Neighbors appeal to Council to stop co-living apartment project


City Council will make the final decision on whether a controversial co-living apartment complex will be built on the northwest corner of Fairfax and Fountain.

Developers are hoping Council will allow them to proceed with plans for the five-story building, for a total of 73 bedrooms in 18 units. Each unit is a cluster of four or five bedrooms which each have a private bathroom, but they share a kitchen, living room, dining room, and laundry space. The building will also have three affordable one-bedroom units.

The project was designed to take advantage of the State of California’s density bonus law, which allows for a 50 percent bonus of up to six units in exchange for providing the affordable housing units.

After much deliberation, the Planning Commission voted to approve modified plans on Sept. 2. The appeal to City Council by Jerry Ptashkin and Nick Hoogendyk was filed eight days later.

Ptashkin and Hoogendyk are contending the project based on nine objections, many of which boil down to vague terminology and debatable language.

The original public notice described the project as a 17-unit apartment building with three units of affordable housing. The appellants claim the city misinformed residents by using the term “dwelling unit” to describe the 18 clusters, rather than the 73 bedroom/bathrooms which will be leased individually. The city has pointed to its definition of “dwelling unit” in the municipal code:

Dwelling Unit: A room or group of internally connected rooms that have sleeping, cooking, eating, and sanitation facilities, but not more than one kitchen, which constitute an independent housekeeping unit, occupied by or intended for one household. 

The city argues that these clusters do not fall under rules governing two other categories:

● Sleeping Unit. A single unit that provides rooms or spaces for one or more persons, includes permanent provisions for sleeping and can include provisions for living, eating and either sanitation or kitchen facilities, but not both. Such rooms and spaces that are also part of a dwelling unit are not sleeping units.

●  Single-room Occupancy Housing: A residential facility providing individual secure room(s) for one or two person households, which may have individual or shared kitchen and/or bathroom facilities. SRO units are rented on a monthly basis or longer. 

The appeal also argues that the project was improperly granted an exemption to CEQA rules and provided waivers based on incorrect calculations.

City Council will review the appeal and make their decision at their meeting Monday evening.

df

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

65 Comments
Newest
Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
George Leddy
George Leddy
9 months ago

I used to live on the opposite corner of that intersection (2007-2013). The sad and dilapidated house there even burned once. The new project is attractive and well designed. So, let’s oppose it. Let’s oppose all new ideas in architectiure and design that take us away from our scared overpriced bungalows. Oppose all New Urbanism. NIMBYs unite! Make misanthropy a virtue. Kill all efforts to make urban life better. Oppose bikeways and density neighborhoods and transit. Oppose environmentalism, but above all, oppose housing people in novel ways that create community and bridge the age chasm in how people live. Well… Read more »

Ghost Written
Ghost Written
9 months ago

Flophouse, Partyhouse, Pseudo Hostel, masquerading as Affordable Housing.

Unenforceable living conditions

Looking for trouble.

JF1
JF1
9 months ago

Affordable housing is fine. Affordable housing with no parking, multiple people crammed into one unit… no.

Cyn Guy
Cyn Guy
9 months ago

I’m surprised no one commented on the City’s position on considering this 17 “dwelling units” – per the code it says: “occupied or intended for one household.” By DEFINITION, these CAN NOT be considered individual “dwelling units” as they will NOT be occupied by one household. While I actually think this is an interesting model to make housing more acceptable, it clearly comes with increased parking and related issues. Also, since residents are relegated to a bedroom w/ a shared kitchen space, a building / leasing model such as this would require significant common area that all residents could use… Read more »

Worried in WeHo
Worried in WeHo
9 months ago

The point is that the developers are stretching definitions in order to claim the right to build an ultra dense facility with grossly inadequate parking on an inadequate lot. This “co-living” or SRO building is the first of its kind in West Hollywood and threatens to escalate density throughout the city while creating huge paydays for the owners. It’s unfortunate that the site of their social experiment is a heavily trafficked intersection with more than its share of accidents and crime already. The overflow of tenants and their guests will be expected to park on the street, competing with the… Read more »

Don S
Don S
9 months ago

Not sure what rate of crime or accidents you are referring to at that intersection? Please provide evidence because there is no excess traffic nor crime at that intersection according to city reports. Again to all the NIMBYS on this forum who are being paid by the two neighbors to create noise: provide evidence. Not a single one of you has provided anything but fear mongering.

NO ONE BEING PAID OFF
NO ONE BEING PAID OFF
9 months ago
Reply to  Don S

No-one is being paid by Plaintiffs Jerry Ptashkin or Nick Hoogendyk if that is what you are asserting. Perhaps you are being paid for your perpetual unsubstantiated remarks which all sound the same regardless of the project and location. The traffic is excessive as by daily eyeball observation and witness to many accidents both vehicle and motorcycle.You do know that that intersection joins Weho and LA don’t you? The most recent fines from Code Compliance developer/owner were approximately $3500 for leaving the structures derelict and a residence for trash and homeless individuals. Incidentally, the plaintiff prevailed against the city over… Read more »

Don S
Don S
9 months ago

As usual you miss the point. This is not your land. You don’t have a right to assert what can and can’t be built here. Your opinion has zero merit. You oppose anything that’s new and any project that’s above your pay grade and don’t understand. This is affordable housing. Your point about trash and homeless is exactly why we need to have new projects built around town. New residents, and buildings are the best deterrent against homeless and trash pile ups. Homeless don’t build encampments around busy and vibrant corners. They go after empty and vacant properties just like… Read more »

Ham Shipey
Ham Shipey
9 months ago
Reply to  Don S

the city does this every day. why not with this project???

Beauty to Brutal
Beauty to Brutal
9 months ago
Reply to  Don S

Happy for a new project here that resonates w the neighborhood not an attempt at a clever value engineered pseudo concept. The style never changes and the architect, despite sitting on HPC, consistently shows disdain for historic neighborhoods while landing his brutalist non-thoughtful projects. With skill and finesse he could easily do so but he prefers to play the role of arrogant disruptor with little respect for the neighborhoods WH has vowed to protect. The architect adds nothing to the quality, only fast $$$$ to the developer. Not a welcoming individual for one that lives in a rent controlled apartment… Read more »

Don S
Don S
9 months ago

Not liking the aesthetics of a building is not a reason to not build it. This isn’t about you liking the colors. It’s about affordable housing.

Beauty to Brutal
Beauty to Brutal
9 months ago
Reply to  Don S

The city itself duly initiated local ordinances regarding neighborhood compatibility and design standards which are currently under duress from Sacramento politics but perhaps not for long. The city also invites comments from the general publicregardless of who own what. Please educate yourself.

Don S
Don S
9 months ago

They passed their design review board hearing last year. Nice to have u play catch up though.

Beauty to Brutal
Beauty to Brutal
9 months ago
Reply to  Don S

The Housing Accountability Act compelled the commissioners to not consider design aspects last year….but perhaps not forever. Doubtful you will ever catch up with such an arbitrary mouth preceding you.

HIGHLINE MISERY
HIGHLINE MISERY
9 months ago
Reply to  Don S

Please read today’s article on CURBED which has notable architects commenting on all the new buildings along the HIGHLINE, a veritable cavalcade of Starchitect misery. Fight with them if you like

Zookeeper
Zookeeper
9 months ago
Reply to  Don S

No one has actually said how much the rents would be per bedroom suite. Do you have the answer to that?

Worried in WeHo
Worried in WeHo
7 months ago
Reply to  Don S

Is if affordable? We never once were told by the developers how much they would be charging for a bedroom.

Zookeeper
Zookeeper
9 months ago
Reply to  Don S

If it’s true that a non- owner cannot assert any rights about what can be built in an urban area then why can’t any landowner in WeHo build a zoo on their property? Lions and tigers, zebras and more–bring it on!

NO ONE BEING PAID OFF
NO ONE BEING PAID OFF
9 months ago
Reply to  Don S

Well actually its conceivable that folks are being paid off but just not who you claim. Dig a bit deeper.

:dpb
:dpb
9 months ago
Reply to  Don S

Dude! You need to pay attention to whats happening here. Evidence.? Turn on the local news, Wehoville, Weho Times and other local media. You won’t get any information from the city council – they’ve ignored everything. The sheriff is just as bad. But “worried in Weho” is completely correct.

Last edited 9 months ago by :dpb
Don S
Don S
9 months ago
Reply to  :dpb

Lol ok man. Everyone is wrong including city staff, city commissioners, and the police. The NIMBY on top though has a point to you, right? You definitely have our attention now😂😂

Worried in WeHo
Worried in WeHo
7 months ago
Reply to  Don S

is NIMBY supposed to be an insult? You need to get some new words dude.

Ham Shipey
Ham Shipey
9 months ago
Reply to  Don S

Good grief. Use some common sense.

Don S
Don S
9 months ago

So basically these two neighbors are looking for a payoff from the developers is what it comes down to after reading the article. Another NIMBIES except they want money to go away since they have to legal or valid arguments. Lol. Can’t wait to see this project built in our city.

Steve Martin
Steve Martin
9 months ago
Reply to  Don S

Don, what evidence do you have that the appellants are just looking for a pay off and that their witnesses have been paid? Can’t we disagree without these sorts of attacks? Personally I think it is an interesting idea but it will probably wind up being converted into an upscale youth hostel which will be essentially be a lucrative hotel in a residential zone. I give the developer points for thinking outside the box but I believe the City would be better served by a more conventional residential development. I don’t see this project as providing long term housing.

Don S
Don S
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve Martin

What evidence? The city commissioners have approved the project. The city staff at WeHo has approved the project. The city attorney has proved the project to be legal and has written a detailed letter to the council and commissioners why the lawsuit has no Merritt. So you tell me besides asking for money, why else are the two neighbors suing? One can argue they don’t want to lose their views. Or future profits with a new rental property coming to the market next to their 30 year old dirty slum lord? I put my money on them doing this to… Read more »

Please go away.
Please go away.
9 months ago
Reply to  Don S

Perhaps you u can be paid to away and obtain an education on the subject matter and/or common sense.

Don S
Don S
9 months ago

Naaah. I’d rather you moved

Eric Jon Schmidt
Eric Jon Schmidt
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve Martin

Steve, please, you have been around long enough to know that almost everything that has happened and continues to happen in West Hollywood involves a payoff. It happens at every level. (City Hall, Commissions, Council Members, City Management, et. al.) So much so that it will be take additional nine months of information gathering and witness statements to finish my book. For all those who took bribes and payoffs since 1984, your “code of silence” is about to be exposed.

Steve Martin
Steve Martin
9 months ago

Actually I have never seen anything approaching a “pay off” on the Planning Commission; the Commissioners are even barred from taking meals with lobbyisits & developers. The “pay offs” come in the form on campaign contributions to Council members and that is obvious from the campaign reports. Unfortunately, with “independent expenditure” campaigns, including the one sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce, enable developers get around campaign contributions limits resulting in people losing confidence in the system. I know it was a long time ago but I was the one that blew the whistle on the House Blues contributions to Council… Read more »

Don S
Don S
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve Martin

Steve name one property you have supported to be developed? One where you didn’t have a financial interest in that is. Frankly the fact that an owner even has to answer to a commission or council is insulting when the city’s development department seems a project approved. Giving voice to commissioners or council allows NIMBYs to sway the approval process and allows neighbors like here to black mail the developers into a payoff. If you don’t see this then I don’t know what else to add. It’s like going against an anti virus advocate. No logic will get your approval.

Look in the Mirror
Look in the Mirror
9 months ago
Reply to  Don S

You envision the $$$’s in the wrong place and are simply not well informed. It’s possible you don’t understand anything about a supposed democratic process. But good luck with your studies.

Payoffs
Payoffs
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve Martin

Look deeper to the planning staff. Eyeopening if you pay attention

Alan Strasburg
Alan Strasburg
9 months ago

OMG, I’m so happy to read that after years of tidbits about inside information and damning revelations about wrongdoing and bribes and all sorts of bullpucky, there’s actually a book forthcoming. I can’t wait to read it! (Sarcasm)

Beauty to Brutal
Beauty to Brutal
9 months ago
Reply to  Don S

Your unfounded comments are simply unfounded and have no basis in fact.

Juan
Juan
9 months ago

Nothing more than a FLOPHOUSE for the homeless and a NEW Drug Den.
Make no mistake, the State, County and Far Left Weho politicians will FIND a way to make taxpayers subsidize this.
HELL NO!!!!

Don S
Don S
9 months ago
Reply to  Juan

It’s all private money. Don’t talk before you know your facts. You’ll look like an idiot

Juan
Juan
9 months ago
Reply to  Don S

Well, it’s obviously you have the market on idiots cornered. Based on your moronic, simplistic statement, Beverly Hills should be building the same kind of FLOPHOUSES. West Hollywood is under NO obligation to house people who can’t afford to live here. Medium cost housing does not mean HOMELESS Housing.
You sound like one of the developer’s flunkies who will say or do anything to ignore the local’s concerns.

Don S
Don S
9 months ago
Reply to  Juan

Locals should have no business. The city of WeHo has approved the project. Do you not understand this? It’s two neighbors asking to be laid off that are keep appealing.

juan
juan
9 months ago
Reply to  Don S

Too dumb to understand the democratic process of local government (pointing up). You are a shimmering example of what to work against from moving to West Hollywood. This city, its zoning laws, its development plans, BELONG to the locals…but that is way above your pay grade. Stay in your little tent.

M.M.
9 months ago
Reply to  Don S

You write so much stuff but you don’t seem to know or care about the facts! You are making false claims and ridiculous arguments. What shred of evidence do you have that makes you write that the neighbors want a payoff? The neighbors don’t want and have not asked or expected a payoff. They don’t care about their views…….they care about their health and safety. Are you related to the developer or being paid by them? Or do you live miles away from this nightmare project which won’t affect you? Or are you just the bored “know it all” that… Read more »

Don S
Don S
9 months ago
Reply to  M.M.

Pssst hint: its not your land nor your business. Move if you don’t like progress. I’d love to see this town develop into a vibrant city. Clearly you’d like to keep it old and inclusive. Just move. Seriously.

Juan
Juan
9 months ago
Reply to  Don S

The best advice you have given out. Now, take it! (That’s if you EVEN live in West Hollywood)

Sonic Chaos
Sonic Chaos
9 months ago

The developers will be able to make much more money charging for these private rooms in the trendy (only for another decade) form of hip, youth-marketed, high-turnover, transient co-living spaces. I bet these individual rooms will go for $2000 EACH – or more – in a cluster, easily eclipsing current prices for a regular 4 or 5 bedroom WeHo apartment. This building will be a NIGHTMARE party dorm.

TomSmart
TomSmart
9 months ago
Reply to  Sonic Chaos

EXACTLY!!!

Don S
Don S
9 months ago
Reply to  Sonic Chaos

That’s your opinion. And if you don’t like it move. You don’t own WeHo. As a guy in my 20s I’d love to live here. I can’t afford otherwise. There are many like me

Juan
Juan
9 months ago
Reply to  Don S

So, you don’t actually live here. That explains a lot.

Value Engineered Flophouse
Value Engineered Flophouse
9 months ago

Value Engineered Flophouse. No value to the city, neighborhood or quality of life.

Juan
Juan
9 months ago

TRUTH!

Don S
Don S
9 months ago

Based on what evidence? It’s great for the neighborhood. Definitely better than what’s there now

Joan Henehan
Joan Henehan
9 months ago

I like the concept but question whether this location can handle the additional population density.

THIS IS NOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING
THIS IS NOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING
9 months ago
Reply to  Joan Henehan

Would you choose a value engineered flophouse adjacent to your residence? There could be one on every street. Big benefit for developer no regard for the neighborhood and contrary to the core values in Weho Mission Statement. Play by the rules Mr. Developer and don’t brainwash the planners and council members.

Don S
Don S
9 months ago

Zero evidence supplied by you this is not affordable housing. You’ve learned one work: flophouse. Your completely clueless and o/o touch with reality of cities. City and developers HAVE played by the rules. It’s NIMBYs like you who don’t play by the rules and just complain because it’s free

Flophouse
Flophouse
9 months ago
Reply to  Don S

Not so. Not intelligible. Must be smoking something. Some hallucinations can be injurious to your health.

Ham Shipey
Ham Shipey
9 months ago

a disaster waiting to happen. who thinks up these absurd ideas?????

Don S
Don S
9 months ago
Reply to  Ham Shipey

Ru referring the the neighbors acting as NIMBIES? It is a disaster. This is exactly why we have high cost of living in WeHo. Losers who don’t even own the land wanting to have a say on what someone else can build in their property even though it’s fully approved by the city commissioners. It is insane

THIS IS NOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING
THIS IS NOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING
9 months ago
Reply to  Don S

This is not affordable housing. Two landowners adjacent to the proposal filed the appeal. Beyond grossly mischaracterizing the project, the developer’s problematic traffic analysis gifts the immediate area with unnecessary and avoidable traffic issues. Unenforceable “right turn only” signs will also cause traffic wishing to travel north& east up Hayworth as a secondary Fairfax route exponentially increasing traffic incidents.

Don S
Don S
9 months ago

Such ridiculous arguments. According to the commission hearing last time Each room is going to be rented at below $2k per month and that includes all amenities, all utilities, full time house keeper, parking, and full time on site concierge. NAME ONE BUILDING, just one, with all that at below $2k per month. THIS IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING. You are just a NIMBY. You are talking about a right turn when these guys are giving our neighborhood 73 new residents who could otherwise not afford to live here? Go away and Move

Silly comments
Silly comments
9 months ago
Reply to  Don S

Don S. please continue embarrassing yourself by wild assertions, no credible facts and BTW, learning how to spell would shine up your character.

Don S
Don S
9 months ago
Reply to  Silly comments

Clearly you didn’t hear the last two commissioners hearings. Another NIMBY full of confidence and completely clueless.

Eagle Eyed Nimby
Eagle Eyed Nimby
9 months ago
Reply to  Don S

More closely than you could imagine.

Don S
Don S
9 months ago

NIMBY. Enough said

juan
juan
9 months ago
Reply to  Don S

Wannabe…and West Hollywood doesn’t want you. Athens Services is hiring your type.

Flophouse
Flophouse
9 months ago
Reply to  juan

Ha Ha….free affordable housing…..trash barrels.

65
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x