(6/23/07) Dear Editor:

I see that Sierra Madre has refused to correct the city’s erroneous water billings to Richard Meaglia, and has already run up a legal bill more than three times the amount in dispute to defend the indefensible in court.  And that Vern Hensel is also considering suing.

Is this what it means to be an All-America City?  To screw its honest, bill-paying citizens whose only crime was to trust the city and not realize that they were being overcharged for years?  To acknowledge the error at long last but to hide behind a questionable ordinance limiting the city’s liability to just one year?

Didn’t our city officials’ parents teach them fairness?  Did they miss that many Sunday school lessons?  Forget the Golden Rule?  Leave their ethics at the door?

With these two instances, it is likely that there are many more citizens being cheated on their water bills.  I think it behooves every Sierra Madre resident to visit city hall and demand to have their water bill analyzed.  There may be gold in them thar bills.

Interim City Manager Don Hopper appears to be the responsible adult in city administration.  When he reviews the issue, let’s hope he will keep in mind the Rotary Four-Way Test:

1.     Is it the TRUTH?

2.     Is it FAIR to all concerned?

3.     Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?

4.     Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?

Can’t go wrong with guidance like that.

Ward Calaway

Sierra Madre

(5/18/07)  Dear Editor, 

On behalf of the Senior Community Commission of Sierra Madre, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many individuals and organizations responsible for putting together a wonderful reception for Sierra Madre’s 2007, Older American of the Year, Russ Anderson.

The reception planning was done beautifully by Commissioners Joan Spears and Nancy Walsh. They transformed the normally bland Senior Center into a truly lovely place. From the rust colored linen tablecloths to the hand potted marigolds in the center of each table. As councilmember John Buchanan said, “It was cozy.” That it was…Thanks to the other commissioners as well, and to Rosemary Garcia of the Community Services Department and to our Staff Liaison, Bruce Inman.

We would like to recognize with appreciation the following Sierra Madre organizations and merchants for their very generous donations: The Kiwanis Club of Sierra Madre, Danny Osti Tree Service, G-E-M Plumbing, Buccaneer Lounge, Mama Pete’s Nursery School, Senior Club of Sierra Madre, Leonora Moss for a lovely flower arrangement and corsage, Barney’s Only Place in Town, Domino’s Pizza, Casa Del Rey, Village Pizzeria, Nano Café, Ken Anhalt, Pat Krok, and Wildflour Baking Company for another exceptional cake and, last but not least, Harlequin Art Gallery for a very unique and I’m sure memorable gift for the Anderson family. They will frame a photo of Russ leading some children through a rapidly moving mountain current, incorporating the matte that was signed by every guest in attendance. 

Kudos to La Salle student Vincent Johnson for lending just the right touch of musical background to the evening. It was a special night for a special man!

Pat Birdsall, Chair

Senior Community Commission

Sierra Madre

(4/23/07)  Dear Editor

The measure to save downtown Sierra Madre from overdevelopment by strengthening the height and density limits of the 1996 General Plan won.   A costly effort pushed hard by an experienced public affairs firm hired to manage the No vote in this election lost.  The majority win may seem close, but proponents of Measure V consider the win a big one.   Apparently this firm had previously lost only three other elections of the 34 that it was hired to either win or defeat in Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Arkansas, Colorado, Michigan and California, as per their website www.schubertflintpa.com.  These were not all local elections—many of them were statewide measures.

Who in Sierra Madre chose to use such tactics against their friends and neighbors who placed a ballot measure in front of the voters for what they thought was right for their city?   I think the discussions and disagreements would have been far different if both sides were talking neighbor to neighbor within the context of a city issue.   Instead, the tactics of outside professional elections managers bombarded us week in and week out.  Of course, we know that this is not just a local issue when we see where the No on Measure V money came from.

Each No vote came at the expense of at least $170,922 or $100.36 per vote, of special interest money—from the building industry and state and national real estate associations.  On the other hand, the cost of the Yes campaign was achieved through local citizen donations of $29,000 or $16 per vote.  These figures will likely change when final election finance reports are filed.  I expect the disparity to increase.

For those who voted to oppose the measure, I imagine these truths would be unsettling. Such undue influence from outside money and hired experts is not something Sierra Madre should every have to endure again.

Sincerely,

Caroline Brown 

(4/23/07)  The lesson of April 17 is that big corporate money and the specious arguments generated by the highly paid political consultants and advertising agencies in their employ were not enough to crack the independent spirit of Sierra Madre. What we saw last Tuesday was something we as a community can take much pride in.

(4/19/07) Hi Bill. 

While I realize that you were reporting what Lambdin said, it would have been appropriate for you to contact me.  I have no reason to lie.  He agreed, as he stated and you printed, to appear on the debate.  So why call me a liar?  Lambdin and I spoke again the very same day after my initial contact, in fact within an hour, after I talked to Michelle Keith regarding live video coverage, his first condition.  Michelle informed me that the debate conflicted with the Planning Commission but that if we taped it in the proper format and applied to SMTV3, we could possibly show it when a time slot was available.  I immediately  called Lambdin back and he understood  that we wouldn't be able to broadcast live but was okay with a delayed replay.  We even talked about what slots on SMTV might be available.

Further, his second condition was that he not be attacked and I assured him that there would be no hostility.  You were there and clearly there were some supporters of No on V present.  There was no hostility.  We also had at least two other conversations about participants to appear with him.

You were also present at the Chamber event, and may have noticed Lambdin and I, and then Colleen and I, discussing the debate.  Unfortunately, you were not close enough to hear Lambdin decline after Colleen said she would not appear. 

Whether or not you agree with the Mt. Wilson Observer's position on Measure V, I am surprised that you would facilitate further assassination of the character of myself.  And I would certainly expect that you as a professional would not facilitate the spreading of rumors regarding the start and financing of the Mt. Wilson Observer.    Who finances your activities Bill?  Someone in West LA?

When Katina and I started this paper, it was out of our desire to let the citizens know what was going on in our city.  No one else was doing it.  The Internet has not yet replaced newspapers as source of news.  Should we have started the paper and avoided controversial issues of the day?

Both Katina and I worked at the closest thing to a newspaper that the city had at that time, The Weekly.  We were told however, that "Sierra Madre only represented 7% of his advertising revenue and he had no interest in writing about the city".  That was from Von Raes the owner. (And by the way, when I wrote about this in a column, I deliberately did not disclose his name out of professional courtesy).   I am certain that you may find such a statement from Von hard to believe given the amount of B I A S E D coverage that he has given Sierra Madre since we left. 

Accusations that the paper is slanted is simply because efforts to have input from No On V have been non existent until John Hutt called and wrote a letter to the editor. I have been told repeatedly by No on V supporters that they would not submit anything to the paper.  Only Jackie Knowles (which was actually about Joe Mosca) and John Hutt submitted anything ever.  Both were published without editing in their entirety.  Don't call our publication biased due to lack of participation from people with opposing views.

Our voluntary departure to start our own newspaper was a natural professional progression for both of us.  And, if those who are so anxious to defame us would admit, the records of our incorporation predate any talk of Measure V by several months.  So you see, despite the rumors, this paper was not inspired by Measure V.

And last but not least, what makes anyone in Sierra Madre think they know enough about Katina and I to say that it is not possible for us to personally commit our financial resources into this paper.   Even before the MWO, that is what we have done independently.  Give back to our respective communities both in time and money.  And we have done so without any expectation of praise or political appointments. 

Susan Henderson

Editor’s Response:  Regarding contacting you: I had the video in which you stated your side, and I had Lambdin’s response.  I also had my own correspondence with Glenn, in which he had stated that he would not participate, dated five days before your statement said he had declined.  So I felt I had both sides of the story. You have now responded to Glenn’s statement, and if he chooses to respond, then the “he said, she said” ping pong game of responses can go back and forth in the Letters to the Editor, not in the story.   As to your statement that I was there and clearly there were “No on Measure V” supporters there, I didn’t stick around long enough to find that out.  When I saw that it was a one-sided debate, I left immediately after your explanation of why there was no-one there from No on V.

I have not questioned whether or not you and Katina have committed your own financial resources to your paper. I have not called your paper biased. I have made no accusations that your paper is slanted, nor have I suggested that MWO was inspired by Measure V.  What I have done is offered a place where my readers, both for and against Measure V, can send their Letters to the Editor and have them published in their entirety.  I am not responsible for the thoughts and opinions of my readers.  However, I will point out that regarding the accusations of one-sidedness made by some readers, you have stated in your letter that your paper has been one-sided due to lack of participation by one side.  If these readers have seen what you have admitted was a one-sided paper, are they not entitled to comment on what they have observed, i.e., walks like a duck, talks like a duck?  You have vigorously defended yourself and your paper against those observations in this letter, and I am happy to offer you the forum to do so.  Regarding  readers’ questioning of finances, the readers that have questioned them, did just that.  Ask questions.  You have responded.  Again, I am happy to provide a forum in which you may respond to those who question you.

by John Hutt

While the goals of Measure V are laudable, it falls short of its mission.  In the end it would make things worse, not better.  Measure V is full of loopholes, problematic provisions and ambiguities that would lead to regrettable downtown development and increased litigation costs for the City.

Ignore the wild claims and mudslinging of some on both sides of Measure V and focus on the measure itself.  Measure V does two things: first, it amends the General Plan and zoning code to regulate height and residential density in the downtown area, and second, it requires a citywide vote to change such regulations.  That’s all it does, and it does so poorly.  It doesn’t require any setbacks, preserve view corridors, limit building mass, encourage good design, preserve historic buildings, limit commercial development, or allow for project-specific voting.

Height

Measure V limits height in downtown to 30 feet or two stories.  Sounds simple, but it’s not – because how height is measured is as important as numerical limits.  Measure V incorporates our outdated system of measuring height, loopholes and all.  For example, Section 511 of Measure V allows “basements” in addition to two stories, so long as at least half of the basement is less than six feet above grade.  To the normal eye, this looks like three stories – because it is.  To me, this is the biggest loophole in our entire zoning code – and Measure V would permanently enshrine it in our General Plan and zoning code absent a vote of the entire City to change it.

The flipside is that Measure V does not allow any deviations from its height limits, no matter how standard.  This is contrary to Section 17.36.100 of our zoning code which limits structures to 30’, but allows an additional 12’ for appurtenances.  This provision has been in the code since at least 1988 and probably since the town adopted zoning in the 50s.  It is also the norm for commercial zoning codes.  So if you want to rebuild your historic facade or church steeple, add architectural features to provide interest to the roofline, have an elevator for handicap access, or simply put air conditioners on the roof, too bad.  None of these are allowed under Measure V, not even with a variance.

Density

Measure V limits residential density in the downtown to 13 residential units per acre.  This is the base density under the General Plan for multi-family developments.  Seems reasonable enough, but the devil hides in the details.  Both the General Plan and zoning code provide for increased density for good design.  Measure V does not. 

Additionally, both the Land Use Element and the Housing Element of the General Plan encourage residential development in downtown, with the Housing Element contemplating residential densities of 20 to 30 units per acre on East Montecito Avenue.  What would this level of density look like?  Drive Sierra Madre Boulevard and you will see.  Most of these apartment buildings and condos predate the 1996 General Plan, and are in excess of 20 units per acre. 

The inequity of Measure V is illustrated by a project that the Planning Commission recently reviewed.  It proposed three residential units on a standard lot on East Montecito.  13 units per acre equates to 2.9 units for this lot, which Measure V would round down to two units.  A nearby resident complained that the project was too dense because it exceeded Measure V’s limits, but failed to mention that her condo complex has a density of 21.8 units per acre.

Inadequacy of Height and Density as Regulating Tools

So Measure V has some problems, inequities and loopholes in the way it regulates height and density.  I could live with this if it resulted in superior downtown development, but it doesn’t.  Quite the contrary, Measure V would result in squatty, boring buildings.  Although Measure V limits building height, it doesn’t limit building mass or scale, nor does it require buildings be set back from property lines or preserve views.  It limits the number of residential units, but it does not limit their size, nor does it place any limits on commercial development.  Nor does Measure V have any provisions to encourage or require good design or historic preservation.

Here’s an example: compare the recently developed project on East Montecito to the Old North Church.  Sitting on the eastern property line of the Montecito project is a windowless, thirty-foot high wall that extends the entire length of the property.  This is allowed under Measure V.  Alternately the Old North Church is set back from its property lines, its overall mass compared to its site is less than the Montecito project, and it affords views of the mountains.  Nonetheless, it would not be allowed under Measure V because its steeple exceeds 30 feet.

Proposed Projects & Potential Litigation

Some claim that Measure V would stop the proposed Howie’s Market and Skilled Nursing Facility projects.  It tries to, but fails.  Measure V purports to regulate all new construction; however, state law generally requires developments be evaluated based on the rules in place at the time of application.  Applications for both projects have already been submitted, so if the City tries to apply Measure V, expensive litigation will likely follow.  Additionally, by reducing the density allowed under our state-approved General Plan Housing Element, Measure V would put the City in violation of state law.  Moving density to neighborhoods outside downtown may be necessary to avoid conflict with the state.

Summary

I urge voters to ignore the hoopla surrounding Measure V and analyze its text.  If you do, I believe you will join me in concluding that, though well intentioned, Measure V is a flawed proposal that will do more harm than good.  There are many other aspects of Measure V that the space graciously afforded me here does not allow me to address.  If you would like to discuss these issues, please call (355-7600) or email (johnhutt@earthlink.net).

(4/12/07) Greetings, Family, Friends and Neighbors;

Tuesday's City Council meeting was very informative. What a pleasant surprise it was when during the Public Comment Period the attorney who wrote Measure V got up and spoke. Attorney Chris Sutton dispelled my concerns when he said how well things had gone in another city that had passed the same Measure we are trying to pass here in Sierra Madre. He said they were having none of the problems that big money was saying would happen and now they have a plan in effect that will protect the entire city. Out of town money is spending a lot to confuse the voters here in Sierra Madre. One thing is clear to this veteran, a lot of US Citizens have died for our right to freedom of speech and our right to vote. Now, why would I want to vote away my right to vote? I’m voting Yes on V so we can have that right to vote on what happens in our town, it’s the American way, vote Yes on Measure V this coming Tuesday March 17th. Thank you.

Respectfully,

Gary Hood

Veteran, resident and tax payer

(4/11/07) Editor:

No matter how the vote on Measure V goes on April 17, I would like to say I have contributed something to the discussion. I would also like to be able to look friends, acquaintances and neighbors in the eye and know that I have contributed in a positive way and without rancor.

That is why I want to share with you what Measure V means to me. An initiative amendment to the general plan, Measure V removes decision-making from our duly elected and appointed representatives – the City Council and the Planning Commission – on major downtown developments and requires a popular vote project by project.

Personally, I like having City Hall to kick around.  I am voting NO on Measure V. I support representative democracy as the best way to achieve our goals in Sierra Madre. I understand that our city councilors cannot please everyone when they vote on issues confronting us. I understand that my neighbors with strong feelings on an issue may feel angry and may even feel a sense of betrayal when their concerns appear to be disregarded. Yet our elected officials are obligated to consider views of everyone with a vested interest in Sierra Madre in deciding what policies best serve the overall public interest.

Measure V is an example of direct democracy, and it has appeal. It can give us a sense of empowerment. It gives us something, yet takes something away. And, the thing that I believe it will take away is our own voice. If we remove our City Council and Planning Commission from the equation, we will have no one to represent us in planning downtown development. There will be no city planning.

We will watch helplessly, no matter how awful a particular development might be, as long as the narrow parameters of two stories, 30 feet in height and 13 units per acre are in compliance. We will not be able to petition our elected representatives in City Hall for redress because we will have stripped them of governance. This is unarguable.

Measure V came into being for the sole purpose of removing these powers of governance. It addresses the fears of some residents of Sierra Madre that our City Council cannot be trusted to guide and control planning. Others, myself included, think unintended consequences of Measure V pose far graver concerns.

I don't know if anything else is unarguable, but as Councilman Don Watts, a supporter of Measure V, said. "There are a few warts." Are they serious warts? Well, two historic structures are not protected by Measure V. Will we vote to amend the general plan to protect them? I hope that we would, but the process will include another initiative, signature gathering to put the measure on the ballot, a campaign, etc. It will cost money, time and effort. We simply cannot afford to spend our limited financial reserves for this purpose, and I can almost guarantee that few people in this town will vote to tax themselves to pay for an initiative.

Measure V locks Sierra Madre into a rigid, narrowly defined formula for downtown construction, not downtown development. We risk becoming bystanders, voiceless and powerless as construction occurs in downtown Sierra Madre.

I urge you to join me, and say No on V.

Margaret Quigley

Sierra Madre

(4/10/07) Dear Editor:

Had the proponents of Measure V been as diligent in writing their initiative as they are in “following the money”, the measure might have had some merits to debate. But Measure V is so ill-conceived and badly written, they are reduced to the “poor me” syndrome by complaining about how little money their “Yes on V” group, SMRRD, has raised.

The true question is: Who really supports the “yes” campaign?

Who pays for the Mount Wilson Observer, a direct-mail, political propaganda publication for SMRRD that is costing them thousands, each week?  Over the months, hardworking residents, city staff, council members, commissioners, newspapers, volunteer groups and civic organizations, who don’t agree with SMRRD, have been targets for this tabloid. And we’re to believe this is a good old “hometown” newspaper? Give us a break.

Who pays for SMRRD’s “outsider” attorney who drafted their flawed initiative and advises on their hardball tactics---tactics which have resulted in the division of this nice, calm community?

Who pays for the Santa Monica Law firm that has recently advised them?  Is it wealthy outsiders and west-side folks that attended their fundraiser in Pasadena?  

It’s clear the expenses incurred by SMRRD amount to far more than the declared sum of $10, 327.Why is this all a secret?  What don't they want us to know? Shouldn’t we know about the “outsiders” supporting the “yes” campaign?

On the other hand, The Committee to Preserve Sierra Madre, a coalition of residents, property owners, taxpayers, realtors, small businesses, and associations, has been upfront and honest about its contributors. We are proud of our fund raising efforts dedicated to defeating this flawed initiative and preserving Sierra Madre.

And we all know who is saying No to V. Pillars of the community such as past Citizens of the Year, former Mayors, resident business owners known for their philanthropy, volunteer firefighters, and other countless long –time volunteers who have served Sierra Madre selflessly for years. Not to mention The Pasadena Star-News, The League of Women Voters, and The Sierra Madre Chamber of Commerce.

Why such intense, personal, public, and financial opposition to Measure V? It is a poorly written, short-sighted initiative that amends our General Plan (check the sample ballot on page 19), upzones the downtown area (the exact opposite of its supposed intent), does not provide for lot line setbacks, creates a serious conflict with California state law (non-partisan legal analysis pages 1, 5, and 8), changes 100 years of Sierra Madre planning commission, city council, and public input, and does not protect our historic buildings currently over 30 feet.

Smart, informed residents don’t want to change Sierra Madre. We’ve read Measure V, we’ve read the legal analysis, we’ve done our homework, and we say no to this corruption of our General Plan. And on April 17^th, we’re voting with our hearts and our intellect by voting NO on V.

Lisa Spigai-Perez

Sierra Madre

(4/6/07) 

(4/5/07) Dear Editor:

When I first saw the signs that said “take back Sierra Madre…stop over development downtown” I thought it was joke! I mean, seriously, what development have we had in the past number of decades.

Then, I started hearing about this 2-30-13 petition to get a measure on the ballot. I thought it was silly…here we are in the middle of a Downtown Specific Plan…still in draft form.

At first glance, 2-30-13 didn’t sound all that bad…2 stories, OK…30 feet high, OK…13 dwelling units per acre meant nothing to me, but OK. Empowering the voter…OK…doesn’t sound too bad does it?

I was visited in my office by a “helpful senior citizen” telling me that she hoped I would sign her petition. In telling her that I thought the process we had in place has worked just fine…we have not had “over-development”…our system works, I told her. She went on fanatically about issues that had nothing to do with 2-30-13, making no sense at all! It made me realize that something beyond 2-30-13 was going on!

I started asking questions…read a lot…tried to get information from the SMRRD web-site. I printed out their brochure, had many more questions, and tried a number of times to get my questions answered via email. Each time I received an automatic reply, saying some would be getting back to me. I thought they just didn’t like Colleen McKernan, so I emailed from my cousins’ email…still no answer. You would think if they are so passionate about the issue, and really believed it was the right thing for Sierra Madre, they would have been doing back flips to get the information out and questions answered. No one would get back to me.

I printed out a copy of the measure from the city’s web-site…trying to muddle my way through it. Again, lots of questions. The first one is…who wrote this? And why? The reason that no one has laid claim to it publicly is probably because they realize it was poorly written, rushed to completion without proper analysis, and is truly NOT what Sierra Madre needs. 

In their brochure, SMRRD states that Measure V will “stop assaults by special interests groups and developers”. It will “insure development that supports our town’s unique culture and heritage”. Well, the town has gotten to this point of unique culture and heritage by the systems we now have in place. To change this system, you will be guaranteed to change the culture.

Now the SMRRD’s were walking the neighborhoods collecting signatures. I am sad to say that I know for a fact that people were lied to. Two friends who signed the petition were told that “they” …whoever “they” were, are going to build a four story building downtown…the only way to stop it is to sign this petition to get a ballot measure. And these are smart women…I especially think they are smart because they are now canvassing their neighborhoods for the No on V committee. Brilliant women!

It wasn’t until the Analysis prepared by PMC that issues once again became clear as mud. Reading through this brought to light over and over that we must not change the current way we run our government. It has been stated in the media that we have a “development friendly city council”. Yet I ask the question, how so, and no one has been able to provide one single piece of fact as evidence. Actually, quite to the contrary, they approved a Hillside Management Zone ordinance that changes sub-divided lots from 15M sq.ft to 2 acres (90M sq.ft). That doesn’t sound too developer friendly to me. One of the first votes of this council was to approve the emergency source of water…then it was being written in the media that it’s only for future development…well there are built in controls and checks for that…and this was something that was in the works for longer than some council members have even lived in town.

One aspect of the measure that really troubles me is in the case of a natural disaster, or God forbid another fire like the ones at Bottle Shop or Spinning Wheel should happen now, there are buildings that could not be replaced or rebuilt without a vote of the people. So, Renaissance Plaza burns down…it’s over 13 dwelling units per acre…the church steeple falls again…the building north of E. Montecito up on Baldwin which is 3 stories crumbles…now we have to vote, independently on each project, if they may rebuild. Personally, I think this is outrageous.

As any small business owner in the heart of downtown, we could only hope for more business…increased sales…the ability to employ more people…and as I asked last week, if Measure V passes, how will it help my business? The only answer I received was parking will be a problem if measure V does not pass. In the analysis, page IV-50, it states that “the adoption of Measure V could result in the potential for an additional 563 daily trips over existing development potential”.