He Was Appointed by Chelsea Byers. Calls the Conflict Question “Absolute Trash”

“The NIMBY hysteria is unreal,” Andrew Solomon wrote on his Instagram story on July 3. “They will stop at nothing to tear down advocates for housing equity and inclusion. They’re alleging that it’s a conflict of interest for Chelsea to…work at an organization that aligns with her values, values she ran on. Absolute trash.”

Solomon is a West Hollywood Planning Commissioner in his second term, appointed by Councilmember Chelsea Byers. He sits on a body that makes quasi-judicial decisions on land use, zoning, and development in West Hollywood. The allegation Solomon called ‘absolute trash’ is the same question a majority of the West Hollywood City Council found serious enough to table a housing vote over, the same question the City Attorney said required FPPC guidance to resolve, and the same question that is now before the California Fair Political Practices Commission.

His public defense of Byers is not the first time Solomon’s social media activity has drawn criticism — or raised questions about whether his public conduct is consistent with the impartiality expected of a quasi-judicial commissioner.

In May, Solomon shared an Instagram post that characterized West Hollywood residents who spoke at a council meeting as “elderly white gays” from “$2M+ neighborhoods” who were “perpetuating segregation” – a reference to residents who had used the term ‘redlining’ to describe the SB 79 transit maps. WEHOonline reached out to Solomon directly. He confirmed the post and said he stood by it.

“Yes and I stand by it,” Solomon said in a text message to WEHOonline on May 20.

When WEHOonline followed up asking whether he stood by the characterization of residents — noting that many were renters, immigrants, and working people who spent decades saving for modest homes — Solomon pivoted to discussing the history of redlining and did not directly address the question.

He added: “It’s fine if you run my social media post.”

Solomon’s public advocacy for pro-housing policy extends beyond social media.

At the June 4 SCAG committee meeting, Solomon called in identifying himself as a “private citizen” to urge the regional body to adopt a methodology that would put West Hollywood’s K-Line stations on the SB 79 upzoning map — the same position Byers voted for at that meeting. WEHOonline previously reported on the SCAG vote and the pending FPPC referral surrounding Byers’ role.

At a March 2026 Planning Commission meeting, Solomon made the motion that passed 6-1 to shift many housing approvals from public hearings to staff-level decisions — the kind of streamlined, by-right approval process that Abundant Housing LA’s own representative would later urge the City Council to adopt at the June 15 meeting.

More recently, Solomon was photographed behind Abundant Housing LA’s information table helping staff the organization’s booth during WeHo Pride in early June. Within days, Abundant Housing LA returned to City Hall. On June 15, the organization’s Director of Policy and Research, Scott Epstein, addressed the City Council on housing policy. The organization has repeatedly advocated before both the City Council and Planning Commission — through public comment, written correspondence and other communications — on housing and land-use issues.

The Edwards Connection

Solomon is not the only Byers planning commission appointee with a documented connection to Abundant Housing LA.

Mark R. Edwards served as Secretary of Abundant Housing LA — the same organization that co-sponsored SB 79 — according to the organization’s IRS Form 990 filings for 2021 and 2022. Those filings are public record.

Byers appointed Edwards to the West Hollywood Planning Commission in 2023. He served until June 3, 2024, when he resigned to become Deputy Director of Legislative Affairs for Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. In October 2025, following a contentious 3-2 City Council vote, Edwards was reappointed. Then-Vice Mayor John Heilman was troubled by the fact that Edwards was already a declared candidate for the 2026 West Hollywood City Council race. ‘It seems to me that this is a very clear effort to rush through a political appointment before the community has really had notice that there’s a vacancy,’ Heilman said at the time. Edwards subsequently suspended his council campaign in March 2026. He is now serving a second term through February 2027.

Edwards has served on the Planning Commission while Abundant Housing LA has remained an active participant in West Hollywood land-use debates before both the Planning Commission and City Council.

The Impartiality Question

Planning commissioners in California function in a quasi-judicial capacity. They make binding decisions on land use, zoning, and development that carry legal weight and can be appealed to the City Council.

As public officials, they are subject to California’s Political Reform Act, including the same financial conflict-of-interest rules that apply to elected officials. Their role also carries an expectation that they approach matters impartially and in the public interest.

That does not mean commissioners cannot have opinions. Nor is it unusual for elected officials to appoint commissioners who generally share their policy views. That’s common in cities across California.

The question being raised here is narrower.

Public records show one current planning commissioner has recently participated in the organization’s public activities, while another previously served as one of its officers. Those facts alone do not establish a legal conflict of interest.

They do, however, raise a broader question about where the line is drawn between bringing policy expertise to a quasi-judicial body and continuing to publicly advocate for organizations, elected officials or policy positions that regularly come before that same body.

Whether public statements like Solomon’s — calling the conflict-of-interest questions surrounding his appointing councilmember “absolute trash” — are consistent with that expectation of impartiality is a question West Hollywood has not formally addressed.

Taken together — the public statements, the organizational affiliations, the social media posts — the question is not whether any single fact crosses a legal line. It is whether the cumulative picture is consistent with what residents of a 1.9-square-mile city, with one of the most politically engaged communities in California, have a right to expect from the people making decisions about their neighborhoods — including whether a planning commissioner should be prejudging as ‘absolute trash’ a conflict-of-interest question that the City’s own legal process is still working to resolve.

West Hollywood’s own Code of Conduct, which applies to all commission and board members, states: “Officials shall exercise best efforts to avoid the appearance of impropriety in the performance of their official duties. The public’s confidence in the integrity and fairness of City government often hinges on the behavior of City officials. Real or perceived ethical lapses by City officials undermine the effectiveness of the City and cast a shadow on the decisions of its legislative bodies. Often, ethical considerations extend beyond the legal requirements of conflict of interest law.”

WEHOonline has submitted questions to City Attorney Lauren Langer regarding the impartiality standards that apply to planning commissioners and the disclosure obligations that govern their organizational affiliations. We will update this story when responses are received.

Full Circle

The pro-housing advocacy community at the center of this debate is relatively small and interconnected.

Months before the Fair Political Practices Commission determined in December 2025 that Santa Monica Councilmember Jesse Zwick had a disqualifying conflict of interest because of his outside employment with a pro-housing advocacy organization, Zwick co-authored an op-ed with Byers in the Los Angeles Blade supporting SB 79.

The comparison is not intended to suggest the situations are identical. The FPPC evaluates conflicts based on the specific facts of each case.

Whether Chelsea Byers’ outside employment presents a legal conflict is now before the FPPC. That question will ultimately be answered by the commission based on the specific facts before it.

This story raises a different question. As WEHOonline has reported over the past week, Byers’ professional relationship with pro-housing advocacy organizations has extended beyond her outside employment to longstanding public affiliations, policy advocacy and documented connections involving two planning commissioners appointed with her support. None of those facts, standing alone, establishes a legal conflict of interest. Together, however, they paint a broader picture of the professional and advocacy relationships surrounding one of West Hollywood’s most consequential policy debates.

Ultimately, the issue is one of public trust. Residents expect planning commissioners to bring experience and expertise to the job, but they also expect those serving in that judicial capacity to approach each matter with an open mind. The City’s own Code of Conduct puts it plainly: ethical considerations extend beyond the legal requirements of conflict of interest law. Whether those expectations have been met is something each resident and reader will have to decide.

WEHOonline will continue following this story.