3
CONVERSATIONS....THE MEADOWS
Mountain Views-News Saturday, August 27, 2022
WHAT IS THIS MAN DOING?
ARE WE STILL DISCUSSING RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION?
Preserve Sierra Madre ironically
said our elected officials would
not support any provision of our
local laws that would discriminate,
restrict or discourage any of
us from expressing our religious
beliefs. We agree 100%. That is
just one of many reasons why the
City Council unanimously opposes
Measure HR.
In the City Attorney’s 9212 report
it states that “The Initiative constrains
the Passionists’ alternatives
to develop their property for
religious purposes.” And “However,
the Initiative's conversion
of the religious uses at the Mater
Dolorosa Property to non-conforming
uses may substantially
burden the religious exercise of
the Passionists.”
Preserve Sierra Madre says that
the city’s codes allow churches
and other places of worship in a
residential zone. The supporters
of Measure HR apparently don’t
know what their initiative says.
Measure HR, according to its own
text, will become a new overriding
city ordinance. The Mater
Dolorosa Hillside Zoning Initiative
states:
B. Intent and Purpose.
a. The intent of this Initiative is to
permit the continued operation
of the Mater Dolorosa Passionist
Retreat Center without expansion,
significant physical alteration,
or change in use, as a nonconforming
use.
It does not say they CAN expand
a nonconforming use, or that
they CAN do significant physical
alterations, or that they CAN
change the use of the property.
It explicitly says they cannot do
those things.
The proponents of the initiative
keep telling us that they knew
what they were doing. They all
have legal backgrounds and they
all consulted with their expensive
Los Angeles attorney. But now
they say their initiative will allow
what it literally says it will not.
Then why not put that language
in the initiative instead of explicitly
prohibiting these things? This
is how the poorly written Measure
HR is a legal disaster waiting
to happen.
Here’s the heart of the issue.
The initiative prohibits the City
Council from fixing any problems
with Measure HR. Section 10
states that the City Council cannot
amend or repeal Measure HR.
Section 11 states that if Measure
HR is inconsistent with any other
city codes that the existing code
must be repealed. So it isn’t that
the Non-Conforming code would
still allow expansion or change in
use. Measure HR demands that
the conflicting Non-Conforming
code be repealed. That repeals it
for everyone, not just the Passionists.
Anyone would then be able
to expand their nonconforming
use. Or if the Residential code allows
churches with a CUP then
that section of the code must be
repealed according to Measure
HR.
Section 9 a. states that even if the
courts determine a part of Measure
HR is illegal that the City
Council should take “all steps
possible to cure any inadequacies
or deficiencies identified by the
court in a manner consistent with
the express and implied intent
of this Initiative.” What happens
when a court determines Measure
HR violates the Passionists’
religious rights and the Council
cannot rectify the zoning issue?
Normally, the City could just say,
“Sorry,” change the code, and pay
everyone’s legal fees, but in this
case the City’s hands are tied. The
courts might then choose to impose
damages against the city, or
the proponents defending it, in
favor of the Passionists.
Join Sierra Madre Neighbors for
Fairness in voting No on Measure
HR in November.
Early last week, concerned residents contacted the Mountain Views News and
submitted photographs of one ir more trees being cut down on the property
where the proposed Meadows at Bailey Canyon is to be built.
The sight of workers with chainsaws alarmed neighbors several of whom
feared that 'in anticipation of the city council's approval of the Planning Commission
vote on the project, construction had begun'.
As a result, the Mountain Views News contacted the developer to find out
what was going on. The following response was sent: “On Tuesday, regular
maintenance work was conducted to remove a dead Morton Bay Fig tree which
posed a safety hazard given its immediate proximity to the road. This tree removal
was necessary to protect the health and safety of our retreatants. In addition,
maintenance cleared a fallen tree from the property as part of ongoing
property maintenance.” - Michael Cunningham, Mater Dolorosa
WHAT’S NEXT??
On August 18 the Planning Commission
approved all parts of the
Meadows project and it will be on
the City Council agenda at their next
meeting.
Our volunteers spent many hours going door to door and many voters were
in favor of our initiative to Rezone the Mater Dolorosa parcel to the Hillside
Zone, as we feel it always should have been. Some others, still undecided,
were certain that they wanted the VOTERS of Sierra Madre to make that
decision with a vote at the next election. Many contacted us to sign the petition,
with the result that the City Council heard the wishes of 1,300 of their
constituents!
When the Meadows project comes before them, we will ask the City Council
to consider the wishes of the voters and to defer their consideration of
the project, as is permitted, for the short time until the people can make
their consensus known through their vote.
But, because the City Council has already expressed their objections to
our initiative, we are concerned that they will vote to approve the project
before the election. IF they approve everything concerning the Meadows
Project, as we expect they may, our measure would still be on the ballot, but
it might take legal action to decide what takes precedence. The Developer
and the Monastery have both said they will initiate legal action if our initiative
passes.
The law allows us to still make certain that the PEOPLE of Sierra Madre decide
the issue, regardless of what the City Council, or those hoping to make
millions from the special character of our Village of the Foothills may do to
try to oppose a constitutionally protected democratic process.
If the City Council is not willing to respect their constituent's wishes by deferring
their decision until after the election - and if they vote to approve the
Meadows project, we will attempt to pause the project with a referendum.
Just as our petition for an initiative allows the Citizens to vote on our proposed
measure, a successful petition for a referendum to overturn the City
Council's decision would allow the Citizens at an election next year to vote
to remove the approvals of the Meadows Project. That would stop the project
despite any lawsuits against our initiative measure!
It would require 850+ signatures of registered voters in 30 days. But we
have 1,300 residents who told the city what they want and may be upset by
being disregarded by the Council that is supposed to represent them - unless
the council votes to defer consideration of the project until after the
election. Others who feel that a City Council should consider the wishes of
the people they represent, may also be ready to show them that our voices
do matter!
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO RECEIVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT
OUR PLAN OR WISH TO BE NOTIFIED IF A PETITION FOR A REFERENDUM
BECOMES NECESSARY,
Contact us at sierramadrepetition@gmail.com
THE VOICES OF THE PEOPLE WILL BE HEARD!!
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS BEFORE
Last week Mr. Hays asks, “I still haven’t heard a cogent argument as to why the developer is investing so
much time, effort and money to avoid having to proceed under our Hillside Management restrictions.”
There is a very simple answer to this. The property is not zoned Hillside Management. In what rational
world should anyone be required to follow zoning restrictions that do not apply to the property or the
project they are proposing?
Having had the opportunity to discuss the Meadows project with both Mr. Frankel of New Urban West
and the Passionists, I believe they both care about creating a well-crafted design that is good for Sierra
Madre. This isn’t just my opinion, the Planning Commission, all people who live in and care about Sierra
Madre (and have been praised by Preserve Sierra Madre for carefully considering the project), unanimously
agreed that this project is a good balance for the city. I also believe NUWI does not want to see
the Passionists’ rights violated as a result of the project. It is easy to demonize a developer as caring only
about profits, but it is not that simple. The “developer” actually consists of real people who have similar
concerns as you and I and want to live in nice communities.
I suggest calling Mr. Frankel and talking to him about the project. NUWI is literally investing in Sierra
Madre to create a project that new homeowners will want to buy into. Yes, they could have proposed a
simple R-1 project with more homes, smaller homes, no park, no land placed in conservancy, and no
net-zero water offsets, but that is not what they have proposed. They are already invested in, and have
presented, a project that is good for the city.
Could NUWI have proposed a project to rezone the property to the Hillside Management zone and to
build 68 mansions? I suppose so, if the Passionists agreed to that, but one might suggest that the neighbors
and the city council would never allow something as crazy as what the Measure HR allows. No one
wants to allow mansions on the property except, oddly enough, the proponents of Measure HR who told
us they were fighting large homes.
Mr. Hays continues saying, “They won’t explain how what we’ve been told necessarily contradicts the
facts – but confidently assert we’ve been lied to, nonetheless.” I guess he missed Sierra Madre Neighbors
for Fairness’s article from two weeks ago titled THE BIG LIE. The first paragraph listed six things from
STOP Housing Development’s own flyer which implied Measure HR would protect the meadow, wildlife
habitats, the solitude of the neighborhood, 101 trees, the scenic vista, and the last remaining open space.
None of these will be preserved by Measure Hillside Residential which allows more homes, literal mansions,
and less oversight from the city by rezoning it to a residential zone.
Robert Gjerde
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
|