Glendora planning commission signs off on RFP feedback for 'Glendora 2050,' presses for robust parking study

The Glendora Planning Commission on the evening reviewed a draft request for proposals (RFP) to begin a comprehensive general-plan update, tentatively called "Glendora 2050," and voted to forward the commission’s feedback to staff for incorporation into the final RFP and subsequent contract process. Commissioner Koss made the motion to forward comments; Commissioner Jarvey seconded and the motion carried.

Staff presenter Hans said the RFP frames a multiyear update to 2050 that will include a program-level environmental impact report, 14 coordinated tasks (project initiation through implementation), and an explicit public-engagement program. "This is not an approval tonight. We're asking for a contract. It's not a budget item tonight," Hans said, describing the RFP as a planning framework rather than a policy adoption.

Hans told commissioners the solicitation will be posted through the city's Quest procurement portal and evaluated with a matrix; finalists will be interviewed and the recommended contract will return to the City Council for final award. He said the city expects to pay primarily from the General Plan maintenance fund, which is replenished by development fees and which staff estimated currently holds "something over $1,000,000." Hans added that proposals will include costs, contingencies and standard contract negotiation steps.

Commissioners repeatedly urged staff to expand the RFP's parking work into a comprehensive, citywide analysis. "There's a lot in parking, especially when ADUs don't require parking," Commissioner Davis said, pressing staff to examine residential, commercial and overnight parking impacts as well as spillover onto city streets. Commissioner Faber pointed to the RFP language on page 12 and asked that the city strengthen that section to cover on- and off-street parking and management strategies across land uses.

Mark Carnahan, the city planner who earlier reported on development activity, outlined near-term projects that informed commissioners' concerns about capacity, parking and infrastructure: staff reported five new applications last month, including a 163‑dwelling redevelopment at 1134 S. Barranca (136 townhomes and 27 single-family homes), two faux‑pine wireless cell sites requiring conditional use permits, a time-extension request for a previously approved 19‑unit apartment on Arrow Highway, and a proposed Dutch Brothers at 725 S. Grand with a drive‑through.

Commissioners also pressed staff on procedural timing and scope. Hans described a likely schedule: proposals due in late summer, interviews and scoring in the fall, and a contract award returned to council by year’s end or early next year. He said the RFP requests separate quotes for zoning-implementation work (option A: zoning consistency analysis; option B: a more extensive zoning-code rewrite) so the city can decide whether to bundle that work with the general-plan contract or pursue it separately.

The commission made several requests for clarifications and additions to the RFP that staff agreed to pursue, including clearer language on parking studies, more explicit procurement and evaluation details in the scoring matrix, and follow-up on how state laws (discussed earlier in the meeting) affect local height and density standards in station-area zones. The commission’s formal motion directed staff to compile the commission’s feedback and incorporate it into the RFP for the selection process.

The next step is for staff to revise the draft RFP to reflect the commission’s input, publish the RFP through Quest, and return the consultant selection and contract for City Council approval when a winning proposer is identified.