(Mod: The following e-mail went out to all of the people on the Preserve Sierra Madre list. I thought I should reprint that here in case you are not on their list and haven't seen it. This explains exactly what is at stake tonight.)
Dear City Council Members:
At your Tuesday, February 24th City Council Meeting, among other items on the agenda, will be a discussion about extending the demolition moratorium and enacting further historical preservation measures.
We have read through the Agenda Report relating to these items. It is quite evident that the City Staff did an outstanding job in their analysis of these issues, in presenting the various alternatives in response to concerns about historical preservation and in their recommendations.
Preserve Sierra Madre urges you to stay the course and continue your courageous efforts towards preserving the small-town character of our village in the foothills that is manifested in the historical nature of its architecture.
Specifically, we hope that you will take the following actions:
1. Take the City Staff's recommendation and extend the demolition moratorium for an additional six months. This will allow City Staff time to enact specific details of one of the four recommended alternatives.
2. Direct City Staff to move forward towards implementation of Alternative 1: Comprehensive Historic Preservation Program.
With teardowns, mansionization and other development threats affecting so many cities in the San Gabriel Valley and with most cities only reacting after significant and irreparable damage has already been done, we feel that, out of the four alternatives presented by Staff, that Alternative 1 offers the best chance for preserving what's best about Sierra Madre.
We have only to look no further than our immediate neighbor Arcadia to know that we need to be proactive rather than reactive to the challenges facing Sierra Madre. The Historical Context Statement and Historic Survey found in this alternative are critical to any serious effort at preservation.
Again, Preserve Sierra Madre appreciates this City Council's actions thus far and sincerely hopes that, as Maude Ann Taylor said at an earlier City Council Meeting, you will continue to be "bold" in your efforts.
Preserve Sierra Madre
There are still a lot of unanswered questions about water use penalties.
(Mod: APPEALS OF WATER CONSERVATION TARGETS - This might have somehow made it all the way to the Consent Calendar, but a lot of unanswered questions remain and needs further discussion. Here are my top 10 questions.)
1) It requires that the city obtain info from the appellant so the number of units can be calculated. Specifically, what "info" is being required?
2) The "info" they refer to needs to be specified in the resolution. The questions could be too invasive. There is NO sample appeal form included. So, would the questions could change over time?
3) The current application states that a customer can only appeal once. Will the new application state the same thing?
4) If one of your adult kids moves back home, will you be able to appeal again?
5) The City claims they are basing this on 65 gallons per day, per person, for indoor use. Is that enough water for indoor use?
6) Is more water needed for outdoor use? How much more? That outdoor amount should be in the resolution.
7) Where is the Water Budget Calculator? If there is no calculator (formula) included, the city can change the calculator at whim.
8) How is it "voluntary" when a customer cannot get a higher number without complying with an inspection? Specifically, what is the city going to inspect? Exact verbiage needed here. Limitations should be in place so the city cannot cite a customer on other infractions.
9) Some appellants' requests may actually result in lower numbers. (It has already happened once.) Are these appellants going to be forced to take the lower number?
10) At their last meeting, the City Council discussed: when a customer appeals their number, the city will use the water calculator to give them a new target number. If the customer isn't satisfied, the city will use the Water Budget Calculator to make a recommendation. If the customer isn't satisfied with that, then the customer will be mandated to do a home inspection. But in looking at the written resolution, there is nothing in Section 3 that guarantees a customer will be given the new target number BEFORE having to comply to a mandatory inspection.
(Mod: Obviously here are a lot of questions remaining. This was not quite ready for the Constant Calendar yet. Hopefully someone on the Council will ask that this item be pulled out and the conversation reopened.)
NBC LA news video: Sierra Madre Mulls Water-Waste Fines
|Link to video here.|
What happened to this one?
A recent City Manager Report had the obviously politically inspired "Consolidating Municipal Elections" question front and center. However, it appears to have been pulled and is not being discussed tonight. What is up with that?