City Attorney report relative to the payment of fees and costs associated with a Writ of Mandate in the case entitled Janet Jha v. City of Los Angeles , Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23STCP03499. [The City Council may recess to Closed Session, pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1), to confer with its legal counsel relative to the above-entitled case. (This matter concerns litigation that resulted in a Writ of Mandate regarding the City’s land use application processing for a 40-unit housing development at 13916 West Polk Street under the Housing Accountability Act.)]

Summary

The City Council is authorizing the payment of $134,591.61 in legal fees and costs to Patterson & O’Neill, PC, following a Writ of Mandate in the case Janet Jha v. City of Los Angeles (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23STCP03499). This litigation stemmed from the City's denial of a 40-unit housing development at 13916 West Polk Street, which included 8 low-income units. The developer invoked the Housing Accountability Act's (HAA) "Builder's Remedy" (Gov't Code § 65589.5(d)(5)), arguing their preliminary application, filed on June 24, 2022, vested rights before the City's Housing Element was certified by the state on June 29, 2022. A Superior Court ruled against the City on July 24, 2024, finding its determination of incompleteness invalid and directing the City to recognize the project's vesting rights and eligibility for Density Bonus incentives and Builder's Remedy protection. In compliance with the Writ issued on September 27, 2024, the City Council, on May 27, 2025, voted to vacate its previous denial from June 27, 2023, and remanded the project application to the Planning Department for further review consistent with the court's ruling.

Citizen Impact

Residents will bear the $134,591.61 cost of this litigation through the Liability Claims Fund. This decision mandates the City to process a 40-unit housing development, including 8 affordable units, at 13916 West Polk Street, overriding the City's initial denial based on state housing laws. It sets a precedent for how "Builder's Remedy" projects are handled, potentially streamlining future affordable housing developments.

Confidence

high