
West Hollywood residents have one more chance to weigh in today. In person, on Zoom, or by written comment.
The Southern California Association of Governments holds its Regional Council meeting at 11:30 a.m. at 900 Wilshire Boulevard in downtown Los Angeles. On the agenda: the final vote on the SB 79 transit map. The one that now includes West Hollywood.
SB 79 kicked in yesterday; the map vote today locks it in and makes it official. The map above was shared by the West Hollywood West Residents Association. The “modern-day redlining” reference is the group’s characterization and was called racist by Councilmember Erickson at the May 18 City Council meeting. “Redlining was used to ensure communities of color cannot get homes,” he said. “Please stop using racist tropes to combat your understanding of what that even looks like. It is offensive to the history of redlining in this country, and the severe racial harm it has caused millions of Americans.” Mayor Heilman saw it differently. He agreed redlining had historically been used to exclude people of color — but said the term had expanded over time. West Hollywood knew that firsthand. In the City’s early years, insurers had redlined West Hollywood itself, driving up rates. “The term redlining has been expanded, and it’s been used in other ways as well,” Heilman said. “I don’t want any racist tropes being utilized. I don’t think the intent was to use it in that way.”
Heading into this morning’s meeting, there is an unresolved conflict of interest question over who speaks for West Hollywood. Councilmember Chelsea Byers has served as West Hollywood’s representative on SCAG housing matters. She is also the subject of a pending FPPC referral — submitted over her paid outside employment with a housing advocacy organization whose mission intersects directly with the policies before both the City and SCAG. Alan Strasburg, a longtime West Hollywood resident, sent a letter to SCAG leadership Tuesday asking the agency to sideline Byers on SB 79 matters until the FPPC completes its review. “It is equally inappropriate to proceed as though no legitimate questions exist,” the letter states. The referral was not made by a political opponent. It was initiated by the City.
Byers voted at the June 4 SCAG committee meeting against the preliminary map that had kept West Hollywood’s K Line stations off the upzoning list. She has said on the record that a seven-story baseline near transit makes sense citywide. City Staff confirmed directly and on the record that ZIP cannot override SB 79. They are not the same instrument.
Here’s how West Hollywood ended up back on the map. Three weeks ago it wasn’t on it. SCAG had taken the position that unbuilt transit projects didn’t qualify. Residents exhaled. Some Council members pointed to the map as a reason not to pursue a local plan.
Then the California Department of Housing and Community Development stepped in. HCD told SCAG its methodology was wrong. Planned transit projects with an approved route belong on the map. The K Line got its route approved March 26. That was enough. West Hollywood’s three future station areas — Santa Monica and San Vicente, Santa Monica and Fairfax, and Santa Monica and La Brea — went back on.
City Manager Jackie Rocco confirmed it Monday night at City Council. “Mapped areas here in West Hollywood are now expected to be subject to SB 79 beginning July 1,” she said. She outlined four options for the City — allow SB 79 to apply as written, adopt a TODAP, adopt a delayed implementation ordinance, or adopt local objective development standards consistent with SB 79.
No action was taken. Councilmember Lauren Meister pushed for an emergency session. City Attorney Lauren Langer said it would need to come back at the next meeting. There is no extension provision in the statute. Moving the deadline would require a legislative change from Sacramento.
On the population question, Maricich confirmed the State Department of Finance numbers — more current than the 2020 Census — will be used for annual map updates. The 2020 Census put West Hollywood at 35,757, just over the 35,000 threshold that determines whether the upzoning radius is a half mile or a quarter mile. Whether the current DOF figure puts West Hollywood above or below that line hasn’t been confirmed. If it comes in under 35,000, the radius shrinks. That question is still open.
Residents showed up to Monday’s meeting. City Council candidate Kody Christiansen, a West Hollywood renter, said what a lot of people in the room were thinking. “People don’t want seven story buildings next to the houses that they spent their lives earning,” he said. “Most residents of West Hollywood are not anti housing. They are pro housing. They just want a plan.”
Councilmember John Erickson pushed back from the dais. “You all come here every week, every other week, first and third Monday, and say, we, the residents,” he said. “We also hear from residents who do not have the luxury to come to a council meeting, because they are working, because they’re hourly employees, because they’re stuck in traffic. They’re renters, they’re everywhere else.” Erickson said those residents reach out too — workers who can’t make a 6 p.m. meeting because they’re on shift at a restaurant, parents with childcare issues. “They’re residents, and their views are very valid as well.”
It’s a fair and accurate point, but it’s also incomplete. The residents Erickson is referring to in his comments also aren’t just speaking for themselves. Much like the councilmember, they too are standing in for neighbors who share their views but face the same constraints Erickson described — late shifts, kids, traffic, long days, simply being too busy or sometimes just too tired to make it down. Not to mention, all speakers deserve a badge of courage since most people would rather die than speak in public, let alone in front of a sitting city council. It’s also true Councilmember Meister and Mayor Heilman were elected by many of those constituents too. The room Monday wasn’t ten people. It was a cross-section of West Hollywood homeowners, renters, long-timers, and newer arrivals who made the time. Their presence doesn’t cancel out the voices of those who couldn’t be there. Neither does their absence cancel out the ones who showed up. So in this case, while Councilmember Erickson makes a great point, it comes down to a draw.
Others called on the Council to prepare an emergency TODAP, arguing that West Hollywood was founded on local control and that residents deserve more than the opportunity just to speak.
Today’s meeting starts at 11:30 a.m. Public comment on SB 79 map items begins at 11:45 a.m. Attend in person at 900 Wilshire Boulevard in downtown Los Angeles or join via Zoom at scag.zoom.us/j/83115565458. Written comments can be submitted in advance.
WEHOonline will update this story as today’s vote results become available.
Related Coverage
Chelsea Byers’ Conflict of Interest Question Pauses West Hollywood Housing Vote
State Orders West Hollywood Metro K Line Back on the SB 79 Map
Threatened Removals, No Vote: West Hollywood’s SB 79 Council Meeting Goes Until 12:30 A.M.
West Hollywood SB 79 Map Is Out — City’s K-Line Stops Didn’t Make the Cut
Beverly Hills Filed Its SB 79 TODAP. West Hollywood Is Still Stuck at the Station.
Attorney Warns West Hollywood Is ‘Deliberately Ignoring’ SB 79 Protections
Time to go Bye-Bye.
Councilmember Byers told SCAG today that she is “experiencing attacks” over questions surrounding her employment and a potential conflict of interest. I disagree with that characterization. Holding elected officials accountable to principles of good governance is not an attack. Asking whether a public official’s outside employment creates an actual or perceived conflict of interest is a legitimate question in a democracy, and one that the FPPC now has the opportunity to answer. Public officials should expect that level of scrutiny. Too often, routine accountability is reframed as victimization. It isn’t. If you seek public office, you should develop the resilience… Read more »
SCAG just approved the new map that almost all of West Hollywood now must follow SB 79 laws. Goodbye to our city as we know it. Chelsea Byers voting and explanation on why she shouldn’t recuse herself from voting was simply self-serving and rehearsed. The fact that nobody questioned her is even more appalling. Thank you Lauren Meister and all the members of West Hollywood who showed up and argued for West Hollywood’s rightful future. Again I will say density does not equal affordability. This bill is a dream for developers. Manhattan has proven density does not work. Vote Chelsea… Read more »
BYW, the US population is NOT increasing. Folks might check in with Wall Street and other sources. So this entire Scott Weiner appears to be a grand fabrication. Granted there might be a deficit of lower working class housing but that fails to be a huge need in West Hollywood. Ask yourself why Beverly Hills acquired TODAP?
John Erickson’s excuse to not validate the residents who DO show up at council meetings that have jobs and lives just like everyone else is appalling. We show up to speak and go on public record. Show us the list who speak to you directly as you may have agreed to voting with nobody held accountable and placed on public record. So you give voice and preference to whom? Same issue with Chelsea Byers. Speaking privately should be held the same as public comments. City Council members must refrain from interacting
I was the person who wrote to SCAG leadership urging that Councilmember Chelsea Byers be sidelined from AB 79-related matters until the FPPC determines whether a conflict of interest exists. That request was never about prejudging the outcome. It was about protecting the integrity of the process. When legitimate ethics questions are pending before the state’s independent watchdog, the prudent course is to avoid placing the official in a position where those questions could cast doubt on public decisions. If the FPPC finds no conflict, excellent. If it finds there is one, the public’s confidence in the process will have… Read more »
I did the same
Thank you Alan for performing a public service on behalf of West Hollywood and putting your money where your mouth is, so to speak. Except in your case, no actual money is involved, unlike, allegedly, with Chelsea Byers. FPPC what say thee?
Before accepting Councilmember Erickson’s claim that countless people are reaching out to him but cannot participate in the public process, perhaps we should put that assertion to the test. West Hollywood already provides multiple avenues for residents to make their voices part of the public record. Citizen position slips can be submitted electronically. Written comments are accepted before meetings. Agendas are posted well in advance, giving people time to review them and respond. While no public participation system is perfect, access to a computer or smartphone is now nearly universal, and there are numerous ways to engage without attending City… Read more »
Makes sense to me, Alan!
How likely is it that CM Byers is also being attacked?
Based on the ongoing nasty comments here, I’d say “very.”
Community members are raising legitimate questions about a potential conflict of interest. The subject of those inquiries, and now a referral to the Fair Political Practices Commission appears to have materially altered their LinkedIn profile subsequent to questions being raised. Their employer erased social media commentary that appear to have reflected its interest in important legislation at the heart of the potential conflict, inquiry and referral. Where’s the attack?
In general, the comments here are very nasty in re Danny, Chelsea, and John E.
Calling Chelsea an antisemite is over the top.
That’s what I was referring to, Mr Strasburg, not yours or anybody’s legitimate complaints.
Stuart – calling Councilmember Byers an anti-semite is a no go here. Not just because it goes against our policy, but because I do not believe that is true. Folks may passionately disagree and debate policy all day long, but I don’t support slagging Ms. Byers with that description. I’ll review recent posts and remove it. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
The policy should only relate to harmful lies and deliberate and intentional slandering.
Calling somebody a name is generally fine, in re free speech.
I’ve always hated it because too many people conflate anti-Israeli policies with antisemitism, per Jonathan Greenblatt and the odious ADL.
It’s not true.
You are welcome, Brian.
Thank you.