West Hollywood planning staff outlines ZIP options as SB 79 and state ministerial rules take effect

Planning staff presented the City of West Hollywood’s Zoning Improvement Program (ZIP) and told the Planning Commission on July 16 that recent state actions make large parts of the city subject to SB 79 and the state’s streamlined ministerial review process for housing.

Nick Maricich, director of Community Development, opened his report with a local operational update on a large LADWP water main break near Sunset and Holloway and directed residents to city and LADWP websites for updates. He then said the Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) has placed West Hollywood in the category that must offer the state’s streamlined ministerial review option because the city permitted less than 50% of its RHNA allocation through the first half of the 6th cycle. That designation, Maricich said, triggers limited ministerial pathways for qualifying multifamily projects and requires the city to make application materials available to applicants seeking the ministerial route.

Michelle Montenegro, planning staff, then walked commissioners through ZIP’s technical approach: test fits (building prototypes tested against local lot patterns and pro forma feasibility), capacity analysis (full theoretical build‑out versus a more realistic feasible capacity), and a policy matrix that separates growth by geography. Montenegro said staff modeled three broad scenarios: concentrating new capacity on commercial corridors (about two‑thirds of proposed ZIP capacity), adding capacity within medium‑ and high‑density R3/R4 neighborhoods (about 29% of proposed ZIP capacity), and modest increases in R1/R2 single‑family and low‑density multifamily areas (about 6% of capacity). Test fits used ranges of building envelope, height and units‑per‑acre consistent with typical regional forms and the city’s objective‑standards work.

Montenegro stressed that the draft ZIP materials are advisory and no zoning map amendments or applications were being approved. She described four local implementation options for how to respond to SB 79: (1) apply SB 79 as written where eligible; (2) prepare a local Transit‑Oriented Development Alternative Plan (TODAP) that redistributes capacity within transit zones; (3) adopt a delayed‑implementation ordinance for certain areas; or (4) adopt local objective standards and a local bonus overlay tied to community benefits.

Staff’s modeling assumed many projects would use the state density bonus and inclusionary housing requirements to achieve feasibility; staff also tested a 100% local bonus overlay in scenarios to estimate residual return on cost that could fund an anti‑displacement fund or other community benefits. Montenegro said the staff team will refine ZIP’s assumptions and maps now that SCAG and HCD have clarified the SB 79 mapping approach (which incorporates planned transit stops tied to locally preferred alternatives such as the K Line northern extension).

Commission discussion focused on practical implications: whether ministerial projects appear on the Planning Commission agenda (staff said ministerial housing permit projects do not require a public hearing), how objective local standards interact with state waiver/concession pathways, and how SB 79 eligibility will be determined in practice (minimum density thresholds, an average unit size cap and other criteria can make most housing developments eligible, staff said). Commissioners asked staff to return with a clearer, public‑facing explanation of the ministerial housing permit pathway, the notification materials for residents, refined feasibility test fits that reflect SB 79 allowances, and an infrastructure trade‑off analysis for water, sewer and emergency access tied to the growth scenarios.

Staff emphasized the analysis is preliminary: ZIP work began before West Hollywood learned it would be subject to SB 79 (staff said the city learned of the change on June 25). Montenegro recommended that the commission advise which growth geography or hybrid the city should study further and whether staff should prepare a local bonus overlay and/or a TODAP for more detailed SB 79‑specific analysis.

The commission did not take a formal policy vote on ZIP at the July 16 meeting. Staff said it will package the commission’s feedback for an upcoming City Council policy discussion and post the presentation to the city’s Engage WeHo site.

The Planning Commission will receive the staff‑refined ZIP analyses and SB 79 scenario work in a future meeting; staff offered to bring a focused primer on the ministerial permit process and public notification materials before council consideration.