Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Wake Up! It's City Council Meeting Night!

Mayor Pro Tem* Process Fatigue
I'm telling you, I could use a nap myself sometimes. I can't begin to tell you of all the evenings I have drifted off into dreamland during City Council meetings. However, I am usually safely at home sitting on my couch watching the whole thing on TV when sleep rolls in. How much more embarrassing it would be if the need for slumber overtakes you while seated at a position of honor at the dais. Not to say that the Mayor Pro Tem* actually did fall asleep, mind you. He can be a bit touchy on that topic, and understandably so. After all, it is unbecoming for a guardian of the public interest to be seen slumbering when the peoples' business is being conducted.

But as anyone can see, a mighty struggle with Morpheus took place in seat #2. You can only wonder at the steely will it must have taken to vanquish so relentless a foe.

Hopefully everybody got some rest, because tonight's City Council meeting promises to be a lengthy one filled with many difficult topics. I know I did. The blessings of a 3 day Memorial Day Weekend gave me the opportunity to write this week's City Council meeting preview at a leisurely pace. That extra time really did make a world of difference to me.

The meeting begins as it always does with the secret session. This is where our City Attorney (known to some wags as the "Belle of Barstow" for obscure reasons), meets in private with the City Council to discuss items of a sensitive legal nature. Usually this involves lawsuits emanating from the Sierra Madre Police Department, and tonight is no different. This is an outfit that wants us to know just how much they care about Sierra Madre, and do so by suing us over and over again. Somehow they apparently believe will get them another raise and increased benefits from the grateful taxpayers. Here is what the Staff Report says:

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
Anticipated Litigation Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9b(3)(C). A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Council/Agency pm the advice of its legal counsel, based on the below-described existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City Council/Agency. Receipt of Claim pursuant to Tort Claims Act or other written communication from Sierra Madre Police Officer’s Association threatening litigation (copy available for public inspection in the City Manager’s Office).

Personally I think the SMPOA has lost its mind, and all they're doing here is digging their own occupational grave. How the SMPOA is going to convince taxpayers that they have their needs in mind while repeatedly suing them is beyond me. I'm not certain postcards with pictures of teddy bears dressed up like policemen is going to do it this time. A NO vote on the UUT do-over ballot initiative in April of 2014 would be a fine way of showing your feelings on this matter.

Periodically the City Manager has a job review from the people she works for. Since that isn't us we won't be allowed to witness this event, either. Here is the notice:

PERSONNEL Pursuant to Calif. Government Code Section 54957 Public Employee Performance Evaluation Title: City Manager

After these delicate matters are concluded the Wizard of Oz's curtain flies open and vast hordes of civic minded residents will flood (or pour) into the room. Apt metaphors since the following Public Hearing notice is also announced for this evening on the City of Sierra Madre website:

Due to low water levels in the aquifer that Sierra Madre draws all of its water from, the City Council will hold a Public Hearing on May 28, 2013 at 6:30 pm. At this time, the Council will discuss increased mandatory water conservation measures.

We will see if these "increased mandatory water conservation measures" will be backed up by actual water use restrictions, or if this becomes just another City Hall money stream (sorry) enhancement effort in the form of penalties and fines for as yet to be determined over-usage. The many lush lawns of Sierra Madre hang in the balance.

Having planted a rather wild looking patch of drought resistant California native plants and cacti in my front yard I hope to be on the sidelines for this one. Not that I expect to be immune from fines and penalties, mind you. Especially if my suspicions are confirmed and this turns out to be more about fund raising than water usage.

After all of the above is accomplished the usual meeting rituals will be conducted so that the evening's juju is in line with the desires of the overseeing government Gods. It is only then that the money changing can commence.

1 - Consent Calendar
a) RESOLUTION NO. 13-36 APPROVING CERTAIN DEMANDS: This evening's spend comes to $693,957.68. A sum that wouldn't have been quite so large had it not included $145,687.50 for something involving a Mira Monte Reservoir Replacement. There is also a $60,890 hit for services performed by the General Pump Company, bringing the total Water Division spend this evening to over $200,000. Sierra Madre's water company, for all intents and purposes insolvent due to its massive water bond debt load, now relies upon City Hall and the taxpayers to cover many of its bills these days.

This is, of course, the actual reason for the next wave (sorry) of water rate increases. It is also the part where you are expected to happily, and without any complaint whatsoever, further cover the costs of bad city investments out of your own pocket. Done without the City ever acknowledging that the actual reason for this awful financial crisis, along with the resulting rot in our water infrastructure, is because they behaved irresponsibly a few years back.

b) REJECTION OF CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-2013 STREET REHABILITATION AND DIRECTION TO RE-BID THE PROJECT WITH REDUCED SCOPE: A number of streets are up for repaving, but the companies that bid on this work couldn't submit anything that fits within the City's budget. While there are other options available to the City Council (such as either raising the budget by $30,000 or lopping a few streets off the paving list), the likely result here is City Staff will be instructed to go out and try to find someone who can get the job done for what we can actually pay.

c) APPOINTMENT TO THE UTILITY USERS TAX OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: Back in 2008, when the general public here was suckered into raising utility taxes to some of the highest rates in California, one of the scraps thrown our way was that a yearly conclave of the common man would gather to gaze upon the books to make certain the City is spending this additional dough appropriately. I was on this committee once and I can tell you it is a pretty ridiculous exercise. The money gets spent as the City sees fit, and since it is City Hall that supplies all the data to this committee for its compliance checks, the prophecy is always a self-fulfilling one. Anyway, one member of UUTOC fled screaming into the National Forest for some reason or another, and a replacement needs to be chosen. Tonight that deed will get done.

2 - PUBLIC HEARING – CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 13-27 TO ADOPT THE 2008-2014 HOUSING ELEMENT, INCLUDING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS TO ADOPT A NEW RH1 LAND USE CATEGORY AND TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 271 AND 293 MARIPOSA AVENUE FROM RH TO RH1; AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1337 TO ADD CHAPTER 17.29 ENTITLED “R-3 H MULITIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY” TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMEND THE ZONING MAP; AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 13-28 TO REZONE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 271 AND 293 MARIPOSA AVENUE FROM R-3 TO R3H - There can be little doubt that the majority persuasion on this City Council is deep into the tank for development and real estate interests. They are basically under the thumb of these people, with the only remaining question being what is in it for them.

What these (very) special interests demand more than anything else is the ability to build high density housing wherever they see fit. Tonight they are looking for a big breakthrough in their struggle to turn Sierra Madre into Duarte Adjacent with the creation of something called "R-3 H Multiple Family Residential High Density." Something that basically allows them to pack out small infill lots with massive amounts of new housing. How this can be considered a "sustainable best practice" during the City's current water crisis might be a reality based question, but then look at the damned fools we're working with here.

There is also a bunch of poppycock in the Staff Report about RHNA numbers and that $50,000 piece of cookie cutter consultancy our Sacramento compliant housing cutout Karen Warner cooked up, but that was all a canard to baffle the suckers. The majority of the City Council will vote for this because the special interest folks they answer to demand it. Most Sierra Madre residents have long opposed anything like this, but since when do their opinions ever really count? They're just here for taxing purposes.

3 - PUBLIC HEARING - SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1338 AMENDING CHAPTER 13.24 OF THE SIERRA MADRE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO WATER CONSERVATION, CONSIDERATION OF URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 1338U PERTAINING TO WATER CONSERVATION, AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 13-12, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING MANDATORY WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY SIERRA MADRE RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES - When most towns wish to keep their residents from using more water than is available, they just tell them what it is they can no longer do. Banning things like lawn watering, hosing down cement walkways or washing your car being some of the more commonly used restrictions. But this being Sierra Madre, where increasing City Hall revenue is always the #1 consideration, here the method used will be billable financial penalties. The inference being that you may use too much water of you like, but you'll pay more for doing so.

The City does list the option of practically shutting off water to residents that refuse to comply, but will it actually be used? Except possibly in the most extreme cases, never. The lawsuit considerations alone would seem to preclude it from ever happening. If you assume that this one is more about money than water, you'll probably be right.

4 - PUBLIC HEARING – RESOLUTION NO. 13-29: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE FORMER COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPTING THE BIENNIAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEARS 2013-2014 AND 2014-2015 AND APPROPRIATING THE AMOUNTS BUDGETED RESOLUTION NO. 13-34: A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013-2014. PFA RESOLUTION NO. 67: A RESOLUTION OF THE PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SIERRA MADRE ADOPTIN THE BIENNIAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEARS 2013- 2014 AND 2014-2015 AND APPROPRIATING THE AMOUNTS BUDGETED. RESOLUTION NO. 13-37: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL REDUCING THE SERVICE HOURS AT CITY HALL AND THE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER OFFICE - Shorter version: You'll be paying more and getting less. What we should be doing is paying less and getting less. I don't see that as being a problem. Somehow I think we will all survive quite nicely with less City Hall in our lives. Plus that way we'll get to pocket the change.

5 - DISCUSSION – CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 13-31 IN SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL 135 (PADILLA), LEGISLATION THAT WOULD CREATE A STATEWIDE EARTHQUAKE EARLY WARNING SYSTEM - CALTECH has worked up something that will give the people of California a :30 second warning on the next big earthquake. State Senator Alex Padilla is looking for about $80 million dollars to make this happen, and is asking cities like Sierra Madre to declare their support. The technology may be shaky, but otherwise why not?

6 - DISCUSSION – DISUSSION (sic) OF GOALS, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND NAME OF A NEW COMMISSION CONSISITING (sic) OF COMBINED TREE ADVISORY COMMISSION AND GREEM (sic) COMMITTEE - It is important to note that the City is pushing this thing forward without really knowing what it is the new Commission will actually do. Or at least coming up with a plausible reason for it happening. You'd think that if this was so important the need would be obvious. Which it is not, despite all of the resources squandered on this mess. Nor have they even figured out what to call it yet, though we recommend the Bureaucracy Sustainability Commission. B.S. for short.

The reason as I see it is the development/real estate crowd controlling City Hall needs a dependable ally in their fight to get SB 375 up and running in this town. You know, the state law that claims building high density mixed-use condo development will somehow save the world from global warming? As ridiculous as that sounds, it has been a cornerstone of the Green Committee's loopy deliberations up until now.

7 - DISCUSSION – CONSIDERATION OF THE PREPARATION OF A PREFERENTIAL PARKING POLICY - This one has to do with people leaving their vehicles parked on the streets for extended periods of time. What it will end up as is yet more permits for the City to sell. It seems that everything being done downtown these days is all about getting more money for City Hall. Yet one more consequence of Sierra Madre's insane water bond debt and the inability of this city to deal with it. Except to ask for more money, of course.

8 - DISCUSSION – CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1339 AMENDING CHAPTER 9.36 OF THE SIERRA MADRE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ALARMS - If your alarm goes off and City of Sierra Madre emergency services answer the call, and it turns out that there was no good reason for sounding it in the first place, then you will be fined. Another way of raising more money for the Government Services Flea Market at 282 W. Sierra Madre Boulevard.

9 - DISCUSSION – STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE FROM APRIL 4, 2013 RETREAT - Somewhere there is someone who cares about this. But since it was put at the very bottom of the City Council's agenda for tonight's meeting, it must be nobody that counts.

http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

140 comments:

  1. What are the other areas, besides the ones on Mariposa, that are going to be upzoned to this new R-3, 20 units per acre density? Who is going to make that decision?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once "R-3H Multiple Family Residential High Density" is in the books they'll build 'em pretty much anywhere they want. Vote against your own interests and watch as your town gets processed.

      Delete
    2. Not sure they can build them in the area covered by Measure V. But everywhere else is open.

      Delete
    3. Kind of makes everything the city council has said about water look like a bunch of crap.

      Delete
    4. Johnny Process will save us! Somebody go wake him up.

      Delete
    5. John Harabedian understands that you only need to be half awake to achieve the goals of this City Council. Since everything has been scripted elsewhere, all you have to do is occassionally mumble some bromides and then vote with Josh and Nancy.

      Delete
    6. The UP ZONING of other areas will be done during the summer. The Development Department was going to assign that task to the General Planning Steering Committee. They wanted the General Plan Steering Committee to do their dirty work and take the heat. The General Plan Steering Committee at the May meeting told staff..."we're done".

      Delete
    7. Councilperson McDreamian is just saying his lines and following his script, like the other hired hands.

      And it's not just a small town play--there's obviously a national production in the works, maybe even a global one. Corporate sponsored, bankster funded. Marin County should put up a good fight. I hope they win.

      Delete
  2. Greem. Really?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. City hall inadvertently entered the Tattler name this commission contest!

      Delete
    2. We need to rename City Hall, too.

      Delete
    3. The City Council Agenda for tonight's meeting is shot full of spelling errors.

      Delete
    4. Must have been in a rush to get it posted before the deadline.

      Delete
    5. Does staff need a tutorial in "spell check"?

      Delete
  3. The Downtown Specific Plan - the Plan that would not die.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The hypocrisy of this City Council is astonishing. On the one hand they want to fine residents fot their water usage, on the other they want to enable a high density housing building boom that will drive water use through the roof. Incredible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The state is forcing this on all cities.

      Delete
    2. Not all cities are caving in. Some are standing up for the wishes of their residents. Only the ones led by faithless officials who want it are rolling over.

      Delete
    3. Do you think the state would care if we said we're running out of water?
      Or do you think the new developments in the hillsides and the assisted living facility might make us seem less than credible.

      Delete
    4. The "I was only obeying orders" defense went out of style decades ago.

      Delete
    5. Which cities are not caving?

      Delete
    6. The psychology of the whole "RHNA" fraud is masterful. This way gutless elected officials can say they have no choice, saving them from having to show whose pockets they're really in.

      Delete
    7. 7:48 - Northern California is in a state of outright revolt. Try reading something once in a while.

      Delete
    8. Last time a city "revolted" against density increases, it was sued by the state attorney general, and lost.

      Delete
    9. That is the only one you know about? Where do you get your news, the Mountain Views? Nice to see a city stood up to insane state laws, even if they did lose. Doesn't look like the Sargent Schultz City Council in Sierra Madre has that kind of equipment.

      Delete
    10. Which cities? Anybody have any specifics?
      If there actually are cities that are refusing to follow state mandates, and getting away with it, that could be very helpful to all the other cities, including us.

      Delete
    11. Knuckling under to the state with barely a whimper is real hero behavior.

      Delete
    12. If you enjoy having your community turned into an urban slum....Just do Nothing!!!!

      Delete
  5. Get out your B.S. umbrellas and rubber wader's it's summer vacation rush?

    What rush, the rush city hall puts on all it's "special needs" agenda items included in the summer time city council meetings, with most of it's residents looking the other way city hall loads up the agenda's with must have requests.

    These requests normally would be reviewed with more public input and transparency from city hall, but the "dark power's" have learned to overload a meetings agenda's and get them "all" passed in one fell swoop.

    Beware residents and tax payers, evil powers are at work tonight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The residents are tone deaf...they don't get it!

      Delete
  6. Naming the Greem Committee tonight is so typical of the council. they have not yet decided what this commission will be charged with doing. any reasonable person knows that if the parameters and duties of a thing are known, then the name readily suggests itself. No, this council thinks that by applying the "window dressing" of a name, they have done all the hard work and have created something important. How Ptomkin can they get?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's worked so far for they!

      Delete
  7. Looking online for any specific cities that refused state up-zoning demands, came across the following. I know the issue has been used as a big justification for the Greem Comm. As it turns out, unnecessarily....

    Los Angeles, County of v. Commission on State Mandates
    Citation: 37 ELR 20107
    No. No. B183981, (Cal. App. 2d Dist., 05/10/2007)

    A California appellate court held that California Government Code §17516c is unconstitutional to the extent it exempts regional water board orders from California's subvention requirement. The case arose after the Regional Water Quality Control Board for Los Angeles issued an NPDES permit for municipal stormwater and urban runoff discharges that required the county and several cities to inspect industrial, commercial, and construction water treatment facilities and to install and maintain trash receptacles at transit stops. The county and cities sought reimbursement for carrying out these obligations pursuant to the state's constitutional requirement for subvention of funds arising from a state mandate. The California Commission on State Mandates rejected their claim, arguing that orders from regional water boards were exempt from the subvention requirement under California Government Code §17516c. The appellate court, however, reversed, holding that §17516c contravenes the plain, unequivocal, and all-inclusive reference to "any state agency" in Article XIII B, §6, of the California Constitution--the subvention requirement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So the big bad threat of the NPDES isn't quite what the staff and some council members (Walsh) said it was?

      Delete
    2. Interesting article from Linda Pfeifer, a member of the Sausalito City Council.

      http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_23319426/marin-voice-plan-bay-area-means-big-changes

      Delete
    3. Pfeifer points out that her constituents are being bombarded with information from developers and other parties in favor of this. I guess we know who is really behind it.

      Delete
    4. Residents voice opposition to regional plan

      http://www.marinscope.com/news_pointer/news/article_fe41161e-a7b4-11e2-94cb-0019bb2963f4.html

      Delete
    5. Even ABAG (the SCAG of the Bay Area) knows people hate this high density Sacramento boondoggle

      http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/pdf/secondunits/Six_Steps_to_Getting_Local_Govt_Approvals.pdf

      Delete
    6. Marin Voice: Local control is under attack

      http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_22700998/marin-voice-local-control-is-under-attack

      Delete
    7. Stack and Pack housing plan condemned at ABAG-MTCV hearing

      http://www.halfwaytoconcord.com/stack-and-pack-housing-plan-condemned-at-abag-mtc-hearing/

      Delete
    8. Regional development plans spark unrest throughout Marin

      http://www.marinij.com/sausalito/ci_23160104/regional-development-plans-spark-unrest-throughout-marin

      Delete
    9. Future of the Bay Area: Draft Plan for region seriously flawed

      http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_23309043/future-bay-area-draft-plan-region-seriously-flawed

      Delete
    10. The reason our city council will not question the state's high density development demand is because they are in favor of it.

      Delete
  8. Johnny process is yawning because this part of the meeting is not all about him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's unfair! He got lots of votes!

      Delete
  9. Re: Item #4 - The City Hall is not being closed to save money, it is being closed so the "staff" can do their work without the interruptions of ordinary citizens who expect our city to be a full service city. It will now be a half-a---ed service city.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They have their hands full with all of the development work. Plus finding more ways to get money.

      Delete
    2. Terrific,How many more ways can the resident taxpayers get less for their taxes!

      Delete
  10. 2nd grade teacherMay 28, 2013 at 10:32 AM

    They will have twice as much time to do what they did.
    Class what is 2 time 0?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Aren't we going to tap into the MWD'S water? if so, there will be no water shortage, now they can build all of those Stuart Clones.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That water is for emergency purposes only. Fires, things like that. Building condos doesn't qualify.

      Delete
  12. running out of water is an emergency

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a serious disconnect. On the one hand the city is going to fine people for using too much water, but then at the same time allow developers to build 20 unit high density apartment buildings. These are not difficult dots to connect.

      Delete
    2. And we have run out of water because no one had the foresight to keep the city a size that could survive on its own resources.

      Delete
    3. No new wells were dug because the water department is paying a million dollars a year in bond debt payments. They have zero dollars for upkeep and the whole thing is falling apart.

      Delete
    4. So who is being asked to bail this dreadfully mismanaged city out of this mess!The same poor slobs who elect and support this shifty lot!

      Delete
  13. Did anyone from the city get in touch with our elected representatives in Sacramento and explain how our extremely delicate water situation makes any additional housing of this kind unsustainable?

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  15. For you: a dead lawn and an empty swimming pool.
    For them: blocks of new stack and pack condos to sell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like a two tiered system to me!

      Delete
    2. It's all about them.They have conned the poor suckers into playing their game.

      Delete
  16. That is a very interesting picture - each of the people caught in a characteristic pose that reveals a lot about him or her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The office queen, the apple polisher and the guy that doesn't see himself sticking around here for too much longer.

      Delete
    2. Is here really still around?

      Delete
    3. There is no here here.

      Delete
  17. If water revenues are down. (according to Karen Schnider)
    How can production be up. (according to Bruce Innman)

    Me thinks they need to get their stories straight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They fib so much they can"t keep their stories straight!

      Delete
    2. Lying is a complicated thing. They might not be smart enough to do it successfuly.

      Delete
  18. AZUSA | SIERRA MADRE | MONTEREY PARK | ALHAMBRA are the four members of The San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District.

    Azusa and Sierra Madre have mandatory water conservation in place. Alhambra does not. Monterey Park has something in place but residents are not requred to follow it (as of phone calls to these two cities today).

    Azusa has the same rules for water conservation on their web site but Sierra Madre's web site is so convoluted, if it is there, I cannot find it.

    So, why are we full force into water conservation if two of the other three cities in our water district are not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just perhaps they are better managed and less corrupt!

      Delete
    2. Maybe they actually know what they're doing.

      Delete
    3. Because the first step in selling the residents an increase in rates is to have them believe that water is in short supply. Take a look at the recent article in the Tribune which talks about the fact that there is plenty of water right now. But undoubtedly we will hear that rates must increase due to the overall shortage.....................

      Delete
    4. They need to refinance the existing bonds before the Water Co goes belly up. Then they need to get our bond ratings out of the sewer so they can float some more. They have big plans for Sierra Madre. The special people want to make some big development dough, and they want to do it on your back.

      Delete
  19. You don't have to be awake to do what Harabedian does.

    ReplyDelete
  20. There's some guidelines on the internet that show density scenarios and examples. The standard higher density of 19 units per acre are shown on page 12 of this pdf file on housing typology:

    http://www.designadvisor.org/Typology%206walkapts.pdf

    and of course it goes on up from there. Fairly representational of standard housing stock in this file.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Nancy said positive energy twice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She was full of adjectives. Not much else.

      Delete
  22. This woman has an excellent point. Why is the fee for her good neighbor block party the same fee as a town-wide festival?
    No doubt it's the staff time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sue Behrans. Writes a column about rock bands for Bill Coburn's site.

      Delete
  23. Can block parties bring the city back to financial health?

    ReplyDelete
  24. City hall has a zero for water usage?

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Why did that prediction not work out?"
    OK, thank you, next item.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mayor Walsh doesn't do reality.

      Delete
    2. I guess it is time for another PRA.

      Delete
  26. Koerber recused!
    Looks like there will be only one rational voice in the discussion....

    ReplyDelete
  27. If the state apporoved the Housing Element of the General Plan, that is bad news for us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess they aren't going to tell us where all of that water would come from.

      Delete
  28. Kowtow to the state and kiss your town good-bye.

    ReplyDelete
  29. There won't be any requirement for lower income housig because the market can bear oh-so-much more.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Water use penalties for you, 20 units per acre for developers. The new two class system in Sierra Madre.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Great, we "hope" people will charge lower rents, so let's not require it.
    Fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hey, Moran is for lifting the restrictions for new second units to be priced low. Go figure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He has commission brain.

      Delete
    2. He has realtor brain.

      Delete
    3. he has no brain

      Delete
  33. The housing is low income right up until the time it goes up for sale.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Poor Johnny - always playing catch up:
    Is this time that we took to get this done normal?

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Our priority was to minimize the need to up-zone."
    The Director of Development Servicing

    ReplyDelete
  36. The City Council Choir: "It is not our fault!"

    ReplyDelete
  37. Why do we have to do high density development?
    Cuz you'll get challenged (read sued) and then any developer cam come in and build whatever he wants. Do you believe that hype? Talk about circumlocution - take what the state gives you or lose local control.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Well said Mr. Richey!

    ReplyDelete
  39. "No one up here wants to up zone."
    Harabedian.
    Now he'll vote to up zone.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Johnny Process is using the Sergeant Schultz defense.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Disgusting night for Sierra Madre.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hysterical. Now they'll roll on into "We have no water."

      Delete
    2. You can't beat the timing. Let's build 20 units per acre condos. Then let's fine the residents for using too much water.

      Delete
    3. More money for city hall. How do you raise water rates without going through a Prop 218 process? Here is your answer.

      Delete
  42. Why won't anyone answer Richey's questions about city hall not paying its own water bills?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. City Attorney has them all on a clampdown.

      Delete
  43. Indeed we can't manage our water system.
    No water, no building - exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The residents give me hope that logic will win out. The council, not so much.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Thank you Mr. Hinton.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Josh: It wasn't me.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Another company - sounds like there is a better chance with them than a mismanaged company.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The city just goes back to ask for more.

      Delete
  48. Josh must stop talking.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Koerber was just arguing for the fact that the UUT should not be added on to any penalties, and here's Moran jumping in to emphasize it's not a lot of money.
    Maybe not for a reverse mortgage hustler.
    I for one do not want all of my plants to do, but they will, because it might not be much money for Moran, but I can't afford it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Josh always points out that each item does not cost much. Just don't add them all up.

      Delete
  50. We don't want to do this, we don't want to upzone, we don't want to be punitive - but we will do this, we will upzone, and we will be punitive.

    ReplyDelete
  51. No mention on the million dollars a year in bond service. I guess that doesn't matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Million dollars? What million dollars?
      Josh very niftily threw all past councils under the bus.

      Delete
  52. I'm sure the five bathroom MacMansions will be happy to conserve.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Believe it or not it took them 8 months to get this budget document together?
    I believe it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 4 months were spent dealing with the deep psychological stress caused by the defeat of the UUT extension.

      Delete
    2. It would have been a miracle if it had come in under half a year.

      Delete
  54. No real lay offs.
    Just some shuffling around, decreasing some hours here, moving personnel around there.
    No lay offs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now give us more money.

      Delete
  55. I wish Koerber was in charge of the budget.

    ReplyDelete
  56. You know, folks at cal tech have been researching earthquake early warning systems for at least 20 plus years. How do you think the government will manage this? Don't have much faith in that.

    ReplyDelete
  57. The scope of what they are asking the new committee to do is amazing. Of course chair Blanchard is not an expert on NPDES, no one is. And yet they expect them to hae all the answers! It is indeed a BS Commission.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The post at 8:03 this morning has some pretty interesting information about the NPDES - as in the court says the state has to pay for any demands it places on cities.

      Delete
  58. Bureaucratic Sustainability Commission is very good.

    ReplyDelete
  59. There you go, it really is all about Elaine.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Johnny likes everything.

    ReplyDelete
  61. How was the "Dog & Pony Show" tonight?

    Did all the "City Hall" players get their chance to speak?

    And of course they down played or over road any valid concerns or talking points.

    Let me guess the votes were 5-0..

    ReplyDelete
  62. Korber voted against the budget, said they didn't cut enough.

    ReplyDelete

The Tattler is a moderated blog. Annoying delays when posting comments can happen. Thank you for your patience and understanding.