Hundreds Oppose Proposal for Low-Income Housing : Planning: The city could lose federal funds if it doesn’t provide affordable housing. Residents say they fear overcrowding and crime.

A proposal to set aside land for future low-income housing in Glendora is being vehemently opposed by hundreds of residents.

The proposal, included in the city’s General Plan revision, represents a fraction of the 1,159 new structures designated for the city’s future land use and housing development. In fact, the controversial lower-priced units would be scattered within five development sites in the city that will contain much more expensive housing.

Two years ago, the City Council appointed a committee to update the General Plan. The panel completed the task in October and forwarded its recommendations to the Planning Commission.

Last week, more than 400 residents showed up at the city’s Bidwell Forum during each of the commission’s two public hearings on the plan. A third meeting on Monday, drew about 200.

The majority of the speakers argued that low-income housing would bring gangs, drug addicts and crime into the largely affluent city. They also voiced fears about school overcrowding and increased vehicular traffic.

The commission will vote on the plan Tuesday and send its recommendation to the City Council.

Stan Wong, Glendora’s director of planning and redevelopment, said the city is required by state law to make provisions for its regional fair share of affordable housing. That share is determined by the Southern California Assn. of Governments, or SCAG, a regional planning agency.

Paul Kranhold, assistant director of the state Department of Housing and Community Development, explained that the law requires local governments to develop adequate affordable housing, based on their county’s rate of growth, median income and housing costs.

About 72% of local governments--including Glendora--do not meet state housing goals, Kranhold said. And the only way the state can enforce the law, he said, is to withhold federal funding.

Counties and cities are competing for $160 million in federal funds mandated for low- and moderate-income housing that California will receive this year, Kranhold said. The state considers the governments’ affordable housing records when distributing the monies, he said.

Based on 1990 Census statistics, Glendora has room to build affordable housing for low- and very-low-income families because overcrowding was found in 4% of the city’s single-family homes and in 10.4% of its apartment units, he said.

A family whose salary is 50% or less of Los Angeles County’s median income is defined as very low by the state, and low is classified as 80% or less of the median. The current median income in the county is $42,000. The median value of homes in Glendora is $231,000.

As a result, Glendora has until 1994 to provide 146 structures for the very-low income and 192 for low income, or not get the federal funds, city planning officials said.

Wong said the state could also slap the city with a moratorium, prohibiting it from issuing building permits for any new dwellings. The state could also dictate where affordable housing units would be built in the city, he said.

And low-income housing advocates, or developers (who have an incentive to build such housing) could sue the city if the plan is rejected, said Fernando Del Rio, spokesman for SCAG.

The Planning Commission’s proposal would allow developers to build 25% more homes at the going market rate as an incentive--if they build 20% low-income and 10% very-low-income units in their projects. Tenants of such units would be charged 30% of their income in rent.

The five parcels designated for affordable housing in Glendora are mostly vacant, ranging in size from 3.6 acres to 15 acres. They are located on Alosta Avenue, west of Inola Street; the northwest corner of Alosta and Amelia avenues; an area south of Galatea Street, east of Drendel School; a site north of Gladstone Street, between Valley Center Avenue and Lone Hill Avenue, and a parcel at the northwest corner of Gladstone Street and Grand Avenue.

Last week, at the request of Rain Bird Sprinkler Manufacturing Corp., the commission voted to keep a 27-acre parcel owned by the firm on North Grand Avenue zoned as light industrial instead of allocating it for a proposed senior citizen housing project.

Earlier, the Monrovia Nursery Co. agreed not to build affordable housing on its 37-acre Glendora parcel north of Foothill Boulevard. The nursery and Lewis homes have plans to develop more than 600 acres of prime land owned by the nursery in Azusa, Glendora and unincorporated territory.

Some of the 23 residents who spoke during Monday’s hearing maintained that the city was trying to dump affordable housing in south Glendora, while the hillsides were reserved for luxury housing.

“Why put the garbage in our area?” asked Leroy Edgin. “We’ve had enough dumped in our area. Why not put it in north Glendora?”

“I don’t want low-income, high-density jammed into tiny properties,” said Dana Johnson. “Put them on the nursery and Rain Bird.”

David Hall suggested that some of the land could be used to build another grammar school and a park.

Robert Foth received heavy applause when he said most residents moved to Glendora because it has an excellent school system, a low crime rate, and is an ideal place to raise a family.

Foth and others threatened to move out of the city if low-income housing is built.

“I would cut my losses and move to a community where government puts the community first,” he said. “I demand that you vote with the people and vote no (on the proposal).”

Dottie McLachlan said she has lived in Glendora for 26 years. She said the city cannot take more traffic and therefore she opposes further development of any kind.

“I will sell my house and move if this goes in,” she said.

Planning commissioners and staff members declined to give their opinions on the matter. But some expressed concern for the residents’ rights.

Commission Chairman Dale Colby said the city has to address the need for affordable housing, but there should be a combination of solutions. On Monday night he asked the audience for suggestions.

Commissioner Bob Odell, who was absent Monday, said last week that he is an advocate of private property rights.

“Some residents have been paying property taxes for 20 or 40 years,” he said. “You have to be careful and considerate of their wishes.”

Wong said he is aware of residents’ concerned about housing density. But, he explained, the purpose of designating locations within various development sites for affordable housing is to keep from creating a ghetto.