Mountain Views News, Combined Edition Saturday, October 1, 2022

CONVERSATIONS....THE MEADOWS 
Mountain View News Saturday, October 1, 2022 4 CONVERSATIONS....THE MEADOWS 
Mountain View News Saturday, October 1, 2022 4 
RUSH TO JUDGMENT 

No doubt many of us moved to Sierra Madre because of its charm. The open hillsides, 
the quirky buildings, Kersting Court, unique town festivals, access to mountain 
trails, walkable neighbourhoods and the famous wisteria vine, to name just a few. Incomprehensibly, 
Sierra Madre is under threat with little explanation from the Council 
who vowed to protect it and now fight the citizens with great vigor. 

 A vote on Measure HR is clearly the more democratic process, yet Council held 
two special meetings to rush the approval through before the November 8th election. 
Obviously believing strongly that the Meadows project is the best course for 
Sierra Madre as opposed to allowing for a vote of the people, we are deserving of an 
explanation. Particularly since this is the densest large development to ever be built 
in our city and one that will change the city forever. There are many smart citizens 
and outside experts who have studied the same public documents, yet have come to 
very different conclusions. There are many smart citizens and outside experts who 
submitted hundreds of comments that were never discussed. 

 Property rights have been brought up many times. However, what about the property 
rights of the homeowners in Sierra Madre? We have a reasonable expectation 
that new homes will be built in line with the city code; codes that many of us have 
been subjected to ourselves and that we recognize have helped to retain the wonderful 
characteristics that we value in our community. Approving a special Specific 
Plan in defiance of our General Plan and the many citizens that contributed to it 
requires an explanation. 

Property values are important to all of us, as our homes are likely our most valuable 
asset. Despite the silly, unsupported argument that these homes will raise property 
values in Sierra Madre, they will not. The most basic economics class begins with the 
simple concept of supply and demand. A greater supply of homes, as with anything 
else, lowers the prices of homes around it. People like to live in Sierra Madre and 
therefore are willing to pay more to live here. Greater supply, especially ugly, dense, 
identical tract housing is likely to lower the prices of all the houses around it. Even a 
very small drop in our town’s overall home prices can lower revenues to the city while 
lowering our standard of living. The highest housing prices are correlated with the 
least dense cities in California. This is very basic, yet it has never been considered 
and discussed. 

 Boosting the City’s the budget is another false argument. It is true that in the very 
short term any housing project will increase revenues to the city. The problem is 
that after the initial injection of funds, the Meadows project will be a cost burden to 
the city in many areas (police, fire & safety, utility & water, roads, traffic…) that will 
continue in perpetuity. There has never been a single document showing the financial 
figures that support Councils’ statements that this project would help the town 
financially. No doubt because no such statement exists nor is there any motivation to 
do one, because it will not look good. 

Disturbingly -- Council collectively speaks out against Measure HR using inflammatory 
marketing phrases with inaccurate, false information rather than making true 
comparisons. Their ballot argument refers to ‘6500 square foot mansions being 
built on the Monastery property’ and ‘With SB9 a developer could build as many 
as 68 units’ on the 35 acres. They failed to note that in order to do so, the Retreat 
Center would be torn down. They also failed to note that under SB9, a developer is 
forbidden from adding additional units on a lot. Only an owner who lives in the 
home for 3 years can do so. Interestingly, both Council and the city attorney failed to 
remember this important provision in SB9 when they discussed and adopted it several 
months ago. Even after being ordered by a Superior Court judge to remove this 
incorrect information from their ballot argument, it still appears on the city website 
and is referred to regularly by the uninformed groups that support the development. 
For fun, let’s try something different.... an objective comparison of the two options: 
9 houses on every 2 acre plot of the Meadows project versus 1 house on every 2 acre 
plot under Measure HR. Applying floor area ratios (FAR) for an unbiased comparison: 
FAR is the square footage of the house/square footage of the lot. Applying 
this, the Meadows project will have a maximum FAR of 50% versus a maximum FAR 
under Measure HR of 7.5%. Knowing this, it is hard to comprehend why Council is 
aggressively arguing to the public that a FAR of 7.5% is worse than 50%. Most folks 
can easily recognize that a house covering a little more than 5% of the lot is preferable 
to one that covers half of the lot. We call this too much house on too little lot. 

 Regarding the issue of fire safety, the Meadows Project sits in the highest fire severity 
zone (osfm.fire.ca.gov) as determined by the state-- the same as the City of Paradise. 
It is one thing for drought and fire severity to cause greater risk in existing areas; it is 
very different to knowingly build in these areas. One wonders if this information 
will be disclosed to future buyers who will assume local government did their due 
diligence in ensuring a safe housing community for their families. 

Failing to respond to the legitimate concerns and inquiries by residents, ignoring 
their many written and public comments, failing to implement the provisions of our 
General Plan and failing to defer consideration of this project until after the November 
election all demand satisfactory explanation from Council members. 

As this is unlikely, VOTE YES ON MEASURE HR for your voice to be heard! 


It’s time for a second petition 
to save Sierra Madre from 
overdevelopment 

We are on a mission to save Sierra 

Madre from overdevelopment. 

“The Meadows at Bailey Canyon” 

is the largest housing project pro


posal ever in Sierra Madre and al


lows for oversized tract houses to 

be built much too close together 

given the project’s location in 
a very high-severity fire zone. “The Meadows” does not conform to Sierra Madre’s 
General Plan or building codes. In fact, as proposed, the project enables houses to 
be built that are up to 80% larger on a given lot size than current city ordinances allow. 
Nobody else can buy a small lot and build a house anywhere near as big, but this 
developer is asking for a whopping special privilege that the City Council was all-too 
willing to approve. 

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Wildfire Action Plan describes 
how to prepare one’s house and property to withstand a wildfire. The key component 
is 100 feet of defensible space—specifically, a 100-foot perimeter around each 
house where “wildfire fuels” (i.e., anything flammable) must be intensively reduced or 
eliminated. In a new subdivision, there is NO excuse for this not being followed. But 
it can’t be followed at “The Meadows” because the houses are packed together within 
just 10 feet of each other. Worse still, the developer plans to plant hundreds of trees to 
replace the more than one hundred mature trees that will be cut down. This is all taking 
place in a high-severity fire zone. Does this make sense? 

Our initiative, which rezones the property to a more protective Hillside Zone, is on 
the ballot this November (Measure HR/Vote YES!). Each house on the parcel would 
be required to have a 2-acre lot, which, with a defensible perimeter, is a lot easier to 
defend in the event of a fire. Just ask the fire chief. For multiple reasons, including less 
impact to our limited water supply, much less traffic and impact on wildlife, and significantly 
less fire risk, Hillside zoning would be far better for nearby neighborhoods 
and our city as a whole. 

The City Council ignored requests of Sierra Madre residents to address serious deficiencies 
in the final Environmental Impact Report as well as concerns raised by 
County of Los Angeles officials for “The Meadows” project and rushed to approve it. 
Despite citizens’ requests to the City Council to defer a decision on “The Meadows” 
project until after Measure HR is voted on—a mere five weeks from now—they accelerated 
their approval process in efforts to preemptively nullify Measure HR even if it is 
passed overwhelmingly by Sierra Madre voters. 

Therefore, we have no choice but to generate a NEW petition. California law allows 
the people to overturn a decision of a City Council through a referendum if enough local 
registered voters sign a petition for a referendum. We can do this in order to overturn 
the City Council’s approval of “The Meadows” project. With the required number 
of signatures, the project will be stopped until the referendum takes place in a future 
election. Of course, the developer, New Urban West, likely will continue to spend tens 
of thousands of dollars spewing disinformation and outright lies about Measure HR 
to scare you, just as they did to scare the City Council into approving “The Meadows.” 
As our group is all volunteers, we can’t begin to compete with the deep pockets of a 
developer who is determined to make millions on this ill-conceived project. 

Please help us if you agree that this project is wrong for Sierra Madre. 

For more information on the new petition and on Measure HR, or to have us bring you 
a petition to sign, please contact us at sierramadrepetition@gmail.com. Also, please 
come out to Memorial Park on Saturday, October 8 to meet us, have us answer questions, 
and show your support for our efforts! 

CONTEXT MATTERS 

Preserve Sierra Madre (PSM) has become infamous for 
making bad arguments and taking information out of context. 
Let’s look at what they said last week: 

1. The developer is trying to make money. Is that a 
bad thing? Every business is trying to make money. Every 
employee is expecting to get paid by a profitable business. 
Let’s try not to pretend we are not capitalists. The developer 
is also helping the Passionists, a nonprofit organization, 
fund the retirement of those who have served their 
ministry for decades.
2. Neighbors for Fairness is made up of volunteers that 
receive no compensation from New Urban West. Our purpose 
is to protect the rights of the Passionists from those 
who have shown they have no regard for First Amendment 
rights. Thirteen of our Steering Committee members live 
in Sierra Madre (see the link below). New Urban West is 
funding us because we asked them to and because we have 
similar goals of protecting the Passionists from discrimination. 
Why would we not use all the resources available 
to us to protect the Passionists’ rights? PSM knows who 
most of us are, in fact, one of our Steering Committee 
members used to be the Chair of PSM before she became 
fed up with their misinformation campaign and helped 
form SMNFF. 
3. The General Plan is a complex documents and not 
every part has to be internally consistent. In 2019 the 
Third District Court of Appeal upheld the following statement: 
“The City, in its sole discretion, shall determine a 
proposed project’s consistency with the City’s General 
Plan. Consistency is achieved if a project will further the 
overall objectives and policies of the General Plan and not 
obstruct their attainment, recognizing that a proposed 
project may be consistent with the overall objectives of the 
General Plan, but not with each and every policy thereof.” 
It is ironic that PSM is arguing over a project not looking 
like any other part of town while also arguing that a neighborhood 
of 6,500 sq. ft. mansions is perfectly fine.
4. The Hillside Residential zone does not equally apply 
to the Passionists' Institutional property. That is why the 
City Council in 2006, and the update in 2009, chose to not 
include the property in the HRZ. The Meadows project 
area is on the same slope as the R-1 homes to the west and 
the south. PSM also failed to mention that under SB9 four 
times as many units can be built.
5. If Measure HR passes then the Passionists’ property 
can be developed with 68 units on the developable property 
because all of it will be zoned residential, incentivizing 
the Passionists to leave Sierra Madre. STOP Housing 
Project, in the next column over, was arguing to vote 
yes because it allows the Passionists to sell all the land to 
build houses. If you are supporting HR you should at least 
know the talking points. Mansions are good... this week. 
When a litigant suing the city tried to get the wording for 
the number of units reduced to 34 the judge ordered that 
the statement say: “With the recent change in state law, SB 
9, as many as 68 units ultimately could be built with limited 
design approval by the City.” FYI, 34 Arcadia-style mansions 
are still too many!

6. PSM admits that the Retreat Center will become a 
nonconforming building and that it cannot be enlarged. 
We will give them credit for that one, but they seem to 
have missed the fact that Section 11 of Measure HR will 
become a new law and it states that any existing laws that 
would allow for expansion, significant physical alteration, 
or change in use must be repealed. This is where the religious 
discrimination comes in.
7. The City Attorney’s amended report states, “The Initiative 
constrains the Passionists’ alternatives to develop 
their property for religious purposes.” Apparently what the 
initiative proponents intended and what the initiative actually 
does are two separate things.
8. Only one plan, the Meadows project, is offering almost 
$1 million for net-zero water offsets. The Passionists 
are intent on selling a portion of their land. The property 
will be developed and using water, whether it is the Meadows 
project, or a large institution like five Kensingtons or 
another High School, or a whole bunch of Mansions up to 
7,300 sq. ft. under Measure HR.
9. Whatever is built will add more traffic. The Meadows 
project will add one additional car every two minutes 
and that is spread out between two streets. As the EIR said, 
the traffic impact is less than significant. Consider the increased 
traffic from a high school that could be built under 
the current Institutional zoning. You think Grand View 
Ave is bad in the mornings right now? 
PSM closes by saying they are not about blocking progress. 
That’s for sure. They are supporting Measure HR which 
will allow up to 68 units with a bunch of Arcadia-style 
mansions with ADUs that can be 7,300 sq. ft. in size. This 
is despite their website still saying they oppose a development 
free-for-all like Arcadia has with mansionization. We 
don’t think PSM is made of bad people, but clearly they 
have lost sight of what Sierra Madre is about if they support 
the mansionization of an entire neighborhood. 

Your Planning Commission and City Council have done 
the hard work of evaluating the Meadows project and both 
unanimously approved the project because of the benefits 
it provides to the city. 

VOTE NO ON MEASURE HR 

sierramadreneighborsforfairness.org/committee 

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 

ABUSE OF POWER 

sic example was the discriminatory 
Proposition 8 which removed the 
As US citizens we have a lot of power, 

existing right to same-sex marriage. 
but just because one can wield power 

California was sued and Prop 8 was 
doesn’t necessarily mean one should. 

overturned for violating the rights 
of same-sex couples. In the same re-

Take the power of speech. A few weeks 

gard, the Passionists have federally 

ago the city council had their first dis-

protected rights under RLUIPA that 

cussion on the Meadows project. The 

allow them to do reasonable religious 

mayor made it clear that public com-

development. Measure HR will take 

ment time was for the Meadows proj


away that right by turning the Retreat 

ect only, and not to discuss Measure 

Center into a nonconforming use and 

HR. Despite that, a lady opposing the 

forcing any existing ordinances that 

Meadows project demanded to speak 

allow expansion to be repealed. Go 

on Measure HR. Embarrassingly, the 

read the initiative if you don’t believe 

mayor had to clear the chamber while 

me. 

this lady continued her rant. 
Another power is the power of a ref-

Just because there is a right to free 

erendum. In the next few days you 

speech doesn’t give you the right to 

will hear about a referendum to over-

say anything you want any time you 

turn the city council’s approval of the 

want. Legislative bodies in California 

Meadows project. If they get enough 

are governed by the Brown Act which 

signatures (less than 8% of the city’s 

sets reasonable constraints and time 

population) they will try to get a court 

limits on public comment. The alter-

injunction to stop the meadows proj


native is that we just let people talk 

ect until there can be an election… 

ad nauseam and meetings never end. 

maybe in two years. 

Those who don’t follow decorum are 
now trying to play the martyr. This is 

This as another abuse of power. The 
a manipulative abuse of power. 

Passionists have a right to due process 
and have followed all the rules 

Another power is the ability to create 

for a zoning change. The planning 

laws through initiatives. Just because 

commission and city council have 

that power exist doesn’t mean you 

done the hard work of evaluating the 

can pass any law you want. The clas-

DEAR EDITOR: 

There’s one argument (question) 
we’ve yet to hear from proponents of 
the Meadows project: How would 
this benefit Sierra Madre? In the 
years I’ve been here, proposals both 
major and minor are subjected to a 
cost vs benefit analysis. This one’s 
unique in that no “benefit” of a 42home 
development is offered, only 
threats of “cost” should we not cave 
to the developer. (No, “You let us 
have 17 acres and we’ll let you have a 
park” doesn’t cut it.) 

At City Hall, elected officials supporting 
a measure (such as approving 
a Specific Plan) would invariably 
argue, “This project would be good 
for the community because . . .” 
They haven’t done so here, because 
they can’t. Instead, there’s a recital 
of the developer’s threats. It seems 
halfhearted – arguing a position so 
at odds with prior commitments 
against excessive development and 
for respecting the will of the voters; 
commitments made while campaigning 
for our votes in the first 
place. 

Perhaps self-awareness accounts for 
their rushing this through without 
waiting the few weeks for constituents’ 
voices to be heard in November. 
Maybe they’re hoping that by 
the time the earthmovers and backhoes 
head up the hill we’d have forgotten 
about it – and too late to do 
anything about it, anyway. 

“Do you want to see 6500 sq ft 
mansions?” from the opponents of 
Measure HR (which would bring 
the development under our Hillside 
zoning restrictions) is this year’s version 
of “Do you want to see a CVS 
on the site of Howe’s (Taylor’s) Market?” 
from opponents of Measure V 
(requiring voter approval for devel


opment beyond certain limits.) Fifteen 
years after passage of Measure 
V, we still have our village market 
and no CVS. There was never really 
any proposal for a CVS then, just 
as there are no proposals for “6500 
sq ft mansions” now. (Ironically, 
opponents of Measure V who then 
warned of a CVS were considering 
71 residential units and a 55-unit 
skilled nursing facility for the site.) 

There are benefits from this project 
for a Chicago-based religious order 
and a Santa Monica-based developer. 
But for Sierra Madre, there’s only 
significant, permanent, irreversible 
costs. 

For New Urban West, the substantial 
cost of spreading threats is 
worth the benefit of defeating Measure 
HR and proceeding with their 
development. For those of us living 
here, whatever cost in time and effort 
gathering signatures (over 1,300 
before – looks like another round of 
signature-gathering to come) and 
spreading the word about Measure 
HR is more than worth the benefit 
of protecting Sierra Madre. 

For both Measures V and HR, our 
Mayors (Glenn Lambdin then, Gene 
Goss now) acquiesced to the developers, 
assuming concerns of constituents 
would somehow fade away. It 
didn’t happen then and it’s not happening 
now. 

Shortly after Measure V’s passage, 
then-Councilman Kurt Zimmerman 
told the Pasadena Star-News it 
“will serve to empower and inspire 
other communities that are fighting 
to preserve their character and heritage." 
Were passage of Measure HR 
to achieve the same, it would be a 
benefit well-worth the cost of seeing 
it through. 

Howard Hays, Sierra Madre 

Meadows project and have found it 
to be, in Mayor Goss’ words, “reasonable.” 
The proponents of HR are 
playing every card they can to try and 
stop the Meadows project while engaging 
in a disinformation campaign. 
Enough is enough. We need to stop 
allowing a small group of people to 
force their will on everyone else. Every 
move they make costs us, the taxpayers, 
more money and delays the 
inevitable. 

What is the end-game here? Something 
is going to be developed on the 
property. Is the goal to allow a big 
institutional development instead of 
a reasonable housing project with a 
three acre park? Or are they trying 
to get those 6,500 sq. ft. Arcadia-style 
mansions built instead? Who wants 
any of that? I know I don’t. People 
seem to be afraid of change, but 
change is coming. It is time to accept 
it. Support the rights of the Passionists. 
Do not participate in the plan to 
override the city council’s reasoned 
decision. Do not sign the referendum. 

Vote no on Measure HR. 

Robert Gjerde 

TRUTH IS STRANGER 
THAN FICTION 

Only four doors up from us is the 
Stonehouse property which is similar 
to the “Meadow” in that it is also 
blessed with native trees and many 
deer and other wildlife. So many deer 
come to our neighborhood that the 
City put “Deer Crossing” signs near us 
on Grandview Ave. 
Development was already planned for 
Stonehouse but was delayed due to 
bankruptcy and the recent death of the 
owner. Nobody wants to have a large 
development of houses with more traffic 
and water usage, but it is privately 
owned land and that’s the way it is. 
When the time comes for development, 
we’ll be in the front row cheering our 
city leaders along to make sure it is the 
best development it can be for Sierra 
Madre. 
Change is inevitable and we accept 
that, but others seem to be stuck in 
denial and have no problem muddling 
the discussion with misinformation. 
Stop Housing Project (STOP) loves to 
characterize the homes as “cookie-cutter.” 
The Planning Commission made 
sure that is not the case. No two homes 
will be the same on any given street. 
It should be noted that other developments 
in the city copied home designs, 
like Jameson Ct. and Liliano Dr., with 
many copies right by each other. Nobody 
notices today.
STOP says they will protect more than 
100 trees, but nothing in the Hillside 
zone will do that. 90% of the trees are 
non-native and almost half are invasive 
elms. The Hillside Residential zone 
prohibits the planting of “non-native, 
invasive plant species.” 
STOP says the Retreat Center can be 
expanded, with city approval. What 
they mean is with an expensive citywide 
vote. Measure HR says the Passionists 
can (continued page 5) 

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