Wednesday, April 29, 2015

So Exactly Who Are Goss And Harabedian's Mysterious No Show McMansion Men?

 -
"The highlight of the evening, if you can call it that, was after Denise nominated Capoccia for Mayor, Arizmendi seconded. Harabedian then nominated Goss to be Mayor Pro Tem (since he got the most votes - who were you people who voted for him, and I'm sure you regret it now!) … and nothing happened. Delmar and Arizmendi were very loud in their silence. Finally, Cappoccia seconded." - a reader comment.

Throughout the discussion of Ordinance No. 1364 last night, John Harabdian and especially Gene Goss kept referring to people they had spoken with who opposed things like having to get a CUP for putting a new second story on a house. According to Gene there were a lot of these folks. Yet unlike the many people who showed up at this meeting to support what will now become an essential tool in stopping Arcadia-style mansionization here in Sierra Madre, Harabedian and Goss's allies were nowhere to be seen. Actually they have never been seen. Not even once.

Nor did they ever do things like send e-mails to the City Council, or make phone calls, or even let people know what their names are. Nothing like that. They're like ghosts.

Yet these were the very people whose point of view was being quite aggressively represented by both John Harabedian and Gene Goss. Which is funny, sort of. People complain about anonymous comment posting on this blog from time to time, but what about the opinions of anonymous people having that much influence at a City Council meeting? Kind of unprecedented.

So who exactly were Harabedian and Goss advocating for? You really have to wonder what it is these people have to hide. Why won't they show their faces in public? Are they fugitives from justice? Are these people even from this country? Do they represent large amounts of foreign capital?

Shouldn't the residents of this city have the right to know something like that?

At the end of this rather lengthy two meeting rhubarb John Harabedian won a very small victory, and at the last possible minute. He also bought himself a little more time. It took him an awful lot of talking to get even that. But it seemed like little more than a face saving exercise at best. This was a sad way for someone who had done a lot of good on the McMansion issue to end his year as Mayor. And to what purpose?

And, perhaps more importantly, for whom?

As was discussed last night, the Preserve Sierra Madre folks supplied the City Council with a packet of photos showing two story development has negatively impacted neighbors, robbing them of things like mountain views, sunshine and property value. Here are the addresses.

467 Auburn
206 Auburn
190 N. Lima
415 N. Lima
88 Vista Circle
55 Victoria Lane
65 Victoria Lane
565 W. Montecito
319 Camillo
321 Camillo
363 Camillo
(481 Foothill ?)
540 Sierra Meadow
405-417 Mariposa
374 Grove
270 Grove
170 Adams
180 Adams
311 Adams
622 Valle Vista
775 Woodland
471 Crestvale
561 Alta Vista
368 Sycamore
370 Sycamore
264 W. Grandview
645 Edgeview
261 Grove
444 Mariposa
460 East Grandview

Once again the residents of Sierra Madre won a big victory over Arcadia-style mansionization. But it was no easy thing this time. And given the mysterious and anonymous nature of the opposition to the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding changes to the Municipal Code, it was all just a little strange as well.

After that a new Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem were chosen, and everyone went off to have cake.

There were some public comments delivered last night, and all were very worthwhile. None opposed the Panning Commission's recommendations. I got copies of two of those speeches e-mailed to me, and thought I should post them here. The first one comes from MaryAnn MacGillivray, and in her absence (yesterday was MaryAnn and Duncan's 42nd wedding anniversary), was read by Teryl Willis.

Dear City Council,

I cannot attend the meeting tonight as I had originally planned, hence this late email.

I urge you all to support the Planning Commission Recommendations regarding changes to the Municipal Code without modification. The evidence, if you are of the legal variety, or the data  if you are of a scientific bent, clearly support the recommendations. In summary:

·         The Planning Commission deliberated for several months, took public testimony, incorporated testimony and information gleaned from the General Plan Update process and applied their collective experience in reviewing projects to formulate the changes.

·         You, as a council, have taken public testimony that supports the recommendations. There is ample data available within the General Plan Update process to date, including the results of town hall forms attended by hundreds, yes hundreds of residents, an on-line/mail survey, and many months of public input at the General Plan Steering Committee meetings.

·         The Preserve Sierra Madre Coalition has clearly articulated the rationale for the changes in public comment at City Council meetings and in numerous emails and letters directed to you; these communications summarize the positive aspects of the changes directed at “preserving” the character of our city by carefully managing land.

·         The City Attorney explained the merits of the recommendations to you at your last council meeting.

The Planning Commission, the members of which trump the council’s land use expertise and longevity of experience, was deliberate and thorough. They considered  many iterations and consequences that might occur as a result of the changes they were recommending, but always with a focus on the common good and the desires of the community to “preserve” its character within the confines of individual property rights. 

To go outside of that based on personal opinion or opinions gleaned from a limited number of individuals in a more personal sphere is arrogant and inconsistent with your campaign promises and your obligation to your electorate.

It is always best to have a unanimous vote of the Council on matters of this import and the Mayor Pro Tem tried to get there. But to compromise the consensus of the citizens of Sierra Madre to get that vote is not in the best interest of the community.

This preservation effort is real and incipient. In addition to the projects already of concern, there are a number of  large properties that have been held in families for many years that will be disposed to heirs in the next decade. These heirs may feel differently about or may not wish to live in Sierra Madre and these properties then are at risk of development.

Living in Sierra Madre has value and it may just come with the cost of following the rules.

Sincerely,
Former Mayor MaryAnn MacGillivray

The other statement had nothing to do with any of the above, and it involves a very different kind of development. Apparently in Sierra Madre you could be subjected to half a decade of legal harassment, and at a considerable expense to the taxpayer, if you dig yourself a really deep basement. Yet if you build something like those two awful (and quite unsold) buildings on Camillo Road, you will receive the full and complete cooperation of City Hall. And perhaps a couple of councilmembers as well.

Here is what Taryn Hildreth had to say last night:

As you are aware, we have been defending ourselves from the City initiated lawsuit claiming our property is a public nuisance for the past five (5) years, and the City will finally be required to prove their allegations against us when our trial finally begins.
  
We know that many of you have an interest in knowing what is going on with our case. I doubt anyone other than the City Manager has any idea of the true facts, or the excessive amount of money spent on the retaliation against us.

In a response to our Request for Public Records for invoices the City received from the Dapeer law firm related to the prosecution of our case, the City provided invoices dating from October 2010 to April 2013, which totaled over $282,000. The City failed to provide invoices beyond April 2013 and has not responded to our request for confirmation whether such invoices exist. Since I can’t imagine the Dapeer law firm working for free, I expect that the City has incurred at least another $280,000 to perpetuate this prosecution. 

That does not include the upcoming trial that will most likely run another $100,000. Is it just me or do others agree that the $600,000 of taxpayer money could have been used in a more productive way? 

For those of you, who have an interest in knowing more about our story, please go to: http://www.Sterlingoak.wordpress.com (link).

For those of you that have an interest in understanding how the current Public Nuisance laws are being misused, go to: http://www.PublicNuisanceSham.com (link).

The month of May will keep us busy with trial preparation; however, we are open to answering any questions and speaking with anyone who is interested in knowing the truth about our case.

At this time, we would like to thank all of you who have shown your ongoing love and support. We are very fortunate to be surrounded by many wonderful people and that has given us the strength to keep striving to expose the truth.
  
For others who may be interested in supporting us, we totally understand your fear of retaliation, so you may anonymously support us by going to: http://www.GoFundMe.com/Sterlingoak (link).

Thank you and we are looking forward to complete and total vindication. 

Am I the only one who finds this sad episode to be entirely incomprehensible? Why wasn't this all settled out of court years ago?

sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

86 comments:

  1. Evidently, we are going to now have a third vote on the Planning Commission's recommended changes to the Municipal Code because Harabedian was able to convince the three other council members who had previously voted in favor of all of the Planning Commissin's changes to change their mind on the floor area limits. Undoubtedly during that third reading, Harabedian will make an attempt to chip away at another aspect of the Planning Commission recommendation's, namely the mandatory CUP for all 2-story new homes or -2-story additions. If he, once again, convinces the three council members who have already voted twice in favor of that issue, to change their mind again, I suspect it will requre a fourth reading where he will then get another opportunity to chip away at another aspect of the recommendations. Is it too much to ask the three members, who have already voted twice in favor of the mandatory CUP for second stories, to stick with their vote at this point?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They've done it so far. There's no reason to think they won't hold the line. And as MacGillivrey's letter has it:
      "It is always best to have a unanimous vote of the Council on matters of this import and the Mayor Pro Tem tried to get there. But to compromise the consensus of the citizens of Sierra Madre to get that vote is not in the best interest of the community."

      Delete
    2. Mayor Pro Tem, meaning Cappoccia, new Mayor. I was so upset after attending yet another meeting, when, Harabedian and Goss, I would rather be somewhere else, like your phantom residents, that I couldn't sleep last night. Now we've got to attend another meeting and hope that the three will stand strong, stop talking and just vote it in! Gene Goss is the biggest disaster since Nancy Walsh.

      Delete
    3. At one point right towards the end of the discussion, Harabedian said he could support the whole package after other council members accepted his compromise on the floor area limits. Then a mention was made of the minor CUP rather than a full CUP for the 2nd story and that opened the door once again for Harabedian and Goss to push that bad idea. Goss and Harabedian are not going to change their minds on the 2nd story. They are immovable on that no matter how much evidence you give them about the actual damage it has caused the immediate neighbors. You could them a million more examples and they won't change their mind. They believe that the developers and owners wanting a second story should be able to do whatever they want with their property regardless of the impact on the existing neighbors views, privacy, light and value. Once again, the side favoring the view that existing neighbors have property right too is vulnerable with yet another vote. So that means that Goss and Harabedian just need to pick off one vote from either Delmar, Capoccia or Arizmendi. After two successive votes supporting the CUP for the 2nd story, Arizmendi will not be moved to change her mind on a third vote. That leaves Delmar or Capoccia who could be swayed to support a minor CUP for a 2nd story rather than a full CUP and open hearing. We need to get those two Council Members after their two votes in favor of the mandatory CUP for a 2nd story, to just not knuckle under to Goss and Harabedian.

      Delete
    4. 9:13, excellent summary.

      Delete
    5. All second story homes over 3,500 S.F will need a CUP anyway. We just want to also require the Planning Commission review the two story houses that are under 3,500 S.F. as well.

      Both Camillo Rd. houses are under 3,500 S.F. If Delmar, Arizmendi and Capoccia do not understand that the CUP is needed to prevent more Camillo houses then we really are up the creek without a paddle.

      I do not want these decisions to be made solely by the new Planning director.

      Delete
    6. Goss and Harabedian know that if they manage to keep getting these issues called back again and again for a vote, our side will start losing steam - fewer and fewer people will show up to the meetings and fewer and fewer people will keep sending emails. They then can have an easier time convincing one of the three other council members to change their mind. For them, there is a method to the madness. They have succeeded so far in getting the floor area limits watered down after Delmar, Arizmendi and Capoccia originally voted in favor of it. They actually got two successes for the price of one. By getting, these council members to change their mind on the floor area limits - one success, it means it has to come back for a "second reading" which gives them another chance to water down the mandatory CUP for all 2-story new homes or 2-story additions - second success. These guys are brilliant. Its a pretty good strategy on their part. I just hope that neither Capoccia, or Arizmendi or Delmar fall for it again.

      Delete
  2. Who is John Harabedian working for?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've come to the conclusion that he must have a good pal/family connection/maybe himself who owns or will own one of those big lots he's so worried about.

      Delete
  3. Gene Goss is now Mayor Pro Tem putting him in the on-deck circle for Mayor. I guess the Nancy Walsh era is going to return sooner than we thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Civility party specializes in cranky people.

      Delete
    2. At least when Harabedian disagrees, he doesn't seem angry. Goss has some anger management issues.

      Delete
    3. True, 6:14, and 7:00!
      Goss is self-righteous and not well informed.

      Delete
    4. Gene turned red last night. I would hate to see him in closed session.

      Delete
    5. Like many less than brilliant people, Goss is very touchy about being seen as a mental featherweight.

      Delete
    6. Enjoy things while you can because it will be Mayor Goss in another year. God help us.

      Delete
    7. Mayor Goss - elections have consequences. There should be a recall movement before he is able to take the reigns of power.

      Delete
    8. It's easy to say "recall", and it's a whole different, much harder, thing to make it successful.

      Delete
  4. Let us call Gene Goss who he really is: There are no people who are on his side just because he says it is true. As a Professor he knows that you must have EVIDENCE to back up your claim. Pure and simple Gene does not tell the truth. He says whatever he wants to try to sell HIS version of what he wants to get. He is a sneaky and shallow man.

    Ya betcha Nancy & Co will be back to defend him with her version of the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. if his students submitted a report with unsupported facts or claims would he accept it?

      what a clown

      Delete
    2. If Nancy is one of the people Gene is listening to, then by all means do have her stop by a city council meeting to chat. Hopefully she will swear like a sailor again.

      Delete
    3. Can a student submit a term paper with quotes from anonymous people?

      Delete
    4. I think Gene is channeling Nancy Walsh.

      Delete
  5. Gene Goss has so much to learn from the Women. He is still a little boy...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A sure way to make that not happen is to attack him and point it out. When he is criticized he gets more entrenched.

      Delete
    2. Whine, whine, whine!

      Delete
    3. Fragile egos are always like that. There's a desperation to be right, no matter what the evidence says.

      Delete
    4. Gene Goss seems sensitive to criticism and angry when people disagree with him. Yet he told us he is a "tolerant" individual. Go figure.

      Delete
    5. I really hope he has a friend who will explain to him what a mistake it is to sneer at people who disagree with him. It's a real personality flaw that he better correct before he's mayor. He should learn from the object of his devotion, Harbedian. Under pressure, be more polite and keep a sense of humor. Be willing to laugh at yourself.

      Delete
  6. Except that Harabedian is not going to be sitting in the middle seat to chatter on, beguilingly, with his "take" on the 2nd story CUP.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Denise Delmar spelled it out very clearly, You either favor the owners (i.e.developers or those who want to add a second story) or you favor the existing neighbors who don't want bad things to happen to their property because of what someone else wants to do to change things. Shouldn't the burden be on the person who wants to change things to have to go through a CUP processs. Doesn't mean they can't have that second story, it just means they can't screw over the neighbors in the process. But Gene is a "tolerant" guy. He just not very tolerant of the neighbors who want a fair hearing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Delmar did put it succinctly. It was about favoring the property rights of the person developing over the property rights of the in-place residents.

      Delete
    2. Did you notice how Goss jumped in as soon as Delmar mentioned the minor CUP idea. He was rightfully all over that hoping to get that passed. It also caused Harabedian to seize the initiative once again. We can't keep opening the door. Goss and Harabedian are implacably against the CUP for a second story and so they are trying to water that down with the minor CUP idea. Just vote and be done with it.

      Delete
    3. Yes 9:17, I followed that too. There might be times when a minor CUP is the way to go, and there should be a way to do that; and there might be times when a fee waiver is in order, and there are already ways to do that. Adjustments can always be made. The important thing was to get the second story CUP set. for good. Then tinker. I think, hope, that's where we are at this point.

      Delete
    4. I think we will be hearing from Mr. Harabedian about this issue again, and soon. I cannot recall him being quite so energized over a topic in a long while. You do have to ask why.

      Delete
    5. We want to go up when we add on to our house. I have no problem with needing a full CUP when we get to the point of adding on. We are planning a half story loft addition only, specifically so impact to neighbors would be as minimal as possible, and only going up in the center of the house, not all the way to the current outer walls. It would be our job to convince neighbors that the impact is minimal enough to be permitted.

      Delete
    6. We could all be the neighbors. Thanks 11:49!

      Delete
  8. It is amazing to me how that powerful but secret interest group has managed to influence two council members without ever having attended the meetings for the General Plan, all the Planning Commission meetings about these issues and now two City Council meetings - no attendance and no emails. Don't you think that when they supposedly talked to Harabedian and Goss, those council members would have suggested to all those concerned residents that they should attend a meeting or least send an email. None of that happened. Why are these people able to have such an enormous impact on the debate without ever having to show their face or send an email. How passionate can they be that they don't even want to do that. Yet Goss talks about the hordes of people who talk to him every day. He should be called out on that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What worries me is not so much these unnamed and secretive people, it is who they might be working for. If the mystery cabal is who I ghink it is, they are only moved by money. And where is there lots of money and people who care deeply about development around here? Asia. I think Goss and Harabedian are trying to sell us out.

      Delete
    2. Great points 7:37.

      Delete
    3. Follow the money. It has nothing to do with being "fair," or anybody's beliefs in property owner rights. It is all of that cash that continues to flood this housing market.

      Delete
    4. But what if they "love Sierra Madre"?

      Delete
    5. I believe all city related correspondence to council members concerning city matters are public record. Just ask Ms. Hillary.
      Someone should request those emails.

      Delete
    6. I believe Ms. Delmar asked twice to have their negative e-mails sent to her. Rather she asked that these people contact her as she has not received one negative e-mail.

      Delete
    7. It is not fair to demand that people participate and come to meetings to demonstrate their involvement as citizens, except if you don't want to, and count that non-public part as the same. Not fair.

      Delete
    8. I agree. You want something, put your name and sweet presence behind it. The concept of anonymous non-present meeting people is just nuts.

      Delete
    9. That's right 8:37. It stinks that for two out of our five council members, you don't have to lift a finger and yet you get these two council members arguing passionately on your behalf....unless of course Goss hasn't heard from hundreds of people as he seemed to imply at last night's meeting.

      Delete
    10. Not one name was put to Goss's claim. Not one. Nobody showed up. Weird.

      Delete
    11. This is how Senator Mc Carthy ruined so many lives in the 50's. He held up an empty brief case at the senate hearings and said he had proof in this brief case that his enemies are guilty communists.

      Of coarse he never opened the case. Goss learned well form his history lessons.

      Delete
    12. Unfortunately, McCarthy was right. There were a bunch of communists working in the govt. just be cause someone is a "nut" doesn't mean they are 100% wrong.

      Delete
    13. True 5:18, and there were a bunch of communists in the arts, too. However, that's allowed in this country.

      Delete
  9. What drives me crazy is the Goss/Harabedian refrain of "It's not necessary", when they have all these sad emails from residents who have been screwed by what their neighbors have done.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Maybe the council needs to go on a tour of the city, to see the damage.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks to Tattler for providing the link to the Hildreth case. https://sterlingoak.wordpress.com/
    $600,000 + to prosecute a case that so far has done no harm ? And the above ground monstrosities go Scot-free !
    I am ashamed to be an involuntary source of funding for this vindictive prosecution.
    I don't agree with violating code/permit rules but this is NOT about that .It is about Government employees running a personal Vendetta at the taxpayer's expense.
    Disgraceful way of settling a dispute.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I saw pictures and I know a few of the houses on the above list. How can a city council member look at those and not vote the right way. He is obviously somebody's patsy so I guess that would be nasty Nancy's.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If it were in the R-1 zone, the Hildreth's project's address could as well be on the list: take a site line down the west property line and another down the side walk. You may find the Hildreth's sympathetic individuals but their project is no less a problem for that one neighbor to the west. You may say that neighbor has never complained or in fact may support the Hildreths but in many other instances around town there was no complaint from neighbors because they had something to gain by their silence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK. But properly handled this all could have been worked out cheaply and quickly. Instead the city spent $600,000 on shysters over the course of 5 years only to end up in court. The same city that is now crying poverty and wants to raise utility taxes. Ask yourself this: What happens if the city loses? Anything can happen in court.

      Delete
    2. What did they have to gain, 8:23?
      The cases I know of, the neighbors hated what happened but didn't think they had any choice. Now they will.

      Delete
    3. But if the City looses their case it will be an awful precedent.
      This silly situation was provoked and escalated by Bruce Inman.It is a personal vendetta.
      The City screwed up,can't produce/never had the documents to support their case and this is the 'fig leaf' to cover their embarrasment. We taxpayers are paying $600,000 ++ for a personal vendetta against a fellow resident. How many rusty pipes would $600,000 pay for?
      I agree the code violations are wrong but that issue has been superceeded by City bungling and heavy-handed tactics.
      The only beneficiaries are the lawyers - and Inmans ego -if he wins !We pay either way.

      Delete
    4. Oh please, Bruce Inman has as much say about filing a lawsuit than you have, unless you are Hildreth. A personal vendetta against the Hildreths' is just silly to talk about. They broke the law, built a deck over the sidewalk as a "stick in the eye" to the City and the City got carried away about resolving the issue.

      Delete
    5. $600,000 is a lot of carried away.

      Delete
  14. It is my understanding that a person who chairs a meeting, the Mayor in our case, is not allowed to make a motion or nomination and may not second a motion or nomination. I think that is in Robert's Rules of Order.
    I do not know what rules our city council meetings are governed by, but since Mayor Capoccia was the person who seconded the nomination of Goss for Mayor Pro-Tem, Goss's election may be invalid.

    Does any of the Tattler regulars know if this is correct? My idea is that if no one seconds his nomination one of the ladies can be elected.

    Harabedian can't second the nomination, he made the nomination. Goss can't second his own nomination and Capoccia is Mayor so he can't second it, if I am right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since the vote for Goss was 5-0 I don't think there is much need to fuss with this. If there was someone else who might have been nominated but wasn't then, well, maybe.

      Delete
    2. The protest was noted by many. It was appropriate.

      Delete
    3. I don't understand why Delmar or Arizmendi voted for Goss when neither of them offered a "second" for the motion. (If they didn't want him as Mayor Pro Tem, they shouldn't have voted for him. They are not obligated to vote. They could have abstained.)

      If the election of Goss was invalid, it should be re-done. Perhaps one of the ladies could be elected.

      Delete
  15. Politics as usual. The party line for Harabedian and Goss is development. Do some research on who owns the property along the bullet train route. See what they plan to build there. I thought elected people were supposed to vote the way their proven constituents have offerred. Goss had his agenda and his own personal opinion. He was rude to the audience. He was rude to Ms. Delmar. To even think of him becoming mayor is nauseating. He should be recalled.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Harabedian seems like a reasonable guy who sincerely wants the best for Sierra Madre. I really believe that. Goss may be another story. He has some strange views about things like the line about it being ok when people do "stupid and dangerous" things sometimes and we all just have to live with it. I don't mind people doing stupid and dangerous things as long as it only affects themselves. When their 'stupid and dangerous" things start affecting other people or the neighbors, that's where I draw the line.

      Delete
  16. Kevin Paschall, Planning CommissionerApril 29, 2015 at 10:03 AM

    If the two council members voting to change the Planning Commission recommendations would bring the conversation back to the Planning Commission and show themselves up I am sure the whole Commission would like to explain our thought "process"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe they could bring their mysterious pen pals along as well.

      Delete
    2. Great suggestion, Commissioner Paschall. Or maybe they could just watch the meeting replays when the commission worked through the codes. But then again, on this issue, Harbedian and Goss seem impervious to reality.

      Delete
    3. They apparently have a different agenda.

      Delete
  17. How about if the next reading of the changes is done before some of the over-development sites?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It should at least be done before the monastery property is sent to the department. If they keep dragging it out, some of the developers will have time to bring their plans forth before the ordinance takes effect.

      Delete
    2. Hey 3:20, you might have hit on the very thing that's motivating Goss and Harbedian - time for certain people to get plans in and approved before the ordinance can take effect!

      Delete
  18. I wonder if Elaine will stall the General Plan. I wanted to vomit last night when Goss and Harabedian wanted the new Planning Director to make the decision on the minor CUP plan. And did you notice how many times the 2 boobs mentioned John Hutt? They can use him as an authority but Elaine couldn't hire him. She really needs to go. How do we get that done. And be vigilant. Harabedian can do the same thing at the next reading of the ordinance. I was disappointed that Delmar was willing to compromise on the minor CUP. She did say that she wouldn't like 1 person making the decision but it could be the wrong person on the PC that helps make the decision. Also, why can't Elaine get an accurate list of building permits and the progress of those in the process. There are many that never get on her list.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 4:01, you wonder if she will stall it? She has stalled it. For years.

      Delete
  19. I think Goss and Harabedian provided an awful lot of false attribution to their ideas. As Preserve Sierra Madre recommended in its letter to the Planning Commission, a minor CUP can be a useful tool in the review of 2nd stories, but you can't just ditch the full CUP and sub in a minor one for all projects. Taking an idea out of context, stripping it of necessary safeguards and suggesting it be used as a substitute rather than a complementary tool is rather disingenuous.

    ReplyDelete
  20. They're stalling. Time we start calling them on it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. In regard to the Hildreth fiasco: you state "Am I the only one who finds this sad episode to be entirely incomprehensible? Why wasn't this all settled out of court years ago?"
    Because Mr. Mod You don't have to be sane to own property.Dig a giant hole under my home with neighboring properties feet away? Not a good idea!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They've been sitting on top of a giant hole for 5 years now. I sense no urgency.

      Delete
  22. That house is a freaking eye sore, tear down the cantilevered deck over the public sidewalk, rooting for the city on this.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I agree with the Code violation/Permit issue.
    But this has been handled like an amateur vendetta under color of authority.It is also selective enforcement - there are other nearby violations that were approved.And then the City lost their 'evidence' - if they ever had it. In their embarrassment they tried to just beat the guy down with an expensive lawsuit. When he resisted they just piled on more legal expense.The City has bungled badly in what should have been a slam-dunk case. And we are paying !
    By contrast when our own "Finest"? shot an unarmed guy in the back, it was swept under the rug .That is what passes for Justice in the City of Sierra Madre.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 8.44 You are correct ,the cantilevered deck is not a thing of beauty.
    But please understand it was built as a temporary cover over the digging area. The City caused so many delays that it is still in place to protect the hole since work stopped. The City know this.
    When the underground work is complete the overhang will be removed and there will be no outward sign of the construction in question. So, an invisible addition - not bad?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Here is the link to the Tattler report on the Police shooting:
    http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com/2009/08/officer-amos-returns-to-duty.html
    And this is where you can read the Hildreth story:
    https://sterlingoak.wordpress.com/

    ReplyDelete
  26. @08:52 That overhang is not temporary. It adds sq. feet to the livable area and has been there for 6 years. Temporary is a plastic tarp to cover up the pit of death.

    ReplyDelete