By Julie BUTCHER

The Glendale City Council spent hours on Tuesday night, including hearing from more than 60 callers, to again discuss allegations that a volunteer commissioner on the city’s design review board (DRB) had been drinking during a meeting of the board on Jan. 14.

Councilmember Ara Najarian introduced the agenda item at length.

“I was hoping this could have been taken care of privately – this story could be picked up by the media and make the DRB process and the city look bad,” Najarian said. “I was hoping for discreet action.”

“It’s wrong to sweep it under the carpet,” he added. “The public deserves transparency. Commissioners serve as agents of the city. In most cases, they’re advisory. A handful of commissions, like this one, are quasi-judicial. Applicants may have spent years preparing cases before the DRB. Likewise, opponents, neighborhoods, supporters and opponents are at the mercy of the commission. There must be absolute trust. The process must be above reproach.”

Nazarian discounted a letter by Francesca Smith, the commissioner accused of the misdeed, written to Councilmember Dan Brotman as the councilmember appointed her. She acknowledged the error of her judgment, and offered assurances that it would not happen again.

“No matter how experienced or how well versed in design standards, no one should be drinking at commission meetings,” she wrote.

Many callers expressed strong support for the work the commissioner has been doing since her appointment last year to the DRB.

“This looks extremely like defamation,” one said, “and it opens up the city to liability.”

“She has an impressive background, particularly in historic preservation and  CEQA and we are lucky to have someone so knowledgeable on the DRB,” resident Bob Nixon said.

Susan Bolan called in from North Glendale to commend Smith’s “exemplary judgment.”

“Mr. Nazarian mentioned the code of conduct for public service. There is no established protocol for these crazy times attending meetings at home due to COVID-19,” said Bolan. “The fact that this has been aired in such a public way is disgraceful and I think we should move on.”

“I do understand that Francesca Smith has inadvertently broken an unwritten rule by sipping on a wine spritzer handed to her by her husband. She apologized immediately – in writing – and said it would never happen again. I’ve worked with her for years and cannot imagine anyone more conscientious and hard-working. I hope this tempest in a teapot, let’s call it wineglass gate, is the last time we hear about it,” another caller added.

Several commenters were concerned that the actions of the commissioner were being understated. “This is design review; it’s not happy hour,” one said.

“She may be a great gal,” another noted, “but the DRB is the least trusted commission in Glendale. If [Councilmember Dan] Brotman had any character, he’d have removed her immediately.”

Councilmember Brotman weighed in after the callers had been heard from.

“This is not about a volunteer commissioner having a wine spritzer at home at the end of a long meeting. If that were the issue, it would have been dealt with very differently,” he said. “This isn’t about the spritzer. That’s a smokescreen. Certain people are unhappy about what I and my appointed commissioner are trying to accomplish. I nominated Francesca Smith not just because of her design experience, her eagle eye for detail, or the time she takes to do her homework. I want us to start respecting our own guidelines, which include requiring compatibility with surrounding buildings, because I wanted someone who doesn’t accept the garbage that often passes for good design here, who believes that Glendale residents deserve better.

“Our residents are unhappy with the mansionization that occurs, unhappy with projects that disregard standards and disfigure our hillsides, with the cavernous apartment blocks [Councilmember Ardashes Kassakhian] ‘Ardy’ calls the Stucco Canyon. I promised to do something about it,” Brotman said.

Councilmember Kassakhian suggested the matter “be filed under ‘first world problems.’ He reiterated his suggestion that the city establish a clear code of conduct.

“She should apologize to all of us, not just to Councilmember Brotman,” Councilmember Paula Devine replied. “I’m surprised that so many callers found drinking at a meeting to be acceptable.”

The council approved a motion from Councilmember Najarian on a vote of 4-0-1 that drinking is unacceptable conduct at council or commission meetings but could not agree on his proposed finding that the commissioner was drinking during the Jan. 14 meeting.

In a nearly as lengthy a discussion, the council opted to consider a more expansive ban on flavored electronic smoking products (e-cigarettes and vaping devices) than it proposed in 2019, following a number of incidents of illness and injury, even death, presumably caused by vaping. As it turned out, approximately 82% of the injuries appeared to have also involved the use of THC (the active hallucinogenic in marijuana).

In June 2020, the State of California passed a ban on both electronic and traditional, combustible flavored tobacco products. The California Coalition for Fairness qualified a referendum for the ballot and put the matter on hold until November 2022.

Following much discussion, the council opted to introduce a motion mirroring the state action, banning the sale of all flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes, excluding premium cigars (costing more than $25) and hookah products.

Finally the council heard an appeal of a decision made by the DRB on July 23 when city staff wrote “to approve the demolition of the existing, approximately 4,600 SF, two-story commercial building (built in 1983) and a surface parking lot in conjunction with the construction of a new three-story, 18-unit 18,493 SF multi-family residential density bonus, affordable housing development over a 23-space, semi-subterranean parking garage located on a 13,299 SF lot” at 2941-2943 Honolulu Avenue between Ramsdell and La Crescenta avenues.

“This is an appropriate location for affordable housing, and we want it to go forward,” appellant Grant Michals told the council on behalf of the affected neighborhood groups, explaining the outstanding concerns are ensuring the project fits in an overall community plan. The DRB listed approximately 15 conditions. Unable to reach a decision, the matter will return for further council debate in early March.

Finally, the council adjourned in the memory of community, union and social justice activist, Ruby DeVera.