Mountain Views News, Combined Edition Saturday, April 15, 2023

4

 CONVERSATIONS CONVERSATIONS

Mountain View News Saturday, April 15, 2023 


MORE REASONS 
TO VOTE NO ON 
MEASURE M—IN 
CASE YOU NEED 
ANY

Recently, Sierra Madre 
residents received a mailer 
from “The Meadows” developer comparing their 42-house plan with 
a 50-house plan. The mailer’s intent was to manipulate Sierra Madre 
residents into thinking that if we vote No on Measure M, we will be 
punished with a larger, uglier project and lose the meager “benefits” 
of the 42-house plan. The mailer is an impressive piece of propaganda 
that distracts voters from legitimate concerns about “The Meadows” 
project: the environmental degradation, public safety issues, 
and increased traffic, among other things. What’s more, the mailer’s 
claims don’t stand up to scrutiny. 

Claim #1: 42 Houses vs. 50 Houses

Fact: There is only one approved project: 42 oversized, tract houses 
on small lots. The developer claims that if we Vote No on Measure 
M, they will build 50 houses instead of the 42, but that remains to be 
seen. If we succeed with “Vote No,” future housing under SB330 will 
be subject to the City’s General Plan unlike the sweetheart deal for 
“The Meadows.” 

Claim #2: High Level of Public Input and Oversight

Fact: Input was mainly from the citizens of Sierra Madre who have 
spoken out against this disastrous plan since its inception. As for 
oversight, citizens had to repeatedly correct City Council members 
on the record because they ignored data or failed to get their facts 
correct. 

Claim #3: A New Public Park

Fact: The public park is being proposed because there has to be open 
space for a water collection basin. Also, although the developer and 
city officials might like you to believe otherwise, this park is not a 
“concession.” Any developer who proposes a project of this size must 
have a basin and open space. 

Claim #4: $900,000 Water Conservation Program

Fact: The developer is offering to put money toward repairing the 
city’s water pipes. However, this amount will ultimately be consumed 
by the additional costs of the water and is a drop in the bucket 
considering how much the city will pay to maintain the water infrastructure 
for “The Meadows” McMansions. 

Claim #5: $250,000 for a New Police Station 

Fact: Before the City Council vote, Mayor Garcia asked the developer 
to contribute $250K towards retrofitting the Bank of America building, 
a small sum for a developer who will make millions under the 
approved plan. 

Claim #6: 500+ New Trees 

Fact: More than 100+ mature trees, including protected species, will 
be cut down for construction. The developer is required to plant 
trees to make up for what they destroy—scrawny saplings don’t make 
up for the loss of century-old trees. Any development will require 
planting new trees.

Claim #7: 40 Acres of Permanently Protected Hillside Open Space

Fact: Those 40 Acres are not buildable due to steep terrain, so the 
developer is taking credit for, well, nothing. 

Claim #8: Roadway Improvements to Carter Avenue

Fact: Carter is currently a narrow alleyway that leads out of the Retreat 
Center property. In order to make Carter a roadway for egress 
and exit for this or any development, it will need to be improved and 
paid for. 

Claim #9: Supported by City Council & City Leaders

Fact: Yes, the current City Council supports it – they're the ones who 
ignored our General Plan to allow this tract-housing project. Past 
city leaders, including former mayors and planning commissioners, 
are opposed to “The Meadows” and overdevelopment. Unlike 
the current City Council, these past leaders protected our town from 
greedy developers.

Vote NO on Measure M


DON’T BELIEVE THE NIMBY DENIALISTS - THE SB 330 
PROJECT IS REAL

The rhetoric from Protect Sierra Madre (PSM) repeatedly says that the SB 330 project 
is not real, and that there being two projects “on the table” is: “NOT TRUE”!

 

Dictionary.com says “on the table” means “Up for discussion, as in There are two 
new proposals on the table.“ Not only is the SB 330 project up for discussion, but 
an application has already been submitted and accepted by the city. There is no 
question that there are two projects on the table. The burden to show otherwise is 
on PSM, but all they have are empty claims and wishful thinking. Ask them what 
their plan is for stopping SB 330. They have none. 

 

December’s SB 330 preliminary application was the beginning of the project according to state law. It locked in the 
city’s zoning and started the 180-day countdown for submitting the final designs. Once submitted, the city only gets 
five meetings to either approve or deny the design.

 

The city’s review is limited to objective zoning standards, nothing like they don’t “feel” the project is good for the city 
or they don’t “like” how a house looks. If the project meets the city’s objective standards, reduced by any state incentives 
and waivers, then it can only be denied if there are detrimental impacts that cannot be mitigated. The EIR has 
already shown that all impacts from housing can be mitigated.

 

Both projects are at about the same point in the approval process. Phase One of the Meadows Specific Plan had discretionary 
design review. The lot line adjustment and EIR are already complete. Phase Two reviews the home designs, 
which are much simpler under SB 330’s objective standards and with fewer designs.

 

The threat of SB 330 to the NIMBYs is real, but it is not “bullying.” It is what state law allows now that Protect Sierra 
Madre’s referendum opened the door to the SB 330 project.

 

PSM asks, “Who knows what the developer will actually submit, if anything, when we defeat the Meadows project.” 
Great question! The developer has not yet taken advantage of the SB 330 Density Bonus so they could always add 
another 10+ houses. What is guaranteed is a worse project if Measure M loses, not a better one with a park and fewer 
homes, because there is no need to negotiate anything under SB 330.

 

The only way to hold the developer accountable to the 42 homes and park is to vote YES on M with your informed 
city’s leaders, not the NIMBY Denialists.

Sierra Madre for Parks and Public Safety

VOTE YES ON MEASURE M! by Councilmember and Former Mayor Gene Goss

In November, the public overwhelmingly voted to support the Meadows Project. On 
May 9th, I believe we should do so again by voting Yes on Measure M. The whole 
idea of voting on this a second time does seem strange. To quote Yogi Berra, “It’s like 
deja-vu, all over again.”

Regardless, I am voting Yes on M, thereby supporting the 42-Home Meadows Project 
for the following reasons:

1. Private Property: The owners have a right to develop it and they will, whether 
we like it or not. Leaving the property undeveloped is simply not an option.

2. Vetting: We are blessed to have fine leadership in this community. The Meadows 
project has been thoroughly vetted for two years of public meetings and is supported 
by unanimous votes of both the Planning Commission and the City Council. 
Again, the public also supported it in the November election.

3. New Park: I am not aware of a City Council anywhere in our region that has 
had the opportunity to create a new park as big as any of our existing parks. Taxpayers will not pay one penny for it 
or its maintenance. This is an incredible opportunity for our town.

4. Conservation: Forty acres above the Retreat Center will be preserved and effectively added to the Bailey Canyon 
recreational area, potentially expanding our trail system, and permanently protecting wildlife.

5. Water: The Meadows project uses the latest innovative water conservation techniques, and the developer is 
providing $900,000 to cover the costs of water for the development.

6. Trees: Some existing trees will be removed, but they will be replaced by five hundred new tree plantings. In the 
years to come this mostly empty field will become part of our de facto urban forest.

7. Public Safety: The developer is providing $250,000 for the new Police Station. This will help make our Police 
Department more effective in keeping the community safe.

If Measure M is defeated, a 50-Home development, including some low-income homes, is likely to be built on the 
property. The completed application sits right now in the City Planning office. Because of SB 330 and the State’s zeal 
to usurp local control and force housing into existing residential neighborhoods, the Planning Commission, City 
Council, and the public will truly have little control over the project. Certainly, we will lose the park and most of the 
other benefits listed above. 

There’s an old saying. “If it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, it’s a duck.” My fellow citizens, the public 
benefits negotiated in connection with the Meadows Project quack and waddle. 

The only decision that makes sense is Yes on Measure M. 


42 VS 50? A CYNICAL STRATEGY

 

Apparently, the Santa Monica Developers, the Chicago landowners, 
and the City Council all know that the people of Sierra 
Madre don’t want high density development. They’ve shown 
this with their cynical main argument for Measure M: Vote for 
the Meadows Development or it will mean More Homes will 
be built.

 

We wouldn’t be here if the City Council had simply required 
the developers to follow the Sierra Madre General Plan, which 
the rest of us citizens must follow. Why didn’t they? They 
wanted the cash the Santa Monica Developers promised them 
for a new Sierra Madre Police building (why?), a “park” that the 
city must maintain to cover their required new water basin and 
some water system repairs. Short term benefits that leave the 
impacts of high density development on us citizens of Sierra 
Madre, forever. 

 

500 additional car trips a day & congestion downtown.

Huge permanent impact on our water system, unpaid for. 

(future higher water costs to us?)

42 to 50 homes built in the highest possible fire zone

Impacts to Bailey Canyon and wildlife

 

The Santa Monica developer, faced with this Measure M vote, 
filed an application under California SB330 to build 50 homes 
on the same lot. THEY ARE THREATENING US THAT 
THEY WILL PURSUE THIS DEVELOPMENT IF WE DON’T 
APPROVE THEIR MEADOWS PLAN.

THIS IS AN AUDACIOUS BULLYING TACTIC, WHICH 
CYNICALLY ADMITS THAT WE DON’T WANT HIGH 
DENSITY HOUSING IN SIERRA MADRE.

 

What’s worse, if we allow the Meadows to proceed, it would set 
a terrible precedent for the high density development of several 
other sites in town, including the remaining acres of the Monastery 
site, Alverno School, One Carter and others.

 

Despite what the proponents are saying it is totally within the 
power of the city council to require the SB330 proposal conform 
to our General Plan resulting in a low density project of 
around 20-30 homes, if they keep their 3500sq ft average. Their 
proposal threat to build 50 homes is currently just that, a proposal. 
The details must be negotiated in a series of meetings 
with the City Council. 

If the City Council has the will, they can work to protect us 
from this 50 house bald-faced threat.

 

PLEASE VOTE NO on Measure M. It will stop the Meadows 42 
house development, and send a clear signal to the City Council 
to require developers to follow our General Plan.

Ed Miller, Sierra Madre

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR MORE LETTERS ON PAGE 5

“MEASURE M? “

By Jeff Dapper

Once again Sierra Madre 
citizens are faced with a 
decision affecting the future 
of our City. Once again 
those on both sides of the 
argument are putting forth 
their reasons why we should 
or should not support Measure 
M in the upcoming “ 
special election “. I would 
like to offer the following:

While having worked as 
Property Manager for the 
Passionist Retreat Center 
many years ago did not have 
a decisive effect on my position 
on this issue, it does 
enable me to say for absolute 
certain: That this land 
is neither a meadow nor 
natural habitat but rather 
a large, man-made dirt lot, 
used in the past as parking 
for the annual Fiesta, a once 
lucrative fund raiser for the 
Passionists that after more 
than fifty years was canceled 
due to dwindling attendance. 
That while various 
animals may cross it on 
their way to and from the 
city, basically the only habitat 
it provides is for gophers. 
That there are few trees on 
this land other than the 
Chinese Elms planted along 
the main entry road that 
are not native to the area. 
Further, that it is not “ our 
meadow “ but rather private 
property and while as a religious 
organization the owners 
may be exempt from the 
tax burden, once and sometimes 
twice a year, at considerable 
expense, they are 
required by the Fire Code 
to preform weed abatement 
on this now superfluous 
land. Finally, for those who 
may not be aware, the Angeles 
National Forest begins 
about 100 yards behind the 
Retreat Center buildings, 
providing thousands of 
acres of protected, undeveloped 
land and indigenous 
animal habitat. Whatever 
one decides on this issue, 
this is the basic foundation 
of unvarnished facts upon 
which any credible position 
must be constructed. 

It seems the genesis of the 
movement to stop this 
development began as it 
usually does, with those 
who live near or directly 
adjacent to the property in 
question who have enjoyed 
the benefits of this open 
space and do not want to 
see it change, nor endure 
all the activity during the 
construction process. This 
group quickly expanded to 
include those living in the 
surrounding area who are 
concerned that more homes 
would mean more traffic 
on their street and eventually 
gaining the support of 
well meaning folks in town 
for whom any confluence of 
the words “ development “ 
and “ nature “ is enough to 
invoke passionate opposition. 
You can’t really blame 
them for trying. After all, 
they’re the ones who would 
be most directly affected.

When this relatively small 
but determined group gathered 
enough signatures to 
place a measure on the ballot 
in the 2022 election, I 
supported their right to do 
so. I also thought choosing 
from their number a candidate 
to run for City Council 
was pretty smart. And although 
I didn’t agree with 
their position, I was willing 
to accept the results of 
the election, whatever they 
were. However, in keeping 
with the times, when both 
their measure and candidate 
failed to gain the necessary 
votes in a free and 
fair election, the core of this 
group immediately filed an 
appeal, forcing the City to 
hold another “ Special Election 
“ with the same purpose, 
a tactic that is costing 
our City over $400,000. For 
me that took putting individual 
self-interest over the 
greater good of our town to 
a whole new level. 

 

The City Council’s decision 
to approve the Meadows 
Project was essentially 
pragmatic. It’s been widely 
understood once the Fiesta 
was canceled that eventually 
the sale and development 
of land was inevitable. The 
City Council also knew that 
taking a preventative stance 
in a zoning dispute would 
likely result in costly litigation, 
the outcome in this 
particular case by no means 
certain. So they opted to 
approve the Meadows project 
provided the developer 
incorporate a number of 
changes that would mitigate 
the impact, contribute significant 
monies that benefit 
our town and provide open 
space for the use and benefit 
of the general public, to 
which the developer agreed. 

If you read the Sample Ballot, 
it’s pretty clear that our 
Planning Commission and 
City Council worked openly 
and tirelessly to secure 
the best possible outcome 
for our town while the opposition’s 
only interest is in 
delaying any development 
for at least another year or 
two and giving them yet 
another bite at the apple. 
What you’ll also learn is 
that because of the hasty 
way the appeal was written, 
if successful it will leave the 
door open for the eventual 
development of this same 
property to include more 
residents, greater impact of 
every kind and little or no 
leverage for the City to negotiate 
concessions on our 
behalf.

Whether Yes to support our 
Council’s decision or No to 
rescind it, by all means vote 
your conscience but whatever 
you decide and no matter 
where you live in town, 
please exercise your right to 
vote on or before Tuesday 
May 9th. because historically 
in our City important 
decisions often come down 
to just a handful of votes. So 
in Sierra Madre, quite literally 
every single vote does 
count, including yours. 

.

- Jeff Dapper

WANT TO HEAR MORE FROM BOTH SIDES? The Sierra Madre Kiwanis Club is sponsoring 
the YES AND NO OF MEASURE M on Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 6 pm. The 
event will be held in the Social Hall of Christ Church in Sierra Madre - 170 W Sierra 
Madre Blvd. 

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