Mountain Views News, Combined Edition Saturday, May 6, 2023

4

 CONVERSATIONS CONVERSATIONS

Mountain View News Saturday, May 6, 2023 


TRUST YOUR CITY COUNCIL WITH A YES 
VOTE ON MEASURE M

As was stated numerous times at Wednesday’s Forum on 
Measure M, there is a binary choice: YES ON M to hold the 
developer accountable to the 42-home Meadows Specific 
Plan, 3-acre park, and Development Agreement, or No on 
M to stop the Specific Plan and release the developer from 
contractual obligations allowing them to move forward 
with the 50-home SB 330 project with no concessions.

Your Planning Commission and City Council are fully educated 
on both plans, state law, and the consequences of each. This is why you should trust your 
city’s experts who have fully vetted the projects.

At the Forum, Protect Sierra Madre’s top minds demonstrated that they don’t know what they 
are doing. Scott Hood was not even aware that Carter Ave. was being improved. This has been a 
heated point of debate since it first appeared in the 2020 Memorandum of Understanding. 

Susan Neuhausen said that eight trees were being removed along Carter Ave when it is only four 
Cypress trees. She then declared that the Deodar trees were all going to die because of adding a 
sidewalk. When did she become a tree expert that overrides the arborist’s opinion?

What was even more telling, was her explanation that the 20% allowable Density Bonus applied 
to the gross floor area (GFA) calculation. It does not apply to that at all. This illustrates Protect 
Sierra Madre’s fundamental misunderstanding of State housing laws. No wonder they think they 
can fight SB 330. They don’t even know how it applies!

The very-low-income Density Bonus for the 50 unit project under SB 330 that will be built if No 
on Measure M succeeds applies to the total number of UNITS allowed on the property, not the 
density of the homes themselves. Under the State’s formula, 51 base units are allowed. The three 
very-low-income units give an increase of 20% to 61 units. The developer is not taking advantage 
of the bonus and has limited the project to only 50 homes (they can increase this to 61 units before 
July’s deadline).

For providing these low-income homes the developer gets one State incentive, and they have 
chosen to ignore the city’s gross floor area limits. This allows them to increase the size of homes 
on the lots by as much as necessary to maintain the same return on investment had they not 
provided the low-income homes. They then get an unlimited number of zoning code waivers to 
allow that increase in GFA to maintain profitability.

Your City Council understands what is at stake, while Protect Sierra Madre has shown they are 
ignorant of the project’s pertinent details and State housing laws. No wonder they have never 
explained how they will stop the SB 330 project; they have no clue what they are doing.

Trust your City Council with a Yes vote on M. It is the only way to limit the number of homes to 
42 and to save the park and $7 million in concessions.

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

Say No to Measure M and No to Manipulation

 

Sierra Madre residents have been deluged with mailers and ads from the Santa 
Monica Developer and Chicago property owner in an effort to convince us to support 
their ironically named "Meadows" project that will utterly destroy the meadow 
that exists there now.

 

But have you noticed the manipulation in their marketing campaign? For the Measure 
HR election, it seemed like every mailing had a picture of a Priest. Now the 
Priests are nowhere to be found as their campaign for Measure M shifted to punishing 
Sierra Madre residents with a worse project than the one they have already 
put forward if the vote doesn't go their way. I guess the Priests felt it would be a bad 
look to have their faces associated with that effort.

 

Have you also noticed that none of their ads and mailers show a picture or artist 
rendering of how the houses will look in that newly created neighborhood. 

 

I've seen pictures of boundary lines around the vacant land where their massive 
project will be built. I've seen pictures of a police car, police badge and fire department 
badge in a cynical effort to tie the pro-ject to "public safety". I've seen pictures 
of crystal-clear water and a water faucet to emphasize the ridic-ulous notion that 
the largest housing project in Sierra Madre history is somehow going to save wa-
ter. I've seen pictures of an idyllic park with a couple of people throwing a frisbee 
emphasizing their al-truistic commitment to "parks" even though it's required to 
leave open space for a water retention ba-sin. I've seen them emphasize how they 
will "preserve open space" by donating some unbuildable and hazardous hillside 
land even as they are destroying the last large piece of open space in Sierra Madre. 

 

Finally, they are trying to focus our attention away from their destructive project 
by threatening us with a worse project if they don't get their way. In other words, 
rather than listen to the residents who are op-posed to their project by making 
some modifications, instead they will punish us with a worse project even though 
that worse project has no chance of approval. Who does that?

 

You can imagine their marketing consultants sitting around a table saying this will 
fool these yokels in Sierra Madre. Then they put out yard signs that say "Yes to 
Public Safety", "Yes to Parks" and "Yes to Fewer Homes". They will be laughing all 
the way to the bank if the vote goes their way.

 

You would think people building a "housing project" would put the houses front 
and center in their cam-paign. I would submit that something is wrong with a 
housing project when they want us to focus on po-lice badges, water faucets, people 
playing frisbee and threats of an alternative project for which there is only an application 
submitted. 

 

Maybe it's because a massive housing tract of 2-story McMansions crammed together 
is a better fit for Rancho Cucamonga and not the "Village of the Foothills" 
as Sierra Madre is so aptly named.

 

Hopefully, Sierra Madre residents will see through the manipulation and Vote NO 
on Measure M.

 

Matt Bryant

Sierra Madre resident 

PIPE DREAM OR REALITY?

The final days are here before the voting deadline 
on May 9th. Still confused?

Protect Sierra Madre and Preserve Sierra 
Madre are convinced they are on the right 
side of this one – the Meadows Development 
shouldn’t be built. 

Your city leaders know one thing: 

The Passionists’ property is going to be developed 
no matter what. 

There are two projects submitted to the city. 

1. 42-home Meadows Specific Plan with 
a 3-acre park, $250,000 for public safety, 
$983,500 for net-zero water offsets, and 40 
hillside acres in conservancy. 

 or

2. 50-home SB 330 Project with very-low-
income housing and none of the benefits

The “No” groups are saying the SB330 development 
is a “Pipe Dream” and a “Fantasy”, and 
one not likely to be built on the property. 

The developer, on the other hand, has submitted 
a statement of their intentions: 

“We have been very clear that we want to implement 
the Meadows project that was unanimously 
approved by the City’s Planning Commission 
and City Council. 

However, like any business, we have a fiduciary 
duty to fulfill our obligations to the Passionists. 

Unfortunately, if Measure M fails, we will have 
no choice but to proceed with an alternative 
project pursuant to SB330. 

We hope that doesn’t happen, but we are fully 
prepared for any outcome. We have significant 
experience working with new state housing laws 
and our team is ready to proceed with an alternative 
should that become necessary.” - New 
Urban West 4-21-2023

The developer speaks with authority for their 
plans, Protect Sierra Madre does not. Despite 
what they tell you, Protect Sierra Madre has no 
way to stop the SB 330 project which is protected 
by state law.

Are you going to accept the reality that Sierra 
Madre faces? A small group of adjacent neighbors 
is leading this “No” effort. This will cost 
the city $7 million in concessions, including 
the 3-acre park, only to replace these with 
eight more houses. 

Please support your City Council, Planning 
Commission, Chamber of Commerce, Fire 
and Police Associations, the Mountain Views 
News, Sierra Madre Little League, Sierra 
Madre Girls Softball Association, and over 
100 Civic leaders and volunteers in supporting 
a vote for:

Yes On Measure M

De and Pat Alcorn

LETTER TO THE EDITOR NO ON M 

TALKING POINTS

Santa Monica developer New Urban West, Chicago-based Passionists, our city 
council and this paper have been pushing the 42-McMansion development in Bailey 
Canyon for months, if not years. For NUW and the Passionists, the reason’s 
obvious – they’d both make a lot of money. But for city leaders and this paper, their 
persistent support has been bewildering and disappointing.

Their problem, though, has been residents standing in opposition to a development 
of size, scope and density unprecedented in our town’s history – one that would 
forever change the unique character of Sierra Madre; the reason we’ve chosen to 
live here.

New Urban West has encountered such opposition before, and are pros at dealing 
with it. Unable to advance any credible argument on the merits of 42 McMansions, 
proponents have left it to the pros who know how the game’s played – relying on 
talking points and threats from New Urban West to push this through.

In this paper’s editorial last week, for instance, it’s framed as a question of “42 or 50 
houses?” – stating unequivocally a NO vote “will not stop the alternative project”; 
it “will be constructed”. Further, it would be “protected under SB330” and there’s 
“nothing that can be done to stop” it.

I’ve asked those on the YES side, inside local government and out, what they base 
their insistence on that this other threatened project would be inevitable and unstoppable. 
Sourcing it through, the answer is invariably, “It’s what New Urban 
West tells us.” Sometimes I’ll ask the follow-up; “Given their campaign for the 42 
McMansions relies on this threat, do you think they’d tell you anything different?”

In this paper’s editorial last week, it was stated that under SB330 “local government 
lost its jurisdiction of such matters” as “General Plan and residential zoning rules”. 
In fact, SB330 gives deference to such rules. What it seeks to prevent is changing 
rules to stop affordable housing that would’ve otherwise been in compliance. The 
examples cited of enforcement – Oceanside, Antioch, Huntington Beach - were 
localities attempting to change rules to prevent affordable housing. (“Granny flats” 
were a focus in Huntington Beach.) I haven’t seen the state using SB330 to force 
acceptance of multi-million-dollar homes.

The editorial mentions concern over “the growing needs of the Sierra Madre Fire 
Department”. I doubt those needs would be addressed by allowing 42 new homes 
in a “very high fire hazard severity zone”.

New Urban West has been at this a long time, inflicting their McMansion developments 
on communities that don’t want them. Pros that they are, I’d imagine 
they’ve researched Sierra Madre’s demographics – highly educated and successful. 
Most of us have had experience with, and have low tolerance for, their “Take it or 
else!” approach. But one thing that doesn’t show up in standard demographic analyses 
is the very special devotion we have for our town. Their professionally-crafted 
threats and talking points might work elsewhere, but not here in Sierra Madre – as 
they’ll find out with our NO votes on Tuesday.

Howard Hays

Sierra Madre

LETTER TO THE EDITOR YES ON M 

I am a lifelong animal lover and environmentalist (thanks mom). Since childhood, I’ve volun-
teered or worked in animal care and wildlife conservation. So, I am the last person who’d want to 
destroy open space and wildlife habitat. As such, I will be voting YES on Measure M support-ing 
the Meadows project in Sierra Madre on May 9th. Why? Read California legislation SB 330, SB 
8, SB 9and SB 10 and you will see there is no way forward to prevent housing and this is also the 
least destructive way forward.

 

The City of Sierra Madre and many residents worked hard over more than two years and 15 public 
meetings to get a decent deal. Instead of identical McMansion, there are several home designs, 
and while large they are certainly not McMansions. Just a few of the amenities making the homes 
more sustainable are solar power, electric appliances, and drought tolerant native plants. We get a 
new park, and 40 acres of hillside will be permanently protected. And then of course there is over 
a million dollars going toward the water conservation program and a new police station. See the 
plan for yourself on the city website.

 

We’d all like to save the meadow, but please don’t be swayed by the No folks. First, they said 
they’d save the meadow, now they say, well no, they’ll keep it to 20 homes instead. They’ve said 
the city didn’t fight hard enough nor get enough concessions, and alternatively that the city is accepting 
money from the developer to push the project through. See the paragraph above – more 
than two years and many concessions later we’ve arrived at the Meadows. They say the 50 homes 
option is only a threat and the hillside can never be developed as it is alternately too steep or in 
too high a fire area. Guess what? The 50 homes project has been submitted – go to the city website 
and see for yourself. Can they get it through? Yes, they can! Again, go to the State website and 
read SB 330, SB 8, SB 9 and SB 10 for yourself. You will see it also opens the door for even more 
development. And what you won’t see is state legislation prohibiting build-ing in a very high fire 
zone. Go for a drive in our own neighborhood, or most anywhere else in California, and you will 
see for yourself homes built in very high fire zones on very steep hills.

 

In an ideal world the Passionists who own the land would donate the undeveloped parcels to a 
conservancy. But the reality is, they wish to make a profit and have entered into an agreement 
with a developer. The ship to protect the meadow has long since sailed. But we have an oppor-
tunity to limit the damage. 

Please vote Yes on M and allow the current Meadows project with 42 homes, a park, preservation 
of the remaining 40 hillside acres, and over a million dollars toward water conservation and 
public safety to go forward.

Lisa Milne

Sierra Madre


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