Trees Planned for Weaver’s Walk Chopped in Half

In a 3-2 vote, the West Hollywood City Council approved a revised plan for the Weaver’s Walk project, chopping the number of trees from 21 to 12 and altering their species to appease a local business owner threatening litigation. The decision, which overrides years of community input, sparked outrage among residents who have fought for over a decade to shape the public space at Melrose and Norwich.

The Weaver’s Walk project, intended as a verdant retreat from the concrete, dates back to 2014. After extensive public workshops and council meetings, Option A—featuring 21 trees—was approved last year as a compromise from an original 24-tree design. However, Ben Soleimani, owner of a luxury furniture store at the site, claimed the trees would block his business’s visibility and threatened to sue. The city’s new proposal, reducing the tree count to 12 with only two at the key corner, was presented as a way to avoid costly delays.

Many residents sounded dismayed during the meeting. Leslie Karliss called the revised plan “ridiculous,” arguing, “Two trees in such a large space does not create a shady respite or in any way enhance the city’s green and public spaces as called for in the general plan.” Richard Giesbret, a resident and architect, criticized the lack of consultation, stating, “The city hasn’t reconvened the streetscape committee to discuss these radical changes. West Hollywood West was not consulted about this, nor any other citizens.”

Jonathan Finestone of the West Hollywood West Residents Association labeled the changes “transparent extortion from a single business owner and a complete disenfranchising, demotion, and silencing of the residents’ voice.” He urged the council to stick with Option A, approved nearly a year ago.

The tension peaked when Kimberly Winick, a 40-year resident, delivered an impassioned plea: “You people need to stand up on our behalf and if Mr. Soleimani decides to sue the city, you turn around and sue him back.” Her subsequent outburst during council deliberations prompted Councilmember John Erickson to scold her in a parental tone, “Kimberly, that is the last time.”

For some officials, expediency seemed to outweigh exigency. Vice Mayor Heilman supported the new plan, citing practicality: “I would prefer to get something in there rather than waiting two and a half years or longer” due to potential litigation. The same reasoning led to an aye from Councilmember Danny Hang. “I am in support of staff’s recommendation because it would prevent further delays with this project. The community will have something tangible to experience and enjoy sooner than later, rather than something getting delayed for years and years to come,” he said, before abruptly shifting focus by adding, “because you never know what can happen with pending litigation.”

Councilmember Meister dissented, decrying the precedent set by yielding to pressure. “To allow a bully to bully us is not setting a very good precedent,” she said, adding, “Why should the community bother investing their time in these meetings anymore if their input is not followed or considered?”

Councilmember John Erickson said he reluctantly favored the revision. “I’m mostly in favor of staff’s recommendation right now. I don’t want to be in favor of staff’s recommendation because I agree with what Councilmember Meister is saying, but the fiscal impact and time that’s been wasted on this process is concerning. And everyone’s walking out of here unhappy, so that typically means that, sadly, it’s some sort of compromise. And it’s..none of us are agreeing with this,” Erickson said. Then, realizing he was, in fact, agreeing, Erickson added, “I mean, we don’t like this.”

The motion passed 3-2, with Heilman, Hang, and Mayor Chelsea Byers in favor. In a surprise shift, John Erickson joined Lauren Meister as one of the two dissenting voices. Construction is slated to begin within 45 days, with completion expected by late summer or early fall.

In conciliation, Heilman proposed that staff collaborate with residents like Finestone to explore additional neighborhood improvements, acknowledging, “We have to let the community down here because of the situation we’re in.” The gesture did little to quell the frustration of residents who feel their decade-long efforts have been undermined.

The battle over Weaver’s Walk lays bare the friction between community voices and political concessions, leaving many questioning the value of public sentiment when a single voice can reshape a collective dream.