The West Hollywood City Council approved the Bond Hotel and Residences development on Santa Monica Boulevard. (photo by Jon Viscott)

While community members showed up in force to support an appeal that sought to block the approval of a development at 7811 Santa Monica Blvd., the West Hollywood City Council voted 4-1 on April 6 to move the project forward. The Bond Hotel and Residences will utilize three lots and contain two different structures, a seven-story hotel and a four-story apartment building, including a sections on Orange Grove Avenue and Ogden Drive. The project is exempt from the city’s zoning laws because of its 126 units of housing – 10 of which would be reserved for moderate-income households and another 10 for low-income households.

On the lot’s site is Brick, a popular LGBTQ+-owned fitness center, which will be forced to relocate now that the project has been approved. Several members of the gym spoke out against the development.

“What is the point of this building? Who’s winning here? Is there a boutique hotel crisis? Is there a shortage of them? No, there certainly is not,” resident Huntley Woods said. “Is this building going to solve the affordable housing crisis? No. Has [development firm] Faring finished any of their previous projects? Also no. Is building more luxury housing that the current WeHo residents can’t afford? Is this going to help anybody? No. So, if your goal here was to really solve the housing crisis, then every unit in this project should be affordable housing, not just the required amount so that it qualifies for a loophole waiver with the state law. You know, this isn’t like you’re building something over just an empty lot or an unoccupied space. You’re destroying a pillar of the community, which is Brick Fitness. And instead of supporting a local business here, instead you’re going to demolish one that is a safe space dedicated to health and fitness, one with hundreds of current local members, and one which employs many West Hollywood residents.”

The neighboring Fountain Day School, located on Orange Grove Avenue, expressed concerns about the safety of children being dropped off near the site, particularly the school’s longtime use of a public parking lot owned by the property owner, which is otherwise used as a public parking lot by the city. Last week, the parking lot was shut off for school use, which employees characterized as retaliation.

“The project proposed next door poses serious concerns for our school, our families and the broader neighborhood,” Fountain Day School co-director Tori Hatch said. “The sudden unannounced closure of the public parking lot our families rely on created a hazardous environment for our families and their young children, who need predictable, safe access to their school. This lot has been used safely for decades. It’s abrupt shutdown without any direct notice and without any plan was irresponsible and dangerous.”

Hatch said that the developer had shut off access to the lot after “they heard [Fountain Day] had inquired” about giving the property a cultural resource designation.

Faring is also the development company behind the stalled projects at the French Market and Robertson Lane, both located on different parcels of Santa Monica Boulevard. Faring senior vice president Jake Stevens spoke defiantly about the project and the ways in which the company has worked with the school. While a private ownership group owns the project, only Stevens and the applicant’s attorney were present at the meeting.

“I would mention that I personally – and numerous, numerous times – met with the owners of Fountain Day School who have no objection to the project,” Stevens said. “I’ve offered numerous construction period concessions – additional crossing guards, enhanced screening, cleaning, demolition sequencing to the school – and we continue to work together as long-time neighbors.”

Stevens noted the concessions Faring made in the development of the project in scaling back size and answering to neighbors’ concerns.

“So as much as we have appreciated the temporary – quote-unquote ‘temporary’ – 17 years or so … of letting the city use our Orange Grove property as a surface parking lot, the future is now calling, and the time has come for us to bring this site to its highest and best use. We sincerely believe that the Bond Hotel and Residences meets this challenge,” Stevens said.

Councilwoman Lauren Meister was the lone vote supporting the appeal, saying that the city should draw a line in the sand when it came to upholding its zoning laws.

“I believe it will degrade our zoning code and will affect our ability to negotiate specific plans in the future,” she said.

But Mayor John Heilman pointed out the lack of jurisdiction the city’s zoning laws had when not in alignment with California state laws.

“I do have some concerns about this project,” Heilman said. “I don’t love the design, and I don’t love the configuration … I think it creates a lot of unusual circumstances, but we don’t have the authority under state law to deny a project based on the fact that we don’t love the design.”

Councilman John Erickson added a requirement to the developer to work with the school to provide parking and safe drop-off for the students at Fountain Day School, which Stevens said he was willing to meet – noting he had already made “eight or nine attempts to contact [the school’s] ownership.”

“Since the city council meeting on Monday night, the school/owners have not had any communication from Faring Capital,” Hatch said on April 8. “The city has reportedly been in talks with Faring to reopen the parking lot as soon as possible, and we will hopefully have an update by the end of the week.”

Later in the meeting, Meister presented and the council approved an item that would require developers to provide background information on prior projects.

“This is a good governance item,” Meister said. “This is about reducing risk and increasing predictability for the city, the community, both our residents and our businesses and applicants. For our largest and most complex projects, we’re being asked to make multiyear high stakes decisions, often involving significant public benefit and long-term commitments. As council members that comes with a fiduciary responsibility to do basic due diligence. Right now, we evaluate projects in detail, but we don’t consistently have standardized information about the applicant’s track record or capacity to deliver. This proposal simply ensures that we have clear, consistent information up front. It doesn’t change approval criteria, and it doesn’t limit who can apply. It just helps make us … to make better, more informed decisions with greater certainty. These are big projects that impact our residents, our built environment and our economy, and again, it’s our responsibility to ask these questions.”