3 Mountain Views-News Saturday, July 9, 2022 CONVERSATIONS.......THE MEADOWS 3 Mountain Views-News Saturday, July 9, 2022 CONVERSATIONS.......THE MEADOWS
WATER CRISIS AND WHAT
ARE WE DOING ABOUT IT
THE SIMPLE SOLUTION TO
CALIFORNIA’S WATER CRISIS
You can’t pick up a paper or listen to the news
without hearing about the drought that has
been affecting us for a number of years. Don’t
take our word for it. Here’s what’s been reported
recently about our water crisis.
The West has been suffering through an acute drought since 2020, part of a mega drought
that began in 2000. The last 20 years have been the driest two decades in the last 1,200
years. This year is so far the driest on record in California.
Maintaining “critical levels” at the largest reservoirs in the United States - Lake Mead and
Lake Powell — will require large reductions in water deliveries.
https://news.yahoo.com/moment-of-reckoning-federal-official-warns-of-colorado-riverwater-
supply-cuts-171955277.html
Nearly three-quarters of the Western region is in a state of severe to exceptional drought.
Meanwhile, states like California have instituted water restrictions, though water consumption
has continued to rise.
With water already becoming more scarce, the increasing population in the West — and
therefore demand for water — has inflamed the situation.
One of the most far-reaching questions in the United States over the coming decades is
whether growth trends will ultimately collide with nature’s ability to sustain such a large
influx of people, Daniel Newman, the report's author, wrote.
Fire and water
And, unfortunately, doling out water supplies isn't the only issue residents have to contend
with.
Suburban neighbourhoods sprawling out into more rural areas are creating a more substantial
wild-urban interface at the same time as the wildfire season creeps earlier and
longer.
The current water crisis “underscores the need to prepare communities for wildfire, because
when these large emergency incidents occur what we end up having to do is use a ton
of water in an already water-scarce environment to suppress wildfires.”
‘We don’t have enough water supplies right now to meet normal demand. The water is not
there’, a Metropolitan Water District spokesperson said. January, February and March of
this year were the driest three months in recorded state history in terms of rainfall and
snowfall. The Metropolitan Water District said 2020 and 2021 had the least rainfall on
record for two consecutive years. In addition, Lake Oroville, the State Water Project’s main
reservoir, reached its lowest point last year since being filled in the 1970s.
Record dry conditions have strained the system, lowering reservoir levels, and the State
Water Project – which gets its water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta – has
estimated it will only be able to deliver about 5% of its usual allocation this year.
Governor Gavin Newsom has asked people to voluntarily reduce their water consumption
by 20%, but so far residents have been slow to meet that goal.
Just because there is an inch of undeveloped land and the possibility of another dollar in
the pockets of the city, it doesn't mean it has to be built on. Too many people, too much
traffic, too much pollution, not enough water. Stop building now!
https://news.yahoo.com/simple-solution-californias-water-shortage-225907389.html
CITIZENS FOR TRUTH
We Sierra Madreans got a letter Saturday that said "As drought conditions worsen, the
Governor is calling on all Californians to reduce their water use by 20%." What followed
were new water restrictions after Governor Newsom instituted an Emergency Drought
Declaration on June 10. KNX "the 24 hour news channel" has daily information about the
drought, which is worsening. The headline on the front page of last Saturday's LA Times
read Where Money Flows During Drought. A Microeconomy spring forth as state's residents
deal with water restrictions." People desperate for any water are searching for any
source, including – a call to Underwood Water Trucks (which supplies water for special effects
and fire safety) “…We don’t have water, can you come park your truck here so we can
shower?” That is just one of the many calls they are getting. The Wildfire Defense System’s
Chief Executive David Torgerson estimates there will be 100 wildfires in California with
10,000 homes threatened this year, up from 52 wild fires last year.
In last Tuesday's ridiculously long meeting (2 minutes short of 6 1/2 hours), the most important
City Council agenda item was beginning at 11:20 pm. Water Superintendent Steven
McGee gave the report, with the focus seeming to be whether we need a water moratorium.
The City needs 2500 acre feet of water, and we have 3440 acre feet for fiscal year
2022-2023. It would appear that we have enough water for the rest of this year, and to last
through the projected drought for the next three years. However - only 940 acre feet of our
water supply come from our Raymond basin, and the rest is from State water, and from the
Colorado River. We know the Colorado River is at least partially the source of water for
several western states and is at an all time low.
Yet, our City lawyer Aleks Giragosian's analysis of the Water Report stated that the City has
sufficient water supply, infrastructure and capacity to meet unconstrained and projected
water demands. "For the reasons stated above (in the report) the City of Sierra Madre cannot
lawfully impose a water moratorium." And yet fiscal year 2022-2023 is projected to
be the third year of a five year drought. Mr. Giragosian also explained that because of the
SB 330 a moratorium cannot be adopted for a development, and just because we all have
brown lawns and dying trees, the lack of water must be a threat to public health. Okay, so
no moratorium, at least in the immediate future.
However -Council Member Parkhurst asked City Manager Reynoso if our 2500 acre feet
of water is at risk, especially what we obtain from the Colorado River via the San Gabriel
Valley Metropolitan Water District, and the City Manager admitted that it is. The water usage
at our public parks has already been reduced. We are at Stage 2 reduction, with a likely
possibility of going to Stage 3 next year, or possibly greater. Mr. Reynoso commented that
education of the public is the most important aspect of water conservation. Public Comment
was called for in the nearly deserted chambers at 11:35 pm. We definitely had several
questions, that may or may not get answered in the future.
Apparently we, the public, are expected and required to educate ourselves on ways to save
water while New Urban West forges ahead with their plans to build 42 oversized houses
on miniscule lots, which will take at least 100,000 gallons per house just to build. Add to
that the destruction of 101 mature trees. The Specific Plan calls for planting of new trees
- which will require large amounts of water just to keep those saplings alive. The Specific
Plan also calls for net zero water, with New Urban West claiming that the City does not
have to supply and pay for water for these 42 homes for the next 50 years. We were skeptical
two years ago, and conditions have greatly worsened since then.
No water moratorium on the horizon, even with our apparently "magical" Raymond basin
water, but that is just one reason of why this Meadows project on the Monastery property
is so wrong for Sierra Madre.
STAY SAFE!
GET VACCINATED
AND BOOSTED!
WEAR A MASK!
HOW WILL YOU “PROTECT
SIERRA MADRE” WITH LIES?
Sierra Madre Neighbors for Fairness is made up of
15+ Sierra Madreans, yet again, we are referred to
as the “mouthpiece” of New Urban West. As former
Citizens of the Year, Older American of the
Year, Volunteer Firefighter, Scout Troop leader,
Little League coach, Woman of the Year, Commission
and committee members, and volunteers
in many Civic Organizations, we take offense at
this. Have you ever seen us promote the Meadows
project? I doubt it. We support reasonable development,
write our own articles, and decide how
we will respond to the lies we see that are hurting
the Passionists.
Do you get Protect Sierra Madre-STOP Housing
Project’s (PSMSHP) emails? Let’s look at the
misinformation they spread just this week. Once
again, they referred to the old maximum home
size of 4,700 sq. ft., despite the developer agreeing
to 3,775 sq. ft. over a month ago. They also refer
to lot sizes “up to 7,900 sq. ft.” when actually the
minimum lot size is 7,800 and goes up to 21,311,
with an average is 9,532.
Next they say that New Urban West wants the
Planning Commission to “rubber stamp this project”.
No, they asked that the Planning Commission
make a formal resolution with all the changes
they want and to send that to the City Council.
That is the Planning Commission’s job, they do
not approve or deny the project, the City Council
does. Then we have PSMSHP saying the EIR is
“extremely flawed” and that it does not capture the
negative impacts of the project, despite the City
Attorney saying it has what it needs.
Once again, PSMSHP complains about traffic,
huge McMansions, building in a Very High Fire
Severity Zone, expanding Carter, wildlife displacement,
cutting down over 100 trees, and they
say they will “STOP the Destroyed Meadows”
without telling anyone that under their initiative
to rezone the property to a residential zone that
the same things can happen and the Meadow will
still be destroyed, but this time with homes up to
6,500 sq. ft. True mansions. They also don’t tell
you that under their initiative you will be giving
up the three acre public park, 35 acres placed in
conservancy, and net-zero water offsets.
PSMSHP loves to talk about how New Urban West
invites “out of town supporters to come out,” while
they tell their own supporters to “bring neighbors,
friends, anyone who cares about Sierra Madre.”
How is that different to anyone but a hypocrite?
Despite complaining about our ads in the newspaper
they don’t even seem to know that we are “Sierra
Madre Neighbors for Fairness” and not “Citizens
for Fairness.” And like usual, they accuse us
of spreading misinformation again without saying
what that specifically is.
Do we even know who the bad actors are? We
can’t find a single name on the Stop the Housing
Project website. With no accountability it is easy
to spread lies. We would like to see the credentials
of those who keep telling us how uncommitted we
are to this city. What we do know is there are three
neighbors of the Monastery who created the ballot
initiative and have raised tens of thousands of
dollars for their cause. What they don’t tell you is
that they are not saving the meadow, won’t stop
homes from being built, won’t save water, will still
displace wildlife, and they won’t save 101 trees…
oh, but for all that they are willing to trade away all
the Passionist’s religious development rights.
It doesn’t matter what your motivations are, we
believe supporting PSMSHP means you are supporting
spreading misinformation and violating
the religious rights of the Passionists. We are fighting
against this in the name of fairness. www.Si-
erraMadreNeighborsForFairness.org
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Dear Editor:
I didn’t intend to get into a back-and-forth on
this, but I appreciated how the exchange in last
week’s paper regarding the Meadows project focused
on the problem of misinformation, and the
importance of facts.
Robert Gjerde confronts claims made in flyers
from Protect Sierra Madre; their wanting to
save the “natural beauty and tranquility of the
meadow”, “wildlife and nesting habitats”, “quiet
solitude of the neighborhood”, “scenic vista” and
“last remaining parcel of land” - and tells us,
“That is a lie”. Well - okay, then.
In the column from Neighbors for Fairness
(for the record - I’m a neighbor and I support
fairness), they complain the initiative targets “a
single institutional property . . . that applies to no
other institution in the city”. But I know of no
other “institution in the city” that’s proposing a
development of 42 McMansions on our hillside.
True, “The Mater Dolorosa Retreat Center is
not a residential development” and “should not
be subject to the rules of a residential zone”, but
the “residential development” they’re proposing
should indeed be subject to those “rules of a residential
zone”.
In responding to my letter from the week before,
they ask, “Where have we . . . said opposing
the Meadows project is religious discrimination?”
And then (a couple lines down) they
respond to Ms. Beckham’s editorial by accusing
her of “effectively engaging in religious discrimination”.
No, I don’t want to “control” “someone
else’s private property”. That’s the city’s job, and
it’s why we have zoning ordinances.
If the initiative were to pass, they’d still be able
to build houses and yes, Hillside Management
zoning does allow construction up to 6,500 sq
ft. (But to be in compliance, a house that size
would have to sit on its own full-acre lot.) If the
Passionists and New Urban West simply agreed
to comply with our Hillside zoning restrictions,
there’d be no conflict, no threatened lawsuits;
they could still build houses – big ones – and still
Dear Editor:
“Oh, what tangled web we weave. . . .” You know
the rest. It seems the Stop the Housing Project
(STOP) and Preserve Sierra Madre (PSM)
groups are weaving a lot of information into a
tangled web that we are all supposed to believe as
truth. The truth is, these groups have been fighting
development on the Mater Dolorosa property
long before a project was even submitted. Now
they are trying to circumvent the due process of
having a project fairly considered and either approved
or disapproved by the City Council.
Here is a little history, the Mountain Views News
first published an article in 2013 that disclosed
the plan by Mater Dolorosa Retreat Center to develop
“ ’low-density housing units’ on the lower
(southern) portion of the property”.
In 2013, in response that that news, a coalition
was formed by the neighbors on the west side of
the property and at the top of Sunnyside, called
“Stop the Monastery Housing Project”. You can
still see those yard signs today and their “Preserve
Mater Dolorosa and our quality of life” signs.
Out of eight proposals, in May of 2014, the Passionists
chose New Urban West as the developer
to come up with a project that would fit into their
desire to preserve the solitude of the Retreat Center
and still be economically viable.
Within a few months, the city had quickly passed
a water meter moratorium that halted any plans.
Stop the Monastery Development became Preserve
Sierra Madre and there was a lull in opposing
a project. In the meantime, the city created
a new General Plan which removed the longstanding
option to reuse the property for low-
density residential. After the moratorium was
lifted in February 2020, things picked up again.
PSM was neutral on the project until more details
became available. The west side neighbors
reorganized as STOP and realized they could
stop both institutional development and the proposed
Meadows project with an initiative to rezone
the property to Hillside Residential. This
created the crux of the Initiative which is to be on
the ballot in November.
make themselves a lot of money. But they’re unwilling
to do so.
Instead, they’re spending a lot of money and
dragging us through this ordeal just so they won’t
have to comply with restrictions that are there for
a reason – restrictions that would apply to anyone
else. Here’s how the Hillside Management
Zone in our Municipal Code begins with its Purpose
(for the rest, search “Sierra Madre Chapter
17.52- H”) – and I’m wondering what there is
here that New Urban West has a problem with:
“A. Protect the natural environment of hillside
areas from change by preserving and protecting
the views to and from hillside areas in the city to
maintain the identity, image and environmental
quality of the city;
B. Maintain an environmental equilibrium
consistent with the native vegetation, animal
life, geology, slopes, and drainage patterns;
C. Facilitate hillside preservation through the
development standards and guidelines set forth
in this chapter; to direct and encourage development
that is sensitive to the unique characteristics
of the hillside areas in the city, which include,
but are not limited to, slopes, land forms,
vegetation and scenic quality . . .”
It all boils down to the developer’s refusal to
proceed under our Hillside zoning restrictions –
what the initiative calls for – regardless of the cost
to our community. As I see it, they should let us
know specifically what it is in these restrictions
they can’t accept and why they’re so determined
to reject them. Simply insisting they should be
exempt from our rules doesn’t help.
They also complain about my having expressed
“love about the city without saying what that
was”. With the column unsigned, I can’t imagine
that anyone who lives here would need an explanation.
For those who don’t understand the love
we have for Sierra Madre –
“If you don’t know what it is, don’t mess with it.”
- Fats Waller
Howard Hays, Sierra Madre
Through a joint Memorandum of Understanding
which was requested by the City, the Passionists
agreed to give a number of concessions to benefit
the city worth many millions of dollars. As a
result, a comprehensive project was presented to
the city, including an increase in the gross floor
area in exchange for the concessions. All of this
is at risk now with the initiative, which will not
only allow homes to be developed on the southern
portion of the property but also where the
Retreat Center is. The initiative will monetize
and incentivize the entire property for residential
development.
So, here we are, with the Passionists facing a
forced rezoning that will strip them of their religious
institutional development rights, disallowing
any future expansion or significant physical
alteration or change of use of their existing buildings.
Plus the opponents engage in ad hominem
attacks by calling the Passionists a “bad neighbor”
for following the legal process of a Specific
Plan to develop a low-density residential project,
an explicit right that they had up until seven
years ago.
We agree, that no one should be subjected to
misinformation. So, how about telling all of the
truth about what is being taken away from the
Passionists and the impact on their property.
How about not weaving half-truths and misinformation
by telling residents they will not lose
their wildlife, tranquility of the meadow, less
traffic, and no McMansions under the initiative
when in reality the entire property can be developed
with mansions up to 6,500 sq. ft. in size. If
the initiative passes the Passionists will be faced
with a choice, either sue the city or sell the entire
property to a developer who can build 30+ 6,500
sq. ft. homes with almost no oversight. The citizens
of Sierra Madre deserve to know the truth.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we
practice to deceive.” –Sir Walter Scott.
De and Pat Alcorn, approaching five decades in
Sierra Madre
Catch breaking news at:
mtnviewsnews.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
|