“So Why Are You Lying?” West Hollywood’s Most Controversial Project Is Back — and Opponents Aren’t Done​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

In the event you’ve lost track of one of West Hollywood’s most controversial moves in its history — the Fountain Avenue Streetscape Project is back in the news.

Last Wednesday the Transportation and Mobility Commission (TMC) took up the project — almost six months to the day after one of the most contentious City Council meetings West Hollywood has seen in years. That September 15, 2025 meeting ended with a 3-2 vote approving the project.

Staff presented the TMC update as a “receive and file” item, no commission vote, no direction requested.

The public came ready. Some had been at the Ogden Owl/Eastside Neighborhood Watch meeting earlier and raced from Plummer Park to City Hall to catch this one. And the location matters; the TMC meeting was not televised, meaning what happened in that room stayed in that room unless you were there. Six months after watching the Council approve the project over sustained opposition, residents who have been fighting this since the beginning showed up to make clear the debate is not over; an update item on a commission agenda does not mean the questions have been answered or the concerns resolved.

Why Are You Lying

What seemed like a flashpoint happened six months earlier, on September 15th, when the Council met for what turned into a nearly three-hour battle before the five members even began to deliberate. An hour of that was public comment that seemed to split down the middle. 

Before deliberations, Councilmember Erickson seemed as though he had a plan he was all too eager to unfold. He worked the record rather methodically. He had Staff pull up the project’s vote history. Every prior Council action on Fountain Avenue had been unanimous, they confirmed, with one exception — the City’s acceptance of an $8.2 million California Air Resources Board grant the previous year. Then he had them confirm on the record that what was before the Council was a two-phase streetscape plan. Each of those unanimous votes, he said, included direction toward a protected bike lane. His snarky message was clear. Everyone had signed on. Including Councilmember Lauren Meister.

To build that case, Erickson called a community member Kevin Burton to the mic and asked him to recall public input from the City’s 2017 Pedestrian and Bicycle Mobility Plan — nearly nine years earlier. Kevin confirmed there were community meetings and that the plan had recommended protected bike lanes, though the Council chose sharrows at the time. When a colleague attempted to interject during his questioning, Erickson cut them off. “I’m talking at the moment,” he said.

When it was Meister’s turn to question Staff, it was clear she wanted to correct the record. Mid-sentence, her frustration was obvious to all.

“The vote for the streetscape plan did not guarantee a bike lane,” she said. “I proposed the streetscape plan because I could not support the bike lane pilot. The council voted for the streetscape project so we could look at it holistically.”

Then, directed at Erickson, Meister said: “So why are you lying, that’s my question?”

Meister’s argument was that she had voted for a genuine open-ended study, one that would come back with multiple options. What happened instead, she said, was that the bike lane came first and the streetscape study followed, built around a conclusion already reached.

“What was done was [the] bike lane was put first,” she said. “And then streetscape, second. But that doesn’t make any sense, because a streetscape project is supposed to look at the whole street holistically.”

It’s worth noting that at the November 21, 2022 meeting where the Council unanimously approved moving forward, Meister’s stated goal was straightforward. “My goal is to make the street safe for all the residents who live there, pedestrians, bicyclists, as well as commuters,” she said. Not bike lanes specifically. Safety for all.

City Engineer John Gilmore confirmed at the September meeting that Staff only studied options compatible with the protected bike lane design. A two-way cycle track on one side was not studied. A sidewalk-level lane was not studied. No options without a bike lane were brought forward.

“We didn’t see options,” Meister said. “And when I voted for a streetscape project, that’s what I voted for. I voted for us to study this, and for you to come back with options.”

Then-Vice Mayor Heilman backed her up. “Some council members were very gung ho for bike lanes, and other council members wanted to see other options to improve safety on the street, and we all voted to move forward with the planning process to give us information,” he said. “But that vote did not reflect that all members of the council supported bike lanes.”

Erickson and the Homeowners

Erickson made it pretty clear who he thought was driving the opposition, his tone dismissive. “Frankly, a lot of the people coming to advocate against this, not advocating against safety, have single family homes, and driveways, and two car garages,” he said. “I mean, I know where you live. It’s a small town, so don’t sit there and think that we don’t know that you don’t live on Fountain Avenue.”

He continued: “A lot of you have parking, and a lot of you have single family homes with multiple ways to park. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have an opinion, but I want to take into the equity conversation that we’re supposed to be having up here.”

By the way, those single family homeowners with their driveways are commuters who use Fountain everyday, and pay property taxes that fund the very City operations Erickson was defending. He failed to mention that when he was talking about equity. 

What the Project Does

For those who are confused or in the dark as to just what is going on, Phase 1 turns Fountain Avenue from a four-lane thoroughfare to one lane in each direction between La Cienega Boulevard and La Brea Avenue — 1.8 miles. What replaces those lanes are protected bike lanes on both sides. Approximately 210 of the street’s 337 on-street parking spaces — more than 60% — are eliminated, all from the north side. High-visibility crosswalks, curb extensions, and planters go in throughout. The street gets repaved and restriped. There are 120 active driveways on the corridor.

At the 2022 meeting, then-Mayor Pro Tempore Sepi Shyne promised that Staff would find creative solutions to the parking loss, including angled parking on side streets. By the September 2025 meeting, Staff confirmed that angled parking wouldn’t work on most of those streets. They’re too narrow.

Phase 1 plans are expected to be 100% complete by June. The project goes back to Council for approval in May or June.

Phase 2 — sidewalk widening, ADA curb ramps, new trees, landscaping, signal upgrades — goes out to bid over the summer. It is expected to take three years and cost between $40 and $50 million. Bike lanes first. The narrow, ADA-unfriendly sidewalks that have been a problem for decades come later.

The Core Arguments

Heilman called Staff’s finding that the project would produce no traffic impact a sleight of hand. Staff used a trip-generation model built for new development, not street reconfiguration. Fountain carries 35,000 vehicles a day. “Staff has no explanation for where those vehicles are gonna go if this proposal is implemented,” he said.

On the parking issue, he called Staff’s alternatives unworkable. Directing Fountain residents to park at Crescent Heights and Santa Monica was silly, he said. So was the claim that side streets could absorb the loss. “Most of those streets are already fully parked.”

He proposed Willoughby Avenue for an east-west bike lane instead. Lower traffic, more manageable parking impacts. He supports protected bike lanes. Not on Fountain.

Meister went to the City’s own numbers. Collisions on Fountain dropped from 113 in 2015 to 74 in 2024. Fatal crashes were down too. Speeding tickets fell from 160 to 32 over the same period. “Something is working,” she said.

She also pushed back on the equity framing. “Lower income people need their cars more than anyone,” she said. “Because they need to take their kids to work and get to their job. They may have two jobs. That doesn’t happen on a bicycle.”

Then-Mayor Chelsea Byers said the vote was about climate and quality of life as much as safety. She pushed back on Heilman’s estimate that 90% of residents commute by car. “Kids don’t,” she said, “and they can ride a bike.”

Back at the TMC

Among those who came to the mic last Wednesday was Brad Keistler, 83, a cyclist who showed up with his decorated helmet in hand. “Why Fountain?” he said. “Santa Monica Blvd would have made more sense. It’s where the stores are, restaurants etc. What’s on Fountain?”

“The wisdom of age,” said another community member in the room.

Resident Stephanie Harker, who submitted Heilman’s September remarks to the commission ahead of the meeting, told the TMC she believes the 220 property owners on Fountain Avenue were never directly contacted or informed about the plan. She said she spoke with a Realtors’ Association and three separate realtors, every one of whom said that removing two travel lanes and more than 62% of residential street parking — with no place to pull over for workers, Uber drivers, deliveries, or emergencies and no center lane will lower property values.

Harker also raised the parking promise made at the 2022 meeting, noting the City’s only current solution is a lot at Santa Monica and Crescent Heights with 66 spaces. Residents who can’t find a spot there will be left to circle side streets looking for parking.

The overall message from the public was the same. Put the project on hold until the serious questions get answered.

Where Things Stand

The construction contract has not been approved. It returns to Council in May or June. Three Council seats are on the November 2026 ballot. The opponents know the math. That’s why they keep showing up.