California Land Use Blog
California faces a housing crisis of “historic proportions.” In response, the Legislature enacted the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)—known as the “Anti-NIMBY Act”—to dramatically increase housing construction by preventing local governments from arbitrarily denying viable development projects.
On January 30, 2025, Judge Curtis A. Kin found that the City of Los Angeles (City) acted in bad faith and violated the HAA when the East Los Angeles Area Planning Commission (APC) denied a 50-unit mixed use TOC housing development project in Boyle Heights (Project) based on neighborhood gentrification concerns. Cesar Chavez 888, LLC v. City of Los Angeles et. al. (24STCP01880) Based on the finding of bad faith, the Court will issue a judgment directing the City to approve the Project. In addition, the Court is required to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit to the petitioner unless it finds extraordinary circumstances. JMBM partners Sheri Bonstelle and Matthew Hinks and associate Julia Consoli-Tiensvold represented the petitioner in entitling the Project and litigating the case. The Court’s finding of bad faith, the HAA’s attorney’s fees provisions, and the order to approve the project in the Cesar Chavez case, should serve as an incentive for local governments to train its commissions to act within the bounds of the HAA, and not for political expediency.
The Project’s entitlement history shows the importance of the HAA in creating new housing on underdeveloped properties in the face of neighborhood opposition. The petitioner, Cesar Chavez 888, LLC, sought to construct a 50-unit six-story project with five units affordable to extremely low-income households (30% of AMI), and a ground-level commercial market where multiple vendors could set up shop. On appeal, the APC held four hearings on the Project between November 2023 and March 2024, and continued each hearing for various administrative failings, such as lack of quorum, failure to provide a translator, and inability to reach a consensus within the hearing time. At the final hearing, three of the APC Commissioners stated an intent to disprove the Project, and searched for reasons, which Judge Kin called “a decision in search of a justification.” City Planner Jane Choi advised the APC of a similar housing development project, District Square, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, which was also litigated by JMBM, where the Court found the City violated the HAA in bad faith when it denied the project. The APC ignored the advice of the City staff and the City Attorneys’ office that was provided in written staff reports and at the hearings, when it acted to deny the Project. Even the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), who also reviewed the case history. issued a technical advisory letter to the City in support of the Project finding that the City had violated the HAA and that the APC’s findings “do not meet the legal threshold necessary” to disapprove the Project.
About JMBM’s Government, Land Use, Environment and Energy Department
JMBM’s government, land use, environment, and energy lawyers represent a wide range of industries, businesses, trade groups and individuals before every level of government, and in litigation. We routinely advocate for our clients’ interests before the myriad of regulatory authorities, administrative agencies and elected bodies that govern business and development activities. Our negotiation expertise and lobbying experience includes representing clients seeking to locate and develop new sites, relocate, expand operations, and all related permitting and compliance.