Mountain Views News, Combined Edition Saturday, April 22, 2023

and provides 
the 
developer 
with substantial 
rights, 
such as 
unlimited 
number 
of 
waivers or reductions of development 
standards and limited discretion by 
the Planning Commission. 

The proposed Meadows project will 
feature fewer homes – 42 vs. 50 – than 
the development submitted to the city 
under SB 330. The Meadows development 
will include a three-acre public 
park featuring trees and plants specifically 
chosen to attract wildlife, including 
birds, rabbits and deer. 

The Monastery agreed to pay the city 
$983,500 for citywide water conservation 
measures, including homeowner 
incentives to install high-efficiency 
fixtures, plant drought-tolerant and 
native landscaping, and build grey-
water irrigation systems. These benefits 
will be available for all Sierra 
Madreans if the Meadows project is 
approved. Installing high efficiency 
toilets can save up to 35 gallons per 
day and smart sprinkler controllers, 
drip irrigation, and efficient sprinklers 
can save more than 50 gallons of 
water a day. 

In addition, all the homes in the new 
Meadows project will be designed 
with all electric appliances, which are 
safer for our residents and our environment. 
Buildings are currently the 
fourth largest source of greenhouse 
gas emissions in California. This is 
because we use natural gas for heating 
and cooking. When natural gas is 
burned, it generates carbon dioxide, 
which contributes to climate change. 
Sierra Madre receives more than 90 
percent of its electricity from renewable 
sources, eliminating these emissions. 
Besides being bad for the environment, 
the burning of natural 
gas emits pollutants that damage our 
lungs. Use of natural gas increases the 
odds of children developing respiratory 
illnesses by nearly 20 percent. The 
SB 330 project would likely include 
polluting natural gas appliances. 

The alternative to the Meadows development, 
the SB 330 project, has none 
of these benefits. It will not have a 
public park, does not offer innovative 
water efficiency incentives available to 
all homeowners, and the development 
will not be all electric.

This Earth Day, please join me in 
making the best environmental 
choice. Vote YES on the Meadows 
project. Vote YES on Measure M.

4

 CONVERSATIONS CONVERSATIONS

Mountain View News Saturday, April 22, 2023 


YES ON M: BETTING AGAINST THE STATE

Measure M is the only way to secure Sierra Madre’s negotiated concessions from the 
Meadows Project. At risk is a new 3-acre park, $250,000 for public safety, 40 hillside 
acres placed in conservancy, and almost $1 million to offset the project’s water use 
for the next 50 years.

 

If Measure M does not pass, the city loses all of those negotiated concessions only to 
have them replaced by eight additional houses. “Protect” Sierra Madre is gambling 
with our future by thinking they can somehow stop the state-protected SB 330 project. 
You will notice that they never say HOW they will stop the 50 homes. This is 
what we call wishful thinking. 

 

The alternate project, submitted by the Passionists in December only after Protect Sierra Madre’s referendum made it 
possible, will allow at least 50 homes to be built on their property. They can build 10+ additional homes if they take 
advantage of the State’s Density Bonus. This project is as real as the Meadows Specific Plan, both of which have been 
legally accepted by the city and have a maximum of five meetings left to make sure they meet the city’s state-adjusted 
objective standards.

 

Oddly enough, Protect Sierra Madre released a list of endorsers that include a former city council member whose 
council voted to ADD the low-density residential option to the Passionists’ property in 1996, five General Plan Steering 
Committee members who in 2013 did NOT vote to remove the housing option on the Passionists’ institutional property, 
a former Community Services Commissioner who is now supporting the city NOT getting a free park, the chair of 
Protect Sierra Madre – Stop the Housing Project who recently and ironically claimed they do not oppose housing when 
their name literally says “STOP the Housing Project,” real estate agents who are arguing AGAINST houses and parks 
as if they are bad for Sierra Madre, and the Chair of Preserve Sierra Madre who during the Measure HR campaign was 
arguing for allowing 6,500 sq. ft. Arcadia-style MANSIONS to be built.

 

These “endorsers” sound more like liabilities who can’t decide what they stand for.

 

The Meadows Project, on the other hand, is endorsed by many civic leaders including the current and previous City 
Council, Planning Commission, nine mayors, the Fire and Police Associations, Sierra Madre Little League and Girls 
Softball Associations, the Mountain Views News, the Chamber of Commerce, plus 100 other civic leaders and volunteers.

 

There is no arguing that Yes on M is what most of Sierra Madre’s leaders know is best for the city, and that betting 
against the state is a fool’s errand.

Vote Yes on M - Sierra Madre for Parks and Public Safety

THE HOW TO 
GUIDE FOR 
DEVELOPERS IN 
SIERRA MADRE

 

 Here's how to get a 
massive development 
project approved in Sierra Madre despite wide-spread community 
opposition:

Step 1 - Begin the process during a worldwide crisis like a 
pandemic so that people will be too distracted to pay attention 
as the vetting process moves forward.

Step 2 - Get around a City's General Plan regulating development 
in the City, with rules that all the residents have to follow, 
by coming up with a Specific Plan with rules that apply 
only to you.

Step 3 - Hire a public relations firm that has already used focus 
groups to find the best messaging to influence the public.

Step 4 - If your headquarters is located outside the city like 
in say, Santa Monica, and you have a property owner who 
is located in a place like Chicago, you have an optics problem. 
Overcome that obstacle by getting a small group of local 
residents on your side and give the group a catchy name like 
"Neighbors for Fairness".

Step 5 - Funnel money through the local group because it 
looks bad if all the flyers and ads are coming directly from 
you. You legally have to disclose "Major funding by...." in all 
your ads but it's in the fine print at the bottom so hopefully no 
one will notice where the money is coming from.

Step 6 - If your property has some steep hillside and fire hazard 
areas, simply offer to donate that unusable land to the 
City. It takes the liability and maintenance for that land off 
your hands, puts it on the City and makes you look like a conservationist 
rather than an exploitative and greedy developer.

Step 7 - When your project is so large that it requires you to 
leave a large area undeveloped for a water collection basin, 
turn lemons into lemonade by calling it a "park" and add a 
few benches and play equipment to your plan. It allows you to 
turn something mandatory into a "concession". You can then 
use "Yes for a New Park" on your yard signs. 

Step 8 - Throw a bone towards the police department and you 
will be sure to get the endorsement of the police union and 
probably the fire union too. You can then use "Yes to Public 
Safety" on your yard signs.

Step 9 - You won't have enough local residents motivated to 
support your project so get people who live outside the city to 
attend critical City Council meetings by buying them dinner 
at a local restaurant and handing them matching shirts and 
buttons to wear with slogans supporting your project.

Step 10 - Scare the City Council into supporting your project 
by threatening a lawsuit. It's frivolous and costs nothing but 
it's also very effective at influencing them.

Step 11 - Despite any widespread opposition you encounter, 
dismiss them as a small group of malcontents. Repetition is 
key.

Step 12 - Spend a lot of money to overwhelm the opposition 
and influence the public. Use your deep pockets!

Step 13 - Now comes the best and final step: Start an application 
for another and bigger project in the same location that 
is much worse than your actual project. Then threaten the 
residents that if they don't approve your project, they will be 
punished with a worse project. It doesn't matter that the alternative 
project has no chance of approval. It sounds scary 
and takes attention away from the disastrous consequences of 
your actual project. An added benefit is that you can then use 
"Yes to Fewer Homes" on your yard signs.

 It's a great plan but it all hinges on whether the locals will be 
fooled. If all this sounds familiar, its because I'm describing 
the game plan used for the "Meadows" project.

 

Matt Bryant

Sierra Madre Resident

VOTE YES ON MEASURE M: BETTER FOR OUR CITY AND OUR ENVIRONMENT 
continued from page 1


Councilman Robert Parkhurst

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 

NO ON MEASURE M

AGREE / DISAGREE

There weren’t many points of agreement between opposing 
sides on Measure M in last week’s paper – but towards 
the end, I did find a couple.

In the piece from “Sierra Madre for Parks and Public 
Safety and by the way a 42-McMansion Housing Development” 
(okay - I added that last part), they state there are 
two projects “under discussion”, one for 42 and the other 
for 50 houses. The one for 42, “The Meadows”, has been 
under discussion for years, with a finalized proposal approved 
by our City Council last fall. 

As for the 50-house alternative, a preliminary application 
has been received. That’s it. We don’t even know that 
the developer ever intended to take it further, since it was 
meant as a threat to get us to cave on the 42.

There’s only one proposed development on the ballot May 
9 – for the 42 McMansions – which we’ll be stopping with 
our NO vote on Measure M.

In Councilman Gene Goss’ article, he claims we voted “to 
support the Meadows Project” last November. In fact, this 
coming election will be the first opportunity we’ve had to 
cast a simple up-or-down vote on it. Last fall, there was 
an attempt to bring the site under Hillside Management 
restrictions. It would’ve allowed for bigger homes, but at 
much less density – maybe 7 or 8 houses rather than 42 
crammed into the 17 acres. The developer framed their 
campaign as, “Do you want bigger homes?” - and voters 
made clear they didn’t. Now, it’s “Do you want more 
homes?”. But this time, voters are far less likely to fall for 
it.

In Jeff Tapper’s letter, he suggests that with the Los Angeles 
National Forest nearby we shouldn’t be bothered by 
environmental concerns – while in fact the impacts would 
be significant, permanent and, for those of us living here, 
close to home. He points out that alarm over the project 
initially came from those adjacent to the site, but doesn’t 
seem to get how a project permanently altering the character 
of our entire community would be of concern to all 
of us.

Mr. Tapper repeats the line about McMansion opponents 
“forcing” this special election on the city. But it was our 
City Council that voted to rush the election (with significant 
cost) at the behest of a developer fearful of losing investors 
with further delay.

But when he says, “in Sierra Madre, quite literally every 
single vote does count” - right on, Jeff!

In the letter from Fr. Clemente Barron, he complains of 
“unfairly limiting property rights”. All property rights 
are limited by applicable zoning restrictions. It’s allowing 
any developer exemption from rules the rest of us abide 
by that’s unfair.

I agree with him, though, that those trying to push the 
McMansions on us are up against “people who do not believe 
the word of the authorities”, who haven’t “acknowledged 
the correctness and benefits of our plans.” And yes, 
we are sending “a message to the San Gabriel Valley, who 
are watching us”.

Our message is that ultimate authority rests with those 
who live here – and vote. That’s why over 1,400 of us got 
together to put this referendum on the ballot to stop these 
McMansions. It’s why we’ll be voting NO on Measure 
M to Protect and Preserve our treasured Sierra Madre. 
Howard Hayes

 

NOTICE OF 

DESIGNATION OF TALLY 

CENTER LOCATION 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Registrar-
Recorder/County Clerk's office located 
at the Downey Tally Center, 9150 Imperial 
Highway, Downey, California 90242, will 
be the central tally location for the CITY OF 
SIERRA MADRE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL 
ELECTION scheduled to be held on TUESDAY, 
MAY 9, 2023. 

For voting in person, please visit our website 
at https://lavote.gov/home/voting-elections/
voting-options/voting-in-person to find 
open vote center locations and hours. 

Persons requiring multilingual assistance 
in Armenian, Bengali, Burmese, Cambodian/
Khmer, Chinese, Farsi, Gujarati, Hindi, 
Indonesian, Japanese, Korean, Mongolian, 
Russian, Spanish, Tagalog/Filipino, Telugu, 
Thai or Vietnamese regarding information 
in the notice may call (800) 815-2666, Option 
3.

 DEAN C. LOGAN

 Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk 

County of Los Angeles

4/22/23

CNS-3690815#


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