Words stir up board members

CITY HALL — The reaction Thursday of some Design Review Board No. 1 members to a decision to shift discretionary oversight of single-family homes to city planners may have landed them in hot water with the City Council.

During their regular meeting, several board members cited the forthcoming design review changes when blocking half of the proposed residential projects on the agenda, even though City Council members on Tuesday made no legal changes to the current system.

In turning down the applicants of a 910-square-foot second-story addition in Sparr Heights, board chair Vartan Gharpetian said the Design Review Boards had been unfairly scapegoated amid loud public discontent over the process.

“I recognize that we were blamed for many things,” he said. “No matter what we do, there’s always going to be complaints and we’re going to be in between a rock and a hard place, but not for long.”

On Tuesday, the City Council, which appoints Design Review Board members, directed staff members to come back with a draft proposal that would transfer almost all discretionary review of single-family homes to city planners. The review boards would only be used as an appellate body for those projects, but retain their authority over commercial and multifamily units.

None of the council’s direction officially changed the city’s policy, guidelines or codes. That action will take weeks to finalize as staff members hammer out policy specifics and get more pointed direction from the City Council, officials said.

Still, some on the board referenced the action — and the deluge of comments from homeowners at the meeting — as de facto marching orders at the expense of several applications on Thursday, who must now redesign their projects.

But council members and applicants are now questioning the motivation behind following those so-called orders, especially after review board members laced their votes with defensive commentary.

“We get the blame,” Gharpetian said. “We are the scapegoats of this whole situation.”

Some viewed the comments as contradictory, inappropriate and politically motivated, and during the next City Council meeting this coming Tuesday, Councilman John Drayman said he would ask board members to attend and explain themselves.

“It’s human nature to feel underappreciated, but there is such a thing as professionalism,” Drayman said. “I want to hear from these gentlemen.”

Gharpetian did not return calls seeking comment.

On Thursday, the review board “returned” four of the eight projects for a redesign, all of them expansions of single-family homes.

The second-story addition that was denied on the 3500 block of Rosemary Avenue was a glaring example of how board members misinterpreted council action on Tuesday, Drayman said.

In voting to block the project, board member Hamlet Zohrabians said he liked the design, but could not approve it in light of what happened at the City Council just a few days prior.

“We have been given a different direction . . . a different mandate,” he said.

A letter sent on behalf of the Montrose/Verdugo City/Spar Heights Neighborhood Assn. that raised concerns of the home addition’s mass also seemed to fuel the no vote.

“The situation is, no one is going to stick their neck out,” Gharpetian told the architect.

The sentiment seemed to permeate the board, even as applicants Clay Christensen and Heidi Hamilton watched a yearlong design process for the home crumble on the dais.

“This is the classic definition of being in the wrong place at the wrong time,” board member Art Simonian said before voting against the project.

Christensen could not be reached for comment on Friday.

The comments and actions of the review board spurred a flurry of phone calls and e-mails to Drayman and other council members.

On Friday, Councilman Dave Weaver said he had received numerous inquiries and complaints, but had not yet reviewed a recording of the meeting and so could not comment.

In seeking answers from board members, Drayman said he would also explore a “do-over” for some of the applicants who were blocked on Thursday.