Monday, May 26, 2014

General Plan Build-Out Numbers and Mater Dolorosa

-
It is Memorial Day, which is the occasion when we honor the memory of those who made the ultimate sacrifice to help preserve freedoms that so many of us unfortunately now take for granted. And then there are City Council meetings, where local special interests often attempt to confiscate a few of those freedoms to help promote their own very special interests. And too often the citizens of whatever "governmental agency" is being finagled with cooperate by abdicating their responsibility to participate in whatever matters are at stake. Here is an example from tomorrow night's City Council meeting agenda.

4. DISCUSSION – GENERAL PLAN BUILD-OUT NUMBERS - Recommendation that the City Council approve the General Plan build-out numbers as updated.

What follows is a screen shot of the Staff Report. As you might know, there is considerable pressure on this community to accommodate large amounts of undesirable and frankly predatory McMansion development. In order for that to happen certain "adjustments" must be made to things such as our gradually emerging General Plan. So let me ask you this, would increasing our so-called "build-out" numbers help or hinder in the effort to preserve the character of this community? And, even more importantly, what exactly would be included in those numbers?

You can find the "Proposed Additional Build-Out Analysis" table here. But just to cut to the chase, here is one item that should send up a monastery's worth of red flags.

(Click to enlarge)

So here is my question. Why does this particularly destructive proposed development have to be included in anything having to do with our General Plan? Oh, and 60 units? Really? It seems like that number changes every day.

Here is another one. Exactly what did go down at that exclusive and very private City Hall meeting held with the developer last week? And did you know there is another meeting just like that planned for this Thursday?

http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

35 comments:

  1. I think its time to look back for a quote from a former First Lady, Nancy Reagen said "just say NO" ! It would suit us well when we are talking about any new development.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And that worked so well for America, just say no, crock 'o scmitt.

      Delete
  2. Remember these same "Wise people" had to bring the UUT before the voting people twice (2) and still they are not going to give up on stripping ever last dime from the residents bank accounts, for what? To make sure the incompetent in City Hall are paid and have their retirement pension fulfill, leave the concept of doing what's right for Sierra Madre out of the picture, in the long run they did what's right for them and them only.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If this meeting takes place before 11 a.m. when City Hall is "open to the public" we must demand that Elaine and Danny be fired! We need scouts sitting at the rotunda from 7:30 a.m. all day this Thursday to see what parties come and go and at what time. This is an outrage!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Can you keep us posted on meeting times..Thanks for all you do Mr. moderater

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. It is too nice a day for that.

      Delete
  5. How can we claim we are a built out city and have a water problem when the General Plan says that there are over 100 potential building sites and we have no building moratorium due to the lack of water? City Hall is in the pocket of the developers.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This alternate number was not approved by the general plan update group? Doesn't that mean that the resident participation wasn't in on it too?
    I thought this was supposed to be "the people's document."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Mater Dolorosa mess wasn't even dreamed of when the GPUSC starting working on it. The city is trying to sneak that development in to give it some kind of validity.

      Delete
    2. It was the people's document when MaryAnn MacGillivray was on the Council. Nancy and Joe couldn't wait to get her off (and tried unsuccessfully to remove Denise Delmar as well) to return it to the City's document where Nancy believed with all her heart it was her document.

      Delete
  7. So if the numbers that were discussed in the General Plan Update process are used, the monastery cannot slap 60 houses there?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Remember, the city council can violate the general plan any time it wants. It can also change zoning any time it wants. Two powers that need to be removed from the city council.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any City Councilmember who votes to change the zoning of Mater Dolorosa would need to be recalled.

      Delete
    2. 9:52 - you are correct, except for the fact that the monestary was pegged as potentially buildable, and could be zoned residential instead of institutional dating back to the days of 1 Carter.

      Delete
    3. Let's just imagine if the residential development at the monestary goes sideways...since it is zoned institutional, a school could end up purchasing the property. If my memory serves me correctly, the monestary is not wholly in the Hillside Management Zone.

      Delete
    4. Yes, but only by a vote of the City Council. Everything in life is potential. Doesn't mean it will happen.

      Delete
    5. 12:36 - I'd prefer a school over New Urban West McMansions.

      Delete
    6. I believe the general plan said possibly R-1 if M.D. were no longer Institutional. I'm thinkimng they wanted to avoid higher density multi-family.

      Delete
    7. I believe that is correct, 1:03. There are swarms of development disinformation trolls out and about. Trying to baffle people with the same old tired BS.

      Delete
  9. Bess of HardwickMay 26, 2014 at 12:57 PM

    12:44 - Think about that logically. A school would have far more impact in the long run, in the form of traffic, impact to the site, and noise. Isn't this what we were fighting to avoid with Maranatha High School? Are you TRYING to get a religious school to sue us again under the Religious Land Use Protection Act (RLUPA)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A school would serve the community. Far better than leaving people with kids at the mercy of PUSD.

      Delete
    2. "Mercy of PUSD"? Blame it on someone else, God forbid parents have anything to do with their kids upbringing...

      Delete
    3. It must be so easy being you.

      Delete
    4. 3:15 ~ "It must be so easy being you"... Yes, it is. Sorry you have a problem.

      Delete
    5. You're certainly not drowning in empathy.

      Delete
    6. Same snippy kinds of comments for a couple of days now....somebody's trying to distract.

      Delete
    7. It is annoying.

      Delete
  10. I want to see the land as passive open space with swales for strom water capture, with pathways on the top of the swale banks, parking for open space users, the stations of the cross and return to the days of the fiesta. No school! Take a look at what is going up at N. Canon!! If houses, don't insist on large lots, that just makes for larger houses as per FAR, floor area ratio. Houses should be no bigger than the average of Grove St to Michelinda neighborhood.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michillinda. The old postal codes for Mich.Ill. Inda. Just sayn' not many folks know that........

      Delete
  11. There were only a handful of people who spoke at the Planning 'Commission meeting when this was discussed. No surprises here. Those of you who preach about keeping Sierra Madre Sierra Madre should be willing to come to the meetings and speak up, not just the two or three who are always speaking. It now only looks like there are only two or three who care.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And if you can't make it to the meetings, flood the inboxes with emails!

      Delete
  12. o.k. folks, I'll be there with comments. Getting tired of Tattler comments with no action. If I don't see you there, then I'm through with the Tattler.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People have been quitting the tattler for years. But then where you go to get your news?

      Delete
    2. The Tattler is a blog that reports Sierra Madre news.

      Delete