West Hollywood is advancing a zone text amendment to streamline housing development in compliance with state law, a move city officials say is necessary to meet housing targets while maintaining transparency. On February 20, the Planning Commission discussed the amendment, which would establish a ministerial housing permit process, eliminate discretionary reviews for qualifying projects, and create an appeal structure balancing efficiency with public input.
The amendment responds to mounting pressure from Sacramento, where a series of housing laws have restricted local control over residential development. Michelle Montenegro, associate planner with the Long-Range Planning and Community Development Department, explained that West Hollywood, like many California cities, is falling short of its state-mandated housing goals.
“As you all know, the housing planning cycle is about eight years. We need to reach 3,133 units by the end of 2029, and right now we have 484 permitted housing units,” Montenegro said. She noted the gap could reach 2,600 units if the city continues at its current pace.
To accelerate housing production, new state laws—including AB 2011, SB 684, and SB 4—have introduced strict approval timelines. For example, SB 684 requires certain small-scale housing projects to be approved within 60 days of a completed application. If the city fails to act within that timeframe, the project is automatically approved.
A key change under the proposed amendment is the shift from discretionary to ministerial approval for many housing projects. Ministerial approval evaluates projects solely on whether they meet objective standards, such as zoning and building codes, rather than subjective factors like aesthetics or community sentiment.
“Ministerial does not rely on personal judgment, but solely on objective standards that we can apply throughout their zoning ordinance,” Montenegro explained. Unlike discretionary approvals, which involve public hearings and environmental reviews, ministerial approvals are designed to be streamlined.
Commissioner Lynn Hoopingarner raised concerns about enforcing public noticing requirements for ministerial housing permits. She questioned what happens if an applicant fails to post required notices on-site and how that impacts the 60-day approval timeline, asking whether missing notices could invalidate an application or extend the appeal window.
Staff explained that posting verification is included in the application checklist, and failure to provide an affidavit confirming compliance may render the application incomplete, requiring resubmittal. However, if an application is mistakenly deemed complete despite missing notices, the issue could be grounds for an appeal. While the city requires public noticing, state law does not, meaning the city has limited ability to delay approvals if the 60-day deadline expires.
Another major point of discussion was whether to allow appeals of ministerial permit decisions. While state law does not require an appeal process, the Planning Commission debated how to balance efficiency with public accountability.
Commissioner Andrew Solomon initially opposed an appeals process when the proposal was before the Long-Range Planning Subcommittee, believing it should remain streamlined in line with state law. However, after questioning staff, he reconsidered. Staff confirmed that an appeal process could help projects by reducing litigation risk, as it strengthens the administrative record and makes approvals easier to defend in court.
Given this, Solomon supported allowing only one appeal—to the City Council. He pointed to recent Planning Commission decisions that took months to resolve after being appealed to the Council, such as 910 Weatherly, the Bank of America site, and the Viper Room project. With the state’s strict timelines, he argued, attempting to fit both a Planning Commission and City Council appeal into a 60-day window would be unrealistic and could backfire. If an appeal remained unresolved when the deadline passed, the project would be automatically approved, potentially giving opponents grounds to argue in court that they were denied due process.
Solomon backed “Alternative 1,” limiting appeals to the City Council, saying it provided a realistic timeline based on the city’s ability to prepare agendas and materials. He emphasized that a single appeal path would ensure compliance with state law while maintaining due process protections.
Commissioner Erick J. Matos agreed that an appeal to both the Planning Commission and City Council would be nearly impossible to complete within 60 days. “I think we’d be setting ourselves up for failure,” he said, also advocating for a single appeal to the City Council.
Ultimately, the commission supported Alternative 1—allowing only one appeal, directly to the City Council. This approach would provide oversight while reducing the risk of running out of time and having projects automatically approved.
Beyond the technical details of the permit process, the discussion underscored broader concerns about local control over housing development.
Longtime West Hollywood resident Victor Omelczenko, the sole public commenter at the meeting, lamented the increasing limitations placed on cities by the state. “I wonder, what exactly are we doing through our lobbyists to truly streamline the process up in Sacramento and make it less convoluted?” he asked. He also questioned whether the city had any real discretion left in housing approvals, saying, “It seems like so little discretion is left to local communities. I wonder what impact we can all have when everything is handed down from Sacramento like the Ten Commandments.”
Despite these frustrations, the commission acknowledged that compliance with state law is not optional. Their task, they said, is to work within these constraints while preserving as much transparency and public input as possible.
The amendment passed with a unanimous vote and will now move to the City Council for consideration. If approved, West Hollywood will join other cities across California in adopting a ministerial housing permit process designed to accelerate housing production—whether residents like it or not.
For now, commissioners appear committed to ensuring the process remains as transparent as possible. But with the state’s increasingly aggressive approach to housing mandates, the balance between local oversight and rapid development may continue to shift in the years ahead.
