West Hollywood housing development debates reached a boiling point last night at the Planning Commission. The meeting stretched more than 4.5 hours and may go down as one for the record books. Many of us, whether there in person or watching from home, were feeling pretty wiped by the end.
The commission eventually voted 6-1 late Thursday night to approve a 126-unit mixed-use development at 7811 Santa Monica Boulevard, but not before a lot of commissioners shared their frustration with state housing laws that leave them powerless to deny a project many said they wanted to reject.
“I felt like I had to vote yes when I really wanted to vote no,” Commissioner Rogerio Carvalheiro said after casting his vote to approve. “And it just sucks.”
The project by Faring Capital will replace BRICK Los Angeles gym, surface parking lots, a seven-unit residential building (1125 North Ogden Drive) – that was Ellis Acted out in June 2023, became fully vacant June 2024 – with a seven-story building containing 117 residential units, 45 hotel rooms, ground-floor restaurant, and a separate four-story, nine-unit residential building on Ogden. Twenty units will be deed-restricted affordable housing—10 very low-income and 10 moderate-income.
The controversial vote came after a nearly five-hour meeting that had about an hour’s worth of public comments, with the majority of the approximately 37 speakers venting their deep frustrations with the project. All but a few opposed it with most having done their homework, lending credence and cred to their comments.
The marathon meeting ran so late that commissioners voted to continue the second housing project on the agenda to their February 19 meeting rather than proceed as it was already past 11 p.m. The relief in the room was palpable — even through my television.
Why Are We Even Here?
The approval put a glaring spotlight on a tension that has defined Planning Commission meetings for months. State housing laws have all but eliminated most local discretion over projects that meet objective development standards and provide the required minimum of affordable housing. One can argue the merits of that, but what appears more obvious with each approval is that residents, staff, and even City Council have no meaningful power to push back, even on projects no one wants.
“There used to be a time this commission had real discretion to approve or deny projects,” Chair David S. Gregoire said. “But in recent years and decades, the state of California has taken most of the discretion away from us. There’s definitely been a debate in recent months about the future of this commission. Why do we exist? If we don’t have any discretion, we just have to approve projects. Why do we exist?”
The question resonated with residents who packed Council Chambers.
“It’s becoming more and more obvious to the community that we feel impotent,” said Cathy Blavis during public comment at the meeting’s end. “I know from what many of you said tonight, you’re feeling impotent as well with regard to state mandates. So I’m starting to question why we show up at all. If it’s already mandated by the state, why are we wasting our time?”
Commissioner Lynn Hoopingarner suggested the city should consider legal challenges to state housing laws.
“Maybe it’s time to start challenging state law and saying, ‘How is this serving the community?’” Hoopingarner said. “Because it’s not. And I don’t think it’s actually serving the purpose of housing.”
State Laws Drive Approval
The project qualifies under two powerful state laws that restrict cities’ ability to deny housing developments: Assembly Bill 130, which provides a statutory exemption from full environmental review for certain infill housing projects, and the Housing Accountability Act, which prohibits cities from denying projects that comply with objective development standards unless there is documented evidence of specific adverse health and safety impacts.
Faring requested a 100 percent density bonus, two concessions, and six waivers of development standards under state density bonus law. Most controversially, the developer sought a waiver to reduce the required minimum lot size for mixed-use projects spanning commercial and residential zones from 50,000 square feet to 40,186 square feet.
Hoopingarner cast the sole dissenting vote, saying she could not make the required findings to approve the lot size waiver or certify that loading and delivery would be accommodated on-site when the applicant acknowledged deliveries would occur on the street.
“I am not opposed to a great building. I am not opposed to a mixed-use building on this site,” Hoopingarner said. “I want a successful project. But approving this project puts this city at risk.”
Hoopingarner also questioned whether the city could require a performance bond to ensure construction completion, citing Faring’s track record on other West Hollywood projects.
Faring’s Troubled History
A number of residents brought up Faring’s stalled developments in West Hollywood during public comment. They pointed to Robertson Lane, where buildings were demolished in 2016 but the site has remained a vacant hole for nearly nine years, and the French Market, which held a groundbreaking ceremony in 2022 with all five City Council members but still sits empty as of today.
West Hollywood Deputy Legal Counsel Isaac Rosen said that under the Housing Accountability Act and relevant state density bonus case law, the commission cannot require developers to prove financing or demonstrate the ability to complete projects as a condition of approval.
Assistant Director of Community Development Jennifer Alkire clarified that city code does require proof of financing before issuing demolition permits prior to building permits, but this is not a condition the Planning Commission can impose on project approval.
Hoopingarner pressed further, pointing to Robertson Lane as evidence the financing requirement doesn’t prevent exactly what residents fear. “If it’s a code requirement, how did all the buildings at Robertson Lane get demolished?” Hoopingarner asked.
BRICK Community Mobilizes
Members of BRICK gym, which will be demolished for the project, made an impassioned case for their community space.
“BRICK is a thriving small business that serves as a progressive hub of the community whose values are rooted in acceptance, inclusion, kindness, and empowerment,” said Brent Jones, a West Hollywood resident who lives within 500 feet of the project. “At BRICK, I found a place where I could meet like-minded people of all different ages, races, ethnicities, and sexual orientations, who all accepted each other, not in spite of who we are, but because of who we are.”
David Modisett, another BRICK member, questioned the city’s priorities.
“At some point, the city needs to ask itself who it supports,” Modisett said. “Does it want to be a place of hotels and corporate chains? Or does it want to lift up its own communities and small businesses?”
Carvalheiro acknowledged the difficulty of the decision.
“This is one of those meetings where you don’t enjoy being a planning commissioner, because you sit here and listen to almost 30 people come to the podium and talk about all the things that they’re going to lose in the community,” Carvalheiro said. “I wish there was something that we could do. We don’t own the property. Faring owns the property.”
Technical Concerns Raised
Hoopingarner raised multiple technical questions during deliberations, including concerns about environmental remediation timing. The project site has a history of industrial uses including a gas station, dry cleaner, and neon fabrication plant. Under AB 130, full remediation isn’t required until before the certificate of occupancy is issued—after construction is complete.
Mike Carter, Owl neighborhood watch captain, laid out the environmental stakes in detail during public comment.
“This site has a 100-year-old toxic legacy with a history of hazardous industrial uses, including a gas station, a dry cleaner, a neon fabrication plant,” Carter said. “Deep subterranean excavation poses a direct risk of vapor intrusion and toxic dust. Because this project is immediately adjacent to a daycare center, a sensitive receptor, the city must require a full health risk assessment and a final EIR to protect the safety of neighboring children.”
Former West Hollywood Councilmember and eastside resident Steve Martin challenged the adequacy of the environmental reports being relied upon, noting they dated from 2011 and 2012.
“I don’t know if anyone had a chance to look at that report, but it’s totally inadequate,” Martin said. “The person who did the report said they only did a visual inspection. The only inspection was visual and nasal, because the guy said he couldn’t smell anything and he didn’t see anything.”
Jake Stevens, Senior Vice President at Faring, fired back during the applicant’s rebuttal period.
“Shame on you, Steve Martin, for cherry picking that public record,” Stevens said. “We have a Phase I and a Phase II. The reports were based on soil samples that’s in the public records, so you can share that with parents today.”
Todd Nelson, attorney with Remy Moose Manley representing Faring, explained that environmental testing would need to occur before construction despite the certificate of occupancy timeline in AB 130.
Hoopingarner also raised concerns about impacts on Fountain Day School. The preschool to the north currently uses the parking lot for parent drop-offs. Scott Dwynel, whose family has owned Fountain Day School for 70 years, raised safety concerns during public comment.
“The loss of the adjacent parking lot is a big concern to us,” Dwynel said. “Our parents use that for drop off and pick up, and if we don’t have that parking lot, that’s gonna be a big problem for us.”
Dwynel emphasized the school would need access to environmental studies to communicate with parents.
“Our number one concern is the safety of our children and our employees,” he said. “Any type of environmental studies impact, we would definitely like to have access to, because that’s a conversation we’re gonna have to have with our parents. We need as much clarity as possible.”
Stevens said Faring has offered construction-period safety measures for Fountain Day School, including crossing guards and enhanced screening and cleaning, beyond standard city requirements.
Hoopingarner’s third major concern involved neighboring property impacts. The T-shaped project surrounds three other parcels, and she questioned whether limiting their future development potential could constitute an illegal “taking” under constitutional law.
Parking Debate
A debate emerged over Condition 12.6, which would prohibit future residents from obtaining residential parking permits, a standard condition for new developments in West Hollywood for at least six years.
Solomon argued the restriction is inequitable and may violate equal protection principles.
“I don’t think it’s an equitable practice to say to someone, ‘You moved here, you look like you’re not from around here, you are ineligible to have street permit parking,’” Solomon said. “Our streets are public assets. We pay for them with our taxpayer dollars.”
Commissioner Hoopingarner defended the policy.
“Either the state is right and we don’t need to provide parking because we have all this public transit, or we don’t,” Hoopingarner said. “State law says we don’t have to park it, so we’re not going to build it. So the city needs to give us street parking because we don’t want to pay to build our parking. That’s a loop that just hurts my brain.”
The commission voted to retain the parking permit restriction.
What Happens Next
The commission’s decision can be appealed to the West Hollywood City Council. Appeals must be submitted in writing with required fees to the City Clerk’s office by Tuesday, February 17, 2026, at 5 p.m. The deadline was extended one day due to the Presidents’ Day holiday.
If the decision stands, Faring must complete a Phase I environmental assessment before obtaining building permits. Any recognized environmental concerns would trigger a preliminary endangerment assessment under strict Cal EPA standards.
The project was initially evaluated under CEQA with intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Report. A Draft EIR was circulated for public comment, but after AB 130 took effect July 1, 2025, and the applicant revised the project scope, the city discontinued preparation of a Final EIR and processed the project under the AB 130 statutory exemption.
Under the Permit Streamlining Act, the city must make a determination on the project by March 20, 2026, or the project will be deemed approved.
As the meeting approached midnight, the weight of the night felt pretty heavy. Heavy with disappointment for the residents who showed up to protest and heavy with Commissioners who spent nearly five hours wrestling with legal constraints, ultimately approving a project many seemed to wish they could deny.
What is Faring doing with the French Market which closed in July of 2015 !!! And, the Studio One site and buildings bought by Faring on Santa Monica Blvd at Robertson. They are an eyesore. The City should demand a significant deposit or levy heavy fines if a project is not completed by any developer by the agreed to date..
Taking a deep dive into Faring’s Jake Stevens tonight and finding that he has a website dedicated to his public service and activism. Jake4LA – hilarious. Last night, I watched that man chuckle again and again at the Brick gym members who vulnerably expressed the solace they take in their third space. Many of these folks were queer, one of them actually called out his rudeness at the podium. I can’t believe Jake has the audacity to call himself a long-time LGBTQ+ activist. Heck, once upon a time, the City of West Hollywood even declared January 12, 2022 Jake Stevens… Read more »
An unprincipled opportunist.
I am not surprised at the planning commission’s decision. I am tired of the “our hands are tied” answer. Faring has shown a complete disregard for our city and once again a developer uses The State’s mandates as an opportunity to build for density bonuses. Time to resolve this commission as public comments go on deaf ears. Arrogant developers get whatever they want. Where are all these plans for a metro station at SMB and Fairfax that was mentioned multiple times? Nobody can answer the idea that residents don’t need cars or spaces to park. Nobody answers how this development… Read more »
West Hollywood is fortunate to have Lynn Hoopingarner as its conscience and voice of reason on the Planning Commission.
Her dissenting vote was the correct call, as was her suggestion that West Hollywood (perhaps in conjunction with other cities?) pursue legal action against the overreaching California state government to return a greater portion of control over specific developments to those most knowledgeable about and impacted by them locally.
Faring’s dubious development record in recent years is cause for reasonable concern, and the City should avail itself of every possible means to hold Faring to its promises.
The eventual loss of Brick represents another diminution of gay culture in West Hollywood. While I understand some on the City Council view this as “progress”, it comes at the expense of what makes West Hollywood unique.