potential land suitable for new temporary or permanent housing
IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
SELECT Sites Across the City of Los Angeles
REPORT
Acknowledgements
Prepared for the Committee for Greater LA with support from the Weingart Foundation. Special thanks to the City of Los Angeles Office of the Mayor Karen Bass, Senior Advisor Kevin Keller, Director of Affordable Housing Production Azeen Khanmalek, Deputy Mayor of Housing Jenna Hornstock, the Los Angeles Office of the City Administrative Officer, and Pete White, Executive Director of the Los Angeles Community Action Network for their invaluable input and feedback.
Suggested Citation
Rodman-Alvarez, D., Mattheis-Brown, R., Ricardo de la Rosa, L. (2023) City Of Los Angeles: Inventory and Analysis of Potential Land Suitable for New Temporary or Permanent Housing. Los Angeles, CA. Pacific Urbanism.
Executive Summary
Conclusions
121 government owned sites that are potentially suitable for temporary or permanent housing have been identified within the boundaries of the City of Los Angeles; five sites that are ostensibly owned privately yet are listed as government sites in the Tax Assessor’s roll are reported as additional opportunities. The set of 126 sites has been parsed into three tiers: 1) 46 top choices that are also City of Los Angeles owned, 2) 10 top choices that are owned by a government entity other than the City of Los Angeles, and 3) 70 other sites that are owned by either the City of Los Angeles or another government entity, or are listed as government sites by the Tax Assessor’s roll, that are potentially suitable.
Next Steps
Now, decision makers and other stakeholders are tasked with individually reviewing the selected sites and determining with which sites to move forward, issuing requests for proposals, and implementing temporary or permanent housing. Below is a summary of the methods used in gathering, analyzing, and selecting from the various datasets that were used to arrive at the set of 126 selected sites.
Data Sources
Sources for the comprehensive initial set of approximately 65,000 data rows include the County of Los Angeles, Office of the Assessor “2022 Local Roll,” i.e. LA County Tax Roll, Ron Galperin’s 2022 “City Properties Available for Homeless Housing and Services,” Governor Gavin Newsom’s 2019 Executive Order (EO) N-06-19 List of “Statewide Affordable Housing Opportunities Sites,” and the Department of City Planning files, “Attachment K Underutilized property” and “GSD property lists for ED3 response_CAO edit.”
Methods
Spatial analyses include removing all slopes greater than 15%, i.e. relatively level as defined by the Baseline Hillside Ordinance, building footprints, parcels less than 10,000 square feet, Zoning Classifications M2 or M3, water bodies, significant ecological areas, parks, beaches, golf courses, and duplicate data entries. Then an identifier field or numerical value was assigned for the following attributes: Community Plan Area, City Council District, distance to nearest street, distance to nearest freeway, unsheltered count by census tract, unsheltered density per square mile, site area, distance to nearest fire hydrant, distance to nearest sewer, average sale price per square foot of land adjusted for inflation to 2021 dollars, Coastal Zone, and Fire Hazard Severity. A percentile score for each value and a subsequent composite score was calculated to organize the sequence of individual site reviews. Last, an architectural feasibility review of the remaining 2,826 sites was performed. The appendix attached summarizes these methods in tabular form.
Frequently Asked Questions
What were the criteria for selecting these sites?
Government parcels within the City of LA, greater than 10,000 square feet, no recreational use (parks, golf courses, beaches), no portions of sites with greater than 15% slope, no land with existing buildings (open space on lots with buildings are OK), outside of significant ecological areas. Additional data gathered include distance to nearest sewer line, distance to nearest fire hydrants, distance to nearest public streets, distance to nearest freeway, land value, and fire hazard severity zone, among others.
Who owns the sites listed?
Sites are directly owned by a public agency, with additional opportunities listed for sites owned by private or educational organizations.
What types of housing can be built or developed on these sites?
Rapidly implementable, modular and site built, permanent and temporary housing, interim housing, safe sleeping and safe parking.
How are sites ranked?
Sites are divided into three tiers with Tier 1 representing the highest ranking, preliminarily most feasible for development, and owned by a City of Los Angeles public agency; these are the top choices that are recommended for rapid development consideration. Tier 2 represents sites that are also identified for their preliminary development feasibility yet are owned by a public agency other than the City of Los Angeles. Tier 3 represents sites identified as preliminarily feasible for development, owned either by the City of Los Angeles or another public agency, or listed as government sites by the Tax Assessor’s roll.
What is the bed capacity of each site?
Whereas site area is reported, the environmental review and pre development processes will inform the bed capacity. Previously, this study considered average bed capacity using a precedent study ratio of 650 square feet of site area per bed, including circulation and ancillary spaces. However, the potential development of sites will explore the highest best use of each site, therefore the preliminary bed capacity is not reported.
Are the results data publicly available for download?
Yes, this study was prepared for public education and use, therefore a PDF of this report, a spreadsheet of results, and map of sites in KMZ format are available for download at: www.pacificurbanism.org/city-of-los-angeles-suitable-sites
How does land value influence the selection criteria for sites?
Other studies have used land value as a criterion to prematurely deem a potentially suitable site as “infeasible” due to a potential reduction in revenue to a landowning or operating entity. However, to our knowledge, neither have cost-benefit analyses accompanied such decisions nor has the potential net benefit to the public by providing housing for our unhoused neighbors or other populations been considered. Therefore, while the authors of this study gathered land value data, land value was not a criterion in site selection since the predevelopment and environmental review processes will analyze and inform discussions on the highest, best use of land and potential net benefit to the public good.
How to Use this STUDY
This Site Suitability Analysis for new temporary and permanent beds in the City of Los Angeles includes tools to support site selection and recommendations for implementation. The deliverables are summarized below and are followed by a brief description of their intended use by decision makers in the site selection process.
Results are presented in the following formats:
• Web Browser Interface
• KMZ format City Map of Selected Suitable Sites
• Spreadsheet of Selected Suitable Sites
• Selected Sites Cutsheets
Ancillary materials:
• Schematic Architectural Documents (Site Plan, Floor Plans, etc.)
• Sample Plot Plans
• Sample Implementation Calendar
Web Browser Interface
The Web Browser Interface is intended to allow dissemination and review of the selected sites list, to illustrate the spatial relationships between sites and the 2022 homeless count, the location of known encampments, and current interim housing projects. Sites may be filtered by City Council district and owner and contain data fields such as the site area in acres, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN), address, and estimated bed capacity.
KMZ format City Map of Selected Suitable Sites
The purpose of the KMZ file is to facilitate decision maker and key stakeholder site review and discussion in the process of final site selection. 108 sites contained in this report have been identified as a result of the original Homeless Off Street Sanctuary research initiative and eight sites were identified from the Office of the Governor of California’s Executive Order N-23-20 list of Potential Sites. A ranking index that combines the proximity to a known encampment and a score that indicates whether a site is vacant, semi developed, or fully developed is provided. A color range symbolizes the score.
Spreadsheet of Selected Suitable Sites
The spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel format contains the data fields that are included in the KMZ file and may serve decision makers and key stakeholders in creating further pivot tables and filtered lists as desired. The Assessor’s Parcel Number, or APN, may be copy-pasted into other interfaces such as the City of Los Angeles ZIMAS or the Los Angeles County Assessor Portal.
Schematic Architectural Set of Documents
To illustrate the viability of a sample site, a schematic architectural set of drawings has been prepared for a portion of a parking lot near Jackie Robinson Stadium at the Veterans Affairs Department facility north of Wilshire Boulevard and west of Interstate 405. The Site Plan illustrates a combination of garden and playground courts surrounded by one-bedroom dormitories and efficiency studios, and two-bedroom units all served by an Administration Building with a parking lot. An Enlarged Site Plan illustrates one garden court at a larger scale. Individual Floor Plans are provided for an ADA accessible Dormitory, a standard Efficiency Studio and an accessible Efficiency Studio, which includes a kitchenette, and an accessible two-bedroom unit. Last, a schematic perspective illustrates scale and view from street level. The Schematic Architectural Set is also used to calculate preliminary building areas and estimate construction costs using an average cost per square foot. The programmatic architectural elements, that is the function of the spaces and their corresponding floor areas, are a product of precedent studies, and applicable codes and regulations.
(4) Sample Reduced Site Plans
The reduced Site Plans are provided to illustrate a range of preliminary site layouts that conform to the particularities of each site. These reduced Site Plans are provided to further illustrate the feasibility of the various suitable sites that are provided. These reduced Site Plans also illustrate the flexibility and modularity of the one and two-bedroom units that are shown.
Selected Sites Cutsheets
Suitable sites identified in this Plan are provided in reduced satellite images to facilitate immediate decision maker review. The labeling of each site corresponds to the Spreadsheet, KMZ file, and PDF map.
Sample Implementation Calendar
The Project Calendar illustrates the rapid implementation of housing sites, following the precedent of the Hilda Solis Housing Project site, and is provided for purposes of decision maker discussion.
Methods
Identification of government owned sites that are feasible for the rapid development of housing has eluded stakeholders and decision makers due to the large number of sites to analyze, the lack of a centralized database to account for potentially suitable sites, and analytical challenges of multivariate selection criteria applied to numerous and geographically dispersed sites. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) spatial analysis software and mixed methods approach using planning support tools in one hand and traditional architectural feasibility reviews in another present new opportunities for analyzing large datasets, disparately located, heterogeneous in their conditions, and using multiple variables at once, in order to reduce the data pool to a select number of potentially feasible sites for individual architectural review. This study applies such a mixed method approach in order to provide tangible site options for purposes of public and decisionmaker review, discussion, and to dispel an oft proclaimed myth that either feasible sites do not exist or that there are not good data to identify these.
The initial research question presented was to identify sufficient government owned sites that are feasible for the rapid placement of 1,000 interim and permanent housing units with characteristics similar to recent local precedents, such as individual bathrooms, using hybrid building methods that combine on-site and off-site prefabricated modules, near known encampments, and geographically dispersed throughout the city with a minimum count of 30 and maximum of 120 beds per site. Economies of scale up to a certain point may lower costs, allow more centralized service facilities and utilities, where the savings may exceed the costs of added security. However, 30 beds per site are recommended in this report in order to facilitate service and security for residents of the site and its neighbors.
Sources for the comprehensive set of approximately 65,000 data rows include the County of Los Angeles, Office of the Assessor “2022 Local Roll,” i.e. LA County Tax Roll, Ron Galperin’s 2022 “City Properties Available for Homeless Housing and Services,” Governor Gavin Newsom’s 2019 Executive Order (EO) N-06-19 List of “Statewide Affordable Housing Opportunities Sites,” and the Department of City Planning files, “Attachment K Underutilized property” and “GSD property lists for ED3 response_CAO edit.” The existing count of unsheltered individuals is taken from the 2022 Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority Homeless Count. Known encampments are from the Unified Homelessness Response Center (UHRC) Comprehensive Cleaning and Rapid Engagement (CARE) Program.
Government-owned parcels in the City of Los Angeles that are suitable for building new temporary and permanent housing were identified using GIS spatial analyses that include removing all slopes greater than 15%, i.e. relatively level as defined by the Baseline Hillside Ordinance, building footprints, parcels less than 10,000 square feet, Zoning Classifications M2 or M3, water bodies, significant ecological areas, parks, beaches, golf courses, and duplicate data entries. Then, an identifier field or numerical value was assigned for the following attributes: Community Plan Area, City Council District, distance to nearest street, distance to nearest freeway, unsheltered count by census tract, unsheltered density per square mile, site area, distance to nearest fire hydrant, distance to nearest sewer, average sale price per square foot of land adjusted for inflation to 2021 dollars, Coastal Zone, and Fire Hazard Severity. Airport noise contours were identified, however sites within these areas were considered with the caveat that noise mitigation measures are required to mitigate the propagation of sound. A percentile score for each value and a composite score was used to organize the individual, architectural feasibility review of the remaining 2,826 sites. The appendix attached summarizes these methods in tabular form.
Architectural site design feasibility review includes identifying preliminary compliance with typical requirements from agencies having jurisdiction, particularly, the Los Angeles Fire Department. Subsequently, privately owned land that is classified as vacant as well as parking lots that serve faith-based organizations and private entities were identified and included in this report with the understanding that while government owned sites may be preferable for rapid implementation of housing, certain private organizations or individuals may willingly make their land available to serve purposes that align with their missions and philosophies.
Further, a Precedent Study of the Hilda Solis Care First Village, previously referred to as the Vignes St project, provides recent, relevant programmatic and implementation data. For example, the average site density of the Hilda Solis project is 650 square feet of site area per bed. Therefore, a one story, 30 bed site would require approximately 19,500 square feet. In the aggregate, 1,000 beds dispersed among a number of sites requires an estimated total of 650,000 square feet (or 15 acres) of site area across the City of Los Angeles. 15 acres translates to approximately 34 total sites considering a minimum of 30 beds. The sites identified in this report constitute an aggregate area of approximately 1,000 acres, or 1.6 square miles, or 67 times the necessary size for a hypothetical 1,000 beds goal.
Modular Site and Building Design
Multiple construction methods were explored for greater flexibility of both onsite and offsite prefabricated and semi-prefabricated construction. We also considered prescriptive building specifications, such as one story, fire-protected, typical wood framing, i.e. Type V-A construction, which are preapproved by the Los Angeles Department of Building & Safety (LADBS), thus reducing not only calendar duration and cost, but is also simple enough to be scaled at rates that will contribute to rapid implementation given the known limits of both the prefabricated and site built construction industries.
A sample site plan, several sample plot plans, and schematic architectural layouts were prepared to illustrate the feasibility of the selected sites. 30 bed sites consist of pairs of one bedroom and two bedroom modules organized into courts with shared community gardens. One bedroom units are either standard or ADA accessible and may be dormitories with no kitchen, or efficiency studios with a kitchenette. All units include individual bathrooms, as required in the interest of public health during a pandemic. Sites include an Administrative Building, Parking, and where any dwelling unit exceeds 150’ from the street, a fire lane is provided, as required by the Los Angeles Fire Department.
Then, an implementation Calendar is presented for purposes of decision maker discussion and planning. Last, a web browser based interface is provided with a public comment field for internal stakeholder dissemination, public outreach and comment.
Finally, it is worth noting that the model developed to identify and rank potentially suitable land, and to remove unsuitable land, may be modified further to analyze additional variables that are of interest to decision makers. For example, proximity between land that has been identified as suitable and existing projects, or projects under development, may be used to further rank sites either to locate new sites near existing ones, or to locate new sites as geographically dispersed as possible, depending on the desired outcome.
Program
● 650 square feet of site area per bed
● 30 bed minimum per site, maximum 120 beds
● Minimum site area of 19,500 square feet to house 30 individuals
● Aggregate total site area of 650,000 square feet (or 15 acres) for 1,000 beds
● Approximately 34 total sites at 30 beds minimum per site for 1,000 beds.
● 10,400 building area consists of either:
- (30) single units x 200 sq ft = 6,000 sq ft
or
- (15) double units x 400 sq ft = 6,000 sq ft, and
● (1) administrative building = 4,400 sq ft
● The administrative building includes offices, a commercial kitchen, dining facility, laundry, an outdoor dining area, and other amenities.
Specifications
● Modules shall be installed in pairs and arranged in courts to the degree practicable
● ADA accessible dormitories and Standard one-bedroom studio modules are 20’ L x 8’ W x 11’ H
● ADA accessible studios with electric kitchenette are 25’ L x 8’ W x 11’ H
● ADA accessible two-bedroom modules with electric kitchenette are 25’ L x 16’ W x 11’ H
Units shall be furnished with:
● Blinds
● Solid surface countertop/ desk and chair
● Microwave
● Undercounter refrigerator
● Dishes and dinnerware
● Efficiency studios and 2 bedroom units shall include a sink and electric cooktop
● Singles shall include a twin size bed, doubles include a full size bed, each with mattress, linen, and pillow
● Wardrobe
● LED lighting
● Individual temperature control
● Bathrooms include shower, toilet, vanity, mirror, exhaust fan
● Vinyl flooring at all interiors
● Administrative Buildings shall have connection to the internet and provide wi-fi
● Centralized power and HVAC to allow for both grid connected or islanded microgrid modes
● Site security cameras
● Onsite security personnel
● Electronic access at site and unit entries
● Solar electricity where practicable
● Solar water preheating
● White/ cool roofs
● Paths landscaped with native plants and Low Impact Development Best Management Practices
● Shade trees
● Insulation and windows to meet Title 24 energy efficiency standards
● Minimum Sound Transmission Class
(STC) and Impact Insulation Class (IIC) of 50.
● Painted cement board siding exteriors and plywood reinforced, painted gypsum board interiors.
● Community gardens or children’s play structures at each court
Discussion of Results
The geographical distribution of selected sites for the rapid implementation of 1,000 beds may follow myriad philosophical criteria; site location may either be selected randomly, or be distributed among the City Council Districts in shares that are equal to the current share of unsheltered populations, or, perhaps most desirably, by an equitable method for distribution of housing according to a selected set of objective, empirical data points.1
It is worth noting that the Housing First approach acknowledges the inordinate cost to the State that results from the unhoused condition of many and that there is a potential net benefit in costs by bringing people indoors. In other words, the cost of providing housing for the entire unhoused population may be less than the various costs that are currently incurred by serving the unhoused population per the status quo. It is perhaps equally important to acknowledge that the root causes of the current housing crisis are fifty years in the making and that the shifts required for the City of Los Angeles to bridge its housing gap and then continue along a path of equitable housing ought to be initiated now, given the long-term nature of the expected changes. Stated differently, rapid temporary and permanent housing for 1,000 is very important, then again, so is transitional housing for voluntary occupation by the upwards of 28,000 unsheltered individuals in the City of Los Angeles, as well as a seven times increase in the overall output of the homebuilding industry in order to achieve the Regional Housing Needs Assessment target of more than 500,000 net new dwelling units in the City of Los Angeles by 2030, and a structural shift from the exclusionary zoning policies that are at the root of the housing shortage to a new zoning regime that responds to the full range of opportunities and demand for housing in Los Angeles. An area for further research includes the shift from enforcement by various law enforcement agencies, also referred to as clearing or sweeping encampments to a social service outreach for voluntary placement in transitional housing.
Conventional wisdom maintains that the unsheltered are unwilling to voluntarily relocate to transitional housing. However, qualitative data from one-on-one interviews with unsheltered individuals indicates that whereas overly restrictive conditions on housing, such as curfews and drug testing, hinder voluntary relocation, less restrictive transitional housing would be willingly accepted. Along this line of inquiry, it is worth evaluating what share of the unhoused population would willingly accept less restrictive temporary housing and the reductions of costs associated with serving the same population in a housed as opposed to an unhoused condition. The supply of 1,000 beds in sites of no less than 30 beds per site represents approximately 34 sites, which may be increased or decreased depending on the final number of beds allocated to each site. A decentralized implementation that approaches each of the 34 sites as individual projects presents several opportunities, including overlapping construction calendars, supporting small, local, women and minority owned businesses, and the desirable spillovers of economic development at the community level, as opposed to awarding larger contracts to a single or few large construction companies. Further, given the current production limits of both the prefabricated homebuilding industry and the typical, site-built construction methods, an all of the above approach that combines on-site and of-site, prefabricated and semi-prefabricated construction methods, offers the most feasible path towards rapid implementation and competitive costs. There is also the added benefit of a natural scaling of the homebuilding industry, which translates to good paying jobs, opportunities for vocational training, horizontal dissemination of tacit industry knowledge, and the potential for affirmative access for groups historically marginalized from access to business opportunities.
public/private partnership opportunities
In addition to the sites identified in this report, there exists numerous opportunities for the rapid construction of new temporary and permanent housing on private land. Institutions and individuals may be interested in participating in public/private partnerships to house unsheltered individuals. As an example, the parking lots for Dodger Stadium are shown in the interactive map above to illustrate the suitability of private properties throughout the City of Los Angeles.
A sample of additional suitable sites within the City of Los Angeles that are privately owned.
CONCLUSIONS & Implementation
The Office of the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles plans to provide new, temporary and permanent housing units rapidly and at a competitive cost. A review of Best Practices for Interim and Permanent Supportive Housing identifies a scattered site approach as more desirable than concentrating populations in a few, very large housing projects. Further, a hybrid construction method that combines a) finished, prefabricated modules with b) prefabricated panels that are site assembled, and c) fully site-built units bridges the current limits of any individual sector of the homebuilding industry. This report contains a list of individually vetted, suitable sites across the City of Los Angeles that provide a range of options in the interest of immediate implementation and in the event of new site design considerations or selection criteria.
Note that this report is unique in that it provides 1) a greater number of sites than other similar studies, 2) schematic architectural Site Plan and Floor Plan layouts, and 3) spatial analysis tools to evaluate and rank sites1 using composite site suitability scores.
The suitability of sites has been evaluated using a mixed methods approach that combines Geographic Information Systems (GIS) spatial analysis tools, qualitative data from stakeholder interviews, a literature review of best practices, precedent studies, and architectural feasibility reviews on an individual site by site basis.
Immediately following decision maker selection of sites for the implementation of this new housing, construction shall be streamlined with the use of preapproved, prescriptive building specifications, such as the Los Angeles Department of Building & Safety Wood Frame Prescriptive Provisions, formerly known as Wood Frame Prescriptive Provisions One Story Residential Construction Only 6, referring to typical, Type V wood frame construction. A Schematic Site Plan has been provided in this report in order to illustrate a potential Site Plan layout, with additional preliminary Plot Plan layouts provided to illustrate some possible variations to conform to the peculiarities of site form, vehicular and pedestrian access, and related urban design elements.
A sample project implementation calendar forecasts a six month duration from beginning to end. Further reductions in the implementation calendar may be captured by streamlining and overlapping the calendars of the site preparation, rough construction, and finishes. Further, since the rapid fabrication and installation of the total number of units exceeds the current limits of the prefabricated homebuilding industry, as many units as may be immediately available for purchase ought to be identified and procured, leaving the remaining units to be site built in a production line manner that makes use of prefabricated framing elements in panels for floors, walls, and roof, whether these are an off the shelf product or typical wood framing that is prepared both offsite and onsite, with assembly and finishing occurring on-site. Using predetermined dimensions allows for all cabinetry, casework, fixtures, and finishes to be fabricated, procured, and prepared at the same time as rough framing and utilities, thus overlapping the calendars of various trades and streamlining the overall construction process.
In sum, there are five recommended steps for the rapid implementation of housing in the City of Los Angeles: 1) Decision makers shall select a minimum of 34 sites for an aggregate 1,000 beds, 2) a Site Plan that uses a pre-approved kit of parts for construction shall be prepared for each site, 3) site owners shall be engaged in order to acquire development rights for the proposed Site Plan, 4) Bidding for Builders and/or materials suppliers shall be performed to ensure competitive rates and construction calendars, and 5) immediately begin construction of a hybrid approach that combines typical, site-built work, prefabricated rough framing elements installed onsite, and fully prefabricated dwelling units that are built offsite then installed and finished onsite.
30 bed sites consist of pairs of one bedroom and two bedroom modules organized into courts with shared community gardens. One bedroom units are either standard or ADA accessible and may be dormitories with no kitchen, or efficiency studios with a kitchenette. All units include individual bathrooms, as required in the interest of public health during a pandemic.
Sites include an Administrative Building, Parking, and where any dwelling unit exceeds 150’ from the street, a fire lane is provided, as required by the Los Angeles Fire Department.
The cost of construction for a typical, 30-bed site with supporting administrative structures is projected to be $3.1M for 10,400 square feet of building area at an average $300 per square foot of construction including utilities and typical site improvements. This translates to approximately $105,000 per bed and roughly $105M for all 1,000 beds. By comparison, the Hilda Solis project cost $48M for approximately 44,320 sq ft of construction, which translates to $1,083 per sq ft of construction and approximately $207,000 per bed. Opportunities for further reductions in costs include a competitive bidding process, philanthropic donations of materials, and the performance of construction with mentee members of the community in training.
Immediately following decision maker selection of sites for the implementation of an aggregate 1,000 beds, construction shall be streamlined with the use of preapproved, prescriptive building specifications, such as the Los Angeles Department of Building & Safety Wood Frame Prescriptive Provisions, formerly known as Type V Sheets, referring to typical, Type V wood frame construction. A Schematic Site Plan has been provided in this report in order to illustrate a potential Site Plan layout, with additional preliminary Plot Plan layouts provided to illustrate some possible variations to conform to the peculiarities of site form, vehicular and pedestrian access, and related urban design elements.
An implementation calendar for all 34 sites projects a six month duration from beginning to end. Further reductions in the implementation calendar may be captured by streamlining and overlapping the calendars of the site preparation, rough construction, and finishes. Further, since the rapid fabrication and installation of the total number of units exceeds the current limits of the prefabricated homebuilding industry, as many units as may be immediately available for purchase ought to be identified and procured, leaving the remaining units to be site built in a production line manner that makes use of prefabricated framing elements in panels for floors, walls, and roof, whether these are an off the shelf product or typical wood framing that is prepared both offsite and onsite, with assembly and finishing occurring on site. Using predetermined dimensions allows for all cabinetry, casework, fixtures, and finishes to be fabricated, procured, and prepared at the same time as rough framing and utilities, thus overlapping the calendars of various trades and streamlining the overall construction process.
Program:
● 650 square feet of site area per Bed
● 30 Bed minimum per site, maximum 120 beds
● Minimum site area of 19,500 square feet to house 30 individuals
● Aggregate total site area of 650,000 square feet (or 15 acres) for 1,000 beds
● Approximately 34 total sites at 30 beds minimum per site for 1,000 beds.
● 10,400 building area consists of either:
○ (30) single units x 200 sq ft = 6,000 sq ft
or
○ (15) double units x 400 sq ft = 6,000 sq ft, and
○ (1) administrative building = 4,400 sq ft
● The administrative building includes offices, a commercial kitchen, dining facility, laundry, an outdoor dining area, and other amenities.
Specifications:
● Modules shall be installed in pairs and arranged in courts to the degree practicable
● ADA accessible dormitories and Standard one-bedroom studio modules are 20’ L x 8’ W x 11’ H
● ADA accessible studios with electric kitchenette are 25’ L x 8’ W x 11’ H
● ADA accessible two-bedroom modules with electric kitchenette are 25’ L x 16’ W x 11’ H
● Units shall be furnished with
○ Blinds
○ Solid surface countertop/ desk and chair
○ Microwave
○ Undercounter refrigerator
○ Dishes and dinnerware
○ Efficiency studios and 2 bedroom units shall include a sink and electric cooktop
○ Singles shall include a twin size bed, doubles include a Full size bed, each with mattress, linen, and pillow
○ Wardrobe
○ LED lighting
○ Individual temperature control
○ Bathrooms include shower, toilet, vanity, mirror, exhaust fan
○ Vinyl flooring at all interiors
● Administrative Buildings shall have connection to the internet and provide wi-fi
● Centralized power and HVAC to allow for both grid connected or islanded microgrid modes
● Site security cameras
● Onsite security personnel
● Electronic access at site and unit entries
● Solar electricity where practicable
● Solar water preheating
● White/ cool roofs
● Paths landscaped with native plants and Low Impact Development Best Management Practices
● Shade trees
● Insulation and windows to meet Title 24 energy efficiency standards
● Minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) and Impact Insulation Class (IIC) of 50.
● Painted cement board siding exteriors and plywood reinforced, painted gypsum board interiors.
● Community gardens or children’s play structures at each court
Bibliography
Choy-Brown, M., Stanhope, V., Tiderington, E., & Padgett, D. K. (2016, July). Unpacking Clinical Supervision in Transitional and Permanent Supportive Housing: Scrutiny or Support? Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 43(4), 546-54. doi:10.1007/s10488-015-0665-6
City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning Policy Division. (2017, November). Permanent Supportive Housing Ordinance.
City of Los Angeles. (2021). Budget for the Fiscal Year 2021-22 as Presented by Mayor Eric Garcetti.
Corporation for Supportive Housing. (2012). Unlocking the Door: An Implementation Evaluation of Supportive Housing for Active Substance Users in New York City. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. Retrieved from https://www.csh.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/report_casafullreport_712.pdf.pdf
Ecker, J., & Aubry, T. (2017, August). A Mixed Methods Analysis of Housing and Neighbourhood Impacts on Community Integration Among Vulnerably Housed and Homeless Individuals. Journal of Community Psychology, 45(4), 528-542. doi:10.1002/jcop.21864
Graves, E. M. (2011, April). Mixed Outcome Developments. Journal of the American Planning Association, 77(2), 143-153. doi:10.1080/01944363.2011.567921
Henry, M., Wayy, R., Rosenthal, L., & Shivji, A. (2016). The 2016 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. Office of Community Planning and Development. Retrieved from https://www.hudexchange.info/homelessness-assistance/ahar/#2016-reports
Henwood, B. F., Cabassa, L. J., Craig, C. M., & Padgett, D. K. (2013, December). Permanent Supportive Housing: Addressing Homelessness and Health Disparities? American Journal of Public Health, 103(2), 188-192. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301490
Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority. (2021). 2020 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count.
Monkkonen, P. et al. (2020). Built Out Cities? How California Cities Restrict Housing Production Through Prohibition and Process. Turner Center Land Use Working Paper Series 2020.
Morrow. (2013). The Homeowner Revolution: Democracy, Land Use and the Los Angeles Slow-Growth Movement, 1965-1992
Nelson, G., Stefancic, A., Rae, J., Townley, G., Tsemberis, S., Macnaughton, E., . . . Goering, P. (2014, April). Early Implementation Evaluation of a Multi-Site Housing First Intervention for Homeless People with Mental Illness. Journal of Evaluation and Program Planning, 43, 16-26. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2013.10.004
Rodman-Alvarez, et al (2020) Homeless Off Street Sanctuary and Site Suitability Analysis.
Rodman-Alvarez, et al (2021) 2020 Los Angeles County Subsidized Low Income Housing. Los Angeles, CA. Pacific Urbanism. Retrieved from https://www.pacificurbanism.com/research-publications
Rodman-Alvarez, et al (2019) Housing Stock in Los Angeles. Los Angeles, CA. Pacific Urbanism. Retrieved from https://www.pacificurbanism.com/research-publications
Tiderington, E. (2017, January). The Paradox of “Permanent” Housing and Other Barriers to Recovery-Oriented Practice in Supportive Housing Services. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 44(1), 103-114. doi:10.1007/s10488-015-0707-0
Tsai, J., Mares, A. S., & Rosenheck, R. A. (2010). A Multisite Comparison Of Supported Housing For Chronically Homeless Adults: “Housing First” Versus “Residential Treatment First”. Journal of Psychological Services, 4(2), 219-232. doi:10.1037/a0020460
Tsemberis, S., Gulcur, L., & Nakae, M. (2004, April). Housing First, Consumer Choice, and Harm Reduction for Homeless Individuals With a Dual Diagnosis. American Journal of Public Health, 94(4). doi:10.2105/ajph.94.4.651
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2019). Market Predictors of Homelessness: How Housing and Community Factors Shape Homelessness Rates Within Continuums of Care
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2017, June). HUDUser Glossary. Retrieved from HUD User: https://archives.huduser.gov/portal/glossary/glossary.html
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. (2018, August). Rapid Re-Housing. Retrieved from https://www.usich.gov/solutions/housing/rapid-re-housing
Wasserman, J. A., & Clair, J. M. (2011, December). Housing Patterns of Homeless People: The Ecology of the Street in the Era of Urban Renewal. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 40(1), 71-101. doi:10.1177/0891241610388417
