[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-155365-105":59,"doc-detail-155365-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","hollywoodians-encouraging-rental-opportunities-hero-california-court-of-appeal-decision-on-ceqa-and-affordable-housing","Hollywoodians Encouraging Rental Opportunities (HERO) - California Court of Appeal Decision on CEQA and Affordable Housing","","This California Court of Appeal decision addresses a challenge to City approvals under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) involving the conversion of a vacant apartment building into a boutique hotel. Petitioners sought a writ of mandate requiring an environmental impact report (EIR) to assess loss of affordable housing and tenant displacement. The court holds no EIR was required because the building had already been withdrawn from the rental market before the City began environmental review, leaving no housing-related impacts or displacement for CEQA analysis.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/hollywoodians-encouraging-rental-opportunities-hero-california-court-of-appeal-decision-on-ceqa-and-affordable-housing/155365/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/hollywoodians-encouraging-rental-opportunities-hero-california-court-of-appeal-decision-on-ceqa-and-affordable-housing/155365.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Connor ","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-21","2026-08-28",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",11,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What project were the petitioners challenging under CEQA?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"The City approved a proposal to convert a vacant 18-unit apartment building into a boutique hotel, and petitioners challenged that approval under CEQA.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"Why did the court conclude an EIR was not required?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"The court concluded that because the building had been withdrawn from the rental market years before the City started environmental review, there were no housing-related impacts or tenant displacement for the City to assess in an EIR.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"What CEQA requirement was at the center of the appeal?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"The essential question was whether CEQA required the City to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) to evaluate significant environmental effects, specifically involving affordable housing loss and tenant displacement.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},155365,1787910670,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":130,"read_time":26,"preview_page_count":4},687207022233,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","Filed 6/28/19; Certified for Partial Publication 7/22/19 (order attached)  \nIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  \nSECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT  \nDIVISION THREE  \nHOLLYWOODIANS ENCOURAGING RENTAL OPPORTUNITIES (HERO) et al.,  \nPlaintiffs and Appellants,  \nv.  \nCITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents;  \nMILLENNIUM SETTLEMENT CONSULTING / 1850 NORTH CHEROKEE, LLC et al.,  \nReal Parties in Interest and Respondents.  \nB285553  \n(Los Angeles County  \nSuper. Ct. No. BS163828)  \nAPPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John A. Torribio, Judge. Affirmed.  \nAngel Law, Frank P. Angel and Ellis Raskin for Plaintiffsand Appellants.  \nAdvocates for the Environment, Dean Wallraff and Kathleen R. Unger for Affordable Housing Preservation Advocates, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.  \nEviction Defense Network, Elena I. Popp and Sean Chandra for Los Angeles Tenants Union, Public Counsel, National Lawyers Guild, Western Center on Law and Poverty, Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, and Anti-Eviction Mapping Project, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.  \nRemy Moose Manley, Sabrina V. Teller and Christina L. Berglund; Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, and Oscar Medellin, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents.  \nJeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, and Matthew D. Hinks, for Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.  \nPlaintiffs and appellants Hollywoodians Encouraging Rental Opportunities (HERO), Sylvie Shain (Shain), and Max Blonde (Blonde) (sometimes collectively referred to as HERO) appeal a judgment denying their petition for writ of mandate. HERO’s petition sought to set aside actions taken by defendantsand respondents City of Los Angeles, City Council of the City of Los Angeles (City Council), and Central Los Angeles Area Planning Commission (Commission) (collectively, the City) in approving a proposal by real parties in interest and respondents Millennium Settlement Consulting/1850 North Cherokee, LLC, Lesser Investment Company, L.P., and David Lesser (collectively, the owner) to convert a vacant 18-unit apartment building into a boutique hotel.  \nIn this case involving the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), 1 the essential issue presented is whether the City erred in failing to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) to assess the loss of affordable housing and displacement of tenants that would result from the conversion of the former apartment building into a hotel.  \nBecause the building at issue had been withdrawn from the rental market years before the City commenced environmental review for the hotel project, we conclude there were no housingrelated impacts or displacement of tenants for the City to address in an EIR. We also reject HERO’s other contentions and affirm the judgment denying the petition for writ of mandate.  \nOVERVIEW OF CEQA  \n“ ‘In CEQA, the Legislature sought to protect the environment by the establishment of administrative procedures drafted to “[e]nsure that the long-term protection of the environment shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions.” ’[Citation.] At the ‘heart of CEQA’ (CEQA Guidelines, § 15003, subd. (a)) [2] is the requirement that public agencies prepare an EIR for any ‘project’ that ‘may have a significant effect on the environment.’ [Citations.] The purpose of the EIR is ‘to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate  \n1 All unspecified statutory references are to the Public Resources Code.  \n2 The CEQA Guidelines are found at California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15000 et seq.  \nalternatives to such a project.’ [Citation.] The EIR thus works to‘inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmen","cbCailCpNWi0DFhA","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCailCpNWi0DFhA","pdf",168337,24,"English","# Case Background\n## Parties and Project Description\n# Legal Issue Under CEQA\n## Whether an EIR Was Required\n# CEQA Framework\n## Initial Study, EIR, Negative Declaration, and MND","[{\"question\":\"What project were the petitioners challenging under CEQA?\",\"answer\":\"The City approved a proposal to convert a vacant 18-unit apartment building into a boutique hotel, and petitioners challenged that approval under CEQA.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did the court conclude an EIR was not required?\",\"answer\":\"The court concluded that because the building had been withdrawn from the rental market years before the City started environmental review, there were no housing-related impacts or tenant displacement for the City to assess in an EIR.\"},{\"question\":\"What CEQA requirement was at the center of the appeal?\",\"answer\":\"The essential question was whether CEQA required the City to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) to evaluate significant environmental effects, specifically involving affordable housing loss and tenant displacement.\"}]","Hollywoodians Encouraging Rental Opportunities (HERO) - California Court of Appeal Decision on CEQA and Affordable Housing | PDF"]