Former Rent Stabilization Commissioner Gail Sanes has taken the lead in addressing concerns about the implementation of the Builder’s Remedy in West Hollywood.
The Huntley Drive resident wrote to State Senator Ben Allen and Assemblymember Rick Zbur after meeting with four of WeHo’s five City Council members. Sanes is part of the Huntley Coalition opposed to the eight-story residential building being proposed at 651-659 Huntley Drive.
“We fear that the substantial increase in population density on these tiny streets from over-sized Builder’s Remedy developments will result in gridlock that will impede the access of emergency vehicles and endanger lives,” Sanes wrote. “We also have reason to worry about water and sewage uncertainties, power grid inadequacy, and land subsidence issues in this liquefaction zone.”
The residents of Huntley Drive reached out to all five City Council members to meet at the premises, Councilmembers Lauren Meister and John Heilman met individually with the residents. Mayor John M. Erickson and Vice Mayor Chelsea Lee Byers met together with the residents. Councilmember Sepi Shyne did not reply or would not set a meeting time to meet with the residents and hear their concerns.
Sanes’ complete letter is reprinted below:
Dear Senator Allen and Assemblyman Zbur:
I am writing on behalf of a coalition of neighbors in West Hollywood who are concerned about the health, safety, and environmental impacts of proposed construction of gigantic “Builder’s Remedy” projects. We have been in conversation with our local West Hollywood representatives, but we feel that our concerns need to be shared with our State representatives as well.
The majority of the proposed Builder’s Remedy projects are slated for tiny neighborhood streets, the origins of which date back to the early 1920s. Due to the narrow design, cars going in opposite directions have to pull over to let each other pass, and FedEx, UPS, and Amazon delivery trucks, as well as garbage and recycling trucks, are constantly stopping in the middle of the street to deliver or pick up.
We fear that the substantial increase in population density on these tiny streets from over-sized Builder’s Remedy developments will result in gridlock that will impede the access of emergency vehicles and endanger lives. We also have reason to worry about water and sewage uncertainties, power grid inadequacy, and land subsidence issues in this liquefaction zone.
We would appreciate an opportunity to speak with you, hopefully during a meeting of the West Hollywood City Council, regarding our concerns, including our belief that it is unjust to impose the Builder’s Remedy punishment on West Hollywood and similar cities where inclusionary housing has always been championed and where there has always been cooperation and compliance with state housing laws. This injustice is the result of the State’s effort to remedy the California housing crisis with a “one-size-fits-all” approach.
Another deeply troubling issue we would like to talk to you about is the proposed retroactivity of changes to Government Code Sections 65585 and 65589.5 proposed in AB 1886, introduced in January 2024 by Assemblymember David Alavarez.
1 West Hollywood should be rewarded – not punished – for its leadership in affordable housing:
West Hollywood has always been committed to affordable housing:
In 1922, the “West Hollywood Tract” of neighborhoods created by Martin T. Hildinger began transforming the old railroad town of Sherman into the more cosmopolitan community of West Hollywood. In 1984, this unincorporated section of Los Angeles became the incorporated City of West Hollywood.
The coalition of senior and LGBT residents who led the movement for independent cityhood were concerned about the imminent expiration of Los Angeles County’s rent control. The City’s commitment to affordable housing was quickly reflected in its 1985 Rent Stabilization Ordinance and its 1986 Inclusionary Housing Program that requires 20% of units in new housing projects to be affordable for income qualifying households.
West Hollywood’s General Plan policies reflect its commitment to providing affordable housing: the majority of the city’s land is zoned to allow multi-family residential development.
West Hollywood is a national leader in affordable housing requirements and was among the first to adopt a mandatory inclusionary housing program. The City partners with affordable housing developers to create new affordable housing and with the City of Los Angeles to provide Section 8 housing. The City’s strong rent stabilization program also helps to mitigate rising real estate costs.
West Hollywood has always met or exceeded its RHNA and complied with state housing law.
Given no credit for having over-produced its 5th cycle RHNA by 2,586 units, West Hollywood was allocated an astonishing 4,284 units for the 6th cycle.
A city of 1.9 square miles, West Hollywood was reported by SCAG in 2016 to contain a population of 36,735 people. At 19,000 residents per square mile, the City has one of the highest densities in the region and the state. Its existing population density is approximately three times that of two other similarly populated Westside cities and nearly double that of Santa Monica, the largest Westside city.
Despite the challenges created by its small size and population density, West Hollywood produced 2,586 units more than its 5th cycle RHNA allocation of 77 (2013-2021).
As West Hollywood was one of the only cities to over-produce during the 5th cycle and because of its small size and high density, it should have received credit for its 5th cycle over-production in its 6th cycle RHNA allocation However, that did not occur.
Instead, in establishing West Hollywood’s 6th cycle RHNA, the HCD and RHNA Subcommittee of the Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”) ignored the City’s production of 2,586 units above its 5th cycle RHNA; ignored the City’s unique history as a good actor in affordable housing development; and ignored the reality that because of the City’s small size and high density, its significant over production during the 5th cycle would make meeting its 6th cycle RHNA allocation very difficult.
As other cities in the region had failed to meet their housing allocations for the 5th cycle, HDC and SCAG over-burdened cooperative and compliant West Hollywood in the 6th cycle by making its allocation 51 times larger than for the 5th cycle (4,284 (including buffer) versus 77).
HCD denied West Hollywood’s March 2022 request for an extension of HCD’s October 14, 2022 certification deadline so that the City could change policies and land uses to create more low and median housing than required by its 6th cycle RHNA.
West Hollywood’s initial 6th cycle draft Housing Element (“HE”) was submitted to HCD on October 4, 2021. HCD responded on December 3, 2021, with requested revisions and comments.
After the City revised its HE as instructed by HCD, it was presented to City Council for adoption on February 7, 2022 and again on March 21, 2022. Wanting to change policies and land uses to create more low and median housing units that its RHNA required, West Hollywood’s City Council voted to ask HCD for an extension of HCD’s October 14, 2022 certification deadline so that the City could meet that goal.
HCD denied the City’s March 2022 request for extension.
While working on changing policies and land use to enable the maximization of low and median housing units, West Hollywood submitted an amended HE that HCD received on September 28, 2022.
In an October 5, 2022 opinion letter HCD sent to a law firm representing a developer, HCD concluded that a preliminary application (filed pursuant to Gov. Code 65589.5) creates vesting in the rules in effect at the time of submittal, and if the submittal occurs when a city does not have a compliant Housing Element, then the applicant is entitled to use of the builder’s remedy even after the city’s Housing Element becomes certified. That opinion letter stimulated the filing of Builder’s Remedy applications for over-sized housing projects in cities where market rates are high, and where, despite 20% of the units being affordable, the 80% that are market rate will produce substantial profits.
On November 23, 2022, West Hollywood once again received an HCD letter requesting a new set of revisions.
On December 15, 2022, while West Hollywood was working to make the revisions that HCD had requested on November 23, 2022, two builder’s remedy applications were filed with West Hollywood to build over-sized housing projects with 20% affordable units on small residential streets. The City has four more pending builder’s remedy applications, filed on 2/3/22, 2/6/22, and 3/3/22,
On February 21, 2023, the City Council adopted its final revised Housing Element. The adopted Housing Element was submitted to HCD, and the City received notice that HCD had certified the City’s Housing Element on April 28, 2023.
We are opposed to the retroactivity of proposed changes to Government Code Sections 65585 and 65589.5 in AB 1886, introduced January 22, 2024 by Assemblymember David Alvarez.
We understand the State’s frustration with jurisdictions that have evaded or consistently failed to comply with state housing laws. Builders remedy was intended to punish those bad actors. However, by making extensive changes to what constitutes “substantial compliance” retroactive, a good actor, such as West Hollywood, will lose the opportunity to rely upon “substantial compliance” to challenge Builder’s Remedy projects filed during the brief period after HCD’s October 14, 2022 deadline that the City’s 6th cycle HE was not certified.
AB 1886 proposes to amend Section 65585 as follows:
(2) (A) For purposes of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, a housing element or amendment shall be considered to be in substantial compliance with this article when both of the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) The local agency adopts the housing element or amendment in accordance with this section.
(ii) The department or a court of competent jurisdiction determines the adopted housing element or amendment to be in substantial compliance with this article.
(B) A housing element or amendment shall continue to be considered in substantial compliance with this article until either of the following occur:
(i) The department or a court of competent jurisdiction determines that the adopted housing element or amendment is no longer in substantial compliance with this article.
(ii) The end of the applicable housing element cycle.
(C) This paragraph does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law.
(3) In any legal proceeding initiated to enforce the provisions of this article, the department’s findings made pursuant to this subdivision and subdivision (b) shall create a rebuttable presumption of validity as to whether the adopted element or amendment substantially complies with this article.
AB 1886 also proposes to add a subsection B to section (o)(1), as follows:
(B) For purposes of a local agency’s approval, conditional approval, or disapproval of a housing development project pursuant to subdivision (d), a housing element or amendment shall be considered in substantial compliance with this article only if the element or amendment was in substantial compliance, as determined by the department or a court of competent jurisdiction, when a preliminary application, including all of the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1, was submitted or, if a preliminary application was not submitted, when a complete application pursuant to Section 65943 was submitted. This subparagraph does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law.
To make such changes “declaratory of existing law” with no exemption for a city such as West Hollywood is unjust. West Hollywood has had its own inclusionary housing code since 1986. It has a long history of compliance with state housing laws. Despite its small size and dense population, it has always met or exceeded its RHNA. It exceeded its 5th cycle RHNA by 2,586 units. It even managed to meet a 6th cycle RHNA that was 51 times larger and gave the City no credit for the units by which it had exceeded its previous RHNA. Moreover, while struggling to meet the ever-changing 6th cycle requests from HCD, the City changed policies and land uses to enable the creation of more low and median income units.
Again, our coalition would appreciate an opportunity to speak with you. Perhaps you might be willing to attend a meeting of the West Hollywood City Council to address the concerns we have raised here.
Thank you,
Gail Sanes
Huntley Coalition
What kind of horrible person seeks to block others from doing what they want on their own damn property, and restrict the number of houses amidst the worst housing crisis in history?
what kind of person ignores local zoning and building codes and feels entitled to ruin a whole neighborhood for their own greed, and what kind of person agrees with them?
How about some contact information on this group so we can join in and help?
Opinion is out. On Friday, the courts ruled against La Canada Flintridge when they tried to stop a builders remedy project. The city will owe attorney fees for both sides + other costs. I’ll let litigators weigh in to guestimate at actual costs, but I assume over $1M to the city. Plus the project will still get built.
https://x.com/cselmendorf/status/1763633552690942068?s=46&t=1EDoYIRa1UspOPhyhamyRw
The 600 Foothill project, I think, is only 3 levels on a major boulevard next to a gas station. What we need to do in WeHo is try common sense and to focus and work with Sacramento on designating zones for high development that don’t change the structure of our community. And that’s where our city council is badly failing. Otherwise we’ll end up looking like Moscow.
None of that matters if you don’t have a compliant housing element. We didn’t have a compliant housing element. That’s the beginning and end of it.
The beginning yet not the end…
I read your bio, Andrew, and I am
confused as to why you aren’t sounding the alarm about the eight neighbors who would
be displaced by this oversized, market-rate development. This isn’t affordable housing. Weird that you seem pro-bad development. La Canada/Flintridge is nothing like San Jose or West Hollywood. There is no history of advocating for and building affordable housing in La Canada/Flintridge. And this is why West Hollywood shouldn’t back down. Gail’s letter spells it all out.
I’m not advocating for or against the project. And I agree that displacing current residents is alarming. I’m more directing my comments towards the status of the law and how the state interprets and enforces this concept we now refer to as “Builder’s Remedy.” (that’s not the actual legal name, it got this nickname from a tweet). Based on last week’s LCF ruling, I’d guess it’s pretty much fait accompli at this point, absent some other defect in the building permit application. I can’t imagine any city planning staff or city attorney advising a city to deny a BR project… Read more »
Not true. The City can and should fight the question of being in substantial compliance. HCD offers opinions – it doesn’t make law. And what is happening in La Canada, Beverly Hills and other municipalities is not the same as what has happened in West Hollywood. And finally, it is NOTHING like Whetherly Drive, which shows me you still need to do some research. The development on Huntley is not 100-percent affordable housing. The City is not a partner in that development.
910 Wetherly was by-right under the state density bonus law. 651 Huntley is by-right under the builders remedy provisions of the HAA. Two different state housing law provisions but same result. The city has no discretion.
Follow the money in any future political campaigns.
I’ve lived on Huntley Drive for over 20 years now. I love my neighbors, my neighborhood and the diversity of our community. I thank Gail and the rest of the Huntley Coalition for its tireless work in spotlighting the truth of this situation. To me this is a simple David and Goliath story. West Hollywood being David and the state of California, Goliath. The state of California is telling those of us in West Hollywood that we don’t care about the fact that you’ve been one of the most progressive city’s in the state on issues of affordable housing. Our… Read more »
The address is R2 with a 25’ height restriction? If that’s correct, we as a community need to fight this despite Councillor Heilman’s obnoxious objections to the Wetherly appeal and the rambling support of these projects by organized labor groups. Otherwise might as well disband the whole planning department and save us a bunch of money.
Very few people are paying attention to the biggest concern of overdevelopment, namely, the increased demands on an already overburdened infrastructure. All the best intentions in the world can do little when water mains continue to burst, sewer systems collapse, and an aging electrical grid fails. This is meant to call out public policy failures on keeping up with infrastructure. That exercise MUST be a precondition to monstrous development anywhere.
I lived on Huntley Drive for 25 years and Gail Sanes was a great neighbor as well as a thoughtful RSD Commissioner. Since moving, the density on this street has really increased and parking is problematic, even though all of the development has been within code. This eight story project is simply absurd and represents a punitive approach to land uses by the State legislature. I hope Gail can convince Assembly member Zbur and his colleagues that the “builders remedy” is an excessive response to delays in adopting local housing elements. An eight story building on Huntley is just not… Read more »
The best way to prevent this building from going up would be to buy the property. Perhaps the coalition can negotiate a sale?
BTW for all those interested in the legality of builders remedy-style developments, there’s a huge court hearing today (Fri, March 1) in the La Canada Flintridge builders remedy case. The state has intervened in the case and their motion is being heard today.
More info available here. Case No. 23STCP02614. Would be nice if someone other than the real estate blogs covered the hearing, especially given the widespread implications for other BR projects.
Thanks for the details, most interested in this hearing as it’s incredibly relevant to ALL community members – Many in the city just don’t understand or know of the recent history & punitive measures of Builder’s Remedy, and they are punitive – In some cases & cities, justice will be served, HOWEVER, WEHO has always been substantially compliant & led the way on Affordable Housing initiatives. It’s very easy to confuse these high octane topics as related to Affordable Housing, Fair Market Housing, & all of the nuances that live between the folds.
Nimbyism at its finest. These people love to complaining about the lack of housing, including so-called “affordable housing”, housing for our precious and coveted homeless freeloading guests, and also any kind of housing. Then when something is proposed that is within the law and provides lots of units for the area, all of the sudden, we hear the standard, “omg, it’s a threat to emergency vehicles, and all these imaginary people are going to die”. The hypocrisy is endless.
Do some research before you scream NIMBY. What was not mentioned in this article is the fact long-term neighbors, including a veteran, who are living in rent-controlled apartments and who have lived in West Hollywood for 20+ years are being displaced by this money grab. This proposed development demolishes eight-rent stabilized apartments in favor of 10 low and moderate-income apartments and 40 market-rate apartments. The Builder’s Remedy projects, WehoQueen, are not affordable housing. As a matter of fact, the same developer of the proposed Huntley project is also trying to use the loophole on a property on Edinburgh. Until recently,… Read more »
I see no “loopholes”. Seems a developer is following the law, and we should welcome that. People should be thrilled about new market rate apartments in the city, with people who can afford to live and spend money here, but instead we hear all about “greedy developers”. Developers aren’t charities. Their goal is to make as much money as possible. What planet are you people living on thinking different than that? And any opportunity for the community to (legally) get rid of freeloaders, and replace them with contributors to the community, should be welcomed.
WehoQueen, although your intentions are likely coming from a good place, your post indicates very little understanding of this proposed project. This particular project has nothing to do with homelessness or low-income housing and everything to do with rich, opportunistic, and greedy developers trying to take advantage of loopholes to make as much profit as possible with complete disregard for the neighborhood and safety.
The zoning on Huntley Drive is R2 which allows for 2 stories – the proposed project is 8 stories tall and two lots wide – definitely not what was intended or a fit for the street. And its a money grab by the developer – West Hollywood council members have stated that West Hollywood has more than enough market rate apartments – and this project with its net 2 affordable units (demolishing 8 affordable units to create 10 affordable units) would allow the developer to build 40 high priced market rate units, instead of the 6 units that would normally… Read more »
Hi Ruth Anne,
Wasn’t the street previously zoned as R4 and then later downzoned to R2? I think I read that in one of Larry’s pieces last year. Are there other projects on the street built during the R4 era and now out of conformity with the current zoning standard?
I just wonder if the downzoning history means that the infrastructure on this street in particular is greater than that of a typical R2 street, given its past zoning designation.
yes it was r4 pre-cityhood. but the rules for r4 were also different then.. not as much height.
In the past two years, there have been 35 water main leaks/breaks in all of West Hollywood. Two of those 35 occurred on this stretch of Huntley Drive. The infrastructure is by no means “great” and your supposition that it might be “greater” than that of a typical R2 tells me you aren’t from around here…
“and when something is proposed that is within the law” <- this proposed project does not conform with zoning or general plan..
Or common sense.
I live in West Hollywood and regularly travel down Huntley Dr . I’ve noticed that street has a lot of construction going on and has for years – several multi-family projects have been and are presently being built. Doesn’t seem like the street is against construction and creating housing! As others mentioned, this Builder’s Remedy project isn’t about creating affordable housing. It’s a loophole that allows the developer to build 40 market rate units, instead of 6 market rate units. Quite the money grab by any estimation.
Unfortunately, the article & narrative does not capture the essence of Builder’s Remedy & this proposed development, its egregious allowances, its failures, & true harm to a neighborhood & community members – WEHO has long been @ the the forefront & leader of Affordable Housing initiatives & its requirements – WehoQueen, this is not NIMBYISM as you have suggested – There will be 40 Market Rate units developed with rents likely beginning @ $3,250-$3,500 for 1bdrm’s, $4,000-$5,000+ for 2bdrm’s – There are 8 long term neighbors with rent controlled units that they love, they will be replaced by 10 new… Read more »
And your idiocy is endless. Just move to Barstow.
Rather than throw out vacant insults, why not point out some “idiocy”. Actually, dumber and less successful people might have no choice but to live in Barstow. What makes you think that is me? I get a bunch of dummy renters to write me monthly checks. Most might think I made better life choices than they did. Are you one of my renters?
SHAME on you to refer to your renters in this manner!! They facilitate your income, create wealth & market appreciation, these are terrible insights from you on all levels – Be thankful you’re not one having to rent!
It is very interesting how opportunistic entities (in this case developers) can deceive and distract people (even council members, politicians, etc) by using catch words such as “affordable housing” to take advantage of the loop holes for their own benefit. They know how to market themselves and/or recruit the vulnerable population with false promises.