Randall Lewis Opines on Need to Reform California’s Entitlement Processes

Randall, given it's been some time since TPR last interviewed you, could you give our readers an updated overview of  Lewis Group of Companies housing, industrial and mixed-use developments in California?

The Lewis Group of Companies is a very diversified, privately owned real estate company. We operate in Southern California, Northern California—primarily within an hour of Sacramento—and in Las Vegas and Reno.

Our core business is developing large-scale master-planned communities. We have major projects including one in Chino with nearly 8,000 homes at full build-out, Ontario projects that total well over 3,000 homes, one in Rancho Cucamonga that is nearly complete at close to 8,000 homes; another one in Rancho Cucamonga that will have over 3,400 homes, Fontana with land for several thousand more homes, and in Solano County, we have three projects which will ultimately total 12,000–13,000 homes. We have many other communities that combined will allow us to develop between 35,000 – 40,000 homes in the future.

We also have a property management and apartment development division. We own close to 13,000 apartments and aim to build about 1,000 rental homes per year—many of them apartments, but some in the build-for-rent category. In addition, we have a strong retail group, owning over 40 shopping centers. We actively develop three to four new shopping centers per year, primarily neighborhood centers, though some are power centers.

Our industrial group has been very active, primarily in the Inland Empire, where we have done millions of square feet of industrial development. We continue our significant efforts in entitlement work and mixed-use development projects. There are two key differences since our last conversation. First, we are still deeply committed to the Inland Empire but have expanded into new areas. For example, in Ventura County, we have a large project in Santa Paula in partnership with Limoneira, one of California’s largest citrus companies. This master-planned community will have over 1,700 homes and is nearly halfway through development. It’s a strong market, and we’re encouraged by its progress. We also are relooking at the high desert and have recently purchased property in Barstow.

Secondly, we are taking on more projects in Los Angeles County, which historically hasn’t been our primary focus. We hope to have developments underway in Downey, Norwalk, Rosemead, Glendora, and La Verne, and we recently completed one in West Covina. We also have a potential project in the City of Bell. Additionally, we were partners in a project in North Hollywood. So, we are expanding both outward and inward, focusing on urban infill development as well as our traditional large-scale master plans.

Your credentials explain why TPR has turned to you in the aftermath of the devastating Palisades and Eaton fires. Local jurisdictions have begun seriously reimagining how their communities should build back—both their residential neighborhoods, public infrastructure, and commercial districts.

As someone who has developed in multiple local jurisdictions, what needs to change re: the local expediting permitting approval process for successfully rebuilding devastated neighborhoods?

I can speak in general, though not specifically about Los Angeles’ rebuilding efforts, as we’re not directly involved there. But overall, California’s entire entitlement process needs to be reimagined and reinvented. There is no reason why even an easy, straightforward development project—one without controversy—should take two or three years to be approved.

A lot of it comes down to process improvement programs. We need to evaluate every step of the process, while not lowering our standards or due diligence. We need to look at how to do things quicker and faster, maybe more economically, and still get the same quality of output. We need to figure out how to take the lessons of Los Angeles County and apply them to the whole state.

There's going to be a lot of research on what works and doesn't work in rebuilding the fire areas, and what can we learn from those efforts? I'm not minimizing job number one, which is let's deal with the tragedy. Let's deal with the people out of their homes. Let's deal with the closed businesses and the workers who lost their jobs. But long term, we must use this experience to improve the system to keep building in California.

Your good family’s name is tied now to USC, UCLA, University of La Verne, UC Riverside & Claremont McKenna College, among others academic institutions, to educate and support healthy & sustainable community development. You personally have worked with many city managers and government agencies to gain expedited approvals for your real estate development projects—while ensuring that there’s no fraud and abuse of the processes. Again, with these credentials, how then should local governments’ development approval processes be improved to meet the enormous recovery efforts resulting from the Palisades and Eaton fires?

In this case, my understanding is Steve Soboroff will be taking a leadership role for the City of Los Angeles. I know Kathryn Barger is taking a leadership role as well in Los Angeles County.

An interesting question will be how to leverage resources. I receive a lot of emails, and there are so many people trying to be conveners—academic institutions, ULI, BIA and many others—saying, "Let’s have a workshop on how to rebuild." It almost feels like we need a convener of conveners—because everyone wants to be a convener. I don’t have the answer, but I know ULI, which I’m heavily involved with, is thinking at both the national and district level about how best to leverage its resources. I also know SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) is interested. I spoke with Kome Ajise recently. I don’t speak for SCAG, but I know he’s very engaged and thinking about what SCAG’s best role should be. I wish I had the answer to this. I think it will take a few key people—like Steve Soboroff and Rick Caruso —and it will require a focused effort to take all the work being done rapidly and

Lewis Group’s master-planned communities have consistently aimed to build Healthy Communities. How might Lewis’ Healthy Communities development approach align with current rebuilding demands for speed, lower cost, and efficiency?

One of the things I’m proudest of is something called the Randall Lewis Health Policy Fellows. We’ve had over 350 masters and PhD students in public health working with cities and universities on how to create healthier communities. I don’t believe there has to be a conflict between health-focused planning and speed of rebuilding. 

From a public health perspective, a big question will be: Where should future development go? What should the built environment look like? What design and landscaping standards should we prioritize? There have been a lot of articles on lessons from Australia’s wildfire recovery, and ULI is looking into how insurance companies can help identify best practices. 

A big part of public health is promoting well-being, but another critical aspect is reducing health hazards. These two concepts are deeply connected, and they will be key to rebuilding smarter. At ULI, I’m involved with the Randall Lewis Center for Sustainable Real Estate, which has three focus areas: Decarbonization (probably not as relevant to this conversation), Urban Resilience (very relevant), and Building Healthy Places (also very relevant). For this rebuild effort, I’m particularly interested in how to integrate urban resilience and healthy places. We need to rebuild in a smarter, healthier way—not just faster.

Expand on the Randall Lewis Health Policy Fellows program.

The Randall Lewis Health Policy Fellows program, now in its 15th year, connects masters and PhD students in public and community health with cities and agencies working on relevant policy issues. The program benefits both students—who gain real-world experience and access to policymakers—and cities, which receive valuable talent for little to no cost. Expanding on this model, a new initiative at UC Riverside will launch the Randall Lewis Policy Fellows program for second-year master’s students, focusing on policy issues in San Bernardino and Riverside counties.

Beyond health and education, there’s a growing focus on entrepreneurship through centers at the University of La Verne, Chaffey Community College, and Claremont McKenna, aiming to support startups and foster innovation. Sustainability efforts, particularly through ULI have also been a priority for me, with national and local initiatives addressing water, climate change, and healthy communities. A unique collaboration with Cal Poly Pomona has led to sponsored classes tackling real-world sustainability and infrastructure challenges, inspired by a past project in Claremont that influenced city policy. Another major initiative is the Randall Lewis Housing Initiative at UCLA, which funds research on increasing housing supply in California. These projects, among others at USC and UCLA, reflect a broader goal of leveraging talent and resources to drive meaningful change in health, sustainability, and housing policy. 

To pivot, are you now applying lessons from the recent fires to the materials & landscaping choices being incorporated into your companies’ developments? Have you actually changed the way Lewis Group builds?

My wife and I actually lost our home in a fire in Claremont 22 years ago, so we’ve been deeply sensitive to fire safety for a long time. In many of our communities, we’ve worked to determine the safest landscaping choices, often with guidance from local cities. One of the things we’re particularly interested in is the role of insurance companies in shaping fire-resistant development.

We’ve spoken with planners, architects, and land-use experts, and in some markets—such as South Orange County—we’ve seen guidance from insurance companies suggesting certain housing types may be easier to insure. For example, at certain densities, builders might have the option of duplexes, triplexes, or fourplexes, and there’s been some indication that duplexes might be desired by the insurance companies. These were conversations we were already engaged in before recent fires, but now we’re paying even closer attention because, at the end of the day, insurance companies will have a major influence on where and how we build.

Many families in the aftermath of the LA County fires are facing now the reality that you experienced 22 years ago.  Could you share how you and your family  processed the loss of your home? Is the central question: Does one rebuild or leave?

It’s ironic—we actually lost two homes in that same year. One was in the big fires that swept through Claremont and San Bernardino County, and the other was our beach house in Laguna, which burned down due to an electrical fire in our 80-year-old home. That year was devastating for my wife and me. But we learned that life goes on. It was painful, but we were fortunate—my mother was still living in Rancho Cucamonga, so we moved in with her for two years. For us, LA County was very cooperative in the rebuilding process. We were able to design and build a new home in about two years, which I know will be much harder for families now due to the sheer volume of destruction. But we were grateful that Los Angeles County expedited our process.

We decided to rebuild because we had a beautiful lot with a view, and it made sense for us. Where we live now, LA County sends out landscaping notices annually—often more than once a year—to ensure properties are properly maintained to reduce fire risk. We take fire safety very seriously, not just for our own homes but across all our developments. For example, we changed our landscaping approach in response to fire risks. One of our communities was initially planned as a lush, garden-style development—we even called it The Arboretum. It was going to be incredible, filled with beautiful landscaping and trees. But after the fires, we had to completely rethink our plans. The community is still great, but it’s nothing like what we originally envisioned.

If Steve Soboroff, Mayor Bass’ point for the Palisades rebuild asked you what powers he truly needs to streamline the permitting process and expedite redevelopment, what would top your list?

First, there should be immediate process improvement programs to bring all stakeholders to the table and determine how to fast-track approvals.

Second, while I’m not advocating relaxing safety standards, I do think we should reconsider some discretionary aesthetic requirements. I heard another developer express frustration—he said he hires top-tier architects, but then a young planning department assistant might say, "I don’t want a brown house, I want a green house or a blue house." Cities often take a heavy hand on design aesthetics, and I’d urge them to tread lightly unless it’s a safety issue.

In a normal development project, you might go through three design review meetings just debating brick color, trim details, or window placements. If those discussions could be consolidated into one meeting, it would save months. People don’t realize how much back-and-forth on aesthetics delays projects. Another issue that will arise is whether people should rebuild their homes exactly as they were. I think this presents opportunities for rethinking housing options. For example, people who were considering an ADU might now take it more seriously. In some communities, there could even be opportunities for modest density increases—for instance, if two neighbors decide, "Instead of rebuilding just two homes, should we consider three?" I’m not suggesting we put high-density condos in established neighborhoods. But I do think we should explore options like adding more ADUs or densifying in appropriate ways where it makes sense.

Randall, the way homebuilding is financed today is very different from when your parents began developing. Most S&Ls have shut down, banks have changed their processes, and the federal government has adjusted its requirements. In 2025, what’s the best way to finance a rebuild?

Fortunately, we don’t have to worry about that, because our company is in a strong financial position. We’re a conservative company with significant liquidity, so we self-finance almost all of our projects. Once we complete an apartment complex or shopping center, we secure permanent financing, but the initial development is self-funded. That’s a great position to be in, but it’s not going to be the reality for most homeowners looking to rebuild.

And the reality for Renters?  

 The hottest housing trend in the rental market today is build-for-rent communities, which started in Phoenix and have since spread nationwide. These developments feature homes that resemble traditional houses more than apartments, typically at lower densities of 10 to 17 units per acre. They often lack large clubhouses, and while some have garages, others do not. The primary target market consists of renters who either can’t afford or choose not to purchase a home but also don’t want to live in a conventional multi-story apartment building.

In Phoenix, many of these homes are single-story homes without garages, but the concept has evolved in many ways and is now being developed across the country. Our firm is currently planning ten build-for-rent projects in California, each comprising 150 to 250 duplex-style homes. Almost all homes will include two-car garages and small yards—enough space for a barbecue and seating area—while maintaining the feel of a standalone home with ample natural light. Rent will range from $3,000 to $4,000, depending on the market. This is a major shift for us, but we believe it will serve an unmet need in California’s housing market. Due to high land costs, there are currently few such projects in the state, but we see great opportunity in many areas.

Before closing, TPR has now published a number of  interviews on prefabricated housing. What’s your take on prefabrication?

When it comes to construction, we are not utilizing prefabricated housing, though some components, like lumber sections, may be pre-assembled offsite. One key difference in our build-for-rent approach is working with homebuilder subcontractors rather than large crews typically used for apartment developments. These smaller-scale subcontractors specialize in single-family-style construction and can complete the projects at a more efficient cost structure.

Beyond construction, we are observing notable shifts in rental trends. People are staying in their apartments much longer than before. Turnover rates that used to range from 50–60% have now dropped to 30 – 40%. This is likely due to high home prices and interest rates discouraging people from moving, as well as a slowdown in California’s population outflow. Additionally, we are seeing a shift in demographics—our rental households have more dogs than children. Even in our most family-friendly communities, fewer than half of the households have kids; typically, around 47–48%, while the remainder consists of singles, couples, retirees, and divorcees.

How does this the size of the “family” unit impact the design of your communities?

These demographic changes are definitely shaping how we design our communities. The most in-demand amenity today is pickleball, particularly among older residents, so we are incorporating more pickleball courts into our developments. We are also prioritizing dog parks, though they bring unique management challenges. Security has become another key focus, as crime rates have increased slightly, though not dramatically. More broadly, we’ve noticed a shift in social behavior—residents seem less tolerant and more argumentative than in the past, reflecting broader societal polarization. Understanding and adapting to these changing dynamics has become an important part of our approach.