Mountain Views News, Combined Edition Saturday, November 5, 2022

CONVERSATIONS....THE MEADOWS 
Mountain View News Saturday, November 5, 2022 4 CONVERSATIONS....THE MEADOWS 
Mountain View News Saturday, November 5, 2022 4 
Behind Closed Doors 

The latest tally of money spent has come out 
by the most ironic of all named groups, the 
“Neighbors for Fairness”. This group is made 
up of Sierra Madre citizens, funded by the developer 
New Urban West, to the tune of nearly 
$200,000 and counting. We will only know the 
total amount after next week's election. The 

$200,000 has been doled out to at least 10 different companies, including a law firm, numerous 
public affairs teams, designers, consultants, printers, delivery people, all located 
throughout California and New York. Their goal is to twist the stories, create fake grassroots 
movements and plant their signs on the very thing we are trying to stop. They bring 
piles of money and considerable experience to bludgeon another small town into submission; 
in this case it’s our Sierra Madre. Tragically, it works and they get better at it every 
year. We are sitting ducks. If Sierra Madre citizens would simply look at the campaign Form 
460, they would see for themselves that we are being duped. We urge you to simply go to 
the campaign form 460 filed by the Neighbors for Fairness and look at the amounts spent 
and the places the money is going… Go to their websites and read about the people being 
paid to change your mind. It is a treasure trove of evil intentions and expert manipulation.
But wait, it gets worse. The Neighbors for Fairness are posting ads with endorsed statements 
from the local city council. On the one hand they claim that we need to do what 
they say and vote No on Measure HR because otherwise the city will be sued. On the other 
hand, the city council is literally supporting the Neighbors for Fairness in hiring lawyers 
and PR firms whose known tactics include suing cities and busting referendums when their 
attempts at manipulating weak city council members falls short.
Let's look at just a few examples from this Form 460 of who you will find and what they say 
in their own websites. 

• Through last week, the developers have spent $28,942 with the law firm of Nielsen 
Merskamer known for their referendum busting tactics in the town of Moraga. They were 
able to overturn the will of the people through a paperwork technicality. Way to go. The 
Neighbors for Fairness have hired this attorney whose specialty is “guiding clients through 
the complexities of the initiative and referendum process.” Thanks to the city council for 
endorsing the very group that will go after us if the developer does not get its way.
• How about the four separate public affairs teams they have hired. Each one has its own 
tactics on how to turn you. First, we have Southwest Strategies; on the take for $23,118 - "We 
know what makes California’s communities tick. We engage with residents and businesses 
to build stakeholder support for outreach, advocacy and education programs.” If you look 
up one of their key employees (search Chris Wahl, San Diego Tribune) you will find him in 
the middle of controversy where he is alleged to have been lobbying and raising money for 
city officials at the same time he was engaging in mediation talks. They weren’t lying when 
they said they know what makes communities tick.
• The Musella Group, cashing in $8,000, states that "Developing a robust strategy to educate 
elected officials and policymakers is the foundation to successful advocacy. We know 
how to have a positive impact on the process to achieve your business objectives."
• Laer Pearce & Associates has only made $4,375 but it should be worth the money 
because “When your issue comes down to a vote of the people or an action by a regulatory 
board, or you simply need perceptions changed and outcomes influenced, we have unique 
and finely tuned skills that can help achieve your strategic objectives”.
• Atlantis Group, at $12,000 says "We foster communication and gain active support for 
your project or policy from stakeholders, and from elected and appointed officials.”
• They have also sent $5,250 to a lady in Brooklyn to take the Yes on Measure HR and 
reshuffle graphics to confuse the citizens as to whether yes is no or no is yes. There is also 
$20,000 spent on lawn signs and $5,750 to a door hanger company. 
Please look all this up yourself and don’t let these developers and their hired goons do this 
to Sierra Madre. 
Please vote Yes on Measure HR before it is too late. 

CITIZENS FOR TRUTH – 
OUR FREEDOM IS IN DANGER, EVEN IN SIERRA MADRE 

Anyone who has watched the news on TV or picked up a newspaper has seen the armed 
men clad in body armor (always men) who have no authority waiting at ballot drop boxes, 
with the promise that they will be at polling places as well. Yet, in the state of Georgia, a 
law was recently enacted to make it a crime to offer a bottle of water to someone waiting 
in line to cast their ballot. Obviously, intimidation is the only reason for this outrageous 
behavior. 

It Can’t Happen Here was the title of a book written by Sinclair Lewis in the 1930s. Here’s 
what has happened in the last two months. The developer of the Meadows project has 
spent over $193,000 trying to convince us to vote No on Measure HR (Form 460). Measure 
HR is on our ballot, which would place the Mater Dolorosa property (often referred to 
as the Monastery), including the 20 acres in question into the Hillside Management Zone, 
as is the case with every other large property abutting the mountains. 

We’ve written about why this would be beneficial and would result in nine large houses 

each on one two-acre plot of land. Also reported in past articles – similar to Measure V, 

the developer has tried 

to muddy the situation, 
and confuse people by inferring “No means no development, yes means McMansions.” In 
reality a no vote would be a yes vote for the development of 42 houses, on 17 acres, outside 
the scope of our General Plan and zoning laws. Seventeen acres, because developer New 
Urban West is inexplicably throwing in a three-acre park, right next to Bailey Canyon. 
However, one speculation is that this would make it cheaper to build the houses, rather 
than give each house a little extra lot size. 

Last weekend a resident who was canvassing for Yes on HR in town on a busy street, when 
she noticed a car very slowly going by. She was talking to a resident, when a presumably 
paid canvasser came up behind her to hand the resident a door hanger with No on it, stating 
that our member was lying, and not to listen to her. 

We believe our residents and our voters have the right to know about the intimidation tactics 
that are being used right in our little Sierra Madre. Yes, it can happen here, and it is. 
What price freedom as we know it? Please don’t let your vote be purchased, $22 per vote if 
we get 100% voter turnout, more likely $44 per vote with a usual 50% turnout. 

Deb Sheridan 

A TRADITION OF GREAT & LIVABLE CITIES, PART 2 

Over fifteen years ago, in this paper, I sent in a letter titled “A Tradition of Great 
& Livable Cities”. At the time we were at a crossroads. Developers were seeking to 
monetize our quaintness, pouring money into a jaundiced campaign to sway us. 
Here we are again.
A key argument in support of Meadows is the city thinks it is best, so butt out. In 
opposition to the citizen led effort to save our town the development crowd make 
outrageous yet vague legal threats, shout about property rights, talk about magically 
creating water, of destroying a park to build a park. In fact, citizens not only 
have a right to speak out about how they are governed, but they have an obligation.
Who are the people who have fought to save our city? They are doctors, lawyers, 
CPAs, finance professionals, artists, teachers, firemen, police officers, retired military 
who all care about this town. Here are a just a few reasons why:

• The Meadows project will be up to 7 times denser that what is allowed under 
Measure HR, with 5-foot property line setbacks. Look at the google maps street 
view of the developer’s other projects.
• Property rights are not relevant. The Meadows property was not zoned for 
residential and if it was, it exceeds our codes. Property owners have a right to apply 
for special exceptions, but not to get them.
• There are no legal grounds to sue the city. It doesn’t mean these “caring” developers 
won’t sue if they don’t get their way, but we have an obligation not to roll 
over in the face of every lawsuit rumor.
• Another rumor by the pro-development crowd is that One Carter cost the city 
millions in legal costs. This is not true in amount or causality. Look at the budgets. 
In the general budgets, legal expenses are so inconsequential as to not warrant 
its own line item or mention. If you analyze the One Carter debacle, among the 
problems was speculative money dumped into a preservation minded city during 
a housing bubble, approvals by an inexperienced city who cut deals and made exceptions. 
It was bulldozed and left as a desert for 15+ years. One Carter is in fact a 
poster child for not approving the Meadows project.
• The city will be further challenged by a budget deficit with the Meadows 
project. Ask yourself why the city has not provided analysis of the long-term financial 
implications from the project. An analysis of the 450+ California cities shows 
that higher density is associated with lower housing prices. Obviously. Nobody has 
grown their way to balanced budgets. The lure of increased development is a sure 
path to making matters worse.
Most importantly, the Meadows project will be the densest development in our 
city’s history, a 42+ tract home development with minimal superficial exterior nuances, 
permanently scarring our town and hillside. Please vote YES on Measure 
HR. 
Scott Hood 
WHY YOU NEED TO VOTE NO ON HR 

Measure HR is attempting to circumvent years of negotiations by the planning commission and the city 
council to get the best deal for Sierra Madre. The Meadows project is the result: 42 homes, a $5 million park, 
40 hillside acres placed in conservancy, net-zero water offsets, and $250,000 for public safety infrastructure. 
All of this will be lost if Measure HR passes. 

Instead, according to a court ruling, Measure HR will allow 68 houses to be built across the entire Mater 
Dolorosa property. At least half of these can be Arcadia-style mansions up to 6,500 sq. ft. 

Leaving the property undeveloped is not a viable option. It is going to be developed. You have a choice: No 
on HR allows the already-approved Meadows project to move forward, yes on HR allows a neighborhood of 
Arcadia-style mansions with none of the concessions. 

Your planning commission recommended the Meadows project to the city council, who unanimously approved 
the project. The City Council also determined that Measure HR is wrong for the city and puts us at 
legal risk of discriminating against the religious rights of the Passionists. 

The Sierra Madre Chamber of Commerce says No in HR. The Mountain Views News says No on HR. Sierra 
Madre Neighbors for Fairness, a group of 13 long-time residents and city volunteers, says No on HR. 

Who wants you to vote yes on HR? The three proponents who live near the Monastery and don’t want to 
be inconvenienced by a property owner exercising their development rights. Those promoting Measure HR 
have been telling voters they will “save the meadow” or that “only seven houses can be built”. Those are 
simply lies. The proponents of HR have been engaging in mudslinging like has never been seen in a local 
election, including a flashy, buy deceptive low-brow video campaign. 

Your city leaders need your support. They have done the hard work of evaluating the thousands of pages 
relating to the Meadows project. They know the risks of Measure HR. 

Sitting on the fence and not voting only empowers those who are most motivated, which are the neighbors 
who don’t want a project in their proverbial back yard. 

Vote NO on HR 

News | Sierra Madre Neighbors for Fairnessnews@sierramadreneighborsforfairness.orgSierraMadreNeighborsforFairness.org 

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 

THE GENERAL PLAN – THE PLAIN TRUTH 

These are the “BUZZ” words that you have heard from the Stop the Project group since the beginning. 
They have been telling you that the Monastery is not adhering to the General Plan. Most people don’t really 
know what the General Plan is but it sounds official. 

This is a LIE like so many other things that the voters of our city have been told. The following is taken 
from our city’s general plan, “The General Plan is intended to be both a long‐term and a dynamic document, 
and must be periodically updated to respond to changing community needs. Unlike the housing 
element, which is required by State law to be updated every five years, a General Plan does not expire and 
is not required to have a specific time frame.” There are seven mandatory elements of a general plan – land 
use, housing, circulation, open space, conservation, noise, and safety. (The Plan helps guide the city in 
these elements) 

There are provisions in the General Plan that allow property owners (which the Monastery is) to apply 
for variances to those building/zoning codes. SECTION 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Pursuant 
to Code Section 17.64.050, the Planning Commission may recommend approval of a general plan amendment 
and zone change whenever the public interest, convenience and necessity so require. The Monastery 
has complied with and received approval for a Specific Plan, therefore complying with our General Plan. 
The proponents of Measure HR have used these scare tactics and misinformation knowing full well that 
the Monastery is in compliance with the General Plan guidelines. 

The Specific Plan affects only those 17 acres where the Meadows project is to be built. The remainder of 
the property will remain institutional as it is presently. The Monastery can continue the use of their property 
and not be stripped of their property rights. Under Measure HR, the Monastery is being stripped of 
their property rights because they have a group of self-serving residents surrounding their property who 
want to prevent them from developing the bottom 17 acres of their property. This is private property and 
the Monastery has the same property rights as any other property owner in our city. 

Sierra Madre has at least three other Specific Plans that are welcome additions to our city:
Senior Living Facility on EsperanzaKensingtonThe British Home 

PLEASE SAVE OUR CITY FROM THIS DISASTROUS AND DANGEROUS MEASURE THAT IS TEARING 
OUR CITY APART!!! 
VOTE NO ON HR 

Martha Walsworth 

Dear Editor: 

THE IRONY OF “SAVING” MATER 

Looking back on the ads, letters, columns, postings, 

DOLOROSA 

fliers, mailers, yard signs and door-hangers over the 
past several weeks from the “No” on HR side, there’s 

The proponents of Measure HR have been driv


one argument I haven’t seen made: How would this 

ing a strong disinformation campaign all year. It 

“Meadows” project of 42 McMansions on 17 acres at 

makes me wonder what has happened to this city. 

our hillside be good for Sierra Madre? Instead, it’s 
It all started in 2013 with groups called “Save Ma-

been of the dire consequences and shame that would 
ter Dolorosa” and “Save Monastery.” That sounds 

befall us should we not accept it, and intentional con-
great, right? But they soon morphed into “Stop 

fusion in suggesting it’s somehow the “Yes” vote that 
Monastery Housing Project – Preserve Mater Do-

would bring the over-development we’re against – 
lorosa,” then just “STOP Housing Project.” “Pre


when in fact it’s HR that would prevent it. 
serve Sierra Madre” also came onto the scene to 

 In developer New Urban West’s full-pager last week, 
fight Arcadia-style mansions in the city. 

Fr. Mike Higgins states, “Measure HR will make it 
nearly impossible for our ministries to grow”, as if 

What likely started as good intentions became 

continuation of their good work is dependent on im


corrupted through leadership that lost their way. 

posing tract housing on a community that doesn’t 

What do these people think they are fighting for 

want it. He’s “devastated” at being “targeted”, while 

today other than protecting their own lifestyle 

any other property owner would be similarly “target


from being bothered by a neighbor exercising 

ed” if insisting on such change in use from original 

their development rights? 

zoning that would bring irreversible harm. 
We’re urged to oppose HR because “Community 

What I know is these groups no longer care about 

Leaders . . . Mayor & City Council” tell us to. Unfor


serving the city or “saving” Mater Dolorosa. In


tunately for them, this recommendation comes when 

stead, they are conspiring to harm the Passionists 

many have diminished confidence in their leadership 

by taking away their right to expand their Retreat 

– feeling that if they’d done their jobs, we wouldn’t 
Center and Stations of the Cross. This scorched-

have to be enduring this conflict in the first place. 

Earth policy is to do whatever it takes to stop the 

 Measure HR calls for development to comply with 

Meadows project, no matter what harm falls on 

our Hillside zoning restrictions – which are compre


the Passionists. 

hensive and clear. They reflect considerable expertise 
Preserve Sierra Madre sold out their Mission, 

(and expense) in their development, and support from 
which to this day still says they work hard to 

our City Council in becoming part of our Municipal 
prevent “mansionization and to protect our his-

Code some sixteen years ago. In addition to house 
toric properties and open spaces.” What exactly 

and lot sizes, they address fire protection, excavation, 
are they trying to preserve by now promoting a 

drainage, natural terrain, wildlife and habitat, flood 
plan to allow 6,500 sq. ft. mansions with no open 

and drought, seismic issues, sightlines, visual impact - 
space? 

the “identity, image and environmental quality of the 

city”. 
Our city leaders spent two years putting together 

 Was the developer ever asked to proceed under these 
a great plan to develop the Passionists’ old park-

restrictions? Was there ever an attempt at compromise 
ing lot that I see out my living room window (aka 

within the framework of Hillside zoning protections? 
the “meadow”). It will include a 3-acre public 

Was any option considered other than the developer’s 
park, 40 hillside acres in conservancy, $1 million 

demand for their own “specific plan”? What protecto 
offset water use, and $250,000 for the new po


tions were sacrificed in the process? 
lice station. These are good things that benefit the 

 Alarmed by the acquiescence at City Hall, residents 
city. Sierra Madre gets none of these concessions 

themselves got Measure HR on the ballot to protect 
if Measure HR passes. If the property is going to 

Sierra Madre. Then our Council decided not to wait 
be developed anyway, why are we being asked to 

until votes were cast November 8, but to go ahead and 
give up a $5 million park just to allow mansions? 

approve the project, anyway.

 Now residents are again coming together on a referen-
Enough is enough! 

dum to put the Council’s approval on hold, ensuring 

that those of us who live here and cherish Sierra Madre 
Along with your City Council, the Passionists, 

will ultimately have our voices heard. 
and the Chamber of Commerce, I strongly op-

It didn’t have to be this way. And maybe with fresh 
pose Measure HR and support the Meadows proj


faces on the City Council and renewed dedication to 
ect. Vote No on HR. 

the interests of constituents and our community, rath


er than those of outside developers, it won’t have to be 
Dave Link, longest lasting neighbor to the 

this way again. 
Monastery

 Howard Hays 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