Mountain Views News          Saturday, August 17, 2013

21

PUBLIC NOTICES

 Mountain Views News Saturday, August 17, 2013 

City of Sierra Madre

ORDINANCE 1341

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIERRA MADRE 
CREATING THE ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES 
COMMISSION

WHEREAS, meeting the requirements of evolving state and federal environmental regulations will require the 
City to effectuate its own ordinances, policies and programs; and, WHEREAS, community volunteers forming 
comm1ss1ons and committees are an invaluable resource in assisting the City Council and staff to develop and 
publicize new programs, raising public awareness and providing a means of gathering community input; and,

WHEREAS, matters involving potable water, clean storm water, urban forest management, and state 
and Federal mandates are closely related; and WHEREAS, the City has reduced staffing in most City departments 
in order to reduce operating expenses, and the reduced staffing resulted in the need to reduce staff workload 
where feasible; and 

WHEREAS, the City Council decided to disband the Public Works’ staffed Tree Advisory Commission and the Public 
Works’ staffed Green Committee; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to create the Energy, Environment, and 
Natural Resources Commission. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Sierra Madre as follows: 

SECTION 1: Municipal Code Text Amendments Existing Chapter 2.46 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with 
the following:

CHAPTER 2.46 ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION 

 2.46.010 – Created An Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources Commission is hereby created. 

 2.46.020 – Membership The Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources Commission shall be comprised of seven 
(7) members, each appointed by the City Council. Membership of the Commission shall consist initially of those 
individuals appointed to the former Tree Advisory Commission and Green Committee. 

 2.46.030 - Commission Officers The Commission shall elect from its own members a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson. 

 Terms as Chair and Vice-Chair shall be for one year. 

 2.46.040 - Meeting Time and Place 

 The Commission shall meet at 7:00PM on the third Wednesday of each month. Meetings shall be held in the City 
Hall Council Chamber unless clearly noted as elsewhere on the posted agenda. 

 2.46.050 – Purpose The purpose of the Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources Commission shall be to enhance 
quality of life in the community by promoting good stewardship of precious environmental and natural 
resources. 

 2.46.060- Powers and Duties 

A. The Commission shall serve as an advisory panel to the City Council, Planning Commission, and to city staff 
on matters pertaining to water, water conservation, energy efficiency, State and Federal environmental mandates, urban 
forest management, and public outreach regarding the same. 

B. The Commission shall act as the communications link between the residents, City Council, and Public Works 
department, in all matters pertaining to water and water conservation, energy efficiency, State and Federal mandates, 
management of the community forest. The Commission shall cooperate with other governmental agencies and civic 
groups in the advancement of environmental policies. 

C. The Commission shall plan, evaluate, recommend and conduct community outreach, community programs and 
services designed encourage responsible use of water and energy, as well as overseeing the protection and enhancement 
of the community forest.

D. The Commission shall perform all other duties referred to and requested of the Energy, 
Environment, and Natural Resources Commission from time to time by the City Council.

SECTION 2: CEQA. This Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act because a code 
text amendment relating to a purely administrative matter is not a project under CEQA and because it is certain 
that the activity in question that there is no possibility that the activity in quest will have a significant effect on the 
environment. 

SECTION 3: Severability: If any selection, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance 
is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the 
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this 
Ordinance and each selection, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the 
fact that any one or more selections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared 
unconstitutional. 

SECTION 4: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published or posted in accordance with California 
Government Code Section 36933, shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and his/her certification, together 
with proof of the publication, to be entered in the.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of July, 2013.

City of Sierra Madre

ORDINANCE NO. 1342

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIERRA MADRE AMENDING CHAPTER 
13.24 OF THE SIERRA MADRE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE CITY’S MANDATORY WATER 
CONSERVATION PLAN 

 

WHEREAS, on January 24, 2012 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1322 pertaining to Mandatory Water 
Conservation; WHEREAS, on May 28, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1338 and 1338U, making 
modifications to the City’s Mandatory Water Conservation Ordinance; WHEREAS, the City Council may find and 
determine that a water shortage emergency condition may exist or may in the immediate future exist; WHEREAS, the City 
Council may declare the necessity of implementation of a mandatory water conservation plan by adopting a City Council 
resolution 

WHEREAS, the Raymond Basin Management Board has implemented the Section VI (3) of the 1984 Raymond Basin 
Judgment, reducing Sierra Madre’s water production right from the East Raymond Groundwater Basin by 47%; 

WHEREAS, water levels at multiple city wells are in decline, and on June 29, 2013, City Well Number 4 was shut-down 
due to low water levels; 

WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that modifications should be made to the Mandatory Water Conservation 
Ordinance to account for seasonal usage and other factors. 

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIERRA MADRE DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 

Section 1. Section 13.24.140 Failure to comply – Penalties is hereby amended to read: 

13.24.140 It is unlawful for any customer or user thereof of the water department to fail to comply with sections 

13.24.070 through 13.24.120 of this chapter. Civil penalties for failure to comply with any of the provisions shall be as 
follows: First Violation. For the first violation by any customer of the water department of any provision of sections 

13.24.70 through 13.24.120, a surcharge penalty is imposed in an amount of twice the Tier 1 water rate per one hundred 
cubic feet of water or billing units. Second Violation. For the second and all future violations by any customer of 
the water department of any provision of sections 13.24.70 through 13.24.120, a surcharge penalty is imposed in the 
amount of three times the Tier 1 water rate per one hundred cubic feet of water or billing units. 

Section 2. Section 13.24.150 Installation and removal of flow restrictors. Is hereby revised to read as follows: 

13.24.150 Flow Restrictors

13.24.150 Flow Restrictors will not be installed for any violation of the City’s water conservation will not be installed 
for any violation of the City’s water conservation plan. 

Section 3. Section 13.24.160 Violation Period Determination is hereby amended to read:

 

13.24.160 After a notification period, the first, second, and all future violations will be determined by comparing the 
customer’s current bi-monthly water consumption with that customer’s average bi-monthly consumption for a summer 
base period or a winder base period. Average bi-monthly consumption for the base periods shall be determined by 
calculating the customer’s average water consumption for three consecutive billing cycles. The notification period is 
the first billing cycle after adoption of a resolution establishing mandatory water conservation. 

Section 4. Section 13.24.200 – Base period allocation is hereby amended to read:

 

13.24.200 Base period allocation. Base period allocation: The Consumption Data for the three consecutive 
billing cycles comprising the winter billing periods and the summer billing periods, as established by City Council 
resolution. 

Section 5 The City Council intends this Ordinance to supplement, not to duplicate or contradict, applicable state and 
federal law and this Ordinance shall be construed in light of that intent. 

Section 6 If any sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of Ordinance 1338 or 1322, 
or any part hereof or exhibit hereto is for any reason held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not effect the validity of the 
remaining portions of the Ordinance or any part thereof or exhibit thereto. The City Council hereby declares that it would 
have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that 
any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraph, sentences, clauses or phrased is declared invalid.

Section 7. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published or posted in accordance with California Government 
Code Section 36933, shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and his/her certification, together with proof of the 
publication, to be entered in the book of Ordinances of the City Council. 

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 23rd day of June, 2013.

 

LEFT TURN/RIGHT TURN


HOWARD Hays As I See It

DIVISIONS IN AMERICA

 Today we seem to face a myriad of divisive 
issues: deficit spending, Obamacare, deficit 
spending, gun control, criminal sentencing 
standards, to name but a few. Beneath 
the surface of all of them, though, is one 
underlying issue. Today, there is an almost 
unbreachable void between those who 
believe in personal responsibility and those 
who believe in victimhood. Perhaps it will 
help to illustrate the difference with a couple 
of examples.

 Last week, a young man named Shaaliver 
Douse was killed by NYC police. This 14 
year-old boy was a troubled kid, who had 
been raised by a single mom, with no father 
around. His rap sheet included attempted 
murder along with burglary and assaults. 
In the early morning hours last Sunday, 
Shaaliver was shooting at a man in the street 
when police arrived. Rather than surrender, 
this young man turned his gun on the police 
who, in self-defense, shot and killed him. 
Shaaliver’s aunt was interviewed after the 
incident and stated, “What if he did have a 
gun? Does that give [the police] the right to 
shoot him in the head -- a kid? Police can 
shoot our kids? It’s not fair. It’s not fair for the 
police to be able to kill our kids.”

 With all deference to her grief, the 
aunt’s response aptly illustrates what a large 
section of Americans believe. This kid was 
not responsible for his actions, they would 
claim. It was not his fault he picked up a 
gun; it was not his fault he was shooting at 
a guy in the street; it was not his fault he 
had committed numerous robberies and had 
attempted murder in the past; it was not his 
fault that he threatened a police officer; it 
was not his fault, and therefore, he shouldn’t 
have been killed. What’s lacking here, of 
course, is any acknowledgement that these 
voices screaming in defiance at the reality of 
a young man’s needless death wouldn’t have 
said a word had Shaaliver killed the cop and 
escaped into the early morning darkness.

 Consider one other example. Nicholas 
Kristof, writing in the New York Times, 
said that a 15-year sentence handed out to 
Edward Young for possessing shotgun shells 
in violation of his parole is evidence that 
America’s criminal justice system victimizes 
the poor and downtrodden. Mr. Kristof 
wrote, “[Edward] Young, now 43, was 
convicted of several burglaries as a young 
man but then resolved that he would turn his 
life around. Released from prison in 1996, he 
married, worked six days a week and raised 
four children in Hixson, Tennessee. Then 
Young became a suspect in burglaries at 
storage facilities and vehicles in the area. And 
the police searched his home and found the 
forgotten shotgun shells.” Doesn’t seem fair, 
does it? Certainly seems like Mr. Young is a 
victim of an unfeeling system. 

 Well, here’s the truth about Mr. Young. 
His rap sheet contains 22 felony charges - the 
majority of them violent. Mr. Young was 
actually arrested for 
a series of burglaries 
during which he had 
brought his 14 year-old 
son to teach him the 
business. If convicted 
of the burglaries and 
child endangerment, he 
would have faced a lot 
more than 15 years. The 
“system” did Mr. Young 
a favor by dropping the other charges in 

exchange for the guilty plea on parole 
violation. 

 Here again, though, Liberal voices would 
tell us it was not his fault he committed 22 
felonies; it was not his fault he had committed 
violence in these crimes; it was not his fault 
he was teaching his son how to steal. 

 The dividing line in both these illustrations, 
and in countless other social issues, is 
pronounced. There are those who blame 
society and will find any excuse whatsoever 
for a criminal’s personal choices. There are 
those on the other side who see crime as a 
result of individual choices made by the 
perpetrator, not as the result of society’s 
imperfections. 

 

 Perhaps the most prescient commentary on 
this divide was offered by Bernie Goldberg, 
formerly a CBC 

reporter and card-carrying member of the 
Liberal Eastern elite, but now an outspoken 
critic of Liberalism. He attributes the 
problem to a warped concept of “tolerance”. 
To Liberals, tolerance is what separates them 
from the right. They are tolerant, we are not. 
But as the left preached tolerance, it gradually 
moved from tolerating the right things – like 
racial differences – to tolerating everything, 
including many social pathologies. The left 
today can’t bring itself to criticize 13 year-old 
girls having babies, young men abandoning 
their families, violence in the inner-city, 
dropping out of high school, etc. They’ve lost 
the ability to distinguish between right and 
wrong. 

 Too many of our leaders today refuse to 
confront basic problems because they don’t 
fit their Liberal ideology. Confronting these 
issues is portrayed as blaming the victim. 
We conservatives actually see confronting 
these issues as helping people turn their 
lives around. It’s a stark difference of values 
and opinion, and until it is addressed, the 
divisions in America will remain.

About the author: Gregory J. Welborn is a 
freelance writer and has spoken to several civic 
and religious organizations on cultural and moral 
issues. He lives in the Los Angeles area with his 
wife and 3 children and is active in the community. 
He can be reached gregwelborn2@gmail.com 

GREG Welborn

 
It boils down to how one 
views the role of government. 
Liberals see its purpose as to 
“form a more perfect Union, 
establish Justice, insure 
domestic Tranquility, provide 
for the common defence, 
promote the general Welfare, and secure the 
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our 
Posterity.” Conservatives see opportunities for 
someone to make a buck.

 When the Supreme Court turned down Gov. 
Jerry Brown’s request to reconsider the order 
that 9,600 California State Prison inmates be 
released, transferred or otherwise dealt with to 
relieve overcrowding, our County Supervisor 
Mike Antonovich concluded that “the governor 
has only two choices . . . release 9,000 dangerous 
felons into our communities” or transfer them 
“through contracting”. “It’s a no-brainer”. The 
establishment of justice seen not as a goal 
pursued through our government, but as a job to 
hire-out like we’d contract with somebody to fix 
our plumbing or repair a transmission.

 Antonovich made news last month when 
he promoted a ballot measure overturning the 
2002 initiative limiting Supervisors’ service to 
three four-year terms. He wants it extended to 
five – twenty years total. That initiative wasn’t 
retroactive, so the 24 years he’d spent on the 
board prior to his 2004 reelection doesn’t count. 
He’s now been on the Board of Supervisors for 33 
of his 74 years – and wants to run again in 2016 
so he can take the gig into his 80’s.

 And why not? Pulling in nearly $200k a year, 
great benefits; if his district were a city, it’d be one 
of our nation’s five largest – more people than in 
a dozen states. Should crises arise, responsibility 
extends no further than endorsing formation of 
a “blue ribbon” commission to look into it. And 
there’s job security – no incumbent Supervisor 
has lost their job in the past thirty years (though 
that’ll change in 2016). For last year’s “election” 
(how many of you are aware that last year we 
had an election for our seat on the county Board 
of Supervisors?) Antonovich raised $360,000 
mainly from developers and contractors with 
business before the county – to scare off would-
be challengers and use for self-promotion.

 Whenever I hear the phrase “it’s a no-brainer”, 
I feel I’m hearing someone who hasn’t given the 
matter much thought. The business model of 
the private prison industry is to advertise a lower 
per-prisoner cost, and then bribe elected officials 
to pass more stringent mandatory-sentencing 
laws to increase the number of those behind bars. 
In 2010, the two largest players, Corrections 
Corporation of America (CCA) and GEO Group 
took in $2.9 billion in revenue. The three largest 
spent $835,000 bribing federal officials, with $6 
million spent at the state level. Over a million 
bucks was doled out over three months in 2011 
to bribe Florida officials to take their prisons 
private. 30 of the 36 Arizona legislators who co-
sponsored bills to put immigrants behind bars 
were bought off by the private prison industry.

 A 2011 ACLU study finds that “private prison 
companies have capitalized on the nation’s 
addiction to incarceration to achieve gigantic 
profits . . . mass incarceration wreaks havoc 
on communities by unnecessarily depriving 
individuals of their liberty, draining government 
resources and bringing little or no benefit to 
public safety . . .Our nation’s reliance on mass 
incarceration has bankrupted government 
budgets, torn families and communities apart, 
disproportionately impacted people of color . . . 
But it has been a bonanza for the private prison 
industry, which rakes in billions of dollars a year 
and dishes out multi-million dollar compensation 
packages to its top executives. For-profit prison 
companies are a barrier to the kind of criminal 
justice reform that is desperately needed in 
America.”

 Arizona offers an example of a bought-off 
legislature. As reported in the Tucson Citizen, 
a state statute reads, “A proposal shall not be 
accepted unless the proposal offers cost savings 
to the state.” Prison contractors were unable 
to meet that standard, so purchased legislators 
responded by repealing the statute. Gov. Jan 
Brewer’s campaign manager and spokesman 
are both lobbyists for prison contractor CCA. 
As part of the deal with contractors, the state 
had to guarantee “100% occupancy” for certain 
prison beds. The result was Arizona’s losing $3.5 
million a year because of its decision to contract-
out its prisons. Arizona paid the contractors out 
of the federally-negotiated settlement fund set 
aside for victims of mortgage fraud. 

 

 In New York, the state’s attorney general is 
investigating the private contractor hired to 
provide health services in its prisons, and the 
nine deaths between 2009 and 2011 “linked to 
negligent or inadequate care”. In Mississippi, 
a federal judge found a juvenile facility run by 
private contractor GEO Group to be “a cesspool 
of unconstitutional and inhuman acts”, with 
assault rates two-to-three times those found in 
publicly-run facilities. Inmates in Idaho have 
sued contractor CCA over partnering with 
prison gangs to control inmates – one facility 
termed “gladiator school”, where medical 
treatment is denied as a means of covering up 
assaults. A CCA subsidiary in Denver reached 
a $1.3 million settlement with the EEOC over 
charges female prison workers were forced to 
perform sex acts to keep their jobs.

 Meanwhile, a GEO executive assures investors 
of increasing profits from a “growing offender 
population”. The federal prison population has 
grown 790% since 1980, largely due to drug and 
immigration laws.

 Last week, Atty. Gen. Eric Holder noted that 
in a country with 5% of the world’s population, 
we have a quarter of its prisoners. “Too many 
Americans go to too many prisons for far too 
long, and for no truly good law enforcement 
reason.” He described the “draconian mandatory 
minimum sentences” imposed on low-level drug 
offenders as “ineffective and unsustainable”. 
“Unwarranted” racial disparities in sentencing 
are “shameful” and “unworthy” of our justice 
system.

 If Supervisor Antonovich were to consider 
the words of our attorney general, perhaps he’d 
realize Gov. Brown has more than “only two 
choices”. That’s a no-brainer. 

“He who opens a school door, closes a prison.” - Victor Hugo