Photo of Lauren Chang

Lauren Chang

Subscribe to Lauren Chang's Posts

Lauren K. Chang is a partner in the Real Estate, Energy, Land Use & Environmental Practice Group in the firm's Los Angeles office.

Contact:Read more about Lauren Chang

In light of the ongoing devastation wrought by the numerous wildfires plaguing Los Angeles County, California Governor Gavin Newsom has declared a state of emergency[1] and taken immediate action in an attempt to allow Angelenos to rebuild efficiently and effectively. One such action was the issuance of Executive Order (EO) N-4-25 on January 12th to temporarily suspend two time-intensive environmental laws.[2] In response, the City of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass issued her own executive order (Emergency Executive Order No. 1 [LA EEO1]) just one day later to “clear the way for Los Angeles residents to rapidly rebuild the homes they lost.”[3]Continue Reading State and Local Executive Orders Suspend Time-Consuming Permitting and Review Requirements for Rebuilding Los Angeles

Despite strenuous opposition from both the state’s real estate and business communities,1 near the end of the 2024 Legislative cycle, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 98 (“AB 98”) – a bill that, among other things, creates buffer zones and imposes other statewide design and build standards around new warehouse development.2 The bill, which overrides local land use programs, segregates these standards based on warehouse sizes and location within the state. Purportedly, AB 98 is intended to mitigate the negative health impacts associated with warehouse and logistics facility uses have on nearby communities, namely in the Inland Empire region. Prior to the Governor’s signature, the bill passed by fairly narrow margins in both the State Senate and Assembly.Continue Reading A Deep Dive into AB 98’s Restrictions on the Logistics Industry: What the Bill Does and Does Not Do

To address the housing crisis in California, Senate Bill 684 (SB 684), passed in 2023 but effective as of July 1, 2024, aims to simplify the approval process for small-scale for-sale housing projects, facilitate a quicker development process, and help to alleviate the state’s housing shortage. Specifically, SB 684 mandates local agencies to ministerially approve proposed subdivisions for housing projects that result in 10 or fewer parcels, provided they meet specific criteria.[1] Applications for up to 10 units as part of a housing development on lots subdivided using this process and for building permits for construction of the units are also ministerial.[2] This streamlined, CEQA-exempt approval process applies to tract maps on lots zoned for multifamily residential development, no larger than 5 acres, substantially surrounded by qualified urban uses[3] and “infill” sites.Continue Reading Big Streamlining for Small Subdivision Developers

According to the Public Policy Institute of California, a non-profit, non-partisan think tank, California is facing a jaw-dropping 3.5 million unit housing deficient for the current population. This despite several legislative sessions enacting a large number of bills aimed at boosting housing production. 2023 was no different. During its first year of the current 2-year legislative cycle, Governor Newsom signed an unprecedented 56 housing bills into law, reflecting the California Legislature’s continued effort to respond to the housing crisis, and the multi-dimensional approach to developing, retaining, and permitting housing options for Californians. In sum, the housing bills intend to incentivize and reduce barriers to housing production, especially “affordable” or below-market rate housing by addressing previously-identified hurdles in the market. To do so, some bills include further expansion of State Density Bonus Law, including Senate Bill (SB) 423’s extension of the sunset date in 2017’s SB 35. The package also includes bills aimed to keep tenants in their existing homes and reflects the state’s desire to limit local governments’ ability to deny housing projects.Continue Reading California Continues Trend of Pushing Housing Legislation to Address Ongoing Housing Shortage

In it’s recent decision in United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2023) ___ Cal.App.5th ___, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment voiding the City of Los Angeles’s reliance on the CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption for a hotel project in Hollywood that would demolish 40 rent-stabilized units (RSO). In upholding the trial court decision, the appellate court emphasized the City’s failure to adequately assess the Project’s consistency with all applicable general plan policies, as required by CEQA Guidelines section 15332(a).Continue Reading Second District Addresses CEQA’s Class 32 Infill Exemption Criteria

In Save the Hill Group v. City of Livermore et al., the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 5) reversed and remanded the superior court’s decision to uphold the reissued final environmental impact report (RFEIR) for a development project with 44 single-family homes located in a residentially-zoned grassland area, called Garavanta Hills, near the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve.  In doing so, the Court held that the analysis for the “no project” alternative was inadequate because it failed to disclose and evaluate the possibility of using existing mitigation funding to make the no-project alternative feasible.  While the superior court agreed that the analysis of the no-project alternative was insufficient, the superior court found that petitioner Save the Hill Group (Petitioner) had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies on this issue, upholding the RFEIR on this jurisdictional prerequisite.  While the Court of Appeal reversed this particular decision, it did rejected the Petitioner’s remaining claims.
Continue Reading Court of Appeal Holds No-Project Alternative Analysis May Mean More When Conservation is an Option and Reinforces Low Barrier to Entry Under the Exhaustion Doctrine

In March, the Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”)[1] will adopt final Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) allocations for cities and counties within the SCAG region.  This 6th RHNA cycle represents the first update to these targets since the passage of key housing legislation, including Senate Bill (“SB”) 35[2], which grants ministerial approval and streamlining of qualifying housing projects if the jurisdiction has failed to meet its RHNA targets.  Housing developers planning for potential investment can look to these production targets to assess regional and city-based needs.  Cities and counties also will update their Housing Element and other planning documents to address the need.
Continue Reading Southern California Counties To Adopt Major Housing Production Targets

In rejecting a California Environmental Quality Act challenge to a mitigated negative declaration for conversion of a vacant apartment building into a 24-room boutique hotel (the “Project”), the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the City of Los Angeles’s use of an existing conditions baseline when assessing housing and population impacts. The decision in Hollywoodians Encouraging Rental Opportunities (HERO) v. City of Los Angeles et al. (2019) ___ Cal.App.5th ____ indicates that the time for courts to address population displacement, and more specifically affordable housing, as a CEQA-cognizable impact is fast approaching.
Continue Reading Court of Appeal Rules HERO Cannot Save Previously Vacated Rental Units

In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (S219783), the California Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that the substantial evidence standard of review does not always apply when a lead agency prepares an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for a development project. Rather, the court determined that the less deferential de novo standard applies if the EIR’s discussion of a potentially significant impact has been omitted or is factually insufficient. In other words, while a lead agency has considerable discretion as to the methodology and analysis it employs to analyze a potentially significant impact, an EIR must reasonably describe the nature and magnitude of the impact (i.e., include a meaningful explanation of why an impact is significant or not) if it is to survive judicial scrutiny. In County of Fresno, the court employed the de novo standard and held that the EIR’s air quality analysis was inadequate because it did not explain the connection between the project pollutants and negative health effects or explain why it could not make such a connection.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of De Novo and Substantial Evidence Standards Of Review In CEQA Cases

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) has spent five years drafting a comprehensive update to 30 sections of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines.[1] The updated text[2] (“Final Text”) ensures the Guidelines are consistent with recent court decisions, implements legislative changes, clarifies rules governing the CEQA process, and eliminates duplicative analysis. Several changes to the Guidelines address two hot button topics: global climate change and statewide affordable housing shortages. During the deliberative process, the Agency also released its “Final Statement of Reasons for the Regulatory Action Amendment to the State Guidelines” to give more history and context to each change to the Final Text.[3]


Continue Reading Five Years in the Making: California is One Step Closer to a Comprehensive Update to the CEQA Guidelines