Sierra Madre — 2023-03-14

City Council

#A Consent Item
a) CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 23-22 APPROVING CERTAIN DEMANDS\nIt is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution 23-22 approving payment of\nCity Warrants in the aggregate amount of $185,427.49; Sierra Madre Library Warrants in\nthe aggregate amount of $5,375.91; and Payroll Transfer in the aggregate amount of\n$446,366.29 for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2023.
#B Consent Item
b) CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT\nIt is recommended that the City Council receive and file the 2022 General Plan annual\nprogress report for the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.\nCEQA FINDINGS\nThis annual report is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act\n(CEQA) as it is not a “project” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).
#C Consent Item
c) CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 23-24, ELECTING TO BE SUBJECT TO THE\nPUBLIC EMPLOYEES MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT AT AN EQUAL\nAMOUNT FOR EMPLOYEES AND ANNUITANTS WITH RESPECT TO A\nRECOGNIZED EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION 005 SIERRA MADRE PROFESSIONAL\nFIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION (SMPFA)\nIt is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution 23-24 electing the Sierra\nMadre Professional Firefighters Association (SMPFA) to the Public Employees Medical\nand Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) as a recognized employee organization.
#D Consent Item
d) CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 23-23 ADOPTING FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023\nBUDGET ADJUSTMENTS AND APPROPRIATING THE AMOUNTS PROJECTED\nIt is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution 23-23 adopting Fiscal Year\n2022-2023 budget adjustments and appropriating the amounts projected.\nPUBLIC HEARING
#1 Discussion
1. INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON IDLING VEHICLES\nIt is recommended that the City Council receive and file this informational report.
#1 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL REPORTS\nReporting of Council Members' activities related to City business.\nCONSENT
#1 Public Hearing
1. FIRST READING OF ADU ORDINANCE NO. 1465 AMENDING CHAPTER 17.22\n(ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS) OF TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE SIERRA MADRE\nMUNICIPAL CODE\nIt is recommended that the City Council introduce for first reading, by title only,\nOrdinance No. 1465, amending Chapter 17.22 (Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title 17\n(Zoning) of the Sierra Madre Municipal Code.\nCEQA FINDINGS\nPursuant to Chapter 2.6, Public Resources Code commencing with section 21080.17, the City\nCouncil finds that the adoption of this Ordinance, which implements the provisions of\nGovernment Code section 65852.2, does not apply to Division 13 (Environmental Quality) and is\nthus statutorily exempt for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
#2 Public Hearing
2. FIRST READING OF GENERAL CLEAN-UP ORDINANCE NO. 1466, AMENDING\nVARIOUS CHAPTERS OF THE SIERRA MADRE MUNICIPAL CODE\nIt is recommended that the City Council introduce for first reading, by title only,\nOrdinance No. 1466.\nCEQA FINDINGS\nPursuant to Government Code section 65852.21, subdivision (j), and Government Code\nsection 66411.7, subdivision (n), staff recommends the City Council finds the adoption\nof this Ordinance is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality\nAct (CEQA) and is statutorily exempt.
#3 Public Hearing
3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION\nAPPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND\nAN ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO UPDATE THE\nALVERNO HEIGHTS ACADEMY (AHA) MASTER PLAN AT 200 NORTH\nMICHILLINDA AVENUE\nIt is recommended that the City Council continue the public hearing and provide staff\nwith direction.\nCEQA FINDINGS\nAn amended Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared to evaluate the Alverno\nHeights Academy Master Plan improvements. The amended MND determined that the facts\nupon which the findings were based in the 2011 Initial Study (IS/MND) remain unchanged and\nvalidated that the proposed Refined Project would not create new or substantially more adverse\nimpacts than those evaluated for the approved project.\nDISCUSSION