“Yes on HR” sign (Photo – Graphics Dept.)
Between February and May, 1,300 well-informed Sierra Madre registered voters signed a petition to put Measure HR on the November 8 ballot.
By Deb Sheridan
Measure HR would change the zoning of the Monastery property from Institutional Zone to Hillside Management Zone (HMZ). Currently, it is the only large property abutting the mountains not in the HMZ. Many residents felt that the City Council was not listening to their concerns about a residential tract housing development on the property.
The HMZ requires two-acre plots and a maximum of 6,500 square feet for each house. Thus, on the lower 17 acres, there can be up to 8 houses under HMZ zoning. Under Institutional zoning, the developer, New Urban West (NUW), plans to cut down 101 mature trees and build 42 houses, up to 80% more than allowed under the City’s General Plan.
The Passionist Fathers will not be impeded in any way from continuing their mission, including building new buildings. They are protected by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), Section 17.60.030 (A) of our municipal code which clearly states that “Churches, temples and other places of worship” are uses that are permitted in the Hillside Management Zone.
The developer, NUW, is confusing voters by funneling over $150,000 through “Neighbors for Fairness” for slick ads. They are telling residents to vote No to prevent a large development. Just the opposite is true – 7-8 homes on two acres each and each covering 7.15% of the lot. A No vote is 42 cookie-cutter style homes of a maximum of 3,800 square feet, 10 feet apart, each covering up to 50% of the lot.
Measure HR: preserves the hillside, significantly reduces water usage, traffic congestion, and fire risk in a very high-severity fire zone, and minimizes the impact on wildlife and the environment.
Vote Yes on Measure HR.
Deb Sheridan is a 35 year resident of Sierra Madre and retired Social Researcher with U of Michigan. Raised three children here, was on the General Plan Update Steering Committee, Community Services Commission Chairperson, SM TV Committee, 4th of July Committee, Civic Club, also Chairperson of Preserve Sierra Madre, a group that started in 1977.
> Read: Guest Opinion | NO on HR
About Our Election Coverage:
Candidate Questions ColoradoBoulevard.net offered every single candidate in selected nearby cities a free opportunity to answer questions we provided. Advertising Separately, candidates are offered the opportunity to advertise in our print and online editions, in which some do and some opt not to. Ethical Standards ColoradoBoulevard.net ethical standards dictate that our investigative reporting is independent from advertising revenues. No story will be suppressed, removed, downplayed or boosted depending on advertising revenues. That’s what distinguishes our publication from the rest. Op-ed One op-ed is allowed per candidate (regardless of the writer, be it the candidate or a supporter). Op-eds will be copy-edited and sent to the writer for final approval. ColoradoBoulevard.net reserves the right to publish, or not, if standards are not met. Editorial ColoradoBoulevard.net is a privately owned newspaper and is not obliged to respond to questions about its editorial standards. Our editorial board is separate from the newsroom. The board consists of informed individuals by expertise, research, debate and values. To Our Readers We will remain vigilant, guarding the truth and exposing corruption in our communities. The more ‘fake news’ shouts you hear, the more you know we are on the right track. Some local politicians have been running mudslinging campaigns, taking unethical contributions and engaging in corruption for more than thirty years. Finally, ColoradoBoulevard.net is here to expose and educate. The ultimate decision lies with you, the reader; your honest vote is your last, and final, defense against corruption.
Ο Ο Ο
This holiday season please consider gifting a subscription.
Thank you for choosing to upgrade your free ColoradoBoulevard.net account and do your share of ‘buying local.’Will you explore one of the many ways you can support us by checking the blue button below?
[asp_product id=”80314″]
Who determined that the signatories were well-informed? I know for a fact that they were not. They were told you were going to save the meadow. They were not told that 6,500 sq ft mansions could be built. The people I talked to collecting signatures didn’t know anything about prohibiting expansion, significant physical alteration or change in use. I had to twist arms (not literally) just to get someone to let me read the initiative to show them what it actually said. Even showing your people that it prohibited expansion they still wouldn’t believe it said that.
The HMZ should not be applied to the Meadows development area. It has no notable hillside features in need of protecting. The slope is identical to that of the homes to the west and the south, all which appropriately sit in the R1 zone.
Even now Deb is lying and telling people only 8 houses can be built under the HMZ. Do you all have no concern for your own credibility? It is a lie. IT IS A LIE! And she says the HMZ limits each lot to 6,500 sq ft. How about under SB9? How about under the ADU law?
The developer doesn’t plan on doing anything under the Institutional zone. The whole property will be rezoned to the Specific Plan already-approved by the city council. Then homes will be built. The Institutional zone will no longer apply.
Despite Deb’s opinion, the city attorney clearly states that rezoning the property may substantially burden the religious rights of the Passionists. “Substantial burden” is the standard for being able to sue the city. It’s real nice of you to put the city as risk so you can allow a bunch of Arcadia-style mansions to be built.
How does spending money to protect the rights of the Passionists confuse people?
The homes are anything but cookie cutter homes. STOP LYING TO PEOPLE.
Some of the lots may have 50% coverage (two-story homes have about half the square footage on the second floor). The average home size is 3575. The average lot size is 9532. That averages 37.5% lot coverage. Again, you are spreading lies. This is how you operate. You can’t win by telling the truth. All you can do is hope to trick enough people into supporting you.
How does Measure HR reduce the fire risk? Where are your statistics for a nonexistent development? How does it save water to have mansions with huge properties? One only has to drive to Arcadia to see how people in mansions live.
Definitely voting NO on HR.