Mountain Views News, Combined Edition Saturday, April 8, 2023

4

 CONVERSATIONS CONVERSATIONS

Mountain View News Saturday, April 8, 2023 


SIGNS OF AGREEMENT

 

A couple weeks ago I wrote of things both 
sides on Measure M could agree on. Now 
that yard signs are popping up all over town, 
I think we can all agree we’re looking forward 
to the day after the election when they’ll be 
coming down.

 

On the “Yes” side, I’ve seen signs advocating 
three different things; a “Park”, “Public Safe-ty” and “Fewer Homes” - things most of us 
strongly support. But how a “Yes” vote to go ahead with the McMansions advances any 
of them is far from clear.

 

For that “Park”, I assume they’re referring to the turf they’d be laying over the water 

retention basin they’d be unable to build on, anyway. Those who’ve been to developments 
out towards San Bernardino, Moreno Valley or Orange County have probably seen 
how they’ll put a patch of green in the center, add a couple benches and some playground 
equipment, and call it a “park”. But for those who’ve ventured up Mt. Wilson Trail, 

explored Bailey Canyon (which this development would encroach upon) or enjoyed an 
out-door concert at Memorial Park – sorry, it doesn’t cut it; especially when offered as a 
token in exchange for 17 acres of existing open space for a developer’s McMansions.

 

“Public Safety”? Construction of 42 McMansions in what the state deems a “Very High 
Fire Hazard Severity Zone” wouldn’t enhance it. Nor would the hundreds of additional 
daily car trips through town and who-knows-how-many additional residents needing 
services.

 

Maybe they’re referring to that $250K the developer would kick in for refurbishment of 
the old Bank of America building. A few years back, residents approved and later voted 
to retain an increase in our utility tax – some additional $2.6M in support of our police, 
fire department, emergency responders, etc. When it comes to our own public safety, in 

Sierra Madre we’re more than capable of taking care of that ourselves - thank you very 
much.

 

And then “Fewer Homes”. Fewer than what? There are zero homes there now. Okay – the 
42 McMansions on the ballot are “fewer” than the 50 in that preliminary proposal filed as 
a threat to ensure we cave on the 42. But once the 42 are rejected, if they decide to 

actually move on the 50 – and with the prospect of more months of hearings, challenges, 
re-visions, etc. it’s a big “if” – I’d expect the developer to submit yet another threatened 
proposal, this time for maybe 55 houses. That way they’d be able to re-use whatever 
“Fewer Homes” signs they had leftover.

 

Contrary to what the other side says, the ship has not sailed. We still have the opportunity 
May 9 with a NO on Measure M to keep that ship from sailing, to prevent our village 
from becoming another McMansionville. Hundreds of residents, business and civic 
leaders, longtime homeowners and newcomers, have come together to not only stop these 
42 McMansions with our NO on Measure M but to make clear such development as has 
spread throughout the aforementioned Inland Desert and Orange County will not be al-
lowed in Sierra Madre. 

 

And that’s a good sign.

 

Howard Hays

Sierra Madre

CALLING THEIR BLUFF

This isn’t rocket-science… if you deny the best project the city 
could negotiate then you are going to get something worse.

 

Maybe we shouldn’t say that… because Protect Sierra Madre (PSM) 
tried to negotiate with the developer to withdraw the referendum 
and they could have gotten even more for the city, including $50,000 
to improve Bailey Canyon Wilderness Park, $25,000 for additional 
traffic studies, $25,000 for wildlife habitat improvements, prioritizing 
sidewalks on Lima St., and limited construction hours. But 
PSM doesn’t have the city’s best interests in mind. Oh, and PSM 
could have had $50,000 of their own legal bill paid by the developer. 
All those possible benefits to the city (and PSM) are lost because they also demanded that only 34 homes be 
built and that the Passionists do no future development. Absurd requests from a group that long ago lost their 
betting power.

 

Protect Sierra Madre has now claimed the developer of the 42-home Meadows project is extorting the city 
because they have submitted a 50-home backup project. This other project is regulated by SB 330, a California 
fast-tracking housing law designed to stop cities (or its citizens) from interfering with the reasonable development 
rights of property owners. Notice that in the case of the SB 330 project, the developer is offering no 
concessions. Why is that? Because they can build by right under state law and they don’t have to offer the city 
anything. The State will have their back.

 

Is it extortion to submit an alternate project in case the already negotiated one is denied? Of course not. That is 
the normal course of business. The developer is not walking away, and the voters should know what the alternative 
is going to be, just don’t expect PSM to tell you any of this.

 

So, the developer was willing to put up $150,000 to save the city from having to go through an expensive election, 
and they are certain that the threat from the referendum is not worth giving up eight houses. They know 
the cards they are holding and what PSM is holding. The reality is that PSM bet too much and they now will 
have nothing to show for it. The only hand they have is the actual threat of the $400,000 election. That’s it. No 
one except the delusional few think Measure M can stop development, and now the developer has called their 
bluff. What the developer could have given the city will instead be used to help defray the costs this wasteful 
election.

 

Vote Yes on M on May 9th to protect the remaining benefits for Sierra Madre and keep local con-trol.

SierraMadreForParksAndPublicSafety.org

YES ON M FOR LOCAL CONTROL.

There is a lot of confusion regarding the “Meadows” development. 
Simply put, a YES on M vote is a vote for local control and input. A 
No vote opens the door to higher density development that is benefitted 
by State law that reduces local discretion. You have heard it 
before, something will be built on this property. A YES vote let’s 
Sierra Madre have a say on what is built.

The City Council and the Planning Commission, with much of the 
work done by the Planning Commission, negotiated to establish 
concessions to benefit the entire City. Some of these concessions 
include:

An open PARK, paid for and maintained by the development, for 
the community ; PRESERVATON of our natural hillsides; funds for 
WATER, and, funds for our PUBLIC SAFETY departments.

A NO vote opens the door to dangerous development that releases our local control to State Laws.

The City of Huntington Beach recently entered into expensive litigation against the State and lost their 
claim relating to housing density. Our Governor and Attorney General have made it clear that they will 
prosecute any city that does not abide by affordable housing and increased density laws.

In a March 21, 2023 Press Release from the California Attorney General Rob Bonta, he stated:

“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Local governments don’t get to pick and choose which state laws they 
want to follow. Huntington Beach’s lawsuit is another baseless and obstructionist attempt by the city to 
defy state housing laws,” . . . The California Department of Justice will continue to fight to increase housing 
supply throughout the state, and hold Huntington Beach accountable to state law.”

In a November 4, 2022 Press Release from the Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, his Business, Consumer 
Services and Housing Agency Secretary Lourdes Castro Ramírez stated:

“California is removing barriers to housing development and preservation, streamlining permitting, 
and, most importantly, holding local jurisdictions accountable for meeting the housing needs of their 
communities,”

Let’s have a say on what is developed in our town and vote YES on M.


Sierra Madre Mayor Edward Garcia

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Dear Editor:

The people in favor of No on Measure M are against large tract subdivisions of multi-
million dollar McMansions. The park is not the issue. The primary reason for the park 
is for the retention basin beneath the land for the park. The land with that basin underneath 
it cannot support the weight of houses...hence a park became the developer’s 
solution. Selling the park as a “bonus” was good marketing. We are for parks – we have 
the adjacent Bailey Canyon Park and we do not want it encroached upon because of the 
bloated subdivision. We don’t need another park if it means destroying the meadow. To 
Stop the Housing Project Vote No on Measure M. 

Of course we are for public safety. Those of us voting NO have been fighting for public 
safety from the beginning– we don’t want houses stacked side by side in a very-high 
severity fire zone. We don’t want a housing project that will more than double traffic in 
the adjacent neighborhood adding 700-800 vehicle trips a day to a neighborhood with 
NO sidewalks. Children walk to school in the middle of the streets above Grandview 
because we have no sidewalks. The developer's original plan was to just open the gate 
on the narrow side street of Carter which was a disaster waiting to happen. The Yes 
group’s idea of public safety is that the city receives $250K towards the massive cost of 
renovating the Bank of America for the police department –That isn’t Public Safety! 
We strongly support the public safety of our residents of Sierra Madre. For Real Public 
Safety, Vote No on M.

 

“The Meadows” is just a bad project all around. Widening Carter will potentially kill 
seventeen additional mature trees (not including those that will be impacted and die 
later) and remove 10 ' along the current chain link fence further shrinking the size of an 
already small wilderness park used constantly by scouts, hikers, residents, and people 
from all over Southern California. More importantly, besides destroying the habitat for 
wildlife in the current meadow, it will also disrupt a second natural habitat and a second 
environment for wildlife. It allows a private housing development to take public land to 
be used for the developer’s own purpose–a lane of traffic for their housing development. 
Never would Nathaniel Carter have given that land to the city so it could become a lane 
of traffic. It was given to the city to be maintained as a public park. What is wrong with 
this picture? The Preserve Bailey Canyon, Vote No on Measure M. 

Nancy Beckham

No on Measure M Proponent

DON’T BE FOOLED!

We just celebrated the fun of fooling others on April 1st, but let’s not lose sight of those that are trying to 
fool us on important issues.

The No on Measure M folks want to use loaded words to fool us into thinking that they have our City’s best 
interest in mind. They use words like “McMansions” on their signs to describe the houses, even though they 
know the Planning Commission has limited the size of the proposed homes. 

And, they are trying to fool you into thinking that no homes will be built if you vote “no”. They don’t tell 
you that their petition created the ability for the land to be developed with more homes and without all the 
concessions like a park, $250K for Public Safety, $900K for water, etc. 

They don’t tell you that there will be homes built on that property, no matter what, because the Passionist 
Priests, like all private property owners, have the right to build on their property if they follow the laws of 
the City, County and State. The Passionists has bent over backwards to comply with all the requirements. 
Remember, it was not the priests that forced the City Council to spend $400K on another election.

They don’t tell you that this important City issue has had countless hours of public debate, public hearings, 
and lots of input. Remember Measure HR? The citizens of Sierra Madre have voted once to endorse the 
public planning and legally mandated process for the Meadows project. The citizens approved it; now we 
are forced to spend $400K to do it again.

So don’t fall into someone else’s trap. 

Vote Yes on Measure M because you support the rights of property owners to build on their property in 
compliance with all local and state laws.

Vote Yes on Measure M because you support the work of the City staff, Planning Commission and City 
Council to influence the project to be in the best interests of all the citizens.

Vote Yes on Measure M because you believe that a family friendly 3-acre park with lifetime maintenance 
would be a welcome addition to the west side of the City.

Vote Yes on Measure M because you feel that $985K would allow the City’s Water Department to offset the 
water used on this project.

Vote Yes on Measure M because you feel that $250K would help the City’s Public Safety programs.

Vote Yes on Measure M because you see that the donated improvements to Carter are an important addition.

Vote Yes on Measure M

Bob Spears, 35 years as a member of the Volunteer Fire Department, 16 years on the Planning Commission 
– www.YesOnMSierraMadre.org


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