PERSPECTIVES ON L.A. ARCHITECTURE : Do the ‘Art Police’ Have a Role? : When politics mixes with design review, too often the developers win. A proposed law threatens to skew the balance even more.

How are we to encourage first-class architecture in a city that cares about cars, clothes and the body beautiful, but gives scant attention to the design of its buildings? Who decides what is excellent or at least acceptable--the developer, the architects, the neighborhood, city planners or elected officials?

One way to reach that decision is through neighborhood design review boards. Four of these advisory boards have been established by the Los Angeles City Council: Brentwood-San Vincente, the Wilshire District-Park Mile, Pacific Palisades and Westwood. These boards, appointed by their district representatives on the council, are composed of five to seven volunteers, some with architectural and planning backgrounds. They operate under ordinances that define their duty to ensure compliance with local plans as well as to evaluate the architectural merit of proposed projects.

Until the creation of the Westwood unit in 1988, these boards functioned with little controversy or publicity. But the Westwood board quickly became a lightning rod for major, controversial projects.

Now its continued rejection of plans for a Wilshire Boulevard high-rise has prompted the city Planning Commission to draft a citywide design review ordinance that calls into question the role of the local boards.

The New York Times described the Westwood Design Review Board as having “The most muscle and . . . unafraid to use it.” Yet that muscle is often not strong enough to overcome the political forces of Los Angeles.

Every time the Westwood board has rejected a major project, it has been overruled by the city planning director. Sometimes the project is then taken back to the board with substantive changes and another vote; sometimes it goes all the way to the City Council on appeal.

And why is it that design review takes such a beating in the planning director’s office? Because developers, having already “juiced” elected officials with campaign contributions, gain closed-door access to the director--without public notice, without a record and without a rebuttal from the neighborhood.

With the help of high-priced lobbyist-attorneys, the developers can usually count on eventual approval, even if their project had been soundly rejected by the local board. In the ongoing Westwood high-rise controversy, Planning Director Kenneth Topping has overruled the design review board three times.

Now comes the effort to gut design review in the guise of providing a citywide design review ordinance. The draft ordinance gives the planning director’s backroom meetings the glorified title of “settlement conferences.”

Just how can you have a “settlement” if the local board is not a party to the agreement? If this ordinance passes, neighborhood participation is futile and we might as well disband the local boards. Design review will mean that the director of planning (with the implicit support of the council member) decides what is suitable for your neighborhood.

This would be a shame, since we are geting better-designed projects as the result of the Westwood board’s work.

Witness the case of Paramount Securities, which took initial rejection to heart and redesigned to comply with the Westwood Village Specific Plan. Both the board and the Westwood community applauded the revised project and it passed with overwhelming support.

Local design review boards are playing a positive and significant role in our city. Their role can be enhanced by developing design standards and criteria to lend more predictability to the system. But they’re in trouble when politics takes over and override the local board.