Nearly a year after a fire on Sierra Bonita Avenue incinerated a vacant home used as a drug den by transients, West Hollywood is poised to begin fast-tracking the demolition of similar problem properties throughout the city.
City Council will review a proposal Monday to change its zoning rules on which will allow the city to issue demolition permits for vacant properties that pose a public safety risk. Many of these properties have been broken into or used by trespassers, causing safety concerns and frequent calls to the West Hollywood Sheriff’s Station and the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The goal of the amendment is to allow the city to demolish buildings that are unsafe, even if all the other required permits haven’t been issued yet.
This new rule would apply to both residential and commercial properties, whether or not they already have development approvals. The city’s Community Development and Community Safety departments worked together on this proposal.
A vacant property in West Hollywood is defined as one that has been unoccupied for more than 45 days and where no construction or inspections are happening. Vacant properties are placed into one of four categories: “Stable,” “At-Risk,” “Problematic,” or “Failed,” depending on their condition. These categories help determine how serious the safety risks are.
City officials have noticed a pattern of safety issues with vacant properties, including break-ins and fires. Under current rules, demolition permits can’t be issued for these properties unless all other required permits are in place. However, many of these buildings may not be repaired or reoccupied, creating safety hazards. The new rule would allow the city to step in and demolish them sooner.
The amendment would allow demolition permits to be issued when a vacant property meets certain conditions, such as confirmed break-ins or fire hazards. The director of Community Safety, working with the director of Community Development, would have the authority to approve demolitions in these cases. The goal is to prevent more safety risks and ease the burden on law enforcement and fire services.
Even developers have expressed support for the amendment.
“It has become effectively IMPOSSIBLE to permanently secure the aged, vacant commercial structures that are often part of future development sites,” wrote Jake Stevens of Faring. “These buildings lack re-use potential and are often planned to be demolished as part of new projects, but are in limbo while plan check or other entitlement processes conclude. In the last 6 months alone our team has encountered individuals using saws to cut holes into fortified building walls, use torches to cut into metal ductwork on roofs and break concrete walls to remove iron bars over boarded windows at vacant buildings.”
In August, City Council moved to speed up the process for creating this amendment due to continuing safety concerns. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed changes in September and supported them, stating that the new rules would help protect the community from risks posed by vacant properties. The commission formally recommended the council approve the amendment.
The amendment lays out specific conditions that would make a vacant property eligible for demolition, including multiple calls for service related to trespassing, fire risks or poor maintenance. If a property is found to be an imminent threat to public safety, it could be demolished without needing other permits for new construction in place. The rule also addresses situations where multiple buildings on a property contribute to the safety risk. In such cases, the additional buildings may also be demolished. However, properties that are considered historic or potentially historic would still need additional permits before they can be torn down.
The proposal includes protections for housing. If a vacant property set for demolition includes affordable housing units, those units must be replaced in any new development on the site. The city requires that affordable units be replaced one-for-one to ensure the housing stock is not reduced. The new ordinance also complies with state laws, such as the California Housing Accountability Act and the California Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which require that any demolished housing units be replaced. A deed restriction would be placed on properties to ensure these rules are followed.
The city stresses that this new rule is meant to be a last resort. While it gives officials a new tool to deal with safety issues, it doesn’t encourage property owners to neglect their buildings. The city wants to keep properties occupied for as long as possible, even when redevelopment is planned. The two-year sunset clause on the amendment allows the city to evaluate the rule’s impact after that time. City officials will check to see if there are any unintended consequences, such as property owners deliberately letting buildings fall into disrepair to speed up the demolition process.
The more demolition: The more the city will be forced to build affordable housing and more homeless housing in West Hollywood !
Let’s take one lane each way on the 101 and the 405 to be used as bicycle lanes.
Yes, I’m using absurdity to illustrate the absurd.
OOPS! This was intended for another article and I can’t delete it!
[…] Story continues […]
While they are busy kissing Faring’s rear end in exchange for certain council members getting campaign funds, why not order the demolition of what’s left of the Roberson Lane project. It is vacant urban blight with homeless walking through the fencing and using it in full view.
If Faring has enough money to pay expensive lawyers to keep the entitlements alive, they can pay to pave it as a parking lot.
It is shameful how much Erickson has allowed Faring to distroy the city.
Smart move and welcomed by most, I imagine.
Many of us in Neighborhood Watch groups have been advocating action on vacant buildings for years. All I can say this is long over due. Thank God it is an election year so at least a few things get done for the residents.