CONVERSATIONS....THE MEADOWS 3 Mountain Views-News Saturday, August 13, 2022 CONVERSATIONS....THE MEADOWS 3 Mountain Views-News Saturday, August 13, 2022
BAILEY CANYON
WILDERNESS
PARK IS NOT AN
AMENITY
An amenity is a feature that increases
the attractiveness or value of a piece
of real estate, and is used as part of a
sophisticated marketing strategy to attract potential buyers.
It is disturbing to hear talk of linking the Meadows 42 unit housing project to Bailey
Canyon Wilderness Park. The developer, New Urban West, is proposing to cut
through existing fence to create easy access for future Meadows residents to the
Wilderness Park. This misguided, self-serving proposal should be quashed
immediately.
The City promotes its status as a Wildlife Sanctuary and hosts Earth Day and other
public opportunities for residents to learn more about the Wildlife Urban Interface,
which describes homes built next to open space. Living in this area brings challenges
and a responsibility to preserve the delicate balance between the habitats of
wild animals and human residents. Organizations representing the Angeles National
Forest, State Parks, and Fish and Wildlife speak to this on a regular basis. ‘’Species
abundance and biological diversity suffer noticeably from development impacts,
requiring increased management actions’’. Despite promot-ing Sierra Madre as a
Wildlife Sanctuary, the City doesn’t speak up and challenge an action so contrary to
the messages from these agencies. The City that is charged with protecting the well
being of both its future citizens and the wildlife that live in the canyon.
There should be no other pedestrian entrance to Bailey Canyon Wilderness Park
other than the existing one on Carter Avenue. This entrance is open from dawn to
dusk when it is locked by the Sierra Madre Police Department for the protection and
safety of the public and the wildlife who lives there. This arrangement has been in
place for many years and has all but eliminated the potentially dangerous interactions
that can occur. This is their home – not ours- and we need to respect their
space to prevent problems.
Weather conditions can also cause the park to be closed. Tragically, in 1994, a father
and son were swept away and killed in a debris flow in Bailey Canyon. The Police
Department exercises control over the park and will close it when conditions warrant
preventing another tragedy.
A ‘’secondary’’ pedestrian entrance from the Meadows development would interfere
with the City’s ability to protect the public from dangers they may not be aware of.
This is not a municipal park with people smoking, drinking, playing boom boxes
and walking their pets off leash –all potentially destructive behaviours in a wilderness
park. Noise and human disturbance can drive away all but the most adaptable
wildlife. Losing just one species affects the relationship between other animals and
plants and can seriously upset the balance of the nat-ural ecosystem.
Respect Bailey Canyon Wilderness Park for what it is, and always has been, and leave
it be. It is an opportunity, as well as a privilege, for us to step away from our daily
routine and enter the natural world of native plants and animals living their lives as
part of a long established ecosystem.
It is an irreplaceable asset to the community and to the many hikers, walkers and
school chil-dren who recognize it as the special place it is.
Leave it be.
CITIZENS FOR TRUTH
MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE LAWYER
We have wondered all along who our city lawyer is really working for, since he is
corroborating and supporting developer New Urban West. A major issue that was
discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting on August 4 was regarding the
widening of Carter Avenue adjacent to Bailey Canyon Park.
New Urban West seems to think it is no problem that Carter needs to be widened. If
you have followed The Meadows controversy, you know that building in a very severe
high fire zone absolutely needs two ways in and out (regardless of what our own Fire
Chief says). So what does NUW representative Jonathan Frankel say? If the developer
can’t get approval to widen Carter, then the City can apply to the County. If the
City can’t get approval either, then they will merely pay a fine (apparently amount to
be determined). What we would like to know is when (not if) a fire breaks out, what
good will money do?
Commissioner Hutt asked, “Why do we think the City will have better luck than the
applicant?” To which our City lawyer, Aleks Giragosian responded that ‘the City
could use its existing connections with the County.’”
The previous City Manager is alleged to have exercised his connections with the
County on behalf of the developer. The City, County, and the developer had at least
one meeting about the proposed widening, and both the Developer and the City
Manager were rebuffed.
Vincent Gonzalez was copied on the email in which the County told them to “call
back in 5 years,” so he and Mr. Frankel are aware of the fact that the City does not
have any special connections to the County that would allow them to bypass the
rules. At that time the present Planning Director and the present City Attorney were
in the same positions they are now. Unless the current City Manager has connections
that former City Manager Gabe Engeland did not, is there any reason to expect the
County would respond to the City any differently now.
There are several snags NUW has been ignoring:
1. Their own FEIR is demonstrably flawed, pointed out by 100 emails in response
to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, including those by experts, as well
as Protect Sierra Madre’s land use attorney, that it is very unlikely the County would
ever approve doing this in its current form.
2. Part of the plan is cut down mature trees in Bailey Canyon. These are not
NUW’s trees to cut down.
3. Because the elevation of Bailey Canyon’s parking lot is above the street, and
a retaining wall is put in, this will impact the roots of even more trees, with a high
probability of their dying.
4. They would also need to take out the public restroom in Bailey Canyon. This
ADA compliant restroom, along with other improvements – adding handicapped
parking, and a bridge across to the nature trail above the debris basin was paid for
with Proposition 70, a Parks Bond. Our Parks and Recreation Commission, through
Assistant City Manager Sean Joyce, applied for, and received these funds in 1993.
These are taxpayer funds. Again, not NUW’s to destroy.
What is the New Urban West solution? After a whispered conversation with their
architect, Mr. Frankel stated that this County permission isn’t even necessary – they
can merely encroach onto the residents’ property, or at the very least come right up to
the edge of it. Forget any sidewalks that had been proposed in response to concerns
about the danger to pedestrians. Where did this sudden “inspiration” come from?
We feel this is another last ditch effort to do something, anything, to ram this project
through. This second ingress and egress is a huge complication that should have
been dealt with from the beginning, rather than a last minute so called “inspiration.”
It seems there may be another problem with this “plan.” If they are proposing to pave
over Carter Avenue, to a width of 20 feet, wouldn’t this also require permission from
the County?
Lawyer Giragosian, we’d li
ke to see an impartial response to these questions. We would hope you would come
up with a better response than your solution to the forged signatures to allow the
filming to take place at Alverno. That solution was to deem residents’ signatures
unnecessary – even though there is now a warrant out for the arrest of the forgers.
STAY SAFE!
GET VACCINATED
AND BOOSTED!
WEAR A MASK!
THE BIG LIE
Were you lied to when you signed the initiative to rezone the Passionists' property? Were you given the impression
that the initiative would preserve the natural beauty and tran-quility of the meadow? That was a lie. Did they tell
you that wildlife and nesting habitats would be protected? That was a lie? Did they say the quiet solitude of the
neighborhood would be preserved? That was a lie. Did they say the initiative would prevent 101 trees from being
removed? That was a lie. Did they suggest that they would save the scenic vis-tas enjoyed by so many? That was a
lie. Did they plead with you to sign so that the last remaining open parcel of land in Sierra Madre would stay as it
is? That, too, was a lie.
If you think about it, rezoning an Institutional property to a Residential zone to stop a res-idential development is
just dumb. Maybe you were not told an overt lie, but a lie of omis-sion. One has to wonder what they were thinking
by rezoning the entire property to the Hillside Residential zone. Did they tell you that once zoned Residential that
a developer could build homes across the entire property, even where the Mater Dolorosa Retreat Center is?
Did they forget to mention that the Hillside Residential zone allows for 6,500 square foot homes? How about that it
allows duplexes with two 6,500 square foot buildings put to-gether adding up to 13,000 square foot structures? Or
did they tell you that 34 of these 13,000 square foot monstrosities could be built in Sierra Madre across the Passionists'
property? Did they tell you that one of the three authors of the initiative is a senior vice president for a developer
that just so happens to build luxury communities with 12,000+ square foot homes? Of course they didn’t tell
you this. One has to wonder why? Oh, right, you likely would not have supported the initiative if you knew the facts.
If you signed the initiative did they tell you that it could result in the Passionists' First Amendment rights being
violated through overly restrictive downzoning of a religious in-stitution and that the city would face an expensive
lawsuit? Did they tell you that the Re-treat Center and the Stations of the Cross would become a nonconforming
use, which means they are illegal structures? Did they show you where the initiative says the Passion-ists can only
continue “without expansion, significant physical alteration, or change in use?” We doubt it.
We have not found a single person who was told any of these things by those who were collecting signatures for the
initiative. Sierra Madre Neighbors for Fairness opposes the initiative because it is unfair to the Passionists and bad
for Sierra Madre. Join us in stop-ping this measure from passing in November. www.sierramadreneighborsforfairness.
org
News | Sierra Madre Neighbors for Fairnessnews@sierramadreneighborsforfairness.orgSierraMadreNeighborsforFairness.org
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
MISSING THE MARK
We are now over six months into the discussion on the
initiative to rezone the monastery property to the Hillside
Residential zone. One of the challenges is that new
people are constantly coming into the conservation.
That means many of the same old discussions get repeated
over and over.
In an editorial titled “The Best Seat in the House” a concerned
resident and environmentalist lamented about
the solitude of Bailey Canyon. That’s great. We all enjoy
Bailey Canyon. The author continues on about how “All
this is threatened to be destroyed.”
What is “this” that is being referred to? Bailey Canyon
Wilderness Park? The park is not being threatened, in
fact, just the opposite. The park will be enhanced and
expanded with three more acres of public space, including
parkland which is more enjoyable for small children.
Carter Ave will be widened and pedestrian access will be
made safer with a sidewalk. Public parking will be increased
by100 spaces which will free up the congestion
on Grove St. These are all good things for Sierra Madre.
There is one thing that people keep forgetting and that is
that the Mater Dolorosa property is not a public space.
It is private property. All the trees on that property are
owned by the Passionists. Less than 10% of the trees are
protected, the rest are non-native trees like invasive Chinese
Elm and Jacarandas. The city does not pro-hibit the
removal of any trees, they only require that if you remove
a protected tree that it be mitigated by replacing each
protected tree with multiple new protected trees. The
Meadows project is proposing an almost 5:1 replacement
ratio for every tree that is removed, including the 90% of
unprotected trees.
Wildlife doesn’t care if homes are built or if it stays as an
old vacant parking lot. Just visit any wildland interface in
the city and you will find wildlife there. I regularly have
bears, coyotes, deer, and the occasional bobcat where I
live in the Can-yon. The fact that the city is a Wildlife
Sanctuary does nothing to stop a property owner from
developing their private property.
My last point is that wishful that the property be left as-
is doesn’t do anything. It is not IF the property will be
developed but WHAT will be developed. Do you want a
large institutional assisted living project? That is allowed
right now. If you support the initiative then you are supporting
the building of sixty-eight 6,500 sq. ft. homes on
the property because that is what the initiative will allow.
The proposed Meadows project is the best compromise
for Sierra Madre with the park, 40 acres in conservancy,
net-zero water usage, and water capture in the park.
Robert Gjerde
“WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?” NOTHING.
I have been limiting my comments on this conversation page to why voters should oppose the initiative. However,
the Preserve Sierra Madre column last week needed to be addressed as it is a misrepresentation of the facts. They
spent an inordinate amount of space trying to say that New Urban West (NUW) is hiding something.
NUW can’t provide a rendering of the whole project because the Specific Plan has not yet been approved and the
final design is dependent on the terms agreed to in the Specific Plan. It will take more than a year to create the
plans for all the homes. During numerous meetings, NUW has shown several renderings and photos of what the
project might look like.
Each member of the Preserve Sierra Madre’s Steering Committee was given a 30-page brochure when they toured
the project area in October 2021. Renderings showed a “Neighbor Privacy Plan” with a 20-foot buffer adjacent to
all west side neighbors as requested by those neigh-bors. They were also told on that tour the reason the mature elm
trees were being removed along Sunnyside was to achieve that buffer zone. One member of the Committee mused
as to why all those beautiful trees were being sacrificed for just a few neighbors. When one member suggested a
cut-through to Crestvale Dr. to solve the Carter Ave. widening problem he was told that the Crestvale neighbors
adamantly opposed that and in addition requested a buffer zone. Again, NUW honored that commitment.
The development area is relatively flat land with a 10% slope, just like the homes to the west that are also graded
so they have flat building pads. In that same brochure, renderings show a conceptual view of the project fitting
into the existing community character, and on other pages, conceptual views of how the project’s neighborhood
might look after grading. During the same tour, questions were raised about the number of single-story homes. The
answer was seven to ten but the placement of those homes had not yet been decided. At the last Planning Commission
meeting in August, there was a layout of where those homes might be placed.
The only thing hidden is in the Stop initiative that will be on the ballot in November. This initiative is pure and
simple a plan to stop the Mater Dolorosa community from legally exercising their rights as private land owners.
The circulators of this petition have argued that only eight homes will be built once the initiative is passed. This is
pure fantasy. A hillside development is subject, like any other development, to California laws. SB9 allows homeowners
to split lots and build du-plexes or another single-family home and ADUs. This goes for all of the 34 acres of
buildable land owned by the Passionists, not just for the 17 acres proposed for the current development, and could
allow up to sixty-eight 6,500 square foot homes. What else are they hiding? Pat Alcorn
LIBEL? OR JUST "MUD
SLINGING"?
In last week's MVN there was an unsigned
article by a group ("fairness"-
"Major funding by New Urban West").
The ridiculous statements in that article
(Follow the Money) clearly show
how desperate and uninformed that
group is and how little they think of
Sierra Madre voters. Their claims (entirely
unsubstantiated suppositions)
could be considered libelous - if anyone
believed them.
The absolutely absurd and unfounded
allegations posted inferred
that, because one of the pro-ponents
of the Initiative once worked as HR
person for a "Developer of Luxury
Golf and Beach Club Resorts", (he no
longer works there), that Resort Developer
MUST have its eyes on the 17
acres of monastery property! AND
they wrongly suggest, again with NO
evidence, that the same company must
be funding our initiative.
A quick look at the named Resort
Developer's website would immedi
ately convince anyone (who went any
further than a single outdated LinkedIn
page referring to a "developer")
that Dis-covery Land Company would
have absolutely NO interest in a 17
acre parcel in Sierra Madre. Their
worldwide developments are ALL very
large luxury resorts with golf courses,
spas and res-taurants. The smallest of
their developments that I found was a
450 acre resort in Scotland - but that
"small" resort had a Castle on it - and
a golf course!
Any REASONABLE person would
immediately recognize that this resort
developer is NOT going to fund an initiative
to get 8 homes on 17 acres, all
subject to the many environmental restrictions
of our Hillside Ordinance!!
Yet these unsupported allegations
of suggested wrongdoing were actually
posted in a public newspaper - ironically,
by a group that calls itself "Neighbors
for Fairness"!
A look at the 229 donations on the
Protect Sierra Madre GoFundMe page
over 2 years will show that our moneys
raised came from ordinary citizens,
anxious to help save the city they love.
Those donations (many $10 or $20)
paid for our attorney whose initiative
will allow the CITIZENS to decide
what is right for Sierra Madre.
On the contrary, New Urban West,
the developer who will make millions
from the oversized houses on under
sized lots, has spent many times more
than raised by Protect's Go Fund Me
on slick postcards and flyers to residents,
paid the lawyers to set up "Fairness's"
political action committee and
paid for dozens of newspaper ads, including
ALL of "Fairness's" ads.
But that "neighbors" group, funded
by New Urban West, thinks that a tabloid
like article with ab-solutely NO
factual foundation will sway Sierra
Madre Voters?? Pretty insulting - and
very un-likely.
Like their new chorus of "68 large
houses under the initiative" - the ridiculous
allegations in the article are
meant to frighten the people of Sierra
Madre into voting against the
initiative.
The "68 houses" number (actually 34
houses and 34 ADUs, on one acre lots),
pulled from the City Attorney's hypothetical
of "what if " the Monastery tore
down the Retreat center and "what
if " the City allowed more homes to
be built on that Hillside and "what if "
every buyer of a multimil-lion dollar 2
acre lot decided to split it under state
law…. Not at all likely to happen.. Especially
since New Urban West may
not even get the second road necessary
for their 42 houses!
We think that "Fairness" (like our
City Council) underestimates the intelligence
of Sierra Madre voters!
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
|