West Hollywood City Council on Tuesday night put to rest the longstanding debate over whether to build a massive affordable housing complex against the wishes of many homeowners and residents.
Council ruled 4-1 in favor of denying an appeal to the Planning Commission’s approval of the project, paving the way for an approximately 78,425 square-foot, seven-story, 89-unit, 100% affordable multi-family residential building, complete with three levels of subterranean parking, to rise at 910-916 Wetherly Drive.
Councilmember John Heilman took the lead in refuting the claims made in the appeal, emphasizing the project’s compliance with environmental standards and the city’s commitment to affordable housing. He refuted allegations of a Public Records Act violation, stating timely city responses, and highlighted the project’s adherence to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), noting exemptions for infill housing and affordable housing initiatives.
Heilman also addressed environmental impact concerns, advocating for minimal modifications to ensure the project’s viability without compromising on community standards. Despite limited discretion under state law, he advocated for adjustments to mitigate impact on neighboring properties and emphasized the importance of prioritizing West Hollywood residents and workers in the housing allocation.
“I heard (some commenters) say they wanted a project that was a smaller size, that they believed would be more appropriate for the location and in their neighborhood,” Heilman said. “And I would, actually, if I had the authority under state law to lower the project somewhat, I would. But I don’t believe I have that authority under state law.”
Councilmember Lauren Meister, the lone “no” vote, raised significant concerns during the meeting and submitted this statement to WEHOonline later in the week.
I believed that we could vote for the appeal “in part” — meaning we could vote for some aspects of the appeal without necessarily denying the project.
Given that the project is located near an earthquake fault, I felt there should have been additional environmental study focused on hydrology. As the project includes 3 levels of subterranean parking, a lot of soil will be removed and the surrounding ground could be destabilized. If dewatering becomes necessary, there is the potential for subsidence. City staff was unaware that there might be dewatering – we only learned of it because I asked the question.
I also felt there should be a shade/shadow study since the building was so tall compared to neighboring buildings. The neighbors in the north and the east are going to lose natural light, which could impact energy consumption and the ability to incorporate solar power. The church, located to the south and which is a historic resource, might also be impacted.
I also questioned the concession to allow non-residential use of the subterranean garage (i.e., those visiting the church). According to state law, a concession is supposed to “result in identifiable and actual cost reductions consistent with what’s contemplated by State Density Bonus Law.” I think approval of that concession was a stretch. Further, the traffic impacts of this concession were not studied, which means, neither were potential mitigations. That’s not planning.
Lastly, I felt that granting the three 10% modifications, which were discretionary, was unnecessary. The project’s architect knew about the earthquake fault when they designed the project. Incorporating the discretionary modifications into the plans, along with 3 concessions and a height and density bonus, was taking advantage and seriously dismissing the concerns of the neighbors
I think the project could have been a better project with one less story. The developer could have removed the seventh story by moving the one residential unit (basically a penthouse for the manager) and the laundry room, and incorporated them into the lower floors. They may have lost 3 or 4 units out of the 89, but the City anticipated there might be less units when it signed the $10 million loan agreement. The rooftop could have been used entirely for open space and/or a green roof — a quiet respite for an extremely dense project. Let’s not forget that one of the other concessions the developer was granted was a 26% reduction in required open space area. That’s a major loss for the future residents of that project.
Councilmember Sepi Shyne highlighted the critical need for affordable housing in West Hollywood, pointing to the project’s potential to address this issue. Shyne advocated for the city’s residents and workers, suggesting they be given priority in the allocation of the project’s housing units.
Vice Mayor Chelsea Lee Byers — who chose not to recuse herself from the vote despite calls from the community to do so — concentrated on the project’s minimal impact on the community compared with its significance in meeting the city’s housing needs. Byers pointed out the discretionary aspects available to the council, particularly in terms of modifications to the project that could make it more palatable to the community while still advancing the city’s goals. Her stance was pragmatic, focusing on the feasibility of the project and the importance of leveraging available opportunities to enhance the city’s housing stock.
Mayor John M. Erickson summarized the council’s position, signaling the majority decision to deny the appeal against the project, albeit with considerations for modifying certain aspects.
“This is an issue that we want to make sure that our community gets right,” Erickson said. “These are the issues that are the hardest because it does happen in your back yard. It is in your back yard — but that doesn’t mean, at the end of the day, that we up here aren’t ready to make a needed decision.”
PUBLIC COMMENT
The public comment period drew a large number of residents concerned about the project, as well as many members of the UNITE HERE Local 11 labor union and other special-interest groups who spoke in favor of it.
Daniel Wilson: Advocated for the approval of the project, highlighting the critical need for affordable housing and how the project could benefit the community, including people working full-time and living in cars. “This project is a drop in the bucket. Sure. That’s the same time. It will be 89 opportunities that don’t currently exist.”
Cheryl Roddy: Questioned the project’s approval process and taxpayer funding. “The housing corporation that goes their costs through their projects, but why are the taxpayers in the city paying for the project?”
Blanca Rizo (Worker Power California): Highlighted the importance of building affordable housing near schools, jobs, and public transit, stressing that real environmental justice involves reducing commute times for workers. “Real environmental justice is not forcing workers to commute multiple hours a day to work in our city.”
Santos Esperanza Valladares (Worker Power California): Echoed the sentiment on the need for affordable housing near accessible areas to alleviate the burden on workers who cannot afford housing on their current salaries. “I cannot afford to pay for my home. I share with my family to make the rent, please support this project.”
Edith Narváez: Spoke on the urgency of addressing the housing crisis by building more housing to provide opportunities for people to live in West Hollywood. “I think it is wrong that others who live in such a well-resourced community would close that opportunity for others.”
Robert Cole: Emphasized the need for urgent action to build more affordable housing, mentioning the goal of building thousands of housing units by 2029 for very low and low-income individuals. “So many new apartments are completely out of reach for me.”
Karen Amaya (Worker Power California): Discussed the housing crisis’s impact on her life, sharing rent with others due to high costs, and advocated for more housing to provide opportunities for people to live in West Hollywood. “I split my rent with other people because otherwise, it would be impossible for me to pay such a high cost of rent.”
Ted Green: Criticized opposition to the project as NIMBYism, highlighting the responsibility of those opposing 100% affordable projects for contributing to the housing and homelessness crisis. “For them to say, you know, why don’t they just magically build it somewhere else… Is preposterous.”
Kathy Blavis: Expressed support for affordable housing but called for modifications to the project, emphasizing community and neighborhood maintenance. “Absolutely. We need affordable housing… I heard people asking for modifications not for silencing.”
Bobby Edric: A resident of the Norma Triangle for 46 years, argued the project is out of scale for the street and neighborhood. Advocated for taking neighborhood requests to scale the project down into consideration. “We should not provide City funds and a loan to a project that does not take into consideration the reasonable neighborhood request to scale the project down to fit better within the neighborhood.”
Rebecca: Criticized the project for reckless development, not following SEQUA, being too large for the lot, and not caring about the nearby residents. Expressed concerns about lack of proper EIR and disregard for neighborhood input. “The city shouldn’t fund this project as it is.”
Noah Schneiderman: A UCLA senior and intern with Unite Here Local 11, supported the project for providing affordable housing to students and others in the community facing high rents. “This project could help students like me afford to live in Los Angeles and contribute to our community after we graduate.”
Daisy Torme: Expressed concerns about the project’s balance, arguing that it doesn’t consider the community’s needs and is too large for the location. “This particular project as it stands needs more thought, needs more investigation.”
Donna Case Delaney: Highlighted concerns about the project’s size and the small size of the units, questioning the quality of life for residents in such small spaces. “It just doesn’t make sense to me.”
David Stuckey: Shared his personal story as a crystal meth addict and hotel worker in West Hollywood, stating the importance of affordable housing for people like him. “I think you should reject this appeal.”
Samantha Garcia: A junior at UCLA and intern with Unite Here Local 11, spoke about the urgent need for affordable housing and the project’s importance for students and workers. “Our city needs to continue playing a role in addressing the housing crisis, and we must build affordable housing.”
Javier Molero: Supported the project for providing 100% affordable housing. “This is a miracle for the city of West Hollywood because this doesn’t happen often.”
Tom Kennefski: Spoke as a resident, emphasizing the need to maximize affordable units and praising WHCHC for addressing housing insecurity. “We need to do what we can to provide the maximum number of units that we possibly can.”
Mark Yusupov: Suggested that everyone supports affordable housing but called for modifications to the project, criticizing the planning process and lack of consideration for community concerns. “This project needs modifications and definitely needs a thorough review.”
Monica Nessa: Voiced opposition to the project’s current state due to concerns about the quality of life offered by small units. “Do not open the gates to people and then give them a closet to move in.”
Joel Reed: Highlighted concerns about the project’s impact on traffic, parking, and the quality of life for both current residents and future occupants of the building.
This concept escapes some politicians: When people are given free everything, like this project, they tend not to care about upkeeping the property or keeping it safe like those who work hard to reside in a safe place do. Don’t bring the problems here. Try solving them where they are and make the low-income area better rather than merely moving the problem elsewhere. This is common sense.
Says someone who most likely lives in a rent controlled apartment. This is affordable housing. I suggest you do some research on what that means.
This concept escapes some politicians: When people are given free everything, like this project, they tend not to care about upkeeping the property or keeping it safe like those who work hard to reside in a safe place do. Don’t bring the problems here. Try solving them where they are and make the low-income area better rather than merely moving the problem elsewhere. This is common sense.
Here, said by a homeowner.
This building will be a great upgrade over what is there; it will fill the need for affordable units. However, I doubt even some of the local hotel and food service workers could still afford this building. This is already a dense area with a hotel one block over, so I am not sure why the commenters are rallying against it. A smart vote by the city council and Byers not recusing herself did not affect the vote.
Rush hour on Cynthia.
School pickup and drop off on Hammond.
Double parked ride shares in front of the hotel.
Lack of existing street parking.
Now add 200 more residents who will surely need to drive because have you ever tried to take public transit here.
It’s the scale and lack of parking which are of issue.
It’s called living in an urban environment. If it is too much for you, move to Temecula.
Why don’t you…move to Caracas.
All of these nonsense so-called “affordable housing” projects should come under the heading “how can we get more poor people to the city for the few taxpayers who actually live here to take care of”. The communists from the thug union who don’t even live here, think they are going to get those units.
That’s what I found most preposterous. The testimonies that they drive, they have kids, their kids are having kids. That these large multigenerational families are going to qualify or even want to live in a tiny unit, likely without enough parking, to raise their kids in party city. How much did Unite Here pay them to speak?
AMAZING NEWS! The city council did the right thing.
Nor sure how amazing you would feel if you lived nearby, but I guess John and Chelsea are saints in your pretty green eyes and can never do no wrong.
Thank you Brandon for correcting your article to read 4-1 instead of unanimous.
BTW, someone should ask John Erickson why he made the directive of “no repetitive statements…to just say ‘I agree with the previous speaker’” but then he allowed all the hotel workers to repeat the same thing over and over. he is so great at using faulty logic, let’s see how he wiggles out of that one!
United Here Local 11 put John and half the council in office, of course he wasn’t going to interfere with their highly organized campaign to sway opinion as we see at many council meetings. Council members and other city employees and appointees involved have too many ties to WHCHC, unions, lobbyists and real estate interests. Other than Meister there was no chance of an objective decision being made. Time to drain the swamp.
Get your popcorn ready for when council revisits the minimum wage and pto ordinance.
He can’t wiggle out of it. The meeting was a complete waste of time and an insult to our intelligence. Heilman already had his script ready, and hardly any of the pro project speakers really live or work in West Hollywood, and all 16 cleaners sounded coached.
That Byers who is sleeping (cough) with Austin Cyr, developer lobbyist and DID NOT RECUSE herself is disgusting and an atrocity. Byers should be recalled for bias and unethical behavior.
Once again Daniel Wilson and the UNITE HERE Local 11 labor union have more influence than the people who actually live, vote, and pay taxes in WeHo.
Yup. It’s unbelievable how much influence Unite Here has over this current council…and people that are not even residents of this city.
First of all it was disappointing though not surprising that not a single council person reclused themselves given their ties to WHCHC. Then Unite here really turned it out with their hotel workers and UCLA interns with AI prepared scripts. How many times did we hear someone say “multi-faceted problem”? I just don’t see that demographic moving into micro units with their large families, inadequate parking, high costs of goods+services and a place to raise their kids with our hedonistic lifestyles, but I could be wrong. To me the chief concern is the financial irresponsibility of tax payer dollars being… Read more »
This developer dismissed and slandered current residents of the neighborhood to get his project built at any cost. It’s unfortunate that hard feelings will remain (rightfully so) and when the occupants move into this new structure, they will not be welcomed with open arms by the neighborhood. Affordable housing yes, but this is NOT the way to do it.
Watching last night, i would say that if this trajectory continues, West Hollywood will become a frightening, claustrophobic, place to live in. With so many open, half finished and abandoned projects within WeHo and LA in general, it’s simply mind blowing to destroy another residential neighborhood with such a monstrosity. We are project overdosing and for what purpose? Further, the way that the Mayor ran the meeting was shameful. Letting this new kid on the block from Texas be so rude to a council member without being reprimanded was disgusting. Where are our manners? The mayor also requested that he… Read more »
Brandon,
The vote was NOT unanimous! The vote to deny the appeal was 4 to 1 YES in favor of denial. Lauren Meister voted NO!
Lauren Meister seems (as usual) to be the only one who had done her homework and asked substantive questions in the face of the emotionally abusive charade by applicants and their enablers on staff and council. Heilman clearly showed up with a scripted narrative that served as cover for the others to basically ask no meaningful questions.
There are several lessons to be learned from this exercise. The first is that Chelsea Byers has zero ethics or moral compass to guide her in what is the right thing to do. Her word salad of excuses was insulting to thinking people everywhere. Second is that we have a council majority who have zero interest in the actual residents of West Hollywood and each walked into that room with the denial of the appeal as a fait accompli in favor of their developer overlords, and thus their political aspirations. The most important lesson, however, is to beware of the… Read more »
I think we have known since she came onto the scene, that anti Semite Byers has zero ethics or moral compass. The only thing I would add to lessons learned is that Seymour is dishonest. He heard all the residents concerns meeting after meeting, gave false promises to take into account the concerns, and did absolutely nothing.