans, redevelopment plans, engineering
studies, public projects and other projects that promote sustainable
development principles.
|
(Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)
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.
2.
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.
3.
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.
4.
Priority
Area #4: Glendora Avenue Village Connection.
Discussion: The Glendora Avenue Village connection is a pivotal
area for maintaining and enhancing a pedestrian-friendly 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.
5.
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)
