Agenda packet — Glendora City Council, March 24, 2026 (part 3 of 3)

Policy/Procedure:

1. Annually, the City Manager or their designee, in consultation with the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem will determine if material updates are needed to the City’s Legislative Platform for consideration by the City Council. Input is also received, as needed, by the City’s Boards/Commissions, Department Directors, Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem. Upon adoption by the City Council:
a. The Legislative Platform will be posted to the City’s website, under Legislative Advocacy Correspondence:
http://www.cityofglendora.org/departments/government/city-council/legislativeadvocacy-correspondence b. The Legislative Platform will be sent to the League of California Cities for posting on their website: https://www.cacities.org/Policy-Advocacy/Legislative-Platforms c. The Legislative Platform will be sent to all other applicable parties, including the City’s legislative advocacy firm, if applicable.
d. Non-policy related changes to the Legislative Platform and associated handouts may be updated by the City Manager or their designee. These include, but are not limited to:
i. Changes in City Council and County/State/Federal representatives ii. Updated fiscal years
iii. Updated strategic plan goals
iv. Additions to legislative policy areas approved by the City Council outside of the annual review process (e.g. urgent action needed)

2. The City Manager or their designee is authorized to prepare letters supporting or opposing legislation on behalf of the City:
a. When the City’s Legislative Platform provides clear guidance on the stance of the City. b. When requested by an organization where the City of Glendora is a member agency and has appointed a City Council Member or City staff member: League of California Cities; San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, Independent Cities; Contract Cities; San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership; Glendora Chamber of Commerce; Gold Line Construction Authority; Foothill Transit; and San Gabriel Water Association. c. If the City Manager or their designee has doubt that the Legislative Platform clearly articulates direction on a certain proposed piece of legislation, the Mayor, one additional Councilmember and City staff, where applicable, may be consulted. If ambiguity still exists, an item should be presented to the City Council for consideration.

3. Letters prepared by the City Manager or their designee supporting or opposing legislation on behalf of the City may be signed:
a. By the Mayor
b. By the Mayor Pro-Tem in the absence of the Mayor
c. By the City Manager in 1) the absence of the Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem; or 2) when time is of the essence.

4. All executed letters prepared supporting or opposing legislation on behalf of the City:
a. Will be posted to the City’s website, under Legislative Advocacy Correspondence:
http://www.cityofglendora.org/departments/government/city-council/legislativeadvocacy-correspondence b. Will be sent to all applicable County, State and Federal legislators (e.g. local representation, committee chairs, etc.) and the City’s legislative advocacy firm. c. Will be uploaded to all applicable legislative correspondence portals.

APPENDIX C
Legislative Platform by Guiding Legislative Principles
Department Pg.
1 7
2 7
3 7
4 7
5 7
6 8
7 8
8 8
9 10
10 10
11 10
12 10
13 10
14 11
15 12
16 12
City Manager, City Council,
City Clerk, City Attorney
Support efforts that are consistent with the doctrine of local control which streamlines and strengthen a city’s ability to govern its own affairs, especially in the areas of police powers, local elections, land use planning, and public safety. Oppose the usurping of local authority at any l l Support measures that preserve the integrity and fundamentals of the Ralph M. Brown Act while opposing measures that would constrain communication among staff and local officials. Further, oppose any measure that would not be applied evenly to all public agencies and elected officials at the City, County, and State level.

City Manager, City Council,
City Clerk, City Attorney
Support measures that promote transparency, public participation and first amendment rights, while preserving procedures that continue to foster efficient government operations.

City Manager, City Council,
City Clerk, City Attorney
Support measures increasing local autonomy, protecting privacy, and maintaining authority over public records. This includes measures that provide for the recovery of costs with regard to public records requests.

City Manager, City Council,
City Clerk, City Attorney
Support efforts to amend rules that limit and restrict local governments’ ability to achieve greater transparency of governmental business by improving the platform in which agencies can publish and advertise notices, resolutions, orders, or other matters required by law.

City Manager, City Council,
City Clerk, City Attorney
Finance, HR
Monitor land use issues and support measures that preserve local control over planning and zoning matters, including but not limited to housing development standards; parking standards; massage establishments; the banning or regulating of marijuana; the establishment and placement of group homes or sober living homes; development standards of accessory dwelling units; development in high fire hazard severity zones; and telecommunication, broadband and Community Development,
Economic Development,
Transportation
Support measures, court cases, and similar efforts that provide municipalities with increased input and authority in the development of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), and related housing development guidelines (e.g. SB 79).

Community Development,
Economic Development,
Transportation
Oppose air quality legislation that restricts the land use authority of cities.

Oppose efforts that seek to remove local regulatory authority on wireless infrastructure development.

Public Works
Support measures that uphold the ability of locally elected city councils to regulate and manage their publicly owned water and electric utilities so that local policy making authority is not eroded by State or Federal agencies, authorities, or other regulatory bodies, and keeps local funding from being transferred to State or Federal control.

Water, Other Utilities
Preserve and Enhance Local Control
Advocate for any effort that support a local government’s ability to achieve and/or maintain sustainable pensions.

Finance, HR
Oppose efforts which reduce local control over public employee matters by imposing additional regulations and costs by an outside agency.

Finance, HR
Support legislation that would provide the City with more authority to regulate needle exchange programs proposing to operate within our jurisdiction.

Public Safety
Oppose any legislation that would make local agencies more dependent on the State for financial stability and policy direction.

Finance, HR
Oppose legislation that undermines and preempts local authority over local taxes and fees. Finance, HR Oppose measures that would mandate upon local governments any additional and costly program for employee benefits without local control.

Community Development,
Economic Development,
Transportation
19 APPENDIX C
Legislative Platform by Guiding Legislative Principles
Pg.
17 13
18 13
19 14
20 14
Preserve and Enhance Local Control (Continued) Department Supports responsible and ethical implementation of artificial intelligence and emerging Information Technology technologies that improve municipal operations and public engagement, while advocating for clear standards related to transparency, privacy, risk management, and accountability. Finally, the City supports investment in broadband infrastructure and digital equity initiatives, sustainable lifecycle funding for technology systems, and policies that preserve local authority over data governance and technology implementation decisions.

Artificial Intelligence,
Digital Communications
Supports policies that preserve local authority over official social media accounts and digital communications platforms, protect First Amendment principles, clarify public records retention obligations for digital content, and address misinformation, impersonation, and election-related deepfake risks that may undermine public trust in local government.

Support local control of groundwater uses and groundwater rights. Water, Other Utilities Oppose actions by Regional Water Quality Control Boards that impose mandates on cities that exceed State or Federal regulations and/or are outside their jurisdictional authority to impose or enforce.

Water, Other Utilities
20 APPENDIX C
Legislative Platform by Guiding Legislative Principles
Pg.
1 7
2 8
3 8
4 9
5 9
6 9
7 9
8 10
9 10
10 10
11 10
12 10
13 10
14 10
15 11
16 11
17 11
18 11
19 11
20 11
Finance, HR
Finance, HR
Support reform measures that provide sustainable and secure public pensions and other postretirement benefits to ensure responsive and affordable public services.

Oppose efforts by online travel companies to circumvent remittance of Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT) from hotel reservations and short-term rentals purchased/acquired through online Oppose any attempt to eliminate or limit the traditional tax exemption for municipal bonds.

Actively support initiatives to assure timely reimbursements to the City from State and Federal mandates.

Support efforts to maintain and expand the types of municipal investment-grade revenue bonds.

Oppose efforts to legislate changes in how the California Public Employee Pension System invests its assets if the proposed changes will result in a loss of funds or loss of the ability to enter into higher earning, safe investments.

Finance, HR
Finance, HR
Finance, HR
Finance, HR
Support legislation that changes the allocation of sales tax for online purchases from the county pool and reallocates it to the City where the purchase is made.

Engage and advocate for legislation or ballot measures to prevent the State from borrowing, raiding or otherwise redirecting local government funds such as local, property and sales taxes.

Continue to promote increased flexibility for the utilization of municipally generated revenues (i.e. – Public Education and Government fee, Utility Users Tax, Development Impact Fees, etc.).

Oppose efforts that would significantly alter Proposition 13 and the tax benefits that are currently provided to residents and businesses.

Monitor State and Federal efforts to manage the rising cost of health insurance through legislation and urge officials to fully consider the financial impact on local governments.

Finance, HR
Finance, HR
Finance, HR
Finance, HR
Finance, HR
Advocate for the fair share distribution of funding programs, including those generated by revenue measures, that support service delivery and facility improvements.

Recreation & Human
Services, Library
Oppose legislation that would impose unfunded mandates: support full cost reimbursement to Finance, HR the City for all federal, state and county-mandated programs.

Support legislation that strengthens and expands ongoing revenue for the City; oppose any change Finance, HR in revenue allocations that would negatively (current or future) affect local government.

Oppose action that reduces or depletes services and funding sources created to enhance the community's varying needs, including library programming.

Recreation & Human
Services, Library
Maintain Fiscal Responsibility Department
Recreation & Human
Services, Library
Support legislation that establishes direct funding to local agencies for the development and rehabilitation of parks, libraries, public right of ways, and similar neighborhood and community serving facilities.

Recreation & Human
Services, Library
Support efforts to provide an expedited process for the fair distribution of State bond funds and other grant opportunities, without significant overhead taken by State and County agencies.

City Manager, City Council,
City Clerk, City Attorney
Oppose any state or federal unfunded mandates; those which do not provide for the direct or indirect reimbursement for the costs associated with complying with new and/or modified laws, rules, regulations, policies, procedures, permits and/or programs.

Support continued or expanded funding as well as the expansion of the eligibility and allowable uses of the funding for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Community Development,
Economic Development,
Transportation
Seek, promote, and implement any new or alternative approaches that may replace redevelopment funding mechanisms that deliver positive benefits to Glendora.

Community Development,
Economic Development,
Transportation
21 APPENDIX C
Legislative Platform by Guiding Legislative Principles
Pg.
21 11
22 11
23 11
24 11
25 11
26 11
27 11
28 11
29 11
30 11
31 11
32 12
33 12
34 13
35 13
36 13
37 13
Support legislation that minimizes municipal borrowing costs to the benefit of ratepayers, such as preservation of the tax-exempt status of municipal bonds for infrastructure investments.

Seek additional County, State and Federal funding to help meet mandated stormwater requirements.

Support efforts that seek to bring Federal sources of funding to California for water infrastructure development.

Water, Other Utilities
Water, Other Utilities
Water, Other Utilities
Public Works
Public Works
Water, Other Utilities
Support measures that pursue new funding and preserve existing Regional, State, and Federal funding opportunities, including but not limited to Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program and Congestion Management Air Quality Funds; State Cap and Trade, High Speed Rail, Gas Tax, and Active Transportation funds; and Regional Measure M, Measure R, Proposition A, and Proposition C (Transportation Sales Tax) funds, to mitigate traffic congestion and maintain/improve the City’s infrastructure including but not limited to the preservation, maintenance, rehabilitation, and development of local street and road systems.

Support measures that seek to reevaluate the method and manner in which the State and Federal gas taxes are collected and allocated fairly to local jurisdictions.

Oppose efforts by the State or Legislature that would impose Public Benefit requirements on water utilities that transfer funding to the State for redistribution. Local benefits efforts should retain that funding for exclusive local use.

Public Safety
Oppose legislation or other administrative actions that seek to limit the police department’s ability to collect and utilize asset forfeiture funds for a wide variety of police services.

Support legislation on State and Federal funding, including grant opportunities, which target specialized local law enforcement and prevention programs including the Gang Reduction and Intervention Partnership (GRIP) program, and the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program.

Seek continued financial assistance to deal with the impacts of AB109 (Public Safety Realignment) and Proposition 47 (Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative). This includes supporting legislation that addresses wrap-around services such as substance abuse counseling, mental health services, employment, medical and housing assistance.

Advocate for legislation and funding that would take advantage of the latest technology to prevent and resolve crimes (i.e. the ability to use surveillance cameras, integrated video recording systems (body cameras), automatic license plate recognition, and DNA testing).

Seek measures that encourage disaster preparedness and emergency planning, including funding to develop a permanent Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to further emergency management preparedness efforts. Seek funding for recovery cost due to disasters.

Seek State financial assistance for enforcement and regulation due to the passage of Proposition 64 and legalization of recreational marijuana.

Support Office of Traffic Safety grant funding related to all aspects of traffic safety.

Public Safety
Public Safety
Public Safety
Public Safety
Public Safety
Support legislation that would control medical and legal costs related to workers’ compensation. Finance, HR Support workers’ compensation reform that is inclusive of both safety and non-safety employees. Finance, HR Public Safety
Advocate for legislation that supports the City’s ability to provide competitive and valuable employment opportunities and strengthens good faith negotiations between employee organizations and local agencies.

Finance, HR
Maintain Fiscal Responsibility (Continued) Department
Support legislation that streamlines the workers’ compensation system and makes it easier for employers, employees, and health care providers to navigate.

Finance, HR
22 APPENDIX C
Legislative Platform by Guiding Legislative Principles
Pg.
38 13
39 13
40 13
41 13
42 14
43 14
Water, Other Utilities
Water, Other Utilities
Water, Other Utilities
Water, Other Utilities
Maintain Fiscal Responsibility (Continued) Department
Oppose unfunded Federal and State legislative mandates on water and electric utilities, including any stemming from the action of regulatory agencies.

Support State and Federal funding for water ecosystem projects that are cost-effective; direct beneficiaries and cost causers should fund their fair share of infrastructure project costs that provide long-term benefits to the State and its inhabitants.

Actively pursue legislation and funding that support water conservation measures including, but not limited to awareness, water storage, drought-resistant landscaping and permeable surfaces.

Support legislation that ensures the best interests of ratepayers with respect to cost, value, quality, safety and reliability of infrastructure and resources are considered, and that there are useful benefits in relation to implementation costs for programs.

Information Technology
Artificial Intelligence,
Digital Communications
Supports flexible technology procurement options, including cooperative purchasing and state contract vehicles, to ensure cost-effective acquisition of technology solutions.

Opposes unfunded mandates or premature restrictions that limit the ability of local governments to responsibly evaluate and implement emerging technologies. 23 APPENDIX C
Legislative Platform by Guiding Legislative Principles
Pg.
1 9
2 9
3 9
4 9
5 9
6 9
7 9
8 9
9 9
10 9
11 13
12 14
Support legislation that will help provide residents with safe, accessible services and facilities.

Support legislation that promotes content and service accessibility, competition, and consumer protection in the online and networked world.

Advocate for libraries as sites of learning, where protected content will be continually available, distributed, used, and preserved to further knowledge, fostering the Constitutional purpose of the law “to advance the progress of science and the useful arts” to benefit the public.

Defend policies that ensure meeting facilities and exhibit space should be made available to members of a community on "an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use."
Support policies that integrate recreation planning with broader economic development strategies, housing initiatives, and transportation planning.

Recreation & Human
Services, Library
Recreation & Human
Services, Library
Recreation & Human
Services, Library
Recreation & Human
Services, Library
Recreation & Human
Services, Library
Advocates for policies that enable modernization of digital government systems, including Information Technology electronic records management, digital signatures, secure cloud services, modern agenda, and public meeting platforms, and improved electronic noticing methods to enhance transparency and operational efficiency.

Support legislation that enhances the City’s efforts to attract new businesses and retain and promote the successes of existing local businesses.

Support the creation or expansion of programs or incentives to support local business development and attraction efforts.

Support legislation that expands transportation planning, funding, and voluntary incentives to include alternative modes of transportation, transportation demand management systems, an increasingly multi-modal perspective focusing on transit, alternative fuel vehicles, fleets, pedestrian ways, bikeways, multi-use trails and parking.

Community Development,
Economic Development,
Transportation
Community Development,
Economic Development,
Transportation
Community Development,
Economic Development,
Transportation
Community Development,
Economic Development,
Transportation
Promote Economic Development and Infrastructure Department Community Development,
Economic Development,
Transportation
Support measures and grants that provide increased funding without loss of land use control for housing programs within the City, including incentives for affordable housing; amended Federal and State Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Programs; and private sector investment in housing j
Support legislation that provides tangible and productive tools and incentives to support job creation and retention, including job training and workforce development programs.

Support legislation that ensures environmental stewardship and drought mitigation is consistent with the goals that have been endorsed by the City Council, and such legislation is balanced with the need for reliable, cost-effective service that does not act as a disincentive to local employers staying in California.

Water, Other Utilities
24 APPENDIX C
Legislative Platform by Guiding Legislative Principles
Pg.
1 7
2 7
3 10
4 10
5 10
6 10
7 11
8 11
9 12
10 12
11 12
12 12
13 12
14 12
15 13
16 14
Public Safety Department
City Manager, City Council,
City Clerk, City Attorney
Support well balanced legislation and local funding that promotes preventative measures to limit impacts from natural disasters such as earthquakes and fires, including vegetation management, seismic building retrofits, and higher levels of wildfire structural resilience.

Advocate for legislation that will support our local police department including legislation that utilizes professional input in matters that address use of force concerns; supports funding for homelessness and mental health outreach, and encampment remediation; provides local control over cannabis rules and enforcement; and continues to raise awareness regarding the deficiencies of Prop 57 with strategies to fix those deficiencies.

City Manager, City Council,
City Clerk, City Attorney
Recreation & Human
Services, Library
Recreation & Human
Services, Library
Recreation & Human
Services, Library
Recreation & Human
Services, Library
Support legislation and funding for youth related prevention and intervention programs, including after school educational and recreational programs.

Support legislation that strengthens safety requirements for youth sport coaches, including mandatory fingerprinting, background checks, and compliance with the California Department of Justice (DOJ) Live Scan standards.

Advocate for, educate about, and protect people’s privacy, safeguarding all library use data, including personally identifiable information.

Support legislation and funding that promotes libraries as centers for early education, literacy, career support, services for vulnerable populations and other educational programs that benefit a wide range of community members.

Public Safety
Public Safety
Public Safety
Public Safety
Public Safety
Public Safety
Public Safety
Public Safety
Support for legislation that would address the wait time for 911 ambulances when transitioning patients at local hospitals and emergency rooms.

Support legislation that assists in preventing and reducing crime, such as drug prevention programs, reducing gun violence, mental health initiatives, enhanced protective equipment, and solutions for homelessness.

Promote programs that help ensure public safety through the assistance and rehabilitation of individuals challenged with mental and/or substance abuse illnesses and increase awareness and training opportunities.

Support legislation for the prevention of Adolescent Cannabis use for the purposes of preventing persons under 21 years of age from accessing cannabis and cannabis products, unless otherwise specified.

Support legislation that prevents Human Trafficking, Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence.

Support Vehicle Code and Traffic Safety legislation.

Support legislation that would expand the scope of a crime to a person who is prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm in any jurisdiction by a valid order issued by an out-of-state jurisdiction that is similar or equivalent to a temporary restraining order, injunction, or protective order issued in this state, and which includes a prohibition from owning or possessing a firearm.

Oppose legislation that would institute a program under which the length of a parolee’s period of parole would be reduced.

Water, Other Utilities
Information Technology
Support legislative and administrative efforts to adopt cost-effective, science-based drinking water quality regulations.

Supports legislation and funding that strengthen cybersecurity protections for local governments, including resources for threat detection, ransomware prevention, CJIS compliance, and critical infrastructure protection, while opposing unfunded mandates that impose technical or reporting requirements without sustainable funding or reasonable implementation timelines. 25 APPENDIX C
Legislative Platform by Guiding Legislative Principles
Pg.
1 7
2 7
3 9
4 10
5 10
6 10
7 12
8 12
9 12
10 12
11 12
12 13
13 13
14 13
15 13
16 14
Public Safety
Public Safety
Public Safety
Public Safety
Regional Collaboration Department
City Manager, City Council,
City Clerk, City Attorney
Support local, sub-regional, and state collaborations that seek to address homelessness as well as grant programs that provide direct funding to cities in order to implement local strategies.

Proactively support and advocate for initiatives, partnerships, funding, and programs to ensure veterans and their families have access to holistic services and resources including, but not limited to: physical and mental health, affordable housing, employment, and education.

City Manager, City Council,
City Clerk, City Attorney
Water, Other Utilities
Water, Other Utilities
Water, Other Utilities
Water, Other Utilities
Artificial Intelligence,
Digital Communications
Support legislation that encourages regional and sub-regional entities to incorporate locally acceptable planning and urban design strategies developed in consultation with local governments to ensure local control, especially when those plans are tied to funding allocations.

Advocate for new homelessness initiative funding and fair homelessness funding formulas that acknowledge tax burdens, local planning, mental health, dependency, service, enforcement, and storage/cleaning needs.

Support initiatives and funding that leverage City and school partnerships that enhance neighborhood school sites as key City facilities (e.g. pool, middle school parks, etc.) Support legislation with local, state, and federal funding that employ evidence-based best practice strategies to reduce the number of people experiencing homelessness by preventing homelessness for those at-risk; providing emergency and transitional housing; expanding affordable permanent housing; and promoting self-empowerment through counseling, job training, and other supportive services.

Continue to support efforts to coordinate the development of telecommunications infrastructure within the region for use during large scale emergency situations.

Support and advocate for Federal assistance to aid the Interagency Communications Interoperability (ICI) System that includes seeking relief for communities that will lose public safety radio communication channels when the Federal government mandates reallocation of the “T-Band” spectrum in 2021, that is currently utilized by first responders in and surrounding communities.

Support initiatives involving County, State and Federal governments to reduce and prevent homelessness in Los Angeles County and provide funding for these efforts.

Support legislation and funding for the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) and other funding initiatives ad-ministered by the Department of Homeland Security to enhance the City’s ability to respond to regional or national threats.

Support legislation for living with wildlife programs that provides for community education opportunities and funding for mitigative measures, when needed.

Support measures to improve water supply and drinking water quality in the region where cost causation principles are employed, and users/beneficiaries pay for the costs of those measures.

Support administrative and legislative plans that foster the California Water Fix, a comprehensive ecosystem restoration and protection plan for the Delta, as the best alternative to meet California’s co-equal goals of water supply reliability and Delta ecosystem restoration.

Support legislation that exempts stormwater capture facilities from California Department of Fish and Wildlife review and permitting process. Requirements to permit debris basin clean out significantly delays the process, which may endanger residents in the event of storms.

Oppose new regulations that do not allow appropriate time and resources for compliance.

Supports responsible and transparent use of artificial intelligence and automated technologies to improve municipal operations, service delivery, records management, and public engagement, while advocating for clear statewide standards regarding procurement, risk assessment, data governance, algorithmic transparency, and public disclosure.

Community Development,
Economic Development,
Transportation
Recreation & Human
Services, Library
Recreation & Human
Services, Library
Recreation & Human
Services, Library
Public Safety
26 RESOLUTION CC 2026-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDORA

ADOPTING AN AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY FOR A

LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY PROGRAM

THE CITY COUNCIL
City of Glendora, California
WHEREAS, The City Council has an interest in weighing in on state, federal, and regional legislative issues that impact the City and its residents; and WHEREAS, The City Council annually takes action on numerous legislative proposals brought forward throughout the year, and
WHEREAS, Establishing a Legislative Advocacy Policy and Legislative Advocacy Program would provide a more comprehensive and streamlined process for responding to legislative proposals that may impact the City and focus the City’s limited advocacy resources.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDORA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby adopt the Amended Administrative Policy on Legislative Advocacy (Policy No. 1.12) (Exhibit A) attached and incorporated herein by this reference, as the official legislative advocacy policy of the City of Glendora.

SECTION 2. Any and all prior resolutions, programs of policies on a Legislative Advocacy Program for the City of Glendora shall be hereby rescinded.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and shall enter the same in the Book of Original Resolutions.

ASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Glendora this __ day of ______, 2026.

BY:

DAVID FREDENDALL
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Aleshire & Wynder, LLP

DANNY ALESHIRE
City Attorney
Resolution CC 2026-____ Page 2 of 2

CERTIFICATION
I, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Glendora at a regular meeting held on the ___ day of _____, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: MEMBERS:

NOES: MEMBERS:

ABSENT: MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: MEMBERS:

Dated:

KATHLEEN R. SESSMAN, MMC
City Clerk/Communications Director
Appendix B: Legislative Platform Policy

LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY

PROGRAM
POLICY TYPE:

Administrative
SECTION/POLICY NO:

No. 1.12
ORIGINATING DEPT./DIV.:

City Manager
APPROVED BY:

City Council Resolution CC 2019-
EFFECTIVE DATE: SUPERSEDES:
2013 Legislative Advocacy
Program (Sept, 2013)
I. Policy Objective:

To provide guidance on how to implement the Legislative Platform adopted by the City Council. The policy is aimed at prompt and transparent repose to pending county, state and federal legislation affecting Glendora and its municipal interests.

II. Authority:

The original Administrative Policy governing the City’s stance on legislative items was adopted by the City Council in 1977 and was more recently updated in 2013. This policy, and all future updates are adopted via Resolution of the City Council.

III. Assigned Responsibility:

City Manager or their designee.

IV. Correspondence:

Pursuant to this policy, “correspondence” is generally referred to as communication in the formal letter format. However, correspondence shall be considered any communication expressing an opinion on proposed legislation, including, but not limited to: emails, phone calls, and text messages.

V. Individual Views:

It is recognized that preparing a letter of support or opposition is not intended to indicate that every member of the City Council shares the same opinion on proposed legislation. Any action to support or oppose proposed legislation reflects the overall views City Council body and not individual member.

Further, any proposed action to support or oppose proposed legislation does not reflect the individual views of any singular staff member.

Any Councilmember may express their personal views as an individual Councilmember, taking care to clearly identify those views as their personal opinion and not the views of the City.

Any City staff member may express their personal views as a private citizen, taking care to clearly identify those views as their personal opinion and not the views of the City.

ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY PROGRAM
VI. Procedure:

1. Annually, the City Manager or their designee, in consultation with the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem will determine if material updates are needed to the City’s Legislative Platform for consideration by the City Council. Input is also received, as needed, by the City’s Boards/Commissions, Department Directors, Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem. Upon adoption by the City Council:
a. The Legislative Platform will be posted to the City’s website, under Legislative Advocacy Correspondence:
http://www.cityofglendora.org/departments/government/city-council/legislative-advocacycorrespondence b. The Legislative Platform will be sent to the League of California Cities for posting on their website: https://www.cacities.org/Policy-Advocacy/Legislative-Platforms c. The Legislative Platform will be sent to all other applicable parties, including the City’s legislative advocacy firm, if applicable.
d. Non-policy related changes to the Legislative Platform and associated handouts may be updated by the City Manager or their designee. These include, but are not limited to:
• Changes in City Council and County/State/Federal representatives • Updated fiscal years
• Updated strategic plan goals
• Additions to legislative policy areas approved by the City Council outside of the annual review process (e.g. urgent action needed)

4. All executed letters prepared supporting or opposing legislation on behalf of the City:
a. Will be posted to the City’s website, under Legislative Advocacy Correspondence:http://www.cityofglendora.org/departments/government/citycouncil/legislative-advocacy-correspondence b. Will be sent to all applicable County, State and Federal legislators (e.g. local representation, committee chairs, etc.) and the City’s legislative advocacy firm. c. Will be uploaded to all applicable legislative correspondence portals.

LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACCY PROGRAM
SECTION or POLICY NO:

No. 1.12
ORIGINATING DEPT:

City Manager
Reference:

Administrative Policy
SUPERSEDES:
2019 Legislative Advocacy Program
NEW EFFECTIVE DATE: PAGE 1 of 6
APPROVED BY:

City Council Resolution CC 2026 -
Prepared by: Finance Page 1 of 3
Policy Objective:

Authority:

Assigned Responsibility:

City Manager or their designee.

Definitions:

Correspondence:

Individual Views:

Further, any proposed action to support or oppose proposed legislation does not reflect the individual views of any singular staff member.

Any Councilmember may express their personal views as an individual Councilmember, taking care to clearly identify those views as their personal opinion and not the views of the City.

Any City staff member may express their personal views as a private citizen, taking care to clearly identify those views as their personal opinion and not the views of the City.

Policy Title – effective date

Page 2 of 3 ends

Policy/Procedure:

Policy Title – effective date

Page 3 of 3 ends

Additional References:

For addition information see ….. (Insert additional references and any codes regulating) History:

This policy was originally approved by (insert who approved (Mayor, City Manager, etc.)) by (insert by what action (Resolution, Minute, etc)).

Page 3 ends

2025-2027 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM UPDATE
CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 24, 2026
The Legislative Platform:

PURPOSE:

The platform establishes the City’s legislative priorities and provides direction for advocacy at the:
• Regional Level
• State Level
• Federal Level
Enable staff and legislative advocates to respond quickly to legislation that may impact the City and its residents.

The Draft Legislative Platform aligns with the City’s 2025 – 2027 Strategic Plan:
• SubURBAN Living
• Glendora as a Destination
• New + Revitalized Facilities
• Sustainable Infrastructure
• Staff + Technology

ALIGNMENT WITH THE STRATEGIC PLAN
The Legislative Guiding Principles (remain the same)
• Preserve and Enhance Local Control
• Maintain Fiscal Responsibility
• Promote Economic Development and Infrastructure
• Support Public Safety
• Encourage Regional Collaboration

LEGISLATIVE GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Staff proposes amendments to:

ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY UPDATES
• Clarify the annual review process of the platform
• Allow for ministerial updates to platform:
o Year (timed with legislative cycles)
o Strategic plan goals
o Elected official titles
o Actions taken by City Council throughout the year (e.g. new advocacy area) No Fiscal Impact

FISCAL IMPACT & NEXT STEPS
Following Council adoption:
• Platform posted on City's website
• Distributed to legislative partners and CalCities
• New guide for advocacy efforts shared with City staff THAT THE CITY COUNCIL:

RECOMMENDATION

1. REVIEW AND APPROVE THE FY 2025-2027 STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM; AND

2.ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED, " A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF GLENDORA ADOPTING AN AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY FOR A LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY PROGRAM."

STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and Council Members DATE: March 24, 2026
FROM: City Manager DISTRICT(S): Citywide
SUBJECT: Information on Citizen Ad-Hoc Committees, City Council Sub-Committees, and Direction on the Use of One-Time Funds

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:

1. Receive a report on citizen ad-hoc committees and city council sub-committees and provide direction, as necessary; and

2. Provide direction, as necessary, on the use of one-time funds.

STRATEGIC FOCUS AREAS
Goal 3 - New + Revitalized Facilities
Goal 4 - Sustainable Infrastructure

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the January 13, 2026 City Council meeting, staff committed to returning with a broader discussion regarding the potential use of one-time resources as part of the FY 2025-26 mid-year budget update. On February 24, 2026, the City Council received a report on available one-time funding and discussed potential approaches for evaluating future capital needs and funding priorities. During the discussion, the Council considered the possibility of establishing either a citizen ad-hoc advisory group or a City Council subcommittee to further examine facility and infrastructure needs and related funding strategies. The Council ultimately voted to receive and file the report and directed staff to return with additional information regarding how such a group might be structured and what policy questions the Council may wish to consider.

This report provides background information to assist the City Council in evaluating whether to establish a citizen advisory body or a City Council subcommittee to review facility and infrastructure issues. It outlines how citizen advisory groups typically function, summarizes past examples of similar advisory committees established by the City, and provides examples from other cities that have used advisory groups to study civic facilities and infrastructure planning. The report also presents several policy considerations for the City Council related to governance structure, potential membership qualifications, and the scope of work should the Council choose to establish a group to further evaluate the City’s facilities, infrastructure needs, and potential use of one-time funding.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY / PREVIOUS ACTIONS
At the January 13, 2026 City Council meeting, during a comprehensive city facility and civic center discussion, staff committed to returning to the City Council with a broader conversation regarding one-time uses of available resources with the mid-year budget update for FY 2025-26.

On February 24, 2026, the City Council received a report on one-time funding. During City Council discussion following the presentation, the City Council discussed the possibility to creating a citizen ad-hoc or city council subcommittee to discuss capital related matters. Ultimately, the City Council moved to receive and file the report on one-time funding and staff pledged to return to City Council with an item on a possible capital improvement adhoc/sub-committee on March 24, 2026.

DISCUSSION
On February 24, 2026, in response to direction form the City Council in January 2026, staff presented a report on one-time funding. The City Council did not provide direction for the use of one-time funding; a copy of the staff report and all exhibits can be found at Attachment A.

Additionally, during the City Council discussion that followed the presentation on one-time funding, the City Council discussed the possibility to creating a citizen ad-hoc or city council sub-committee to discuss facility and infrastructure related matters. Ultimately, the City Council moved to receive and file the report on one-time funding and staff pledged to return to City Council with an item on how a city council sub-committee or citizen ad-hoc group may operate and what policy questions the City Council may wish to consider.

This report provides a general overview of citizen ad-hoc groups and city council sub-committees, including prior City Council actions on these matters over the past ten years. Additionally, the report will include policy questions/direction the City Council may need to address in order to move forward with use of one-time funds, or the establishment of group to further study the City's facilities/infrastructure and related funding challenges.

What Are Citizen Advisory/Ad-Hoc Groups in Cities?
Citizen advisory groups (often called advisory boards, commissions, ad-hoc committees, or task forces) are bodies composed primarily of residents that:

Study specific issues or policy areas;
Gather input, research, and community feedback;
Provide recommendations to the City Council (or staff) on policies, plans, or programs; and Do not have significant decision-making authority; they are advisory in nature, not legislative.

These groups vary widely in scope. Currently, the City has several ongoing committees/boards including the Planning Commission, Water Commission, Library Board, Recreations and Human Services Commission, and the Business Improvement District Board.

Can Council Members Serve on Citizen Advisory Bodies?
As a general rule, council members cannot serve as voting members or active participants of advisory boards, commissions, or committees that are appointed by the City Council. This is to avoid conflicts with the City Council’s role in policy making and oversight. Advisory groups exist to provide independent advice. Allowing city council members to vote would blur the line between legislative policy decision-making (Council) and citizen advisory input.

While not common, some cities have appointed city council liaison(s) for citizen advisory boards, commissions, task forces, etc. including, but not limited to, San Ramon, Dublin, and Beverly Hills. In these cities, appointment of a liaison is done in conjunction with other City Council assignments.

Has the City Council Previously Appointed a Citizen Advisory Body Outside of the City’s Standing Board and Commissions?
From time to time, the City Council has appointed various citizen advisory committees/groups. The establishment of these groups requires significant staff resources in order to provide the information and support necessary. Over the past ten years, the City Council has created two such citizen advisory groups, including a citizen ad-hoc committee on revenue and expenditures and an ad-hoc citizen advisory group on antique streetlights.

Citizen Ad-Hoc Committee: Revenue Options and Expenditures (April 2018 through December 2020) During a strategic planning workshop on January 25, 2018, the City Council and Executive Team discussed the ongoing concern that current revenue sources and longer-term projections would not keep pace with the anticipated expenditure trends. It was anticipated the City would begin experiencing multi-million dollar shortfalls in FY 2018-19 and beyond.

As part of the discussion, the City Council discussed the possibility of seeking community input by the creation of a citizen’s advisory panel; it was established that then Mayor Thompson and former Council Member Nelson would explore the issue further. On April 10, 2018, then Mayor Thompson and former Council Member Nelson formally presented an agenda item recommending the creation of an ad-hoc citizen’s advisory committee to evaluate the following:

Why there may be a [revenue] problem.

How and/or what might be recommended to create new revenue sources.

Are there other ways to address the "problem."
It was recommended that the committee be comprised of between 15-21 persons with a diverse background; however, a financial background, especially with public entities should be highly valued. The ad-hoc group was open to city residents and city business owners, the vast majority of the appointments were ultimately residents.

Each city council member appointed two members to the panel. The remaining seats of the panel were selected similar to the appointment process for the City's commissions/boards. Additionally, the Council determined that the citizen ad-hoc committee would have an appointed chair and vice-chair; the primary staff liaison was the Finance Director and Community Development Director.

On May 16, 2018, 20 members were appointed to the Ad-Hoc Citizen’s Advisory Committee by the City Council; Michael Holmes was appointed as the Committee Chair and Cliff Hamlow was appointed the Vice-Chair.

The first meeting was held on June 7, 2018. The group met approximately twice per month through early September 2018. Based upon information gathered, the committee was unanimous in its decision to present a preliminary report to the city council on September 11, 2018, recommending that the City should immediately take steps to conduct a special election for a sales and use tax initiative in November 2018. A final report was delivered to the City Council in November 2019.

On December 8, 2020, the City Council held a follow-up agenda item on the November 2019 Final Report as part of the City’s 2020-2023 Strategic Plan. The final report included, but was not limited to historical staffing levels, outsourcing opportunities, land sales, and revenue measures. The ad-hoc committee was comprehensive in its efforts to understand and address the City's current and historical funding challenges; several of the additional items in the report (e.g. San Jose, South Hills, and outsourcing) have been topics of conversation and action since the issuance of the report in 2019. The City Council noted the option for the group to be reengaged, if needed in the future. A copy of the Final Report from November 2019, can be found at Attachment B.

Ad-Hoc Antique Streetlights Citizen Committee (May 2022 through June 2023) On May 10, 2022, the City Council authorized staff to develop an ad-hoc process for a group of no more than 11 people to begin a feasibility dialogue around the restoration of the City’s antique streetlights. Additionally, the group was tasked with the creation of an antique streetlight maintenance assessment district. To assist the process and formation of an assessment district, the City Council authorized staff to engage an engineering firm, bringing the total funded project budget to $1,629,950 ($1,500,000 from Senator Portantino and $129,650 in discretionary capital funds).

On June 14, 2022, the City Council discussed and approved the creation of an Ad-Hoc Antique Streetlight Citizen’s Advisory Panel (Ad-Hoc Panel), with a mission to:
“Engage residents in a dialogue to determine the interest and feasibility of renovating the antique streetlights, and potential support for the creation of an antique streetlight maintenance assessment district.” On August 23, 2022, the City Council appointed nine applicants as members of the Ad-Hoc Antique Streetlight Citizen’s Advisory Panel, directed that one seat would be open for a representative from the Glendora Historical Society, and appointed Patrick Hollanders as Chair (with direction to have the Vice Chair chosen by the ad-hoc committee).

The ad-hoc committee met on six occasions in 2022 (September 8 and 29, October 20, November 10, and December 1 and 21). Each of the Ad-Hoc Antique Street Light's meetings was open to the public, broadcast virtually (via Zoom), with agendas and supporting materials published to a project webpage created on the City’s website. The webpage also included information on the schedule of meetings, historical information on the antique streetlights, the timeline of City Council actions related to the antique streetlights, as well as responses to the questions posed by members of the ad-hoc committee.

On January 24, 2023, the City Council was provided an update on the antique streetlight project, which included testimony and recommendations of the Ad-Hoc Antique Streetlight Citizen Committee. After debate, the City Council directed staff to re-evaluate the project, meet with the City’s consultants and past bidders, look at timelines, and come back to the City Council with possible options moving forward.

On March 28, 2023, the City Council directed staff to move forward with the formation of the antique streetlight district during the current fiscal year. In order to stay within the $100 to $200 per year recommendation of the adhoc committee for the first two or three years, the project required a General Fund or Measure E/Z loan to the proposed district for approximately $601,000 at 0% interest over 30-years; this was on top of the $1.63 million the City already allocated to the project.

On April 11, 2023, the City Council adopted a resolution to call for a vote on the establishment of an antique streetlight district and confirmed that if the vote failed, the antique streetlights would be removed. The vote occurred on June 13, 2023, with 65% of the vote opposing the establishment of a new district. This was the third failure to establish a district, following up on efforts in 2007 and 2008.

Ultimately, the antique streetlights were removed in 2023. In subsequent years, utilizing funds already set aside for the antique streetlights, staff has worked to salvage and refurbish as many lights as possible for use in a future project along Glendora Avenue (Foothills to the A-Line station).

Can Council Members serve on a City Council Ah-Hoc Committee? The City Council may form sub-committees or sub-groups that include one or two council members at the City Council’s direction. In order to avoid Brown Act violations, no more than two council members can serve on a city council ad-hoc committee at one time.

Note that an ad-hoc committee is differentiated from a standing committee, in that it is not permanent, but rather temporary, formed to address a specific short term task or project, and dissolves once the issue is addressed or completed.

Has the City Council Previously Appointed a Council Sub-Committee? The City Council recently appointed Mayor Pro Tem Davis and Councilmember Allawos to a sub-committee that focused on the 1762 Dale Rd. affordable housing project with Mercy Housing. The group was appointed in mid 2025 and provided their insight to the City Council in early 2026. Meeting cadence for both council members, staff and Mercy Housing, was typically monthly.

The City Council used the sub-committees insight during project negotiations associated with the exclusive negotiating agreement (ENA) with Mercy (Phase 1). This insight assisted with the City Council’s direction on the project, funding options, housing mix, and community engagement. This included visiting other Mercy developments and participating in community meetings. Staff anticipates the Mercy Housing project at 1762 Dale will continue moving through the development process, with hearing at the Planning Commission and City Council over the next 12-18 months.

Examples of Citizen Advisory Groups Focused on Facilities & Infrastructure Generally, cities that appoint limited duration citizen ad-hoc or city council sub-committees do so for reasons unique to each City. While topics may be consistent across certain cities (e.g., pensions, infrastructure, etc.), the issues cities face are often as unique as the cities themselves. Below are two examples of cities that have established advisory groups to assist cities with civic centers and city facilities.

Rancho Palos Verdes – Civic Center Advisory Committee
The Rancho Palos Verdes Civic Center Advisory Committee (CCAC) was created by the City Council in March 2017 to help guide development of a long-term plan for the City’s Civic Center campus at Upper Point Vicente Park. The seven member committee was formed following a 2016 citywide survey that showed resident interest in improving or redeveloping the aging civic facilities. Comprised of resident appointees serving in an advisory role, the CCAC provides recommendations to the City Council on the design, program, and financial considerations associated with redevelopment of the Civic Center site.

The committee generally meets monthly in public meetings (which generally adhere to Brown Act regulations), where members review conceptual designs, evaluate potential civic and community facilities, and discuss financing and implementation strategies. Meetings often include presentations from consultants and staff, along with opportunities for public input and community engagement. Through these meetings and workshops, the CCAC helped shape the proposed program and layout for a redeveloped Civic Center campus, including City Hall facilities, community spaces, and park amenities. The City Council approved the Civic Center Master Plan program framework in October 2019, establishing the foundation for future design and implementation.

The Civic Center project faces several ongoing challenges and policy considerations. The existing civic buildings date largely to the 1950s Nike missile site, creating issues related to aging infrastructure, ADA compliance, and functional limitations for modern municipal operations. At the same time, the City must balance community expectations for new civic and recreational amenities with the financial realities of a major capital project, including funding strategies, project scope, and potential phasing. Determining an affordable and achievable redevelopment plan while maintaining public support remains the central issue for the committee and City Council as planning continues.

Hermosa Beach – Civic Facilities Project Advisory Group The Hermosa Beach Civic Facilities Project Advisory Group was formed by the City Council in February 2024 to assist the City Manager in evaluating options for addressing the City’s aging municipal facilities. The group was established after the Council identified significant concerns with the condition and functionality of several civic facilities, including City Hall, the Police Department building, and the Public Works maintenance yard. The advisory group’s role was to review facility needs, analyze potential redevelopment options, and provide strategic guidance to the City Manager and City Council on possible approaches to replacing or renovating the City’s civic infrastructure.

The group consisted of approximately a dozen volunteer community members selected by the City Manager for their professional experience in areas such as municipal management, construction, engineering, finance, planning, and community leadership. Rather than forming a formal Brown Act committee, the City structured the advisory group as an informal working group, allowing members to collaborate and review technical information outside of traditional public meeting requirements. The advisory group met several times over the course of roughly eight months, during which members reviewed prior facility assessments, toured existing civic buildings, evaluated operational needs, and discussed financing strategies and potential redevelopment scenarios.

Through this process, the advisory group developed several key recommendations for the City Council. The group concluded that replacement of the Public Works maintenance yard should be the City’s highest near-term priority, citing operational limitations and safety concerns at the existing facility. For the broader civic campus, the group identified several potential approaches, including renovating and expanding existing facilities, constructing a new consolidated civic center at a different site, or pursuing a phased hybrid approach that would combine renovation with selective new construction. The group also recommended that the City pursue one major civic facilities project at a time and continue additional cost analysis and community outreach before making final decisions on long-term civic center redevelopment.

Draft City Council Policy Considerations
Historically, the City Council has provided specific direction to citizen ad-hoc committees and City Council subcommittees to review and provide recommendations to the City Council. If established, the work plan, and financial guardrails of such a group will determine the amount of staff resources, use of consultants, and timeline. In order to assist the City Council with discussion on this topic, staff have developed a list of draft policy considerations for the City Council (Attachment C).

The draft decision matrix is organized by policy question. Each policy questions is broken down by options for City Council consideration and what implications those options have on the policy directive to staff. Below is an excerpt from the decision matrix that may be used by the City Council:

Step Policy Question Options for Council Consideration Policy Implicatio 1 Does the City Council wish to
establish a group to study the City’s
facilities and/or infrastructure needs?
A. Yes – establish a review group
B. No – continue review through regular
and additional Council meetings
C. Combination – City Council makes
certain decisions now and established a
review group to study specific
issues/topics
Establishing a group may allow
analysis and community input
the timeline. Handling within C
maintains speed and direct po
The City Council may also est
workshop schedule to discuss
item (e.g., every third Tuesday
month).
2 If yes, what structure should the group
have?
A. Citizen Ad-Hoc Committee
B. City Council Subcommittee
C. Combination – Citizen Ad-Hoc
Committee with City Council liaison(s)
Citizen Committee may increa
engagement and provide addi
technical input.

City Council Subcommittee al
direct Council oversight and fa
coordination with staff. A Cou
Subcommittee could meet wit
from time to time to solicit inpu
recommendations.
2A If Citizen Ad-Hoc Committee: What
qualifications should applicants
possess?
Experience in:
• Large-scale infrastructure projects
• Public Contracts / Prevailing Wage
• Transportation / streets
• Engineering or construction management
• Finance / capital planning
• Project management
• Community representation
Establishing qualifications ens
expertise while maintaining co
representation.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommendations in this report. As City Council direction on the use of one-time funds is provided, staff will evaluate the fiscal impact of each policy decision on the City. Generally, impacts from the use of one-time funding are:

Limited operational flexibility during future economic downturns (impacts on service delivery); Diminished ability to address one-time infrastructure issues; and Downgrade of bond rating (increased borrowing costs).

If the City Council moves forward with a city council sub-committee or a citizen ad-hoc committee, fiscal impacts associated with staff time, consultants, etc. will be contingent upon the work plan set by the City Council.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
There are no CEQA impacts associated with the recommendations in this report.

Prepared By: Adam Raymond, City Manager
Concurs With: Not Applicable
Reviewed By: Moises Lopez, Assistant City Manager
Certified to Availability of Funds: Kyle Johnson, Finance Director/City Treasurer Approved By: Adam Raymond, City Manager
Legal Review: Danny Aleshire, City Attorney
CEQA Review: Not Applicable
Attachments
A_February_24_2026_Staff_Report_and_Attachments.pdf
B. Final Citizens Ad Hoc Committee Report 2019.pdf
C. City Council Decision Matrix_Facilities Committee.pdf D_Presentation.pdf

STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and Council Members DATE: February 24, 2026
FROM: City Manager DISTRICT(S): Citywide
SUBJECT: Use of One-Time Funds

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:

1. Receive an overview on one-time funding opportunities; and

2. Provide direction, as needed.

STRATEGIC FOCUS AREAS
Goal 3 - New + Revitalized Facilities
Goal 4 - Sustainable Infrastructure

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Over the past decade, Glendora restored its financial stability by addressing a $3–$4 million structural deficit through voter-approved sales tax measures, pension restructuring, and stronger reserve and capital funding policies. These reforms earned the City a AAA bond rating and enabled targeted investments in infrastructure, public safety, and homelessness response aligned with community priorities. With the recent passage of Measure Z and a continued focus on long-term planning, the City remains committed to fiscal discipline while carefully balancing limited resources against ongoing service and infrastructure needs.

At the January 13, 2026, staff committed to returning to the City Council with a broader conversation regarding one-time uses of available resources during or after the mid-year budget update. This discussion will outline existing one-time funds, document how the City has prepared for future fiscal challenges, and provide examples of how those funds could be utilized. For the past seven years, the City Council has supported a transparent, policy driven dialogue that reflects the City Council’s continued commitment to thoughtful decision making and its ongoing work alongside staff to strengthen Glendora's financial foundation, address decades of differed maintenance, and improve the community for years to come.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY / PREVIOUS ACTIONS
At the January 13, 2026, staff committed to returning to the City Council with a broader conversation regarding one-time uses of available resources during or after the mid-year budget update.

On February 24, 2026, the City Council received the FY 2025-2026, mid-year budget update (same meeting this this agenda item).

DISCUSSION
During the city facility and infrastructure discussion on January 13, 2026, staff committed to returning to the City Council with a broader conversation regarding one-time uses of available resources in concert with the mid-year budget update. This discussion will outline existing one-time funds, provide context on how the City has prepared for future fiscal challenges, and provide examples of how those funds could be utilized. These examples, will represent policy decisions/direction of the City Council.

For the better part of a decade, the City of Glendora has undertaken a deliberate and disciplined transformation of its fiscal policies, allowing the City to confront long-standing challenges, while positioning the organization for longterm stability. In fiscal years 2017-18 and 2018-19, the City projected General Fund deficits exceeding $1 million annually. As leadership transitioned and deeper analysis was conducted, it became clear that the structural imbalance was far more significant, at closer to $3–$4 million per year. Recognizing the seriousness of the situation, the City had already convened a citizen advisory committee to evaluate paths to financial sustainability, including land sales, operational efficiencies, service reductions, outsourcing and potential revenue enhancements.

The committee ultimately recommended that the City Council place a local sales tax measure on the ballot. While the typical local measure is 1.0%, Los Angeles County’s Measure H had already claimed 0.25%, limiting the City’s available rate. In 2019, the City Council placed Measure E, a 0.75% sales tax, before the voters, and the measure was approved. Concurrently, the City issued a Pension Obligation Bond (POB), generating annual savings of more than $1 million and significantly improving long-term pension cost predictability.

With the passage of Measure E and the issuance of the POB, the City Council directed staff to modernize Glendora’s fiscal framework. Updated fiscal policies were adopted that aligned with the City’s strategic plan and reflected a commitment to weathering an uncertain economic future. These changes included strengthening the General Fund Reserve, establishing a discretionary capital projects fund/reserve, shoring up internal service funds (e.g. Fleet, Technology, etc.) and intentionally setting aside resources for future pension obligations. Together, these policies represented foundational change by acknowledging both the scale of past under-investment and the need for sustained discipline in future years to address infrastructure demands, service expectations, and the uncertain fiscal landscape in California. These foundational changes would allow the City time to make significant policy decisions during recessions without immediate impacts to services, and the possibility to address certain facility needs during emergencies.

The results of this fiscal stewardship have been significant. Glendora earned an AAA bond rating for its General Fund, an achievement shared by fewer than 20 cities statewide, validating the City Council’s long-term approach to financial governance. In the years that followed, the City continued its stewardship of taxpayer money. The City made significant investments in technology and modernized its operations, eliminating duplicative functions, restructuring departments to better serve the public, and expanding strategic use of the private sector in hard to recruit service areas. At the same time, the City undertook comprehensive assessments of its infrastructure systems, including water, parks/trails, trees, streets, facilities, and technology (infrastructure studies).

Guided by the principle that “what gets funded gets done,” the City has relied on scientifically valid community surveys, foundational infrastructure studies, and City Council direction to shape multi-year strategic plans. These plans are directly integrated into the annual budget and departmental work programs, ensuring alignment between community priorities, fiscal decisions, and staff efforts. The outcomes have been measurable and, in many respects, historic. For the first time in decades, overall street conditions improved from one decade to the next, albeit minimal. Chronic vacancy challenges have been mitigated, with targeted investments in public safety, recreation and human services, public works, and water—each directly tied to community quality of life and safety concerns.

Nowhere is this philosophy more evident than in the City’s recent investments in public safety and homelessness response. Community feedback consistently identified emergency responsiveness, neighborhood safety, and visible homelessness impacts as top priorities. In response, the City Council made intentional, ongoing investments in people and systems. These investments include additional sworn police officers, added dispatch personnel to improve response times, enhanced emergency operations and preparedness capacity, and the creation and expansion of a Community Impact Team focused on proactive engagement and community problem solving.

The City has also increased funding for service providers and regional partnerships to address homelessness through outreach, case management, and supportive services, enforcement, and clean-up. Together, these investments reflect a shift from reactive responses to a more coordinated, data informed, and professional approach aligned with community expectations.

Despite this progress, significant challenges remain. The impacts of homelessness, increasing state mandates, loss of local control, insurance, and the absence of a permanent funding source for capital improvements continue to place pressure on City finances. While Glendora has made generational investments in infrastructure over the past five to seven years, decades of under-investment cannot be reversed overnight. These efforts have been strengthened by the successful pursuit of tens of millions of dollars in grants and state and federal appropriations, supporting projects ranging from parks and first/last-mile improvements to school site traffic safety and signalized intersections.

Recognizing the importance of keeping local dollars local, the City Council placed Measure Z on the November 2024 ballot, a 0.25% sales tax measure designed to preserve local revenue capacity and offset prior countywide tax measures. Glendorans understood and supported this need, with affirmative election results materially above those of Measure E. Measure Z reflects the City Council’s continued commitment to fiscal sustainability and local control, by keeping funds local and ensuring that Glendora remains positioned to fund essential services and community priorities in an increasingly constrained fiscal environment.

That same forward looking mindset is reflected in the City’s current Strategic Plan, adopted in early 2025. The plan continues to direct staff to actively pursue additional and diversified revenue opportunities, including potential development in the South Hills area, strategic economic development investments, and redevelopment opportunities at underutilized sites owned by other governmental agencies and the City itself. Many of these actions were originally recommended to the City Council during the citizen committee meetings in 2018 and 2019.

These efforts underscore the ongoing work of the City Council and staff to responsibly grow the City’s revenue base while remaining consistent with the City Council's other long-term planning goals.

Due to the City's fiscal reforms, the City has some capacity to consider one-time investments; resources that would not exist without the foundational changes made years earlier. However, these same resources are needed to address competing priorities, including streets, parks, city facilities and long-term financial resilience.

Discretionary One-Time Funding Breakdown
The General Fund, Pension Stabilization Fund, Measures E/Z Fund, GUSD JUA Fund, and Capital Projects Fund are discretionary funding sources for the City. Staff evaluated each fund, taking note of:

Fund balance/ reserve levels;
Ability of re-prioritization of capital projects;
One-time funding from property sales;
Future development opportunities of other local agencies; and Options for strategic use of amounts set aside for pension and other post-employment benefit costs.

Attachment A to this report provides a detailed analysis of one-time funding opportunities. The report is broken down by two-year budget cycle (FY 2025-2027, FY 2027-2029, and FY 2029-2031) and by major category (e.g. fund balance/reserves, reallocation of CIP, property development, pension/OPEB reserves, etc.).

Available Fund Balance/Use of Reserves
Currently, the City has approximately $18.3 million in the General Fund Reserve. The General Fund reserve policy requires a minimum of 30% to maximum of 45% of prior year operational expenditures; currently the City maintains a 40% reserve level. The reserve policy range represents the ability to fund approximately 3 to 6 months of General Fund operations in the absence of any other revenue received. The amount of General Fund reserve in excess of the minimum (30%) is approximately $4.58 million. In addition to the General Fund, the City's has an estimated $2.28 million in fund balance in the Measures E/Z fund that can be used for discretionary purposes.

During the FY 2027-2029 and FY 2029-2031 two year budget cycles, staff anticipates additional Measures E/Z fund balance of $569,000 and $260,000 respectively.

The use of General Fund reserves and Measures E/Z fund balance can impact the City's bond rating and operational flexibility during an economic downturn. Without reserves at certain levels, future borrowing costs may be higher and the City may have to look at more immediate/significant service cuts to the community in lieu of targeted use of reserves during major emergencies or economic downturns. Ample reserves allows the City Council time to make targeted, policy oriented service reductions when needed.

Reallocation of CIP
Staff has identified an opportunity for the City Council to reallocate approximately $1.9 million of existing projects to other priorities, if needed. Currently, the City's discretionary capital projects fund has approximately $1 million in projects aimed at the civic center (e.g. Council chamber remodel/expansion, civic center roofing, etc.).

The City and Glendora Unified School District (GUSD) have a long history of partnering on community assets (e.g. middle school parks, high school pool, etc.). GUSD has a current pool renovation project, in which the City has contributed $600,000 to the $4 million dollar project. Additionally, the City Council approved an additional contribution of up to $900,000 that is dependent on the City's financial performance through June 30, 2027.

As the City's civic center project is not underway and the GUSD pool project came in under budget ($5.8 million down to $4 million), funding may be reallocated. The City Council may also want to explore the use of the $900,000 pool project funding, to leverage the recent $1.2 million federal appropriate the City helped GUSD secure for the Sandburg Middle School track and lighting project. The future project area at Sandburg Middle School operates as a City park after 4pm.

Disposition/Sale of City Owned Properties
The sale of the San Jose site provided the City with $3.99 million. The City Council previously allocated $1 million of these proceeds to achieve initiatives in the City's strategic and economic development action plans (8/27/2024), leaving $2.99 million for future use. Additionally, staff anticipates an estimated $2.1 million to be received by June 30, 2027 for the sale of the Dale site. This funding will be dependent upon approval of a development in accordance with the City's standards and actions by the Planning Commission and City Council.

With the sale of San Jose and Dale project sites, staff anticipates a total of approximately $5.1 million available within the next 16 months, with approximately $3 million available now.

Pension/OPEB Reserves
Through the direction and approval of the City Council, staff have set up Section 115 Trusts and Reserves for future pension liabilities, including CalPERS unfunded accrued liability (UAL), future pension obligation bond (POB) payments, and
Below is a summary of the totals included on Attachment A and described above.

One-Time
Discretionary Funding
By Two-Year Budget Cycle
Totals
FY 2025-27 FY 2027-29 FY 2029-31
Available Fund
Balance/Reserves
$ 6,860,000 $ 569,000 $ 260,000
Reallocation of CIP $ 1,900,000 $ - $ -
Property Sales $ 5,120,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000
Pension Set Aside $ 13,820,000 $ 240,000 $ 180,000
OPEB Set Aside $ 4,080,000 $ 80,000 $ 60,000
Grand Totals $ 31,780,000 $ 4,889,000 $ 4,500,000
Future Policy Considerations
Due to the City's fiscal reforms, over the past seven years the City has created capacity to consider one-time investments; resources that would not exist without the foundational changes made years earlier. However, these same resources are needed to address competing priorities, including streets, parks, city facilities and long-term financial resilience. The City's current strategic plan includes action items to quantify facility needs and identify funding opportunities for streets and city facilities. Below are examples of policy areas the City Council may need to take into consideration when discussing one-time use of discretionary funds:

Strategic use of one-time funds for street improvements to bridge existing gap of $3-3.5 million to raise PCI from a 63 to a 70 over the next seven years.

Possible targeted use of one-time funds now, back-filled with future funding opportunities (e.g. sale of property, development of local agency owned property). This policy direction could be used for either streets or city facilities.

Pay-down of future POB obligations in 2029 to free up $1.5 million in cash flow savings that could be used for another priority (e.g. streets).

Prioritization of city facility needs (e.g. public works yard, library, roofing needs, etc.).

Impacts on operational flexibility and services to the community during economic downturns, without ability to use general fund or pension reserves.

Impacts on future liabilities with more or less funding for street/sidewalk projects.

Impacts of bond ratings and future borrowing costs with the use of reserves.

The City Council is well versed in the need to utilize one-time funding in the most efficient manner possible. For example, in May 2023, the City Council received a report estimating approximately $8 million in needs, subject to further study (e.g. waterproofing, footings, etc.), for moderate repairs to the Library, including plumbing, electrical, mechanical, and structural upgrades. When a potential grant opportunity requiring a significant City match of up to $4 million was ultimately unavailable, the City Council and Library Board unanimously concluded that committing $8–$10+ million for a repair project with no guarantee of resolving underlying facility issues was not the most prudent course at that time. This decision was not a reflection of the Library’s importance, but rather an example of the careful fiscal policy trade-offs required when limited resources must address multiple critical needs. As the City reviews the opportunities and costs for a significant civic center renovation aimed to address decades of issues for future generations of Glendorans, the City Council has continued to evaluate the needs of many infrastructure challenges, including streets, the Library and the City's public works yard - the use of one-time funding will assist with that analysis.

Other Financial Information
This report focuses on the use of one-time discretionary funding sources. In full acknowledgment that governmental or "fund" accounting can be difficult to understand, staff developed two additional attachments to this report. Attachment C covers the City's investment portfolio and Attachment D addresses how the various city funding sources must be used. As always, the goal is to provide information to those who would like to educate themselves on City finances in the most transparent and easy to understand method possible.

Limited operational flexibility during future economic downturns (impacts on service delivery); Diminished ability to address one-time infrastructure issues; Downgrade of bond rating (increased borrowing costs);

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
There is no CEQA impacts associated with the recommendations in this report.

Prepared By: Kyle Johnson, Finance Director/City Treasurer Concurs With: Not Applicable
Reviewed By: Marie Ricci, Deputy City Manager
Certified to Availability of Funds: Kyle Johnson, Finance Director/City Treasurer Approved By: Adam Raymond, City Manager
Legal Review: Danny Aleshire, City Attorney
CEQA Review: Not Applicable
Attachments
A_Discretionary_One-time_Funding_FINAL.pdf
B. Presentation.pdf
C_Cash_and_Investment_Pool_Explained_FINAL.pdf
D_Budget_Explained_FINAL.pdf
Anticiapted One-Time Discretionary Funding Opportunities Attachment A FY 2025-27 FY 2027-29 FY 2029-31 FY 2025-27 FY 2027-29 FY 2029-31 FY 2025-27 FY 2027-29 FY 2029-31 FY 2025-27 FY 2027-29 FY 2029-31 FY 2025-27 FY 2027-29 FY 2029-31 FY 2025-27 FY 2027-29 FY 2029-31 Available Fund
Balance/Reserve $ 6,860,000 $ 569,000 $ 260,000
In Excess of Policy 1
$ 2,280,000 $ 569,000 $ 260,000
45%
30% $ 4,580,000
Reallocation of CIP $ 1,900,000 $ - $ -
Reprioritization of Projects $ 1,000,000
GUSD Pool 2
$ 900,000
Property Sales $ 5,120,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000
San Jose 3
$ 2,990,000
Dale 4
$ 2,130,000
Other Local Agency
Development 5
$ 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000
Pension Set Aside $ 13,820,000 $ 240,000 $ 180,000
Section 115 Trust 6
$ 6,090,000
Reserve 7
$ 7,730,000 $ 240,000 $ 180,000
OPEB Set Aside $ 4,080,000 $ 80,000 $ 60,000
Section 115 Trust 6
$ 2,060,000
Reserve 7
$ 2,020,000 $ 80,000 $ 60,000
Grand Totals $ 13,780,000 $ 4,080,000 $ 4,060,000 $ 13,820,000 $ 240,000 $ 180,000 $ 2,280,000 $ 569,000 $ 260,000 $ 900,000 $ - $ - $ 1,000,000 $ - $ - $ 31,780,000 $ 4,889,000 $ 4,500,000 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 These funds are generally restricted. Currently, these funds have been set aside for investment in the Section 115 Trusts as cash on hand/liquidity allows through the City Council Adopted General Fund Reserve Policy. The monies may be accessed immediately by the City until they are invested in the Section 115 Trusts, at which time they may only be used to offset future/current pension liabilities. See note 6 with respect to pension and OPEB liabilities outstanding.

NOTES
Category: One-Time
Discretionary Funding
Staff anticipated an estimated $2.1 million to be received by June 30, 2027 for the sale of the Dale site. This funding will be dependent upon approval of a development in accordance with the City's standards and actions by the Planning Commission and City Council.

GUSD JUA
105 301
Capital Projects Totals
101
General Fund
102
Pension
103
Measures E/Z
The General Fund reserve policy is a minimum of 30% to maximum of 45% of prior year operational expenditures. Total of $4.6 million is the amount in excess of the reserve minimum (30%). The amount in the Measure E/Z fund balance is available in it's entirety ($2.3 million). The City's Reserve Policy provides the City Council time to make decisions in economic downturns or funding loss from the State of California without significant impacts to service delivery to the community. Further this funding provides a stabilization to meet debt requirements, which partially resulted in the City's AAA bond ratings. Per the existing financial policies of the City Council, when General Fund revenues exceed expenditures it allows the City to set aside monies in reserve, future capital projects, stabilization of CalPERS pension/OPEB costs, as well as general liabilities, worker's compensation, fleet maintenance and technology costs. More specifically, when revenues exceed expenditures, the City's financial policies allocated that amount at the following percentages 50% to the Capital Projects Fund, 30% to the PERS Rate Stabilization Fund, 10% to OPEB Section 115 Trust (held in General Fund) and 10% to Internal Service Funds.

The City and Glendora Unified School District (GUSD) have a long history of partnering on community assets (e.g. middle school parks, high school pool, etc.). GUSD has a current pool renovation project, in which the CIty has contributed $600,000 to the $3.9 million dollar project. Additionally, the City Council approved an additional contribution of up to $900,000 that is dependent on the City's financial performance through June 30, 2027.

The sale of the San Jose site provided the City with $3.99 million. The City Council previously allocated $1 million of these proceeds to achieve initiatives in the City's strategic and economic development action plans (8/27/2024).

These funds are generally restructured and may only be used to pay for CalPERS retirement costs (Pension) or reimburse qualifying retired employees' medical premiums (OPEB). The monies may be accessed by the City to pay for specific liabilities, requiring certification of the expense. Currently, the City's CalPERS unfunded accrued liability (UAL) is $21.7 million, which is anticipated to be reduced to $10.3 million next year with CalPERS better than anticipated asset returns. Additionally, the City has an other post employment benefits (OPEB) liability of approximately $5.6 million. Finally, the City has an outstanding pension obligation bond principal amount of approximately $51 million.

Amounts represent possible funding received through sale and development of land owned other local agencies over the next five years.

ONE-TIME FUNDING
FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026
CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE / FINANCE DEPARTMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING: FEBRUARY 24, 2026

KYLE JOHNSON, FINANCE DIRECTOR

ADAM RAYMOND, CITY MANAGER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Glendora has restored financial stability over the last seven years o Addressed $3–$4M structural deficit
o Voter-approved Measures E & Z
o Pension restructuring (POB)
o Significantly strengthened reserve, liability and capital funding policies o Modernized city/departmental operations
o Earned AAA bond rating

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Results have been significant
o Generational investments in infrastructure
o Improved street conditions (PCI upward trend, albeit small), reversing decades of decline
o Significant investments in public safety, homelessness o Reduced chronic vacancies
o Major investments in technology
o $50+ million in grant revenues (e.g. Finkbiner stormwater, intersections, first/last mile)

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
• January 13, 2026 – Staff committed to broader one-time funding discussion • February 24, 2026 – Mid-Year Budget Update

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Glendora has restored financial stability over the last seven years o Addressed $3–$4M structural deficit
o Voter-approved Measures E & Z
o Pension restructuring (POB)
o Strengthened reserves and capital funding policies
o Earned AAA bond rating

ONE-TIME FUNDING DISCUSSION
Note Description
1 The General Fund reserve policy is a minimum of 30% to maximum of 45% of prior year operational expenditures. Total of $4.6 million is the amount in excess of the reserve minimum (30%). When revenues exceed expenditures, the City's financial policies allocated that amount at the following percentages 50% to the Capital Projects Fund, 30% to the PERS Rate Stabilization Fund, 10% to OPEB Section 115 Trust (held in General Fund) and 10% to Internal Service Funds.
3 The sale of the San Jose site provided the City with $3.99 million. The City Council previously allocated $1 million of these proceeds to achieve initiatives in the City's strategic and economic development action plans (8/27/2024).
4 Staff anticipated an estimated $2.1 million to be received by June 30, 2027 for the sale of the Dale site. This funding will be dependent upon approval of a development in accordance with the City's standards and actions by the Planning Commission and City Council. 5 Amounts represent possible funding received through sale and development of land owned other local agencies over the next five years.
6 These funds are generally restructured and may only be used to pay for CalPERS retirement costs (Pension) or reimburse qualifying retired employees' medical premiums (OPEB). The monies may be accessed by the City to pay for specific liabilities, requiring certification of the expense. Currently, the City's CalPERS unfunded accrued liability (UAL) is $21.7 million, which is anticipated to be reduced to $10.3 million next year with CalPERS better than anticipated asset returns. Additionally, the City has an other post employment benefits (OPEB) liability of approximately $5.6 million. Finally, the City has an outstanding pension obligation bond principal amount of approximately $51 million. 7 These funds are generally restricted. Currently, these funds have been set aside for investment in the Section 115 Trusts as cash on hand/liquidity allows through the City Council Adopted General Fund Reserve Policy. The monies may be accessed immediately by the City until they are invested in the Section 115 Trusts, at which time they may only be used to offset future/current pension liabilities. See note 6 with respect to pension and OPEB liabilities outstanding.

ONE-TIME FUNDING DISCUSSION
Note Description
6 These funds are generally restructured and may only be used to pay for CalPERS retirement costs (Pension) or reimburse qualifying retired employees' medical premiums (OPEB). The monies may be accessed by the City to pay for specific liabilities, requiring certification of the expense. Currently, the City's CalPERS unfunded accrued liability (UAL) is $21.7 million, which is anticipated to be reduced to $10.3 million next year with CalPERS better than anticipated asset returns. Additionally, the City has an other post employment benefits (OPEB) liability of approximately $5.6 million. Finally, the City has an outstanding pension obligation bond principal amount of approximately $51 million. 7 These funds are generally restricted. Currently, these funds have been set aside for investment in the Section 115 Trusts as cash on hand/liquidity allows through the City Council Adopted General Fund Reserve Policy. The monies may be accessed immediately by the City until they are invested in the Section 115 Trusts, at which time they may only be used to offset future/current pension liabilities. See note 6 with respect to pension and OPEB liabilities outstanding.

One-Time
Discretionary Funding
By Two-Year Budget Cycle FY 2025-27 FY 2027-29 FY 2029-31 Available Fund Balance
In Excess of Policy 1
45%
30%
Reallocation of CIP
Reprioritization of Projects
GUSD Pool 2
Property Sales
San Jose3
Dale4
School Site Development 5
Pension Set Aside
Section 115 Trust 6 $ 6,090,000
Reserve7 $ 7,730,000 $ 240,000 $ 180,000
OPEB Set Aside
Section 115 Trust 6
Reserve7
Grand Totals $ 13,820,000 $ 240,000 $ 180,000
102
Pension

ONE-TIME FUNDING DISCUSSION
One-Time
Discretionary Funding
By Two-Year Budget Cycle FY 2025-27 FY 2027-29 FY 2029-31 Available Fund Balance
In Excess of Policy 1 $ 2,280,000 $ 569,000 $ 260,000
45%
30%
Reallocation of CIP
Reprioritization of Projects
GUSD Pool 2
Property Sales
San Jose3
Dale4
School Site Development 5
Pension Set Aside
Section 115 Trust 6
Reserve7
OPEB Set Aside
Section 115 Trust 6
Reserve7
Grand Totals $ 2,280,000 $ 569,000 $ 260,000
103
Measures E/Z
Note Description
1 The amount in the Measure E/Z fund balance is available in it's entirety ($2.3 million).

ONE-TIME FUNDING DISCUSSION
Note Description
2 The City and Glendora Unified School District (GUSD) have a long history of partnering on community assets (e.g. middle school parks, high school pool, etc.). GUSD has a current pool renovation project, in which the CIty has contributed $600,000 to the $3.9 million dollar project.

Additionally, the City Council approved an additional contribution of up to $900,000 that is dependent on the City's financial performance through June 30, 2027.

One-Time
Discretionary Funding
By Two-Year Budget Cycle FY 2025-27 FY 2027-29 FY 2029-31 Available Fund Balance
In Excess of Policy 1
45%
30%
Reallocation of CIP
Reprioritization of Projects
GUSD Pool 2 $ 900,000
Property Sales
San Jose3
Dale4
School Site Development 5
Pension Set Aside
Section 115 Trust 6
Reserve7
OPEB Set Aside
Section 115 Trust 6
Reserve7
Grand Totals $ 900,000 $ - $ -

GUSD JUA
105

ONE-TIME FUNDING DISCUSSION
Notes
Reprioritization of discretionary capital project funding, largely consisting of future civic center projects (e.g. roof replacement, council chamber expansion, etc.).

One-Time
Discretionary Funding
By Two-Year Budget Cycle FY 2025-27 FY 2027-29 FY 2029-31 Available Fund Balance
In Excess of Policy 1
45%
30%
Reallocation of CIP
Reprioritization of Projects $ 1,000,000
GUSD Pool 2
Property Sales
San Jose3
Dale4
School Site Development 5
Pension Set Aside
Section 115 Trust 6
Reserve7
OPEB Set Aside
Section 115 Trust 6
Reserve7
Grand Totals $ 1,000,000 $ - $ -
301
Capital Projects

ONE-TIME FUNDING DISCUSSION
One-Time
Discretionary Funding
By Two-Year Budget Cycle FY 2025-27 FY 2027-29 FY 2029-31 Available Fund Balance $ 6,860,000 $ 569,000 $ 260,000
In Excess of Policy 1
45%
30%
Reallocation of CIP $ 1,900,000 $ - $ -
Reprioritization of Projects
GUSD Pool 2
Property Sales $ 5,120,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000
San Jose3
Dale4
School Site Development 5
Pension Set Aside $ 13,820,000 $ 240,000 $ 180,000
Section 115 Trust 6
Reserve7
OPEB Set Aside $ 4,080,000 $ 80,000 $ 60,000
Section 115 Trust 6
Reserve7
Grand Totals $ 31,780,000 $ 4,889,000 $ 4,500,000
Totals

FUTURE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
• Examples of policy areas the City Council may need to take into consideration when discussing one-time use of discretionary funds:
o Strategic use of one-time funds for street improvements to bridge existing gap of $3- 3.5 million to raise PCI from a 63 to a 70 over the next seven years. o Possible targeted use of one-time funds now, backfilled with future funding opportunities (e.g. Sale of property, development of local agency owned property). This policy direction could be used for either streets or city facilities. o Pay-down of future POB obligations in 2029 to free up $1.5 million in cash flow savings that could be used for another priority (e.g. Streets).

FUTURE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
• Examples of policy areas the City Council may need to take into consideration when discussing one-time use of discretionary funds:
o Prioritization of city facility needs (e.g. public works yard, library, roofing needs, etc.). o Impacts on operational flexibility and services to the community during economic downturns, without ability to use general fund or pension reserves. o Impacts on future liabilities with more or less funding for street/sidewalk projects. o Impacts of bond ratings and future borrowing costs with the use of reserves.

OTHER FINANCIAL INFORMATION
• Government “fund” accounting is difficult to understand o Attachment C – Overview of City’s investment portfolio and what funding is for o Attachment D – Overview of the various funding sources and what is discretionary and what is not

RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL:

1. RECEIVE AN OVERVIEW ON ONE-TIME FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES; AND

2. PROVIDE DIRECTION, AS NEEDED.

Attachment C (Cash and Investment Pool Explained)
Why the City’s $125 Million Cash and Investment Balance Isn’t a Giant Piggy Bank Executive Summary
The City of Glendora maintains approximately $125 million in pooled cash and investments.

While that number may sound like unrestricted money available for any purpose, the vast majority of those funds are legally restricted, contractually committed, or reserved for specific uses.

Government fund accounting requires that dollars collected for one purpose (such as water, gas tax, grants, or development fees) may only be used for that specific purpose.

In practical terms, the City’s cash pool operates like a collection of labeled envelopes rather than a single checking account.
• Most funds already have assigned jobs (infrastructure projects, utility operations, debt payments, grants, and emergency reserves).
• Only a portion of the total represents flexible General Fund resources used for core services like police, public works, development, parks, and libraries. • Fund accounting can feel unusual and overly complex, but it exists to ensure transparency, legal compliance, fiscal stability, and protection of taxpayer dollars.

It’s One Vault, But Many ‘Envelopes’
The $125 million is pooled together for investment purposes (to maximize interest earnings).

Internally, it is divided into separate funds, each with its own legal purpose.

Think of it like having a mortgage account, a college fund, a car repair fund, and a ‘don’t touch or the auditors (IRS in personal/business world) will appear’ fund — all at the same bank. Many dollars are legally restricted:
• Gas tax revenue – Must be used for streets and transportation. • Water fees – Must be used for water systems.
• Risk management funds – Must be used for future liabilities. • Grant funds – Must be used exactly as specified by the grant. • Debt proceeds – Must be used for legally approved projects.

Using these funds for anything else is not just discouraged — it is illegal.

Some Money Is Already Spoken For
• Funds may already be committed to contracts approved by the City Council. • Capital projects underway have funding set aside.
• Required reserves must be maintained for financial stability. • Some balances represent liabilities already owed (pensions, invoices, deposits).

Cities Must Maintain Reserves
• Emergencies, natural disasters, and economic downturns happen. • Maintaining reserves protects the City’s credit rating. • Strong reserves help avoid sudden service cuts or tax increases.

Attachment C (Cash and Investment Pool Explained)
Spending reserves simply because cash exists would be like spending your emergency savings because your checking account looks full. Likewise, a full checkbook does not indicate cash/savings exists or are available to be spent.

Why Fund Accounting Feels So Confusing
• Businesses focus on profit.
• Families can focus on cash flow and savings.
• Governments focus on legal purpose and public accountability.

Instead of one checking account, cities manage dozens of funds that must balance independently. It may feel rigid, but this structure ensures transparency, accountability, and compliance with law.

What Is Actually Flexible?
Only a portion of the total cash pool represents General Fund dollars that can support core services such as:
• Police
• Parks
• Library
• Development
• General City operations
Even those funds must cover ongoing operational costs, not one-time wish lists.

Timing Matters: Revenues and Expenses Don’t Arrive Together Another important piece of the puzzle is timing. The City operates year-round, but revenues do not all arrive evenly throughout the year.
• Property tax revenue is typically received in installments (primarily December and April). • Sales tax receipts are received monthly but based on prior activity. • Grant funds are often reimbursed after the City has already spent the money. • Utility revenues fluctuate based on usage and billing cycles.

This means the City must carefully manage cash flow to ensure bills, payroll, and contract payments are made on time, even when major revenues have not yet arrived.

In many cases, especially with state and federal grants, the City must front the money for a project and then submit documentation to receive reimbursement. So, while a grant may be awarded for a project, the cash almost never arrives before the expenses occur.

Due to these timing differences, maintaining adequate cash balances is critical. The presence of cash in the investment pool does not mean the funds are surplus, it often means the City is responsibly managing timing differences between when money is received and when it must be spent.

Attachment C (Cash and Investment Pool Explained)
Bottom Line
When you hear that the City has $125 million in the bank, it does not mean the City has $125 million available for discretionary spending.

It means the City responsibly manages multiple legally restricted and purpose-driven funds, which have timing challenges with revenues and expenses, in an organized, accountable, and carefully monitored way to protect the community’s financial stability.

Attachment D (Budget Explained)
City of Glendora
Where Does the $125 Million Go?
(And Why We Can’t Just Spend It on Whatever We Want)
How Glendora Actually Builds a Budget (Hint: It’s Not Guesswork) Before we talk about funding sources, restrictions, and why we can’t repave every street tomorrow, it’s important to understand Glendora does not budget one year at a time and hope for the best. Sound financial management requires:
• Multi-year financial planning
• Ongoing financial monitoring
• Frequent financial reporting
• Prompt corrective action when necessary
• Long-term financial health strategies
In other words, we do not steer the City by looking only through the rearview mirror.

Glendora adopts a two-year budget to provide greater certainty for the City Council, departments, employees, and the public regarding ongoing funding and staffing for programs and services.

Even more importantly, we include a Five-Year Financial Projection for:
• The General Fund
• Measures E/Z
• The Water Fund(s)
This allows the City to evaluate the long-term impact of policy decisions during the budget process. If a decision creates structural imbalance three years from now, we see it coming. And ideally, we fix it before it becomes tomorrow’s headline.

Layered on top of that are our guiding documents, which include but are not limited to:
• Community Surveys
• City Council Strategic Plans
• Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
• Parks Master Plan
• Water Master Plan
Policy sets direction. Data sets priorities. The budget follows both.

The approximately $125 million annual budget is not a wish list. It is a structured financial response to adopted goals, infrastructure needs, and legal requirements. What gets funded, gets done.

Attachment D (Budget Explained)
Why We Can’t Just Spend $125 Million on Anything We Want When people hear '$125 million budget,' it can sound like a very large, very flexible piggy bank.

It is not.

The City operates roughly 60 separate funds divided into six major fund types.

Think of the budget as one vault filled with dozens of labeled envelopes. Each envelope has a name, a job, and in many cases, a very strict set of rules.

Gas tax must be used for streets. Water fees must stay in water. Grant funds must follow grant rules. Debt must be paid on schedule.

Using restricted funds for unrelated purposes is not creative budgeting, it is illegal. And auditors do not accept 'but it seemed like a good idea at the time.' The City would know, we get audited by 10+ agencies on an annual basis.

The Six Fund Types (Also Known as The Envelopes)

1. General Fund, Measures E/Z and GUSD JUA – The Flexible Ones (Sort Of) The General Fund supports police, parks, the library, public works operations, administration, and community development.

It represents approximately 45% of the City’s total annual budget, or roughly $56.5 million of the $125 million total.

It is the most flexible fund — but even it is largely committed to ongoing expenses such as employees, contracts, and services to the community. The Police Department, Public Works Department and Community and Economic Development comprise approximately65% of the General Fund.

So yes, it is flexible. But it is also very, very busy.

2. Special Revenue Funds – The Rule Followers
Restricted by State law, Federal law, local ordinance, or voter approval, these funds must be used only for specific purposes such as transportation, grants, or development-related infrastructure.

They represent approximately $15.9 million, or 13% of the total budget.

They are not available for general operations — no matter how compelling the proposal.

3. Capital Project Funds – The Builders
Attachment D (Budget Explained)
Dedicated to long-term infrastructure improvements and major projects.

These funds help ensure we invest today without undermining tomorrow’s operating stability.

4. Debt Service Funds – The Bill Payers
Used exclusively to repay bond obligations and capital lease agreements.

Debt payments are contractual commitments. They are not optional. They are not flexible. They are simply due.

5. Enterprise Fund (Water) – The Utility Business
Funded by water rates and legally restricted to water operations and infrastructure.

The Water Fund represents approximately $31.4 million, or 25% of the total annual budget.

Water customers pay for water, not for everything else.

6. Internal Service Funds – The Behind-the-Scenes Team
Support internal operations such as insurance, technology, and fleet management.

They may not get headlines, but without them, things break — both literally and financially.

Bottom Line
The City does not have $125 million available for discretionary spending.

It manages a system of legally restricted, contractually obligated, purpose-driven funds. We are guided by multi-year planning, ongoing monitoring, and long-term financial strategies.

Fund accounting may feel rigid. That is intentional.

It protects taxpayers, preserves infrastructure, supports responsible planning, and ensures today’s decisions do not become tomorrow’s financial problem.

V.5.4
City of Glendora
Ad-Hoc Citizen’s Advisory Committee
Revenue Options and Expenditures
of the City's General Fund
Final Report to the City Council
Committee Chair Committee Vice-Chair
Michael Holmes Cliff Hamlow
Committee Members
Sandra Blaydow Rukshan Fernando James Martindale Tomoko Toland William Bresee Anita Gutierrez Gene Morrill Brian Ursettie Timothy Cremins Linda Hermann Gene Murabito Margaux Viera John Doan Bob Kuhn
Jennifer Leos
Wendy Seyfert
Joseph Ward
Carol Ann Walls-Sandell
November 2019
2 BACKGROUND
This Report is submitted by the City of Glendora’s Ad Hoc Committee (Committee). Each volunteer-resident member of the Committee was appointed by the City Council to review, study, and ask questions regarding the city’s near- and long-term financial viability. And, where practical, make specific recommendations regarding revenue enhancement and expense reductions.

The City of Glendora offers exceptional housing, award-winning schools and a dynamic ‘small town’ business climate, along with fiscally-minded governance all of which are strong factors in the ongoing success of the City’s local economy.

The City has a long tradition of strong, local fiscal management including maintaining a high level of service with a fairly low tax burden (when compared to neighboring cities). 1 Unfortunately, many cities in California are struggling to maintain basic services as funding pressure, through increased structural costs for pensions, regulatory mandates, and general cost increases have outpaced revenues.

Expense Reductions
The City has been in the forefront of expense reductions including a decrease in staffing levels by 23% since 2009 (which included a reduction in staffing of the Police Department by 14%). 2 The City has been diligent in its efforts to reduce pension related expenditures, for example, by implementing lower benefit levels for new employee pension plans before it was required by the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (“PEPRA”).3 PEPRA resulted in further reductions of pension benefits for new employees. The intent of these expense reductions was to:

1. Maintain a structurally balanced budget in which recurring revenues equal or exceed recurring expenditures. This process provides financial stability for the city in the long-term.

2. A budget that is not structurally balanced is one balanced through the use of one-time resources such as fund balance, asset lease proceeds or borrowing and/or using nonrecurring, one-time revenues. Such methods portend financial difficulties and is not a sustainable practice; and,

3. Maintain the core services of public safety, utilities, street and road maintenance, community services, and, to keep public areas accessible and available.

Even with these staffing reductions, service levels have remained fairly consistent across all departments. However, without a definitive course of future action, the city’s financial future remains uncertain.

Please note: all footnote links referenced in this report were verified and active as of October 18, 2019. 1 See: http://www.cityofglendora.org/home/showdocument?id=23120. 2 For example see past articles regarding how Glendora proposed to reduce costs, https://patch.com/california/glendora/cityproposes-layoffs-program-cuts-to-cover-1-million-deficit and https://www.sgvtribune.com/2011/06/21/glendora-budgetproposal-includes-layoffs-seeks-714000-in-cuts/ 3 For background on PEPRA, please see: https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/about/laws-legislation-regulations/public-employeespension-reform-act. 3 Seeking a Solution—Creation of the Ad Hoc Committee (Citizen’s Advisory Panel) As a matter of regular practice for many years, the City Council, City Manager, and Department Heads meet periodically to review and update the city’s Strategic Plan. During such a meeting on January 25, 2018, this group discussed the ongoing concern that current revenue sources and longer-term projections would not keep pace with the anticipated expenditure trends.4 This Strategic Planning Group, led by the City Council, discussed the possibility of seeking community input by the creation of a citizen’s advisory panel; it was established that then Mayor Thompson and Councilmember Nelson would further explore this issue. On April 10, 2018, Mayor Thompson and Councilmember Nelson formally presented to the city council an agenda item recommending the creation of an Ad-Hoc Citizen’s Advisory Committee to evaluate the following:
5 • Why there may be a [revenue] problem.
• How and/or what might be recommended to create new revenue sources. • Are there other ways to address the "problem."
• The committee summarized it this way, “Increase Revenues and Reduce Expenditures.” It was recommended that the committee be comprised of between 15-21 persons with a diverse background. However, a financial background, especially with public entities should be highly valued. It would be open to city residents and city business owners.

Each Councilmember would appoint two members to the panel. The remaining seats of the panel (5 to 11) would be from the public at-large and be selected similar to the appointment process for Commissions/Boards. The City Council would appoint a Chair and Vice-Chair of the Ad-hoc Committee and the primary staff liaison would be the Finance Director.

The City Council voted unanimously to adopt the recommendations of this agenda item.6

SELECTION OF MEMBERS
After the agenda item was approved, the city began soliciting applications from members of the community who wished to serve on the committee.7 This subsequently resulted in the City Council appointing, on May 16, 2018, twenty members to the Ad-Hoc Citizen’s Advisory Committee. Michael Holmes was appointed as the Committee Chair and Cliff Hamlow as the Vice-Chair.
4 See City of Glendora’s Strategic Planning Retreat (http://www.cityofglendora.org/home/showdocument?id=21645), where [see pages 7 of 9] the three-year goal under “Maintain Financial Stability” was to “Develop and recommend to the City Council for consideration the appointment of a Citizen’s Advisory Panel to report on possible new revenue sources to address funding needs.”
5 See the May 16, 2018, City of Glendora Council Agenda: http://www.cityofglendora.org/home/showdocument?id=24727. 6 Ibid. 7 For example, see this ad in the Glendora City News dated May 1, 2018: https://glendoracitynews.com/2018/05/01/applicantswanted-for-glendora-financial-ad-hoc-committee/ 4 OVERVIEW OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS
The first meeting was held on June 7, 2018.8
Mayor Thompson attended and spoke at the
beginning of the meeting. In response to a question from the committee, he clarified that the committee could also evaluate cost saving items as well as revenue sources. 9 (emphasis added)
Over the next eleven months, the committee met a total of eleven times which included a tour of various city owned properties.

Committee Chair Holmes ran the meetings. Finance Director June Overholt attended all the meetings to present information and data, answer questions and serve as a resource to the committee. City Manager Jeffers and subsequently City Manager Raymond attended selected meetings to serve as a resource. Agendas and minutes were kept of each meeting and posted on the city’s website.10

UNDERSTANDING THE FINANCIAL CONCERNS
From the meetings, the data, and the discussions that followed, the committee learned that:11, 12 • Since 2009, a number of City positions have been eliminated. • The city had outsourced more than twenty different types of services to save costs. • City fees are evaluated on an annual basis as a part of the budget process. • Department heads (police chief, public works directors, etc.) are held accountable for the finances of their department.
• Rising pension costs are probably the most significant expense issue the city faces.13 The committee learned that:
 Glendora was one of the first cities to add a second pension tier for new employees. This results in cost savings over time.
 All members of city employment groups now contribute a greater share of their paychecks to help pay for pension cost.
 In 2013, the state of California enacted the Public Employees’ Pension Employee Reform Act (PEPRA).
14 This law revised benefits for new employees and modified some potential benefits of current employees. This is projected over time to result in significant cost savings across the state and for the city of Glendora. However, the manner in which pension costs are calculated, the city will not realize the benefits of these lower costs for another ten to fifteen years.15
8 Subsequent meetings were held in 2018 on: Jun 20, Jul 11, Jul 25, Aug 16, Aug 29, Sep 6, Sep 12, Oct 24, and April 10, 2019. 9 The Committee’s meetings, agendas, minutes and presentations may be found at:
http://www.cityofglendora.org/departments/government/boards-commissions-and-committees/ad-hoc-committee. Plus, Mayor Thompson’s input was included in personal notes taken and various recollections at the same meeting. 10 See: http://www.cityofglendora.org/departments/government/boards-commissions-and-committees/ad-hoc-committee 11 There are excellent City of Glendora financial and budgetary resources found here:
http://www.cityofglendora.org/departments-services/finance/finance-reports 12 For example, in documents provided by the City, full time equivalent employment (FTE’s) for FY 2009 were 316.64 positions, while the proposed budget for FY 2019 showed 245.26 FTE’s—a 22.5% staffing reduction over approximately ten years. See:
http://www.cityofglendora.org/home/showdocument?id=23243 (page 30). 13 Op. cit. (see: foot note 11 within the referenced document) 14 For a summary of the PEPRA go to https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/forms-publications/summary-pension-act.pdf. According to PERS: “The improvement in funded status has generally reduced the risk that plans will fall to low funding levels. However, employer contribution levels are climbing and this is potentially increasing financial stress on some employers. When combined with some of the environmental changes discussed in the report, this is an area of concern for the future. In addition to the overall level of the contributions, sudden sharp increases in employer contribution rates remain a concern as well. The greatest risk to the system continues to be the ability of employers to make their required contributions. However, with few exceptions, employers are currently up-to-date with their contribution requirements.” [emphasis added] 15 For a detailed primer on the City’s history with CalPERS and its ongoing funding obligations, please see:
http://www.cityofglendora.org/home/showdocument?id=23245 5 Current and Future Revenue Challenges
The committee discussed and/or received many detailed presentations from city staff, a private consulting company, and from committee members who had conducted their own research on a variety of topics. In addition:
• The Committee received and discussed an overview of the City of Glendora’s organizational structure, which included detailed financial data on the different types of funding—along with various restrictions imposed by the state and federal governments, • The FY 2018-19 budget (which at the time of our meetings was being discussed and reviewed by the City Council), and, projected revenue and deficit forecasts. • The Committee received a detailed overview of the city’s future budget challenges. • Current and projected pension costs were studied in great detail, particularly how amortization calculations and the projected impacts of unfunded pension liabilities impact city revenues.
• The Committee reviewed the city’s General Fund key revenue sources consisting of:

Property Tax and Sales Tax.
• The Committee also studied Capital Improvement Funding, the impacts of deferred maintenance—both in streets, public facilities (property and buildings), vehicles and equipment—and related expenses to individual departments. • Potential Revenue and Expense reductions were also reviewed and prioritized. This included recommendations for citywide cost saving activities and potential service delivery changes. • The committee learned about the city’s anticipated revenue concerns—and was presented a benchmark, the ‘Great Recession,’ for comparison.16 Starting after 2008, the city’s revenues have recovered and were generally increasing each year. However, expenditures were increasing at a much greater rate and the city was facing a $500,000 budget shortfall in fiscal year 2019. This was projected to increase to more than $2,000,000 by FY 22-23 and will continue for the next ten to fifteen years until the shortfall begins decreasing.17 The primary causes of this budgetary “structural deficit” are:
 Rising employee pension costs. Changes in CalPERS “discount” (also known as the “assumed rate of return”) rate doubles the City’s costs and revisions with a reduction in the amortization period;
 Loss of redevelopment funding due to state legislative action;  Increasing state and federal mandates with no additional funding being provided for implementation;
18  Reliance on special revenues for operating costs (like asset forfeiture).  Fundamental changes in the retail economic environment due to a significant increase in online sales and subsequent loss of sales tax revenue
 Natural and cyclical economic fluctuations;
 Employee Negotiations;
 Ongoing infrastructure needs: deferred maintenance of the streets and public facilities; and  Reliance on special revenues for operating costs such as asset forfeiture, franchise fees, permits, fees, etc.
16 According to the Federal Reserve, “the Great Recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, which makes it the longest recession since World War II.” See: https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great_recession_of_200709 17 For a complete background and overview of the projected budget deficit, please see the materials from the June 7, 2019, Ad Hoc Citizens Advisory Committee found here: http://www.cityofglendora.org/home/showdocument?id=23243 18 See: http://www.cityofglendora.org/home/showdocument?id=23319, specifically on page 19, for a discussion regarding “California Ballot Initiatives Influencing Local Government Finances.” 6 We also learned that Glendora is not unique in this predicament. A significant number of cities in California are experiencing almost identical budget issues.19 BASIS FOR THE COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS
Options

1. Focus on issues that would significantly increase revenues and/or reduce costs. The projected annual budget deficit was in the $500,000 (FY 2019 to nearly $2,000,000 range estimated by FY 2023].20 The chart below indicates the projected structural imbalance in the City’s General Fund.

For example, the suggestion of minor revenue increases, such as doubling a $10 fee, would not solve the budget issue.

2. Conduct a broad, higher level view if there
appeared to be the potential of a significant
revenue increase or cost savings, and then,
recommend that the city council take steps to
explore the issue in greater detail.

The reason is that some solutions would
require significant resources in staff time,
expenses, and community input that were
outside the scope and the time commitment of
the Committee’s assignment.

For example, if the Committee recommended the sale of a city park (a one-time revenue increase) so it could be replaced, for example, with a residential development (accompanied by an on-going increase in property tax revenue); many other factors would come into play.

For example: Does the community want this? Town hall meetings/surveys would need to be done. What is the environmental impact? A study would need to be commissioned. Are there utility (i.e., water, electric issues)? What is the potential for lawsuits? What is the cost / impact to the infrastructure (streets, sewers, etc.) vs the property tax increase? How are police, fire, and school services affected, etc.?
19 See for example: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/californias-fiscal-risks-despite-largest-surplus-in-more-than-decade.html, https://californiapolicycenter.org/californias-most-financially-stressed-cities-and-counties/, and https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/forms-publications/annual-review-funding-2018.pdf 20 See: http://www.cityofglendora.org/home/showdocument?id=23243 and http://sirepub.ci.glendora.ca.us/sirepub/cache/2/ylghxpg2mmhdy52qtvkzxoyc/34075409022019112437295.PDF 7 The committee determined to pursue a broader scope of recommendations and not focus one issue.

SEEKING SOLUTIONS—EXPENSE REDUCTIONS
Pension Bond Refinancing
• Pension costs were studied in detail and how amortization calculations and the projected impacts of unfunded pension liabilities impact city revenues. • The committee learned that the city could take steps to issue a bond that would pay off the city’s unfunded pension liability to CalPERS. The creation of the bond would lower the amount of money the city pays due to the difference in interest rates (this is comparable to refinancing a home mortgage at a lower interest rate).
• As the committee was meeting, the city council was taking action to issue a pension bond.21  The committee concurred with this course of action.

Contracting-Out City Services
The committee reviewed and discussed very basic information on potential cost savings for outsourcing the City’s Police Department to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. The committee also received information on potential cost savings for the possibility of outsourcing the library to the Los Angeles County Library system. In addition, we noted that some local cities outsource Public Works and Community Services.

Outsourcing
Item Pros Cons
Glendora Police
Department and the Los
Angeles County
Sheriff’s Department22
• Possible reduction in budget costs
due to consolidation of services with
Los Angeles County, i.e., economies
of scale (personnel, vehicles,
equipment, training, facilities)
• “Fix” the cost of services
• The availability of additional
resources
• Less local control over police-led
efforts and initiatives
• Decreased staffing levels
• Turnover in personnel
• Unable to control rising costs because
the county oversees contract negations.
• The cost versus the services provided
can vary greatly
• Clarity of reporting—allegiance to
County or City?
• Long-time city sentiment recognizes
the good job the Glendora PD is
doing23
• Lack of community engagement
• Prioritization of calls
• Response times
21 The City Council authorized issuing POBs [Pension Obligation Bonds] to address the City’s $57.5 million unfunded accrued liability (“UAL”) for employee pensions provided through the California Public Employees’ Pension System (“CalPERS”). See the City Council agenda item, dated March 12, 2019 at: http://www.cityofglendora.org/home/showdocument?id=25033. There was excellent news in conjunction with this subsequent bond sale in August 2019, as the city obtained a 'AAA' bond rating from Standard and Poor's on the proposed Pension Obligation Bonds! Glendora is now among one of fifteen cities with debt outstanding that have achieved this credit rating in California. S&P specifically noted “the local economy, the financial performance of the City, and City management with particular focus on financial policies and practices, as major factors in determining the credit rating.” See: https://www.standardandpoors.com/en_AU/web/guest/article/-/view/type/HTML/id/2281522 22 For a very rough cost analysis and using the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s contract with the city of San Dimas, see the notes from the committee meeting of July 25, 2018, p. 33, at http://www.cityofglendora.org/home/showdocument?id=23323. 23 See a list of community surveys which rate police (emergency) services at: http://www.cityofglendora.org/departmentsservices/city-manager/glendora-community-survey-results. Consistently, the surveys indicate that local residents note that providing police services is the most or among the most important of the City of Glendora services. 8 City Library24 Potential reductions in overall costs
(please note, the actual savings have
yet to be identified and/or quantified)
• Outsourcing could lead to reduced
service
• Underserving of populations more
difficult to reach
• It was suggested that the City currently
operates its library at less cost than the
County
Community Services
and Public Works
Potential reductions in overall costs
(please note, the actual savings have
yet to be identified and/or quantified)
Outsourcing could lead to reduced service
The committee felt strongly that any consideration for outsourcing would require significant study, by the City Council, and community input.
 It is recommended that the City Council and city staff recognize that the city may have potential cost savings by outsourcing any of these four departments.

SEEKING SOLUTIONS—REVENUE INCREASES
The Committee also received information on legislation and court cases relating to sales and use tax, and additional revenue enhancement options. An excellent presentation was made by Mr.

Lloyd de Llamas, of HDL, a firm that specializes in public agency revenue management services including sales tax, property tax, lodging tax, business license and tax, and tax, economic development.25 With the background from Mr. de Llamas and city staff, the committee discussed three potential revenue sources—i.e., tax increases—that could potentially bring in between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 in additional annual revenue. Any of these revenue sources would assist in reducing the projected structural budget deficit that the city is facing.

Each of these options would require voter approval, to pass as prescribed by state law.26

1. Property (Parcel) Tax Increase
The committee had several concerns with this:

A) Property owners would bear the cost of this. Renters would not; and
B) Based upon when a property was last sold, property tax obligations could vary significantly amongst neighbors
who owned properties of comparable value. It was also
noted that the Glendora Unified School District has
proposed several property tax measures in recent years; the last one failed.27 This was indicative that the Glendora community may not be supportive of another property tax measure.
24 For additional background on the outsourcing the library, see: http://www.cityofglendora.org/home/showdocument?id=23323 25 For background and the expertise of Mr. de Llamas and his firm, refer to: https://www.hdlcompanies.com/ 26 For example, a Parcel Tax requires a 2/3’s voter approval. A Transaction (Sales) Tax, requires at least a 50% plus 1 vote, a User Utility Tax requires at least a 50% plus 1 vote. For additional background, see:
http://www.cityofglendora.org/home/showdocument?id=24470 27 See https://www.sgvtribune.com/2017/11/08/after-measure-gg-fails-glendora-unified-will-regroup-to-find-new-funding/ and https://ballotpedia.org/Glendora_Unified_School_District,_Bond_Issue,_Measure_GG_(November_2017). For this to pass a 55% supermajority was required for approval. The final vote was: 2,763 NO [52.89%] and 2,461 YES [47.11%]. 9 2. Utility Tax
This would affect both property owners and renters. However, utilities are a necessity and increases in utility prices would negatively affect low-income households and seniors on fixed incomes. However, this remains a viable source of potential revenues:

3. Sales Tax Increase
This would apply equally and is based upon how much you purchase or lease of tangible personal property. Real property and services are excluded—it is charged only when sold to the end user. In Glendora, 85% of the sales tax revenue is generated by 5% of businesses. The committee also learned that due primarily to the Glendora Marketplace, Diamond Ridge, and Wal Mart retail centers, that more than 50% of sales tax revenue is collected from nonresidents who shop in Glendora. In essence, non-residents would be helping to pay for city services while they were shopping in Glendora.28
The committee also learned that the state sales tax rate is set by state law at 10.25% and cannot be increased under current law. 29, 30 The last tax increase was Los Angeles County’s “Measure H” to support the homeless.31 The Measure H increase is estimated to generate about $1,500,000 from the city of Glendora, yet, Los Angeles County controls the money and Glendora receives approximately $100,000 each year!32
Conclusions Related to Revenue Enhancements:

The committee determined that the sales tax increase (No. 3 above) was the best option:
• It is a tax paid regionally and not borne entirely by the City’s residents. • This tax has a statutory cap of 10.25%. Currently, the tax is set at 9.5%. This leaves an opportunity for a 0.75% increase.
• A proposed increase would be competitive with what other local cities have done or are proposing to implement.
• If a sales tax increase was approved by local voters, all the revenue would stay with the city under local control.
28 For an excellent overview of the sales tax process in California and its impacts to Glendora see the July 25, 2018 Ad Hoc Committee meeting presentation at: http://www.cityofglendora.org/home/showdocument?id=23323 29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_and_use_taxes_in_California 30 See: http://www.westerncity.com/article/primer-california-city-revenues-part-two-major-city-revenues 31 See: here. A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing a 0.25 percent county sales tax for 10 years in order to fund homeless services and prevention. A 2/3 vote (66.7%) was required for the approval of Measure H and the measure passed with 69.34% of the vote cast.
32 For comprehensive detail on the city’s revenue stream, see: http://www.cityofglendora.org/home/showdocument?id=23120 10 As the committee was meeting, we learned that eleven cities in Los Angeles County had placed sales tax increase initiatives on the Nov 2018 ballot. However, it was too late for a Glendora ballot initiative to be placed on the Nov 2018 ballot; but the committee learned that the city could place, within the prescribed process, a sales tax increase on the ballot as early as March 2019. If Glendora waited for the November 2019 election, it could possibly compete with state and county initiatives that would ‘override’ Glendora’s initiative if both were approved.
 Based upon this information, the committee was unanimous in its decision to present a preliminary report to the city council on Sep. 11, 2018 recommending that while the committee was still in-progress, the city should immediately take steps to conduct a special election for a sales tax initiative.33
The city council subsequently chose to follow this course of action and the sales tax initiative (Measure E) was passed by the voters on March 5, 2019. The estimated revenue increase each year is estimated at $3.7M to $4M in Year-1 and $5M after being fully implemented.34 33 http://www.cityofglendora.org/residents/online-videos (after accessing this site, you will then need to search for the Tuesday, Sep. 11, 2018 City Council meeting). More specifically, the action directed the City Attorney to prepare legislation for the September 25, 2018, City Council meeting to place a measure on the March 2019 ballot to seek a three-quarter cent increase in the City’s sales (transaction) tax rate, from 9.5% to 10.25%; and, recommend the Ad-Hoc Citizens Advisory Committee continue to work with City staff on identifying expenditure efficiencies and other potential revenue enhancements. 34 See: https://ballotpedia.org/Glendora,_California,_Measure_E,_General_Sales_Tax_(March_2019) 11 POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF CITY-OWNED PARCELS
The committee inquired about the potential for one-time revenue increases by selling ‘excess’ city property. A summary of the discussion is provided below:

Potential Development Pros Cons
Glen Oaks Golf Course35
• A significant source of one-time
revenue, roughly estimated at $12.5
million for the sale of the of the land,
for example, to a developer.
• Also, it is anticipated that the annual
property tax revenue, if the property
were developed into a residential
development for example, would
exceed the current leasing income.36
• The city would lose a public golf
course, an activity that many find as a
positive community attribute and the
development would significantly alter
the neighborhood, which may or may
not be welcome.
• The golf courses’ open space and
aesthetic qualities would be
significantly altered by a large-scale
development.
“San Jose tract”
(just north of the current
city yard)37
• Source of one-time revenue and
recurring property taxes if it was sold
and replaced by residential
development.
• It is estimated that some 30+ singlefamily residential homes could be built on this property.
• There are the concerns associated with
any proposed development to vacant
land and local impacts on the nearby
residents, traffic flow, etc.

South Hills
Wilderness Park38
• Significant source of one-time
revenue and recurring property taxes
if it was sold and replaced by
residential development.
• Large enough that some development
could take place and yet still retain its
general “open space” nature.
• There are concerns associated with any
development like this and local impacts
on the nearby residents.
• Open space and zoning issues.

Carlyle E. Linder
Equestrian Park39
• A source of one-time revenue and
recurring property taxes if it was sold
and replaced by residential
development.
• There are concerns associated with any
development like this and local impacts
on the nearby residents.
• Open space and zoning issues.
 It is recommended that the City Council and city staff recognize that the city has potential sources of one-time and ongoing (annual property tax) revenues depending on how the properties are utilized.
35 See: http://www.cityofglendora.org/home/showdocument?id=7230, specifically Section 3.2, page 3. “Glen Oaks Municipal Golf Course, located at the southwest corner of Glendora Avenue and Dawson Avenue provides a three-par, nine-hole golf course with night lighting, driving range and a putting practice green. A golf pro shop, coffee shop, community meeting room, restrooms are also located on-site, comprising approximately 19.79 acres. Glen Oaks Golf Course is under the same lease and shares facilities with the adjacent Dawson Park.”
36 The lease, with PW Golf Management initiated in 2009, was extended for an additional five years commencing July 1, 2019.

The lessee, it appears from the documentation, is responsible for improvements and upkeep. The city’s staff report dated April 24, 2019, notes 18.68 acres which differs from the “Open Space” report by a little more than an acre (see footnote no. 30 in that report). Also, refer to the April 24, 2019, City Council agenda’s staff report and supporting documentation. 37 The so-named “San Jose Tract,” is adjacent to the city yards and is approximately five acres in size and could accommodate up to 30 single family homes (from personal notes taken at the Aug. 16, 2018, Ad Hoc meeting with the information provided by city staff). 38 Op. cit.: p. 7. The South Hills Wilderness Area, designated as an open space, is comprised of 248.5 acres located north of the 210 Freeway, east of Glendora Avenue, West of Los Cerritos and south of Route 66. South Hills Park and the undeveloped northern terminus of Bonnie Cove Avenue provide access to the trail system of the South Hills Wilderness Park. 39 Ibid, p. 4. “Carlyle E. Linder Equestrian Park, located on Glendora Mountain Road and Boulder Springs Drive, is a 2.11-acre equestrian facility with a riding rink [and] training rink...” The Equestrian Park provides access to the primary equestrian trailhead for Big Dalton Wilderness Park.”
12 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of Recommendations:

1. The committee concurred with the City Council’s course of action issuing Pension Obligation Bonds to address the City’s unfunded accrued liability [see page 7].

2. It is recommended that the City Council and city staff recognize that the city may have potential cost savings by outsourcing any of these four departments: Community Services, Library, Police, and, Public Works [see page 8].

3. Based upon this information, the committee was unanimous in its decision to present a preliminary report to the city council on Sep. 11, 2018 recommending that while the committee was still meeting, the city should immediately take steps to conduct a special election for a sales tax initiative. [See page 10; approved by the Council and approval granted by the citizens of Glendora on March 5, 2019]

4. The City Council is accountable to manage the City’s finances in a prudent manner; the committee recommends that the Council consider appointing a group of representative residents to review from time to time the expenditures of Measure E revenues. This advisory group would sunset after five years [see pages 8-10].

5. It is recommended that the City Council and city staff recognize that the city has potential sources of one-time and ongoing (annual property tax) revenues depending on how the properties are developed [see page 11].

Measure E Follow-up
The committee met after Measure E passed. While Measure E is a significant source of revenue for the city and will balance the structural deficit, the city still faces potential and significant financial issues.
40 These include:
 Infrastructure costs such as the streets being in need of repair/maintenance. In order to meet the best practices of street maintenance, some $60,000,000 would be needed.  The city faces a potential cost in the millions due to federal waste water compliance laws.  The economy will eventually go into a recession and that will affect sales tax revenues. 40 The ballot question for “Measure E” asked: “To maintain existing City services including public safety, youth/adult programs, fix streets/potholes, address quality of life issues, maintain library services, address rising pension costs, implement technology projects, and improve the financial health of the City, shall the Measure be adopted approving an ordinance enacting a threequarters percent (0.75%) transactions and use tax providing approximately $5,000,000 annually in general revenue, to be levied until ended by the voters with all funds staying local, for Glendora?” The vote was taken on March 5, 2019). The measure, to pass, required a majority of votes cast. With the final: “YES:” 3,524 [53.67%] to “NO:” 3,042 [46.33%]. See:
https://www.lavote.net/ElectionResults/Text/3983
13 IN SUMMARY
Like many surrounding cities, the City of Glendora takes a measure of civic pride in its ability to exercise prudent fiscal management and local control to maintain and enhance the quality of life for all Glendora residents, businesses, and those that work here and frequent our retail establishments.

The City of Glendora’s AD Hoc Committee has undertaken an in-depth budgeting overview, long-range financial planning, and, resource allocations discussions with city staff and outside experts. During our discussions, the Committee discussed a variety of topics, expenditure reductions, revenue enhancements, and potential outsourcing of city services. In the end, we could not guarantee that the services and benefits enjoyed by the residents could be maintained.

Also, the committee:
• Reviewed the budget and available fiscal resources—and how those resources are allocated to the city from the federal, state, the county governments and from local residents and local businesses.
• Reviewed and assessed current, past and future expenditures and revenues. This was done to identify or consider possible re-allocation or reduction of these revenues and expenditures. • The Committee acknowledges the City’s past practices of strong fiscal management including maintaining a high level of service with a fairly low city tax burden on the community compared to neighboring cities. Past actions include a reduction in staffing levels by 23% since 2009, which included a reduction in staffing of the Police Department by 14%.

The City has been diligent in its efforts to reduce pension related expenditures, by implementing lower benefit levels for new employee pension plans before it was required by the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act. PEPRA resulted in further reductions of pension benefits for new employees. Even with staffing reductions, service levels have remained fairly consistent across all departments.
• Had extensive in-depth discussions, with information provided by the city and outside experts, to ensure that our requests and questions were properly covered and that our ideas for solutions to City financial issues have the proper foundational support. • The Ad Hoc Committee was committed to provide the City Council and the residents with strong fiscal recommendations to help keep our City financially solvent and better positioned to react to external conditions not created or largely controlled by the City of Glendora • Our most significant recommendation was for the City Council to take bold action in quickly moving forward to place, what became known as Measure E, on the March 5, 2019 ballot.

This measure passed—but not by much!
• There are several longer-term recommendations that would require more detailed study and community input as future City Councils may need to consider additional revenue sources necessary to balance the City’s budget.
# # #
The Chair and Vice-Chair would like to acknowledge:
 The many hours each committee member spent in a number of meetings, asking questions, and earnestly seeking on their own time, information, and clarification as to what was best for the future of Glendora.  We could not have done it without members of the Glendora City staff for their diligent efforts to answer questions, provide data, and assist us in keeping the process moving forward.  We appreciate the City Council having the foresight to recognize that this issue needed to be reviewed and that any solutions offered be coordinated in a careful and thoughtful manner.

ATTACHMENT C
Draft City Council Decision Matrix – Infrastructure and Facilities Review Group This decision matrix is intended to guide City Council discussion on: (1) one-time funding; and (2) whether to establish a group to study the City's facilities and infrastructure needs, and if so, how that group should be structured, scoped, and guided financially and operationally.

Step Policy Question Options for Council Consideration Policy Implications 1 Does the City Council wish to
establish a group to study the City’s
facilities and/or infrastructure
needs?
A. Yes – establish a review group
B. No – continue review through regular and
addition Council meetings
C. Combination – City Council makes certain
decisions now and established a review group to
study specific issues/topics
Establishing a group may allow deeper
analysis and community input but extends the
timeline. Handling within Council maintains
speed and direct policy control. The City
Council may also establish a workshop
schedule to discuss a specific item (e.g. every
third Tuesday of the month).
2 If yes, what structure should the
group have?
A. Citizen Ad-Hoc Committee
B. City Council Subcommittee
C. Combination – Citizen Ad-Hoc Committee with
City Council liaison(s)
Citizen Committee may increase public
engagement and provide additional technical
input. City Council Subcommittee allows more
direct Council oversight and faster coordination
with staff.
2A If Citizen Ad-Hoc Committee: What
qualifications should applicants
possess?
Experience in:
• Large-scale infrastructure projects
• Public Contracts / Prevailing Wage
• Transportation / streets
• Engineering or construction management
• Finance / capital planning
• Project management
• Community representation
Establishing qualifications ensures relevant
expertise while maintaining community
representation.
2B If Council Subcommittee: Who
should serve?
Two Councilmembers selected by Council
consensus
Determines the level of Council leadership and
responsibility for guiding the review.
3 What is the purpose and scope of
the group’s work?
A. Review of City facilities only
B. Review facilities and streets/roads
C. Conduct a comprehensive review of all major
capital assets (facilities, streets/roads, water, etc.) A broader scope increases complexity and
timeline. If only facilities are selected, City
Council policy direction is needed on
infrastructure priorities (e.g. streets vs
facilities)
3A Should the group review previously
presented information?
A. Yes – review all facilities-related information
previously presented to Council, Library Board, and
the public
B. No – focus only on new or updated information
Reviewing prior material ensures continuity but
may extend review time or the number of
necessary public meetings.

ATTACHMENT C
Step Policy Question Options for Council Consideration Policy Implications 4 Should the group review the
adopted 2025–2027 Strategic Plan
and recommend modifications to
infrastructure-related priorities?
A. Yes – evaluate and recommend changes
B. No – maintain Strategic Plan priorities as
adopted
Provides staff clarify on alignment of
infrastructure decisions with broader City
Council priorities.
5 Should the group recommend
prioritization among infrastructure
categories (e.g., streets vs
facilities)?
A. Yes – recommend prioritization
B. No – provide information only; prioritization
remains with Council
Prioritization recommendations may help guide
funding decisions but involve policy tradeoffs.
6 What financial framework should
guide the review?
A. Focus only on projects fundable immediately
with available one-time funds
B. Evaluate all projects in the adopted Five-Year
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Narrow financial scope allows quicker
decisions; broader review supports long-term
planning, but may delay certain projects
underway. Caution is advised on project
delays, as recent CPI impacts are material.
7 What policy direction should guide
the use of one-time funding?
Direction may include:
• Reserve some funding for future street projects
• Reserve funding for facility improvements
• Allocate all available funding now
Determines long-term fiscal flexibility and
project sequencing.
8 Is the City Council open to
allocating one-time funding toward
non-capital programs or initiatives?
A. Yes – allow some allocation to programs
B. No – limit one-time funds to capital infrastructure
projects
Clarifies whether one-time revenues should be
strictly capital-focused.
8A How much funding should be
considered for use of one-time
funds?
Council may specify a maximum amount or
percentage of available one-time funds:

A. $5 million an under (conservative)
B. $5-8 million (moderate)
C. $8-$12 million (moderate+)
D. $12+ million (aggressive)
Establishes fiscal guardrails for policy
decisions. Options A & B would allow for
future financial flexibility during economic
downturn and likely does not impact bond
rating. Option C allows for moderate financial
flexibility during economic downturns (e.g. oneyear of flexibility). Option D limits flexibility on community service impacts and likely impacts
bond ratings.
9 What is the desired timeline for the
group’s work and
recommendations?
A. Short-term (3–4 months)
B. Medium-term (6–9 months)
C. Comprehensive review (12-24 months)
D. Combination of timeframes depending on
workplan of group.

Shorter timeline accelerates decisions but will
limit analysis; longer timeline allows deeper
evaluation. Generally, citizen ad-hoc groups
have required between 9 months and two
years.

ONE TIME FUNDING & ADVISORY GROUP OPTIONS
CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 24, 2026

ADAM RAYMOND, CITY MANAGER
January 13, 2026
• Council requested discussion on use of one-time funds (city facility and civic center discussion)

BACKGROUND
February 24, 2026
• Council received report on one-time funding (Mid-Year Budget Update) o Motion from Council to Receive and File Report
o Staff agreed to return with information on advisory groups o No action taken on use of one-time funds
Typically composed of residents who:
• Study specific issues or policy areas
• Gather input, research, and community feedback
• Provide recommendations to the City Council (or staff) on policies, plans, or programs • Generally, do not have significant decision-making authority (advisory, not legislative) Currently the City has several standing committees / boards:
• Planning Commission
• Water Commission
• Library Board
• Recreation and Human Services Commission
• Business Improvement District (BID) Board

CITIZEN ADVISORY / AD-HOC GROUPS
These efforts require significant staffing resources, with coordinated community engagement Revenue Options & Expenditures Committee (2018 – 2020):
• Bi-monthly meetings: All information was publicly available (20 members) • Studied long-term fiscal challenges
• Provided recommendations on revenue and cost strategies • Initial Recommendations in 2018 (Measure E)
• Final Report issued in November 2019 (land sales, outsourcing, revenue measure, historical staff) • Last check-in with City Council in December 2020 (strategic plan)

RECENT CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEES

RECENT CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEES
Antique Streetlight Advisory Panel (2022 – 2023):
• Regular meeting intervals: All information was publicly available, and meetings were broadcast (10 members)
• Evaluated restoration feasibility
• Provided recommendations regarding assessment district (targeted annual rate, additional city contribution of money)
• Final vote on establishment of lighting district failed 35% to 65% (followed votes in 2007 and 2008)
• Antique lights will be part of future project along Glendora Avenue leverage funding (restoration, first/last mile)
Typically composed of two council members:
• Study specific issues or policy areas;
• Gather input, research, and community feedback;
• Provide recommendations to the City Council on policies, plans, or programs; and • Decision-making authority dependent on City Council direction for sub-committee • Brown Act issues with more than two members assigned to sub-committee

CITY COUNCIL SUB-COMMITTEE
These efforts may require significant staffing resources depending on scope and depth of review Dale Affordable Housing Project with Mercy Housing (2025-2026):
• Mayor Pro-Tem Davis and Councilmember Allawos
• Monthly meetings with staff and Mercy Housing
• Field trips, review of housing product types, populations served, and fiscal challenges • Provided recommendations to City Council in furtherance of Mercy ENA (Phase I)

RECENT CITY COUNCIL SUB-COMMITTEES
Option 1 – Citizen Ad-Hoc Committee:
• Additional community representation
• Broader engagement and expertise (typically with new topics)

POTENTIAL GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES
Option 2 – City Council Subcommittee:
• Two councilmembers
• Direct coordination with staff
• Faster review process (generally)
Option 3 – Hybrid Approach:
• Citizen committee with Council liaison (passive, not active engagement in meetings) Guide City Council discussion on:
• One-time Funding
• Whether to establish a group to study the City’s facilities and infrastructure needs, and if so, how that group should be structured, scoped, and guided financially and operationally

DRAFT CITY COUNCIL DECISION MATRIX

DRAFT CITY COUNCIL DECISION MATRIX
Step Policy Question Options for Council Consideration Policy Implications 1 Does the City Council wish to establish a
group to study the City’s facilities and/or
infrastructure needs?
A. Yes – establish a review group
B. No – continue review through regular and addition
Council meetings
C. Combination – City Council makes certain decisions now and established a review group to study specific
issues/topics
Establishing a group may allow deeper analysis and
community input but extends the timeline. Handling
within Council maintains speed and direct policy control.

The City Council may also establish a workshop
schedule to discuss a specific item (e.g. every third
Tuesday of the month).
2 If yes, what structure should the group
have?
A. Citizen Ad-Hoc Committee
B. City Council Subcommittee
C. Combination – Citizen Ad-Hoc Committee with City
Council liaison(s)
Citizen Committee may increase public engagement and
provide additional technical input. City Council
Subcommittee allows more direct Council oversight and
faster coordination with staff.
2A If Citizen Ad-Hoc Committee: What
qualifications should applicants possess?
Experience in:
• Large-scale infrastructure projects
• Public Contracts / Prevailing Wage
• Transportation / streets
• Engineering or construction management
• Finance / capital planning
• Project management
• Community representation
Establishing qualifications ensures relevant expertise
while maintaining community representation.
2B If Council Subcommittee: Who should
serve?
Two Councilmembers selected by Council consensus Determines the level of Council leadership and responsibility for guiding the review.

DRAFT CITY COUNCIL DECISION MATRIX
Step Policy Question Options for Council Consideration Policy Implications 3 What is the purpose and scope of the
group’s work?
A. Review of City facilities only
B. Review facilities and streets/roads
C. Conduct a comprehensive review of all major capital
assets (facilities, streets/roads, water, etc.)
A broader scope increases complexity and timeline. If
only facilities are selected, City Council policy direction is needed on infrastructure priorities (e.g. streets vs facilities)
3A Should the group review previously
presented information?
A. Yes – review all facilities-related information previously presented to Council, Library Board, and the public
B. No – focus only on new or updated information
Reviewing prior material ensures continuity but may
extend review time or the number of necessary public
meetings.
4 Should the group review the adopted 2025–
2027 Strategic Plan and recommend
modifications to infrastructure-related
priorities?
A. Yes – evaluate and recommend changes
B. No – maintain Strategic Plan priorities as adopted
Provides staff clarity on alignment of infrastructure
decisions with broader City Council priorities.
5 Should the group recommend prioritization
among infrastructure categories (e.g.,
streets vs facilities)?
A. Yes – recommend prioritization
B. No – provide information only; prioritization remains with Council
Prioritization recommendations may help guide funding
decisions but involve policy tradeoffs.
6 What financial framework should guide the
review?
A. Focus only on projects fundable immediately with
available one-time funds
B. Evaluate all projects in the adopted Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Narrow financial scope allows quicker decisions;
broader review supports long-term planning but may
delay certain projects underway. Caution is advised on
project delays, as recent CPI impacts are material.

DRAFT CITY COUNCIL DECISION MATRIX
Step Policy Question Options for Council Consideration Policy Implications 7 What policy direction should guide the use
of one-time funding?
Direction may include:
• Reserve some funding for future street projects
• Reserve funding for facility improvements
• Allocate all available funding now
Determines long-term fiscal flexibility and project
sequencing.
8 Is the City Council open to allocating onetime funding toward non-capital programs or initiatives?
A. Yes – allow some allocation to programs
B. No – limit one-time funds to capital infrastructure projects Clarifies whether one-time revenues should be strictly
capital-focused.
8A How much funding should be considered for
use of one-time funds?
Council may specify a maximum amount or percentage of
available one-time funds:

A. $5 million an under (conservative)
B. $5-8 million (moderate)
C. $8-$12 million (moderate+)
D. $12+ million (aggressive)
Establishes fiscal guardrails for policy decisions.

Options A & B would allow for future financial flexibility during economic downturn and likely does not impact
bond rating. Option C allows for moderate financial
flexibility during economic downturns (e.g. one-year of flexibility). Option D limits flexibility on community
service impacts and likely impacts bond ratings.
9 What is the desired timeline for the group’s
work and recommendations?
A. Short-term (3–4 months)
B. Medium-term (6–9 months)
C. Comprehensive review (12-24 months)
D. Combination of timeframes depending on workplan of
group.

Shorter timeline accelerates decisions but will limit
analysis; longer timeline allows deeper evaluation.

Generally, citizen ad-hoc groups have required between
9 months and two years.

COUNCIL DIRECTION
Fiscal Impact:
• There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommendations in this report. • As City Council direction on the use of one-time funds is provided, staff will evaluate the fiscal impact of each policy decision on the City.

That City Council:

1.RECEIVE A REPORT ON CITIZEN AD-HOC COMMITTEES AND CITY

COUNCIL SUB-COMMITTEES AND PROVIDE DIRECTION, AS
NECESSARY; AND

2.PROVIDE DIRECTION, AS NECESSARY, ON THE USE OF ONE-TIME FUNDS.

RECOMMENDATION

STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and Council Members DATE: March 24, 2026
FROM: Community Development DISTRICT(S): 3
SUBJECT: Annual Report for the Business Improvement District and Consideration of a Resolution of Intent to Levy and Collect Assessments for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 For the Glendora Village Business Improvement District

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:

1. Approve the FY 2026-2027 Business Improvement District Annual Report; and

2. Adopt a City Council Resolution entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF GLENDORA DECLARING THE CITY COUNCIL'S INTENT TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 FOR THE GLENDORA VILLAGE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT

DISTRICT AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING THE LEVY OF THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS."

STRATEGIC FOCUS AREAS
Not Applicable

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Glendora Municipal Code requires that the Business Improvement District (BID) submit an Annual Report to the City Council no later than June 1
st of each year. The Annual Report must contain information regarding assessments and activities for the upcoming fiscal year, pursuant to California Government Code § 36533.

The BID Advisory Board (the Board) has recommended approval of the “Annual Report” (Attachment A). The Annual Report includes the following: 1) an assessment schedule for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-2027 and 2) a program budget for FY 2026-2027. In addition to the Annual Report, this item includes a “Resolution of Intent” included as Attachment B to levy assessments for FY 2026-2027. Together, the Resolution of Intent and Annual Report are the initial steps to adopt the proposed assessments and program budget for the upcoming fiscal year.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY / PREVIOUS ACTIONS
The Glendora BID was established as provided by the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (California Streets and Highway Code Section 36500 et seq.). State Law and the Glendora Municipal Code require that the Business Improvement District (BID) file an “Annual Report” with the City Council, as the initial step to renewing annual assessments each year.

In accordance with the City Council's 2023-2025 Strategic Plan, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the Glendora Chamber of Commerce for the management and operation of the BID. The MOU designates the Chamber as the BID manager, effective July 1, 2024, and outlines the responsibilities of both parties. Under the MOU, the BID manager will handle day-to-day operations, including budgeting, event coordination, and promotional activities, while the City will maintain oversight of assessments and ensure compliance with applicable laws.

On March 5, 2025, the BID Advisory Board approved the Annual Report and recommended that the City Council approve the FY 2026-2027 assessments.

DISCUSSION
The BID Advisory Board (Board) met on February 5 and March 5, 2026 to consider and approve a program budget for FY 2026–2027. There are no changes to the methodology or assessments each BID business pays annually.

The activities and events remain generally consistent with previous years, encompassing expenses such as marketing and promotions, special events, and other operational costs including seasonal banners, storage, and administrative expenses. The Wine Walk and assessments are the BID’s primary sources of revenue, while expenditures reflect targeted reductions and reallocations across event programming and marketing efforts. The budget is balanced, with total projected revenues of $126,500 and anticipated expenditures of $126,500.

The proposed budget is summarized below:

Revenue FY 2026/2027
Assessments $48,000
Halloween Walk $1,500
Wine Walk $75,000
Interest/ Misc. Income $2,000
Revenue Total $126,500
Expenditures FY 2026/2027
Marketing and
Promotions $30,000
Events $83,706
Other Expenses $12,794
Total BID Expenses $126,500
The BID Board’s budget recommendation does not require the use of the BID Fund Balance for ongoing operations; however, the fund balance remains available as a contingency should expenditures exceed revenues or if additional activities are added during the fiscal year. The City Council has previously directed the BID to maintain a minimum undesignated $10,000 fund balance. The BID Fund Balance is projected to be approximately $183,242 at the conclusion of Fiscal Year 2026–2027.

The BID Advisory Board reviewed the Annual Report on March 5 and recommends approval by the City Council.

The Annual Report (Attachment A) contains information regarding the assessment methodology, boundaries, and a planned budget with activities for the upcoming fiscal year. To begin the process necessary to renew assessments for FY 2026–2027, the City Council must approve the Annual Report and adopt a Resolution of Intent to Levy Assessments.

Following adoption of the Resolution of Intent, notification letters and an assessment listing identifying each business and its proposed assessment amount will be mailed to all affected businesses. The mailed notice will include a QR code directing recipients to the City’s website where the Resolution of Intent, Annual Report, and Staff Report may be reviewed. A Public Hearing will then be held on April 28, 2026 where public testimony may be given on the proposed assessments and budget. City Council will hear and consider protests regarding the assessments.

If protests are received from businesses representing more than 50 percent of the total assessments, the proposal will not be adopted and BID assessments will not be collected for FY 2026–2027.

ASSESSMENT/BUDGET ADOPTION SCHEDULE
March 5 BID Board approved the Annual Report
March 24 City Council adopts Resolution of Intent to Levy Assessments for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 March 25 Notification letters and the assessment listing will be mailed to all affected businesses.

April 28 City Council conducts the Public Hearing, tabulates protest votes, and considers Resolution to Levy and Collect Assessments.

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2026–2027 is balanced, with total projected revenues of $126,500 and anticipated expenditures of $126,500. The Business Improvement District (BID) is funded through assessments and BID-generated revenues and does not impact the City’s General Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
There are no CEQA impacts associated with the recommendations in this report.

Prepared By: Shantelle Coria , Management Analyst
Concurs With: Not Applicable
Reviewed By: Jeff Kugel, Community Development Director Certified to Availability of Funds: Kyle Johnson, Finance Director/City Treasure Approved By: Adam Raymond, City Manager
Legal Review: Danny Aleshire, City Attorney
CEQA Review: Not Applicable
Attachments
A_Annual_Report.pdf
B_Draft_Resolution_of_Intent_to_Levy_and_Collect_Assessments_for_FY_26-27.pdf C_Power_Point.pdf

GLENDORA VILLAGE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (BID)
ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027
This annual report includes a proposed assessment levy and program budget for the fiscal year covering July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027.

Boundaries and Assessments
There are no proposed changes to the BID boundaries or the assessment methodology. The assessment methodology adopted for the fiscal year (FY) 2025-2026 will continue to be utilized into the FY 2026-2027. The BID boundary map and assessment methodology are included as Exhibits A and B, respectively.

Improvements and Activities
A line-item budget incorporating the cost of improvements and activities is included with this report as Exhibit C.

Method and basis of levying the assessment
All businesses within the BID are subject to the assessments. Charities, resident farmers, ministers, employees of licensees, certain manual laborers, persons under court order, students, and veterans, as those terms are defined in Glendora Municipal Code Section 5.04.060, shall be exempt from paying the charges and assessments imposed pursuant to this chapter.

The assessment methodology is included with this report as Exhibit B.

Surplus revenue to be carried over from 2025-26 year
Each year the surplus balance within the BID fund carries forward as a reserve account to be utilized in the event that expenditures exceed revenue. For the current FY 26-27 expenditures did not exceed revenue, resulting in a surplus balance of approximately $183,242.

Funding sources other than assessments
As illustrated in Exhibit C, the BID anticipates generating $48,000 from assessments, $75,000 from events and $2,000 from interest and miscellaneous income. Event revenue is primarily comprised of ticket sales from the Wine Walk Event.

Exhibit A – Glendora Village Business Improvement District Boundary Map Exhibit B – Assessment Methodology
Exhibit C – BID Budget FY 2026-2027
EXHIBIT A – BID BOUNDARY MAP
EXHIBIT B – ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Primary Businesses

1. Each “Primary Business” shall be assessed $200 per year. A “Primary Business” is the principal business at a particular address or location.

1. Businesses with a first floor entrance or storefront, and located with an address on Foothill Boulevard shall be assessed $100 per year.

2. Businesses with a Glendora Avenue address, but without a direct entry or storefront fronting on Glendora Avenue (e.g. fronting on the Plaza) shall be assessed $100 per year.
iii. (Tier 3) Businesses with a second floor location shall have their “Primary Business” assessment reduced by $100.
iv. (Tier 4) Commercial property owners subject to the business license tax, and without a physical office location in the BID, shall not be assessed a Business Location component as part of their annual assessment.

Secondary Businesses

1. Each “Secondary Business” at a particular address or location shall be assessed $100 per year. A “Secondary Business” is a business that, operates at the same location, but is subordinate to a “Primary Business.”
$0 Assessment Businesses

Examples include hair salon stylists and real estate agents. b. Businesses and apartment buildings identified in the attached map.

Glendora Business Improvement District
$0 – Exempt Assessment Location Map
EXHIBIT C – BID PROPOSED BUDGET FY 2026-2027
ACTUAL
BUDGET
2025/2026

PROPOSED
BUDGET
2026/2027

REVENUE
100 - BID Assessments $45,000.00 $48,000.00
200 - BID Events
201 - Halloween Walk $2,000.00 $1,500.00
202 - Wine Walk $70,000.00 $75,000.00
203 - Chalk Walk $3,000.00 -
Total 200 - BID Events $75,000.00 $76,500.00
300 - Miscellaneous BID Income $700.00 $0.00
301 - Interest Income $100.00 $2,000.00
TOTAL REVENUE $120,800.00 $126,500.00

EXPENDITURES
400 - Marketing and Promotions
401 - Print Ads (News Paper) $2,000.00 $0.00
402 - Louise Brewer (dba Mic MAC) $16,000.00 $16,000.00 403 - Web Domains & Hosting $1,000.00 $1,000.00
404 - Miscellaneous - Street Banners,
Promotional Items, etc.
$2,000.00 $5,000.00
405 - Social Media Ads, Web Ads, Special
Marketing, etc.
$24,000.00 $8,000.00
Total 400 - Marketing and Promotions $45,000.00 $30,000.00 500 - BID Event Expenses
501 - Halloween Walk $5,500.00 $4,000.00
502 - Wine Walk $27,000.00 $36,000.00
503 - Chalk Walk $3,000.00 $2,000.00
504 - Holiday Stroll $17,000.00 $6,000.00
504a - Santa In The Village $4,000.00
505 - Small Business Saturday $1,000.00 $1,000.00
506 - Friday Night Twilight $10,000.00 $8,000.00
506 - Misc Special Event $10,000.00 $7,706.00
507 - Event & Communication Coordinator $17,000.00 $15,000.00 Total 500 - BID Event Expenses $90,500.00 $83,706.00
600 - Other Expenses
601- Other Expenses $1,000.00 $5,650.00
603 - Village Seasonal Banners $2,500.00 $2,500.00
604 - Storage Unit Expense $4,644.00 $4,644.00
605 - Music System $2,000.00 $0.00
Total 600 - Other Expenses $10,144.00 $12,794.00
700 - Landscaping $10,000.00 -
800 - General business expenses
Bank fees & service charges $50.00 $0.00
QuickBooks Payments CC Fees
Total General business expenses $50.00 -
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $155,694.00 $126,500.00
Net Operating Revenue ($34,894.00) $0.00
Net Revenue ($34,894.00) $0.00
RESOLUTION CC 2026-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDORA DECLARING THE CITY COUNCIL’S INTENT TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 FOR THE

GLENDORA VILLAGE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND

SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING

THE LEVY OF THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS

THE CITY COUNCIL
City of Glendora, California
WHEREAS, the City Council has previously established the Glendora Village Business Improvement District (“District”) as provided by the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (California Streets and Highway Code Section 36500 et seq.); and,
WHEREAS, the District Board and the City Council of the City of Glendora (“City”) have determined that the Business Improvement District benefits the area within the District (the “Area” or “District Area”) by generating revenue for businesses within the Area to improve the physical and financial health of the Glendora Village, which serves as a business, social and cultural center of the City of Glendora, and thereby enhances the City’s community at large; and,
WHEREAS, the District Board has conducted significant outreach to member businesses to formulate a 2026-2027 work plan, budget and fee assessment schedule that would be fair, reasonable and in compliance with the Mission Statement of the Glendora Village Business Improvement District and the California Streets and Highway Code Section 36500 et. seq.; and,
WHEREAS, the continuation of the Glendora Village Business Improvement District and the concomitant levy of assessments will promote the economic revitalization of the downtown area of the City, create jobs, attract new businesses, and help prevent the erosion of the Downtown Village Area. In addition, the Glendora Village Business Improvement District enhances and promotes the City, culturally and commercially; and, WHEREAS, the City Council desires to conduct a formal public hearing on the District Board’s report, proposed budget and proposed assessments for the Fiscal Year 2026-2027.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDORA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (California Streets and Highway Code Section 36500 et seq.), the City Council declares its intention to continue the Glendora Village Business Improvement District and levy and collect assessments within the District for the purpose of marketing and promoting activities which will benefit the businesses located and operating within the District Area for the Fiscal Year 2026-2027.

Resolution CC 2026-___ Page 2 of 7
SECTION 2. The territorial boundaries in the Area of the District are identified in the Area map attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof, which generally includes all businesses that abut Foothill Boulevard (north & south), east side of Vermont Avenue, south side of Bennett Avenue and the west side of Vista Bonita Avenue, and more specifically described as: beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Bennett Avenue (80 feet wide) and the centerline of Vermont Avenue (60 feet wide); then easterly along the centerline of said Bennett Avenue to the centerline of Vista Bonita Avenue ( 60 feet wide); thence southerly along the centerline of said Vista Bonita Avenue to the centerline of Foothill Boulevard (80 feet wide); thence westerly along the centerline of said Foothill boulevard to the centerline of Glendora Avenue; thence westerly 219.88 feet; thence southerly 119.90 feet, thence westerly to the centerline of said Vermont Avenue; thence northerly along the centerline of said Vermont Avenue ending at the centerline of said Bennett Avenue. The Area map identifying the proposed area is also on file in the office of the City Clerk. The Area of the District has not changed since the establishment of the District.

SECTION 3. The type or types of improvements and activities proposed to be funded by the levy of assessments on businesses in the Area include all “Improvements” and “Activities” permitted under Sections 36510 & 36513 of the Streets and Highway Code, specifically: (a) “Improvement” means the acquisition, construction, installation, or maintenance of any tangible property with an estimated useful life of five years or more including, but not limited to parking facilities, benches, trash receptacles, street lighting, decorations, parks, and fountains; and (b) “Activities” means, but is not limited to, promotion of public events which benefit businesses in the area and which take place on or in public places within the area, furnishing of music in any public place in the area, promotion of tourism within the area and activities which benefit businesses located and operating in the area. Except where funds are otherwise available, an assessment will be levied annually to pay for all improvements and activities within the Area.

SECTION 4. The City Council of the City of Glendora hereby approves the report approved by the District Board for the fiscal year 2026-2027. The proposed method and basis of levying the annual assessment for each business in the Area for the fiscal year 2026-2027 is set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof. The formula consists of three elements in order to determine the total assessment a business would pay, based on the type of business, whether the business is retail/food service or other service, and the physical location of the business.

SECTION 5. The report approved by the District Board for the fiscal year 2026- 2027 is on file in the City Clerk’s office and contains a full and detailed description of the improvements and activities to be provided, the boundaries of the Area, and the proposed assessments to be levied upon the businesses within the Area for the fiscal year 2026- 2027.

SECTION 6. Should the proposed annual assessment for the fiscal year 2026- 2027 be approved, it is the intent that all businesses located within the District Area pay their annual assessment when they obtain, renew, or change their businesses license with the City of Glendora.

Resolution CC 2026-___ Page 3 of 7
SECTION 7. The City Council shall not exempt a business recently established in the Area from the levy of the assessments as allowed in the Streets & Highways Code Section 36531.

SECTION 8. The City Council hereby sets a public meeting on April 28, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers within City Hall located at 116 E. Foothill Boulevard, Glendora California, 91741. At that time the City Council shall allow public testimony regarding the 2026-2027 proposed work plan and proposed fiscal year 2026- 2027 assessments of businesses within the Area.

SECTION 9. The City Council hereby sets a public hearing on April 28, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers within City Hall located at 116 E. Foothill Boulevard, Glendora California, 91741. At the public hearing, the City Council shall hear and consider all protests against the establishment of the assessment or the furnishing of specified types of improvements or activities within the Area. A protest may be made orally or in writing by any interested person. Any protest pertaining to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceedings shall be in writing and shall clearly set forth the irregularity or defect to which the objection is made. Every written protest shall be filed with the City Clerk at or before the time fixed for the public hearing. The City Council may waive any irregularity in the form or content of any written protest and at the public hearing may correct minor defects in the proceedings. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest shall contain a description of the business in which the person subscribing the protest is interested sufficient to identify the business and, if a person subscribing is not shown on the official records of the City as the owner of the business, the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person subscribing is the owner of the business. A written protest which does not comply with this section shall not be counted in determining a majority protest.

If written protests are received from the owners of businesses in the District Area which will pay 50 percent or more of the assessments proposed to be levied and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than that 50 percent, no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment, as contained in the resolution of intention, shall be taken for a period of one year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the City Council. If the majority protest is only against the furnishing of a specified type or types of improvement or activity within the area, those types of improvements or activities shall be eliminated.

At the conclusion of the public hearing to establish the assessment for the fiscal year 2026-2027, the City Council may adopt, revise, change, reduce, or modify the proposed assessment or the type or types of improvements and activities to be funded with the revenues from the assessments.

However, proposed assessments may only be revised by reducing any or all of them.

SECTION 10. The City Clerk is hereby directed to mail a notice letter by first-class mail to each business owner within the District Area within seven days of the City Council's adoption of this Resolution of Intention. The mailed notice shall include a cover letter advising that the City Council has been requested to set the fiscal year 2026-2027 Resolution CC 2026-___ Page 4 of 7
annual assessment as permitted under the California Streets and Highways Code and shall include a list identifying the businesses within the District Area and the proposed assessment applicable to each business.

The cover letter shall further advise that the Resolution of Intention, the Annual Plan, and the Staff Report related to the Glendora Village Business Improvement District are available for public review on the City of Glendora’s website. The mailed notice may include a QR code or web link directing recipients to the location on the City’s website where the Resolution of Intention and Annual Plan are posted.

The cover letter shall further advise that a public meeting date has been set where the City Council shall allow public testimony regarding the proposed assessments of businesses within the Area. The cover letter shall also advise that a public hearing date has been set for the City Council to hear oral and written testimony from interested parties and at the conclusion of the public hearing the City Council shall determine if there are sufficient protests equaling fifty percent or more of the assessments proposed to be levied.

SECTION 11. The City Clerk is hereby directed to give notice of said public meeting and public hearing by causing this Resolution of Intention to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Glendora not less than seven days before the public hearing. In addition, the City Clerk shall give joint notice of said public meeting and hearing as provided for under Government Code Section 54954.6 as follows:

The joint notice of both the public meeting and the public hearing shall be accomplished by placing a display advertisement of at least one-eighth page in a newspaper of general circulation for three weeks pursuant Government Code Section 6063 and by a first-class mailing to those interested parties who have filed a written request with the local agency for mailed notice of public meetings or hearings on new or increased general taxes. The public hearing shall take place no earlier than seven days after the public meeting. The public hearing shall take place no earlier than 45 days after the first publication of the joint notice.

SECTION 12. Interested persons may contact Shantelle Coria, Management Analyst, 116 E. Foothill Blvd., Glendora CA 91741, Telephone Number 626-852-5252, to receive additional information about the assessment. Protests against the proposed assessment shall be mailed or delivered to: City Clerk, City of Glendora, 116 E. Foothill Boulevard, Glendora, California, 91741.

SECTION 13. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the same shall take effect upon adoption of this Resolution and shall be enforced in accordance with the terms and conditions thereof.

SECTION 14. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and shall enter the same in the Book of Original Resolutions.

SECTION 15. The City Clerk is hereby directed to forward a copy of this Resolution to the Economic Development and Housing Manager.

Resolution CC 2026-___ Page 5 of 7
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Glendora this __ day of ______ 2026.

BY:

DAVID FREDENDALL
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Aleshire & Wynder, LLP

DANNY ALESHIRE
City Attorney

CERTIFICATION
I, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Glendora at a regular meeting held on the ____ day of ___ 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: MEMBERS:

NOES: MEMBERS:

ABSENT: MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: MEMBERS:

Dated:

KATHLEEN R. SESSMAN
City Clerk/Communications Director
Resolution CC 2026-___ Page 6 of 7
EXHIBIT A – BID AREA MAP
EXHIBIT B – FY 2026-2027 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Resolution CC 2026-___ Page 7 of 7
Primary Businesses

1. Each “Primary Business” shall be assessed $200 per year. A “Primary Business” is the principal business at a particular address or location.

2. A “Primary Business” shall be subject to additional assessments based on the following factors:
a. “Business Category”
i. Retail and food services classified as a category 210 business pursuant to the City’s business license regulations shall be assessed $200 per year.
ii. All other business categories shall be assessed $100 per year. b. “Business Location”
i. (Tier 1) Businesses with a first floor entrance or storefront, and located with an address on Glendora Avenue shall be assessed $200 per year.
ii. (Tier 2)
a. Businesses with a first floor entrance or storefront, and located with an address on Foothill Boulevard shall be
assessed $100 per year.
b. Businesses with a Glendora Avenue address, but without a direct entry or storefront fronting on Glendora Avenue (e.g. fronting on the Plaza) shall be assessed $100 per year. iii. (Tier 3) Businesses with a second floor location shall have their “Primary Business” assessment reduced by $100.
iv. (Tier 4) Commercial property owners subject to the business license tax, and without a physical office location in the BID, shall not be assessed a Business Location component as part of their annual assessment.

Secondary Businesses

1. The following businesses shall pay $0 BID assessments a. Independent Contractors including individuals working under contract for a Primary or Secondary Business, who is required to have a business license. Examples include hair salon stylists and real estate agents. b. Businesses and apartment buildings identified in the attached map.

BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 ANNUAL PLAN

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 24, 2026

SHANTELLE CORIA, MANAGEMENT ANALYST

ANNUAL REPORT
Annual Report Required By State Law and Glendora Municipal Code (GMC) GMC Requires Submittal to the City Council Every Year by June 1st Required to Renew Assessments:

1. Budget Review

2. Recommend Approval Of Annual Report To City Council

3. City Council Reviews Annual Report And Resolution Of Intent To Levy

4. Noticing

5. Public Hearings

ANNUAL REPORT CONTENTS
Bid Boundaries: No changes, boundaries remain the same.

Activities: Line-item budget with cost of activities
Assessment Methodology: No changes
Surplus Revenue: Reserve Funds Carry Forward To Cover Funding Gap
Funding Sources: In addition to assessment, revenues are generated through event and interest earned.

BID BOUNDARIES

PRIMARY BUSINESS
$200-$600
Primary Business
Business Category
Business Location
$0 ASSESSMENT BUSINESSES
$100
Operates at the same
location but is subordinate
to a primary business

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

SECONDARY BUSINESS
$0
Residential
Side Streets
Independent Contractors
Methodology will remain unchanged FY 26-27
FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
Revenue
BID Assessments $48,000.00
Halloween Walk $1,500.00
Wine Walk $75,000.00
Interest Income $2,000.00
Total Revenues $126,500.00
Expenditures
Marketing and Promotions $30,000.00
Events $83,706.00
Other Expenses $12,794.00
Total Expenditures $126,500.00
Reserve Fund Balance $183,242.00

IMPORTANT DATES
March 5 BID Board Approved Annual Report
March 24 City Council adopts Resolution of Intent to Levy Assessments
March 25 Letters mailed to all affected businesses.

April 28 City Council Public Hearing to tabulate votes and consider adoption of Resolution to Levy and
Collect Assessments

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Approve the FY 2026-2027 Business Improvement District Annual Report; and

2. Adopt a City Council Resolution Entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDORA DECLARING THE CITY COUNCIL'S

INTENT TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 FOR THE GLENDORA VILLAGE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT

DISTRICT AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING THE LEVY OF THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS”

STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and Council Members DATE: March 24, 2026
FROM: Community Development DISTRICT(S): Not Applicable SUBJECT: 2025 General Plan Annual Progress Report and the Housing Element Implementation Annual Progress Report

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:

1. Receive and file the 2025 General Plan Annual Progress Report and the Housing Element Implementation Annual Progress Report.

STRATEGIC FOCUS AREAS
Not Applicable

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of the report is to provide an update on the City’s progress towards implementing policies and programs identified in the General Plan for the reporting period of January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025.

The report also includes an update on housing units constructed over the past year (2025).

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY / PREVIOUS ACTIONS
In accordance with California Government Code § 65400(a)(2), the City is required to submit a General Plan Annual Progress Report to the local legislative body (City Council), the Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI), and the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the status of the General Plan, its implementation progress, and how the City is meeting the region’s housing needs. The report must be submitted to the State by April 1, 2026.

On March 3, 2026, the Planning Commission received the 2025 General Plan Annual Progress Report and the Housing Element Implementation Annual Progress Report. Following review and discussion, the Planning Commission received and filed the reports and recommended that the City Council receive the 2025 General Plan Annual Progress Report at a City Council meeting as presented and direct staff to submit the report to the California Department of Housing and Community Development and the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation in accordance with Government Code § 65400.

DISCUSSION
General Plans are often referred to as the blueprint: for the community, and serve as the comprehensive, longrange plan that provides the framework for future physical growth and enhancement. These long-term goals, divided across the various thematic elements, have multiple tasks with different timelines and milestones.

State law requires every city in California to maintain a General Plan to guide the long-term physical, social, and economic growth of the community. In 2007, the City of Glendora completed a comprehensive update to the General Plan, known as “Community Plan 2025”. The update was a community-driven process that identified strategic goals and priorities pertaining to new development and the quality of life in Glendora.

Due to the General Plan’s document size, it was not made an attachment to this report, however it is available on the City’s Planning Division webpage: https://www.cityofglendora.gov/Explore/Community-Development/GeneralPlan-and-Zoning The Annual General Plan Progress Report covering calendar year 2025 is included as Attachment A.

The Housing Element Implementation Annual Progress Report, which includes the City’s progress toward accommodating the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and implementing Housing Element programs, is included as Attachment B.

During the reporting period (January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025), the following were approved, permitted, and completed:

Planning Commission and City Council approved entitlements for 119 housing units.

Building and Safety Division permitted 90 single-family homes, accessory dwelling units, and multi-family units.

Building and Safety Division conducted a total of 16 final inspections for single-family homes, accessory dwelling units, and multi-family units.

FISCAL IMPACT
Staff resources were required to prepare the Annual General Plan Progress Report, which is required by State law.

There are no other costs associated with the report.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
CEQA Guidelines §15060(c)(3) states that an activity is not subject to CEQA if the activity is not a project. Section 15378(b)(5) specifies that projects do not include organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. The 2023 General Plan Annual Report is an administrative activity. It does not authorize new development or otherwise result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Therefore, the report is not a project as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15378(b)(5) and is not subject to CEQA per CEQA Guidelines §15060(c)(3).

Prepared By: Yalini Siva, Senior Planner
Concurs With: Timothy Cremins, Planning Commission
Reviewed By: Jeff Kugel, Community Development Director Certified to Availability of Funds: Kyle Johnson, Finance Director/City Treasurer Approved By: Adam Raymond, City Manager
Legal Review: Danny Aleshire, City Attorney
CEQA Review: Not Applicable
Attachments
A_2025_General_Plan_Progress_Report.pdf
B_2025_Housing_Element_Implementation_Progress_Report.pdf C_PowerPoint_Presentation.pdf
2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 1
2025
Annual General Plan and
Housing Element Progress Report
City of Glendora
Community Development Department
116 East Foothill Boulevard
Glendora, CA 91741
626.914.8214
2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 2
Acknowledgements

CITY COUNCIL
David Fredendall
Mayor
(District 2)
Karen Davis
Mayor Pro-Tem
(District 4)
Michael Allawos
Councilmember
(District 1)
Shaunna Elias
Councilmember
(District 3)
Mendell Thompson
Councilmember
(District 5)

PLANNING COMMISSION
Timothy Cremins
Chair
Mark Davis
Vice Chair
Paulette Koss
Commissioner
Brian Faber
Commissioner
Wendy Jarvie
Commissioner
2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 3
City Staff

CITY ADMINISTRATION
Adam Raymond
City Manager
Moises Lopez
Assistant City Manager
Marie Ricci
Deputy City Manager

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Jeff Kugel
Director of Community Development
Sean McPherson
Assistant Director of Community Development
Tiffany Chew
Economic Development & Housing Manager
David Collett
Building Official
Mark Carnahan
City Planner
Hans Friedel
Principal Planner
Yalini Siva
Senior Planner
2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 5 Land Use Element ................................................................................................................................... 7 Circulation Element............................................................................................................................... 12 Housing Element ................................................................................................................................... 18 Conservation Element.......................................................................................................................... 22 Safety Element ....................................................................................................................................... 22 Noise Element......................................................................................................................................... 34 Open Space and Recreation Element .............................................................................................. 36 Air Quality Element ............................................................................................................................... 39 Historic Preservation Element ........................................................................................................... 41 Additional Notes .................................................................................................................................... 44 2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 5

INTRODUCTION
Executive Summary
The General Plan Annual Progress Report summarizes the City of Glendora’s progress towards implementing the goals and policies of “Community Plan 2025”, the City’s General Plan. It covers the period from January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025. The report also reviews the activities of the Community Development Department.

This report is prepared in compliance with California Government Code Section 65400 which mandates that all cities and counties submit to the Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI) an Annual Report on the status and implementation of the General Plan.

Background Information
Glendora is 19.6 square miles in area. The City is in the central and eastern part of Los Angeles County, about 30 miles northeast of downtown Los Angeles. It is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and east; Arrow Highway to the South; and Citrus and Barranca Avenues to the west. Cities bordering Glendora include Azusa, San Dimas, and Covina. The City of Glendora is provided regional access by two major highways: the I-210 interstate freeway and the 57 highway.

These freeways connect to other major interstate freeways such as the I-10 and I-5 highways and the state route SR-60, providing access to major employment centers including downtown Los Angeles and Orange and San Bernardino Counties.

Glendora began as a small citrus-producing community until the 1950s when the community gradually transformed into a more diversified residential-based community. Glendora has grown from a small community of approximately 2,000 residents around the time of its incorporation in 1911 to 51,159 residents as of January 2023 per the State of California, Department of Finance estimate. According to the State, the City population decreased by 0.8% between January 2022 and 2023 (51,571 to 51,159).

Glendora remains a family-oriented community with large parks and open space, excellent public and private schools, and one of the lowest crime rates in the region. In addition, Glendora residents benefit 2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 6
from comprehensive community services, including senior services, a library and extensive community parks and trails throughout the City. Glendora is noted for its community spirit and extensive citizen participation in community life, reflected in its motto "Pride of the Foothills".

The issues addressed by Community Plan 2025 will work towards achieving this vision by adhering to the values providing excellent housing, education, employment, and recreation opportunities plus the mission of providing a safe, convenient, and attractive community for those that live, work, or visit Glendora.

Document Organization | The document is organized with each General Plan element comprising a chapter. Specific City actions and programs are described first followed by the relevant General Plan Goals and Policies that they further, advance, and support.

California Government Code Section 65400 requires planning agencies to provide an annual report to their legislative body, the Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI), and the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the status of their General Plan and their progress in its implementation. The report must detail the progress in meeting the jurisdiction’s share of regional housing needs and address efforts by the local agency towards removing governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.

The purpose of the Annual Progress Report is to assess how the City of Glendora’s General Plan is being implemented in accordance with adopted goals, policies, and implementation measures; identify any necessary adjustments or modifications to the General Plan as a means to improve local implementation; provide a correlation between land use decisions that have been made during the 12-month reporting period and the goals, policies, and implementation measures contained in the General Plan; and to provide information regarding local agency progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs. The City completed a comprehensive General Plan update in 2007, known as Community Plan 2025. The City Council adopted the updated Housing Element in December 2022, which was certified by the State Housing and Community Development (HCD) on August 10, 2023.

In March 2024, the City completed the Glendora Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report.

The City Council adopted the Glendora Station Area Vision Plan on July 8, 2025. The City Council also adopted an updated Safety Element in October 2025. 2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 7

LAND USE ELEMENT
The primary purpose of the Land Use Element is to delegate general distribution and extent of various land uses within the City of Glendora, which will shape the way it develops and redevelops over the next years. The Land Use Element includes decisions about type, intensity and general distribution of uses of land for housing, commercial, business, industry, open space, public, and other uses. The Land Use Element includes several focus areas that were identified as areas of change in the planning area given the development pressures, the implementation of community goals, and proximity to transit. It will highlight several, locally significant projects that are achieving the General Plan’s goals and policies.

Land Use Projects Progress Updates
▪ Goal LU-7: A diverse range of housing choices:
o Policy LU-7.1: Provide opportunities for the development of housing at variety of affordability levels and densities the respond to the various needs of future residents. ▪ Goal LU-20: Appropriate scale and character of development. o Policy LU-20.1: Ensure development is designed with a compatible scale. ▪ Goal LU-5: Expanded residential development opportunities. o Policy LU-5.2: Provide for expanded infill residential opportunities in appropriately designated areas in the City.
▪ Goal LU-10: Quality infill development.
o Policy LU-10.1: Ensure the design and development of infill projects compliments existing development in terms of scale, character, and pedestrian quality. ▪ Goal LU-18: Compatibility of adjacent land uses.
o Policy: LU18.1: Ensure the preservation of a scale and character of development is sensitive to adjoining uses.
2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 8
Highlighted Projects
631-657 E. Arrow Highway “Arista” | A condominium subdivision (Tentative Tract No. 84607) and a Development Plan Review application for a 46-unit, three-story townhome residential development was approved by the City Council in June 2025. All the proposed townhomes will be for sale, with 10% of them being restricted to “moderate” income qualified buyers under State law. Demolition, wall, and water improvement permits have been applied for are being processed and reviewed.
263 San Jose Drive/Woodland Lane “Heritage Walk” | In August 2025, the City Council approved plans for the Heritage Walk Project, which would be a subdivision of Surplus Land Act land into 41 single-family homes. Seven of the 41 homes will be for sale to moderate income qualified buyers. Building permits have been applied for and are being processed and reviewed.
363 W. Route 66 “Fig Tree Walk” | In October 2025, the City Council approved plans for a 24-unit, three-story residential development. Three of the 24 units will be income-restricted to moderate income qualified buyers. Building permit review is currently underway. 2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 9
1201-1215 E. Arrow Highway | In April 2024, the City Council approved a condominium subdivision for a 46-unit, three-story townhome residential development. Plan review is currently underway. Demolition of previous buildings to make way for development took place in 2025.
531 – 555 E. Arrow Highway | In 2023, City Council approved the development of a 46 attached 3-story condo units project. This approval was extended by State law in 2024.

Progress was made with site and construction plans in 2025. Demolition of previous commercial shopping center buildings to make way for development took place in January/February 2026.
501 Route 66 & 532 Parker Drive | In 2021, City Council approved the development of 8 attached 3-story condominium and commercial buildings. Construction and permits reviews are underway.

Progress was made with site and construction plans in 2025 and is soon to start construction. 2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 10
723-731 E. Route 66 | In September 2024, the City Council approved entitlements for the rezoning of commercial parcels and to allow development of 39 residential townhome condominium units. Project construction is underway and a ribbon cutting ceremony was celebrated in February 2026.
1237 Bonnie Cove Avenue “Citrus Oak” | The City Council approved the development of a subdivision consisting of 30 detached two-story residential units on fee simple lots in 2021.

Project construction is underway.
2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 11
▪ Goal LU-28: Establishment of central nodes of commercial and employment activity. o Policy LU-28.1: Identify commercial development opportunities that would complement the Village area.

Restaurant – 147 N. Glendora Avenue | In May 2025, the Planning Commission approved the sales of beer and wine at a restaurant within an existing structure on Glendora Avenue.

Interior construction improvements and permits are currently underway. 2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 12

CIRCULATION ELEMENT
The Circulation Element defines the transportation needs of the City and presents a comprehensive transportation plan to accommodate those needs. The transportation plan consists not only of the physical transportation system itself, such as streets, highways, bicycle routes and sidewalks, but also to the various modes of transportation, such as cars, buses, trucks (goods movement), rail, bicycles, ridesharing, and walking, as well. Circulation also refers to the movement of people and goods and products within and through the City. The circulation and transportation system plays an important role in shaping the overall structure and form of the City, in that it both divides and connects land uses at the same time. The Metro A (Line light rail) line extending service from Azusa, through Glendora to Montclair is also described since the extension has been in the works for several years and began service on September 19, 2025, in Glendora.
▪ Goal CIR-1: Safety for motorists and pedestrians on local roadways:
o Policy CIR-1.1: Determine appropriate design of local roadway system considering all potential users including automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian users. o Policy CIR-1.6: Employ traffic calming measures where appropriate to deter speeding. 2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 13
Glendora People Movement Project | The Glendora People Movement Project is a 10-mile build out of active transportation
facilities across Glendora,
including urban trails and first and
last mile improvements. Staff,
together with the San Gabriel
Valley Council of Governments
(SGVCOG), has secured greater
than $20 million in funds for
design and construction,
including $5 million in
Congressional MemberDesignated spending, $6.9
million in regional grants, and $1 million in State Parks Recreational Trails grants. The City is preparing to issue a Notice Inviting Bids in February 2026 for the completion of the San Dimas Wash Urban Trail, which will connect the first completed segment from Louis Pompei Memorial Sports Park to Sunflower Ave to Barranca Ave, just south of Arrow Highway. This project will see 1.5 miles of Class I bicycle and
pedestrian paths along with native
vegetation, furniture and enhanced
crosswalks. This project will also include first
last mile improvements encouraging
alternative modes of transportation such as
rolling and walking to the Metro A line. The
City is currently working on the design for
these improvements along Glendora Avenue
and Foothill Boulevard which will include a
roundabout at Ada Avenue, protected bike
lanes and a protected intersection at the
Glendora Avenue and Foothill Blvd.
intersection.
2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 14
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) | Water and Street improvement CIPs conducted in 2025 include the following:

Glendora Ave Water and Street Improvement Project: An agreement was awarded for the design of this project which will provide one mile of water line replacement, water service laterals and fire hydrant assemblies along Glendora Ave from Gladstone to Route 66. The project will also include approximately 300,000 sq. ft. of pavement resurfacing & rehabilitation, ADA compliant curb ramps, new signage, striping and traffic signal modifications.

Colorado Ave Water and Street Improvement Project: An agreement was awarded for the design of this project which will include 8,500 linear feet of 8” water line replacement, water service laterals and fire hydrant assemblies along eight streets adjacent to Colorado Ave from Glendora Ave to Lemar Park. The project will also include approximately 300,000 sq. ft. of pavement resurfacing & rehabilitation, ADA compliant curb ramps, new signage and striping.

Cypress Ave Water and Street Improvement Project: An agreement was awarded for the design of this project which will include 8,300 linear feet of 8” water line replacement, water service laterals and fire hydrant assemblies on seven streets from Leadora Ave to Bennett Ave. and from Loraine on the East to the Little Dalton Wash on the West. The project will also include approximately 300,000 sq. ft. of pavement resurfacing & rehabilitation, ADA compliant curb ramps, new signage and striping.

Pavement Maintenance at Various City Streets
2025 Pavement Management Plan Update: In 2025, a Citywide pavement management plan update was completed. The project included an assessment of all streets in the City’s pavement network, scoring each on a pavement condition index (PCI) of 0 – 100, where 0 is indicative of a failed street and 100 is a brand-new street. The City average was determined to be 63.2, in the Fair range. The recommended course of action is to pursue a PCI goal of 67 to 70 over the course of the next five to seven years, requiring an average annual investment of approximately $8.4 Million per year.
2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 15
Citywide Slurry Seal Project
Approximately fifty street segments, over 1,000,000
square feet of pavement was treated with a slurry seal
approach, improving and prolonging the useful life of
pavement. The average PCI score for segments in this
project was 83.8, after the project, scores improved to 100.
2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 16
CDBG Grind and Overlay Project
A 2” grind and overlay project was completed on four streets Norgate St., Payson St., Kirkwall Rd., and Renwick Rd between Glendora Ave and Nearglen Ave. The project improved the pavement of these streets, bringing the PCI to 100 and provided restriping, removal and replacement of portions of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and construct ADA-compliant curb ramps. 2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 17
Metro A (Line light rail) – Glendora Station (Opened 2025)

2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 18

HOUSING ELEMENT
The Housing Element represents an awareness of the need within the City of Glendora to assure that housing is provided for all economic segments of the community. The Housing Element also satisfies the legal requirements that housing policy be a part of the General Plan. The Glendora Housing Element complies with the 2021-2029 update cycle for jurisdictions in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region.

All cities and counties in California receive a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) that identifies the number of housing units that must be planned for through the General Plan and zoning.

The City is not obligated to construct any housing units; however, it must ensure that zoning and land use policies are in place to allow the mandated number of units to be built.

The City’s ongoing Housing Element compliance is documented by the Housing Element Implementation Annual Progress Report. The report includes the City’s progress toward the RHNA and toward implementing the housing programs that were established in the Housing Element.

Housing Element Progress Updates
Housing Element Update | The housing element law requires that all cities in California engage in detailed planning for their residential needs by including a housing element as part of their general plan. The Glendora Housing Element is one of seven required “elements” of the City’s General Plan.

While the General Plan covers long-range planning for the community’s growth and development, the Housing Element is concerned with policies and programs to meet the housing needs of current and future Glendora residents. This means identifying housing needs, barriers to housing development, identifying development sites, and adopting programs to facilitate housing that is affordable to all segments of the community.

The Housing Element is required to be updated on regular schedules, referred to as “cycles.” The Housing Element is subject to detailed statutory requirements including review and certification by the California Department of Community Development. The City of Glendora’s current Housing Element covers the 6th Cycle from October 2021 to October 2029.

The State of California's Housing Element Law, enacted in 1969, acknowledges that housing is a matter of statewide importance, and requires that local jurisdictions in California engage in detailed 2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 19
planning for their residential needs by including a housing element in their General Plan (California Government Code Sections 65580 - 65589.11). Local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for and do not unnecessarily constrain housing development. In the mid-1980s, the state established the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process. The RHNA process is a statewide effort to allocate housing units to the local level. Glendora is part of the region covered by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).

Under the RHNA process, SCAG is given a housing needs determination by the State of California and allocates units to each jurisdiction within the region. Development of the SCAG region housing unit allocation for the 6th RHNA Cycle began in 2019. SCAG adopted a RHNA Final Allocation for the region in 2021. The RHNA is the State’s projection of additional housing units needed to accommodate projected household growth at all income levels. Each locality’s RHNA is segmented into four income categories of very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income. Glendora’s 6th Cycle RHNA allocation by income level is below:

Glendora - 6th Cycle RHNA
Housing Unit Allocation by Income Category
The City held a joint meeting on April 25, 2022 of the City Council and Planning Commission to consider revisions to the draft Housing Element to address comments received from the HCD and further engage the community on the Housing Element. The Council and Commission ultimately adopted 31 Action Items to be incorporated into the Housing Element and submitted to HCD for consideration. The 31 Action Items were incorporated into the Housing Element which was subsequently sent to HCD for certification.

Pursuant to AB 1397, the rezoned sites will meet the requirements of Government Code §65583.2, including but not limited to a minimum density of 30 units per acre (low end of the zoning density range) and a minimum site size to permit at least 16 units on site. This zoning amendment and Income Units
Very Low 735
Low 386
Moderate 388
Above Moderate 767
Total 2,276
2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 20
rezoning address Program 7. Glendora’s Planning Commission recommended adoption, and the City Council adopted the Housing Element December 13, 2022. On August 10, 2023, the City was informed that HCD approved the Housing Element.

During the reporting period (January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025), the following housing projects were approved, permitted and completed:
• Planning Commission and City Council approved entitlements for 119 housing units. • Building and Safety Division permitted 90 single-family homes, accessory dwelling units, and multi-family units.
• Building and Safety Division conducted a total of 16 final inspections for single-family homes, accessory dwelling units, and multi-family units.

Total New Residential in Glendora 2025
Housing Type Entitled Permitted Final Inspections
Single Family (attached
and detached)
46 17 0
ADUs 0 56 0
Multi-family 73 17 0
Totals 119 90 16
For comparison, 116 units were entitled, 52 units permitted, and 6 units inspected in 2024. ▪ Goal LU-4: Expanded residential development opportunities:
o Policy LU-5.2: Provide for expanded infill residential opportunities in appropriately designated areas in the City.
▪ Goal LU-10: Quality Infill.
▪ GOAL 1.0: Assure the quality, safety, and habitability of existing housing and the continued high quality of residential neighborhoods.
▪ GOAL 3: Provide suitable sites for housing development which can accommodate a range of housing by type, size, location, price, and tenure:
o Policy 3.1: Implement land use policies that allow for a range of residential densities and products, including low-density single-family uses, moderate-density townhomes, and higher-density apartments, condominiums, and units in mixed-use development. 2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 21
o Policy 3.2: Encourage development of residential uses in strategic proximity to employment, recreational facilities, schools, neighborhood commercial areas, and transportation routes.
o Policy 3.3: Encourage compatible residential development in areas with recyclable or underutilized land.

Local Early Action Planning Grants Program | The City was awarded $150,000 under the Local Early Action Planning Grants Program (LEAP). The awarded amount is being used to fund the Housing Element, 6th Cycle, which was approved by the City Council in 2022. The LEAP Grant was used to fund the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update.

Housing Programs and Implementing Measures
The goals and policies outlined in the City’s Housing Element, 6th Cycle addresses Glendora’s identified housing needs and are implemented through a series of housing programs offered primarily through the City’s Community Development Department. Housing programs define the specific actions the City will undertake to achieve the stated goals and policies within the eight-year (2021- 2029) planning period. The City’s housing programs for addressing community housing needs is described according to the following five issue areas.
▪ Housing Conservation and Improvement
▪ Housing Assistance
▪ Provision of Adequate Housing Sites
▪ Removal of Governmental Constraints
▪ Promotion of Equal Housing Opportunity
2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 22

CONSERVATION ELEMENT
The purpose of the Conservation Element is to provide direction regarding the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources. Existing resources within the City of Glendora are identified to understand how future development impacts these resources and to provide guidance for the maintenance, preservation, and conservation of these resources. The Conservation Element addresses the following resources: water, energy, solid waste and biological, as well as storm water management. The City of Glendora previously adopted a Historic Preservation Element as an optional element within the General Plan. Cultural and historical resources and goals and objectives for the preservation of these resources are discussed within the Historic Preservation Element.

Conservation Element Progress Updates
▪ Goal CON-1: Protection and conservation of Glendora’s water resources. o Policy CON-1.2: Reduce water demand for irrigation purposes through the utilization of water conserving landscape materials.

Policy CON-1.4: Establish outreach and incentive programs to educate residents on methods of water conservation and to encourage their use. 2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 23
Water Conservation | City Water Conservation programs that continued last year include free indoor and outdoor water use efficiency surveys conducted by local business, WaterWise Consulting Inc., a residential irrigation leak repair program and free smart irrigation controller installations. New water customers were provided with free water conservation at home kits. The free Smart Water Meter Program, which sends leak alerts directly to your phone, was promoted at various outreach events.

City of Glendora is partnered with the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) to offer enhanced rebates for water saving devices and turf replacement. The Community Water Hero Program recognizes businesses for achieving exceptional water efficiency in our community. The City’s Landscape Professional Services Reimbursement Program also provides rebate incentives for using a licensed installation and design professionals.

Drought friendly landscape classes were offered on Earth Day and at the Glendora Library Summer Discovery Zone.
2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 24
▪ Goal CON-2: Utilization of water conservation technologies and practices. o Policy CON-2.4: Establish and implement water conservation methods for all municipal facilities
▪ Goal CON-3: Effective and well-maintained water infrastructure system. o Policy CON-3.1: Ensure the City’s Water Master Plan provides an accurate projection of future water demand and conveyance.

Water Rate Structure | The City of Glendora provides potable water service to residential, commercial, industrial, and public facilities, including parks and schools. Committed to long term planning, the City continuously evaluates its water system to ensure reliable, cost-effective service. The April 2023 Water Master Plan updates the domestic water analysis and serves as a guide for system improvements through 2040. It outlines a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to upgrade wells, reservoirs, and pump stations based on field assessments and operational needs. The resulting water rate structure ensures sufficient funding for system reliability, critical infrastructure projects over the next five years, and emergency reserves.
o Policy CON-3.2: Ensure existing water infrastructure systems are properly maintained.

Water Leak Repairs | The City of Glendora Water Division Distribution team made 216 leak repairs in 2025 which included water mains, water services and fire hydrants. During this time the Water Division also replaced over 880 linear feet of water main line due to emergency leaks.
2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 25
▪ Goal CON-5: Reduced demand for energy resources through the use of conservation techniques.
o Policy CON-5.1: Investigate and implement opportunities for energy conservation at all City-maintained facilities.

Booster Pump 2 was rebuilt and fitted with a new mechanical seal at the San Gabriel Plant, while Booster Pump 36 at the Water Yard was installed after both the motor and pump received full servicing. The City’s Water Division has a goal of taking one well pump out each year for maintenance and repair. This will help ensure that they are running efficiently as conditions may change in the basin. The Water Division also has a program to have all pumps and motors tested for efficiency on an annual basis as these are the City’s main power users. By having an annual testing program we use energy in the most efficient manner possible.
o Policy CON-5.2: Encourage the incorporation of energy conservation features in the design of all new construction and substantial rehabilitation projects and encourage the installation of conservation devices in existing developments.

The City supports the installation of water and energy efficient devise in existing developments, including high efficiency clothes washers, showerheads, and faucet aerators.

These devices are provided and installed by WaterWise Consulting as part of MWD supported conversation programs, helping residents reduce water use, save energy, and improve overall efficiency.
2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 26
▪ Goal CON-1: Protection and conservation of Glendora’s water resources. o Policy CON-1.3: Establish specific requirements for the use of water conserving landscape materials in new development and redevelopment projects, parks and municipal facilities.
o Policy CON-1.5: Establish methods to analyze water conservation issues when determining the need and development of future parks.
▪ Goal CON-2: Protection and conservation of Glendora’s water resources. o Policy CON-2.2: Reduce water demand for irrigation purposes through the utilization of water-conserving landscape materials.
▪ Goal CON-7: A comprehensive citywide landscape strategy. o Policy CON-7.1: Establish a cohesive landscape plan to ensure consistent landscaping throughout the City.

Park Maintenance Manual | All City landscaping, including parks, landscape maintenance assessment district sites, medians and open space is maintained under a single maintenance contract, with specifications dictated by the Park Maintenance Manual on a site-by-site basis.
o Policy CON-7.2: Establish specific requirements for consistent landscaping in new development and redevelopment projects, parks and municipal facilities. 2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 27
Landscape Plan Checks | The City Water Conservation performed plan checks and irrigation audits for new landscapes in new development projects to ensure compliance with the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and currently offers free irrigation system audits for new landscape installations. ▪ Goal CON-8: Proper conveyance and treatment of stormwater and implementation of techniques to reduce pollutants consistent with Federal, State and regional regulations and standards.
o Policy CON-8.1: Ensure existing drainage facilities are properly maintained. o Policy CON-8.3: Incorporate project-level stormwater mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to water quality and ensure mitigation measures are adequately monitored.
o Policy CON-8.5: Continue to support regional and State efforts in controlling point and non-point sources of water pollution.

Los Angeles County Catch-basin Cleaning | Glendora began contracting with the Los Angeles County Public Works Department to provide dry- and wet-season cleaning of all 235 City-maintained catch-basins.

Stormwater Regulatory Compliance Contract | Glendora will be entering into a contract with a 3rd party engineering firm to ensure comprehensive stormwater regulatory compliance.
2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 28
Upper San Gabriel River Enhanced Watershed Management Program (USGR EWMP) | In response to provisions of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit Order No. R4- 20120175, Glendora partners with Los Angeles County and the Cities of Baldwin Park, Covina, Industry, La Puente, South El Monte, and West Covina in the USGR EWMP to administer and cost-share implementation of a coordinated, integrated monitoring program for the Upper San Gabirel River Watershed.

Finkbiner Park Storm Water Capture Project | Glendora being in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, rain and stormwater pass through the City streets. With Los Angeles County and neighboring cities, the Finkbiner Park Stormwater Project Design is in progress and 90% complete. Stormwater will be captured in underground chambers and treated to improve the quality of runoff water.
2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 29
▪ Goal CON-9: Preservation and conservation of natural resources and sensitive habitats. o Policy CON-9.4: Ensure the preservation of the natural plant communities in the hillside areas. o Policy CON-9.7: Ensure preservation of local watersheds in development to maintain native plant habitats and ensure connectivity of wildlife corridors.

Big Dalton Canyon Wilderness Park Eagle Scout Project | Staff helped coordinate an Eagle Scout project at the Big Dalton Canyon Wilderness Park first removing invasive Tree of Heaven, old fence posts, and chain link fencing; and then replanting and mulching native oak and elderberry trees.
2025 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 30
▪ Goal CON-10 A tree preservation strategy.
o Policy CON-10.4: Ensure appropriate placement and proper maintenance of tree resources within the City.

Urban Forest Master Plan & Urban Forestry Manual | As part of the City’s 2023-2025 Adopted Strategic Plan, staff will be issuing a request for proposals to hire a consultant to assist in developing an Urban Forest Master Plan and updating the City’s Urban Forestry Manual, including a review and update of relevant sections of the Glendora Municipal Code and tree-related fees.

South Hills Wilderness Park Volunteer Tree Mulching Project | Staff led a volunteer group of local high school students spreading mulch around saplings at the South Hills Wilderness Park. 2024 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 31
▪ GOAL CON-11 PROACTIVE CITY PARTICIPATION WITH LOCAL, REGIONAL, AND STATE AGENCIES

TO PROMOTE MULTI-AGENCY INVOLVEMENT IN UNDERSTANDING AND ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSERVATION ISSUES.

Upper San Gabriel River Watershed Area Steering Committee (USGR WASC) | Glendora participates as a municipal voting member on the USGR WASC, which reviews projects proposed for funding under the Los Angeles County Safe, Clean Water Program and develops an annual Stormwater Investment Plan (SIP) for the watershed area.
o Policy CON-11.1: Investigate new opportunities to work with local, regional and State agencies regarding environmental and conservation issues.

Water Education Program | The City’s Water Education Program features an annual Water Awareness Poster Contest, with winning entries submitted to the Metropolitan Water District’s competition. A student from Glendora was recognized as a winner in 2025.Water Conservation staff also helps organize field trips toThreeValleys Municipal 2024 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 32
Water District for students of the Glendora Unified School District to learn more about where our water comes from.

Glendora is also a member of the Water Education Water Awareness committee with other local water agencies which offers grants for teachers to fund innovative water related classroom projects and scholarship opportunities for college bound senior high school students. Glendora also promotes MWD’s Community Partnership Program which provides K-12 grant opportunities towards water related education outreach programs to host workshops, water festivals, or water themed curriculum.

Local/State Agency Collaboration | Glendora participates in the regional Member Agency Administered Program (MAAP) with MWD in partnership with Three Valleys Valley’s Municipal Water District, which offers local agencies funding reimbursements opportunities for water conservation related projects and/or programs.
2024 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 33

SAFETY ELEMENT
The aim of the Safety Element is “to reduce the potential risk of death, injuries, property damage, and economic and social dislocation resulting from fires, floods, earthquakes, landslides and other hazards”. It serves as a guide for City government and the general public in understanding the hazards facing the City of Glendora and how to reduce the impacts of these hazards. The Safety Element draft is 90% complete and is currently under review by CalFire and the Board of Forestry.

Once these reviews are completed, the project will be aligned with the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, which is currently being finalized by the Police Department. The City council adopted an updated Safety Element In October 2025 and the 2025 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan was adopted in January 2026.

Safety Element Progress Updates
▪ Goal SAF-2 Reduced incident of damage to life and property from wildland fires:
o Policy SAF-2.1: Require all proposed developments to prove that the development can adequately be served by fire flows.
o Policy SAF-2.2: Maintain low density/intensity land use designations in the hillside areas. o Policy SAF-2.4: Require proposed developments to comply with access requirements of the Los Angeles County Fire Department and Glendora Police Department.

Fire Flow Adequacy | The City continues to require proof of fire flow adequacy and Los Angeles County Fire Department review for new development proposals within high-fire severity/hillside areas.
▪ Goal SAF-6 Coordinated public safety and community planning. ▪ Goal SAF-9 Minimized loss of life, injury or property during disaster events.

Multi-Hazard Function Plan | The Safety Element includes several policies related to programs mandated by the State and federal government. These programs include the Staterequired Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), the implementation of which resulted in the City’s adoption of a Multi-Hazard Function Plan (MHFP). 2024 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 34

NOISE ELEMENT
The purpose of the Noise Element is to provide a framework to limit noise exposure within the City. Existing and future noise environments and the compatibility of land uses are considered in the Element, as well as sensitive receptors and generators of stationary noise. Projected noise levels are included to help guide future land use policy and prevent high noise levels in sensitive areas at buildout.

Various measures are described to mitigate potential noise conflicts. These measures are designed to lessen impacts from unavoidable noise conflicts within the City of Glendora. The Noise Element also serves as a guideline for compliance with the State’s Noise Insulation Standards.

As part of the General Plan process the City surveyed the planning area to identify mobile and stationary noise sources that have, or could have, an adverse impact on land uses in the planning area. Noise levels at various intersections and roadways were measured to identify current and predicted noise levels based on traffic levels expected under the land use plan’s build out scenario. Goals and policies were adopted to ensure that appropriate land use planning techniques incorporated into new development planning to minimize impacts to sensitive noise receptors.

Noise Element Progress Updates
▪ Goal N-1: Reduced noise impacts from transportation sources:
o Policy N-1.1: Ensure traffic noise mitigation measures are included and implemented in the design of new development.
o Policy N-1.3: Limit construction, delivery, and through truck traffic to designated routes.

Noise Studies | Noise studies are continuously conducted as part of the environmental review process and mitigation measures are required as appropriate depending on the location and type of development project and/or location.
2024 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 35
Noise Ordinance | The City’s Noise Ordinance continually places restrictions for construction activities to minimize and regulate construction-related noise. 2024 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 36

OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION ELEMENT
The purpose of the Open Space and Recreation Element is to examine existing open space and recreational facilities and outline strategies and actions to preserve and enhance these amenities within the City. The Open Space designation in Glendora includes both private and public lands in the foothills and South Hills.

Open space and recreational facilities are located throughout the City and provide recreational, training, and educational opportunities along with various programs and services to assist and improve the quality of life in the community. Such amenities and areas in the City of Glendora include parks, community centers, trails, hillside areas, open space easements, and institutional uses.

Open Space and Recreation Element Updates
▪ Goal OSR-4: Diversified range of park and recreation facilities and programs for all Glendora residents.
o Policy OSR-4.1: Investigate opportunities to enhance and expand existing park and recreation facilities.
o Policy OSR-4.3: Provide a variety of program opportunities for residents of all ages. o Policy OSR-4.8: Expand park use to include services that increase the overall wellbeing of residents.
▪ Goal OSR-5: Improved community access to recreation facilities. o Policy OSR-5.4: Ensure park and recreation facilities meet American with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards.

La Fetra Center Renovations | Updates to the Adult Community Center included renovations to the public kitchen area, exterior painting of the building, and installation of new carpeting. These improvements modernized the facility, enhanced safety, and improved overall appearance, ensuring a more welcoming and secure environment for adult and senior recreational activities.

Pour-In-Place Surfacing for South Hills Park, Ole Hammer Park, and Willow Springs Park | This City Park resurfacing project included resurfacing playground areas at three city parks using pour-in-place surfacing. This project advanced the City’s goal of updating all playgrounds with safer, more durable surfaces to replace rubber tire chunks. The new surfacing provides improved accessibility, reduced maintenance and debris, enhanced safety through impact-absorbing padding, and visually appeal. The project was completed in January 2025.
2024 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 37
Crowther Teen and Family Center Gym Improvements | Improvements focused on improving safety, durability, and maintenance efficiency. In the gym, outdated wooden bleachers were removed and replaced with heavy-duty plastic bleachers that are easier to clean, maneuver, and provide improved ergonomic seating. Sound panels were updated by replacing the exterior material, enhancing both appearance and sound control. Beginning in 2025, gym floors began to be resurfaced annually rather than biennially to better maintain surface quality and longevity.

Dawson Park Playground and Pour-In-Place Surfacing | The Teen Center playground was fully remodeled and completed by the end of October 2025. The updated design improved ADA accessibility and marked the final City-owned playground to be upgraded with poured-in-place surfacing. Capital Project Funds totaling $130,420.24 were used for construction, overnight security, and playground inspection. The final project cost, including a ten percent contingency, was $141,978.06. 2024 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 38
Rowley Wilderness Amphitheater Kiosk Map | Funds were allocated for the repair and replacement of trail signs and posts, along with the production of a new trail map for the kiosk at the Big Dalton Rowley Wilderness Area, totaling $1,300. The updated trail signage improves accessibility by featuring a clean design with high contrast elements to ease visibility.
2024 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 39

AIR QUALITY ELEMENT
The Air Quality Element seeks to improve air quality in the planning area through policies and infrastructure planning. Examples of policy level planning include regional cooperation with regional governments such as SCAG and SCAQMD in supporting alternative transportation initiatives.

Air Quality Element Updates
▪ Goal AQ-2: Reduction of vehicular trips.
o Policy AQ-2.1: Reduce mobile source emissions by encouraging reduction in project-related vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

VMT Policy | The City continues to use a VMT Policy in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Traffic Impact Analysis Requirements. This promotes a reduction in greenhouse gases, the development of multimodal transportation, and a diversity of uses. The City applied and received a grant to purchase three new vehicles. These vehicles will support the City’s Short Range Transit Plan’s goal of providing all-day service to key local destinations, reducing reliance on driving by offering a public transit option during evening hours, thus reducing emissions. Delivery of the vehicles are expected early 2026. o Policy AQ-2.4: Promote and encourage ride-sharing activities throughout the community. ▪ Goal AQ-5: Promotion of alternative transportation modes. o Policy AQ-5.1: Promote and encourage the use of public transit, such as the Metrolink and local bus lines.

Metro A Line Light Rail Support | The City supports the A Line (previously known as the Gold Line as of September 2025) by providing ongoing information and TAP card application assistance for reduced-fare programs for seniors, persons with disabilities, low-income riders, and students, encouraging greater use of the service through affordable fare options. 2024 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 40
o Policy AQ-5.3: Promote telecommuting and modified work schedules as a method of trip reduction.

Altcom Program | The City continues its employee alternative commute incentive program, which encourages City employees to choose a commute option that is an alternative to a single occupancy vehicle, such as biking, walking, carpooling, or utilizing public transit. 2024 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 41

HISTORIC PRESERVATION ELEMENT
In 1999 the City adopted the Historic Preservation Element to reflect the community’s desire to preserve historic resources. The element identified the different levels of historic significance at the federal, state, and local levels. Goals and policies are in place that require the City to consider the effects of development on historic resources. The City continues to update information and policies related to historic resources.

Historic Preservation Progress Updates:

Alteration to Historic Resource | Any proposed alteration to a historic resource or landmark requires City review and/or public hearings to determine if proposals are appropriate and meet the Secretary of the Interiors Standards.

Webpage | The City maintains a Historic Preservation webpage with information and resources including a list of historic landmarks and a sample Mills Act Contract:
https://www.cityofglendora.gov/Explore/Community-Development/Planning-Division/HistoricPreservation Hamilton House -
Centennial Heritage
Park (1890)
2024 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 42
▪ Goal: Preserve and protect Glendora’s historic resources as physical reminders of the city’s past and as unique focal points to shape the community’s identity:
o Policy: Maintain a list of historic resources designated under national, state, and local agencies.
o Policy: Ensure the protection of historic resources through the enforcement of existing codes.
o Policy: Provide relief from property taxes through Mills Act Contracts.

Historic Landmarks | In late 2024 and early 2025 city purchased bronze plaques for 400 N.

Glendora Ave., 131 E. Whitcomb Ave. and 200 S. Vista Bonita. Plaques were distributed to property owners and are to be mounted in publicly accessible and visible locations (on building exterior near front entry, or grounded mounted in concrete adjacent to public sidewalk). - 400 N. Glendora Ave. (Cornerstone Bible Church) – New Landmark - 131 E. Whitcomb Ave. (Malcolm House) – New Landmark
- 200 S. Vista Bonita Ave. (Brubaker House) – Previously approved landmark that did not have plaque.
▪ Goal: Increase the public’s awareness and appreciation for Glendora’s historic resources.

Brubaker House -
New plaque
installed 2025
2024 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 43
131 E. Foothill Boulevard | In June 2025, the Planning Commission reviewed/approved three, new, two-story multifamily apartments. A Certificate of Appropriateness was required due to the subject property’s designation as a Contributing Resource to the City’s Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ). Site is now under construction.

Glendora Community Archive | A searchable collection of scanned local materials with newspapers dating 1890 to present, historical directories dating 1954-1990, locally produced cookbooks, and more.

Route 66 Centennial Tour-Glendora and surrounding areas | A tour of local historical landmarks along Route 66 and their background is available to the community, curated by the Library on https://theclio.com/tour/2860.
2024 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 44

ADDITIONAL NOTES
Consistency with General Plan Guidelines
The General Plan is internally consistent, comprehensive, and maintains a long-term perspective on continued City growth and development. The General Plan evaluates the City’s entire planning area which includes the City and its Sphere of Influence that covers some of the unincorporated County lands adjacent to the City. The General Plan includes the seven required elements and the optional elements of Air Quality and Historic Preservation.

With respect to internal consistency, the elements are based on the anticipated growth within the community. As an example of the consistency written into the General Plan, the Land Use Element was the foundation for new housing and population data as vacant and underutilized parcels were identified and housing growth was projected onto the parcels. Growth from housing and population was used to drive the formation of the Circulation Element which included a forecast model of peak traffic volumes and Average Daily Trips (ADT) based on projected growth from the Land Use Element. Peak traffic and ADT volumes were then simulated to generate anticipated noise levels on roadways to identify any potential impacts on the Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) for the Noise Element. In another example of consistency, the Housing Element includes a housing sites analysis that is based on the land use designations and policies of the Land Use Element.

Sustainable Development
The City’s General Plan includes sustainable development policies that embrace compact development, walkability, and transit-oriented development; promote infill development; protect open space (nearly 50 percent of the City’s land use area is designated as open space); protect natural habitats and habitat connectivity; and avoid natural hazards. These policies are incorporated across a number of General Plan elements including Land Use, Open Space and Recreation, Conservation, and Safety. The City maintains a certified Housing Element which properly addresses adequate housing for all income levels. A number of policies also address energy efficiency in building and site planning. Waste reduction and recycling policies are being 2024 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 45
implemented to reduce consumer waste and promote recycling (the City maintains an over 65% diversion rate as required by State law).

Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report
The topic of Environmental Justice (or “EJ”) aims to prevent and correct disproportionate environmental impacts on vulnerable communities. These impacts can result from either the presence or absence of certain land uses, facilities, and/or physical and social infrastructure. For example, the presence of industrial land uses causing air pollution in a vulnerable community is an EJ issue. The absence of parks and open space, sidewalks and bike lanes, safe housing, and healthy food options in a vulnerable community are also EJ issues. Therefore, Environmental Justice can be defined as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” Air Quality Element:
▪ Goal AQ-4: Protect the health of all residents, regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, race, socioeconomic status, or geographic location, from the health effects of pollution with equitable environmental policymaking and enforcement. o Policy AQ-4.1: Evaluate potential environmental justice issues by requiring a review of environmental impacts for potential development projects.

Housing Element
▪ Goal 3: Provide suitable sites for housing development which can accommodate a range of housing by type, size, location, price, and tenure to accommodate the City’s share of the regional housing need.
o Policy 3.2: Encourage development of residential uses in strategic proximity to employment, recreational facilities, schools, neighborhood commercial areas, and transportation routes.
o Policy 3.5: Ensure that residential development sites have appropriate and adequate services and facilities, including water, wastewater, and neighborhood infrastructure.
2024 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 46
The Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report addresses eight EJ-related topics for Glendora, the findings of which are summarized below:

1. Reduce Pollution Exposure and Improve Air Quality – Though Glendora does not have DACs based on composite CalEnviroScreen scores, there are census tracts with high individual pollution burden indicators or high burden population characteristic indicators (e.g., low birth weight, unemployment). These census tracts are concentrated in the southern portion of the city along both the north and south sides of the 210 Freeway.

2. Promote Public Facilities – Public facilities that serve the community such as transit stations and routes, cultural facilities, daycare centers, community centers, post offices, libraries, public schools, parks, etc. are well distributed throughout Glendora, including vulnerable communities. All identified vulnerable communities contain some public park space. There are four community center facilities in the city, all located within vulnerable communities.

3. Promote Healthy Food Access – Glendora is within the 28th and 31st Congressional Districts. Glendora’s 28th District has a higher food insecurity rate than the County, while the 31st District food insecurity rate is lower than the County. There are eight food markets within the city; one of them is located in a vulnerable community. Glendora does not currently have any active farmers’ markets or community gardens.

4. Promote Safe and Sanitary Homes –
a. Approximately 89% of the city’s housing stock is over 30 years old and 65% is over 50 years old. The majority was built from 1950-1959.
b. About 4% of Glendora households live in overcrowded conditions. c. Renter-households are more prone to overcrowding (54%) compared to ownerhouseholds (45%). d. Renters have higher percentages of overpayment (45%) than owners do (30%). e. Southern Glendora census tracts also have a higher concentration of cost burdened renters compared to the northern tracts.
f. Overall, housing cost burden was most prevalent among extremely low-income households in Glendora (81%).

5. Promote Physical Activity – The City of Glendora has a generous combination of local parks, natural areas, regional open space, and regional recreation parks generally welldistributed throughout the city, including vulnerable communities. Most residents (52%) live within a 5-10 minute walk from a park. The biggest opportunity area lies in the 2024 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 47
southeast portion of the city. Existing and proposed bikeways are generally welldistributed throughout Glendora, including vulnerable communities. There are several miles of hiking trails in the northern and southern portions of the city.

6. Reduce Any Unique or Compounded Health Risks Not Otherwise Addressed – Glendora does not have any notable unique situations which would significantly compound health risks.

7. Promote Civic Engagement in the Public Decision-making Process – Certain demographic categories can help predict a community’s level of civic engagement. For example:
a. Age distribution can help predict the likelihood of a community participating in civic activities. Those between the ages of 45 and 64 make up the largest percent of Glendora’s population.
b. Language is a critical signifier of a population’s likely participation in civic activities.

Though there is a small percentage of limited English-speaking households in Glendora, non-native English speakers, and especially those individuals with limited English fluency, are less likely to participate in civic activities. c. Educational attainment is a strong signifier of a population’s likely participation in civic activities. Higher educational attainment generally correlates with increased civic participation. All census tracts in Glendora have low to medium CalEnviroScreen burden scores for education.
d. Race and ethnicity are important predictors of civic engagement, and studies have shown that White populations are more likely to be civically engaged than other groups.

8. Prioritize Improvements and Programs That Address Specified Needs – The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) created an opportunity map as a way to measure and visualize place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes, such as educational attainment, earnings from employment, and economic mobility. The HCD/CTCAC Opportunity Map for Glendora shows that most census tracts within the city are considered high to highest resource areas (see Figure 3.8.1 in the Existing Conditions Report).

Preparation and Implementation of the General Plan
During the City’s last General Plan update, the City conducted extensive community outreach involving dozens of workshops and neighborhood meetings that resulted in the identification of 2024 Annual General Plan Progress Report | 48
community issues and opportunities. This community discussion provided the framework for the development of goals and policies which were eventually considered and adopted by the City Council.

The goals and policies of the General Plan are implemented by the day-to-day policies the City enforces through the Zoning Ordinance, Building Code, NPDES regulations, and the numerous programs and services the City administers to serve residents such as parks and recreation programs, housing assistance programs, economic development policies, public works programs, and capital facilities improvement programs.

Special Considerations
The City’s General Plan was prepared in consideration and recognition of all of the applicable state and federal mandated requirements. Examples of applicable state and federal requirements which affect the planning area include the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, NPDES, federal and state regulations concerning flora and fauna, and AB 32.

General Plan Mandatory Elements Update List
The following list identifies the year in which the City last updated the General Plan elements:

Required Elements
▪ Land Use: Updated 2006
▪ Circulation: Updated 2007
▪ Housing: Updated 2022
▪ Conservation: Updated 2007
▪ Open Space: Updated 2007
▪ Noise: Updated 2007
▪ Safety: Updated 2025
Optional Elements
▪ Air Quality: Updated 2007
▪ Historic Preservation: Updated 1999
Jurisdiction Glendora
Reporting Year 2025
Housing Element Planning Period 6th Cycle
Current Year
Deed
Restricted 0
Non-Deed
Restricted 0
Deed
Restricted 0
Non-Deed
Restricted 0
Deed
Restricted 0
Non-Deed
Restricted 0
Deed
Restricted 0
Non-Deed
Restricted 0
Deed
Restricted 0
Non-Deed
Restricted 0
90 90
Units by Structure Type Entitled Permitted Completed
Single-family Attached 0 0 0
Single-family Detached 46 17 0
2 to 4 units per structure 3 11 0
5+ units per structure 70 6 0
Accessory Dwelling Unit 0 56 0
Mobile/Manufactured Home 0 0 0
Total 119 90 0
Infill Housing Developments and Infill Units Permitted # of Projects Units 90 90
0 0
2 #REF!
4 0
0 0
Income Rental Ownership Total
Acutely Low 0 0 0
Extremely Low 0 0 0
Very Low 0 0 0
Low 0 0 0
Moderate 0 0 0
Above Moderate 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0
Streamlining Provisions Used - Permitted Units # of Projects Units SB 9 (2021) - Duplex in SF Zone 3 3
SB 9 (2021) - Residential Lot Split 0 0
AB 2011 (2022) 0 0
SB 6 (2022) 0 0
SB 423 (2023) 0 0
Ministerial and Discretionary Applications # of Units
Ministerial 0 0
Discretionary 2 0
Density Bonus Applications and Units Permitted
Number of Applications Submitted Requesting a Density Bonus 0 Number of Units in Applications Submitted Requesting a Density Bonus 0 Number of Projects Permitted with a Density Bonus 0
Number of Units in Projects Permitted with a Density Bonus 0 Housing Element Programs Implemented and Sites Rezoned Count 0 0
Total Housing Applications Submitted:

Number of Proposed Units in All Applications Received:

Total Housing Units Approved:

Total Housing Units Disapproved:

Total Units
Housing Applications Summary
Use of SB 423 Streamlining Provisions - Applications
Number of SB 423 Streamlining Applications
Above Moderate
Indicated as Infill
Not Indicated as Infill
Building Permits Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
Programs Implemented
Sites Rezoned to Accommodate the RHNA
(Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
10/15/2021 - 10/15/2029
Units Constructed - SB 423 Streamlining Permits
Number of SB 423 Streamlining Applications Approved
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Acutely Low
Extremely Low
Jurisdiction Glendora ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Year 2025
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31) Housing Element Implementation
Planning
Period 6th Cycle 10/15/2021 - 10/15/2029
Date
Application
Submitted
Total
Approved
Units by
Project
Total
Disapproved
Units by
Project
Streamlining Historic Sites
2 3 4 7 8 9 10
Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID
Unit Category
(SFA,SFD,2 to
4,5+,ADU,MH)
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Date
Application
Submitted
(see
instructions)
Acutely LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Acutely LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Extremely
Low-Income
Deed
Restricted
Extremely
Low-Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Low-Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Total

APPROVED
Units by
project
Total

DISAPPROVE
D Units by
Project
Please select
state
streamlining
provision/s the
application
was submitted
pursuant to.

Is this project
located on a
site with an
associated
historical
designation as
outlined in
Government
Code Section
65400(a)(2)(N)
and reported
on Table L?
Did the
housing
development
application
seek
incentives or
concessions
pursuant to
Government
Code section
65915?
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 8638-014-035 131 E Foothill PLN25-0011 SFD R 5/15/2025 3 3 NONE Yes - Local No 8636017023 445 Conifer PLN25-0013 SFD O 5/22/2025 1 1 NONE No No Table A
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
1 5
Project Identifier Unit Types Density Bonus Law
Applications
11 Housing Development Applications Submitted
Proposed Units - Affordability by Household Incomes
Jurisdiction Glendora ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting
Year 2025
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning
Period 6th Cycle 10/15/2021 - 10/15/2029
Table A2
Streamlining Historic Sites Infill
Housing without
Financial Assistance or
Deed Restrictions
Term of
Affordability or
Deed Restriction
Notes
2 3 5 6 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID
Unit
Category

(SFA,SFD,2
to
4,5+,ADU,MH)
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Acutely
LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Acutely
LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Extremely
LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Extremely
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Entitlement
Date
Approved
# of Units
issued
Entitlements
Acutely
LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Acutely
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
Extremely
LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Extremely
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Building
Permits Date
Issued
# of Units Issued
Building Permits
Acutely
LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Acutely
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
Extremely
LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Extremely
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Certificates of
Occupancy or
other forms of
readiness
(see instructions)
Date Issued
# of Units
issued
Certificates
of
Occupancy
or other
forms of
readiness
Please select
the state
streamlining
provision the
project was

APPROVED
pursuant to.
(may select
multiple)
Is this project
located on a site
with an
associated
historical
designation as
outlined in
Government
Code Section
65400(a)(2)(N)
and reported on
Table L?
Infill Units?
Y/N+
Assistance
Programs for Each
Development
(may select
multiple - see
instructions)
Deed
Restriction Type
(may select
multiple - see
instructions)
For units affordable
without financial
assistance or deed
restrictions, explain how
the locality determined
the units were affordable
(see instructions)
Term of Affordability
or Deed Restriction
(years) (if affordable
in perpetuity enter
1000)+
Number of
Demolished/Destro
yed Units
Demolished
or Destroyed
Units
Demolished/
Destroyed
Units
Owner or
Renter
Total Density Bonus
Applied to the Project
(Percentage Increase in
Total Allowable Units or
Total Maximum Allowable
Residential Gross Floor
Area)
Number of Other
Incentives,
Concessions,
Waivers, or Other
Modifications
Given to the
Project (Excluding
Parking Waivers or
Parking
Reductions)
List the
incentives,
concessions,
waivers, and
modifications
(Excluding
Parking Waivers
or Parking
Modifications)
Did the project
receive a reduction
or waiver of parking
standards? (Y/N)
Notes+
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 104 119 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 315 N

HACIENDA AVE

GLENDORA, CA
91741-3975 B24-0847
ADU O
0 1 1/6/2025 1
1/20/2026
0 No Y
1311 E DALTON
AVE

GLENDORA, CA
91741-3137 B24-1587
ADU O
0 1 1/16/2025 1 0 No Y
750 E BENNETT
AVE

GLENDORA, CA
91741-2745 B25-0012
ADU O
0 1 1/17/2025 1 0 No Y
429B S GRAND
AVE

GLENDORA, CA
91741-3215 B24-1748
ADU O
0 1 1/28/2025 1 0 No Y
559 E JUANITA
AVE

GLENDORA, CA
91740-6022 B24-1590
ADU O
0 1 1/29/2025 1 0 No Y
851 N ENTRADA
WAY

GLENDORA, CA
91741-2223 B25-0102
ADU O
0 1 2/5/2025 1 0 No Y
1110B JUNIPER
DR
Glendora, CA B25-0105
ADU O
0 1
2/5/2025
1 10/21/2025
0 No Y
341B W

MEACHAM ST
Glendora, CA
91740--484 B25-0108
ADU O
0 1
2/24/2025
1 9/24/2025
0 No Y
209 N VALLEY

CENTER AVE

GLENDORA, CA
91741-3087 B24-1499
ADU O
0 1
2/27/2025
1 0 No Y
748 S VECINO
DR

GLENDORA, CA
91740-4165 B25-0058
ADU O
0 1
2/27/2025
1 0 No Y
244 N VALLEY

CENTER AVE

GLENDORA, CA
91741-3069 B25-0257
SFD O
0 1 3/10/2025 1 0 SB 9 (2021) -
Duplex in SF Zone No Y
638B W GLEN
LYN DR

GLENDORA, CA
91740-4723 B25-0272
ADU O
0 1 3/10/2025 1
6/3/2025
0 No Y
727B E MYRTLE
AVE
Glendora, CA
91741--353 B25-0262
ADU O
0 1
3/12/2025
1 0 No Y
311 & 313 W

BENNETT AVE

GLENDORA, CA
91741-2547 B24-1704
ADU O
0 1
3/25/2025
1 8/27/2025
0 No Y
817B E JUANITA
AVE
Glendora, CA
91740--602 B25-0260
ADU O
0 1
3/28/2025
1 2/9/2026
0 No Y
1747 S

PROSPERO DR

GLENDORA, CA
91740-5444 B25-0355
ADU O
0 1
3/28/2025
1 0 No Y
157B S SAN

JOSE DR
Glendora, CA
91741--373 B25-0386
ADU O
0 1
4/8/2025
1 2/3/2026
0 No Y
125 W

RONWOOD ST

GLENDORA, CA
91740-4813 B24-0563
ADU O
0 1
4/15/2025
1 0 No Y
1640 S

GLENDORA
AVE

GLENDORA, CA
91740-5665 B25-0073
ADU O
0 1
4/15/2025
1 0 No Y
312 S WABASH
AVE

GLENDORA, CA
91741-6219 B25-0118
ADU O
0 1
4/15/2025
1 0 No Y
312 S WABASH
AVE

GLENDORA, CA
91741-6219 B25-0438
ADU O
0 1
4/15/2025
1 0 No Y
133B RANGER
DR

GLENDORA, CA
91741-6601 B24-1315
ADU O
0 1
5/6/2025
1 0 No Y
325 S

MINNESOTA
AVE

GLENDORA, CA
91741-6224 B25-0517
ADU O
0 1
5/6/2025
1 0 No Y
1140 W

DONINGTON ST

GLENDORA, CA
91741-1858 B25-0538
SFD O
0 1
5/6/2025
1 0 SB 9 (2021) -
Duplex in SF Zone No Y
1140B W

DONINGTON ST

GLENDORA, CA
91741-1858 B25-0539
ADU O
0 1 5/6/2025 1 0 No Y
455 N WABASH
AVE

GLENDORA, CA
91741-2616 B24-1496
ADU O
0 1
5/8/2025
1 9/30/2025
0 No Y
1150B W

DONINGTON ST

GLENDORA, CA
91741-1858 B25-0622
ADU O
0 1
5/15/2025
1 0 No Y
1632 S

GLENDORA
AVE

GLENDORA, CA
91740-5665 B22-1162
ADU O
0 1
6/2/2025
1 0 No Y
219

BRIGHTVIEW
DR

GLENDORA, CA
91741-3206 B25-0483
ADU O
0 1
6/3/2025
1 2/3/2026
0 No Y
161 W

RONWOOD ST

GLENDORA, CA
91740-4813 B25-0614
SFD O
0 1
6/4/2025
1 0 SB 9 (2021) -
Duplex in SF Zone No Y
161 W

RONWOOD ST

GLENDORA, CA
91740-4813 B25-0615
ADU O
0 1
6/4/2025
1 0 No Y
356 N MEYER
LN

GLENDORA, CA
91741 B25-0656
SFD O
0 1
6/9/2025
1 2/2/2026
0 No Y
410 N MEYER
LN

GLENDORA, CA
91741 B25-0657
SFD O
0 1
6/9/2025
1 11/26/2025
0 No Y
428 N MEYER
LN

GLENDORA, CA
91741 B25-0658
SFD O
0 1
6/9/2025
1 11/26/2025
0 No Y
425 N MEYER
LN

GLENDORA, CA
91741 B25-0659
SFD O
0 1
6/9/2025
1 11/26/2025
0 No Y
450 N MEYER
LN

GLENDORA, CA
91741 B25-0660
SFD O
0 1
6/9/2025
1 11/26/2025
0 No Y
327 N BALDY

VISTA AVE

GLENDORA, CA
91741-6606 B25-0507
ADU O
0 1
6/12/2025
1 0 No Y
750 S Center
AVE
Glendora, CA
91740--634 B24-1115
ADU O
0 1
6/13/2025
1 0 No Y
506 E JUANITA
AVE

GLENDORA, CA
91740-6021 B25-0437
ADU O
0 1
6/13/2025
1 0 No Y
295 SHOREY
DR

GLENDORA, CA
91741 B25-0616
ADU O
0 1
6/19/2025
1 0 No Y
146 N

WILDWOOD
AVE

GLENDORA, CA
91741-2464 B25-0737
ADU O
0 1
6/24/2025
1 0 No Y
2105B E

PETUNIA ST

GLENDORA, CA
91740-4642 B25-0785
ADU O
0 1
6/26/2025
1 0 No Y
726B E

GLADSTONE
ST
Glendora, CA
91740--572 B25-0653
ADU O
0 1
7/1/2025
1 0 No Y
TRACT 84292 -
BUILDING 1

GLENDORA, CA
91740 B25-0661
5+ O
0 1
7/1/2025
1 0 No Y
TRACT 84292 -
BUILDING 2

GLENDORA, CA
91740 B25-0662
5+ O
0 1
7/1/2025
1 0 No Y
TRACT 84292 -
BUILDING 3

GLENDORA, CA
91740 B25-0663
5+ O
0 1
7/1/2025
1 0 No Y
TRACT 84292 -
BUILDING 4

GLENDORA, CA
91740 B25-0664
5+ O
0 1
7/1/2025
1 0 No Y
520 W ROUTE
66 GLENDORA, CA
91740-4386 B25-0929
ADU O
0 1
8/15/2025
1 2/4/2026
0 No Y
626 S TRESSY
AVE
Glendora, CA
91740--469 BLDG25-5125
ADU O
0 1
8/15/2025
1 0 No Y
645

INVERGARRY
ST

GLENDORA, CA
91741-3231 B25-0789
ADU O
0 1
8/20/2025
1 0 No Y
733 W CITRUS

EDGE ST

GLENDORA, CA
91740-4986 B25-0931
ADU O
0 1
8/26/2025
1 0 No Y
330 W CITRUS

EDGE ST
Glendora, CA
91740--500 BLDG25-5404
ADU O
0 1
8/28/2025
1 0 No Y
1125 JUNIPER
DR

GLENDORA, CA
91741 BLDG25-5406
ADU O
0 1
8/29/2025
1 0 No Y
718 Center AVE
Glendora, CA
91740--633 BLDG25-5124
ADU O
0 1
9/11/2025
1 0 No Y
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Housing with Financial Assistance
and/or Deed Restrictions Project Identifier Demolished/Destroyed Units Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units Density Bonus
1 Unit Types Affordability by Household Incomes - Completed Entitlement Affordability by Household Incomes - Building Permits Affordability by Household Incomes - Certificates of Occupancy 4 7 10
Jurisdiction Glendora ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting
Year 2025
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning
Period 6th Cycle 10/15/2021 - 10/15/2029
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
728 SUNNY

GROVE LN

GLENDORA, CA
91741 BLDG25-5582
SFDO
0 1
9/11/2025
10 NoY
127 E MAUNA

LOA AVE
Glendora, CA
91740--631 BLDG25-5574
ADUO
0 1
9/22/2025
10 NoY
1243B S DELAY
AVE
Glendora, CA
91740--493 BLDG25-5590
ADUO
0 1
10/2/2025
10 NoY
328 N

WASHINGTON
AVE
Glendora, CA
91741--255 BLDG25-5782
ADUO
0 1
10/22/2025
10 NoY
214 N

UNDERHILL DR
Glendora, CA
91741--315 BLDG25-5438
ADUO
0 1
10/24/2025
10 NoY
543 E JUANITA
AVE
Glendora, CA
91740--602 BLDG25-5673
ADUO
0 1
10/29/2025
10 NoY
127A E

FOOTHILL
BLVD
Glendora, CA
91741--333 BLDG25-5864
2 to 4R
0 1
11/3/2025
10 NoY
127B E

FOOTHILL
BLVD
Glendora, CA
91741--333 BLDG25-5865
2 to 4R
0 1
11/3/2025
10 NoY
127C E

FOOTHILL
BLVD
Glendora, CA
91741--333 BLDG25-5866
2 to 4R
0 1
11/3/2025
10 NoY
568 E BENNETT
AVE

GLENDORA, CA
91741 BLDG25-5748
SFDO
0 1
11/4/2025
10 NoY
900B

STARCREST
DR
Glendora, CA
91740--474 B25-0327
ADUO
0 1
11/5/2025
10 NoY
532 - 548 E
Gregory Way
Glendora, CA
91740--351 B25-0665
5+O
0 1
11/12/2025
10 NoY
550 E Gregory
Way
Glendora, CA
91740--351 B25-0666
5+O
0 1
11/12/2025
10 NoY
450 N

MINNESOTA
AVE
Glendora, CA
91741--692 BLDG25-6128
ADUO
0 1
11/17/2025
10 NoY
492 CITRUS OAK
RD
Glendora, CA
91740--520 BLDG25-5424
SFDO
0 1
11/21/2025
10 NoY
481 CITRUS OAK
RD
Glendora, CA
91740--520 BLDG25-5426
SFDO
0 1
11/21/2025
10 NoY
475 CITRUS OAK
RD
Glendora, CA
91740--520 BLDG25-5428
SFDO
0 1
11/21/2025
10 NoY
469 CITRUS OAK
RD
Glendora, CA
91740--520 BLDG25-5429
SFDO
0 1
11/21/2025
10 NoY
474 CITRUS OAK
RD
Glendora, CA
91740--520 BLDG25-5431
SFDO
0 1
11/21/2025
10 NoY
480 CITRUS OAK
RD
Glendora, CA
91740--520 BLDG25-5434
SFDO
0 1
11/21/2025
10 NoY
1242 IRIS LN
Glendora, CA BLDG25-6296 ADU
O
0 1 12/4/202510 NoY
640 W

INVERGARRY
ST
Glendora, CA
91741--323 BLDG25-6325
ADUO
0 1
12/8/2025
10 NoY
711A

CLARADAY ST

GLENDORA, CA
91740-6058 B25-0881
ADUO
0 1
12/9/2025
10 NoY
711C

CLARADAY ST

GLENDORA, CA
91740-6058 B25-0882
ADUO
0 1
12/9/2025
10 NoY
711D

CLARADAY ST

GLENDORA, CA
91740-6058 B25-0883
ADUO
0 1
12/9/2025
10 NoY
711B

CLARADAY ST

GLENDORA, CA
91740-6058 B25-0884
ADUO
0 1
12/9/2025
10 NoY
904B E JUANITA
AVE
Glendora, CA
91740--610 BLDG25-6418
ADUO
0 1
12/15/2025
10 NoY
538 PARKER
DR

GLENDORA, CA
91740 B21-0867
2 to 4O
0 1
12/26/2025
10 NoY
536 PARKER
DR

GLENDORA, CA
91740 B21-0868
2 to 4O
0 1
12/26/2025
10 NoY
530 PARKER
DR

GLENDORA, CA
91740 B21-0869
2 to 4O
0 1
12/26/2025
10 NoY
528 PARKER
DR

GLENDORA, CA
91740 B21-0870
2 to 4O
0 1
12/26/2025
10 NoY
526 PARKER
DR

GLENDORA, CA
91740 B21-0871
2 to 4O
0 1
12/26/2025
10 NoY
552 PARKER
DR

GLENDORA, CA
91740 B21-0872
2 to 4O
0 1
12/26/2025
10 NoY
556 PARKER
DR

GLENDORA, CA
91740 B21-0873
2 to 4O
0 1
12/26/2025
10 NoY
558 PARKER
DR

GLENDORA, CA
91740 B21-0874
2 to 4O
0 1
12/26/2025
10 NoY
685 N GORDON

HIGHLANDS RD
Glendora, CA
91741--645 B24-0648
SFDO
0 1
12/30/2025
10 NoY
727B S TRESSY
AVE
Glendora, CA
91740--465 B24-1593
ADUO
0 11
10/6/2025
0 NoY
1908 Bluebird PLN24-0016 SFDO1 1/7/2025
1 00 NoY
644 Gordon
Highlands PLN23-0020 SFD
O1 3/4/2025
1 00 NoY
1050 Coronet St PLN24-0024 SFDO1 4/1/2025
1 00 NoY
945 N Silent
Ranch PLN24-0020 SFD
O1 4/1/2025
1 00 NoY
631-657 E Arrow
Hwy PLN24-0032 5+
O5 41 5/6/2025
46 00 NoY DB 10.0%
5 Development
Standards
Modification
Yes
131 E Foothill PLN25-0011 2 to 4R3 6/3/2025
3 00 Yes - LocalY
263 S San Jose PLN24-0045 SFDO7 34 7/1/2025
41 00 NoY DB 15.0%
10 Development
Standards
Modification
Yes
363 W Route 66 PLN24-0051 5+O3 21 10/7/2025
24 00 NoY DB 13.0%
6 Development
Standards
Modification
Yes
445 Conifer PLN25-0013 SFDO1 11/4/2025
1 00 NoY
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
Jurisdiction Glendora ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2025 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 6th Cycle 10/15/2021 - 10/15/2029
1 Projection
Period 3 4
RHNA Allocation
by Income Level
Projection
Period -
06/30/2021-
10/14/2021
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Total Units
to Date (all
years)
Total
Remaining
RHNA by
Income Level
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted - - - 1 - - - - - -
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted 1 - 4 - - - - - - -
Deed Restricted - 2 - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted - 1 5 - - - - - - -
Above Moderate 767 8 13 71 50 52 90 - - - - 284 483
2,276
9 16 80 51 52 90 - - - - 298 1,978
Please note: The APR form can only display data for one planning period. To view progress for a different planning period, you may login to HCD's online APR system, or contact HCD staff at [email protected].

Acutely Low - -
*For years prior to 2025, data on deed-restricted vs. non-deed restricted Extremely Low-Income units is approximated from whether the projects reported any deed-restricted Very Low-Income Units. If you wish to edit this historical data for accuracy or have any questions about the data, you may login to HCD's online APR system, or contact HCD staff at [email protected].

Total Units
*For jurisdictions that received RHNA determinations for the current cycle prior to the passage of AB 3093 (September 19, 2024):
- You were not allocated Acutely Low-Income and Extremely Low-Income RHNA targets, therefore the allocations in Field 1 are listed as "0" - If you wish to set your own targets in these income categories for informational purposes, contact HCD staff at [email protected]. - All Acutely Low-Income and Extremely Low-Income units reported during the cycle are counted towards Very-Low Income RHNA progress 380
Total RHNA
-
381 Low
*For years prior to 2025, Acutely Low-Income units are reported within the Extremely Low-Income category Please Note: Table B does not currently contain data from Table F or Table F2 for prior years. You may login to the APR system to see Table B that contains this data.

Extremely Low -
8 Moderate
735
386
388
5 1
Income Level
Very Low
1 -
This table is auto-populated once you enter your jurisdiction name and current year data. Past year information comes from previous APRs.

Please contact HCD if your data is different than the material supplied here 2 Table B
Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress
Permitted Units Issued by Affordability
734
Jurisdiction Glendora
Reporting Year 2025 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Name of Program Objective
Projected Completion
Date in Housing
Element
Applicable Cycle Status of Program
Implementation
Program
Implementation
Details
Quantified Outcomes:

Category
Quantified Outcomes:

Count Supporting Documents
Community Preservation
Acitvities (Program 1)
One annual educational campaign
about maintenance requirements on
social media. Address substandard
housing conditions for five units
annually.
6th Cycle
Ongoing implementation
and annual monitoring
throughout the planning
period.

To encourage the
conservation and
maintenance of existing
units in compliance with
building code, zoning and
environmental standards,
on an annual basis the
City will provide public
educational information
on their social media sites
about property
maintenance
requirements. Information
on common code
violations will be provided
at the public counter, on
the City’s website, and
periodically in the City
newsletter.

Neighborhood
Improvements (Program 2)
Complete eight infrastructure and
public facility improvement projects
that serve lower income neighborhoods
by 2029.
6th Cycle Ongoing
Annually apply to HUD for
CDBG funds and other
funding sources to
implement public
improvements in low
income areas, including
the People Movement
Project to support transitoriented development
around the metro station.

ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Housing Element Implementation
Housing Programs Progress Report
Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element.

Table D
Program Implementation Status pursuant to GC Section 65583 Preservation of Assisted
Housing Developments
(Program 3)
Annually review assisted housing
developments to ensure compliance
with affordability covenants and
continued longterm affordability.
6th Cycle Ongoing
• Monitor status of
existing and future
affordable housing
projects.
• Upon receipt of Notice of
Intent to convert from
property owners,
coordinate with the LA
County Development
Authority to connect
tenants of at-risk units to
the Section 8 Housing
Choice Voucher program.
(Pursuant to new State
law, property owners
opting to convert to
market rate housing must
provide three-year, oneyear, and six-month
noticing.)
• Conduct annual
monitoring of Elwood
Family Apartments, a City
RDA-funded affordable
housing project, to
ensure compliance with
income and occupancy
requirements, as well as
Housing Quality
Standards.
• Conduct quarterly and
Mobile Home Rent
Stabilization (Program 4)
Provide rent stabilization for
approximately 670 mobile homes. 6th Cycle Ongoing
Continue to maintain the
Rent Stabilization
ordinance and offer rent
review as authorized by
the ordinance.

Housing Choice Vouchers
(Section 8) (Program 5)
Annually promote the use of Housing
Choice Vouchers by providing
informational materials to rental
property managers.
6th Cycle Ongoing
• Continue to promote the
Housing Choice Voucher
to residents and property
owners through the
dissemination of
brochures and public
counters, providing
information on the City’s
website, and referring
residents and property
owners to LACDA.
• Work with LACDA to
promote acceptance of
Housing Choice Vouchers
through outreach and
education to renters and
rental property managers.

Specifically, SB 329 in
2019, redefines source of
income as “lawful,
verifiable income paid
directly to a tenant or to a
representative of a tenant,
or paid to a housing
owner or landlord on
behalf of a tenant,
including federal, state or
local public assistance,
and federal, state, or local
housing subsidies,
including, but not limited
Energy Conservation
(Program 6)
Provide information on the City’s
Planning Division website on how to
obtain density incentives for
development of green buildings.
6th Cycle Ongoing
• Promote density
incentives for green
building to developers.
• Continue to explore
additional ways to
promote energy
conservation and
sustainability.

Affordable Housing
Incentives (Program 7)
Facilitate the development of affordable
housing - 100 units over eight years. 6th Cycle
In 2023, the City aquired
property at 1762 Dale
Road. The site is intended
for an affordable housing
development. In 2024, the
City cleared the existig
site for future
development and began
exploring housing
options. ----

Also
Ordinance 2090 (2024)
updated City code
language regarding
affordable housing
incentives density
bonuses for compliance
with State Government
Code.
• Continue to be an active
participant in the
SGVHRT joint powers
authority.
• Outreach to affordable
housing developers
annually to explore
opportunities for
affordable housing.

Outreach should include
developers with
experience in
development projects that
include units affordable to
extremely low income
households and
households with special
needs.
• Continue to provide
regulatory and technical
assistance to affordable
housing developers.
• Annually explore various
sources (e.g., HCD and
HUD) for funding
opportunities, including
those available for
housing for extremely low
income and special needs
households.
• Apply for, or support,
Provide Adequate
Residential Sites
Inventory and Monitoring
of No Net Loss (Program
8)
Provide adequate sites to
accommodate the City’s entire RHNA
allocation of 2,276 units (735 very low
income; 386 low income; 388 moderate
income; and 767 above moderate
income), and complete Specific Plan
amendments in the Route 66 Specific
Plan and Arrow Highway Specific Plan
to increase permitted densities within
one year from October 15, 2021.
6th Cycle Completed - 7/11/23
[Ordinance 2077]
• Developa procedure in
2022 to monitor the
development of vacant
and nonvacant sites in
the sites inventory and
ensure that adequate
sites are available to meet
the remaining RHNA by
income category. • Provide information on
available sites and
development incentives to
interested developers and
property owners on City
website. Within one year
of the 6th Housing
Element statutory
deadline (by October 15,
2022), the City will
increase permitted
densities in the BG
Zoning District of the
Route 66 Specific Plan
from 20 dwelling units per
acre and two stories, to
30 dwelling units per acre
and three stories. The
City will Increase land
area zoned for housing in
the Route 66 Specific
Plan TCMU subdistrict, by
By-Right Approval for
Projects with 20 Percent
Affordable Units (Program
9)
Identify and promote redevelopment of
the reuse sites subject to this new
provision and facilitate development
that includes an affordable housing
component.
6th Cycle Completed - 7/11/23
[Ordinance 2077]
Amend Zoning Ordinance
within one year of
Housing Element
adoption.

Replacement Housing
(Program 10)
Mitigate the displacement effect of new
residential development on existing
tenants
6th Cycle
Implemented - City will
comply with State law
SB330 which includes nonet loss of residential
protections.

Amend Zoning Ordinance
within one year of
Housing Element
adoption.

Lot Consolidation and
Multi-Family Development
(Program 11)
Develop tools to facilitate lot
consolidation and streamline
development within 12 months of
Housing Element adoption as outlined
in Program 16. Facilitate lot
consolidation on the 140 parcels
(comprising 36 sites) in the sites
inventory (Appendix B) to
accommodate a potential of 1,623 units.
6th Cycle
Allow flexability in
nonconformiing lot line
adjustments by
eliminating requirement
for minimum percentage
conformity [Ordinance
2081] --- Eliminated 1-acre
minimum lot size
requiremnt for mixed use
developments along
Route 66 and Arrow
Highway [Ordinance 2081]
Identify sites with
consolidation potential on
the inventory, assist
developers in identifying
sites available for
development, and
facilitate discussions
between interested
property owners and
developers. Continue to
process lot line
adjustments as
ministerial actions unless
other discretionary
decisions are required.

Facilitate the
consolidation of small
lots and encourage multifamily housing projects
by amending Zoning
Code within one year of
Housing Element
adoption to:
• Remove constraints for
lot line adjustments
(Action #17 of Program 16)
• Streamline development
review by increasing the
threshold of multi-family
project requiring a
Planning Commission
Density Bonus Ordinance
(Program 12) Not applicable 6th Cycle Completed (Ordinance No. 2090) 2024 • Revise the Zoning Code
to update density bonus
provisions consistent
with State law in 2022
(see Action #29 of
Program 15).
•Promote the use of
density bonus incentives
and provide technical
assistance to developers
in utilizing density bonus
provisions to maximize
feasibility and meet local
housing needs.

Objective Design
Standards (Program 13) Not applicable 6th Cycle
In progress with an
estimated completion
date of Fall 2025.

Complete object design
standards by June 2023.

Accessory Dwelling Units
(Program 14)
Facilitate the construction of 160 ADUs
over eight years. 6th Cycle Completed. (Ord. No. 2085
•Amend the ADU
ordinance by the end of
2022 to be consistent with
state law, including but
not limited to, eliminating
the limit on the number of
bedrooms.
•Develop incentives and
tools to facilitate ADU
construction by
December 2022.

Incentives may include:
-Pre-approved site/floor
plans;
-Expedited review; or
-Website information on
resources and technical
assistance.
•In 2024, monitor the ADU
development trend
annually to ensure
production is in line with
the estimate presented in
the Housing Element, this
includes monitoring of
affordability assumptions.

If production falls short of
estimate, by 2025
reassess the City’s sites
inventory for RHNA and
ensure adequate capacity
Housing for Special
Needs (Program 15) Not applicable 6th Cycle
Completed - Ordinance
2090
Revise the Zoning
Ordinance by the end of
2022.

Facilitate Housing
Production (Program 16)
Revise the code and programs to
facilitate housing
production and to promote economic
development consistent with
community expectations.
6th Cycle Of the 31 action items all
but 6 have been
completed (of remaining 2
are in progress).

There are 31 action items
related to this program
with varying timelines of 1-
2 years.

Fair Housing Program
(Program 17) Not applicable 6th Cycle Ongoing
•Promote and publicize
fair housing programs
and services on City
website and through
brochures at City Hall.
•Continue to contract with a qualified fair housing
service provider to
provide fair housing
services to residents.

Jurisdiction Glendora
Reporting
Period 2025
(Jan. 1 - Dec.

Planning 31)
Period 6th Cycle 10/15/2021 - 10/15/2029 ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation
2 3 4
APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Realistic
Capacity
Identified in
the Housing
Element
Entity to whom the site
transferred Intended Use for Site
8655-007-900,
8655-007-901,
8655-007-902,
8655-021-900
263 S San Jose Dr Heritage Walk PLN24-0045 21 Olson 41 single-family units approved, including 7 moderate income affordable units to be sold
1 Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Table G
Locally Owned Lands Included in the Housing Element Sites Inventory that have been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of Project Identifier
NOTE: This table must only be filled out if the housing element sites inventory contains a site which is or was owned by the reporting jurisdiction, and has been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of during the reporting
Jurisdiction Glendora
Reporting Year 2025 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
Total Award Amount Total award amount is auto-populated based on amounts entered in rows 15-26.

Task $ Amount Awarded $ Cumulative Reimbursement Requested Other Funding Notes
Housing Element (6th Cycle)
Update
$85,000.00 $85,000.00 None
Objective Design Standards and
Zoning Policy Updates
$40,000.00 $40,000.00 None
Conceptual Development Scenarios
and Site Analysis $15,000.00 $15,000.00 None
Grant Administration, Reporting,
and Reimbursement $10,000.00 $10,000.00 None
Summary of entitlements, building permits, and certificates of occupancy (auto-populated from Table A2) Current Year
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 15
Non-Deed Restricted 0
104
119
Current Year
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
90 90
Current Year
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
0 0
Moderate
Above Moderate
Total Units
Completed Entitlement Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate
Total Units
Building Permits Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
Very Low
Low
Acutely Low
Extremely Low
Total Units
Certificate of Occupancy Issued by Affordability Summary Income Level
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate
Administrative and reporting activities completed per LEAP requirements. Costs reimbursed through approved reimbursement requests.

Acutely Low
Extremely Low
Acutely Low
Extremely Low

ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Reporting
(CCR Title 25 §6202)
Task completed in accordance with approved LEAP scope. Analysis supported identification of housing capacity and development feasibility.

Please update the status of the proposed uses listed in the entity’s application for funding and the corresponding impact on housing within the region or jurisdiction, as applicable, categorized based on the eligible uses specified in Section 50515.02 or 50515.03, as applicable. $ 150,000.00
Task Status
Task completed in accordance with the approved LEAP scope and rescoping. Costs reimbursed through HCD-approved reimbursement requests. Activity supported Housing Element adoption and implementation.

Task completed per approved LEAP scope and rescoping. Work supported housing policy implementation and development standards.

ANNUAL GENERAL PLAN PROGRESS REPORT UPDATE AND

HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ANNUAL PROGRESS
REPORT

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 24, 2026

YALINI SIVA, SENIOR PLANNER

SUMMARY OF REQUESTS
• Receive and file the General Plan Annual Progress Report and the Housing Element Implementation Annual Progress Report.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
• California Government Code Section 65400 requires the City to submit a General Plan Annual Progress Report to the local legislative body (City Council), the Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI), and the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the status of the General Plan, its implementation progress, and how the City is meeting the region’s housing needs.

GENERAL PLAN
• Often referred to as the blueprint for the community and serves as the comprehensive, long-range plan that provides the framework for future physical growth and enhancement.
• Community Plan 2025 is made up of chapters called "elements." • Each element addresses a different topic and provides goals and policies related to that topic.
• All elements, except for the Housing Element, may be updated whenever deemed necessary.

GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS
Elements
Land Use (Updated 2006) Noise (Updated 2007)
Circulation (Updated 2007) Open Space and Recreation
(Updated 2007)
Housing (Updated in 2023) Air Quality (Updated 2007)
Conservation (Updated 2007) Historic Preservation (Updated 1999)
Safety (Updated October 2025)

GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
• Purpose of report is to provide an update on the City’s progress toward implementing policies and programs identified in the General Plan. • Update on housing units constructed in the past year. • HCD uses the annual progress report to track housing information, including the City’s progress toward accommodating its fair share of regional housing needs as identified through the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).

NOTABLE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: HOUSING
• Current Housing Element, 6th Cycle approved by City Council in 2022; approved by the State August 10, 2023.
• 16 housing programs addressing community housing needs according to 5 issue areas:
o Housing Conservation and Improvement
o Housing Assistance
o Provision of Adequate Housing Sites
o Removal of Governmental Constraints
o Promotion of Equal Housing Opportunity
NOTABLE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: HOUSING
• The Housing Element Implementation Progress Report Tables (Attachment B) contain a breakdown of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation progress:

Income Level
RHNA
Allocation
by Income
Level
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Total
Units to
Date
Acutely Low
Extremely Low 1 1
Very Low 735 1
Low 386 1 4 5
Moderate 388 3 5 5 13
Above Moderate 767 21 71 50 52 85 279
Totals 2,276 25 80 51 52 90 298
NOTABLE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: LAND USE
NOTABLE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: LAND USE
NOTABLE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: LAND USE
NOTABLE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: LAND USE
• Restaurant – 147 N. Glendora Avenue | In May 2025, the Planning Commission approved the sales of beer and wine at a restaurant within an existing structure on Glendora Avenue. Interior construction improvements and permits are currently underway.

NOTABLE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: CIRCULATION
• Glendora People Movement Project | The Glendora People Movement Project is a 10-mile build out of active transportation facilities across Glendora, including urban trails and first and last mile improvements.

NOTABLE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: CIRCULATION
• Metro A (Line light rail) – Glendora Station (Opened 2025) NOTABLE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: OPEN SPACE &

RECREATION
• Pour-In-Place Surfacing for South Hills Park, Ole Hammer Park, and Willow Springs Park | This City Park resurfacing project included resurfacing playground areas at three city parks using pour-in-place surfacing. This project advanced the City’s goal of updating all playgrounds with safer, more durable surfaces to replace rubber tire chunks. The new surfacing provides improved accessibility, reduced maintenance and debris, enhanced safety through impact-absorbing padding, and visually appeal. The project was completed in January 2025.

NEXT STEPS
• The General Plan Annual Progress Report and the Housing Element Implementation Annual Progress Report need to be submitted to the City Council prior to being filed with the State.
• Progress reports will be filed with the State (HCD and OPR) by April 1st, 2026.

RECOMMENDATION
• That the City Council:

1. Receive and file the General Plan Annual Progress Report and the Housing Element Implementation Annual Progress Report.

Glendora City CouncilMarch 24, 2026

Glendora City Council
March 24, 2026