Articles Posted in Affordable Housing

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

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

As JMBM government and land use lawyer Sheri Bonstelle explains in the article, “Assembly Bill 1561 provides support for housing development projects,” published by the Daily Journal on September 10, 2020:

“AB 1561 will support housing development by allowing additional time for those with approved housing development projects to obtain financing and building permits and to commence construction during the pandemic, and will allow potential additional analysis in a city’s Housing Element to more specifically identify the housing needs of the community.”

She notes that even before the pandemic-induced recession, California was in the midst of a housing affordability crisis caused by a failure to supply enough new housing for all income levels.

You can read the full article here.

JMBM’s government and land use lawyers represent developers of multi-family housing as well as many other types of projects. Our particular strength is handling all permitting and compliance issues for clients seeking to locate and develop new sites, relocate or expand operations. Please contact us if you would like to discuss how AB 1561 impacts your project. Continue reading

Published on:

by

By Matthew Hinks
Governor Brown signed into law on September 27, 2014, AB2222, which amends the State’s Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), Gov’t Code §§ 65915, et seq. to establish significant constraints upon the use of the incentives provided by DBL in connection with certain real estate developments. The main purpose of AB2222 is to eliminate density bonuses and other incentives previously available unless the developer agrees to replace pre-existing affordable units on a one-for-one basis. The impact of the bill will be significant because it will remove the economic incentive to undertake density bonus projects where existing units are subject to rent control ordinances or similar restrictions.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

By Matthew Hinks
State density bonus law — one of many California statutes enacted to implement the state’s policy of promoting the construction of affordable housing — has withstood a significant challenge posed by the County of Napa (the “County”) in a new California Court of Appeal opinion, Latinos Unidos del Valle de Napa y Solano v. County of Napa. The Court’s opinion is good news, not only for advocates of affordable housing, but also developers of multifamily housing who rely upon the law, which provides valuable development incentives and is a useful and powerful tool in the permitting process.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

By Matthew Hinks
The California legislature has declared the availability of housing for every Californian to be a matter of “vital statewide importance.” Thus, the legislature has charged local governments with facilitating the provision of housing for all economic segments of the community through the implementation of “housing elements” as part of the community’s general plan. The components of those housing elements, including an assessment of housing needs for all income levels, the identification of adequate housing sites, and a program that assists in the development of such housing to meet the needs of low-income households.

San Jose’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

To implement the state’s inclusionary housing policy, the City of San Jose (the “City”) passed in 2010 an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (“IHO”). The IHO requires multi-unit residential developments including at least 20 units to set aside 15 percent of the units for purchase at a below-market rate to households earning no more than 110 percent of the area median income. Alternatively, the developer could comply with the IHO by paying an in-lieu fee not to exceed the difference between the price of a market rate and affordable housing unit or dedicating land.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Ben Reznik
We are getting older and living longer. The statistics for the growth of the elderly are compelling. In the past few years we have seen several types of new private eldercare facilities, such as independent living and assisted living pop up in the LA area, mostly in more affluent neighborhoods. But make no mistake: neither LA nor the rest of the nation is prepared to properly care for and house the emerging elderly population.

When I speak with people who now must find some level of assisted housing for their elderly parents, their frustration is all too common and similar: there are too few choices and none that are located in their neighborhood. What an interesting concept – siting eldercare facilities “in our neighborhood.” This notion is not just for the convenience of the adult child, who wants to remain close enough to the parent for visitation purposes, it is also important for the elder parent, who should not be relegated to living out the rest of his/her life in institutional facilities along major commercial corridors. There must be a way to integrate eldercare housing into residential neighborhoods, including single-family areas.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Ben Reznik
Two recent court decisions have materially changed the affordable housing game as it’s been played by local governments throughout California.

In Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P. et al. v. City of Los Angeles (a case in which JMBM represented the developer at all the administrative hearings), the California Court of Appeal upheld our challenge to a Los Angeles affordable housing mandate in the city’s Central City West Specific Plan on the basis that it violated the state’s Costa-Hawkins Housing Act. Los Angeles had attempted to impose a 15 percent affordable housing requirement on Palmer’s 335-unit Piero II development. This would have effectively reduced the rental income from the project violating Costa-Hawkins, which prohibits cities from applying rent control to new projects. In the other case, Building Industry Association of Central California v. City of Patterson, the Court of Appeal invalidated an in-lieu affordable housing impact fee being assessed on a single family for-sale residential project. The court found that the fee, which the city had increased from $734 to $20,946 per unit, bore no relationship to the actual impact the development would have on the community.
Continue reading