3 Mountain Views-News Saturday, June 4, 2022 CONVERSATIONS.......THE MEADOWS 3 Mountain Views-News Saturday, June 4, 2022 CONVERSATIONS.......THE MEADOWS
Editorial
HOW DISAGREEMENT BECAME “DISINFORMATION”
Author Barton Swaim discussing the recent proposal for a Disinformation Governance
Board* brought to my mind the issue of the Meadows project. What if
disagreement about the proposed project became the Stop the Housing Project
(STOP) group’s drive of disinformation? As Mr. Swaim wrote in one part of his
op-ed, “Sound policy … was a matter of gathering enough data and following
it. But of course, you can’t follow data…” “Data just sits there and waits to be
interpreted.”
The STOP group writes that “the MOU should have never been approved during
the onset of the global pandemic because there was no opportunity for residents
to be appraised and provide input.” But that’s not the case. City Manager Engeland
and two councilmembers met with Matt Bryant, the organizer of Preserve
Sierra Madre (PSM), and me, then PSM Steering Committee Chairman, in late
January of 2020 advising of the Monastery’s intent to file for a zoning change
for a development project. Another meeting was held with Bryant, myself, and
Engeland on February 6, 2020, advising us of the intent to negotiate an MOU.
PSM sent out letters advising their group of the process and also sent to the then
City Manager Engeland a series of questions about the project. Those questions
and answers were published in the Mountain Views News, unedited.
The City Council reviewed the MOU at their March 24, 2020 meeting, which
included time for the public to comment. They also jointly held meetings with
New Urban West for the public, with opportunities for questions and answers,
on March 10 and April 20, 2020, so even during the pandemic opportunity was
given to get information.
Now, Stop and PSM have looked at the data in the Final EIR and proclaimed
that the report was “faulty.” They say the “experts” who wrote the report were
biased. The EIR, in their view, was not fact and their interpretation of data followed
their logic. For example, the traffic study which reported the impact as
“less than significant” by the experts became STOP’s interpretation that traffic
would double. Really? Is that what the Traffic Study indicates? That “traffic in
Sierra Madre will more than double with this development.” Again, disinformation
follows their interpretation.
In the two groups’ zeal to stall and stop the development, they claim the Initiative
to change the zoning from Institutional to Hillside Residential would save
water, protect wildlife, and preserve the “last open space available in town.” This
is also a false narrative since under the Initiative houses can still be built in that
space and wildlife as it is now will be disrupted by a new subdivision. Those larger
lots with fewer houses would use as much or more water than the 42 planned
homes due to the additional landscaping, larger houses, and not to mention the
State’s recent mandates to allow ADUs and lot splits that could quadruple the
number of homes allowed in the Hillside Residential zone.
In circulating STOP’s Initiative to change the zoning of the Mater Dolorosa
property, the individuals circulating the petition told prospective signers that
the Initiative would change the zoning of the 20 acres proposed for housing.
PSM reiterated that fact in an email to their list of supporters. They neglected
to tell the signers and in their emails that the Initiative would change the entire
property owned by the Passionists. In fact, the Retreat Center would be included
in Hillside Zoning and would be frozen in its form and prohibited from
any change of use or future Institutional development. Disagreeing with the
proposed project turned into disinformation.
Pat Alcorn, Sierra Madre Neighbors for Fairness*WSJ May 14, 2022
STAY SAFE!
GET VACCINATED
AND BOOSTED!
WEAR A MASK!
FACTS MATTER, BUT THEY ARE NOT
AS EXCITING AS LIES
If you’ve been following the Meadows project discussions
then you might start to feel that the hyperbole
is getting old.
Consider the often repeated catch-phrase used by
Protect Sierra Madre (PSM): “Destroyed Meadows
at Bailey Canyon.” Is their concern really that the
“meadow” will be destroyed when their own initiative’s
zoning change will allow 32 homes to be
built on the property, plus there will be no three
acre park for public use? They obviously are not
concerned about open space and public enjoyment
of the property.
Or how about the claim that the developer wants
to “override and circumvent” our General Plan
and ordinances. The applicant is using the process
they were told to use by the City Council in 2015
to amend the General Plan and City’s ordinances.
Whatever the City Council approves will be in
conformance with the City’s General Plan and
codes because it will be a part of them.
Then there is the accusation that the Planning
Commission is “silencing” the public for closing
public comments at subsequent meetings on the
continued agenda item. According to Chaffee v.
San Francisco Library, public bodies are under
no obligation to reopen public comments because
doing so would cause a “surplusage.” Yet Planning
Commissioner Pevsner still gets disrespected and
derided before every meeting over this issue. Now
the “opposition” groups are overtly planning on
co-opting the Community Input time to use as a
proxy for commenting on an agenda item when
the agenda clearly states that this time is for items
NOT on the agenda.
The project applicant is constantly under fire for
following the standard process for a development
project. An applicant gets as much time as they
reasonably need to present their project. The PSM
group seems to think the applicant should only
have three minutes of speaking time! This is absurd
and they must know they are being unreasonable
yet they continue to push this ridiculous
narrative. PSM also seems to think the applicant
is deliberating with the public. They are not. The
Planning Commission is the legislative body making
the decisions. The public gets to comment and
not argue specific points.
It is also claimed that the applicant is “pushing
through a flawed EIR.” The EIR serves one main
purpose which is to identify impacts from a project.
It is ultimately up to the City Council to decide
how to address any impacts. Public comments are
allowed after the draft EIR to make sure the final
EIR addresses all the impacts. It doesn’t matter if a
few minor items were added between the draft and
final EIR as long as they are in the final version.
Lastly, there are the lies about our group, Sierra
Madre Neighbors for Fairness, and how we are a
“mouthpiece” for the applicant. It should be noted
that we are not promoting the Meadows project.
We are fighting the misinformation that is being
spread to try and convince people to pass an initiative
which will strip the existing property rights
of the Passionists. We will use whatever resources
are available to us in our fight. Our steering committee
(our website lists the members) is made up
of residents that represent well over 500 years of
living in Sierra Madre. We are just as much a part
of this city as the Preserve/Protect Sierra Madre
groups and they know this.
We clearly point out lies and misinformation
when we see them, but notice that the accusations
against us are vague references. This is just another
example of how the P/PSM groups are being unreasonable
in the discussions. We know that lies
are often more compelling in the short term, but
we will move forward with the facts. We invite anyone
who thinks we are spreading misinformation
to provide specific quotes so that we can properly
address them. What is asserted without evidence
gets dismissed without evidence.
Jim and Martha Walsworth www.sierramadreneighborsforfairness.
org
DON’T GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE
Preserve Sierra Madre is an advocacy coalition of Sierra
Madre residents dedicated to preserving the unique and
eclectic character of our little village in the Foothills.
First formed in 1977 as the Homeowners & Residents Association,
members were called Friends of Sierra Madre
in 1998 with a name change in 2001 to Residents for
Preservation of Sierra Madre. For many years now we
have been known as Preserve Sierra Madre. We still have
members who were part of the original group back in 1977.
Preserve Sierra Madre is not anti-development; in fact, we encourage and support responsible development
that complies with the goals of the City’s General Plan and building codes. Sierra Madre is also
a Tree City USA and a Wildlife Sanctuary City, and both groups need support from the community.
Preserve Sierra Madre welcomes residents who are interested in receiving our newsletters. We seek the
facts and transparency with what affects our little community. Your input regarding our newsletters are
important to preserving our little village in the Foothills.
Please visit us @ https://www.preservesierramadre.com
Mountain Views News 80 W Sierra Madre Blvd. No. 327 Sierra Madre, Ca. 91024 Office: 626.355.2737 Fax: 626.609.3285
Email: editor@mtnviewsnews.com Website: www.mtnviewsnews.com
|