Planning Commission Denies Appeal on Weatherly Project Amendments

The West Hollywood Planning Commission unanimously denied an appeal challenging amendments to a 100% affordable housing project at 916 North Weatherly Drive during a public hearing on April 4, 2025. The decision affirmed the Community Development Director’s approval of the changes as minor, despite vocal opposition from residents who argued the modifications significantly altered the project’s impact on their neighborhood.

The hearing, spanning over two hours, centered on an appeal filed by Arthur Bernstein, a West Hollywood resident, contesting seven amendments to the 89-unit development. These changes included relocating a transformer from an underground location to a surface-mounted pad near the sidewalk, reducing balcony numbers from 47 to 45, removing a 423-square-foot fitness room, and adjusting building dimensions to meet California Building Code requirements. Staff presented a detailed report asserting that none of these alterations met the West Hollywood Municipal Code’s five criteria for a major amendment, which include significant impacts on the neighborhood, environment, or project design.

Bernstein, supported by resident Martha Orellana, argued that the cumulative effect of these changes—particularly the transformer’s relocation—constituted a major shift. “We don’t believe the applicant’s assertion that this mechanical equipment will not create a noise or visual or vibrational impact to the adjacent property,” Bernstein said, citing nearby residents’ experiences with similar installations. He criticized the process, noting a 150-page document delivered just a week prior left little time for review. Orellana echoed this, questioning why the Planning Commission wasn’t given full oversight, calling the changes “major” and urging a reevaluation.

The applicant, represented by architect Ben Anderson and Jesse Slansky of the West Hollywood Community Housing Corporation (WHCHC), defended the amendments. Anderson highlighted that the transformer’s relocation preserved parking spaces, reducing street demand by maintaining all but one of the original spots. He emphasized that the building’s design integrity remained intact, with adjustments like balcony shifts improving privacy. Slansky clarified that a community garden remained part of the rooftop plan, countering claims of lost amenities.

Public comment saw 12 residents voice concerns, with seven speaking at the podium. Stephanie Harker criticized the process, arguing that labeling the changes as minor bypassed community input. Rebecca Damavandi called the transformer placement “ridiculous,” noting its proximity to the sidewalk. Kathy Blaivas and others stressed a lack of collaboration, while Roger LaGrange warned of setting a precedent for future projects. Daisy Torme highlighted parking and aesthetic issues on the narrow street, and Mark Yusupov questioned the project’s $600,000-per-unit cost, suggesting financial viability concerns.

Commissioners grappled with the distinction between minor and major changes under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), which limits their discretion on compliant affordable housing projects. Commissioner Lynn Hoopingarner expressed distress over the transformer’s impact, urging the applicant to reconsider, but noted legal constraints. Commissioner David Gregoire acknowledged neighborhood concerns but found the changes insufficiently significant to overturn staff’s decision. After extensive deliberation, the commission voted 7-0 to adopt Resolution PC-25-1602, denying the appeal.

The decision can be appealed to the City Council within 10 days, requiring a written submission and fees to the City Clerk’s office. Residents left the chamber visibly frustrated, signaling ongoing tension over the project’s evolution since its 2023 approval.