In a closely contested 4-3 vote on March 6, 2025, the West Hollywood Planning Commission declined to recommend a proposed Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) that would have expanded community outreach and noticing requirements for projects seeking development agreements. Much of the debate focused on the amendment’s application to projects already deemed complete and the proposed increase in the noticing radius from 500 to 1,000 feet.
Development agreements are contracts between developers and the city, outlining specific terms for major projects—such as large-scale developments or standalone billboards—that often deviate from standard zoning rules. The ZTA, initiated by a City Council directive on May 20, 2024, aimed to bolster transparency by requiring a neighborhood meeting and extending the public hearing noticing radius to 1,000 feet for such projects.
The proposal first came before the commission on January 16, 2025, where it was continued to allow staff to refine the language. The revised ZTA presented in March included provisions for neighborhood meetings within 60 days of application for new projects and not less than 90 days before the next public meeting for pending projects deemed complete, with extensions possible at the Community Development Director’s discretion. However, these changes caused considerable contention.
Commissioners expressed unease about applying new requirements to projects already deemed complete. Commissioner Jones voiced ethical concerns, stating, “I cannot in good conscience get behind [applying this to deemed complete projects]. I feel like we’re changing the game on people.” Similarly, Commissioner Matos argued it was akin to “changing the rules of the game in the third quarter, on the third down, with 15 seconds left on the clock.”
The 1,000-foot noticing radius also divided the commission. While some, like Commissioner Hoopingarner, supported it as a means to enhance transparency for large projects—especially along major boulevards like Sunset—others questioned its necessity in a city of just 1.9 square miles. Commissioner Solomon remarked that “1,000 feet feels like it was grabbed out of a hat,” noting that West Hollywood’s existing 500-foot radius already exceeds many neighboring jurisdictions, such as San Francisco’s 150 feet. A staff-provided case study reinforced this, showing Beverly Hills allows up to 1,000 feet for certain projects, but most cities maintain smaller radii.
Adding complexity, recent City Council feedback had muddled the Planning Commission’s role in development agreements. Commissioner Solomon reflected this uncertainty, saying, “I don’t want to weigh in on how we notice for these agreements coming forward… absent having clear guidance.” This lack of clarity, coupled with a new council composition since the original directive, led some commissioners to seek further direction.
Despite a motion by Commissioner Hoopingarner to approve the ZTA with the 1,000-foot radius intact but excluding deemed complete projects, it failed to gain a second. Instead, Commissioner Solomon’s motion to not recommend the ZTA prevailed, seconded by Vice Chair Gregoire. The resolution cited concerns over retroactive application to deemed complete projects, the overly broad 1,000-foot radius, and a request for clearer council guidance on the commission’s role.
Staff emphasized that state law requires the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation—whether to approve, conditionally approve, or deny—making indefinite delay unfeasible. The decision now heads to the City Council, which will review the commission’s stance and determine the ZTA’s fate, potentially modifying it or seeking further input.
The vote exemplifies a broader tension in West Hollywood: balancing community input with fairness to developers amid a streamlined process. As Paige Portwood, Associate Planner, noted in the staff presentation, the intent was to align with the council’s push for enhanced outreach. Yet, the commission’s hesitation signals a need for recalibration. Whether the council will adjust the ZTA or reaffirm its original vision remains to be seen, but the debate reflects the city’s ongoing struggle to harmonize growth with transparency.
Referring to San Francisco as being a good example is bizarre.