Tuesday, January 14, 2014

CETT Investment Corporation Threatens To Sue City of Sierra Madre Over Stonegate McMansions

We have obtained a memo from City Hall that details a threat by CETT Investment Corporation to sue the City of Sierra Madre should the City Council's decisions this evening on their three Stonegate McMansion properties not go their way. 

http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

130 comments:

  1. Huh. And here I thought they wanted to be our "good neighbors."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WHEN ARE THE "WATER USERS" GOING TO SEND IN THE "PROTEST BALLOTS" ?

      IF THE PROTEST BALLOTS ARE NOT SENT IN...

      IT COUNTS AS A "YES" FOR INCREASE WATER & SEWER RATES!!!

      COUNT ON YOUR WATER & SEWER RATES DOUBLING...

      EXAMPLE... A $200 Bill could be $400 "counting all your tears"

      Delete
    2. Mcmansion Typeing

      Delete
  2. Give 'em copies of the many planning meeting dvds and tell them to get lost.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is anyone surprised?

    ReplyDelete
  4. But, but....they love Sierra Madre!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just love it to death.

      Delete
    2. The caps are the importance of the water issue. Save Sierra Madre from the current City Administration an the City Manager!!!

      Delete
    3. All 5 of the council support the water raise. The City Manager had nothing to do with this one.

      Delete
  5. If this lost in a court of law, then truly cities could no longer control anything.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wonder how Colantuono & Levin's lawyer is feeling about this? It was Michael Colantuono who first talked the city into not defending itself, which got us into this mess. Michael "had every confidence" that we would prevail, but somehow worked out a total and complete surrender anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What a surprise. They're thugs.

    ReplyDelete
  8. They are a bunch of bullies. Their project does not meet the findings necessary for approval.. The City Council needs to support the Planning Commission. The houses are too big for the building pad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the city does not stand up and defend our ordinances and codes, then what good is it?

      Delete
    2. The codes and ordinances are for everyone to follow, not just the residents. Developers and speculators must follow the same rules.

      Delete
    3. Might as well become some flotsam and jetsam of the state.

      Delete
  9. Tonight is not the night to watch this meeting on TV.
    You need to be there in person and speak up.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ok, in the first place, I'm surprised to see this memo on the Tattler. In the second place, why would the council even care about this until they have made their decision to either support the PC's action or to cancel it? What have legal threats got to do with the facts of the hearings?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you thought this through? CETT is holding a gun to their head.

      Delete
    2. They must decide the appeal on the facts.
      If CETT wants to sue, that's a different issue.
      That issue would come after they decide whether or not to support the planning commission.

      Delete
    3. You have a dry sense of humor.

      Delete
  11. Who on city staff is in bed with these people? Flush them out and give them their walking papers.
    Your CEQA report verses, My CEQA report and it all comes down to that in the court of law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody is. City staff is standing up for Sierra Madre. Credit where credit is due!

      Delete
  12. I think one of the reasons that the Planning Commission turned down these projects is because the residents came and spoke up that night.

    The only way to stop this nonsense is to attend tonight's meeting and put pressure on the City Council.

    Pack the chambers!


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2:38, you mean those nights.

      Delete
  13. What is wrong is they do meet all the city codes , which is way the city will lose

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They do not meet all the necessary findings.

      Delete
    2. The findings are subjective which is why thw city will lose

      Delete
    3. Hey, Mr. Subjective is back! Whuddup Sub?

      Delete
    4. Subjectively speaking, Sub strikes me as persistent.

      Delete
    5. Sub is a three syllable poster with a two syllable mind.

      Delete
  14. Who is to say that someone "Elaine" & ?" have not encouraged CETT to sue threaten to sue, to give cover for three council members disposed to approve the mansions on the hill, just looking for an excuse. "I didn't want to approve it but in order to avoid a lawsuit we thought better to approve. This is so transparent!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It could be the city wants to fight it. It is possible, you know.

      Delete
    2. You may say I'm a dreamer
      But I'm not the only one
      I hope someday you will join us
      And the town will live as one

      Delete
    3. Now that was civil ...

      Delete
    4. And as it turns out, prescient.

      Delete
  15. Hoping the City Council tonight gives them reason to want to sue the City. CETT does not deserve approval based on what they have submitted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fight back Sierra Madre!

      Delete
  16. There is always one "rat" insider who is angling for a better job position inside or outside the city of Sierra Madre, California.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It looks like the City should hire the Hildreth's Attorney.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Had a chance to read some of the supporting evidence and it looks like their lawyer has a vastly different interpretation of the settlement than our lawyer. It looks like they may put the council in a box tonight and the council will have to send it back to the planning commission.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you supply any convincing evidence to support your conclusion?

      Delete
    2. That is what will happen and the planning commission will send it right back forcing the elected city council to make the hard choice

      Delete
  19. Lots of folks here tonight

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pretty much a full house. Great to see!

      Delete
  20. Nancy is a little on edge this evening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many more people in the audience than she is used to.

      Delete
  21. So MPT*'s idea to remove the water penalties is working out pretty good. No one is conserving anymore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Soon he will be the M*. Sell your house now.

      Delete
  22. Can Bruce tell us how much water is being used for dust abatement at the ALF?

    ReplyDelete
  23. For the record, Nancy Walsh was called out by Earl Richey for eye rolling. Nancy rolled her eyes at that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure Walsh can control the movements of her eyes.

      Delete
  24. Danny is a nice guy, and I know he means well. But this Mills Act stuff is making me sleepy.

    ReplyDelete
  25. You can tell this Mills Act guy really is a historian. He uses the word "fascinating" a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  26. It's Lawsuit Richey McDonald!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Lawsuit Richey just mentioned something called the Tree Removal Commission. What is that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A slip of the tongue, and an offensive one at that.
      The guy doesn't grasp the concept of protecting trees.

      Delete
  28. Adele is being annoying again.

    ReplyDelete
  29. We are screwed, people! Take a close look at the candidates,...specialy their linked in accounts. Lots of dots to connect before voting. This could get ugly.....

    ReplyDelete
  30. What is a house that is "significantly smaller in feeling." Is it smaller or not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That happens when you cram many real estate agents and their developer associates, into a house. It just feels smaller.

      Delete
    2. That is lingusitic gymnastics. Enjoy the show.

      Delete
  31. Adele is saying her 5.5 bathroom McMansions don't use as much water as "typical older homes." Her nose is growing.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Adele has the unfortunate habit of talking down to us. Yeah, her book has a lot of tabs, and she has looked through it a lot. So what?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chang is wily.
      If she doesn't want to hear what she is being asked, she gets rather girlish, and redirects, as it is known in magician circles.

      Delete
    2. She neglected to mention that she consults it so often because she's figuring out ways to get around it.

      Delete
  33. Damn. I think John Harabedian has done his homework.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His best night.

      Delete
    2. For once he doesn't get a "Gentleman's C."

      Delete
    3. I think he actually used some of his skills for the good of the community. Huh.

      Delete
  34. Minor changes were made. CETT probably believed that the lawsuit threat plus this fig leaf would get them through. The room filled with people who are here to oppose these McMansions say otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  35. History is being made. The City is standing up to a 1 Carter developer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was fine to hear Harabedian, Capoccia and Moran actually articulate that the massing was too damn big.

      Delete
    2. Jeez, if these men had been on the council when that all first started.....

      Delete
  36. Adele's dilemma. How do you build a McMansions that does not look like a McMansion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You McDon't....Not here!!!

      Delete
  37. Nancy just said "grueling" 4 times in one sentence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She was giving the architect lovey eyes.

      Delete
  38. Lawsuit Richie just pronounced Councilmember Capoccia's last name as Ka-pah-chee-yuh.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Adele - "I hear what you're saying." Then she proves that she didn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Communication Tricks 101, say you're listening.

      Delete
  40. They will agree to try again. Anything to get those big boxes packed in like they want.

    ReplyDelete
  41. They're McMansions. Of course they are going to look like McMansions. What else could they look like?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Good. the developer will put gray water in all the homes. It's a start.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is good.
      Now if they just knock 1000 square feet off the massing.

      Delete
    2. Modern families require 5.5 bathrooms. In a suitable 4,000 square foot setting.

      Delete
    3. 9:28, be optimistic. Surely Chang will knock those big boys down to 3,999 feet. Ya know, in the spirit of cooperation.

      Delete
  43. It will be interesting to see how they try to hold on to every bit of the square feet that they have now, while "changing the design."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is exactly the point. You can't build big houses that don;t look like big houses. No mat err how you stack a McMansion, it is still a McMansion.

      Delete
    2. Capoccia said it tonight - the developer has one guiding principle: square feet.

      Delete
  44. Why are they going through all this again with each house? Hasn't the whole thing been decided and punted back to the planning commission?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Why are we still on this Stonegate topic? I thought we were finished.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It will never be finished.

      Delete
  46. People left too soon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How can either of the other houses that were turned down by the planning commission have any different outcome?
      Remand with specifics.
      Wanta bet?

      Delete
  47. Hunh. Adele just described a McMansion as "cottage style."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's one of my favorites.

      Delete
  48. Adele uses funny words. "Understated" to describe a 4,000 sq foot housing.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Capoccia just asked a question that Adele didn't want to answer. The people who will buy these 5 bedroom 5.5 bathroom monstrosities are nouveau riche asians. Grotesque consumption is fashionable in those circles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The exchange between Capoccia and Lawsuit Richie over the bathroom issue was hilarious. Comedic highlight of the evening.

      Delete
  50. Capoccia is absolutely right - all they do is nibble around the edges of the cookie and they do not, will not reduce the massing significantly. See, these people want to have the freedom to define words in ways that suit them. "Reduce significantly" for the applicant means "Tinker around a little, but maintain the mass."

    ReplyDelete
  51. They keep showing that swooping power point and it looks nothing like it is on the property. The power point is a fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Adele is paid to obfuscate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She would make a very good used car sales lady.

      Delete
  53. Yes Koerber! Lot combination would be fabulous. One story houses on combined lots.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I think this architect is a liar.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Harabedian is on. It isn't about french or monterey or any other McMansion cloaking. It is about BIG HOUSES.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Sit down Ken. Public comment is over.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Can't take that manipulative whiney architect anymore.
    It was a bad day when she got this business.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder if she actually thinks people are going to take her crap seriously.

      Delete
    2. Maybe she's successful because she just drives people crazy, and they give her what she wants just to make her go away.
      Well in Sierra Madre we are used to crazy. She's going to have to come up with better work than huge box houses slamming into each other.

      Delete
  58. Oh good God, it would be better if Nancy just didn't speak at all.

    ReplyDelete
  59. The theme of the night: Too much Mass.
    yep.
    Thank you Sierra Madre city council members.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Robert Ho: "Size matters..."

    ReplyDelete
  61. Realtor Ho is finishing the night with a comedy set.
    And a reference to every big house in Sierra Madre (without mentioning the lot size)

    ReplyDelete
  62. This is the guy who said he was looking forward to being our neighbor.

    ReplyDelete
  63. He loves our city.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Crawford gets a shot in. I see a new sitcom here....great show tonight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. C'mon. He turned around and berated people for talking while he was talking. He's a nut.

      Delete
  65. This is so funny. He's absolutely dissing us and then saying how he loves us. What a confused little man.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Replies
    1. He looked very little on tv.

      Delete
    2. This could be the source of his obsession about size mattering.

      Delete
  67. Great point from Crawford. "The real question is do we want McMansions or not?"

    ReplyDelete
  68. Why did Koerber ask us to throw away our protest ballots?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He has explained his position on this more than once. He is in favor of the water rate hikes and opposed to the UUT.

      Delete