Published on:

by

On September 26, 2024, Daniel Freedman, partner at JMBM, participated in a webinar hosted by Less Red Tape titled, “Historic Districts and Implications to Owners.” The webinar addressed the growing trend of historic designations across the state as well as the legal and practical impacts for property owners.

Click here to watch the webinar.

JMBM regularly advises property owners, developers, and businesses on issues related to historic preservation, including navigating local historic regulations, defending against unwarranted designations, and managing the legal requirements for redevelopment of historic properties.

For more information on historic designation issues or property law, contact Daniel Freedman at JMBM.

Daniel F. Freedman is a land use and environmental attorney who has more than a decade of experience assisting and advising on residential, industrial, commercial and mixed-use developments, and his practice emphasizes municipal and land use law. He represents clients on related civil litigation matters in both state and federal courts, and is an experienced lobbyist on local, state, and federal matters. Contact Daniel at DFreedman@jmbm.com or 310.785.5391.

Published on:

by

Daniel Freedman, Partner and Co-Chair of the Housing Strategy and Litigation Group at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP (JMBM), recently achieved a major success on behalf of real estate developer The Commons MPK, LLC. After years of navigating entitlement challenges, Freedman successfully led the effort to gain approval from the City of Monterey Park for a 64-unit residential condominium project. The development will include multi-family units, parking, landscaping, abundant community amenities, and a stunning architectural design.

Of the 64 units, 57 will be offered at market rate, while seven units will be reserved for very low-income households, making this project an important step toward helping Monterey Park meet its state-mandated housing goals while addressing the local need for diverse housing options

Following a unanimous recommendation of support from the Monterey Park Planning Commission in August of 2024, the project received final approval by the City Council on September 18, 2024, with a unanimous vote. Click here to watch.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP’s (JMBM) Housing Strategy and Litigation Group recently achieved a notable victory for an affordable housing project in West Los Angeles. This development, comprising 43 rental units and one manager’s unit, is a 100-percent affordable residential project.

The City of Los Angeles’ Department of City Planning approved the project on December 12, 2023, and issued a Letter of Compliance confirming its qualification for ministerial processing under the City’s Executive Directive-1 program (“ED-1”).

However, on December 27, 2023, an appeal was filed by the “Missouri Avenue Neighbors” (“Neighbors”), challenging the project’s statutory exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). This appeal also resulted in a temporary stay on the project’s building permits.

In response, JMBM partner Daniel Freedman, representing the applicant, strongly objected to the City’s processing of the appeal on multiple grounds and demanded the removal of the permit stay. On March 3, 2024, the Department dismissed the appeal without a hearing, lifting the stay on the project’s permits. Subsequently, Neighbors filed a lawsuit challenging the City’s decision. On July 9, 2024, Neighbors dismissed the lawsuit entirely, allowing the project to proceed with construction. Continue reading

Published on:

by

In the case of Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, the United States Supreme Court reviewed a challenge by George Sheetz of a traffic impact mitigation fee imposed by the County of El Dorado. This fee was required as a condition for Sheetz to obtain a permit for constructing a small prefabricated single-family home in Placerville, California. Sheetz argued that the fee constituted an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and that a legal challenge to the fee should be reviewed under the heightened scrutiny standards established in Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n and Dolan v. City of Tigard.

Sheetz’s challenge faced setbacks in state court, largely due to the application of precedent set by the California Supreme Court in San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco. This precedent limited the Nollan/Dolan heightened scrutiny test to fees and conditions imposed by government officials on an individual discretionary basis (i.e., ad hoc conditions applied to individual projects). Therefore, fees and conditions imposed legislatively (e.g., standard fees/conditions imposed by ordinance), like the traffic impact fee in Sheetz’s case, avoided the heightened scrutiny that looks at the condition’s “nexus” and “proportionality” to the project.

In a pivotal and unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected California’s interpretation set forth in San Remo. It ruled that the Nollan/Dolan heightened scrutiny test applies to both legislative and administrative fees and conditions related to land use permits. Consequently, Sheetz’s challenge will return to the state courts for review under the Fifth Amendment, this time to be reviewed under the heightened scrutiny described in Nollan/Dolan.

For a comprehensive exploration of this case and its implications, we invite you to view a webinar hosted by JMBM partners Matthew Hinks and Daniel Freedman. The webinar examines the case, the relevant precedents, and offers insights into how Sheetz v. County of El Dorado may impact California law moving forward.

Click here to watch the webinar.

Published on:

by

JMBM is pleased to announce that Daniel Freedman, a distinguished partner in JMBM’s Government Land Use and Energy department and co-chair of the firms Housing Strategy and Litigation Group, has been chosen as an adjunct professor for the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs Urban Planning graduate program. This prestigious appointment highlights his exceptional expertise at the intersection of law and urban planning. Daniel has also served as an adjunct professor in the graduate urban planning program for California State University Northridge.

Being selected to teach at one of the nation’s premier institutions is a testament to Daniel’s deep understanding and impact in the field, as well as to his dedication to advancing knowledge in law and its application to the most complex challenges facing today’s city and regional planning professionals. His passion and insights will enrich the learning experience for students and elevate the discourse surrounding land use and city planning.

“As graduate from UCLA’s urban planning Masters program, I understand the significance of this curriculum for the students, as well our regional institutions,” said Daniel. “I look forward to contributing to the program and helping our future planning professionals develop a nuanced perspective of how the law continues to shape our urban environment.” Continue reading

Published on:

by

JMBM’s Housing Strategy and Litigation Group represents an affordable housing developer proposing to construct a 44-unit, 100 percent affordable, residential development in the West Los Angeles community. The LA Department of City Planning approved the project in December 2023 and found that it meets the requirements of the Los Angeles Mayor’s Executive Directive-1 (ED-1) program – which provides for expedited approvals and prevents appeals for projects that are 100 percent affordable.

Two weeks later, the Department accepted an appeal from a neighborhood group challenging the project’s approval and its exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), arguing that the ED-1 program’s provisions are illegal. The appeal’s acceptance resulted in a stay on the project until City Council can address it.

Daniel Freedman, Partner and co-chair of JMBM’s Housing Strategy and Litigation Group, has filed two letters with the City Council responding to the appeal and objecting to the fact that the City has accepted the appeal. He argues that a CEQA appeal should not be granted in instances where no CEQA determination has been made.

In this instance, the approval was ministerial, and therefore no CEQA action was required for the project approval itself. Moreover, even if such an appeal is permitted, the appeal fails to actually challenge the approval itself. Freedman argues that the appeal challenges the ED-1 program itself, rather than the individual development, and for that reason this appeal is untimely and should have been brought against the ED-1 when it was initially adopted. He contends that the City’ acceptance of this appeal creates a troubling precedent that will only increase the potential for CEQA to be abused for the purposes of delaying new affordable housing projects. Continue reading

Published on:

by

In recent years, a series of powerful housing laws have been passed by the California legislature to restrict local agencies from delaying, downsizing, or rejecting housing development projects. These measures aim to enhance the enforceability of key statutes, such as the California Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and the Housing Crisis Act (SB330). The overall objective is to begin to address the state-wide housing crisis by streamlining the approval process for new housing projects while simultaneously curbing a local agencies ability to obstruct the permitting process.

JMBM’s Government, Land Use, Environment and Energy Department recently hosted a webinar detailing how to use these new laws to expedite a project’s entitlement process, to increase density, and tools developers can use to limit a local agency’s ability to delay or deny a project.

The online workshop reviewed key new housing laws, including the HAA, SB330, AB 2011, and State Density Bonus Laws. It also highlighted what every housing developer needs to know to ensure their project gets maximum protection under the new housing laws.

Whether you’re a seasoned housing developer or just stepping into the industry, this workshop provides essential insights into the laws shaping the future of housing projects.

Click here to watch the recorded session.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The Land Use lawyers of Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP (JMBM) represent Neighbors for Hillside Safety, an unincorporated association of homeowners, residents, and stakeholders who live and work within the proposed Wildlife Ordinance District being considered as part of the City’s Wildlife Pilot Study and the associated Wildlife Ordinance District. This proposed ordinance would rezone over 23,000 acres of the City, impacting tens of thousands of homes without any environmental analysis and without legally adequate notice.

Ben Reznik, Chair of the Firm’s Government, Land Use, Environment and Energy Department, and Partner Daniel Freedman have submitted a series of letters to the Department of City Planning outlining our client’s opposition to the ordinance as currently written.

You can read the letters by clicking the images below.

June 16, 2023

IMAGE-Wildlife-Ordinance-Letter-June-16-2023-232x300

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Last month, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an important decision in the area of property rights, development exactions, and the Fifth Amendment. In Knight v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, Tennessee, case number 21-6179, plaintiffs James Knight and Jason Mayes challenged the constitutionality of a City of Nashville’s “sidewalk” ordinance, which imposes sidewalk-related conditions on landowners who seek building permits.

Specifically, to obtain a building permit, the City requires the developer to either grant an easement across its land and agree to build a sidewalk, or otherwise pay an “in-lieu” fee to help build sidewalks in other parts of the City. The plaintiffs, who were subjected to the ordinance as part of a proposed housing development application, argued that the ordinance and the resulting condition of approval constituted a takings without just compensation.

The key issue before the Sixth Circuit was which “legal test” or “standard” applied to its review of the facts. The City wanted the court to view the ordinance like any other zoning or generally applicable development restriction, and the petitioner wanted the court to view it as an unlawful exaction (i.e., a form of extortion). As the Court explained this issue:

In particular, the parties [] disagree over the “test” that we should use to judge whether the sidewalk ordinance commits a taking. The landowner plaintiffs ask us to apply the “unconstitutional-conditions” test that the Supreme Court adopted to assess conditions on building permits in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987). Nashville responds that the Court has applied Nollan’s test only to ad hoc administrative conditions that zoning officials impose on specific permit applicants—not generally applicable legislative conditions that city councils impose on all permit applicants. For legislative conditions, Nashville says, we should turn to the deferential “balancing” test that the Court adopted to assess zoning restrictions in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978).

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The Los Angeles Superior Court’s decision in the case, Yes In My Back Yard, Sonja Trauss, and Janet Jha v. City of Los Angeles, provides important guidance to developers and local agencies on how to process housing development projects located on sites where the density permitted by the General Plan (or applicable specific or community plans) is greater than the density allowed under the zoning code.

The court held that the developers are entitled to the highest available density, even when the zoning density is less than the density allowed by the General Plan or other plans. This is true even where the applicable plans specify a range of permissible densities.

JMBM Attorneys Matthew D. Hinks, Daniel F. Freedman, and Julia Consoli-Tiensvold successfully argued the case on behalf of a multi-family housing developer. The case resulted in the court granting of a writ of mandate against the City of Los Angeles under the Housing Accountability Act.

Background

On May 19, 2020, JMBM client Janet Jha submitted an application to the City of Los Angeles seeking to build a 67-unit, multi-family density bonus development on a site abutting Ventura Boulevard in the Woodland Hills community of the San Fernando Valley. The project site is zoned for single-family uses, but the City’s community plan designates the site for commercial and multi-family uses.

On June 8, 2020, the City rejected Jha’s application on the basis that the project includes more housing units than the site’s single-family zoning permits, and insisted that a rezoning of the site was required to approve a multi-family development. Over the next several months, the City demanded that Jha either reduce the density of the project to comply with the residential single-family zoning, or seek rezoning – even though the project density complied with the Community Plan’s “Limited Commercial” designation for the site. Continue reading