Last chance to stop divisive 8500 Santa Monica Blvd. project is in WeHo City Council’s hands

West Hollywood City Council will hold a public hearing today, April 3, to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s slim approval of a project to demolish a one-story commercial building and construct a six-story mixed-use development at 8500 Santa Monica Boulevard.

The 8500 Santa Monica project divided the Planning Commission when they reviewed last fall, narrowly squeaking through the approval process by a 3-2 vote. Chair Stacey Jones, Vice Chair Marquita Thomas and Commissioner Erick Matos voted in favor, while Commissioners Michael Lombardi and Kimberly Copeland voted against. Commissioner David Gregoire abstained from the vote.

The controversial project first generated headlines when former Planning Commission Chair Lynn Hoopingarner wrote an exhaustive review of the plans that brought to light various flaws that some commissioners agreed with.

The applicant has now made changes to their proposal in response to concerns raised in the appeal. The changes streamline the project proposal and eliminate many of the objections raised in the appeal. The City Council is expected to act on the modified entitlement requests rather than refer back to the Planning Commission.

The applicant is seeking a density bonus based on the new changes to state Density Bonus Law. The applicant has also proposed to remove the two parcels that do not share common borders with the primary project site and to remove the concession seeking to exclude non-habitable floor area from FAR calculations. The applicant is also requesting a waiver to allow the common open space for the project to be located on the roof level rather than at the level of the first habitable floor.

The applicant’s modified project includes two concession requests: 1) increase the allowed height from 45 feet to 73 feet 2 inches (73’-2”), the same height in the Planning Commission approval; and 2) allow the average unit size to be 961 square feet rather than 900 square feet.

THE APPEAL

An appeal was filed by Allan Wilion challenging the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a project in West Hollywood, citing technical errors and inaccurate findings. The appellant argues that due procedural rules and due process rights were violated, combining two lots that do not share a common border is illegal, the requested incentives under the State Density Bonus Law are unprecedented and unjustified, and the approved application did not comply with the development standards.

In Assertion 1.A, the appellant alleges that a memo designated as Supplemental Memo (SMemo) was not made available to the public and was used by the Planning Commission as the basis for one of the major findings in the Resolutions, violating procedural due process. The City staff responded by saying that the memo was provided to the Planning Commission in hard copy, made available in hard copy to the public in the Council Chambers, read out loud into the public record at the hearing, and posted on the City’s website after the hearing. The memo was also made available to the appellant on October 25, 2022, during a visit to City Hall, and the date on the memo was updated automatically. The staff contends that there was no question it is the same information provided to the Commission at the time of the public hearing.

Assertion 1.B states that staff made misleading statements by inferring that the SMemo had been prepared by the City Attorney. The assertion claims that PC was misled to believe they were acting upon the advice of counsel when in fact it was not authored or signed by counsel, and thus PC’s reliance on the “legal opinion” was improper and invalid. In response, the City explains that the supplemental memo was prepared by staff with the collaboration of the City Attorney, and the information and conclusions included in the memo were prepared in consultation with the City Attorney prior to publication. The City believes this does not warrant the overturning of the Planning Commission’s decision.

Assertion 1.C. claims that the late filing of the SMemo and the denial of the request for a continuance to review and respond to the SMemo undermines the work of the Planning Commission. The SMemo addressed a key issue that was material to the approval or denial of the application, and the public’s request for a continuance to allow time to review the SMemo was ignored.

In response, staff notes that they make every effort to provide decision-makers with as much advanced notice as possible, but responding to last-minute memos is sometimes unavoidable. Staff made the information available through every avenue possible, including reading the lengthy document out loud during the hearing and providing hard copies.

Staff also asserts that the application was complete, and that it qualified for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. The City complied with all applicable notice requirements, and any extension of the review period would need to be at the mutual agreement of the applicant and the City. Many of the last-minute issues raised in public correspondence were matters that had been discussed throughout the review of the project, and the memo provided additional support for the conclusion that the project had been properly reviewed. Therefore, a continuance of the public hearing had not been recommended.

Assertion 1.D of the appeal claims that the city violated the hearing process and due process by not allowing a member of the public, who was an attorney, to speak during the hearing and refusing to give his three minutes to another speaker. However, the city followed its rules and offered multiple opportunities for the attorney to speak through the Zoom platform, and the appellant’s email was read out loud during the hearing. The city also reopened the hearing for the applicant, which is allowed according to the agenda, and this did not detrimentally impact the right of others who spoke during the hearing. The City Council will consider the appeal de novo, providing the public with an additional opportunity to petition the City on this project, and all stakeholders will have another chance to speak on the project.

In Response 2.S., the city explains that the concession previously sought by the applicant is no longer being requested. The State Density Bonus Law has been interpreted broadly by the state, HCD, and courts to support the creation of more housing and affordable units by lowering the relative costs associated with development. Although the modification of the project’s FAR calculation has not typically been seen in the city in the past, it would have achieved the same end as simply requesting additional FAR. The city’s assessment is that the spirit of the state law was being upheld with the concession previously sought, and HCD supports deviations to FAR through the use of a waiver or concession.

In Response 2.T., the city explains that landscape plans were submitted and included in the materials reviewed by the Planning Commission. Preliminary landscape plans are required for review during the entitlement application phase of the project, and final landscape plans are required as part of the application for a building permit.

In Response 2.U., the city clarifies that the applicant submitted a preliminary landscape plan, which was included in the materials reviewed by the Planning Commission in making its decision to approve the project. The city’s Municipal Code puts no further landscaping requirement on applicants at the time of their entitlement hearings. The city’s planning, engineering, design, public works, transportation, and building professionals all review aspects of the project as it moves from the conceptual entitlement approvals, through the building permit phase to final inspections. The Planning Commission reviews a project for compliance with the Zoning Code.

In Response 2.V., the city addresses the appellant’s argument that the applicant may not seek a double/triple concession/waiver of height. The city explains that the State Density Bonus Law defines concession to include, among other things, a reduction in site development standards, such as height limits. The law provides for the granting of additional height when necessary to accommodate the density bonus. The city contends that the requested concession for an additional 20 feet of height is supported by the law and that the applicant is proposing to construct a 40,235 sq. ft. project, which requires the additional height to provide the allowable density bonus. The city also notes that the applicant is requesting an additional 8’2″ waiver because they cannot fit all of the sq. ft. from the dog run onto this parcel.