David Wagner
covers housing in Southern California, a place where the lack of affordable housing contributes to homelessness.
Published February 7, 2024 1:13 PM
A low-income housing apartment complex sits behind a fence in South Los Angeles.
(
Samanta Helou Hernandez
/
LAist
)
Topline:
Housing advocates have filed a second lawsuit against the city of L.A. over stalled plans for affordable housing near single-family homes.
The details: In a complaint filed Tuesday, the group YIMBY Law argues that city officials wrongly denied faster approvals to a developer aiming to build 190 apartments in Reseda for renters with low and moderate incomes.
The background: The developer submitted the project through Mayor Karen Bass’s signature housing program, known as ED1, which promised to approve new 100% affordable housing projects within about two months. But Bass later revised the program to exclude ED1 projects in single-family neighborhoods, which make up about three-quarters of the city’s residential land. Now, the question is whether projects that applied before the rule change should be allowed to move forward. State officials and pro-housing groups say they should. City leaders say they should not. Courts will have to decide.
What’s next: YIMBY Law leaders said they plan to file a third lawsuit later this month, defending a similar ED1 project in Sun Valley.
Housing advocates have filed a second lawsuit against the city of L.A. over stalled plans for affordable housing in neighborhoods near single-family homes.
In a complaint filed Tuesday, the pro-housing nonprofit YIMBY Law argues that city officials wrongly denied faster approvals to a developer aiming to build 190 apartments in Reseda for renters with low and moderate incomes.
YIMBY Law executive director Sonja Trauss said the developer’s application to the city followed all the laws in place at the time. She argues the city retroactively changed the rules to allow suburban neighborhoods like Reseda to continue refusing new housing.
“It's an important part of integrating L.A. economically and racially — to make sure that we can have affordable projects in otherwise expensive neighborhoods,” Trauss said.
The mayor’s office did not respond to our request for comment on the new lawsuit.
Last month YIMBY Law filed a similar lawsuit defending an affordable housing project in Winnetka, another part of the San Fernando Valley.
How a rule change jeopardized low-income housing
The developer behind the Reseda project, Evolve Realty and Development, submitted its plans through the city’s affordable housing fast-tracking program, known as ED1.
Mayor Karen Bass signed this directive during her first week in office, promising that developers with projects comprised entirely of affordable apartments would get city approvals within about two months.
But about six months into her first year in office, Bass revised ED1 and directed the city’s planning department to exclude affordable housing projects in single-family neighborhoods, which make up about three-quarters of the city’s residential land.
The changes to ED1 left nine projects — proposing to build a total of 1,443 income-restricted apartments — with an uncertain future.
In December, a spokesperson for the mayor’s office told LAist that ED1 has already accelerated thousands of units of affordable housing since Bass took office.
“The mayor believes that any policy implemented should be evaluated to ensure there are no unintended consequences on communities, especially the very ones we are trying to help,” press secretary Clara Karger said at the time.
Local and state officials at odds
Housing advocates say the developers behind these projects followed the rules in place at the time, and should be allowed to proceed. State housing officials have also sent the city letters telling them to greenlight the developments.
In an October letter to the city, California’s Housing Accountability Unit Chief Shannan West wrote, “An applicant that submitted a complete preliminary application may proceed under the ED1 regulations that were in effect at the time the preliminary application was complete.”
But some city officials say ED1 was never intended to greenlight large low-income housing projects near single-family homes, and they’re willing to fight these projects in court.
City Councilmember Bob Blumenfield represents the district including both projects at the center of these lawsuits. In an email to LAist this week, he said ED1 has greenlit thousands of new apartments elsewhere in the city.
“The goal of ED1, a process I completely support, has always been to build on new state legislation to streamline affordable housing where those sorts of projects are allowed to be built,” Blumenfield said. “The Planning Department, City Attorney, Mayor and I are in agreement. But again, it's up to the courts.”
Apartments near horses?
The project at the center of the new lawsuit, proposed to be built at 7745 N. Wilbur Ave., is located about three-quarters of a mile outside Reseda Ranch. The San Fernando Valley neighborhood features many large single-family home lots zoned to allow owners to keep large animals.
Reseda resident Mario Herrera spoke against the project and another nearby ED1 proposal at a meeting of the city council’s planning and land use committee last year.
“I can’t believe this is even happening in our neighborhood — two apartment buildings going up in our Reseda Ranch,” Herrera said. “On the weekends we see horses in our neighborhood, and it’s beautiful. I like to have my family over and just enjoy a ranch-style hangout.”
Herrera said he lives near one of the proposed ED1 developments.
“If this goes up, it takes away all my privacy,” he said. “It’s going to bring so much chaos. My family and I, we’re not ready for it.”
More lawsuits are coming
YIMBY Law leaders said they plan to file a third lawsuit later this month, defending a similar ED1 project on 10898 W. Olinda St. in Sun Valley.
These challenges do not aim to force the city into allowing future ED1 developments in single-family zones, Trauss said. They’re focused solely on projects that applied before the rule change.
“The mayor can change her executive order,” Trauss said. “But the Planning Department, supported by the mayor's office, tried to go back and retroactively apply these new, more strict rules to projects that had already been submitted. That is what is illegal.”
The city has also allowed neighborhood opponents of ED1 projects to challenge new housing plans through the California Environmental Quality Act. Bass originally said these projects would be exempt from lengthy and expensive environmental reviews under that state law.
Frank Stoltze
is a veteran reporter who covers local politics and examines how democracy is and, at times, is not working.
Published September 9, 2026 6:36 PM
The Jail complex in downtown Los Angeles
(
Robert Garrova / LAist
)
Topline:
The U.S. Department of Justice announced Wednesday that it has opened an investigation into the Men’s Central Jail in downtown Los Angeles, specifically looking into whether L.A. County has failed to provide environmentally safe, humane and habitable conditions for people held there.
The details: The jail has long been plagued by allegations of poor conditions. Monitors from the American Civil Liberties Union have documented problems including overcrowding, severe mold and mildew, and rodent infestations.
The context: The federal investigation is expected to focus on conditions within the facility and not the actions of the county sheriff’s deputies who staff it, according to the Justice Department. The new investigation is separate from a 2015 settlement between the county and federal government, which stemmed from allegations of inadequate mental health care provided at county jails.
What happens next: Investigators will determine whether the county has violated the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment, and 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.
Reaction: L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger welcomed the investigation, and said she had said for year that the jail was “antiquated, inhumane, and unfit for our workforce and those incarcerated there.”
Jason Wells
manages the daily news product that you hear and read every day.
Published September 9, 2026 5:13 PM
Smoke rises from a brush fire near the Getty Center on Sept. 9, 2026.
(
CBS LA
)
Topline:
Firefighters appeared to make quick progress against a brush fire the broke out Wednesday near the Getty Center.
What we know so far: As of 5 p.m., evacuation warnings had been issued for zones LFD-0895 and LF-0967, although the LAFD said no structures were immediately threatened as the water-dropping helicopters attacked the fire from above.
Read on ... for more on evacuations and weather conditions.
This story is no longer being actively updated. For the most up-to-date information about the fire you can check:
Firefighters appeared to make quick progress against a brush fire the broke out Wednesday near the Getty Center.
As of 5 p.m., evacuation warnings had been issued for zones LFD-0895 and LF-0967, although the LAFD said no structures were immediately threatened as the water-dropping helicopters attacked the fire from above. Forward progress of the fire was reported stopped shortly after 6 p.m. at a little over 20 acres.
If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.
Yusra Farzan
is covering general assignment news this week.
Published September 9, 2026 2:50 PM
Recent storm surges already have damaged Aliso Beach in Laguna Beach.
(
Allen J. Schaben
/
Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
)
Topline:
Southern California is reeling from the destruction left behind by Tropical Storm Marie.
Damages in Dana Point: Six homes were red-tagged when high tides pummelled the coastline. Don Russel, the Capistrano Bay district general manager, said it's possible two other homes will be red-tagged (critically damaged) after high tide activity Tuesday night. Around five homes were yellow tagged (structural damage), he said. Workers are lining the shoreline with large boulders about the size of a small office desk when waters recede, but efforts to armor the beach have been hampered by the tides, Russel added.
Malibu felt the effects too: In Malibu, a large sinkhole formed on Sea Level Drive, prompting authorities to declare a local state of emergency. Five homes were red-tagged — meaning they are uninhabitable — and residents from around 30 homes were evacuated. Evacuees can find temporary shelter at the American Red Cross at Malibu High School.
Evac orders lifted: Evacuation orders were lifted in Long Beach, where the storm resulted in flooding. No homes were red-tagged, but the boardwalk between 63rd Place and 68th Place remains closed to the public.
Jared Bennett
is the watchdog correspondent covering immigration and law enforcement at LAist.
Published September 9, 2026 2:49 PM
Officers from the Long Beach Police Department responded to a March 2025 report of an armed robbery just blocks away — the arrest that followed is now at the center of allegations the department concealed one officer's assault conviction.
(
Megan Garvey
/
LAist
)
Topline:
A prominent attorney working on a low-level criminal case in Long Beach is alleging the police department there concealed an officer’s assault conviction for years — potentially calling into question the legitimacy of hundreds of cases.
What the defense uncovered: Scott Sanders, who exposed the Orange County jailhouse snitch scandal, is the court-appointed attorney in a case where the defense was trying to depose a Long Beach Police Department officer.
In a series of court motions, Sanders raised questions about why the officer arrested a man who was bald when the alleged victim described a man with long dreadlocks. When the defense tried to the subpoena the officer after he left the force, an investigator discovered that the now-former officer had been convicted in an assault case in Georgia while employed with the Long Beach Police Department.
Why that matters: In a landmark 1963 case, Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court established that law enforcement has a legal responsibility to disclose such information to defendants. Lack of disclosure could call into question the legitimacy of other cases involving the officer and the Long Beach Police Department.
Keep reading... for the full in-depth report on this case.
A prominent attorney working on a low-level criminal case in Long Beach is alleging the Police Department there concealed an officer’s assault conviction for years — potentially calling into question the legitimacy of hundreds of cases.
Jacobs is facing felony charges after Long Beach police said they found a small bag of cocaine tucked inside his sock while he was held at a jail following an arrest in March 2025. Jacobs has pleaded not guilty to the charge of bringing a controlled substance into a jail, which could carry a sentence of up to four years in prison.
At issue is the arrest that landed Jacobs in that cell in the first place — which Sanders argues in court filings was based on misrepresentations of now-former Long Beach police Officer Erik Suarez.
According to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, Suarez resigned from the Long Beach Police Department in June.
In a filing made Sept. 8, the defense attorney said an investigator discovered that Suarez had been convicted of a misdemeanor in the beating of a man outside a Waffle House in Marietta, Georgia in 2019. He had initially been charged with felony assault.
At that time, Suarez had served on the Long Beach force for two years.
LAist attempted to contact Suarez by calling a phone number connected to him in public records. A man who answered said he was not Suarez, but asked what the story was about and said he would check with Suarez about contacting LAist.
In a recent court filing seeking more information about Suarez’s conduct, Jacobs’ defense asserts that the Long Beach Police Department knew about the conviction, but never disclosed this information to defendants or the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.
That’s information Jacobs’ attorney argues was potentially exculpatory, and that withholding it amounts to a major violation of criminal defense laws. In the landmark 1963 case Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court established that law enforcement has a legal responsibility to disclose such information to defendants. In Jacobs’ case, for example, the Sept. 8 filing said information about Suarez’s arrest and subsequent conviction could have been used to impeach him as a witness, as well as in other cases Suarez touched as a police officer.
The Long Beach Police Department has not yet responded to LAist’s emailed questions.
“The actions of the LBPD demonstrate a complete disregard to the danger Officer Suarez presented to the community and to the due process rights of defendants,” according to the motion to force disclosure. “The concealment of Officer Suarez's arrest and prosecution enabled [LBPD] to hide mandated discovery related to Officer Suarez’s conduct from what have likely been hundreds of defendants during the nearly seven-year period between the time of Officer Suarez’s August 2019 arrest and June 2026.”
Jacobs’ attorney alleges in the filing that Long Beach has an “unwritten policy” to keep information that could be used to impeach its officers in personnel files protected from public disclosure.
“The potential systemic consequences are enormous,” the filing argues.
“Not just to the individual,” she said, “but to the entire community.”
Lacey said the information about Suarez’s conviction should have been known to the prosecutors, so they could vet the reliability of the evidence presented by law enforcement, and turned over to the defense at the outset of the case.
A spokesperson for L.A. County District Attorney Nathan Hochman said in an emailed response to questions that they could not comment on what information they disclosed to Jacobs’ defense.
The District Attorney’s Office said it has a “collaborative relationship with the Long Beach Police Department,” and that the department does disclose material to prosecutors that is allowed under California law.
“Generally speaking, if our office had any such Brady material regarding an officer, we would have been legally obligated to turn that over to the defense.”
Lacey said if prosecutors did not have access to Suarez’s criminal record, the scope of people affected could be wide.
“We don't know how many cases are impacted by the potential unreliability of statements from the arresting law enforcement officer,” Lacey said. “This could impact people who have already pled guilty, who maybe are currently incarcerated, who are awaiting sentencing, or who are, like I said, incarcerated pretrial on other cases.”
In an interview with LAist, Sanders said the case raises three troubling issues: There’s the concealment of evidence leading to Jacobs' initial arrest, Suarez’s 2019 assault that was never disclosed, and the question of whether the Long Beach Police Department has concealed Brady material in other cases.
“If that's your modus operandi, we've got an enormous problem here,” Sanders said.
The underlying arrest that led to allegations about concealing an assault
Long Beach police responded to the intersection of 52nd Street and Atlantic Boulevard after a man reported being held at gunpoint, with the robber driving away in the van he was repossessing.
(
Megan Garvey
/
LAist
)
Just after 7:45 p.m. on March 18, 2025, Suarez and his partner Dylan Kelley responded to a call reporting a person with a gun at the intersection of 52nd Street and Atlantic Boulevard in Long Beach.
The alleged victim, identified in the filing by his last name, Ochoa, told the officers that he was attempting to repossess a black Dodge Sprinter van when someone threatened him with a gun, took the keys and drove off with the van.
Police later tracked down the van and detained Lonnie Jacobs and his brother, Lamar Jacobs.
According to court records, at the scene officers only presented Lonnie Jacobs to Ochoa.
Before seeing him, Ochoa stated that the suspect had braids, and body camera footage detailed in the court filing shows him gesturing to show long hair around his shoulders.
While looking at photos of the suspects in the van, Ochoa identified Lamar Jacobs. “That’s him! With the dreads!,” Ochoa is recorded saying on body camera footage.
Body camera footage shows Suarez confirming this description. “You said he had dreads? Can you remember if he has dreads?,” Suarez asks. The footage shows Ochoa nodding to confirm.
But Ochoa then identified Lonnie Jacobs in person, telling officers he recognized Lonnie Jacobs’ chain and ripped jeans as matching the person who pulled a gun on him earlier that night.
Jacobs’ court filings state that body camera footage shows both he and his brother wore the exact same chain, and they both wore ripped jeans that night.
In an interview with a detective for the District Attorney’s Office in August 2026 that is included in court filings, Ochoa said he was positive he identified a man with braids during the show-up.
Lonnie Jacobs in a still from a police body cam on the night of his arrest.
(
Long Beach Police Department
/
L.A. County Superior Court filing
)
Lamar Jacobs in a still from the night his brother was arrested. An officer is handing him a chain identical to one around his neck.
(
Long Beach Police Department
/
L.A. County Superior Court filing
)
His attorney argued this fact is inconsistent with the description and should have disqualified Jacobs as a suspect, or at least warranted more questioning. Furthermore, he alleges Suarez failed to correct another officer at the scene who questioned why Ochoa didn’t see the hairstyle of the man who allegedly pulled a gun on him.
By this point, Ochoa had already described the suspect as having braids to Suarez and Kelley, according to the body cam footage, but Suarez did not correct the other officer.
“He couldn’t tell by the haircut,” Suarez said, adding he said “everything happened too fast.”
Jacobs’ defense alleges Suarez’s response was “actively misleading his fellow officers.”
Furthermore, body camera footage also shows Suarez agreeing with another officer who expressed doubts that Lonnie Jacobs was the one who brandished the firearm.
A still of officers discussing the potential suspects on the night of Lonnie Jacobs' arrest. A court filing by his defense said officers, including Erik Suarez, expressed doubts that he was the correct person.
(
Long Beach Police Department
/
L.A. County Superior Court
)
“Yeah I think it was him, too,” Suarez said, referring to Lonnie’s brother Lamar. Lamar Jacobs was never charged in connection with the case.
In filings to the court, the District Attorney’s Office said the officers had probable cause to arrest Jacobs because he was in the van described by the witness and matched at least some of the characteristics of the suspect.
How that led to the Georgia case coming to light
Once Jacobs’ defense reviewed the body cam footage, they began attempting to depose Suarez in the case. Although Lonnie Jacobs was never charged with threatening Ochoa, the arrest led to the charges of bringing drugs into a jail. If the initial arrest was illegitimate, the drug case would go away.
The court scheduled a hearing earlier this year to discuss the evidence, but the Long Beach Police Department told Jacobs’ defense that Suarez was out of the country.
The defense subpoenaed Suarez through the Police Department again and on June 15, the department told the team that Suarez had resigned.
An investigator for Jacobs’ defense searched for his address to subpoena him at home. That search, according to the court filing, uncovered the assault charges in Georgia in 2019, two years after he joined the police force in Long Beach.
In the motion to dismiss the charges against Jacobs, his defense argues it is “plausible” that Suarez resigned from the police force out of concern he may have been questioned about his alleged misconduct that led to Jacobs’ arrest.
“However, it is also now apparent that Officer Suarez has been living with another secret that may also have propelled a decision to abandon his police officer position,” the defense wrote.
Through discovery, Jacobs’ attorney said in court filings they learned that Suarez had traveled to Georgia where he watched the Atlanta Braves beat the Los Angeles Dodgers 4-3 on Aug. 17, 2019.
According to an incident report attached to court filings, a witness saw Suarez wearing a Dodgers jersey in a Waffle House, “talking shit” and arguing with the victim.
“Suarez then walked up to the table where the victim was seated and began punching him in the face until the victim was left unconscious on the ground,” the filing describes. According to the incident report and other filings from that case, Suarez continued to punch the victim while he was unconscious.
The most recent filing from Jacobs’ defense says Suarez was arrested walking away from the restaurant.
According to a description of the crime by Barry Morgan, a Cobb County assistant solicitor general, Suarez “caused the victim significant injuries, including orbital fracture, fracture of the maxillary sinus, traumatic orbital hematoma, and concussion.”
A memo details injuries caused by Erik Suarez in a 2019 assault. A grand jury indicted him on two felony counts. He later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and served a year of probation.
(
Cobb County Superior Court
/
via L.A. County Superior Court filing
)
“Defendant beat the victim while the victim was on the ground, apparently unconscious,” the description explains. “This should be aggravated battery.”
On April 1, 2021, a grand jury indicted Suarez on two felony counts of aggravated battery, accusing him of “seriously disfiguring” the victim and rendering his right eye useless.
Right before trial, Suarez pleaded guilty in November 2022 to reduced misdemeanor charges of battery, was ordered to stay away from the victim and Cobb County, and was ordered to take anger management classes. He was sentenced to 12 months, which he was allowed to serve on probation.
According to Jacobs’ defense, “Suarez’s actions in Georgia triggered immediate reporting responsibilities related to his employment” with the Long Beach Police Department.
The court filing explains that the Long Beach police manual requires officers to inform their watch commander when they are arrested by another department or under a criminal investigation.
It’s not yet clear when the department learned about Suarez’s arrest. But Jacobs' defense argues that if the department learned of the arrest between 2019 and 2026, “this would have clearly triggered Brady responsibilities in this case and numerous others.”
That information is relevant to the case against Jacobs, the filing argues, because “it is entirely logical that the same officer who beat a victim into unconsciousness and then cavalierly walked from the scene would just as thoughtlessly arrest a man for whom no probable cause existed — concealing that the victim previously identified another suspect who possessed features irreconcilable with the defendant’s culpability.”
When does law enforcement need to disclose misconduct?
While law enforcement has a legal requirement to proactively disclose Brady material that could help defendants build their case, California law exempts most police personnel records from disclosure, except under certain circumstances including findings of unnecessary use of force and misconduct while on the job.
Jacobs’ defense attorney, in the Sept. 8 filing, alleges Long Beach police purposefully placed evidence related to Suarez’s conviction in his personnel file, where it could be protected from disclosure.
He wrote this “enabled the agency to hide mandated discovery related to Officer Suarez’s conduct from what have likely been hundreds of defendants during the nearly seven-year period between the time of Officer Suarez’s August 2019 arrest and June 2026.”
Furthermore, the filing argues “there is every reason to believe that the hiding of Brady evidence extends far beyond Officer Suarez’s conduct and is the product of a long-established undisclosed policy designed to conceal Brady evidence.”
The filing points to a June 2021 news article wherein a spokesperson for the LBPD told reporters that it does not maintain a formal list of officers whose case involvement triggers Brady disclosures, but that it “continues to comply with its obligations to share such information.”
By that time, Suarez’s assault case was nearly two years old and, according to Jacobs’ defense, had never been disclosed.
How to reach me
If you have a tip, you can reach me on Signal. My username is Jbennett.18.
You can follow this link to reach me there or type my username in the search bar after starting a new chat.
