DEVELOPING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON PUBLIC LAND IN LOS

ANGELES

A Project

Presented to the

Faculty of

California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master

In

Urban & Regional Planning

By Abigya Eshete

2021

ii

SIGNATURE PAGE

PROJECT: DEVELOPING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON PUBLIC LAND IN LOS ANGELES

AUTHOR: Abigya Eshete

DATE SUBMITTED: Spring 2021

Department of Urban & Regional Planning

Dr. Gwen Urey Project Committee Chair Urban and Regional Planning

Richard Zimmer, AICP Urban and Regional Planning

Eve Bachrach Client HCIDLA

iii

ABSTRACT

Cities are attempting to expand their supply of affordable housing by utilizing publicly-owned land

for development. The literature indicates that creating an inventory of sites that qualify for housing

development is the first step to take the most advantage of public land. Using property data from the City

of Los Angeles, this project identifies sites that have the least barriers to development and overlays a

quality-of-life analysis to ensure that future residents will be in locations that are accessible to transit,

grocery stores and schools. The result of this project will enable the client to identify the best

opportunities to deliver affordable housing units in the most cost-effective way.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SIGNATURE PAGE ................................................................................................................................... ii

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... v

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... vi

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Project Client .............................................................................................................................................. 1

Project Description ..................................................................................................................................... 2

LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................................. 3

Housing Unaffordability and Its Consequences ......................................................................................... 3

The California Context ............................................................................................................................... 4

Potential of Surplus Land ........................................................................................................................... 6

METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................... 10

FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................ 15

Size as a Priority ................................................................................................................................... 15

Opportunity Category as a Priority ........................................................................................................ 20

DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................... 23

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 25

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Parcels greater than 1/4 acre. ....................................................................................................... 16

Table 2: Sites greater than 7,500 sqft, but less than ¼ acres. ................................................................... 18

Table 3 - High Resource Parcels ................................................................................................................ 20

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Map of Transit Oriented Communities. Source: ZIMAS. ............................................................ 10

Figure 2 - Glasgow Pl, vacant site. Source: Google Street View. .............................................................. 16

Figure 3 - Sites greater than 1/4 acre. Source: Google Earth. ................................................................... 17

Figure 5 - All sites greater than 7,500 sqft, but less than 1/4 acres. Source: Google Earth. ...................... 20

Figure 6 - Aerial View of High Resource Sites. Source: Google Earth. ...................................................... 21

Figure 7 - Opportunity Map, High Segregation & Poverty. Source: TCAC/HCD. ....................................... 22

Figure 8 - Example of unsuitable site. Dominguez Channel designated as “Vacant.”

Source: Los Angeles County Assessor Map. ............................................................................................. 23

1

INTRODUCTION

Affordable housing continues to be a major issue in California. The shortfall of affordable homes

has led to cost-burdened households, with the historical trend showing the depth of the problem:

from 2014-2018, 80% of extremely low-income renters have experienced severe cost burden, while

the cost burden for very low-income renters remained above 50% for those four years (California

Housing Partnership, 2020). The state has been trying to tackle this problem in a variety of ways.

Recently, the use of surplus land for housing development has been identified as an opportunity to

expand housing production. However, there are challenges that make it difficult to effectively

marshal surplus land. One major challenge is the lack of information and coordination between

entities that own land, the status of what they possess and whether any of it can be developed.

There is no database containing a list of sites that can be used for affordable housing. To facilitate

this, California has introduced new laws that impact land disposal and require agencies to prioritize

available sites for development.

Project Client

The client is Housing + Community Investment Department of Los Angeles (HCIDLA), more

specifically the Housing Strategies & Services Division. HCIDLA is the city’s affordable housing

organization, with a mission to “promote livable and prosperous communities through the

development and preservation of decent, safe, and affordable housing, neighborhood investment

and social services.”1 HCIDLA is vast and, aside from general management and administrative

duties, the organization has three bureaus: Community Services & Development, Regulatory

Compliance & Code, and Housing Development. Each of these bureaus have multiple divisions

that manage various housing and community programs, from rent stabilization, supportive housing

services, to neighborhood improvement projects. The project client is under the Housing

Development Bureau, which administers development financing and asset management, along with

programs ranging from homeownership, preservation of housing for aging residents, lead hazard

mediation and much more.

1 https://hcidla.lacity.org/

2

Project Description

This project seeks to add to that effort by creating an inventory of Los Angeles sites

that have been analyzed and qualified using important indicators, with the end goal of fast

tracking the development of much needed affordable housing on these selected sites. The

major task for this project will be to deliver the land analysis for the City of Los Angeles,

which is detailed in the methods section. This can be used to guide future policy or

research for the client. The proposal begins with a review of the literature on affordable

housing, the impact of housing unaffordability, the underlying issues and provides

background on housing issues specific to California. Following that is a discussion on

surplus land, an outline of methodology to conduct site inventory and analysis of surplus

land.

3

LITERATURE REVIEW

There is expansive literature on the topic of affordable housing, but this review is

organized to provide background on the key ideas around affordable housing, including the

impact of housing unaffordability, and the contributing factors that lead to a mismatch between

housing supply and demand. Particular attention is paid to California and the use of surplus land,

reviewing legislative materials that are critical to understanding how the state is planning on

addressing this issue.

Housing Unaffordability and Its Consequences

Affordable housing is a major challenge for cities across the nation. According to the

2019 ACS data, 48.5% of renter occupied households and 26.6% of homeowners spend 30% or

more of their income on housing costs (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019), categorizing them as “cost-

burdened,” as defined by HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2017). A

contributor to housing cost burden is the gap between incomes and cost: the average household

makes a median income of $65,712, while the median value of a home is $240,500 (U.S. Census

Bureau, 2019).

The impact of affordable housing extends beyond providing physical space for shelter.

Affordable housing is linked to crucial quality-of-life outcomes: families that are burdened with

high housing costs make significant trade-offs, like spending less money on health care and food

(Maqbool, Viveiros, & Ault, 2015) which leads to food insecurity and negative health outcomes.

Further, families with financial constraints are more likely to have limited housing options and are

forced to live in substandard housing conditions, which can be a contributor to chronic and

infectious diseases (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2011). The lack of affordable housing

can also influence educational outcomes: students who frequently relocate due to housing

instability are more likely to have poor school performance, compared to their peers (Enterprise

Community Partners, 2014). Another notable impact of affordable housing development is its

contribution to economic revitalization. Developments in low-income areas that are funded by

Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) increase the property values of surrounding

neighborhoods, producing large welfare benefits, and even decreasing segregation and crime

4

(Diamond & McQuade, 2019). Studies have shown the stimulating effects of affordable housing

on local economies: the creation of short-term and longer-term jobs; increase in government

revenues; lowered risk of foreclosures (Cohen & Wardrip, 2011); and in reverse, the significant

negative effects of unaffordable housing, which reduces local employment growth (Chakrabarti &

Zhang, 2010).

The mismatch between affordable housing supply and demand is significant, with

metropolitan regions being impacted mostly by a lack of rental housing supply. Nationwide, for

Extremely Low-Income renters (defined as those below 30% of area median income), there is a

deficit of 2.4 million units, leaving only 22 affordable units for every 100 ELI renter families, with

the West having the largest supply gap, leaving 13 affordable units for every 100 ELI families

(Airgood-Obrycki & Molinsky, 2019). One reason that contributes to this mismatch between

supply and demand is density restrictions that require minimum lot sizes, limiting the

development of new housing and contributing to increased land prices (Joint Center for Housing

Studies, 2020). Another contributor is communities mobilizing to oppose affordable housing

development, citing reasons ranging from impact on property values, decreased quality of life

and aesthetic objections (Schively, 2007). Further, these fears are not founded on facts but

mostly driven by a lack of understanding about the benefits of affordable housing (Payton Scally

& Tighe, 2015).These restrictions not only undercut housing supply, but lead to racial and

economic segregation (Greene & Gould Ellen, 2020) by concentrating affordable developments

in low-income areas, and making it difficult for low-income workers to live in areas with a larger

pool of job opportunities (Been, 2018).

The California Context

The problem of housing unaffordability is even more acute in California: 53.3% of renter

households and 37.1% of homeowners are defined as cost-burdened (U.S. Census Bureau,

2019). For renters in California, the gap between income and rent price is substantial: renters

need to earn 2.9 times the state minimum wage to afford average asking rents. What is even

more concerning is the historic trend: from 2000 to 2018, California’s median rent increased 40%

while median renter income increased by only 8% (California Housing Partnership, 2020).This

5

has serious implications, ranging from overcrowding to homelessness—HUD’s 2019

homelessness report indicated a 16.4% increase of homeless persons in one year (U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2020).

With a rising population—California has been receiving more than 400,000 residents per year

for over the last seventy-five years (Fulton & Shigley, 2018)—there is a never-ending demand for

affordable housing. To meet this need, the state allocates jurisdictions specific numbers of

housing that they need to provide, based on demographic and economic needs, which is

determined by the state in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (Fulton & Shigley, 2018).

Further, the state mandates local governments to include a Housing Element in their General

Plan (CA Government Code § 65300) to make “adequate provision for the existing and projected

housing needs of all economic segments of the community.” The Housing Element is also the

only element that is required to be updated periodically (every five to eight years), indicating the

state’s particular attention to the issue of housing. However, California continues to be

challenged with housing availability and affordability.

While there are numerous contributing factors for the shortage of housing, land-use

regulations, development process and limited land supply are significant factors in California.

Measures to control growth—like maximum density and height—affect the supply of housing.

Several California jurisdictions regulate the number of housing units that can be constructed on

specific lots (Mawhorter & Reid, 2018). This is especially heightened in the state’s coastal

metros, with each control measure increasing home prices by up to 5% (Taylor, 2015). Cities

with regulatory prohibitions are strongly associated with less permitting for new construction, and

they especially impede multifamily housing production (Monkkonen, Lens, & Manville, 2020),

which is the kind of development that can meaningfully expand housing availability. Further, the

lack of land zoned for multifamily housing limits opportunities for housing expansion—a majority

of California jurisdictions dedicate most of their available land to single-family housing

(Mawhorter & Reid, 2018). The effect of land use regulations in California cities is considerable:

in Los Angeles housing prices would decrease by 25% if these restrictions were reduced to the

level of other least regulated cities (Lin & Wachter, 2019).

6

Political measures around land-use also limit development: some cities in California require

voter approval or supermajority votes by elected officials to increase densities (Quigley &

Raphael, 2005). Combined with pressures from voters who oppose developments, local leaders

might be compelled to forego affordable housing developments. An additional layer is the state’s

mandate which limits property taxes to 1% of the assessed value, creating an environment where

cities advocate for commercial development rather than residential, as the former allows a much

larger source of revenue (Quigley & Raphael, 2005).

The cost of developing housing is notably high in California. Development fees in California

outpace other states, costing three times the national average and in some cases, these fees

can equal to 18% of a home’s median price (Mawhorter, Sarah; Garcia, David; Raetz, Hayley,

2018). The state does not have a standardized system of implementing development fees,

sometimes leading developers to opt for designs that increase sizes but reduce the number of

units, which impacts housing supply. Further, this system forces builders to rely on estimates

during the planning phase, which can result in project revisions, delays, and additional costs

(Mawhorter, Sarah; Garcia, David; Raetz, Haley, 2018). Land also contributes to total

development costs, with some of the costs being pushed by the potential of how much rent can

be extracted after a site is developed. In areas with high amenities, land can be up to 30% of

total development costs (Hickey & Sturtevant, 2015). This is the case for California’s metro cities,

with land value tripling in Los Angeles from 2000 to 2016 (Terner Center for Housing Innovation,

2020). The increased land cost also means developers are mostly likely to lean towards higher-

end housing (Freddie Mac, 2017).

Potential of Surplus Land

To alleviate housing pressures, localities throughout the country have begun to identify

surplus land as a potential solution. Broadly defined, surplus land is a site that is owned by a

governmental entity, which can range from the federal government to a school district.

California’s code defines surplus as “land owned in fee simple by any local agency for which the

local agency’s governing body takes formal action in a regular public meeting declaring that the

land is surplus and is not necessary for the agency’s use” (CA Government Code § 54221).The

7

idea of using surplus land for housing is not new. The California Surplus Land Act (SLA) was first

enacted in 1968 with the purpose of prioritizing surplus lands for affordable housing, parks and

open space, and schools (Office of Assemblymember Phil Ting, 2019). In 2014, the SLA was

amended to encourage developments with deepest affordability, increase negotiation periods

between a disposing agency and interested entities, and to give first priority to entities that agree

to use the site for affordable housing, over other uses (A.B. 2135, 2014). However, the state has

recognized these measures were not sufficient, as cities were bypassing these requirements

(DeRuy, 2020). To overcome this and facilitate more housing production, California strengthened

laws, with three notable decisions in September 2019:

• Assembly Bill 1486 was passed to expand the SLA. Some of the notable changes are

expanding definitions to include more entities: “local agency” now goes beyond

geographical regions like city or county and covers districts like sewer, water, utility,

and all special districts; “surplus land” is redefined to include land held by former

redevelopment agencies. This is aimed directly at cities that were able to previously

argue against inclusion in the SLA, by stating redevelopment agency land was

exempt (Office of Assemblymember Phil Ting, 2019). The bill also has strict

requirements for property disposition, some of which are: negotiation priority is to be

given to entities that propose units with the "deepest affordability"; prohibiting deals

that would disallow residential uses and maximum density; and introducing severe

penalties—30% to 50% of final sale price of land—and authorizing the state’s

Department of Housing and Community Development to notify the Attorney General if

a local jurisdiction violates provisions (A.B. 1486, 2019). Another notable requirement

is for a city or county planning agency to provide a list of sites that have been

disposed in the previous year, to whom and what the intended use was.

• Assembly Bill 1255 amended the existing law to require each city and county to create

a database of surplus land, with description of parcel and uses, and to provide this list

to the Department of General Services' digital inventory. This will be done annually,

beginning in April 2021 (A.B. 1255, 2019) and all the information will be made public

8

record.

• Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-06-19 in January 2019 for the

Department of General Services to create a digital inventory of excess parcels that

are owned by the state. The Executive Order also instructed Department of General

Services, Department of Housing and Community Development and California

Housing Finance Agency to develop screening tools that evaluate the feasibility of

housing development on these identified sites and "where underproduction is

impacting housing affordability" (Exec. Order No. N-06-19, 2019). The screened sites

will also be mapped to show where development will be most feasible and impactful.

Further, the Order instructs state agencies and departments to prioritize these sites

for state funding.

While California is rapidly mobilizing to take advantage of surplus land, other states have

made significant progress in utilizing surplus land. In 2018, Washington State passed legislation

that mandates inventory of surplus land and authorizes the discount of land for public benefit

developments (Arabo & Leonard, 2018). Further, the state’s largest county has had an ordinance

in place since 1996 which requires all surplus land to be dedicated to affordable housing (Hickey

& Sturtevant, 2015). Similarly, in 2014 the District of Columbia authorized specific percentages to

be dedicated to affordable housing when public land is disposed for development (Family

Housing Fund, 2018). At the city level, San Francisco’s Surplus Public Lands ordinance has a list

of policies that prioritize surplus land for citywide affordable housing (Family Housing Fund,

2018).

While surplus land affords significant opportunities to increase housing supply, it also comes

with challenges. First, the sites might involve complicated levels of ownership, putting restrictions

on its use and triggering stringent regulations (Spotts, Hale-Case, & Abu-Khalaf, 2017). Another

concern might be the gulf between the goals of public agencies and market needs, including

competing visions and a lack of consensus with private developers (Spotts, Hale-Case, & Abu-

Khalaf, 2017). The process of organizing publicly-owned sites also requires significant

coordination and collaboration between multiple public agencies, which might result in a lengthy

9

and complicated process (Spotts, Hale-Case, & Abu-Khalaf, 2017).

From the literature on use of surplus land for housing, there are key points to take into

consideration. The most crucial step is creating an inventory of surplus land and prioritizing the

inventory for varying use of sites (Hickey & Sturtevant, 2015). California’s amendments and

Executive Order N-06-19 indicate the state is heading in the right path. However, the state

advises that DGS is strictly inventorying state-owned parcels and cautions "local jurisdictions and

other public agencies to identify excess sites in their own property inventory" (CA Department of

General Services, 2018). In addition, the inventory can include co-location opportunities, where

affordable units can be placed above spaces like libraries, parking structures and community

halls (CA Department of General Services, 2018).

Prioritizing sites also means carefully weighing the criteria for site inventory and analysis of

surplus land. The Excess Site Screening Tools criteria created by the CA Department of General

Services, in accordance with Executive Order N-06-19, lists an Economic Feasibility Tool and a

Regional Underproduction Factors Tool (CA Deparment of General Services, 2019), each with

their own specific criteria. The Economic Feasibility Tools lists criteria that evaluate a site’s

suitability using the following factors: physical factors (parcel size, shape, potential for

consolidation); proximity to job centers, education, high-frequency transit; availability of utilities,

and other amenities. The Regional Underproduction Factors Tool aims to assess housing needs

with three criteria: availability of affordable housing in job and commute sheds; gap between

supply and demand (comparing RHNA housing allocation with issued building permits); and rate

of increase in rent (parcels where median gross rent increased by more than 5% in a single

year).

Another example of site analysis is a tool used for searching surplus land in Washington

State’s King County. The tool applies filters that filter sites in a large database based on suitable

zoning, suitable present use (not in a restricted or undevelopable area), lot size, tax exemption

status, and various physical factors, like not being underwater or having topography challenges

(Enterprise Community Partners, 2020). Other site analysis tools included percentage of tree

coverage, purchase agreement and historic resource, among other items (Arlington County,

10

2014). Aside from the criteria mentioned in these tools, it is also important to consider additional

factors like environmental restrictions (floodplains, landslides, seismic activity, fire hazard, toxic

contamination), which will help identify what can be mitigated, as well as evaluating the costs and

risks that it might involve. California also encourages housing development near transit stations.

In 2016, Los Angeles passed Measure JJJ, which includes affordable housing provisions and a

requirement for the Department of City Planning to create the Transit Oriented Communities

(TOC) Affordable Housing Incentive Program (TOC Program) (Department of City Planning,

2017) (Figure 1). The TOC Program incentivizes affordable housing developments near transit

stations by allowing increased density, floor area ratio, reduced parking requirements and other

benefits. Including some of these TOC benefits as criteria will help to prioritize the most

advantageous sites by tier of benefits to be received.

Figure 1 - Map of Transit Oriented Communities. Source: ZIMAS.

METHODOLOGY

To create a database of sites that can qualify for housing development, I began by

11

identifying publicly-owned parcels from the Los Angeles Controller’s inventory, which includes

property data from six entities: City of Los Angeles, State of California, County of Los Angeles,

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro), LA Unified School District

and the federal government2. As the project needed to be time-bound, the list of properties to be

analyzed was based on the list downloaded from the Controller’s website in January 2021.

Therefore, updates to the Controller’s list after that date have not been considered. The list

contains a total of 13,948 properties with various information for each property, including

ownership, size, shape, and land use code.

The first step was to filter the properties that are vacant, which can be found listed in the

Use Code column of the Controller’s spreadsheet, with “V” next to each code. Following that, I

identified properties that were designated Residential Use—the Use Type category contains

various designations (Commercial, Irrigated Farm etc.)—and then filtered to keep parcels that

had the following descriptions:

▪ Double, Duplex, or Two Units

▪ Three Units

▪ Four Units

▪ Five or More Units or Apartments

Parcels designated for Single Family and Rooming/Boarding House were removed at this

stage. To expand the options available, I also included sites that were labeled under other or non-

residential uses/ownership, namely government, institutional, industrial, miscellaneous, and blank

sites that had no use or description indicator.

To understand the characteristics of these filtered sites in the preliminary stage, I created

a suitability filter, indicating “Yes” or “No” for specific criteria. The criteria for suitability had the

following indicators, and each of the 160 sites were filtered through it by using the Assessor's

Identification Number from the property list.:

▪ Historic Site: Sites that are designated historic and can be found in the

2 Property Panel, LA Controller: https://lacontroller.org/data-stories-and-maps/propertypanel/

12

Department of City Planning, Office of Historic Resources’ database3

▪ Historic Preservation: Sites that require preservation review and/or have been

identified as qualified for historic designation. This information can be found on

the Zone Information Map Access System (ZIMAS)4

▪ Flood Zone: Sites designated flood hazard areas by the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA), as there is a 1% or greater of a chance. This

information can be accessed on ZIMAS.

▪ Hazardous Waste: Parcels that are close to superfund sites, as defined and

identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This information can

be accessed on ZIMAS.

▪ Brownfields: Sites that contain hazardous pollutants or contaminants were

identified using PolicyMap5, which displays brownfield sites designated by local

entities. As I was not able to access PolicyMap’s measuring tools and other

custom features with the version that I had, sites that were too close to the

brownfield point were checked against the California Department of Toxic

Substances Control (DTSC) data management system (EnviroStor)6.

▪ Fire Hazard Zone: Sites that were identified as “Very High Fire Hazard Severity

Zone” by the LA Fire Department. The criteria include fire weather, slope and

other factors. This information can be accessed on ZIMAS.

▪ Land Slide: Sites that were designated by the state and have the potential for

“earthquake-induced rock falls, slope failure, and debris flow.” This information

can be accessed on ZIMAS.

▪ Transit Oriented Communities: The TOC Program increases the maximum

number of units and FAR allowed for affordable housing built near a transit stop.

For each tier, an increase in density is applied, starting with 50% increase of

3 http://historicplacesla.org/ 4 http://zimas.lacity.org/ 5 https://www.policymap.com/maps 6 https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/

13

density for sites in Tier 1 and increasing by 10% for each following tier, with a

maximum of 80% increase in Tier 4. Similarly, the increase in FAR goes by 5%

points, starting with 40% at Tier 1, and allowing a maximum increase of 55% at

Tier 4. It is important to note that the incentives are attained only by dedicating a

minimum percentage of affordable units for a project. The TOC Guideline

identifies Extremely Low-Income, Very Low Income and Low Income as the

categories for affordability restrictions to access Base Incentives. Each tier has a

requirement for a minimum number of affordable units. The TOC Program has

four tiers, ranked low to high based on distance to transit. The TOC tiers for

each site can accessed on ZIMAS.

▪ Rent Stabilization Ordinance: Sites that are under RSO, which sets limits on rent

amounts. This information is available on ZIMAS

▪ AB 1482 (Tenant Protection Act): Statewide rent cap and eviction legislation.

This information is available on ZIMAS

▪ Schools and Parks: Sites that are within a 500 Ft Radius of a school and/or park.

This is available on ZIMAS.

▪ Opportunity Category: This indicator is based on the California Fair Housing

Task Force Opportunity Maps7, which measures census tracts in the state to

identify areas that support positive educational, health and economic outcomes.

Education outcomes are measured by high school graduation rates, math and

reading proficiency, and student poverty rate. Health outcomes include

indicators on multiple sources of pollution, as well as the quality of drinking

water. Economic outcomes are measured by job proximity, employment rate,

adult education, and income levels being above 200% of poverty line. The

Opportunity Category also identifies areas that are racially segregated and have

concentrated poverty. The indicator has a range from Highest Resource to Low

7 https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp

14

Resource.

▪ Grocery Store Accessibility: The USDA’s Food Access Research Atlas8 identifies

census tracts where people cannot easily access the nearest supermarket. I

used their indicator to identify sites where 33% of population lives more than 1

mile of the closest supermarket. Further, I used PolicyMap’s Limited

Supermarket Accessibility tool to identify parcels that are in low access areas.

Once each property was filtered through these indicators, I removed sites that were

historic, contained environmental hazards, as well as those that were unusable—parcels that

were part of a highway, sports fields, schools, ecological reserve. The Assessor Portal9 provides

a map view of parcels, which enabled me to identify sites that are not usable. If the portal view

was not clear, I also utilized Google Earth to get a clearer view of a particular site.

8 https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/go-to-the-atlas.aspx#.UUHjgLUyT9p 9 https://portal.assessor.lacounty.gov/

15

FINDINGS

There are 34 sites that can be used for development and the suitability or ranking will differ

depending on what is prioritized. To make it easier, I have organized these sites using two significant

factors: size and Opportunity Category.

Size as a Priority

Using a similar size qualifier as the CA Department of General Services’ Site Screening Tool (CA

Department of General Services, 2019), where a minimum of ¼ acre or greater was the required size for

analysis, I divided parcels into two: sites that are equal to or greater than ¼ (10,850 sqft) and sites that

are less than ¼ acre, but not below between 7,500 sqft.

APN Owner Address Zip

code

Size

SqFt

TOC

Tier

Opportunity

Category

Limited

Grocery

Accessibility

4128003900 LA City

Airport

5424

ARBOR

VITAE ST

90045 20,860 3 Low Resource No

6006030901 LA City 5888

CROCKER

ST

90003 20,801 1 Low Resource Partially

4125022910 LA City

Airport

5847 W

93RD ST

90045 14,951 3 Moderate

Resource (RC)

No

7414003900 LA DWP 1744 N

EUDORA

AVE

90744 13,581 - Low Resource No

4128009927 LA City

Airport

5306 W

93RD ST

90045 13,420 3 Moderate

Resource (RC)

No

4128006904 LA City

Airport

9409

GLASGOW

PL

90045 12,983 3 Moderate

Resource (RC)

No

4128004908 LA City

Airport

9308

GLASGOW

PL

90045 11,252 3 Moderate

Resource (RC)

No

4128004907 LA City

Airport

9304

GLASGOW

90045 10,850 3 Moderate

Resource (RC)

No

16

PL

Table 1: Parcels greater than 1/4 acre.

The results show that all available sites that are greater than 7,500 sqft and qualified using the filters

are almost exclusively located in the 90045 zip code.

Figure 2 - Glasgow Pl, vacant site. Source: Google Street View.

17

Figure 3 - Sites greater than 1/4 acre. Source: Google Earth.

18

Table 2: Sites greater than 7,500 sqft, but less than ¼ acres.

APN Owner Address Zip

code

Size TOC

Tier

Opportunity

Category

Limited

Grocery

Accessibility

41280179

06

LA City

Airport

9808

GLASGOW

PL

9004

5

7,500 3 Moderate

Resource

(RC)

No

41280179

05

LA City

Airport

9800

GLASGOW

PL

9004

5

7,501 3 Moderate

Resource

(RC)

No

41280179

11

LA City

Airport

9836

GLASGOW

PL

9004

5

7,509 3 Moderate

Resource

(RC)

No

41280179

21

LA City

Airport

9840

GLASGOW

PL

9004

5

7,510 3 Moderate

Resource

(RC)

No

41280179

10

LA City

Airport

9850

GLASGOW

PL

9004

5

7,558 3 Moderate

Resource

(RC)

No

41250229

14

LA City

Airport

5839 W 93RD

ST

9004

5

7,680 3 Low

Resource

No

41280169

27

LA City

Airport

5211 W 97TH

ST

9004

5

7,719 3 Low

Resource

No

41280229

07

LA City

Airport

5432 W 99TH

PL

9004

5

7,815 4 Low

Resource

No

41280109

08

LA City

Airport

9305 ISIS

AVE

9004

5

7,838 3 Low

Resource

No

41280239

10

LA City 5422 W 99TH

PL

9004

5

7,860 3 Moderate

Resource

(RC)

No

41280099

15

LA City

Airport

9302 ISIS

AVE

9004

5

7,949 3 Low

Resource

No

41280039

15

LA City

Airport

5433 W 99TH

PL

9004

5

7,985 3 Moderate

Resource

(RC)

No

19

41280229

09

LA City

Airport

5466 W 99TH

PL

9004

5

8,031 4 Low

Resource

No

41280229

10

LA City

Airport

5460 W 99TH

PL

9004

5

8,070 4 Low

Resource

No

41280129

08

LA City

Airport

5446 W 96TH

ST

9004

5

8,165 3 Low

Resource

No

41280179

03

LA City

Airport

9742

GLASGOW

PL

9004

5

8,239 3 Moderate

Resource

(RC)

No

41280229

08

LA City

Airport

5452 W 99TH

PL

9004

5

8,317 4 Low

Resource

No

41280199

07

LA City 5301 W 99TH

PL

9004

5

8,326 3 Low

Resource

No

41280109

21

LA City

Airport

9302

AVIATION

BLVD

9004

5

8361 3 Moderate

Resource

(RC)

No

41280229

02

LA City

Airport

5524 98TH

ST

9004

5

8,561 4 Low

Resource

No

41280189

12

LA City

Airport

9847

GLASGOW

PL

9004

5

8,650 3 Moderate

Resource

(RC)

No

41280169

05

LA City

Airport

5216 W 97TH

ST

9004

5

9,085 3 Low

Resource

No

41280099

27

LA City

Airport

5306 W 93RD

ST

9004

5

9,624 3 Moderate

Resource

(RC)

No

41250239

19

LA City

Airport

9624

BELFORD

AVE

9004

5

9,745 3 High

Resource

No

41250239

06

LA City

Airport

9625

BELFORD

AVE

9004

5

10,754 3 High

Resource

No

20

Figure 4 - All sites greater than 7,500 sqft, but less than 1/4 acres. Source: Google Earth.

Opportunity Category as a Priority

Sites that are identified as High Resource indicate areas that provide the best educational,

economic, and environmental opportunities. There are eight parcels in areas that are considered High

Resource:

Table 3 - High Resource Parcels

APN Address Zip

code

Size TOC

Tier

Opportunity

Category

Limited

Grocery

Accessibility

4125023919 9624 BELFORD

AVE

90045 9,745 3 High Resource No

4125023908 9500 BELFORD

AVE

90045 7,440 3 High Resource No

4125023915 9426 BELFORD

AVE

90045 7,440 3 High Resource No

4125023917 9514 BELFORD

AVE

90045 7,440 3 High Resource No

4128002908 9219 ISIS AVE 90045 6,985 3 High Resource No

21

4125023916 9606 BELFORD

AVE

90045 6,600 3 High Resource No

4125023920 9612 BELFORD

AVE

90045 6,520 3 High Resource No

4125023905 9519 BELFORD

AVE

90045 6,398 3 High Resource No

Figure 5 - Aerial View of High Resource Sites. Source: Google Earth.

When filtering areas that are considered to have Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing), these

same areas show up: All are properties owned by the Los Angeles City Airport and a majority of them on

Glasgow Place and W 93rd Street.

The Opportunity Category also identifies areas that are racially segregated and have a

concentration of poverty. This gives an opportunity to target places that do not have easy access to

housing investments. However, all of the sites that fall under the High Segregation & Poverty indicator are

very limited in sizing and not vacant, which makes intervention in areas that need it the most, impossible.

22

Figure 6 - Opportunity Map, High Segregation & Poverty. Source: TCAC/HCD.

23

DISCUSSION

While there are vacant sites in the City of LA, the findings indicate that the options become

limited when considering their suitability for housing development, and the ones that are available are

concentrated in a specific zip code. Further, some sites that were designated as “vacant” on the

Controller’s sheet were not suitable on close inspection, as they would be train tracks, tower lots,

channels, highways, bike lanes, planting strips or would contain partial structures. This indicates that

there is a need to refine the Controller’s property list, as “vacant” does not necessarily mean tenable for

housing development. This is especially important to note, in light of the preliminary injunction that was

ordered on April 20th10, mandating that the City of LA provide housing for any homeless person in Skid

Row. The order cites “14,000 properties” as being vacant.

10 Oreskes, Benjamin. “Judge Orders L.A. City and County to Offer Shelter to Everyone on Skid Row by Fall.” Los

Angeles Times, April 20, 2021.

https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2021-04-20/judge-carter-la-city-county-shelter-skid-row-

homeless-fall

Figure 7 - Example of unsuitable site. Dominguez Channel designated as “Vacant.” Source: Los Angeles County Assessor Map.

24

While this project did not include properties designated for single family homes, it might be worth

for HCIDLA to consider that, in order to expand options, as there are 1,404 single family sites that are

designated “vacant” for single family use. Another option might to remove the size restriction considered

for this project, i.e., looking into properties that are less than 7,500 sqft.

Considering these challenges, HCIDLA might need to consider parking lots to expand options for

housing development. There are a total of 364 parking lots on public land in Los Angeles (330

commercial use lots and 34 industrial use lots), equaling 11,968,696 sqft, dispersed throughout multiple

zip codes. A majority of these lots (48%) are designated as owned by the City of LA, with the remaining

split between the LAUSD (21%), Metro (19.7%), County of LA (5.8%), State of CA (3.3%), and the federal

government (2.1%). There are examples of public-private partnerships in other cities, where agencies are

transferring their parking sites for housing development—Fairfax County in VA transferred a portion of its

surface parking lots to the local housing authority to develop low- and middle-income affordable housing

(Fairfax County, 2021). In January 2020, the Boston Planning & Development Agency approved two

projects, the first converting a surface parking lot for fully income restricted residential development

(Boston Planning & Development Agency, 2020) and the second eliminating all parking spaces from a

mixed-use development, which is also subject to inclusionary development policy to restrict a percent of

the new project for low-income residents (Boston Planning & Development Agency, 2020). Cities in

California are also moving towards utilizing parking lots for housing. The City of Mountain View issued a

RFP to develop housing on a city-owned surface parking lot, with 50 percent of the units to be rest-

restricted (City of Mountain View, 2019). Similarly, the Eureka City Council approved three affordable

housing projects on parking lots owned by the city, creating 107 affordable units (Butler, 2020).

25

REFERENCES

A.B. 1255. (2019). Retrieved from

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1255

A.B. 1486. (2019). Retrieved from

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1486

A.B. 2135. (2014).

Airgood-Obrycki, W., & Molinsky, J. (2019). Estimating the Gap in Affordable and Available Rental Units

for Families. Cambridge: Joint Center for Housing Studies.

Arabo, F., & Leonard, M. (2018, March 23). Affordable Housing Wins Big in Washington State's 2018

Legislative Session. Retrieved from Enterprise Community Partners:

https://www.enterprisecommunity.org/blog/affordable-housing-wins-big-washington-states-2018-

legislative-session

Arlington County. (2014). Public Land for Public Good. Arlington: Arlington County Manager.

Been, V. (2018). City NIMBYs. Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law, Vol. 33, No. 2, 217-432.

Boston Planning & Development Agency. (2020, January 16). Retrieved from bostonplans:

http://www.bostonplans.org/projects/development-projects/northampton-street-residences

Boston Planning & Development Agency. (2020, January 16). Boston Plans. Retrieved from

http://www.bostonplans.org/projects/development-projects/1252-1270-boylston-street

Butler, A. (2020, October 21). Times Standard. Retrieved from https://www.times-

standard.com/2020/10/21/eureka-council-oks-affordable-housing-projects-on-3-parking-lots/

CA Deparment of General Services. (2019). Excess Site Screening Tools.

CA Department of General Services. (2018). EO N-06-19 FAQ.

CA Government Code § 54221. (n.d.).

CA Government Code § 65300. (n.d.).

California Housing Partnership. (2020). Affordable Housing Needs Report. San Francisco: California

Housing Partnership. Retrieved from https://chpc.net/resources/2020-statewide-housing-needs-

report/

Chakrabarti, R., & Zhang, J. (2010). Unaffordable Housing and Local Employment Growth. Boston: New

26

England Public Policy Center. Retrieved from https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/new-

england-public-policy-center-working-paper/2010/unaffordable-housing-and-local-employment-

growth.aspx

City of Mountain View. (2019, December 16). City of Mountain View. Retrieved from

https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/housing/active_projects/lot12/lot_12_rfp.asp

Cohen, R., & Wardrip, K. (2011). The Economic and Fiscal Benefits of Affordable Housing. Planning

Commissioners Journal, 1-3. Retrieved from http://plannersweb.com/wp-

content/uploads/2012/07/501.pdf

Department of City Planning. (2017). Transit Oriented Communities Affordable Housing Incentive

Program Guidelines (TOC Guidelines). Los Angeles: Department of City Planning. Retrieved

from https://planning.lacity.org/ordinances/docs/toc/TOCGuidelines.pdf

DeRuy, E. (2020, March 21). The Mercury News. Retrieved from The Mercury News:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/03/12/court-ruling-means-san-jose-other-cities-must-

prioritize-affordable-housing-on-surplus-land/

Diamond, R., & McQuade, T. (2019). Who Wants Affordable Housing in Their Backyard? An Equilibrium

Analysis of Low-Income Property Development. Journal of Political Economy, 1063-1117.

Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/701354?af=R&mobileUi=0&

Enterprise Community Partners. (2014). Impact of Affordable Housing on Families and Communities: A

Review of the Evidence Base. Columbia: Enterprise Community Partners. Retrieved from

https://www.enterprisecommunity.org/download?fid=3335&nid=4547

Enterprise Community Partners. (2020). Home & Hope Mapping Tool. Retrieved from

https://www.enterprisecommunity.org/where-we-work/pacific-northwest/home-and-hope-

mapping-tool

Exec. Order No. N-06-19. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-

content/uploads/2019/01/EO-N-06-19.pdf

Fairfax County. (2021, February 4). Retrieved from

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/housing/news/2021/board-designates-government-center-parking-

lots-for-affordable-housing

27

Family Housing Fund. (2018). Prioritizing Public Lands for Affordable Housing and Other Public Benefits.

Minneapolis: Family Housing Fund. Retrieved from https://www.fhfund.org/wp-

content/uploads/2018/09/FHF_PublicLands_ModelPolicies.pdf

Freddie Mac. (2017). What is Causing the Lean Inventory of Houses? McLean: Freddie Mac. Retrieved

from http://www.freddiemac.com/fmac-resources/research/pdf/201707-Outlook-04.pdf

Fulton, W., & Shigley, P. (2018). Guide to California Planning. Point Arena: Solano Press Books.

Greene, S., & Gould Ellen, I. (2020). Breaking Barriers, Boosting Supply. Washington DC: Urban

Institute. Retrieved from https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/102963/breaking-

barriers-boosting-supply_0.pdf

Hickey, R., & Sturtevant, L. (2015). Public Land & Affordable Housing in the Washington DC Region: Best

Practices and Recommendations. Washington DC: Urban Land Institute Washington. Retrieved

from https://lsaplanning.com/wp-

content/uploads/2018/12/PublicLandAndAffordableHousing_WashingtonDCRegion.pdf

Joint Center for Housing Studies. (2020). The State of the Nation's Housing. Cambridge: Joint Center for

Housing Studies. Retrieved from

https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/reports/files/Harvard_JCHS_The_State_of_the_N

ations_Housing_2020_Report_Revised_120720.pdf

Lin, D., & Wachter, S. (2019). The Effect of Land Use Regulation on Housing Prices: Theory and

Evidence from California. Philadelphia: The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.

Retrieved from http://realestate.wharton.upenn.edu/working-papers/the-effect-of-land-use-

regulation-on-housing-prices-theory-and-evidence-from-california/

Maqbool, N., Viveiros, J., & Ault, M. (2015). The Impacts of Affordable Housing on Health: A Research

Summary. Washington DC: Center for Housing Policy. Retrieved from https://nhc.org/wp-

content/uploads/2017/03/The-Impacts-of-Affordable-Housing-on-Health-A-Research-

Summary.pdf

Mawhorter, S., & Reid, C. (2018). Local Housing Policies Across California. Berkeley: Terner Center for

Housing Innovation. Retrieved from

https://californialanduse.org/download/Terner_California_Residential_Land_Use_Survey_Report.

28

pdf

Mawhorter, Sarah; Garcia, David; Raetz, Haley. (2018). It All Adds Up: The Cost of Housing

Development Fees in Seven California Cities. Berkeley: Terner Center for Housing Innovation.

Retrieved from https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/site/it-all-adds-up-the-cost-of-housing-

development-fees-in-seven-california-cit

Mawhorter, Sarah; Garcia, David; Raetz, Hayley. (2018). It All Adds Up: The Cost of Affordable Housing

Development Fees in Seven California Cities. Berkeley: Terner Center for Housing Innovation.

Retrieved from https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/site/it-all-adds-up-the-cost-of-housing-

development-fees-in-seven-california-cit

Monkkonen, P., Lens, M., & Manville, M. (2020). Built-Out Cities? How California Cities Restrict Housing

Production Through Prohibition and Process. Berkeley: Terner Center for Housing Innovation.

Retrieved from http://californialanduse.org/download/MLM%20Built-Out%20Cities%202020.pdf

Office of Assemblymember Phil Ting. (2019). AB 1486 Fact Sheet. Sacramento: Office of

Assemblymember Phil Ting. Retrieved from http://www.greatcommunities.org/wp-

content/uploads/ab-1486-legislative-fact-sheet.pdf

Office of Assemblymember Phil Ting. (2019). AB 1486 Fact Sheet. AB 1486 Fact Sheet.

Payton Scally, C., & Tighe, J. (2015). Democracy in Action?: NIMBY as Impediment to Equitable

Affordable Housing Siting. Housing Studies, Vol. 30, No. 5, 749-769. Retrieved from

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2580363

Quigley, J. M., & Raphael, S. (2005). Regulation and the High Cost of Housing in California. The

American Economic Review, 323-328. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4132841

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. (2011). Exploring the Social Determinants of Health. Princeton:

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Schively, C. (2007). Understanding the NIMBY and LULU Phenomena: Reassessing Our Knowledge

Base and Informing Future Research. Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 21, No. 3, 255-266.

Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0885412206295845

Spotts, M. A., Hale-Case, G., & Abu-Khalaf, A. (2017). Public Benefit from Publicly Owned Parcels:

Effective Practices in Affordable Housing Development. Columbia: Enterprise Communty

29

Partners. Retrieved from https://www.enterprisecommunity.org/download?fid=3257&nid=3739

Taylor, M. (2015). California's High Housing Costs: Causes and Consequences. Sacramento: The

Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO). Retrieved from

https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/housing-costs/housing-costs.pdf

Terner Center for Housing Innovation. (2020). Terner Center Research Series: The Cost of Building

Housing. Retrieved from Terner Center for Housing Innovation:

https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/construction-costs-series

U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). American Community Survey 1-year Estimate. U.S. Census Bureau.

Retrieved from https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?text=cost-

burdened&t=Financial%20Characteristics%3AHousing%20Value%20and%20Purchase%20Price

%3ARenter%20Costs&g=0100000US&tid=ACSCP1Y2019.CP04&hidePreview=true

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2017). Rent Burden in the Housing Choice

Voucher Program. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2020). The 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment

Report (AHAR) to Congress. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development. Retrieved from https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2019-AHAR-

Part-1.pdf