Do the five members of the advisory Planning Commission need a therapist this afternoon?
Does their delicate psyche feel more vulnerable than it did yesterday?
In the two highest profile redevelopment cases of the year in City Hall, the Commission, typically in the background, has had its unanimous rulings overturned by the big brother of elected bodies, the City Council.
Were the results that clean and simple?
Worth just a shrug?
Which Was It?
In the case of 9900 Culver Blvd., two months ago, and last night in the matter of the Jin Kwak gas station car wash, was the Planning Commission reversed or repudiated?
“We were reversed, definitely not repudiated,” Commissioner Andrew Weissman, a City Council candidate, said this morning.
“In the end, because of the process we went through, a better project was produced at 9900 Culver and, from what I heard last night, in the car wash case, too.”
In Mr. Weissman’s opinion, both cases demonstrated that each body properly carried out its separate mission.
Planners’ Responsibility
As the first City Hall panel to pass judgment on projects, the Planning Commission is charged with conducting the opening round of inspection and to assess its worthiness.
When the Planners reject a design, they identify a list of reasons and let the builder know he has one option left.
It is up to the builder to decide whether to walk away or to significantly reshape his plans and appeal the Commission’s (non-binding) verdict before the City Council.
In the matter of 9900 Culver and the car wash, both developers absorbed the Planning Commission’s chastisement, regarded it as a hiccup, and went back to work to make the suggested adjustments.
The Payoff
Perhaps it is debatable whether the unanimity of perspective among the five planners showed laudatory unity of purpose or was merely neutral.
“The outcome was to get an improved design in both cases,” Mr. Weissman said.
“Yes, we were overturned two times, but is that a bad thing? Absolutely not.”
