Council votes 4-1 to battle Builder’s Remedy

City Council in a 4-1 vote on Monday approved Councilmember John Heilman’s proposed measures to address projects allowed by the Builder’s Remedy in West Hollywood.

Projects allowed under the Remedy can exceed typical height limits on buildings and have less parking. The size of the six projects in the works have infuriated residents. 

Heilman addressed the meeting with an introduction to his proposal and the rationale behind it:

“The Builder Remedy exists for a lot of good reasons. Unfortunately, there are cities in California that have done everything possible to thwart the construction of housing, especially affordable housing, in their communities. …

But I don’t understand why the Builder’s Remedy should have any applicability to the city of West Hollywood. We have consistently supported the construction of housing. We have actually been recognized by the state for being a pro-housing city. We have been a leader in terms of protecting, creating, and developing affordable housing from our very earliest days. We’ve had a strong Rent Control Ordinance to protect in-place tenants long before the state started allowing density bonuses for affordable housing. The city of West Hollywood had a very strong inclusionary housing ordinance that required developers to set aside 20% of new units for low and moderate-income housing.

We also created a nonprofit Community Development Corporation to develop permanently affordable and supportive housing, and we have supported other nonprofit entities such as the Gay and Lesbian Center, Alternative Living for the Aging, and others who are also providing affordable housing to our community. As a city, we have often met or exceeded our RHNA numbers, and we have consistently worked in partnership with the state to ensure that we have a strong and compliant housing element.

ADVERTISEMENT

Both the language of the Builder’s Remedy and the legislative intent behind it suggest that it shouldn’t be applicable to a city which has consistently been a leader in housing development. What the item before us tonight does is it directs our staff to continue our work with our lobbyists in Sacramento to remedy this situation and to clarify that the Builder’s Remedy should not be applicable to our city in our current situation. …

Secondly, this item directs our staff to regularly update us and the community on the status of the projects which have been proposed as Builder’s Remedy projects, and to make sure that both our City Attorney and our city staff are looking for all available options for dealing with these projects and protecting our community.

During public comment, residents like Jamie Francis raised issues regarding the excessive scale of potential developments, like the astronomical density and height that some projects might achieve without proper local ordinances. The lack of enforcement against non-compliant uses such as short-term rentals via platforms like Airbnb was also criticized, highlighting the gap between legislative intent and local realities.

Speakers from the community, including Frank Afari and Michael Violandi, voiced specific environmental and structural concerns. Afari pointed out the environmental risks associated with high-density projects, particularly in areas with high water tables, predicting potential sinking and damage from extensive excavation work. Violandi expressed fear about a specific Builder’s Remedy project on Huntley Drive, predicting severe impacts on traffic, air quality, and noise, which could drastically alter the living conditions and safety of the neighborhood

Olga Yuran argued for the protection of neighborhood charm and the community fabric, which are perceived to be under threat from aggressive development policies. The conversation reflected a deep-seated concern about maintaining the balance between necessary growth and preserving the unique attributes that define West Hollywood’s residential areas.

Johnny Nicoloro shared a personal narrative about the impacts of the Builder’s Remedy projects on long-term residents like himself. Living in a rent-stabilized unit, he faced the threat of displacement due to new developments. He criticized the effectiveness of the Builder’s Remedy in addressing housing issues, noting that the displacement of residents from rent-stabilized units does not justify the minor increase in affordable housing units, which often come with a significant increase in market-rate housing.

Mana Khakaf highlighted the logistical challenges and potential negative impacts of new developments, such as increased strain on water, sewage, and power infrastructure. She emphasized the need for careful consideration of infrastructure capabilities before approving large-scale projects, particularly those that might exacerbate existing issues like flooding and electrical instability.

Robert Steloff, representing the Tri West Huntley Coalition, criticized the economic disparities engendered by Builder’s Remedy projects, pointing out that the high rents associated with these new developments do not constitute affordable housing but serve more as a financial boon for developers. He urged the council to consider the broader implications of these projects on community affordability and cohesion.

Judy Swan shared a personal testimony about the physical damage her home sustained from nearby construction, highlighting the real and immediate impacts of large-scale development on individual residents.

Gail Sanes pointed to ongoing legal challenges against the Builder’s Remedy, arguing that it was not yet established law and advocating for West Hollywood’s exemption from these state-level housing mandates. 

Chris Gallagher, a long-term resident and renter on Huntley Drive, shared his personal plight under the potential repercussions of the Builder’s Remedy. He emphasized that the developments being proposed under this remedy are not genuinely about affordable housing but are geared towards replacing long-term residents like him with luxury housing developments, effectively altering the neighborhood’s character.

Zekiah Wright, a resident and attorney who uses they/them pronouns, acknowledged the challenges posed by the Builder’s Remedy, particularly its ability to override local council decisions. They expressed concerns about the high costs of potential litigation against this state-mandated policy and recommended focusing on collaborative solutions with developers rather than pursuing costly legal battles.

“My fear is that if we go down this path, especially with recommendations two and three, that fighting this law will cost us,” Wright said. “That fighting this law will be too high; that with litigation being tied up in court for years, we’re spending hundreds of thousands to millions of tax dollars potentially to fight this.”

Andrew Solomon, speaking in solid support of the Remedy, warned that West Hollywood could face similar costs and legal setbacks if it chose to challenge the Builder’s Remedy, advising the council to consider the broader implications of their decisions on the city’s pro-housing reputation.

“You’re essentially asking Lauren (Langer, city attorney) to figure out a way to break the law, as one attorney put it to me,” Solomon said. “Not even Beverly Hills has a council-established policy against the Builder’s Remedy. The very existence of this item tonight on the agenda weakens the city’s position whenever there is a future lawsuit against the city, and there will be. This item shows clear evidence of bias against the law, even if you’re opposed to Builder’s Remedy projects, which the majority of people here are tonight.”

Kimberly Winnick, a lawyer, said she spent three hours in a legal education class discussing this very topic, highlighting ongoing legal challenges and legislative reviews of the Builder’s Remedy. She emphasized the importance of engaging with the law constructively, looking for legal pathways to modify or potentially find exceptions to the current housing laws that are affecting West Hollywood uniquely.

Victor Omelczenko stressed that West Hollywood had already been proactive in integrating affordable housing within new developments, well ahead of state requirements, which unfortunately, the one-size-fits-all state policy fails to recognize. He also noted ongoing efforts by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks to modify the Housing Accountability Act to potentially reduce the mandated percentage for affordable housing in new developments from 20% to 10%.

Heilman, responding to community concerns, clarified that the agenda item was not about circumventing state laws but rather about seeking clarity and possible amendments to those laws to better reflect the unique context of West Hollywood. He highlighted the need for state legislation to recognize the proactive efforts of cities like West Hollywood in providing affordable housing.

Vice Mayor Chelsea Lee Byers, who voted against the proposal, expressed reservations about seeking exemptions from state housing laws, citing concerns about complying with statewide objectives for housing production. She referenced comments from state housing authorities that emphasize the need for cities to adhere to established laws without seeking loopholes or exemptions, thereby underscoring the importance of collaborative approaches to address housing shortages.

‘This specific way of addressing this, as it comes to us as an item, is demonstrating a bias towards the projects that are before us, and I do not think that risking something as serious as litigation by the state at a time where they are taking that role, of suing cities, as seriously as they are, is a valuable use of our time,” Byers said.

“The point of the Builder’s Remedy is to hold bad actors accountable, and I’m not clear how our affront to this process now is not participation in that bad actor approach. It’s deeply unfortunate that we are in this scenario now, but I do not think that this is the path out of it.”