Over at Bill Coburn's Sierra Madre News.net there is the following item listed under the rubric "Kensington Update."
Danny Castro, Director of Development Services, confirmed for me today that the Kensington Assisted Living Project is one of the items on the City Council agenda at its June 26th meeting. He also clarified that the Council must review the Specific Plan and the Text Amendment of the Municipal Code for the Overlay Zone, and that the Planning Commission had not approved the Specific Plan at their Thursday meeting as we had reported in our earlier article. Apparently, it was only recommended for approval ... Castro did note that while the Council does not have to review the Conditional Use Permit, which was approved by the Planning Commission, they could very well choose to review that as well.
What Bill has reviewed for us here certainly are all parts of the overall picture, but one should never allow yourself too get too lost in the minutia of such things. The far more important issue here is whether or not the City Council agrees to allow the Kensington Project to go on the November ballot, and as a true Measure V vote of the people. If the Council does, then they will have followed the law. And if they end up concocting some meaningless rubbish based on much of the above in an attempt to get around that voter mandated and very important legal requirement? Then they will have, and with no doubt whatsoever, broken the law.
Bill has posted an interesting cart for us, but somehow he forgot to put the horse in front of it.
We have received the "Agenda and Notice" for a special SGVCOG Governing Board Special Meeting. As is usual for such affairs, this one will take place at the Edison owned quarters located at 6090 North Irwindale Avenue in the City of Irwindale itself. Look for that toddling town's signature 3 story sand grader skyline as you head due east on the 210.
It truly is quite a document. The first thing that jumps out at me is this marvelous typo:
Request from Supervisor Gloria Molina to response to letter received by her office from Gil Aguirre.
I'm not quite certain what exactly that sentence is meant to mean, but the agenda information attached to this item states that the recommended action is to tell Legal Counsel how he is "to prepare response to Supervisor Molina." So perhaps the Supervisor has asked the COGsters what in the name of God is going on over there, and can they please explain?
But I have to say, Gil Aguirre does seem to be on the collective mind of the SGVCOG these days. I guess a full-on raid of their offices by the Public Integrity arm of the L.A. District Attorney's office can focus peoples' minds on the more important matters. If you think I am speaking wrongly here, then check out the Closed Session Agenda for this meeting:
8.0 Conference with legal counsel re: pending litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(a) -- Gil Aguirre v. San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case Number BS132514.
9.0 Evaluation of performance of Executive Director pursuant to Government Code section 54957.
10.0 Conference with legal counsel re: anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(b)(3)(C) - claim or other written communication threatening RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) litigation received from Gil Aguirre.
Now THAT is some kind of closed session. And I certainly cannot imagine a more awkward setting for Executive Director Nick Conway to be receiving his job performance evaluation. Of course, this is the COG, so maybe they'll give him a raise and an attractively engraved Southern California Edison snow globe.
This should be an interesting get together. We will have a more in depth preview of this meeting next Tuesday.
There is one other item that I need to make you aware of today, and it comes from the Sierra Madre Patch.
Cow Stolen From Mother Moo Creamery - The iconic cow that sits outside Mother Moo Creamery in Kersting Court has been stolen. Karen Klemens, the ice cream shop's owner, contacted the Sierra Madre Police Department Thursday after she opened the shop at noon and noticed that the cow was missing.
I guess we know what the banner headline is going to be on this week's edition of the Looney Views News. But this story, as troubling as it is, has opened up another can of worms for us.
Police were able to get their hands on a surveillance video that allegedly shows an adult female walking away with the cow, said Sgt. Esther Doyle. 'We're working on identifying this person and seeing what kind of background they have," said Sgt. Doyle. "It's a great start."
Correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't it the policy of the Sierra Madre Police Department not to comment about on-going investigations? It looks to me like a crucial bit of evidence, the video surveillance tape of the woman walking off with Moo's cow, was identified by Sgt. Doyle. Will this in any way compromise the case should the culprit be apprehended?
As we saw with the EVG Gas Station identity theft affair, and the still on-going (I assume) investigation into the Matheson sex offender registration matter, it has long been the hard and fast policy of the SMPD not to discuss, and in any way whatsoever, on-going investigations.
So what is it that has made the Mother Moo cow theft case so different?
It's always something, isn't it?