Nearly a year after a fire destroyed a vacant Sierra Bonita Street home used by transients as a drug den, West Hollywood is poised to quickly begin demolition of similar troubled properties across the city. is.
The City Council on Monday will consider a proposal to change zoning rules that would allow the city to issue demolition permits for vacant properties that pose a public safety risk. Many of these properties have been entered or used by trespassers, creating safety concerns and frequent calls to the West Hollywood Sheriff’s Department and Los Angeles County Fire Department. The purpose of this amendment is to allow the city to demolish unsafe buildings even if all other necessary permits have not yet been issued.
The new rules apply to both residential and commercial properties, regardless of whether they have already received development approval. The city’s community development and community safety departments worked together on the proposal.
A vacant property in West Hollywood is defined as a property that has been vacant for more than 45 days and has not been constructed or inspected. Vacant properties are classified into one of four categories depending on their condition: stable, dangerous, problematic, and failed. These categories help determine how serious the safety risk is.
City officials have noticed that vacant properties are more prone to safety problems such as break-ins and fires. Under current regulations, demolition permits cannot be issued for these properties unless all other required permits are in place. However, many of these buildings may not be repairable or reusable, creating safety risks. New rules will allow the city to step in and demolish sooner.
The proposed amendment would allow demolition permits to be issued for vacant buildings if certain conditions are met, such as trespassing and fire hazards. The Director of Community Safety, in conjunction with the Director of Community Development, would have the authority to approve demolition in such cases. The goal is to prevent further safety risks and reduce the burden on law enforcement and fire agencies.
Even developers have expressed support for this fix.
“It has become virtually impossible to permanently secure aging, vacant commercial properties that often become part of future development sites,” wrote Jake Stephens of Farling. “These buildings lack reuse potential and are often planned to be demolished as part of new projects, but are stalled pending planning checks and other entitlement processes. In the past six months alone, our team has used saws to cut holes in fortified building walls and torches to cut into metal ducts in roofs. I encountered someone breaking through concrete walls and removing iron bars from the boarded-up windows of vacant buildings.
In August, the City Council moved to speed up the process for developing this amendment due to continuing safety concerns. The Planning Commission considered the proposed changes in September and supported them, saying the new rules would help protect the community from the risks posed by vacant properties. The committee formally recommended that Congress approve the amendment.
The amendment establishes certain conditions that would make a vacant property eligible for demolition, such as multiple calls for service related to trespassing, fire hazards, or poor maintenance. If a property is found to be an imminent threat to public safety, it can be demolished without the need for any other permits for new construction. This rule also addresses situations where multiple buildings on a property contribute to a safety risk. In this case, additional buildings may also be demolished. However, properties considered historic or potentially historic will require additional permits before being demolished.
The proposal also includes protections for housing. If a vacant property slated for demolition contains affordable housing units, any new development on the site must replace those units. The city is mandating that each affordable unit be replaced one at a time to ensure the housing stock is not diminished. The new ordinance also complies with state laws such as the California Housing Responsibility Act and the California Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which require the replacement of demolished housing units. To ensure that these rules are followed, deed restrictions are placed on the property.
The city emphasizes that this new rule is a last resort. While this gives authorities another tool to address safety issues, it does not encourage property owners to ignore their buildings. The city wants to keep the property occupied for as long as possible, even if redevelopment is planned. The amendment’s two-year sunset provision allows the city to assess the impact of subsequent rules. City officials will determine whether there are any unintended consequences, such as property owners deliberately leaving buildings in disrepair to speed up the demolition process.
