Glendora Votes to Bar Taller Houses

For the second time in a year, voters this week spurned the advice of established community leaders and supported Glendora Pride, the city’s slow-growth group.

The issue on the ballot Tuesday was City Ordinance No. 1530, which would have raised the maximum height for two-story homes in some areas from 25 to 30 feet, and would have permitted heights of 35 feet with City Council approval.

Voters overwhelmingly rejected the ordinance, with 4,172, or 68.8%, voting “no” on the referendum and 1,889, or 31.2%, voting for it. The ordinance was defeated in all 22 precincts, losing by more than a 4-1 margin in some areas.

The council narrowly approved the ordinance last August, but Glendora Pride--asserting that the measure would lead to overdevelopment of the city’s hillsides--gathered more than 3,000 signatures of voters demanding a referendum.

Under the slogan “Save the Foothills,” Pride members warned that the ordinance would allow developers to blot hillsides with massive, ostentatious homes. Proponents of the ordinance, led by a group called Glendora’s Future, accused Pride of distorting the issues in the campaign. They secured endorsements from the city’s five living former mayors.

“I think the council should realize that the people are beginning to speak out on what they want their community to look like,” said Glendora Pride member David Bodley, who defeated a longtime incumbent to win a seat on the City Council last year. “This is the democratic process. This is the second time we’ve seen it work in the past year, and there will be more.”

Proponents of the ordinance said the outcome did not indicate a groundswell of support for Pride’s slow-growth agenda, but merely proved the effectiveness of deceptive campaigning. The ordinance focused on heights of houses, they said, not the future of the foothills.

“We’re sorry the referendum went the way it did,” said Dick Tunison, in a prepared statement on behalf of Glendora’s Future. “We wish it had been better-understood by the voters. We tried to conduct our campaign on the facts and not on innuendoes and emotional hype, but it didn’t work.”

Norm Nichols, vice president of Glendora’s Future, said Pride may have won the election with just three words. “Anytime you say ‘save the foothills’ around here, you’re going to have people standing in line behind you,” he said. “They made it a very emotional thing.”

Darlene Avina, who co-chairs Glendora Pride, said claims that the organization distorted the issue were insulting to voters. “I think they should give the people more credit for knowing what they want and understanding what they read,” she said.

Jack E. Mason, who opposed the ordinance, said Tuesday’s outcome bodes well for Glendora Pride’s chances in next April’s City Council election. Three of the five council seats are at stake, and Pride members said the group plans to run a full slate of candidates.

“The people are saying they want some control in how their city operates,” Mason said. “They think two or three of the City Council members aren’t listening to them anymore, that they’re only listening to developers and special interests.”