Tonight's Planning Commission Meeting: The Stonegate Project Appeals Begin to Smell Like Process

The Tattler prefers a Monterey Dada design

We could be slipping into the Sierra Madre Twilight Zone with this one. It happens every once in a while here in the celebrated Foothill Village. The summary thoughtfully contained in the Staff Report for tonight's Planning Commission meeting puts it like this:

At the January 14, 2014 meeting, the City Council held public hearings to consider the appeals of the Planning Commission decisions denying the Hillside Development Permits and Conditional Use Permits for the three proposed Stonegate homes at 610, 630, and 638 Baldwin Court … After extensive discussion on the proposed projects, the City Council remanded the projects and respectfully asks the Planning Commission to form a subcommittee to work with the applicant on design modifications, specifically to address compliance with D-1.1 and D1.9 of the Stonegate Design Guidelines relating to architectural massing, scale, and building massing.

There is also included some equally vague palaver about certain superficial "lipstick on a pig" stylings (Monterey versus French Country) being applied to these potential McMansions, plus considerations about incorporating graywater systems. All of which smacks of trying to dress Quasimodo in the very latest of Gucci couture. It just isn't going to have the desired affect, no matter who is catering the party.

The City Council did not get too specific on the Monterey and French Country thing either, though the Mayor did murmur some appreciation of the former. To me this discussion has a Quarter Pounder versus Big Mac feel to it. Or maybe even a "Double-Double." These are McMansions, after all. With nobody specifically calling to hold anything.

However, for the Architect Adele Chang, special orders do upset her, and considerable Planning Commission time will now be spent trying to explain to her that McMansions do not juxtapose nicely with the planning laws and customs of Sierra Madre. Something that Adele has often shown she is not capable of appreciating, and on many very unfortunate occasions. To the point where many here are beginning to find Adele's architecturally inspired speech contortions both comical and absurd.

This has been going on for quite some time now. Here is how we described the very first appearance of Adele Chang on the Sierra Madre scene. This from a post made way back on May 23rd of 2011:

Adele Chang is an interesting specimen. A partner in the architectural firm of Lim Chang Rohling & Associates, Inc., she displayed an enormous range of attitudes that we will examine in a moment. If you go to her firm's website (link) you can see that they are indeed one of those kinds of outfits. A goodly portion of the gauche, oversized homes and mixed-use flat-topped generica that has littered the California landscape these last 20 years can be traced directly back to them.

That so much of what has now fallen into disfavor with California consumers can still be seen on their website would seem to indicate that someone forgot to include LCR&A on the tacky alert e-mail list.

But what really endeared me to Adele was the two faces she brought with her into the room. The face she showed to the Planning Commission was one of solicitous concern and compassion for the great challenges they face. Yet to those residents who stood up to speak in defense of what we all think of as Sierra Madre, she was disrespectful and rude. At several points in the meeting actually rattling her papers as people she disapproved of dared to speak. 

It was as if Adele believed she was winning favor with the Planning Commission by dissing their neighbors. As if she and the PC were somehow on the same side, and shared a common enemy.

Ah, the memories. It is interesting to note that Adele has never once really altered her massed-up McMansion designs. Modern families still prefer 5.5 bathroom homes in her world. Which apparently is one where people do not enjoy seeking their comfort for long.

However, it must be recognized that she has changed the words she uses to describe these things, and done so many times. Something that leads you to believe that the most thumbed text in her library is not really her little book of Sierra Madre building ordinances and codes, but rather her thesaurus.

Tonight's problem will not be with those troubling lipstick on a pig issues, however. It will instead be the struggle with that most nebulous and oftentimes dangerously undemocratic thing, "the process." Something designed to give the appearance of serving the popular will, while in reality removing the public from any actual decision making. Making it far more a bureaucratic food blender than processor.

Here is how one commenter put it yesterday:

I hope the Planning Commission refuses to set up a separate committee of 3 people. If they do, then whatever comes out of it will have automatic approval, and then should also have automatic approval with the city council. This is a sneaky ploy suggested by none other than the developer's attorney. And, the city council did not demand that the PC set up a separate committee, they merely recommended it. I think these "remanded" developments need to be discussed by the entire planning commission during public meetings with community input. Going to the planning commission meeting tomorrow night and advocating for a non-subcommittee solution would be good public input and help the commission with their decision.