IntroductionThis metadata is broken up into different sections that provide both a high-level summary of the Housing Element and more detailed information about the data itself with links to other resources. The following is an excerpt from the Executive Summary from the Housing Element 2021 – 2029 document:The County of Los Angeles is required to ensure the availability of residential sites, at adequate densities and appropriate development standards, in the unincorporated Los Angeles County to accommodate its share of the regional housing need--also known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Unincorporated Los Angeles County has been assigned a RHNA of 90,052 units for the 2021-2029 Housing Element planning period, which is subdivided by level of affordability as follows:Extremely Low / Very Low (<50% AMI) - 25,648Lower (50 - 80% AMI) - 13,691Moderate (80 - 120% AMI) - 14,180Above Moderate (>120% AMI) - 36,533Total - 90,052NOTES - Pursuant to State law, the projected need of extremely low income households can be estimated at 50% of the very low income RHNA. Therefore, the County’s projected extremely low income can be estimated at 12,824 units. However, for the purpose of identifying adequate sites for RHNA, no separate accounting of sites for extremely low income households is required. AMI = Area Median IncomeDescriptionThe Sites Inventory (Appendix A) is comprised of vacant and underutilized sites within unincorporated Los Angeles County that are zoned at appropriate densities and development standards to facilitate housing development. The Sites Inventory was developed specifically for the County of Los Angeles, and has built-in features that filter sites based on specific criteria, including access to transit, protection from environmental hazards, and other criteria unique to unincorporated Los Angeles County. Other strategies used within the Sites Inventory analysis to accommodate the County’s assigned RHNA of 90,052 units include projected growth of ADUs, specific plan capacity, selected entitled projects, and capacity or planned development on County-owned sites within cities. This accounts for approximately 38 percent of the RHNA. The remaining 62 percent of the RHNA is accommodated by sites to be rezoned to accommodate higher density housing development (Appendix B).Caveats:This data is a snapshot in time, generally from the year 2021. It contains information about parcels, zoning and land use policy that may be outdated. The Department of Regional Planning will be keeping an internal tally of sites that get developed or rezoned to meet our RHNA goals, and we may, in the future, develop some public facing web applications or dashboards to show the progress. There may even be periodic updates to this GIS dataset as well, throughout this 8-year planning cycle.Update History:1/7/25 - Following the completion of the annexation to the City of Whittier on 11/12/24, 27 parcels were removed along Whittier Blvd which contained 315 Very Low Income units and 590 Above Moderate units. Following a joint County-City resolution of the RHNA transfer to the city, 247 Very Low Income units and 503 Above Moderate units were taken on by Whittier. 10/16/24 - Modifications were made to this layer during the updates to the South Bay and Westside Area Plans following outreach in these communities. In the Westside Planning area, 29 parcels were removed and no change in zoning / land use policy was proposed; 9 Mixed Use sites were added. In the South Bay, 23 sites were removed as they no longer count towards the RHNA, but still partially changing to Mixed Use.5/31/22 – Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted the Housing Element on 5/17/22, and it received final certification from the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on 5/27/22. Data layer published on 5/31/22.Links to other resources:Department of Regional Planning Housing Page - Contains Housing Element and it's AppendicesHousing Element Update - Rezoning Program Story Map (English, and Spanish)Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) - Regional Housing Needs AssessmentCalifornia Department of Housing and Community Development Housing Element pageField Descriptions:OBJECTID - Internal GIS IDAIN - Assessor Identification Number*SitusAddress - Site Address (Street and Number) from Assessor Data*Use Code - Existing Land Use Code (corresponds to Use Type and Use Description) from Assessor Data*Use Type - Existing Land Use Type from Assessor Data*Use Description - Existing Land Use Description from Assessor Data*Vacant / Nonvacant – Parcels that are vacant or non-vacant per the Use Code from the Assessor Data*Units Total - Total Existing Units from Assessor Data*Max Year - Maximum Year Built from Assessor Data*Supervisorial District (2021) - LA County Board of Supervisor DistrictSubmarket Area - Inclusionary Housing Submarket AreaPlanning Area - Planning Areas from the LA County Department of Regional Planning General Plan 2035Community Name - Unincorporated Community NamePlan Name - Land Use Plan Name from the LA County Department of Regional Planning (General Plan and Area / Community Plans)LUP - 1 - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Land Use Policy (in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 1 (% area) - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Land Use Policy (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 2 - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Land Use Policy (in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 2 (% area) - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Land Use Policy (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 3 - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Land Use Policy (in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 3 (% area) - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Land Use Policy (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*Current LUP (Description) – This is a brief description of the land use category. In the case of multiple land uses, this would be the land use category that covers the majority of the parcel*Current LUP (Min Density - net or gross) - Minimum density for this category (as net or gross) per the Land Use Plan for this areaCurrent LUP (Max Density - net or gross) - Maximum density for this category (as net or gross) per the Land Use Plan for this areaProposed LUP – Final – The proposed land use category to increase density.Proposed LUP (Description) – Brief description of the proposed land use policy.Prop. LUP – Final (Min Density) – Minimum density for the proposed land use category.Prop. LUP – Final (Max Density) – Maximum density for the proposed land use category.Zoning - 1 - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Zone (in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 1 (% area) - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Zone (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 2 - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Zone (in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 2 (% area) - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Zone (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 3 - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Zone (in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 3 (% area) - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Zone (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Current Zoning (Description) - This is a brief description of the zoning category. In the case of multiple zoning categories, this would be the zoning that covers the majority of the parcel*Proposed Zoning – Final – The proposed zoning category to increase density.Proposed Zoning (Description) – Brief description of the proposed zoning.Acres - Acreage of parcelMax Units Allowed - Total Proposed Land Use Policy UnitsRHNA Eligible? – Indicates whether the site is RHNA Eligible or not. NOTE: This layer only shows those that are RHNA Eligible, but internal versions of this layer also show sites that were not-RHNA eligible, or removed during the development of this layer in 2020 – 2022.Very Low Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Very Low Income level as defined in the Housing ElementLow Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Low Income level as defined in the Housing ElementModerate Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Moderate Income level as defined in the Housing ElementAbove Moderate Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Above Moderate Income level as defined in the Housing ElementRealistic Capacity - Total Realistic Capacity of parcel (totaling all income levels). Several factors went into this final calculation. See the Housing Element (Links to Other Resources above) in the following locations - "Sites Inventory - Lower Income RHNA" (p. 223), and "Rezoning - Very Low / Low Income RHNA" (p231).Income Categories - Income Categories assigned to the parcel (relates to income capacity units)Lot Consolidation ID - Parcels with a unique identfier for consolidation potential (based on parcel ownership)Lot Consolidation Notes - Specific notes for consolidationConsolidation - Adjacent Parcels - All adjacent parcels that are tied to each lot consolidation IDsShape_Length - Perimeter (feet)Shape_Area - Area (sq feet)*As it existed in 2021

U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts statistics for Los Angeles city, California. QuickFacts data are derived from: Population Estimates, American Community Survey, Census of Population and Housing, Current Population Survey, Small Area Health Insurance Estimates, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, State and County Housing Unit Estimates, County Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, Economic Census, Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits.

The Los Angeles Index of Neighborhood Change is a tool that allows users to explore the extent to which Los Angeles Zip Codes have undergone demographic change from 2000 to 2014. Created in 2015/2016, the data comes from 2000, 2005, 2013, and 2014. Please read details about each measure for exact years.Index scores are an aggregate of six demographic measures indicative of gentrification. The measures are standardized and combined using weights that reflect the proportion of each measure that is statistically significant.Measure 1: Percent change in low/high IRS filer ratio. For the purposes of this measure, High Income = >$75K Adjust Gross Income tax filer and Low Income = <$25k filers who also received an earned income tax credit. Years Compared for Measure 1: 2005 and 2013 | Source: IRS Income Tax Return DataMeasure 2: Change in percent of residents 25 years or older with Bachelor's Degrees or HigherMeasure 3: Change in percent of White, non-Hispanic/Latino residentsMeasure 4: Percent change in median household income (2000 income is adjusted to 2014 dollars)Measure 5: % Change in median gross rent (2000 rent is adjusted to 2013/2014 dollars)Measure 6: Percent change in average household size Year Compared for Measures 2-5: 2000 and 2014, Measure 6: 2013Sources: Decennial Census, 2000 | American Community Survey (5-Year Estimate, 2009-2013; 2010; 2014)Date Updated: December 13, 2016Refresh Rate: Never - Historical data

Important Note:The metadata description below mentions the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (or RHNA). Part of meeting RHNA Eligibility is satisfying a list of criteria set by the State of California that needs to be met in order to qualify. This dataset contains both RHNA Eligible and non-RHNA Eligible sites. Non-RHNA Eligible sites are those that didn't quite meet the eligibility criteria set by the state, but will be still eligible for Rezoning per Department of Regional Planning guidelines, and thus represents a full picture of ALL sites that are eligible for Rezoning. The official Housing Element Rezoning layer that was certified by the State of California is located here, but it should be noted that this layer only contains sites that are RHNA Eligible.IntroductionThis metadata is broken up into different sections that provide both a high-level summary of the Housing Element and more detailed information about the data itself with links to other resources. The following is an excerpt from the Executive Summary from the Housing Element 2021 – 2029 document:The County of Los Angeles is required to ensure the availability of residential sites, at adequate densities and appropriate development standards, in the unincorporated Los Angeles County to accommodate its share of the regional housing need--also known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Unincorporated Los Angeles County has been assigned a RHNA of 90,052 units for the 2021-2029 Housing Element planning period, which is subdivided by level of affordability as follows:Extremely Low / Very Low (<50% AMI) - 25,648Lower (50 - 80% AMI) - 13,691Moderate (80 - 120% AMI) - 14,180Above Moderate (>120% AMI) - 36,533Total - 90,052NOTES - Pursuant to State law, the projected need of extremely low income households can be estimated at 50% of the very low income RHNA. Therefore, the County’s projected extremely low income can be estimated at 12,824 units. However, for the purpose of identifying adequate sites for RHNA, no separate accounting of sites for extremely low income households is required. AMI = Area Median IncomeDescriptionThe Sites Inventory (Appendix A) is comprised of vacant and underutilized sites within unincorporated Los Angeles County that are zoned at appropriate densities and development standards to facilitate housing development. The Sites Inventory was developed specifically for the County of Los Angeles, and has built-in features that filter sites based on specific criteria, including access to transit, protection from environmental hazards, and other criteria unique to unincorporated Los Angeles County. Other strategies used within the Sites Inventory analysis to accommodate the County’s assigned RHNA of 90,052 units include projected growth of ADUs, specific plan capacity, selected entitled projects, and capacity or planned development on County-owned sites within cities. This accounts for approximately 38 percent of the RHNA. The remaining 62 percent of the RHNA is accommodated by sites to be rezoned to accommodate higher density housing development (Appendix B).Caveats:This data is a snapshot in time, generally from the year 2021. It contains information about parcels, zoning and land use policy that may be outdated. The Department of Regional Planning will be keeping an internal tally of sites that get developed or rezoned to meet our RHNA goals, and we may, in the future, develop some public facing web applications or dashboards to show the progress. There may even be periodic updates to this GIS dataset as well, throughout this 8-year planning cycle.Update History:12/18/24 - Following the completion of the annexation to the City of Whittier on 11/12/24, 27 parcels were removed along Whittier Blvd which contained 315 Very Low Income units and 590 Above Moderate units. Following a joint County-City resolution of the RHNA transfer to the city, 247 Very Low Income units and 503 Above Moderate units were taken on by Whittier. 10/23/24 - Modifications were made to this layer during the updates to the South Bay and Westside Area Plans following outreach in these communities. In the Westside Planning area, 29 parcels were removed and no change in zoning / land use policy was proposed; 9 Mixed Use sites were added. In the South Bay, 23 sites were removed as they no longer count towards the RHNA, but still partially changing to Mixed Use.5/31/22 – Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted the Housing Element on 5/17/22, and it received final certification from the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on 5/27/22. Data layer published on 5/31/22.Links to other resources:Department of Regional Planning Housing Page - Contains Housing Element and it's AppendicesHousing Element Update - Rezoning Program Story Map (English, and Spanish)Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) - Regional Housing Needs AssessmentCalifornia Department of Housing and Community Development Housing Element pageField Descriptions:OBJECTID - Internal GIS IDAIN - Assessor Identification Number*SitusAddress - Site Address (Street and Number) from Assessor Data*Use Code - Existing Land Use Code (corresponds to Use Type and Use Description) from Assessor Data*Use Type - Existing Land Use Type from Assessor Data*Use Description - Existing Land Use Description from Assessor Data*Vacant / Nonvacant – Parcels that are vacant or non-vacant per the Use Code from the Assessor Data*Units Total - Total Existing Units from Assessor Data*Max Year - Maximum Year Built from Assessor Data*Supervisorial District (2021) - LA County Board of Supervisor DistrictSubmarket Area - Inclusionary Housing Submarket AreaPlanning Area - Planning Areas from the LA County Department of Regional Planning General Plan 2035Community Name - Unincorporated Community NamePlan Name - Land Use Plan Name from the LA County Department of Regional Planning (General Plan and Area / Community Plans)LUP - 1 - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Land Use Policy (in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 1 (% area) - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Land Use Policy (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 2 - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Land Use Policy (in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 2 (% area) - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Land Use Policy (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 3 - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Land Use Policy (in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 3 (% area) - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Land Use Policy (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*Current LUP (Description) – This is a brief description of the land use category. In the case of multiple land uses, this would be the land use category that covers the majority of the parcel*Current LUP (Min Density - net or gross) - Minimum density for this category (as net or gross) per the Land Use Plan for this areaCurrent LUP (Max Density - net or gross) - Maximum density for this category (as net or gross) per the Land Use Plan for this areaProposed LUP – Final – The proposed land use category to increase density.Proposed LUP (Description) – Brief description of the proposed land use policy.Prop. LUP – Final (Min Density) – Minimum density for the proposed land use category.Prop. LUP – Final (Max Density) – Maximum density for the proposed land use category.Zoning - 1 - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Zone (in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 1 (% area) - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Zone (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 2 - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Zone (in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 2 (% area) - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Zone (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 3 - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Zone (in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 3 (% area) - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Zone (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Current Zoning (Description) - This is a brief description of the zoning category. In the case of multiple zoning categories, this would be the zoning that covers the majority of the parcel*Proposed Zoning – Final – The proposed zoning category to increase density.Proposed Zoning (Description) – Brief description of the proposed zoning.Acres - Acreage of parcelMax Units Allowed - Total Proposed Land Use Policy UnitsRHNA Eligible? – Indicates whether the site is RHNA Eligible or not. Very Low Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Very Low Income level as defined in the Housing ElementLow Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Low Income level as defined in the Housing ElementModerate Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Moderate Income level as defined in the Housing ElementAbove Moderate Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Above Moderate Income level as defined in the Housing ElementRealistic Capacity - Total Realistic Capacity of parcel (totaling all income levels). Several factors went into this final calculation. See the Housing Element (Links to Other Resources above) in the following locations - "Sites Inventory - Lower Income RHNA" (p. 223), and "Rezoning - Very Low / Low Income RHNA" (p231).Income Categories - Income Categories assigned to the parcel (relates

The U.S. Census defines an overcrowded housing unit as one with more than 1 person per room, excluding bathrooms, kitchens, and half-rooms.Overcrowded housing is a marker for affordable housing availability, and it remains a significant challenge throughout Los Angeles County. Living in overcrowded housing units is associated with a wide array of negative health outcomes, including poor mental health and stress, developmental delays in children, and increased risk of communicable disease transmission. Low-income and immigrant communities are often disproportionately impacted by overcrowded housing. Cities and communities can mitigate overcrowded housing by adopting policies that permit the expansion of affordable housing stock and provide assistance to low-income individuals and families in securing safe housing.For more information about the Community Health Profiles Data Initiative, please see the initiative homepage.

Housing burden is defined as spending 30% or more of monthly household income on housing. A small number of households without housing cost or income data were excluded from analyses.Given the high cost of housing in Los Angeles County, many residents spend a sizable portion of their incomes on housing every month and are therefore susceptible to significant housing burden. Housing burden disproportionately affects low-income individuals, renters, and communities of color. Housing burden can negatively impact health by forcing individuals and families into low quality or unsafe housing, by causing significant stress, and by limiting the amount of money people have available to spend on other life necessities, such as food or healthcare. It is also an important risk factor for homelessness.For more information about the Community Health Profiles Data Initiative, please see the initiative homepage.

Severe housing burden is defined as spending 50% or more of monthly household income on housing. A small number of households without housing cost or income data were excluded from analyses.Given the high cost of housing in Los Angeles County, many residents spend a sizable portion of their incomes on housing every month. Severe housing burden disproportionately affects low-income individuals, renters, and communities of color. Severe housing burden can negatively impact health by forcing individuals and families into low quality or unsafe housing, by causing significant stress, and by limiting the amount of money people have available to spend on other life necessities, such as food or healthcare. It is also an important risk factor for homelessness.For more information about the Community Health Profiles Data Initiative, please see the initiative homepage.

The Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) was a U.S. government-sponsored program initiated in the 1930s to evaluate mortgage lending risk. The program resulted in hand-drawn 'security risk' maps intended to grade sections of cities where investment should be focused (greenlined areas) or limited (redlined zones). The security maps have since been widely criticized as being inherently racist and have been associated with high levels of segregation and lower levels of green amenities in cities across the country. Our goal was to explore the potential legacy effects of the HOLC grading practice on birds, their habitat, and the people who may experience them throughout a metropolis where the security risk maps were widely applied, Greater Los Angeles, California (L.A.). We used ground-collected, remotely sensed, and census data and descriptive and predictive modeling approaches to address our goal. Patterns of bird habitat and avian communities strongly aligned with the luxury-effect phenomenon, where green amenities were more robust, and bird communities were more diverse and abundant in the wealthiest parts of L.A. Our analysis also revealed potential legacy effects from the HOLC grading practice. Associations between bird habitat features and avian communities in redlined and greenlined zones were generally stronger than in areas of L.A. that did not experience the HOLC grading, in part because redlined zones, which included some of the poorest locations of L.A., had the highest levels of dense urban conditions, e.g., impervious surface cover. In contrast, greenlined zones, which included some of the city's wealthiest areas, had the highest levels of green amenities, e.g., tree canopy cover. The White population of L.A., which constitutes the highest percentage of a racial or ethnic group in greenlined areas, was aligned with a considerably greater abundance of birds affiliated with natural habitat features (e.g., trees and shrubs). Conversely, the Hispanic or Latino population, which is dominant in redlined zones, was positively related to a significantly greater abundance of synanthropic birds, which are species associated with dense urban conditions. Our results suggest that historical redlining and contemporary patterns of income inequality are associated with distinct avifaunal communities and their habitat, which potentially influence the human experience of these components of biodiversity throughout L.A. Redlined zones and low-income residential areas that were not graded by the HOLC can particularly benefit from deliberate urban greening and habitat enhancement projects, which would likely carry over to benefit birds and humans.

This indicator provides information about medically underserved areas and/or populations (MUA/Ps), as determined by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). Each designated area includes multiple census tracts.State Primary Care Offices submit applications to HRSA to designate specific areas within counties as MUA/Ps. The MUA/P designation is made using the Index of Medical Underservice (IMU) score, which includes four components: provider per 1,000 population, percent of population under poverty, percent of population ages 65 years and older, and infant mortality rate. The IMU scores ranges from 0-100. Lower scores indicate higher needs. An IMU score of 62 or below qualifies for designation as an MUA/P. Note: if an area is not designated as an MUA/P, it does not mean it is not underserved, only that an application has not been filed for the area and that official designation has not been given.The MUAs within Los Angeles County consist of groups of urban census tracts (namely service areas). MUPs have a shortage of primary care health services for a specific population within a geographic area. These populations may face economic, cultural, or language barriers to health care, such as: people experiencing homelessness, people who are low-income, people who are eligible for Medicaid, Native Americans, or migrant farm workers. All the MUPs that have been designated within Los Angeles County are among low-income populations of selected census tract groups. Due to the nature of the designation process, a census tract may be designated as both an MUA and an MUP and as multiple MUAs. MUA/P designations help establish health maintenance organizations or community health centers in high-need areas.For more information about the Community Health Profiles Data Initiative, please see the initiative homepage.

Data for cities, communities, and City of Los Angeles Council Districts were generated using a small area estimation method which combined the survey data with population benchmark data (2022 population estimates for Los Angeles County) and neighborhood characteristics data (e.g., U.S. Census Bureau, 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates). Households experiencing food insecurity are defined as those with low food security or very low food security in the last 12 months. Food insecurity is assessed by a scaled variable created from a series of five questions.Food insecurity, or the inability to reliably afford or access sufficient quantities of healthy food, affects hundreds of thousands of low-income households in Los Angeles County. Food insecurity during childhood is associated with delayed development, inability to concentrate in school, diminished academic performance, anxiety, depression, and early-onset obesity. Increasing enrollment in food assistance programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (known as CalFresh in California) or the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (better known as WIC) is an important measure that cities and communities can take to combat food insecurity.For more information about the Community Health Profiles Data Initiative, please see the initiative homepage.

As described in the Executive Summary below from the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, these are the parcels from the 'Rezoning Program' as of 7/26/21. For more information about the Draft Housing Element, please click here.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (from Draft Housing Element):The County is required to ensure the availability of residential sites, at adequate densities and appropriate development standards, in the unincorporated areas to accommodate its share of the regional housing need--also known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The unincorporated areas have been assigned a RHNA of 90,052 units for the 2021-2029 Housing Element planning period, which is subdivided by level of affordability as follows:Very Low Income – 25,648Lower Income – 13,691Moderate Income – 14,180Above Moderate Income – 36,533The Sites Inventory (Appendix A) is comprised of vacant and underutilized sites that are zoned at appropriate densities and development standards to facilitate housing development. Other strategies to accommodate the RHNA include projected number of ADUs, specific plan capacity, selected entitled projects, and capacity or planned development on County-owned sites within cities. The remainder of the RHNA is accommodated by sites to be rezoned to accommodate higher density housing development.MORE DETAILED INFO ON METHODOLOGY: ((PLACEHOLDER for Appendix G from BOS Consent posting))UPDATE HISTORY:1/5/21 - Coded Supervisorial District for each parcel2/4/21 - Added four fields that show the proposed / existing Land Use Policy / Zoning that display the category + brief description + density range - done mainly for the Story Map. Also, renamed the GIS layer (removed 'Adequate_Sites_Inventory' from the name).3/16/21 - Added 'Status Update (2021)' field to flag those parcels for removal following findings from Housing Section and EIR consultant.3/31/21 - Began making edits based on QC done by Housing Section in March, 2021 and exported this layer to an ARCHIVE version so we have the original data if needed. Made the following updates in AltadenaCoded all 'GC' categories as 'N/A' for RHNA Eligible and removed proposed LUP / Zoning category - THESE CAN NO LONGER BE COUNTED IN REZONE.Downgraded Proposed MU to Proposed CG for all current 'MU / Commercial Zones', and updated min/max density. Nulled out proposed zoning categories. Need to re-do unit calculations!4/1/21 - Continuing with Altadena QC, updating Status Update (2021) field:Downgraded Proposed MU to Proposed CG for all current 'MU / Non-Commercial Zones', and updated min/max density. Need Proposed Zoning from HE Section for consistency with CG category. Need to re-do unit calculations!Coded the ones marked 'Zoe to review'4/4/21 - Coded additional parcels that were condos (missed from before). Updated '2021 Update notes' and condo-related fields (including units). In Altadena, re-calculated units for all that are downgraded from Prop LU MU > CG. Identified those not meeting 16 unit minimum, and of those that were RHNA eligible, were coded as 'No'. Noted in the '2021 Update notes'.4/5/21 - Made the following edits per QC results from Housing Section:Lennox / W. Athens - coded '65 dB' parcels as "N/A" (removing from Rezoning list).Altadena - verified that no additional RHNA eligible parcels removed due to the criteria: “Existing residential buildings 50 or more years old, where the number of units allowed under the new LU is at least 2 - 3 times what's on the ground”All areas - coded Density Bonus of 27.5% as identified from the Housing Section as blank4/6/21 - Continued making edits per the QC results from Housing Section from the Rezoning list.4/7/21 - Continued making edits per the QC results from the Housing Section for Altadena.4/10/21 - Double-checked all Rezone edits. Re-calculated all units for all those that were updated (Status Update 2021 IS NOT NULL) and are on Rezoning list (RHNA Eligible? <> 'N/A'). Exported RHNA eligible to spreadsheet and double-checked unit maths.4/12/21 - Updated last proposed zoning categories in Altadena (confirmed by Housing Section). Updated current / proposed zoning descriptions (removed zoning suffices).4/13/21 - Made additional QC updates to some statuses regarding parcels that overlap with ASI.4/14/21 - Updated current zoning for the recently adopted By-Right Housing Ordinance Zone Change (all of these cases have the status of "N/A" - or, not considered for rezoning)4/15/21 - Researched 11 parcels that were coded as 'Yes - Rezoning Program' for RHNA Eligibility AND were flagged as not RHNA eligible for the model runs done previously 'Filter 2b'. Confirmed they should all remain RHNA eligible with the exception of 2.4/27/21 - Updated status for additional sites during week of 4/19, and on 4/27. Updated 107 parcels to the RHNA Eligibility Status of "Yes - Moderate Income"4/28/21 - Updated 310 parcels to the RHNA Eligibility Status of "Yes - Above Moderate Income"5/4/21 - Updated RHNA Eligibility Status to "No" since it overlapped with ASI.5/5/21 - Updated RHNA Eligibility Status to "Yes - Moderate" and "Yes - Above Moderate", and also removed two parcels that were also Historical Sites, per QC requests from Housing Section. SUMMARIZED THIS DATA AS A TABLE TO RESPOND TO SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT 1.5/11/21 - Updated schema:RHNA Eligible now just 'Yes' or 'No' (Rather than 'Yes + Inc level')Added fields for various income levels - to match what is in ASI layerKept 'Realistic Capacity' for the 'Non RHNA-Eligible' sites (these aren't broken down by Income level)Calculated 'Very Low' and 'Low' income levels to be 50/50 of the 'Realistic Capacity' (rounded up for VL, rounded down for L)5/12/21 - PREP FOR HCD TEMPLATE - Added field for Vacant / Non Vacant uses per the Assessor Use Code (ends in 'V' or 'X')6/2/21 - Updated one parcel that had 'Prop min density' blank. Trimmed Site Address field of trailing spaces.6/10/21 - ARCHIVED - exported to an archived layer as this is a snapshot in time from when it was sent to HCD on 6/7/21.6/28/21 - Exported the features (essentially copied the layer) as there was some strange behavior of attributes not selecting and joins not fully working - suspected that the data was slightly corrupted somehow, however a simple copy seemed to fix the issue. Modified several parcels per QC done by Housing Section in June, added some parcels as well.6/29/21 - Added sites per June QC and updated relevant fields - flagged those that need to have units recalculated in a temporary field.6/30/21 - Updated units for added sites. Flagged several parcels in FF and WALP for removal. RENAMED 'RHNA STATUS' CATEGORIES FROM "N/A" TO "REMOVE" (to be consistent with the ASI)7/1/21 - Removed or otherwise modified several parcels due to overlapping with new bldg permits / entitlements.7/6/21 - Updated based on refinements identified by the Housing Section on 7/1/21: Adding back Central Ave in Florence-Firestone and adding/removing sites in La Crescenta-Montrose, and updating some minor things (not related to units).7/7/21 - Checked math on all unit calculations using formulas in Excel - a small number of them were off by 1 unit (probably due to not rounding), and they were fixed. Added 'Planning Areas' field.7/20/21 - Incorporated changes following additional QC and zoning Inconsistencies identified in South and West Whittier following significant shortfall with the removal of Northlake Specific Plan:Added Income Category field and calculated valuesRemoved one parcel that overlapped with an existing Mobile Home ParkRemoved 1,122 polygons flagged as "REMOVED" that overlapped with the South and West Whittier changes (select by location against "Zoning_Inconsistancy_Parcels_SDs_345" layer.Added parcels for Above Moderate RHNA units from "Zoning_Inconsistancy_Parcels_SDs_345" layer and filled in fields as necessary.Added Adj Cluster IDs for 8 of the newly added parcels (adding to the next highest available ID in the whole dataset)7/24/21 - Coded all empty Site Addresses with nearest Street Intersection. See analysis fields starting with "Street_Intersection" in 'Housing_Element_2021_2029' File GDB.7/25/21 - Added ZIP Codes for those that were blank.7/26/21 - re-worded the metadata description (above UPDATE HISTORY)7/30/21 - 7/31/21 - Added Proposed Florence-Firestone TOD parcels.9/13/21 - Slight update to calculate the 'Income Category' field for those with RHNA Eligible = NO - to make those NULL.11/16/21 - Removed Density Bonus from the bottom 15% of sites (71 sites out of the 468) per HCD's comment. For the sites that fell below the 16 units, they were moved to the Above Moderate income category to receive RHNA credit.12/30/21 - Added updated Supervisorial District ID from 2021 update.2/17/22 - Cleared out Realistic Capacity and all income level units for "RHNA Eligible = NO". This is a clean-up measure. Kept all unit calculations for these up until the 'Realistic Capacity' field.3/15/22 & 3/16/22 - Re-allocation of income-level units per recommendation by HCD. New fields were added to indicate the original income level unit numbers (as submitted to the state following the Board Hearing), and an HCD Comments field was added to flag these parcels that changed, and the transfer of units between the income categories.SLA - move units from VL/L to Mod. Added 2,238 to Mod and subtracted 1,144 from VL, and 1,094 Low Income (lots with sf < 5,950). Checked if there were any project-specific allocations to income levels and there were none.SLA - move units from L to AM. Remaining Low Income after Step 1 is 5,819, so take approximately half of that. Selecting from pool outside of those selected in STEP 1, and lot size < 10,000sf, moved 2,566 from Low Income to Above Moderate. Checked if there were any project-specific allocations to income levels and there were none. OTHER SUBMARKET - move units from L to AM. Moved 10,031 units from L to AM (lots < 90,000 sf). NOTE, that this was most of

Extreme heat in the United States is a leading cause of weather-related deaths, disproportionately affecting low-income communities of color who tend to live in substandard housing with limited indoor cooling and fewer trees. Trees in cities have been documented to improve public health in many ways and provide climate regulating ecosystem services via shading, absorbing, and transpiring heat, measurably reducing heat-related illnesses and deaths. Advancing “urban forest equity” by planting trees in marginalized neighborhoods is acknowledged as a climate health equity strategy. But information is lacking about the efficacy of tree planting programs in advancing urban forest equity and public wellbeing. There is a need for frameworks to address the mismatch between policy goals, governance, resources, and community desires on how to green marginalized neighborhoods for public health improvement—especially in water-scarce environments. Prior studies have used environmental management-based approaches to evaluate planting programs, but few have focused on equity and health outcomes. We adapted a theory-based, multi-dimensional socio-ecological systems (SES) framework regularly used in the public health field to evaluate the Tree Ambassador, or Promotor Forestal, program in Los Angeles, US. The program is modeled after the community health worker model—where frontline health workers are trusted community members. It aims to address urban forest equity and wellbeing by training, supporting, and compensating residents to organize their communities. We use focus groups, surveys, and ethnographic methods to develop our SES model of community-based tree stewardship. The model elucidates how interacting dimensions—from individual to society level—drive urban forest equity and related public health outcomes. We then present an alternative framework, adding temporal and spatial factors to these dimensions. Evaluation results and our SES model highlight drivers aiding or hindering program trainees in organizing communities, including access to properties, perceptions about irrigation responsibilities, and lack of trust in local government. We also find that as trainee experience increases, measures including self- and collective efficacy and trust in their neighbors increase. Findings can inform urban forestry policy, planning, and management actions at the government and non-profit levels that aim to increase tree cover and reduce heat exposure in marginalized communities.

Recent advances in quantitative tools for examining urban morphology enable the development of morphometrics that can characterize the size, shape, and placement of buildings; the relationships between them; and their association with broader patterns of development. Although these methods have the potential to provide substantial insight into the ways in which neighborhood morphology shapes the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of neighborhoods and communities, this question is largely unexplored. Using building footprints in five of the ten largest U.S. metropolitan areas (Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Houston, and Los Angeles) and the open-source R package, foot, we examine how neighborhood morphology differs across U.S. metropolitan areas and across the urban-exurban landscape. Principal components analysis, unsupervised classification (K-means), and Ordinary Least Squares regression analysis are used to develop a morphological typology of neighborhoods and to examine its association with the spatial, socioeconomic, and demographic characteristics of census tracts. Our findings illustrate substantial variation in the morphology of neighborhoods, both across the five metropolitan areas as well as between central cities, suburbs, and the urban fringe within each metropolitan area. We identify five different types of neighborhoods indicative of different stages of development and distributed unevenly across the urban landscape: these include low-density neighborhoods on the urban fringe; mixed use and high-density residential areas in central cities; and uniform residential neighborhoods in suburban cities. Results from regression analysis illustrate that the prevalence of each of these forms is closely associated with variation in socioeconomic and demographic characteristics such as population density, the prevalence of multifamily housing, and income, race/ethnicity, homeownership, and commuting by car. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings and suggesting avenues for future research on neighborhood morphology, including ways that it might provide insight into issues such as zoning and land use, housing policy, and residential segregation.

This indicator provides information about the percentage of land with tree canopy coverage, weighted by population size.Trees are essential for mitigating the effects of climate change, including extreme heat waves, because they provide shade and cooling to surrounding areas. Trees also provide mental and physical health benefits to residents living in the communities. Communities in which a large proportion of trees or natural land have been replaced by pavement and buildings are especially vulnerable to the urban heat island effect , in which heat becomes trapped and leads to warmer temperatures relative to other surrounding areas that have retained trees or natural land. In Los Angeles County, low-income communities are more likely to experience the urban heat island effect and are consequently at higher risk for negative outcomes associated with excess heat, including air pollution and heat-related illnesses. Increasing tree canopy coverage in areas with low tree density is one strategy that cities and communities can implement to mitigate the urban heat island effect and promote local climate resiliency.For more information about the Community Health Profiles Data Initiative, please see the initiative homepage.

Data for cities, communities, and City of Los Angeles Council Districts were generated using a small area estimation method which combined the survey data with population benchmark data (2022 population estimates for Los Angeles County) and neighborhood characteristics data (e.g., U.S. Census Bureau, 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates). Households experiencing food insecurity are defined as those with low food security or very low food security in the last 12 months. Food insecurity is assessed by a scaled variable created from a series of five questions.Food insecurity, or the inability to reliably afford or access sufficient quantities of healthy food, affects hundreds of thousands of low-income households in Los Angeles County. Food insecure adults are at increased risk for poor dietary intake and developing chronic conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity, and psychological distress or depression. Increasing enrollment in food assistance programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (known as CalFresh in California) or the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (better known as WIC) is an important measure that cities and communities can take to combat food insecurity.For more information about the Community Health Profiles Data Initiative, please see the initiative homepage.

In 2020, Hong Kong had the most expensive residential property market worldwide, with an average property price of 1.25 million U.S. dollars. The government of Hong Kong provide public housing for lower-income residents and almost 45 percent of the Hong Kong population lived in public permanent housing in 2018.

Public Housing AuthoritiesThis National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDA) dataset, shared as a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) feature layer, displays Public Housing Authorities throughout the United States. Per HUD, "Public Housing was established to provide decent and safe rental housing for eligible low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. Public housing comes in all sizes and types, from scattered single family houses to high-rise apartments for elderly families. HUD administers Federal aid to local housing agencies that manage the housing for low-income residents at rents they can afford. HUD furnishes technical and professional assistance in planning, developing and managing these developments. Public Housing Authorities are depicted as the physical location".City of Los Angeles Housing Authority Data currency: current federal service (Public Housing Authority)NGDAID: 129 (Assisted Housing - Public Housing Authorities - National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDA))For more information, please visit:Public Housing Agency (PHA) PlansPublic HousingSupport documentation: Data DictionaryFor feedback please contact: Esri_US_Federal_Data@esri.comNGDA Data SetThis data set is part of the NGDA Real Property Theme Community. Per the Federal Geospatial Data Committee (FGDC), Real Property is defined as "the spatial representation (location) of real property entities, typically consisting of one or more of the following: unimproved land, a building, a structure, site improvements and the underlying land. Complex real property entities (that is "facilities") are used for a broad spectrum of functions or missions. This theme focuses on spatial representation of real property assets only and does not seek to describe special purpose functions of real property such as those found in the Cultural Resources, Transportation, or Utilities themes."For other NGDA Content: Esri Federal Datasets

As described in the Executive Summary below from the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, these are the parcels from the 'Rezoning Program' as of 7/26/21. For more information about the Draft Housing Element, please click here.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (from Draft Housing Element):The County is required to ensure the availability of residential sites, at adequate densities and appropriate development standards, in the unincorporated areas to accommodate its share of the regional housing need--also known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The unincorporated areas have been assigned a RHNA of 90,052 units for the 2021-2029 Housing Element planning period, which is subdivided by level of affordability as follows:Very Low Income – 25,648Lower Income – 13,691Moderate Income – 14,180Above Moderate Income – 36,533The Sites Inventory (Appendix A) is comprised of vacant and underutilized sites that are zoned at appropriate densities and development standards to facilitate housing development. Other strategies to accommodate the RHNA include projected number of ADUs, specific plan capacity, selected entitled projects, and capacity or planned development on County-owned sites within cities. The remainder of the RHNA is accommodated by sites to be rezoned to accommodate higher density housing development.MORE DETAILED INFO ON METHODOLOGY: ((PLACEHOLDER for Appendix G from BOS Consent posting))UPDATE HISTORY:1/5/21 - Coded Supervisorial District for each parcel2/4/21 - Added four fields that show the proposed / existing Land Use Policy / Zoning that display the category + brief description + density range - done mainly for the Story Map. Also, renamed the GIS layer (removed 'Adequate_Sites_Inventory' from the name).3/16/21 - Added 'Status Update (2021)' field to flag those parcels for removal following findings from Housing Section and EIR consultant.3/31/21 - Began making edits based on QC done by Housing Section in March, 2021 and exported this layer to an ARCHIVE version so we have the original data if needed. Made the following updates in AltadenaCoded all 'GC' categories as 'N/A' for RHNA Eligible and removed proposed LUP / Zoning category - THESE CAN NO LONGER BE COUNTED IN REZONE.Downgraded Proposed MU to Proposed CG for all current 'MU / Commercial Zones', and updated min/max density. Nulled out proposed zoning categories. Need to re-do unit calculations!4/1/21 - Continuing with Altadena QC, updating Status Update (2021) field:Downgraded Proposed MU to Proposed CG for all current 'MU / Non-Commercial Zones', and updated min/max density. Need Proposed Zoning from HE Section for consistency with CG category. Need to re-do unit calculations!Coded the ones marked 'Zoe to review'4/4/21 - Coded additional parcels that were condos (missed from before). Updated '2021 Update notes' and condo-related fields (including units). In Altadena, re-calculated units for all that are downgraded from Prop LU MU > CG. Identified those not meeting 16 unit minimum, and of those that were RHNA eligible, were coded as 'No'. Noted in the '2021 Update notes'.4/5/21 - Made the following edits per QC results from Housing Section:Lennox / W. Athens - coded '65 dB' parcels as "N/A" (removing from Rezoning list).Altadena - verified that no additional RHNA eligible parcels removed due to the criteria: “Existing residential buildings 50 or more years old, where the number of units allowed under the new LU is at least 2 - 3 times what's on the ground”All areas - coded Density Bonus of 27.5% as identified from the Housing Section as blank4/6/21 - Continued making edits per the QC results from Housing Section from the Rezoning list.4/7/21 - Continued making edits per the QC results from the Housing Section for Altadena.4/10/21 - Double-checked all Rezone edits. Re-calculated all units for all those that were updated (Status Update 2021 IS NOT NULL) and are on Rezoning list (RHNA Eligible? <> 'N/A'). Exported RHNA eligible to spreadsheet and double-checked unit maths.4/12/21 - Updated last proposed zoning categories in Altadena (confirmed by Housing Section). Updated current / proposed zoning descriptions (removed zoning suffices).4/13/21 - Made additional QC updates to some statuses regarding parcels that overlap with ASI.4/14/21 - Updated current zoning for the recently adopted By-Right Housing Ordinance Zone Change (all of these cases have the status of "N/A" - or, not considered for rezoning)4/15/21 - Researched 11 parcels that were coded as 'Yes - Rezoning Program' for RHNA Eligibility AND were flagged as not RHNA eligible for the model runs done previously 'Filter 2b'. Confirmed they should all remain RHNA eligible with the exception of 2.4/27/21 - Updated status for additional sites during week of 4/19, and on 4/27. Updated 107 parcels to the RHNA Eligibility Status of "Yes - Moderate Income"4/28/21 - Updated 310 parcels to the RHNA Eligibility Status of "Yes - Above Moderate Income"5/4/21 - Updated RHNA Eligibility Status to "No" since it overlapped with ASI.5/5/21 - Updated RHNA Eligibility Status to "Yes - Moderate" and "Yes - Above Moderate", and also removed two parcels that were also Historical Sites, per QC requests from Housing Section. SUMMARIZED THIS DATA AS A TABLE TO RESPOND TO SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT 1.5/11/21 - Updated schema:RHNA Eligible now just 'Yes' or 'No' (Rather than 'Yes + Inc level')Added fields for various income levels - to match what is in ASI layerKept 'Realistic Capacity' for the 'Non RHNA-Eligible' sites (these aren't broken down by Income level)Calculated 'Very Low' and 'Low' income levels to be 50/50 of the 'Realistic Capacity' (rounded up for VL, rounded down for L)5/12/21 - PREP FOR HCD TEMPLATE - Added field for Vacant / Non Vacant uses per the Assessor Use Code (ends in 'V' or 'X')6/2/21 - Updated one parcel that had 'Prop min density' blank. Trimmed Site Address field of trailing spaces.6/10/21 - ARCHIVED - exported to an archived layer as this is a snapshot in time from when it was sent to HCD on 6/7/21.6/28/21 - Exported the features (essentially copied the layer) as there was some strange behavior of attributes not selecting and joins not fully working - suspected that the data was slightly corrupted somehow, however a simple copy seemed to fix the issue. Modified several parcels per QC done by Housing Section in June, added some parcels as well.6/29/21 - Added sites per June QC and updated relevant fields - flagged those that need to have units recalculated in a temporary field.6/30/21 - Updated units for added sites. Flagged several parcels in FF and WALP for removal. RENAMED 'RHNA STATUS' CATEGORIES FROM "N/A" TO "REMOVE" (to be consistent with the ASI)7/1/21 - Removed or otherwise modified several parcels due to overlapping with new bldg permits / entitlements.7/6/21 - Updated based on refinements identified by the Housing Section on 7/1/21: Adding back Central Ave in Florence-Firestone and adding/removing sites in La Crescenta-Montrose, and updating some minor things (not related to units).7/7/21 - Checked math on all unit calculations using formulas in Excel - a small number of them were off by 1 unit (probably due to not rounding), and they were fixed. Added 'Planning Areas' field.7/20/21 - Incorporated changes following additional QC and zoning Inconsistencies identified in South and West Whittier following significant shortfall with the removal of Northlake Specific Plan:Added Income Category field and calculated valuesRemoved one parcel that overlapped with an existing Mobile Home ParkRemoved 1,122 polygons flagged as "REMOVED" that overlapped with the South and West Whittier changes (select by location against "Zoning_Inconsistancy_Parcels_SDs_345" layer.Added parcels for Above Moderate RHNA units from "Zoning_Inconsistancy_Parcels_SDs_345" layer and filled in fields as necessary.Added Adj Cluster IDs for 8 of the newly added parcels (adding to the next highest available ID in the whole dataset)7/24/21 - Coded all empty Site Addresses with nearest Street Intersection. See analysis fields starting with "Street_Intersection" in 'Housing_Element_2021_2029' File GDB.7/25/21 - Added ZIP Codes for those that were blank.7/26/21 - re-worded the metadata description (above UPDATE HISTORY)7/30/21 - 7/31/21 - Added Proposed Florence-Firestone TOD parcels.9/13/21 - Slight update to calculate the 'Income Category' field for those with RHNA Eligible = NO - to make those NULL.11/16/21 - Removed Density Bonus from the bottom 15% of sites (71 sites out of the 468) per HCD's comment. For the sites that fell below the 16 units, they were moved to the Above Moderate income category to receive RHNA credit.12/30/21 - Added updated Supervisorial District ID from 2021 update.2/17/22 - Cleared out Realistic Capacity and all income level units for "RHNA Eligible = NO". This is a clean-up measure. Kept all unit calculations for these up until the 'Realistic Capacity' field.3/15/22 & 3/16/22 - Re-allocation of income-level units per recommendation by HCD. New fields were added to indicate the original income level unit numbers (as submitted to the state following the Board Hearing), and an HCD Comments field was added to flag these parcels that changed, and the transfer of units between the income categories.SLA - move units from VL/L to Mod. Added 2,238 to Mod and subtracted 1,144 from VL, and 1,094 Low Income (lots with sf < 5,950). Checked if there were any project-specific allocations to income levels and there were none.SLA - move units from L to AM. Remaining Low Income after Step 1 is 5,819, so take approximately half of that. Selecting from pool outside of those selected in STEP 1, and lot size < 10,000sf, moved 2,566 from Low Income to Above Moderate. Checked if there were any project-specific allocations to income levels and there were none. OTHER SUBMARKET - move units from L to AM. Moved 10,031 units from L to AM (lots < 90,000 sf). NOTE, that this was most of

This is a Housing and Urban Development program is to spur revitalization efforts of low-income and impoverished communities across the City. The program provided tax credit incentives to investors which invest in low-income communities.

Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 13.04 - RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS (RPD)The purpose of Residential Planned Development Districts (RPD) is to promote and achieve greater flexibility in design, to encourage well–planned neighborhoods with adequate open space which offer a variety of housing and environments through creative and imaginative planning as a unit, to increase housing opportunities for low and moderate income households, and provide for the most appropriate use of land through special methods of development.