Published on:

by

Ben Reznik
In the City of Los Angeles we have seven Area Planning Commissions (known as “APCs”), each consisting of five volunteer members appointed by the Mayor and covering a distinct geographical part of the city. These APC commissioners need not and, in fact, do not possess any special training, knowledge or experience in land use matters, and certainly are not familiar with the body of land use and zoning laws applicable to many of their decisions. Pursuant to the city charter and zoning code, the APCs are empowered to decide many important cases. In many instances, the decision of the APC is final — meaning there is no further right of appeal to the City Council. The only remedy left is litigation and that, all too often, is too expensive for modest projects. The impact of a negative APC decision can be devastating to an applicant, as it can result in significant financial losses — sometimes millions of dollars. Yet, despite all this, the City of Los Angeles does not provide legal counsel to guide APCs during the hearing and in their deliberations on the merits of a case. Planning Department staff is present at the hearings, but no one from the City Attorney’s Office is present to make sure that the law is followed.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Sheri Bonstelle
The right to install a supergraphic on a side of a building in Hollywood has been an ongoing struggle between owners and the City for years. The attorneys at JMBM have extensive experience in representing hotel owners and sign companies in obtaining appropriate City Council approval. Call us to see how we can help.

The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously in September to ban the installation of new “supergraphic” advertising displays in Hollywood, while grandfathering in currently planned signs and allowing for designated “sign districts.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Ben Reznik
Christine Essel, the newly appointed Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA/LA), was the featured speaker at a recent JMBM “Business Issues Forum” hosted by Ben Reznik. Ms. Essel has taken command of an agency whose governing board she chaired in the 1990s. She brings with her 30 years experience in planning and development as senior vice president at Paramount Studios where she also served as the senior vice president of Government and Community Affairs. The following is a brief summary of Ms. Essel’s remarks:

As I see it, the challenge in this new assignment is to root out dysfunctionality in an agency which is viewed as being unfriendly. It appears to be a good time to undertake this process, because we’re seeing limited development in our spheres of influence which provides an opportunity to evaluate our role. We are dealing with a “good news/ bad news” scenario. The good news is CRA/LA still has $700 million in the bank! The bad news is that with most development on hold, our revenue stream — which relies on tax increment financing — has been significantly curtailed. Additionally, the State is taking $85 million from our budget this year. We are also in the process of reducing our 261 member staff through early retirement. We expect 40 senior staff to be leaving by January 1, 2011.
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