According to WHMC 19.58.150 E:
4. Investigations. The Commission has the authority to request the applicant for rehabilitation incentives
to furnish any material deemed necessary to determine the propriety of granting a rehabilitation incentive.
5. Findings for Rehabilitation Incentives. The Commission may recommend or grant
rehabilitation incentives, only if all of the following findings of fact are made in a positive manner:
a. Generally.
(1) The incentive(s) to be granted serve(s) to compensate the property owner for the
increased burden, in terms of maintenance and expense, that rehabilitation would entail;
(2) The proposed incentive(s) would not impair the aesthetic, architectural, or historic
integrity of the resource; and
(3) The proposed incentive(s) would not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or general welfare.
Comment: To compensate not to make more profitable. Please have the
developer show how they need 49 units to be able to rehabilitate the 2
bungalow, which would need major rehabilitation only once.
Comment: given that the L shaped building would completely cover the
bungalows from two sides and be overwhelmed by the building’s scale from the
other 2 sides, that’s an impairment of aesthetic to say the least. Getting a
Certificate of Approperiateness denied twice only confirms this.
Comment:
1- California Building Code acknowledges that residents with cognitive issues
cannot always assist with their own rescue in emergencies, and so it does not
allow memory-care units above the second floor in a wood-framed structure
such as this. This is to limit the occupancy in such buildings. Granting these
incentives dangerously increases the number of occupants, all of which are
vulnerable elders, half with memory loss conditions.
2- The current coronavirus pandemic shows the dangers of crowding buildings,
especially a senior center. In light of this pandemic, you would be directly
putting the most vulnerable people in imminent danger.
3- There is an open kitchen on every level including the first 2 levels that are for
seniors with memory loss! Seniors with memory loss shouldn’t be endangered
with a stove and oven that cannot even be locked away by staff.
4- It is well known that seniors with memory loss often leave the center. Building
the center in such close proximity to busy streets endangers them.
ITEM 10.A.
ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE (11.18.2020)
CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this email and know the content is safe.
From: notifications@typeform.com
To: Bobby Safikhani; David Gillig; John Keho; Jennifer Alkire
Subject: Typeform: New response for Planning Commission Public Comment Form 11-19
Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 7:50:09 PM
New public comment for the November 19 Planning Commission meeting has been submitted
.
Please provide your name.
Rosie Nguyen
Hi Rosie Nguyen. Please provide your city of residence.
West Hollywood, CA
Please provide your address and phone number.
884 Palm Ave
Would you like to comment during public comment or on a particular agenda
item?
AN AGENDA ITEM
Please enter the agenda item number.
Palm Av Project
Please indicate if you support or oppose the recommended item.
I OPPOSE THE RECOMMENDED ITEM
Please indicate if you are any of the following.
None of the above
Please provide your comment regarding item Palm Av Project.
3 REASONS TO VOTE NO
REASON 1:
The required bus shelter, not stop or loading zone, is
missing from the plans and renderings. See code:
19.36.110 Congregate Care and Senior Residential
Projects, C 5. Transit Facilities.
a. A
bus loading zone AND shelter along the public street frontage shall be provided
if the facility is on an established bus route; and
REASON 2:
On the 5 levels from parking to 4th floor, there
is only 1 bathroom. So any one of the 49 residents, support staff, barber, etc.
is expected to share this 1 restroom?!! What if it goes out of order for a few
days, which happens all the time? Dylan never developed a senior care facility
and their lack of experience certainly shows, as does the lack of
REASON 3:
Why is there an open kitchen on every level including the
first 2 levels that are for seniors with memory loss?!! Seniors with memory
loss shouldn’t be endangered with a stove and oven that cannot even be locked
away by staff.
m2bdiqidu2oti5khud5kom2bdirx2ypp
Typeform sent you this email on behalf of a typeform creator. We aren't responsible for its content. If you suspect abuse, like suspicious links, please report it here.
From: sjh1212
To: David Gillig
Cc: adamgbass@yahoo.com
Subject: Item 10.a 11/19/20
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 5:26:04 AM
CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this email and know the content is safe.
Dear David,
Thank you in advance forwarding this email to the Planning Commissioners and for including it in the packet. S.
Dear Commissioners,
My concerns are many regarding the proposed project on Palm Ave. but the two primary issues are the loss of seven rent stabilized units causing the current tenants to be evicted from their homes under the Ellis Act, and the second is the severe lack of parking.
If this project was ADDING affordable housing it might be a different story. But it is not. It is a for-profit, commercial “hospital” for those suffering from memory loss. I believe the city has been dragging its feet on requiring a one-to-one replacement of affordable housing in new projects. Housing is supposed to be a priority and yet, it is not unlike the Center for Early Education that was allowed to enlarge a playground even though it caused the loss of 16 rent stabilized units.
In regard to parking, theoretically, one would expect to not need many parking spaces as the patients most likely do not drive, however, if there are 40+ units, presumably each of those individuals will have at least one visitor or caregiver plus the staff members, creating a need for more than 27 parking spaces. I used to traverse Palm Avenue at least twice a day and the traffic was a nightmare, particularly in late afternoons when cars are literally bumper to bumper from Cynthia to Holloway/Sunset.
Another of my concerns, is that the project looms over and wraps around the historically designated bungalows. It is my understanding that this project came before HPC twice. It was voted down 4-1 the first time but the second time it was a 3-3 tie, not an endorsement of the project; apparently this was never reported to you on Planning. I hope you will encourage the developer to go back to the drawing board to design a scaled back version of the proposed project that will not so severely impact the current residents and the neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,
Stephanie Harker
Resident, West Hollywood, CA
1
David Gillig
Subject: FW: Public Comments & Technical Issues Attachments: Public Comments & Technical Issues.pdf
From: Wail Bushara <wail.bushara@lacity.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 9:36 AM
To: Antonio Castillo <ACastillo@weho.org>
Cc: David Gillig <dgillig@weho.org>
Subject: Re: Public Comments & Technical Issues
Thank you, Tony, David.
David, thank you for adding my letter. Would you please add my previous email to the record as well so the commission
is aware of the technical issues? I attached a copy here or you can print it from your end. The constituents who just
learned about this project are asking for continuance due to the lack of noticing and technical issues preventing them
from submitting comments. Some are planning to speak on Thursday, others can't make it Thursday. I want to add my
voice in support of their request for continuance.
Have a wonderful day!
From: Wail Bushara <
wail.bushara@lacity.org
>
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 10:05 AM
To: Antonio Castillo <
ACastillo@weho.org
>
Cc: David Gillig <
dgillig@weho.org
>; Planning <
Planning@weho.org
>; Jennifer Alkire <
jalkire@weho.org
>
Subject: Fwd: Public Comments & Technical Issues
Hello Antonio,
Would you please forward this email to David Gillig and the Planning Commission? I emailed planning and Jennifer
yesterday asking for the email to be forwarded but haven't heard back and don't see my email and attachment posted
with the agenda online. Apparently some emails are going through to David while others are erroneously getting
blocked by Spamhaus and the online comments form is down.
Thank you,
Wail
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Wail Bushara <
wail.bushara@lacity.org
>
CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this
2
Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:35 PM
Subject: Public Comments & Technical Issues
To: <
planning@weho.org
>
Cc: <
jalkire@weho.org
>
Good Afternoon,
Would you please forward my attached public comment regarding the development at 923‐931 Palm to the Planning
Commission?
Also, I thought I was the only one that had this issue, but I just attended a conference call with residents and
apparently we've all been experiencing this.
Please let David Gillig and the commissioners know that there is a problem with the website and David's email, at least.
If you try to leave a comment from the
planning commission's webpage
, you keep getting this error: "This typeform
isn't accepting new responses". Those that tried to reach out to David, couldn't get through and kept getting a "Failure
Notice" reply with this message: "550: 5.7.1 Service unavailable. Client host [98.137.68.206] blocked using Spamhaus."
Although we thought this would be a temporary issue, it's still happening just days from the public hearing.
Many of the residents, especially those who recently learned about this development are very upset that they have had
no way of making comments ahead of time for the commissioners to be able to sufficiently consider their comments.
Thank you,
Wail Bushara
E‐mail correspondence with the City of West Hollywood (including any attachment) is a public record under the
California Public Records Act, which may be subject to public disclosure under the Act.
CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this email and know the content is safe.
From: Anthony Dedousis
To: David Gillig
Subject: Public comment letter - 11/19 Planning Commission Meeting
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 10:12:35 AM
Attachments: 201119 West Hollywood Density Bonus Letter (1).pdf
Hello,
My name is Anthony Dedousis, and I'm director of policy and research at
Abundant
Housing LA
. We're a pro-housing education and advocacy group focused on helping
to solve Southern California's housing crisis.
I'm reaching out to share AHLA's letter in support of the City of West Hollywood's
proposed updates to the density bonus program. Would you mind confirming receipt
of this letter and inclusion in the comments for tomorrow's Planning Commission
meeting?
Thank you,
Anthony
--
Anthony Dedousis
Director, Policy and Research
Abundant Housing LA
515 S Flower Street, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
November 18, 2020 Planning Commission City of West Hollywood 8300 Santa Monica Boulevard West Hollywood, CA 90069
SUPPORT - Item #10C - Modifications to Affordable Housing Incentives
Dear Commissioners:
I write on behalf of Abundant Housing LA to express our organization’s support for the City of West Hollywood’s proposed amendments to local affordable housing requirements and incentives . Abundant Housing LA is a pro-housing education and advocacy organization working to help solve Southern California’s housing crisis. Our organization supports efforts to expand housing production at all levels of income and to preserve existing affordable housing.
The Zone Text Amendments implement Assembly Bill 2345, which increased the maximum density bonus from 35% to 50%, reduced on-site parking requirements, and eliminated on-site parking requirements entirely for 100% affordable housing projects. These policies make new housing production more economically feasible, and directly create affordable housing units.
Additionally, Senate Bill 330 mandated the one-for-one replacement of rent-stabilized and deed-restricted affordable units in situations where existing residential rental properties are redeveloped. We are glad to see that the City’s implementation of SB 330 requires RSO units to be replaced by deed-restricted affordable units. This will ensure that replacement units are affordable to lower-income households, both now and for decades to come. The City should also ensure that tenants in RSO units are guaranteed the right to return to the replacement units; SB 330 only applies this requirement to discretionary projects. We appreciate your continued efforts to address the housing crisis in West Hollywood, and urge you to continue pursuing broad-based measures to solve the housing crisis, such as legalizing apartments in more neighborhoods, streamlining housing production, expanding funding for affordable housing, and strengthening renters’ rights. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Leonora Camner Executive Director Abundant Housing LA
Anthony Dedousis
Director of Policy and Research Abundant Housing LA
CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this email and know the content is safe.
From: Roy Oldenkamp
To: David Gillig
Subject: Palm Project
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 3:31:24 PM
Please forward to commissioners. Thanks ROY
Will attempt to speak at the PC Meeting tomorrow, but wanted to make sure a few notes go on
the record.
First, from a historical Preservation perspective this project still looms large and little was
done to mitigate the immense impact on the historic resources, visually burying them under
overscaled new structure.
Secondly, to remove six feet of the northernmost bungalow will impact the historic nature.
What replaces the rear expansion? If it's okay to tamper with that facade, then 923 N Palm's
additions can be removed and it can also be added to the historic Sherman district. Simple
logic. Why not have all three contiguous lots designated?
Regarding the rear additions at 923, they too, may have historic merit as the rise of
cultural importance of Marsha P Johnson, gay rights activist, has been profound, and this was
her last visited address in California.
Additionally, ponder a moment on the classic image of a sanitarium or similar medical facility
as a place of expanse, outdoors, a great lawn (usually an old converted mansion) and a creek
or river or sea nearby. NOT a compressed, constricted mass thrust into a residential
neighborhood with no alley for servicing, resting on a small street and right off a major
commercial thoroughfare, adjacent to the "Boystown" party district. Weekend party
traffic-when it returns- will surely keep these residents up at all hours. The short exercise pathway
surrounding the building is hardly a path at all.
I don't oppose development, and have actively pursued working with developers to save our
resources. The Mills Act can restore these bungalows. No need to have this "not subordinate to
the historic resource" project here. Wrong project for this location.
CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this email and know the content is safe.
From: notifications@typeform.com
To: Bobby Safikhani; David Gillig; John Keho; Jennifer Alkire
Subject: Typeform: New response for Planning Commission Public Comment Form 11-19
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 5:24:10 PM
