CONVERSATIONS....THE MEADOWS 3 Mountain Views-News Saturday, September 10, 2022 CONVERSATIONS....THE MEADOWS 3 Mountain Views-News Saturday, September 10, 2022
THE WILL OF THE
PEOPLE IGNORED
We on the Preserve Sierra Madre
Steering Committee have lived in
Sierra Madre for half our lifetimes.
We’ve watched our downtown
area go through hard times and
good. We’ve been here through
earthquakes, fires, and big local
political fights; almost always about development. Twelve years ago, two of us
were on the General Plan Update Steering Committee, spending five years developing
our General Plan. Five years - because we polled every m neighborhood,
held town halls, did surveys, and had open houses discussing potential
provisions, policy and overall vision for our city. A real lesson in democracy
and letting the people speak.
Now we have the Meadows development before us, and its sad to see the increasing
division it is causing among friends and neighbors.
There’s a lot of talk about the impacts this development would have on our
community and our long-time friends the Passionist Fathers, and the Monastery.
Most of the fathers have left, the Monastery building was torn down, and
only four are residents, who operate the 91 suites and other facilities. It makes
sense as the Passionist Organization in Chicago wants to sell off part of this
land, as they have done with most other parcels they own across the country.
They want the money for their ministry abroad and to cover their retirement
plans. For them, it’s about getting as much money from this tract housing development
as possible.
This development could gross between 100 and 200 million dollars for the
developer, New Urban West. By some calculations the building and sale of it
could also bring up to $2.5M in one-time fees to the city.
Aside from the city budget, nothing about this development benefits its neighbors
-- we the people that live in Sierra Madre (other than possibly the addition
of an unpopular 3 acre park). Overall, it will be a cost and a real impact
to the people of Sierra Madre for the next 50 to 100 years or more. It violates
many key provisions of our General Plan, as we have previously written in our
articles, and spoken before City Council and the Planning Commission.
The members of our City Council (CC) campaigned to support the ideals of
the General Plan when evaluating new developments. Specifically:
City Council member and former Mayor, Rachel Arizmendi said during her
campaign: “I will always give priority to the quality of life in our neighborhoods
and best represent the voice of our residents. This will include my efforts
to limit and control development. I will advocate for ordinances, zoning
codes and building regulations that will prevent our neighborhoods from being
overrun with homes over sized for their parcels or homes not in harmony
with their neighborhoods. I will also protect our hillsides and canyons from
development and strictly enforce our Hillside Management Zone Ordinance.”
City Council member Robert Parkhurst said: “I support our current zoning
ordinances. They balance the development of land in the City while preventing
over development. For example, our current residential zoning ordinance
limits the gross floor area of single-family homes to 30% of the lot area, which
is 50% less than what is allowed in neighboring Arcadia.” (Note that the Meadows
development violates this and other General Plan provisions). And he said
in evaluating developments he would consider:
• “How has the community been involved in the process? How has their
perspective been considered?
• What are the outcomes of the noise, parking and traffic studies of the
development and how will they impact our communities? How will these impacts
be mitigated?
• How has the development considered the environmental impacts on
the property including water use, energy efficiency, and impact to wildlife?
• What potential impact will the development have on the
trail systems adjacent to our City?”
City Council member Kelly Kriebs said: “With respect to the proposed Monastery
development, the City Council will need to pay particular attention (1)
to the impact of the development on the immediately surrounding neighborhood,
Bailey Canyon and the City at large (including on traffic and infrastructure),
(2) to any proposed specific plan governing the development…”
City Council member, Mayor Pro Tem, Ed Garcia said: “If.. the area is ultimately
zoned R-1, what must be monitored would be the variables regarding
lot coverage, square footage, and setbacks. These factors must be negotiated in
a manner that would minimize the impact for the immediate neighbors of the
development. Just because the number of dwelling units currently considered
is to be 42 instead of the 116 allowable under R-1, doesn’t give license for the
mansionization of that neighborhood.”
What is puzzling now is that these four, as well as Mayor Goss, appear to be in
full support of the Meadows proposal as it stands, in spite of it violating these
principles they promised to uphold in their campaigns.
The Meadows developers propose their new area be governed under a special
Specific Plan, as is their right to propose. We have read the Specific Plan and
we’ve followed the work of the diligent Planning Commission. This Specific
Plan violates our city’s General Plan in many significant areas, which we’ve
highlighted over the past two years. It was clearly the will of the people to avoid
developments like this when we created the General Plan.
Obviously, the winner in this once it is passed by the City Council is New
Urban West Developers. No one else.
Next week – the better alternative, Measure HR.
JUST READ MEASURE HR
Everything you need to know about how Measure HR discriminates against the Passionists is in its text.
Last week Preserve Sierra Madre went on at length explaining how our city codes will allow the Passionists
to expand their facilities. They obviously have not read Measure HR because none of that is relevant if HR
passes. You can’t appeal to what our city codes say because Measure HR says any conflicting codes must
be repealed.
Intent and Purpose of Measure HRThe initiative states that its intent and purpose 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.” Again, the very purpose of Measure HR is to prohibit any expansion, significant
alteration, or change in use of the Passionists’ property.
The City’s CodesYes, the city’s existing codes possibly allow for expansion, significant alteration, or change in use for
churches on residentially zoned properties. None of this is relevant.
Inconsistent Provisions RepealedMeasure HR Section 11 clearly states: “Any provisions of the City of Sierra Madre Municipal Code, or
any other ordinances of the City inconsistent with this Initiative, to the extent of such inconsistencies
and no further, are hereby repealed. This Initiative expresses the voters' intent to eliminate any possible
inconsistency between existing code provisions and the amended General Plan designations and zoning
designations.”
Conclusion
Any existing ordinances that might allow expansion, significant physical alteration, or change in use, contrary
to the intent and purpose of Measure HR, must be repealed. That is what Measure HR says. If Measure
HR is voted in then it will be the new law of the land and it would require that any old laws which
allow expansion, significant alteration, or change in use, of a church on residentially zoned property, must
be repealed.
Why This MattersThe City Attorney’s report states: “The Initiative constrains the Passionists’ alternatives to develop their
property for religious purposes. … 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.” Measure
HR will violate the religious rights of the Passionists and put the city at serious risk of being sued.
Vote NO on Measure HR to protect the rights of the Passionists.
News | Sierra Madre Neighbors for Fairnessnews@sierramadreneighborsforfairness.orgSierraMadreNeighborsforFairness.org
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Dear Editor:
I’ve been following and appreciating the back-andforth
on the Meadows project in MVN over the
past several weeks – as I will through November’s
polling.
I’ve reviewed the petition, the Hillside Residential
zoning restrictions that would apply were the
initiative to pass, the federal Religious Land Use
and Institutional Persons Act cited in legal threats
(important law with an important purpose - were
a building zoned to permit a Rotary Club bingo
night, it couldn’t be re-zoned to prohibit a Bible
study class or Muslim prayer meeting), the Specific
Plan to accommodate the developer along with our
city attorney’s analysis. And I always look forward
to whatever Robert Gjerde has to offer.
All along I’ve been hoping to find some assurance
that the alarm is unwarranted, that those in charge
know what’s best and we should simply allow the
project to roll through. With this in mind I used
the QR code in last week’s New Urban West ad to
access our city’s response in opposition to the initiative,
signed by Mayor Gene Goss and Council
Member Rachelle Arizmendi, hoping to find such
assurance. Instead, I found a perfunctory rehash
of the promoters’ threats we’ve become so familiar
with.
At the outset, there’s “Do we want 6,500 square
foot mansions smack dab in the middle of three-
to-four-bedroom single family homes?” That’s not
the option. There’s been no such proposal made
and no prospect of it happening. Both Mr. Goss
and Ms. Arizmendi know this – but they parrot the
developer’s talking points, nonetheless. It suggests
that if New Urban West had to proceed under our
Hillside zoning, they’d somehow be compelled to
build larger houses than they’d planned. I doubt
that either Mr. Goss or Ms. Arizmendi regard this
as a rational argument – so their making it anyway
is concerning.
They go on: “The initiative identifies ONE sole
owner. Does that not target one private property
owner?” It does – because there’s only “one private
property owner” in Sierra Madre currently threatening
to inflict 42 McMansions on 17 acres of our
hillside while refusing to consider doing so under
appropriate Hillside zoning restrictions. Mr. Goss
and Ms. Arizmendi suggesting this is somehow unfair
again raises the question whether their intent is
to protect the interests of the developer or those of
their constituents.
They refer to expenditures and ask, “does it make
sense to expose the city to uncertain and possibly
significant financial consequences of potential legal
action?” Decades ago, when embarking on my
own business I remember asking counsel, “Can I
be sued for this?” and the reply, “Anybody can sue
you for anything whenever they want. They just
want to show they’ve got deeper pockets than you
so you’ll cave”. The argument from Mr. Goss and
Ms. Arizmendi doesn’t suggest grounds for such
lawsuit – only that the threat itself is reason enough
to sacrifice Sierra Madre’s interests to those of the
developer.
And finally, they suggest the problem is that we’re
not “informed”. I’ve seen that the Specific Plan
does address many of the concerns reflected in our
Hillside Residential zoning. But I’ve yet to find out
what specifically it is in our HR zoning restrictions
that the developer finds so onerous that compliance
would be out of the question. And I wonder whether
Mr. Goss, Ms. Arizmendi and other elected officials
have bothered to ask.
There’s one item in the city attorney’s analysis, however,
that might help explain the city’s position - the
$2.6M in “public facilities fees” the project would
generate. Perhaps they regard this as an acceptable
trade-off. Though irrelevant to the importance of
the initiative, it’s a factor that could be more pertinent
in understanding the mindset at City Hall
than a ballot argument that comes off as a brief pass
along from the developer’s PR team.
Howard Hays, Sierra Madre
CITIZENS FOR TRUTH – DESPERATION
Once again the good citizens of Sierra Madre woke to find a door hanger,
placed allegedly by the Mater Dolorosa Fathers, the so-called Neighbors
for Fairness (fairness, really?), but “major funding from New Urban West.”
Major funding? We’d certainly say so.
In Quarter 1, New Urban West filed the paperwork, connected with
fighting against the reasonable initiative to put the Monastery property
into the Hillside Management Zone, stating that they have already paid $50,000. That’s $50,000 of development
company money, the development company based in Santa Monica. Wow! What is even more disturbing is
what the flyer actually says – headline is “City Council and the Mayor unanimously voted to oppose the initiative
that led to Measure HR.”
Wait – aren’t the Mayor and the City Council supposed to actually go through the process of two meetings
after the Planning Commission meeting has passed on it? Of course, that is what the law says should
happen. So, City Council is holding a “special meeting” on September 15. Did you know about this special
meeting? New Urban West did – they are again buying dinner for their out-of-town supporters, then will herd
them into chambers to take up all the seats--again. You can tell them by their green tee shirts who will all leave
at break time. If Council doesn’t ask questions, this might be a short meeting without a break. If you live in
Sierra Madre and care about our fair village, please show up – but be sure to get there early before the 5:30
meeting time, to get a “nonreserved” seat.
If you didn’t get one of these horrid door hangers, you can read all about the lies and misinformation in
a half page ad in last week’s paper, once again touting the fact that the Mayor and the City Council have already
opposed Measure HR. To date there have been 4 full page ads, 18 half page ads; always allegedly placed by the
Neighbors for Fairness and/or the Mater Dolorosa fathers, but fully paid for by New Urban West. Whatever
happened to due process? We keep hearing about how big money is hurting our democratic process. We certainly
never expected to have that problem again in our little Sierra Madre.
Back in 2007 there was an initiative, Measure V, which was initiated for the same reason – a City Council
that wasn’t listening to the constituents. Our downtown still looks like our funky, cute downtown because
Measure V passed, even though the Building Industry spent $180,000 in an effort to predict all kinds of dire
outcomes. At that time we residents spent a scant $5000, and lots of shoe leather knocking on doors to disseminate
the truth. Same scenario, different year – New Urban West has deep pockets and can throw endless money
at Sierra Madre with the expectation of making millions if their ill-conceived tract housing project is approved.
On the other side, the pro HR side, are ordinary Sierra Madre citizens who don’t have unlimited funds, but love
their town. Please don’t be fooled.
Notice Reprinted Courtesy of Mountain Views News - Original Publication Date 9/3/2022
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
To: All Residential Households in the City of Sierra MadreFrom: The City of Sierra MadreSubject: CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND
ZONE CHANGE AND SUBSEQUENT LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS,
SPECIFIC PLAN, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND
CERTIFY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVE RELATED MITIGATION
MEASURES AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A PROPOSED 42 LOT RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION
Project Location: 700 North Sunnyside Avenue
This notice serves to inform you that the City Council will be conducting a Special Meeting PublicHearing on the date, time, and the location described below regarding a request to construct up to 42
single-family detached residential units on approximately 17.30 acres of the property owned by The
Congregation of the Passion, Mater Dolorosa Community referred to as “The Meadows at Bailey
Canyon.”
The City Council will consider project applications to certify the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, approve amendments
to the update the General Plan and Land Use Map to change the project site from Institutional to
residential low density, and update the Zoning Code and Zoning Map to change the project site from
Institutional to Single-Family Residential Specific Plan Overlay, approve the Lot Line Adjustment,
and approve the Development Agreement. Application approval may be made pursuant to applicable
findings for each independent action.
The meeting will be streamed live on the City’s website at www.cityofsierramadre.com, on
Foothills Media website at http://www.foothillsmedia.org/sierramadre and broadcast on Government
Access Channel 3 (Spectrum). The Brown Act provides the public with an opportunity to make public
comments at any public meeting. Public comment may also be made by e-mail to PublicComment@
CityofSierraMadre.com by 3 PM on the day of the meeting.
For further information on this subject, please contact the Planning and Community Preservation
Department at (626) 355-7138.
DATE AND TIME OF HEARING PLACE OF HEARING
City of Sierra Madre City of Sierra MadreCity Council Special Meeting City Council ChambersThursday, September 15, 2022 232 W. Sierra Madre Blvd.
(Hearing begins at 5:30 p.m.) Sierra Madre, CA 91024
All interested persons may attend this meeting and the City Council will hear them with respect thereto.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: State law requires the preparation of an EIR for projects that have the
potential for environmental impacts. Public Resources Code Section 21002 requires that an EIR identify the significant
effects of a project on the environment and provide measures or alternatives that can mitigate or avoid these
effects. The EIR evaluates the environmental effects associated with the development of the project and discusses the
manner in which the project's significant effects can be reduced or avoided through the implementation of mitigation
measures or feasible alternatives to the proposed project.
APPEAL: If in the future anyone wishes to challenge the decision of the City Council in court, one may be limited to
raising the issues that were raised or presented in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or before,
the scheduled public hearing. For further information on this subject, please contact the Planning and Community
Preservation Department at (626) 355-7138.
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
|