10B
Date: August 25, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Michelle Ramirez, Community Development Director
By: Oscar Martinez, Planning Manager | [email protected] Subject: Community Development – Approve the Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) 2.0 Commercial Redevelopment to Housing Study Prepared by the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) and Determine a Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Expenditure: None.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation of the Community Development Director that City Council:
1. Approve the REAP 2.0 Study prepared by the SBCCOG and, where feasible, pursue the recommended actions; and
2. Determine a Categorical Exemption for the project in accordance with Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); Article 18, Section 15262 Feasibility and Planning Studies.
FUNDING
None required.
DISCUSSION
The Commercial Redevelopment to Housing Study (Study) is a planning effort that evaluates opportunities to convert underutilized commercial properties—such as aging shopping centers, vacant commercial buildings, or low-performing retail sites—into housing, while also identifying the policies, regulations, and strategies needed to support such redevelopment.
The Study is funded through a Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) 2.0 grant, for which the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) was an awardee. Through this regional grant, three participating South Bay cities— Torrance, Hawthorne, and Carson—collaborated on the Study to evaluate opportunities and develop strategies for encouraging the redevelopment of commercial properties into housing within each participating city.
1 City Council
August 25, 2026
Each participating city selected two sites within its jurisdiction for a detailed redevelopment feasibility analysis. The Study also incorporated input from housing developers to better understand potential housing typologies, market considerations, and the development feasibility and challenges associated with different housing approaches in the South Bay.
Overall, the Study provides cities with practical concepts and technical guidance to support thoughtful commercial-to-housing conversions and inform future planning efforts in response to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), including preparation for the 7th Cycle Housing Element.
For the City of Torrance, the Study helped the City better understand how existing commercial areas could potentially be revitalized to address housing needs while maintaining economic vitality and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. The Study itself does not approve development projects or automatically change zoning; rather, it provides information, analysis, and recommendations that the City may use when considering future planning decisions.
Key Study Takeaways
1. Housing redevelopment follows market strength
New housing is most likely to occur in areas with strong underlying market conditions, such as locations with higher rental rates and land values. Zoning changes alone do not ensure redevelopment if market demand is lacking.
2. Some commercial site types are more attractive for conversion A significant share of RHNA capacity can be accommodated on underutilized commercial sites. However, certain site types are more consistently viable than others. For example, surface parking areas with few existing improvements and flexible physical layouts offer the greatest flexibility for conversion. Mall parking lots emerged as key opportunity sites with high redevelopment viability while small corridor parcels are more challenging to convert due to the need for site aggregation.
3. Feasibility depends not only on density, but on the relationship between housing and parking.
“Gentle density” products, such as townhomes are less expensive to build and are more economically feasible and therefore more likely to be built.
4. Place, quality and design can expand suitability and feasibility Developers optimize projects by carefully considering placemaking, design quality, and overall attractiveness, which can directly influence feasibility. Proximity to high demand services and retailers expands feasibility opportunities and attracts developers.
5. Affordable housing requires public intervention
Affordable housing on commercial sites will likely require land strategies, subsidy, and public-private partnerships. Any significant number of deed restricted affordable units generally require subsidy to be financially viable. Land cost is also a critical factor as lower land values significantly improve a project’s ability to support affordable housing. For example, the Gable House development was able to acquire the land at a relatively low cost, which helped support a higher ratio of affordable units as part of the project.
6. Regulatory certainty and process shape outcomes
Regulatory certainty, process speed, and local capacity are critical to unlocking commercial site redevelopment. Long entitlement timelines are one of the most significant barriers to housing. Cities can play a role by prioritizing sites through an RFP or similar process to help expedite regulatory approvals.
2 City Council
August 25, 2026
Staff worked with SBCCOG and the consultant team to select two commercially zoned sites within the City for evaluation of their potential to accommodate future housing development. The selected sites were analyzed to better understand redevelopment feasibility, potential housing opportunities, site constraints, and the challenges associated with converting commercial properties to residential uses. Each site is described below.
Site #1: 20912-21188 Hawthorne Boulevard
Zoned H-DA2, this corner site allows residential with a CUP and isn't part of the 6th Cycle Housing Element, but its strong rental market makes it a redevelopment target the City wants to see keep some retail. Two test fits were studied: a mixed-use option with 241 flats and 250 structured parking spaces (viable as a rental product, 8.3% return on cost, capacity for 4 affordable units), and a larger option with 317 flats and 320 parking spaces that trims retail but adds a courtyard (14.9% return on cost, up to 24 affordable units if Hawthorne Boulevard setbacks are relaxed). Only the rental scenario pencils out for either option; any lost sales tax from reduced retail could be offset by higher property tax revenue.
Site #2: 2500-2700 Redondo Beach Boulevard
The Roadium Open Air Market site is zoned C3-PP with a proposed R/MU-OZ overlay and is a designated 6th Cycle moderate-income housing opportunity. The City envisions mixed-use redevelopment, with denser housing along Redondo Beach Boulevard stepping down to smaller-scale housing at the edges to blend with the surrounding neighborhood. The test fit proposes 655 flats, 74 three-story townhomes, and 690 structured parking spaces, while preserving the existing Roadium building (either for new corner retail or as a community/mobility hub). This is the only site viable as both a lease and for-sale product, with the for-sale scenario yielding a better return (11 affordable units under lease, 9 under for-sale). The main risk is that the property owner's land value expectations may exceed what redevelopment can support, given the site's history of repeated market listings.
Following a review of Study findings and coordination with SBCCOGs, staff recommends that City Council approve the report and, where feasible, pursue the following recommended actions:
1. Identifying Opportunity Sites
a. Use the REAP 2.0 site inventory to prioritize outreach to property owners of high- opportunity commercial sites. Proactive city engagement can accelerate private investment before a developer makes first contact.
b. Inventory city-owned commercially zoned parcels, especially surface lots, as candidate sites for publicly supported housing. Public land and subsidy strategies can further delivery of deed-restricted affordable units.
2. Process Streamlining
a. Update the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan to incorporate objective design standards, enabling ministerial approvals and reducing entitlement risk in a corridor with supportive market conditions.
b. Publish a developer-facing entitlement guide for priority Housing Element sites, including applicable state streamlining tools (AB 2011, SB 330, CEQA infill exemptions), processing timelines, and objective standards so developers can self- assess fit before engaging city staff.
3 City Council
August 25, 2026
c. Evaluate opportunities to expand workforce housing, helping bridge the gap between affordable and market-rate housing while supporting local economic growth.
3. Planning for Economic Development and Housing Together a. Consider a Business Improvement District (BID) or similar structure for Downtown Torrance, coordinating small business retention, façade investment, and streetscape improvements, to create a walkable neighborhood destination as housing densification continues.
4. Planning for Housing and Mobility Together
a. Consider requiring Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV) and micromobility parking or storage on commercial conversion projects to support replacing car parking spaces with other options.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
This item is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262, which applies to feasibility and planning studies that involve analysis, evaluation, or planning activities for possible future actions and do not result in a commitment to a specific project.
ATTACHMENTS
1. South Bay Cities Restock: Sustainable Pathways to Housing, Torrance City Council Presentation
2. South Bay Cities Restock: Sustainable Pathways to Housing, Final Report 4 June 2026
April 2025SBCC OG Comm ercial Redevelopment to Housing Study Partner Cities:
This Project is f unded and managed by t he Southern California Association of Government s (SCAG) with Regional Early Action Program 2021 grant funding from the St ate of California D epart ment of Housing and Communit y D evelopment.
South Bay Cities:
Restock
Sustainable Pathways
to Housing
Torrance City Council Presentation
August 2026
5 ATTACHMENT 1
June 2026South Bay Cities Restock: Sustainable Pathways to Housing PRIME
CONSULTANT
SUBCONSULTANTS
CLIENT PARTNER CITIES
OTHER SOUTH BAY JURISDICTIONS
This Project is funded and managed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) with Regional Early Action Program 2021 grant funding from the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development.
FUNDER
PROJECT TEAM
6 June 2026South Bay Cities Restock: Sustainable Pathways to Housing
STUDY COMPONENTS
SUB-REGIONAL
SITES INVENTORY
SITE TESTFITS
& PRO FORMA
ANALYSIS
DEVELOPER
INPUT & CASE
STUDIES
1 2 3
7 June 2026South Bay Cities Restock: Sustainable Pathways to Housing
KEY STUDY TAKEAWAYS
Housing Redevelopment
Follows Market Strength
New housing is most likely to occur in
areas with strong underlying market
conditions
Feasibility Depends on Housing
Typology and Parking, Not Just
Density
Replicable housing prototypes depend
on matching typology, site conditions,
and parking strategy — not just
increasing density
Some Commercial Site Types are
More Attractive for Conversion
A significant share of RHNA capacity can
be accommodated on underutilized
commercial sites — but certain site types
are more consistently viable than others
Place Quality and Design can
Expand Suitability & Feasibility
Housing feasibility is strongly tied to
market conditions — but place
quality and design can expand where
it works
Affordable Housing Requires Public
Intervention
Affordable housing on commercial sites will
likely require land strategies, subsidy, and
public-private partnerships
Regulatory Certainty and
Process Shape Outcomes
Regulatory certainty, process speed,
and local capacity are critical to
unlocking commercial site
redevelopment
8 June 2026
Strip Center Neighborhood Infill
Long, Shallow Corridor Site
Hawthorne
Strip Center Redevelopment
Torrance
Extra Large Surface Lot
South Bay Cities Restock: Sustainable Pathways to Housing
SITE TESTFITS - SITES SELECTED BY PARTNER CITIES
Corridor Small Lot Redevelopment
Mall Outparcel Redevelopment
Carson
9 June 2026South Bay Cities Restock: Sustainable Pathways to Housing TORRANCE SITE 1: 20912-21188 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
Existing Businesses
Mini Grocery Store
Insurance Comp any
Property Management
Company
Alteration Service
(Clo thes)
Computer Services
Tutoring Academy
Nails Spa
Bike Store
Japanese Restaurant
Ramen Restaurant
Tattoo Shop
Private Tuto ring
To bacco Shop
Japanese Restaurant
Indian Snacks and
Sweets
Software Company
Beauty Studio
Tiki Bar
Medical Sup ply
Domino's
Bill iards/Pool Hall
Dentist
Pharmacy
Lo cal T utor Service
Nail Salon
Dry Cleaners
5TH Ave Bagelry
Hair Salon
Laundromat
IHOP
Planning Background
● Zoned H-DA2 under
Hawthorne Boulevard
Corridor Specific Plan
● Residential allowed via
CUP as mixed -use
● Requires housing
setback from Hawthorne
Blvd.
● Not a 6th cycle Housing
Element site
10 June 2026
TORRANCE SITE 1: TAKEAWAYS
South Bay Cities Restock: Sustainable Pathways to Housing 20912-21188 Hawthorne Blvd.
● Commercial site type is suited for redevelopment given strong rental market
● High density housing with structured parking is likely feasible
● Required housing setback with retail frontage could
provide opportunity to keep neighborhood-serving retail uses that enhance business clusters and walkability
● Relaxing required setback from Hawthorne and increases in permitted residential density could enhance the
opportunity to provide more inclusionary units.
● Opportunity to activate the alley as a connection to the existing LTN on Emerald St.
Apartments with Existing Retail and Garage
(317 units, 62 du/ac,Unit Size: 600sf - 1,170sf )
Apartments with New Retail and Garage (241
units, 47 du/ac, Unit Size: 600sf - 1,170sf)
For Lease: Likely Viable
For Lease: Likely Viable
11 June 2026South Bay Cities Restock: Sustainable Pathways to Housing TORRANCE SITE 2: 2500-2700 REDONDO BEACH BLVD.
Existing Businesses
1 2
RoadiumOpen Air Market Sign
Beauty Supply Store
Planning Background
● Zoned C3-PP with proposed R/MU-OZ residential
overlay
● 6th Cycle Housing Element Site with above
moderate units projected
12 June 2026
TORRANCE SITE 2: TAKEAWAYS
South Bay Cities Restock: Sustainable Pathways to Housing 2500-2700 Redondo Beach Blvd.
● Large surface lot lends itself well to housing
redevelopment
● Opportunity to provide greater density at the core of the site with multifamily rental units, and scale down
to the neighborhood around the perimeter
● Existing Roadium building and retail could be
preserved to create a mixed-use component that
could also be a community amenity/ mobility hub for
residents
● Opportunity to create a place within the site as a larger development that can improve housing value and
generate marginally better rents than the immediate
surrounding market
For Lease and Sale : Likely Viable
Extra Large Surface Lot Redevelopment (729 units, 51 du/ac, Unit Size: 600sf - 1750sf)
Townhomes and Apartments
13 June 2026
Recommendations
South Bay Cities Restock: Sustainable Pathways to Housing 14 June 2026
South Bay Cities Restock: Sustainable Pathways to Housing
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TORRANCE
Identifying Opportunity Sites
● Use the REAP 2.0 site inventory to prioritize outreach to property owners of high-opportunity commercial sites. Proactive city engagement can accelerate private investment before a developer makes first contact ● Inventory city-owned commercially zoned parcels, especially surface lots, as candidate sites for publicly-supported housing. Public land and subsidy strategies can further delivery of deed-restricted affordable units Process Streamlining
● Update the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan to incorporate objective design standards, enabling ministerial approvals and reducing entitlement risk in a corridor with supportive market conditions ● Publish a developer-facing entitlement guide for priority Housing Element sites, including applicable state streamlining tools (AB 2011, SB 330, CEQA infill exemptions), processing timelines, and objective standards so developers can self-assess fit before engaging city staff ● Evaluate opportunities to expand workforce housing, helping bridge the gap between affordable and market-rate housing while supporting local economic growth.
REAP 2.0 Site Inventory Tool
15 June 2026South Bay Cities Restock: Sustainable Pathways to Housing
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TORRANCE
Planning for Economic Development and Housing Together
● Consider a Business Improvement District (BID) or similar structure for Downtown Torrance, coordinating small business retention, façade investment, and streetscape improvements, to create a walkable neighborhood destination as housing
densification continues.
Planning for Housing and Mobility Together
● Consider requiring Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV) and micromobility parking or storage on commercial conversion projects to support replacing car parking spaces with other options Micromobility Parking
16 June 2026
April 2025SBCC OG Comm ercial Redevelopment to Housing Study Partner Cities:
This Project is f unded and managed by t he Southern California Association of Government s (SCAG) with Regional Early Action Program 2021 grant funding from the St ate of California D epart ment of Housing and Communit y D evelopment.
Thank You
Any Questions?
17 June 2026South Bay Cities Restock: Sustainable Pathways to Housing TORRANCE SITE 1: WRAP BUILDING WITH RETAIL FRONTAGE
1 3
Existing Retail Retained
241 Residential Flats
250 Structured Garage Spaces
New Retail
1 2
3 2
4 4
2 2
Lease - Likely Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
18 June 2026
TORRANCE SITE 1: HOUSING WITH EXISTING RETAIL
1 3
Existing Retail Retained
317 Residential Flats
320 Structured Garage Spaces
Courtyard Open Space
1 2
3 2
4 4
4 4
Lease - Likely Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
19 June 2026South Bay Cities Restock: Sustainable Pathways to Housing TORRANCE SITE 2: EXTRA LARGE SURFACE LOT REDEVELOPMENT
190 Residential Flats
225 Structured Garage Spaces
225 Structured Garage Spaces
208 Residential Flats
257 Residential Flats
240 Structured Garage Spaces
74 3-Story Townhomes
Retail
Existing Roadium Building
Retained
1 2
3 4
5 4
2 1
3 5
6 7
7 7
9 8
Lease - Likely Viable
Sale - Likely Viable
6 7
8 9
20 SOU
SOUTH BAY CITIES
RESTOCK
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
21 ATTACHMENT 2
2 South Bay Cities Restock
Acknowledgments
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Jacki Bacharach, Executive Director
Wally Siembab, Research Director
Jake Romoff, Project Coordinator
Shannon Heffernan, AICP , Principal Planner
Anne T sai, Project Coordinator
Partner Cities
Funding for this study was provided by the
Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) through their Regional Early Action
Planning (REAP) program.
Studio One Eleven
Alan Pullman, AIA, Principal-in-Charge
Shruti Shankar, AICP , Urban Design Director
Jasmine Williams, AICP , Project Manager
David Nicholson, Design Director
Raj Kachlia, Senior Designer
Janet Le, Senior Designer
T atiana Romero, Senior Designer
Jacob Castro, Intern
Kosmont Companies
Ken K. Hira, President
Wil Soholt, Senior Vice President
theworksLA
Omar Ureta, Designer/Owner
City of Carson
McKina Alexander, Planning Manager
Jarrod Coleman, Senior Planner
Richard Garcia, Assistant Planner
City of Hawthorne
Gregg McClain, Planning Director
Paige Hansen, Development Analyst
City of Torrance
Oscar Martinez, Planning Manager
Gregg Lodan, Neighborhood Serivices
Manager
22 3
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Table of Contents
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 04
2 . UNDERSTANDING OPPORTUNITY:
ANAL YTICAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY
12 3.
KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
17 APPENDIX
4. SITES INVENTORY METHODOLOGY
33 5. DEVELOPMENT TEST FITS & PROFORMA ANAL YSIS
4 7
6. GLOSSARY OF TERMS
97 23
4 South Bay Cities Restock
Executive Summary
1 The South Bay is a diverse collection of 16 cities and unincorporated communities in the southwestern
corner of Los Angeles County, ranging from coastal
communities to inland urban centers, and home to
approximately 1.1 million residents. The South Bay
Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) serves as the
regional planning and policy coordination body for these jurisdictions, working collaboratively on issues of shared importance including housing, transportation, and
sustainability.
Sustainable South Bay Model
For more than two decades, SBCCOG has advanced
a distinct vision for how a largely suburban, built-out region can grow sustainably. Rather than relying on the large-scale, transit-oriented density typical of more
urban settings, SBCCOG’s “sustainable suburban” model
focuses on shortening the distance between where
people live and the places they need to reach each day. It rests on two connected principles:
•
Land Use
- bringing origins and destinations closer
together. Sustainable growth begins by locating
new housing (origins) around dense clusters of the
destinations people travel to most often: shops,
services, jobs, schools, and gathering places.
These clusters can be reinforced by a shared public
facility offering high-speed internet access, shared
technology, and training — creating 21st-century
neighborhood centers that anchor complete
neighborhoods, where most daily needs sit within a
short, walkable distance (roughly a quarter to three-
eighths of a mile) rather than along a car-oriented
corridor.
•
Tr
ansportation
- connecting neighborhood
centers with clean, right-sized mobility. Complete
neighborhoods are linked to one another by zero-
emission (ZE) micromobility — walking, bikes and
e-bikes, scooters, and neighborhood electric vehicles
— supported by the Local Travel Network (L TN), a
low-stress network of local streets built to carry the
many short trips that connect neighborhoods to each
other. Mobility hubs then provide access to regional
transit and full-speed automobiles for the longer
trips to destinations outside the South Bay.
Issues and Opportunities Today
Cities across the South Bay now face a fundamental
challenge: accommodating substantial new housing
growth within largely built-out communities while
meeting State-mandated targets of the Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA), with little vacant land
remaining on which to place it.. At the same time, many existing commercial corridors and sites – particularly
those for retail, office, and service commercial uses – are increasingly underutilized . Shifts in the commercial real estate market — driven by the growth of e-commerce
and post-pandemic changes in work patterns — have led
to rising retail vacancies, underperforming commercial
centers, and reduced demand for some office and retail
space. As a result, many of these sites are no longer
operating at their highest and best use, creating both a challenge for cities and a meaningful opportunity for new housing.
Beyond simply meeting housing unit targets, SBCCOG’s
goals emphasize the importance of delivering
sustainable housing consistent with SBCCOG’s model
—housing that is located in walkable and amenity-rich
areas that support micromobility, reduce dependence
on private internal combustion vehicles, and support
complete, mixed-use neighborhoods. In the South Bay
context, this requires aligning housing production with existing corridors, destinations, and mobility networks to create more livable and connected communities over
time, so that meeting housing targets and building a
1.1 Overview
24 5
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
UV91
¨§¦
71 0
¨§¦
10 5
¨§¦
110¨§¦
40 5
GARDENA
HAWTHORNE
HERMOSA
LOMITA
MANHATTAN
B
EA
CH
PALOS VERDES
ES
TA
TES
RANCHO
PALOS
VERDES
REDONDO B
EA
CH
ROLLING HILLS
ROLLING
HILLS
ES
TA
TES
TORRANCE
EL CAMINO
VILLAGE
W
ES
TFIELD
DEL
AIRE
LENNOX
ALONDRA
PARK
W
ES
TMON
T
/
WEST A
THENS
CARSON
W
ES
T CARSON
LOS ANGELES
(DISTRICT 15)
INGLEWOOD
EL SEGUNDO
0 1 20.5 Miles
B EA CH
Unincorporated
L.A. County Areas
LAWNDALE
LA RAMBLA
South Bay Cities
& Unincorporated L.A. County Areas
The South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) is a joint powers authority of 16 cities and the County of Los Angeles that share the goal of maximizing the quality of life and productivity of the South Bay region. Our members are Carson, El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Lawndale, Lomita, Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Torrance, and the Harbor City/San Pedro/Wilmington communities of the City of Los Angeles, along with the unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles District 2 and 4. more sustainable region advance together rather than as competing goals.
Under California Housing Element law, cities must
identify housing opportunity sites that are not only
sufficient in capacity, but also
available, suitable, and
feasible
for residential development within the planning
period. In built-out environments like the South Bay, this increasingly requires cities to look beyond vacant land and intensification of existing residential properties
and evaluate the realistic potential for redevelopment of underutilized commercial sites.
The South Bay ReStock Study
This study builds upon the 2023 SBCCOG study Housing
Roadmap: Redevelopment of Commercial to Sustainable
Housing (funded by SCAG Regional Early Action Planning
/ REAP 1.0). The REAP 1.0 funded study highlighted
the potential for commercial sites redevelopment as a
meaningful pathway to add more housing in a built-out
region like the South Bay. The current study reinforces several of those findings, but goes beyond to combine
site inventory and analysis, development test fits for
sites identified by partner cities as well as sites from the inventory, pro forma analyses for the development
testfits, as well as input from housing developers to
understand:
1. Where rede
velopment of sites to housing is likely
feasible in practice;
2. What types of
housing are more viable given current
market values and development costs, and;
3. What actions cities can t
ake to enable more
conversion of underutilized commercial sites
to housing that supports SBCCOG’s sustainable
suburban model for the South Bay.
The findings demonstrate that while commercial sites
represent a meaningful source of potential housing
capacity, their ability to meet RHNA requirements and
support new housing development and affordable
housing depends on a combination of
market conditions,
site characteristics, urban context, and local policy
choices
. The study also finds that often, the strongest
opportunities for commercial-to-residential conversion
with multifamily housing are concentrated along
walkable corridors and near key destinations such
as local business clusters and major employers. This
indicates that meeting housing targets and building
more sustainable, connected communities can be
complementary goals, and cities should plan for mobility, economic development, and multifamily housing
together.
Jurisdictions within the South Bay Cities Council of
Governments (SBCCOG)
25 6
South Bay Cities Restock
Housing redevelopment follows market strength
New housing is most likely to occur in areas where rents and home prices are already high enough to support development costs. In lower-value markets, new housing developments may meet zoning requirements but the numbers may not work for a developer to actually build housing today, which limits how much those sites can realistically contribute toward a City’s current RHNA targets.
Some commercial site types are more attractive for conversion in the South Bay
A significant share of a city’s RHNA capacity can be accommodated on underutilized commercial sites — but certain site types are far more consistently viable than others. Commercial sites with large parcels, excess parking, and lower economic activity, such the freestanding “pad” sites around the edges of large shopping centers and malls, are more likely to be available and suitable for redevelopment. Smaller parcels, sites with several different owners, or businesses that are still doing reasonably well, present greater barriers and are less likely to be redeveloped within the Housing Element planning period.
Feasibility depends on housing type and parking, not just density Allowing higher density alone does not guarantee that housing actually gets built. In many South Bay markets, lower- to mid-density housing types—such as townhomes and walk-up apartments, often called missing middle housing or gently density housing —are more financially feasible than higher- density buildings that wrap around or sit on top of structured parking (the “wrap” and “podium” types).
This is mainly because they cost less to build — especially when it comes to parking. Matching zoning to the building types that actually pencil out is essential if sites are going to be developed. Setting density minimums too high — or maximums too low — can unintentionally make housing infeasible when those rules don’t match what the local market will support.
1.2 Key Findings
This study examined dozens of commercial sites across the South Bay, combining mapping, financial analysis, and direct input from developers to identify where housing conversion is realistic, what forms it is most likely to take, and what conditions enable or constrain it. The findings show that commercial-to-residential redevelopment presents a genuine opportunity in the right markets and for the right site types, but it will not happen on its own, and the opportunity is not spread evenly across the region.
Six key findings emerge from the analysis, that are explored in more detail in Section 3. 26 7
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Quality of place and design can expand site suitability and feasibility Being close to clusters of shops, services, and other destinations — within an easy, safe walk, and supported by better local mobility options like the Local Travel Network (L TN) — along with good site design, can raise both the market demand for new housing and community support for it. Strong design and investment in the surrounding area can turn otherwise marginal sites into places where housing can succeed.
Regulatory certainty and process shape outcomes
Even in strong markets, uncertainty about whether and when a project will be approved (often called entitlement risk), unclear standards, and long processing timelines can prevent otherwise viable projects from moving forward. Clear, predictable City processes — and faster “by-right” (ministerial) approvals that don’t require case-by-case discretionary review — can make the difference in whether projects actually break ground.
Affordable housing requires public intervention
Market-rate development alone will not deliver significant levels of affordable housing on commercial sites. Simply adding more housing supply does not, by itself, immediately make housing affordable to lower-income households; that typically takes public dollars or tools like density bonuses that require subsidized housing units. While higher-value areas may support some mixed-income development, most affordable housing production will require public land, subsidy, and public-private partnerships to close the gap between what it costs to build and what lower-income renters can pay and ensure RHNA obligations are met across income levels.
1.3 Sites Inventory
Through a subregional inventory of underutilized commercial sites, the study identifies a substantial pool of potential redevelopment sites across the South Bay that can inform Housing Element updates.This inventory has been refined to prioritize sites that are more likely to be suitable for housing, i.e. physically and contextually appropriate, and attractive for conversion due to economic underutilization.The analysis also acknowledges that many sites still face constraints related to ownership, existing uses, infrastructure, or market conditions.
Collectively, these sites represent a meaningful opportunity to contribute toward RHNA obligations—but only if cities move beyond theoretical zoning capacity and instead focus on creating a realistic pipeline of housing development through targeted policies, streamlined approvals, and strategic partnerships. 27 8
South Bay Cities Restock
Analysis and scoring of commercial sites for the Sites Inventory 28 9
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
1. F ocus on high-opportunity sites within
destination areas
Prioritize underutilized commercial sites located along corridors and within established activity centers —
places where people already shop, work, and gather —
where housing can reinforce existing destinations and
support more walkable, mixed-use environments. Since
feasibility follows market strength, the right approach differs by market: lead with redevelopment where the
market is strong, and lean on incremental and publicly- supported housing where it is not.
Tools and Strategies -
•
S
tart with the largest, lowest-intensity sites — big
surface parking lots, aging strip centers, and mall
“pad” sites with one or few owners — which are the
most likely to actually redevelop.
•
Use the project’s Sites In
ventory Tool to identify and
rank these parcels in the city.
•
Giv
e priority to sites within a short walk (about ¼–⅜
mile) of a dense cluster of destinations and along
planned L TN routes.
•
Where a site is close to f
easible, use targeted public
tools — fee waivers, pre-zoning, and infrastructure
funding — to tip the economics; reserve direct
affordable subsidy for the weakest markets.
•
In weaker markets where commercial
rede
velopment won’t pencil, support incremental
housing instead (ADUs and small-scale infill) to add
lower-cost units and spread growth more broadly.
2. Enable a r ange of housing types
Allow a range of housing forms, not just the highest-
density option, so projects can pencil out across
different sites and markets.
Tools and Strategies -
•
Explicitly permit townhomes, walk-up apartments,
small “mis
sing middle” buildings, and senior housing
in commercial zones.
•
Adopt a set of
pre-approved building plans, such as
a “pattern book” of ready-made designs for missing
middle types like duplexes, fourplexes, townhomes,
and cottage courts, so small builders can get a
permit quickly using designs the city has already
reviewed and approved, instead of paying to design
and vet each project from scratch.
•
Set density minimums and maximums with fle
xibility
to match what the local market will actually support,
so zoning doesn’t accidentally block feasible
projects.
3. Impro ve certainty and reduce risk,
while maintaining quality
Reducing entitlement risk (
uncertainty over whether
and when a project will be approved) and streamlining
approvals is essential but should be paired with clear, predictable design and development standards.
Providing certainty around both process and outcomes
allows cities to achieve higher-quality development
without introducing additional risk for developers.
Tools and Strategies -
•
Adopt Objectiv
e Design Standards (ODS) so qualifying
projects can be approved “by-right” (ministerially),
without case-by-case discretionary review.
•
Use S
tate streamlining tools such as AB 2011, SB 330,
and CEQA infill exemptions to create clear by-right
pathways on commercial land.
•
Publish tar
get review timelines and assign a single
point of contact for housing applications (such
as San Diego’s Affordable Housing Permit Now
program).
•
Off
er technical assistance to smaller, non-
institutional developers pursuing smaller sites.
1.4 Takeaways for South Bay Cities
Based on the findings from the study, there are several targeted, strategic approaches that the South Bay Cities can adopt to prioritize and facilitate the conversion of underutilized commercial sites to new sustainable housing. Each takeaway below pairs the direction with a short list of specific tools cities can act on now; all are detailed further in the recommendations in Section 3.
29 10
South Bay Cities Restock
4. Rethink de velopment and mobility
together
Reducing required parking can make projects feasible,
but only works when residents have real ways to get
around without a car
.
Tools and Strategies -
•
T
ie parking reductions to L TN proximity (e.g., a set
reduction for projects near an implemented L TN
route).
•
Require new housing to include secure parking
and char
ging (110V outlets at minimum) for e-bikes,
scooters, and NEVs, and consider shared-use
micromobility devices as a building amenity
•
Allow shared and unbundled parking and other
Tr
ansportation Demand Management (TDM)
measures
•
Coordina
te L TN buildout with housing-opportunity
sites so mobility and housing reinforce each other.
5. F ocus on economic development,
quality of a place and urban design
Housing feasibility is influenced not only by market
conditions, but also by the quality of the surrounding
environment. Cities can expand where housing is viable
by improving the places around it.
Tools and Strategies -
•
Loca
te housing within a short walk (¼–⅜ mile) of a
dense cluster of shops and services, and invest in
the specific public spaces that draw people there —
sidewalks, street trees, lighting, crosswalks, small
parks and plazas, and community/digital hubs.
•
Keep neighborhood-ser
ving businesses healthy
using County tools (for e.g. the RENOVATE façade-
improvement program, the Commercial Acquisition
Fund, the Small Business Mobility Fund) and local
Business Improvement Districts (BIDs).
•
Require designs tha
t connect to the street and
to neighboring buildings: active ground floors
(storefronts, lobbies, or windows rather than blank
walls), human-scaled facades, and pedestrian links
to adjacent streets and L TN routes.
6. Use public tools to unlock a ffordable
housing production
Leverage public land, funding, and partnerships to
address feasibility gaps, particularly for lower-income housing. Market-rate development alone will not produce much affordable housing — closing the gap takes public
intervention.
Tools and Strategies -
•
Use the South Bay Regional Housing Trus
t (SBRHT)
and County resources (Measure A / LACAHSA funds)
to subsidize affordable units.
•
Layer s
tate and federal sources, for example, HCD’s
Multifamily Housing Program with Low-Income
Housing T ax Credits.
•
Make city- or agency-owned sites a
vailable through
RFPs and use inclusionary or in-lieu fee programs to
build a local funding stream.
•
Recruit and support mis
sion-driven nonprofit (CDC)
affordable-housing developers.
7. Be aware of changing market dynamics
Real estate markets are cyclical, and development
fundamentals change over time. Whether a project
is feasible depends on land values, construction and
financing costs, and lender appetite all lining up at
once. Current market conditions are generally more
favorable for townhome development (usually for-sale,
wood-frame, and built without structured parking)
and generally less favorable for multifamily rental
apartments and for-sale condominiums, which carry
higher construction and financing costs. Favored
development type and financial feasibility will fluctuate over time. Absent public investment, cities cannot force development to occur when it is not financially feasible, regardless of mandate.
Tools and Strategies -
•
Keep the Sites In
ventory Tool updated as market
conditions shift.
•
Right-size parking reductions and incentiv
es to
match real changes in travel behavior and demand.
•
T
ime public subsidy and city-led site assembly to the
lowest points in the cycle, when private feasibility is weakest.
30 11
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Apollo South Bay market-rate apartments in Gardena, CA, Completed January 2026.
Thirive on 7th project in Downtown San Pedro, completed in 2023 includes 32 market-rate housing with 3 deed-restricted inclusionary units
31 12
South Bay Cities Restock
Understanding Opportunity:
Analytical Framework and Methodology
2 2.1 Study Framework: From
Theoretical Capacity to
Realistic Opportunity
As described in Section 1, the South Bay’s housing
opportunity lies less in vacant land than in the
redevelopment of underutilized commercial sites. This
study addresses where housing can realistically be
built, and where new housing can best support more
sustainable, walkable communities. To answer these
questions, the study applies a multi-layered approach
with four main components:
1. P
artner City-identified sites
- Commercially zoned
housing opportunity sites nominated for study by
participating South Bay cities, drawing on local
knowledge of market interest, ownership, and policy
priorities. Direct city participation is a defining
feature of this REAP 2.0 effort and a key advance
over the REAP 1.0 study.
2. Subregional sites in
ventory
– a data-driven scan
that identifies and ranks candidate underutilized
commercial sites across all member cities
3. Site-specific tes
t fits and pro forma analyses
–
conceptual development scenarios and financial
modeling that test what could actually be built on
representative sites, and whether it pencilss
4. De
veloper input
– interviews with active affordable
and market-rate developers with experience working
in the South Bay to ground findings in real-world
market conditions and decision-making
Together, these layers show not just not just where
housing could occur in theory, but where it is most
likely to be delivered in practice, and how cities can proactively guide growth toward the right locations and development patterns.
2.2 Partner City-identified
Sites
A defining feature of this study, and a significant advance over the REAP 1.0 Housing Roadmap is the hands-on
participation of South Bay cities in selecting and shaping the sites studied. Where REAP 1.0 established the
regional case for commercial-to-residential conversion, this REAP 2.0 study brings individual cities into the
analysis as active partners, ensuring the work reflects real local priorities and produces findings that cities can act on directly.
Three partner cities —
Carson, Hawthorne, and Torrance
— worked closely with the study team through a series
of working sessions. Staff from each city hand-selected two sites of particular interest for more detailed study and shared the local knowledge they held on each,
including ownership, prior development interest, and
current planning priorities. In every case, cities chose sites that aligned with their own ongoing housing-
production strategies, so the analysis would directly
support decisions already on their agenda.
The selected sites reflect a range of local strategies. For instance, Carson chose a small corridor site the City had recently acquired specifically to pursue conversion to
housing. Hawthorne focused on its commercial corridors
— encouraging more mixed-use development along
Hawthorne Boulevard while consolidating commercial
activity there, and reconsidering underperforming
commercial sites along Avalon Boulevard as housing
opportunities. Torrance selected one of its largest
redevelopment opportunities: a surface parking
lot of more than 14 acres that had drawn private
redevelopment interest in the past.
32 13
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
For each site, the study team conducted detailed
research into the planning, zoning, and physical context to determine the most appropriate development
scenarios, then prepared physical test-fit layouts and
pro forma analyses to assess what could realistically be built and whether it would be financially feasible. The results were shared back with each city to directly inform their housing strategies, policies, and next steps.
2.3 Subregional Sites
Inventory: Identifying
Candidate Sites
Complementing the partner-city selections described in
Section 2.2, this layer developed a GIS-based inventory of underutilized commercial sites across all SBCCOG
member cities , taking a broader, data-driven view of
opportunity across the subregion. Commercial (and
certain industrial, such as warehouse) parcels screened for underutilization, defined by physical and economic
indicators:
•
Physical indica
tors
, , such as low development
intensity (e.g., low floor area ratios), surface parking- dominated sites, and aging building stock
•
Economic indica
tors
, including low improvement-
to-land value ratios and signs of declining
commercial performance
Sites were further evaluated using suitability criteria aligned with SBCCOG’s and the subregion’s sustainable
housing goals, as well as factors that influence affordable housing funding priorities. These included:
•
Pro
ximity to transit, the Local Travel Network (L TN),
and walkable street systems
•
Acces
s to amenities, employment, and existing
destination areas using Data Axle business data to
identify clusters of existing business activity
•
A
voidance of environmental hazards
•
Consider
ation of equity factors, including
disadvantaged communities and high-opportunity
areas
•
Acces
s to digital infrastructure, such as proximity to
the SBCCOG broadband network
Rather than applying simple pass/fail criteria, these
attributes were combined into a weighted scoring
framework so that sites could be evaluated holistically.
Each attribute was scored, grouped into composite
scores, and weighted by significance to produce an
overall development-potential ranking for every parcel
(the full criteria, weights, and data sources are detailed in the Appendix).
Applying this framework, the inventory tool analyzed
and ranked over 10,000 underutilized commercial
parcels across all SBCCOG member cities, with overall
scores ranging from 2 to 21. Over 4,000 sites were
Sites selected by Partner Cities with testfit examples
Carson Torrance Hawthorne
33 14
South Bay Cities Restock
Note:
Sites selected from the Sites Inventory Tool prioritized a diversity of sites including a variety of site sizes for the testfit studies. The final inventory was optimized to only include sites above a minimum size of 0.5 acres.
Site # Commercial Site Type Location Address Size (acres) Source 1 Corridor Small Lot Carson 24209 Avalon Blvd. 0.59 Partner City 2 Mall Outparcel Carson 20700 Avalon Blvd. 4.16 Partner City 3 Neighborhood Strip Center Hawthorne 645 N Hawthorne Blvd. 1.6 Partner City 4 Shallow Corridor Site Hawthorne 11706 Prairie Ave. 0.69 Partner City 5 Large Strip Center Torrance 20912 Hawthorne Blvd. 5.09 Partner City 6 Extra Large Surface Lot Torrance 2500 Redondo Beach Blvd. 14.33 Partner City 7 Big Nox Redevelopment Inglewood 11387 Crenshaw Blvd. 5.8 Sites Inventory 8 Industrial Edge Site Gardena 1215 W 132nd St 2.0 Sites Inventory 9 Motel Conversion Lawndale 14809 Hawthorne Blvd. 0.4 Sites Inventory 10 Surface Lot El Segundo Sepulveda/ Mariposa 1.8 Sites Inventory 11 Large Post-industrial Site Wilmington 1022 Eubank Ave. 3.0 Sites Inventory 12 Corridor Site Lomita 2347 Pacific Coast Hwy. 1.7 Sites Inventory 13 Surface Lot LA County 25841 Normandie Ave. 9.5 Sites Inventory shortlisted based on their scores being in the top half, then narrowed by selecting the highest-scoring sites in each South Bay jurisdiction. These were further ground- truthed through desktop surveys (review of satellite and street-view imagery to verify current conditions) and
compared against cities’ existing and selected Housing
Element opportunity sites to prioritize new opportunities not already in local inventories. This process narrowed the pool to roughly 80 representative candidate
sites, distributed across all South Bay jurisdictions
and spanning a range of locations, parcel sizes, and
development conditions, which were carried into the
final inventory. The complete, queryable inventory is
available through SBCCOG’s Sites Inventory Tool.
2.4 Site-Specific Test fits
and Pro Forma Analysis
The study conducted detailed test fits and financial
feasibility analyses on 13 sites. For each one, the team prepared a “test fit” — a conceptual site plan showing
how much housing of a given type could physically
fit on the parcel — paired with a financial feasibility (“pro forma”) analysis. Six of these were the partner-
city selections described in Section 2.2 (two each in
Hawthorne, Torrance, and Carson); the remaining seven
were drawn from the subregional inventory to capture
a diversity of site types, locations, and redevelopment conditions across the South Bay.
34 15
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Analysis included for each site
• Conceptual tes t fit scenarios , laying out different housing types (for example, townhomes, walk-up
apartments, or wrap and podium buildings) and site
arrangements to see what physically fits.
•
De
velopment yield
, i.e. how many units each
scenario produces and how efficiently it uses the
site.
•
Pro f
orma (financial) modeling
— testing whether
each scenario is financially feasible under current
construction costs, parking requirements, and
market conditions. A central measure is residual
land value (RL V): what a developer could afford to
pay for the land after covering construction costs
and a required profit. A higher RL V signals a more
feasible project, while a negative RL V means it does
not pencil. Comparing each site’s RL V against the
likely market value of the land also showed whether
a project could support some income-restricted
(affordable) units or only market-rate housing
This step was critical in identifying not only how much housing fit on a site, but which types of housing may
be most viable on different types of underutilized
commercial sites under current market conditions.
Detailed test-fit layouts and pro forma results for
individual sites are provided in the Appendix.
2.5 M arket Validation:
Developer Input
To complement the quantitative analysis, the study
incorporated direct input through interviews of both
market-rate and affordable housing developers active in the South Bay.
The team held five developer meetings over the course
of the study, conducted as virtual meetings. Participants reflected the range of firms building in the subregion
— for example, market-rate homebuilders, developers
focused on mixed-use and infill redevelopment in the
South Bay, and mission-driven nonprofit affordable
housing developers. Each had direct experience
delivering projects in the South Bay, and the discussions were designed to test the study’s assumptions against
how developers actually evaluate sites, structure deals, and decide whether to move a project forward.
Example Test fit study and pro forma analysis for Site# 4 in Hawthorne - Shallow Corridor Site along Prairie Avenue.
See Section 5 in the Appendix for detailed testfit and pro forma analysis for all studied sites.
Site #4 (Hawthorne - Praire Avenue ) Townhomes
Lease - Not Viable; Sale - Likely Viable
35 16
South Bay Cities Restock
Themes from developer conversations
• P arking is one of the biggest levers on feasibility.
Developers repeatedly named parking as the factor
that often makes or breaks a project. Structured
(garage) parking can cost upwards of $30,000 per
space, which pushes higher-density apartments
out of reach in all but the strongest-rent markets.
Developers, including affordable housing developers,
still need some parking to lease and operate their
properties (one affordable housing developer noted
that roughly a third of their tenants own cars).
Developers shared consensus on asking for cities to
right-size parking ratios, allow shared parking, and
pair these with real walkable neighborhoods.
•
Density alone doesn’t make a project pencil.
For-
sale homes generally run from about 12 units/acre
(detached) up to about 30 units/acre (small-lot and
townhomes), while apartments typically need 60
units/acre or more. The podium and wrap buildings
that reach those densities carry the high structured-
parking costs above. In today’s market, townhomes
are the most consistently feasible product partly due
to lower parking costs; rental apartments and condos
are harder to deliver.
•
Capital market conditions are a major headwind
.
Expensive debt, low leverage, and higher investor
return expectations (that have grown from roughly
5–5.5% four years ago to 6.5–7% today) mean that
many rental projects have not penciled for the past
few years except in the highest-rent areas.
•
Adding density without a
ffordability requirements
can backfire
. Allowing more density tends to raise
land values, which in turn can make affordability
harder, not easier. Developers advised pairing
any upzoning with inclusionary (affordable)
requirements, and having cities clearly state whether
they are prioritizing total unit count, affordability, or for-sale housing.
•
Proces
s friction and uncertainty add real cost.
Developers cited long, unpredictable approvals, with
some cities requiring seven to eight rounds of plan
check versus a typical three or four, often through
outsourced reviewers with little accountability,
which all add up to nine months and significant
carrying cost. Clear, “by-right” approval paths and
state streamlining laws (such as AB 2011) help,
though the prevailing-wage requirements attached
to some of those tools can cancel out the savings.
Similarly, other regulatory constraints such as
potential new requirements from the Department of
Toxic Substances (DTSC) for annual reporting over
a 30-year period on post-industrial sites requiring
remediation, create significant barriers for the
conversion or redevelopment of these site types.
•
Off
-site and infrastructure costs can sink infill
projects.
Requirements to underground overhead
power lines, upgrade storm drains, or fund other
public improvements can add millions of dollars and
months of utility-driven delay, which are sometimes
enough to make an otherwise viable project
infeasible. City help in sharing these off-site costs
was highly valued.
•
Condominiums are lar
gely avoided because of
litigation risk.
The risk of construction-defect
lawsuits (and a long liability tail) discourages condo
development despite real demand. Townhome-style
condos and potential legal reform were seen as the
more likely path forward.
•
A
ffordable housing follows the funding.
Nonprofit
developers select sites based on what scores well for
funding programs — for instance, tax-credit criteria
that favor transit- and amenity-rich, high-resource
areas — generally prefer sites of roughly 60 or more
units, and avoid parcels next to single-family homes
in favor of commercial-adjacent ones. They flagged
community opposition and long timelines as the
biggest hurdles, and pointed to city prioritization,
RFP and by-right sites, local funding, and an SBCCOG
advocacy and coordination role as the things that
move projects faster. Per-unit costs are rising —
recent South Bay projects came in under roughly
$500,000–$600,000 per unit, versus about $700,000
in the City of Los Angeles and $1 million in the Bay
Area.
Together, these conversations grounded the study’s
assumptions in real-world market behavior and directly
shaped the findings and recommendations in Section
3 — especially those on parking and housing type (3.3), regulatory certainty and process (3.5), and the distinct tools that affordable housing requires (3.6).
36 17
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Key Findings and
Recommendations
3 This section synthesizes key findings and
recommendations to guide SBCCOG member cities in
advancing housing production and sustainable housing
development. Findings draw on the subregional site
inventory, the feasibility testing,developer interviews, and the direct input of partner cities as described in
Section 2. They address both RHNA requirements and
SBCCOG’s goals for sustainable, walkable neighborhoods, as introduced in Section 1.
3.1 Housing Redevelopment
Follows Market Strength
Finding
Housing development on commercial sites is driven
primarily by market strength. New housing is most
feasible in areas where rents and home values are
already high enough to cover development costs,
typically in activity centers with access to jobs, services, and existing amenities.
Zoning alone is insufficient to induce more housing units to be built, and commercial sites in lower-value markets may see little or no redevelopment even when zoning
allows substantial housing on paper. .
The current gap between market rents and development
costs in lower-value South Bay areas reflects persistent factors, including proximity to industrial uses, lower
household incomes, and limited access to amenities.
These challenges do not resolve on their own with simply by allowing more density (upzoning); they continue to
shape houw desirable these areas are for new housing.
Another important consideration is that the sites where housing is most financially feasible may not always be
the sites that best advance SBCCOG’s sustainability
goals. Housing sustainability follows proximity; i.e.
whether a site is close enough to walk to a dense cluster of everyday destinations. Some strong-market sites
where housing would be feasible are highly walkable,
but others are not. Cities therefore should consider both, market strength and proximity to business clusters in
making decisions on where to promote or support future
housing production.
Parts of Torrance, El SegundoTier A: Strong
Markets
Tier Locations
Tier B: Marginal
Market (Viable with
right typology and
facilitation)
Tier C:
Weaker
Markets (Conversion
may not be viable
without subsidy)
Carson (Avalon corridor), parts of Gardena, parts of Hawthorne (along Hawthorne Boulevard), Lawndale and Lomita
Wilmington, Unincorporated LA County, (Harbor City / Normandie area) 37 18
South Bay Cities Restock
Examples from Pro Forma Studies
The pro forma results across the study’s 13 sites
helps to illustrate this pattern. In Torrance, which has the strongest multifamily rents of the primary cities
evaluated, Site #3 (Torrance - Hawthorne Blvd.) produced the highest residual land value in the study and appeared sufficient to support acquisition of an active commercial site with multiple owners and existing economic utility.
By contrast, both lower-value test sites from the study showed negative or near-negative Residual Land Values
(RL V) across all but the most minimal development
scenarios. At Site #11 (Wilmington- Eubank Ave), no
apartments were financially viable, and even the lowest- density townhome option did not support enough land
value to acquire the property, a result still characterized as not considered viable, although a higher number of
townhomes may change that result. Site #13 (LA County
- Normandie Ave) was financially infeasible across every scenario, made worse by the requirement to replace an
adjcent hotel’s existing parking. These sites carry built-in cost burdens that market-rate development may not be
able to overcome in the today’s market.
Cities that consistently fall short of RHNA targets face compounding obligations in successive cycles — their
7th Cycle allocations will reflect unmet need carried
over from the 6th Cycle. For cities where market-rate
development is feasible but has not translated into
actual housing, the gap between zoned capacity and
actual housing often comes down to regulatory friction, uncertain approvals, the absence of clear development
pathways, or a lack of interest from existing landowners.
Removing those barriers is often the clearest and most
achievable near-term action cities can take to spur more housing production.
Evidence from Case Studies
This overall finding on market strength also aligns with real-world evidence: the Gable House Apartments at
22501 Hawthorne Boulevard, a 218-unit mixed-use
project delivered on a former commercial site, was
financed and constructed despite increasing interest
rates and rising construction costs, reflecting developer confidence in achievable rents in that corridor.
Site #5 (Torrance - Hawthorne Boulevard) - Testfit for high density multifamily housing built as a ‘wrap’ around parking garage was identified as ‘Likely Viable’ despite high cost of structure parking, due to high rental market. See Appendix Section 5 for details.
Sites located in lower value markets such as Site #11
(Wilmington - Eubank Ave) at the top and Site #13 (LA County - Normandie Ave) at the bottom, were not feasible for most housing types. See Appendix Section 5 for details.
Site #5 (Torrance - Hawthorne Blvd ) Wrap Building
Site #11 (Wilmington - Eubank Ave) Townhomes
Site #13 (LA County - Normandie Ave) Flats
Lease - Likely Viable
Sale - Not Viable
Lease - Not Viable
38 19
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Recommendations
Cities should adopt a dual strategy: leverage strong
markets, while addressing feasibility gaps.
•
F
ocus growth in high-opportunity areas.
Prioritize
underutilized commercial sites in corridors and
activity centers where strong market conditions and
SBCCOG’s sustainability goals already align.
•
Require activ
e ground floors and walkability
improvements as conditions of approval.
In strong-
market corridors, make project approval contingent
on active ground floors with street-facing shops
and services, lobbies, windows and entries rather
than blank walls, along with reduced car parking
requirements, dedicated parking and charging for
smaller electric vehicles such as Neighborhood
Electric Vehicles (NEVs), and improved pedestrian
connections. This ensures that market-viable
projects also strength the quality of the place.
•
Deploy public tools in mar
ginal markets.
In weaker
rental markets, targeted public investment such
as fee waiver policies, pre-zoning, infrastructure
funding, and affordable housing funding resources
provided through the South Bay Housing Trust, can
tip the feasibility for projects that would otherwise
not proceed. It may be prudent to reserve direct
subsidy programs for the lowest-value markets
where market-rate development cannot work on its
own.
•
Support incremental housing in lower-
value
neighborhoods.
Support ADUs and smaller-scale
development as a complementary strategy where
large commercial redevelopment is infeasible.
This distributes housing growth more broadly,
adds naturally lower-cost units, and reinforces
neighborhood stability without requiring high rents
that commercial conversion depends on.
•
Maintain a living subregional site in
ventory.
SBCCOG should institutionalize the site inventory
from this study as an ongoing, monitored resource
— updated as market conditions evolve and linked
to both Housing Element cycles and L TN investment
planning — so cities and the Council of Governments
share a durable, evidence-based tool for tracking
realistic housing pipeline opportunities.
Case Study - Gable House Apartments under construction on former commercial site in Torrance, with 218 units including 17 inclusionary housing units.
39 20
South Bay Cities Restock
3.2 Some Commercial Site
Types Are More Consistently
Viable for Conversion
Finding
Not all underutilized commercial sites are equally
suitable for housing. The most convertible sites tend to share a few features : large parcels, plenty of surface parking, low economic output per acre, consolidated
ownership, and enough room to redevelop in stages
without clearing the whole site at once.
RHNA strategies that assume broad-based commercial
conversion may overestimate how much housing will
actually be built. Many sites will not redevelop within the planning period because they still generate solid income, have multiple owners, or carry built-in cost burdens. The table below groups sites into three tiers of conversion potential, drawing on the study’s pro forma testing:
Site Types:
•
Regional malls and lar
ge shopping centers
•
P
ower centers and large-format retailers with excess surface parking •
Low-rise office campuses
•
Lar
ge institutional or hospital campuses with underutilized parking Characteristics:
Large land areas with low building coverage; significant excess surface parking; low economic productivity per acre; consolidated ownership; ability to redevelop in stages without full site clearance.
Examples from Pro Forma Studies (See Appendix):
Carson Avalon Blvd Site (Site 2, 4.2 acres)
which is a mall outparcel with a lot of surface parking, produced sufficient Residual Land Value (RL V) across multiple housing types, supporting scenarios that were likely viable, with the highest return achieved by retaining an existing commercial anchor while adding 262 flats.
Implications
: Strongest opportunities for scalable, replicable redevelopment. Can be prioritized in Housing Element inventories.
Site Types:
•
S
trip malls and aging neighborhood shopping centers
•
Clus
ters of small commercial parcels along commercial corridors •
Older low-rise office buildings
•
Motels and auto-oriented uses with con
version potential
Characteristics:
Smaller or subdivided parcels; moderate existing commercial activity; redevelopment requires parcel consolidation, creative phasing, or partial retention of existing uses.
Examples from Pro Forma Studies (See Appendix):
Lawndale Hawthorne Boulevard Site (Site 9,
0.4 acres) was viable only when combining motel conversion with new senior housing (32 units + 12 converted). Lomita Pacific Coast Highway Site (Site 12, 1.7 acres) was viable only with retained retail and low-density housing.
Implications
: Can contribute to housing supply but require public facilitation, flexible standards, or careful program design; Cities should identify a clear delivery pathway.
Tier 1:
Desirable
(Highest
Conversion
Potential)
Tier Site Types, Characteristics, and Implications
Tier 2:
Moderate
Potential
(Requires
Facilitation)
40 21
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Site Types:
•
Single-tenant big-bo
x retail
•
Small corridor retail parcels
•
Well-perf
orming commercial centers
•
F
ully built-out light industrial or sites needing extensive remediation •
Sites with major ins
titutional uses requiring parking replacement
Characteristics:
High building-to-land ratios; limited excess land; strong existing revenue streams; full demolition required; sometimes burdened by replacement parking obligations for adjacent uses.
Examples from Pro Forma Studies (See Appendix):
Inglewood Site 7 (11387 Crenshaw, 5.8 acres)
showed multifamily housing unviable as either infill or redevelopment, due to existing economic utility of big box retail and associated parking. LA County Site 13 (25841 Normandie, 9.5 acres) also showed negative RL V across all scenarios, with feasibility further suppressed by the requirement to provide structured replacement parking for an adjacent hospital — demonstrating how existing institutional economic utility can entirely preclude market-rate housing.
Implications:
Should not be heavily relied upon in RHNA capacity assumptions without public subsidy or site-specific intervention.
Tier 3: Hardest
to Comvert
(Near-Term
Redevelopment
Challenging)
Tier Site Types, Characteristics, and Implications
Site #2 (Carson - Avalon Blvd ) Wrap Building Site #2 (Carson - Avalon Blvd ) Apartments Village Lease - Likely Viable Lease - Potentially Viable
Example of a Tier 1 site type (Regional Mall Outparcel) that has the strongest opportunity for scalable, phased redevelopment. 41 22
South Bay Cities Restock
Evidence from Case Studies
Recent redevelopment activity in the South Bay and
broader region reinforces the tier findings, while also illustrating the limits of conversion potential for certain site types. The experience of Rite Aid’s closure of over 800 stores nationally is instructive for understanding
Tier 3 constraints: major retail landlords reported that recaptured Rite Aid spaces were backfilled by new
tenants, including grocers and dollar stores, often at significantly higher rents than the previous leases,
demonstrating that single-tenant pharmacy and big-
box sites frequently retain strong economic utility even after an anchor vacates. This pattern confirms that
Tier 3 sites with functioning commercial infrastructure and established trade areas are more likely to attract
replacement retail tenants than to redevelop as housing even when a major occupant departs.
By contrast, the ongoing South Bay Galleria
redevelopment in Redondo Beach provides direct
real-world support for the Tier 1 findings. The nearly
30-acre mall site is being entitled for phased housing
redevelopment. Phase 2, approved by the Redondo
Beach Planning Commission in August 2025, calls for
a three-to-eight-story building with 350 apartments
and townhomes wrapped around a structured parking
garage, while the existing retail core remains operational.
Recommendations
Cities should adopt a dual strategy: leverage strong
markets, while addressing feasibility gaps.
•
Use site type in Housing Element site selection.
Sort candidate sites into Tier 1 (most likely to
convert), Tier 2 (possible, but needs city help), and
Tier 3 (unlikely in the near term) sites when choosing
RHNA opportunity sites. Over-reliance on Tier 2 and
Tier 3 sites risks falling short of RHNA if they don’t
produce housing within the planning period.
•
Prioritize lar
ge, low-intensity commercial parcels
with consolidated ownership.
Focus rezoning and
incentives on parcels of one acre or more with low
floor-area ratios, high surface parking coverage, low
improvement-to-land value ratios, and manageable
ownership structures.
•
Plan f
or phased and incremental redevelopment.
Many of the most viable sites — especially large retail and office can be redeveloped in stages, adding
housing on part of the site (such as a parking field)
while the rest keeps operating. Ensure zoning
and development standards support this through
tools like phasing plans, master site plans, vesting
tentative maps, and allowing interim uses..
Example of a Tier 3 site type (Big Box Retail sitel) that may have existing economic utility and therefore hard to make financially feasible as a housing redevelopment.
Site #7 (Inglewood - Crenshaw Blvd) Partial Infill Site #7 (Inglewood - Crenshaw Blvd) Full Redevelopment Lease - Not Considered Viable Lease and Sale -Not Considered Viable 42 23
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
• Preser ve and integrate community-valued
commercial uses, where possible.
Where existing
businesses anchor walkable activity, entitlement
conditions with city support can require their
retention or replacement in kind. As the Carson mall
site (Site 2) pro forma evidence shows, preserving
viable commercial activity alongside housing can
also help make a project financially viable.
• Align public in vestment with priority site tiers.
Focus corridor planning, streetscape investment,
rezoning, and L TN improvements around Tier 1 and
stronger Tier 2 sites, where the return on public
investment is greatest and housing delivery is most
likely within the planning period.
Before and After -
Big Box Retail stores often have
sufficient economic utility to be
repurposed for other retailers
rather than be converted to
housing. This example from
Culver City on Sepulveda
Boulevard shows a Big Lots
store converted to Super King
Markets in April 2026.
43 24
South Bay Cities Restock
3.3 Feasibility Depends on
Housing Type and Parking,
Not Just Density
Finding
Allowing higher density alone does not guarantee that
housing is feasible or gets built. Across the 13 test sites, feasibility depended on four factors: type of housing; site configuration (parcel size, access, phasing capacity); the parking approach (surface, tuck-under, or structured/
garage); and the relationship between construction costs of a given housing type and the rents achievable at that location.
The primary cost driver is structured parking —
underground or above-grade concrete parking
structures can readily add $30,000–$50,000 or more
per stall, costs that require high rents to underwrite. In moderate-rent markets, this renders higher-density
podium development infeasible even on otherwise
suitable sites. Lower-intensity building types that rely on surface or tuck-under parking are significantly more viable in those contexts. Zoning that is only focused on maximum density, without attention to the building types that can realistically achieve that density at prevailing rents may produce sites that satisfy Housing Element
counting requirements but do not produce actual
housing.
It is also important to recognize that parking flexibility has limits. Developers, lenders, and many residents in the South Bay still expect parking at levels that walkability or transit proximity alone cannot fully justify. Building the L TN does not by itself create demand for car-free livingl parking reductions should therefore be implemented
alongside real mobility investments and phased As actual travel behavior shifts.
Examples from Pro Forma Studies
The pro forma results consistently demonstrate this
pattern (full details for each numbered site are provided in the Appendix Chapter 5):
•
A
t Site #3 (Hawthorne- Hawthorne Blvd),
the
62-flats with tuck-under parking scenario produced
sufficient RL V suggesting the development type
was likely viable; the 99-flat scenario with three-tier stacked parking yielded a lower RL V and was not
considered viable: more units but worse returns,
because the parking cost exceeded what rents could
support.(See Appendix Section 5 for more details).
•
A
t Site #8 (Gardena - 132nd St)
, townhomes and
low-rise flats with surface parking produced a viable
RL V, while the highest-density podium scenario with
structured parking yielded only a third of the RL V and was not considered viable.
•
El Segundo (
Site 10, Sepulveda/Mariposa)
is the
important exception: rents in that employment-rich
submarket are high enough that the highest-density
scenario with six-tier structured parking produced
substantial RL V and was considered likely viable.
This was the only site where increasing density and
providing structured parking improved returns.
•
Tes
tfits that assumed
senior housing
consistently
outperformed market-rate apartments at similar
densities because senior housing was modeled with
a lower parking ratio reflecting lower car ownership
among senior residents (0.5 spaces/unit).
Site #3 (Hawthorne - Hawthorne Blvd ) Flats
Lease - Likley Viable
Site #3 (Hawthorne - Hawthorne Blvd ) Wrap Building
Lease - Not Viable
44 25
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Recommendations
• Allow a r ange of housing types, not just the
maximum density format.
Build flexibility into both
density and development standards, especially
where minimum
•
Adopt pre-appro
ved (“pattern book”) plans for
missing middle and small-scale housing types.
A
direct way to make the lower-density housing types
identified above easier to build is to remove the cost
and uncertainty of permitting each small project
from scratch. Under a pre-approved plans program
a city reviews a small catalog of designs (duplexes,
triplexes and fourplexes, townhomes, cottage courts,
and small courtyard apartments) for code and zoning
compliance up front; a builder who selects one then
needs only a site-specific review to pull a permit.
This expedites permitting, reduces development
cost and time for small-scale projects, and
encourages designs that fit the context of existing
neighborhoods. The model is well established and
the South Bay can borrow from it rather than start
from scratch: cities such as South Bend, Indiana
and Spokane, Washington have adopted citywide
missing-middle plan catalogs (in Spokane’s case
with the city underwriting the construction drawings
and code review to lower builder costs), and Norfolk,
Virginia pairs a free pre-approved pattern book with
an expedited entitlement process.
•
T
ie parking reductions to the L TN.
Establish
reduced or flexible parking standards in mixed-
use zones, particularly along L TN corridors and
in walkable amenity clusters, and allow demand-
management strategies such as shared parking,
unbundled parking, and Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) programs. SBCCOG research,
funded by AQMD, found that 70% of vehicle trips
in the South Bay are three miles or less — the
exact range served by NEVs, e-bikes, and other
micromobility devices on the L TN. This gives the
South Bay Cities an empirical basis for parking
reductions: reduced parking can be justified less
by proximity to high-frequency transit (which
the South Bay largely does not have) but more by
access to the L TN and micromobility devices, which
can enable residents to shift local trips to schools,
groceries, and services with zero-emission, low-
speed vehicles. Since new infrastructure does not
immediately change travel habits, these reductions
work best where micromobility is already established
or is phased in as adoption grows. Cities can adopt
a tiered parking standard that links minimum
parking ratios to L TN route proximity — for example,
a baseline reduction of 0.25–0.5 stalls per unit for
projects within a defined distance of an implemented
L TN route, with further reductions available through
TDM agreements, unbundled parking, or shared
parking arrangements.
•
Require micromobility char
ging infrastructure
in new housing developments.
New housing
on commercial sites can be required to provide
dedicated NEV and e-bike charging outlets (110V at
a minimum, with conduit for future 240V) in parking
areas or garages as a standard condition of approval.
These requirements have negligible cost impact
relative to overall development cost but directly
enable the mode shift that justifies reduced parking
and supports SBCCOG’s VMT and GHG reduction
goals.
•
Coordina
te L TN implementation with Housing
Element opportunity site planning.
The L TN is
currently implemented in El Segundo, with Redondo
Beach, Carson, and Lomita in progress and inland
cities in later phases. SBCCOG can explicitly map
L TN route implementation against the Housing
Element opportunity site inventory — prioritizing L TN
buildout in corridors where housing development
is anticipated, so that mobility infrastructure and
housing production reinforce each other. For cities
where L TN routes are not yet implemented, SBCCOG
can work with member cities to include L TN route
extensions as a condition or commitment within
Housing Element programs, creating a formal link
between housing approval and mobility investment.
Site #1 (Carson - Avalon Blvd ) Senior Housing
Lease - Likely Viable
45 26
South Bay Cities Restock
3.4 Quality of a Place and
Design Can Expand Where
Housing Feasibility Works
Finding
Development feasibility is highest in strong markets,
but planning and design decisions can improve a
site’s attractiveness and economic performance over
time. Proximity to clusters of amenities, walkable
neighborhoods, high-quality public spaces, and
improved mobility infrastructure increases both market
demand for housing and community acceptance of
new development. This connects directly to SBCCOG’s
foundational research. The 2009 Sustainable South Bay
Strategy found that business density (the concentration of small commercial establishments within walking
distance) was the single strongest predictor of walking trips and local trip capture in South Bay neighborhoods.
But quality of a place depends not only on location; it is also about how the development itself is designed.
Large-scale commercial-to-residential conversion
projects carry a particular design risk that the
replacement of low-intensity strip commercial with
dense multifamily housing could produce buildings with
long, undifferentiated masses that turn their backs on the street, replace small-business activity with blank podium facades, and create a pedestrian environment that is
less inviting. This is one of the most common critiques of infill housing in built-out suburban communities and a significant driver of community resistance to new
development.
The design principles that avoid this outcome are well- established in urban design practice and directly relevant to the South Bay commercial conversion context:
buildings that are broken into smaller modules or bays at the street edge, ground floors that are porous and active — with storefronts, lobbies, common entries, retail, or at minimum windows and landscaped setbacks, rather
than parking garage entries and blank walls; and site
plans that create multiple points of pedestrian access
and connection to adjacent streets and L TN routes rather than a single vehicle-dominated entry. These design
characteristics are the qualities that make housing
feel like part of a neighborhood rather than an object
dropped into an existing context without connection,
and they directly influence the attractiveness of the
housing for tenants, and the community acceptance that
often determines whether a project gets built at all. The phased South Bay Galleria redevelopment in Redondo
Beach, discussed in Section 3.2, illustrates several of these principles in a real project.
South Bay Social District - Activated ground floor uses in proposed new housing.
Community resistance to housing development in
the South Bay frequently also centers on concerns
about neighborhood character, traffic, and the loss
of commercial activity. Well-designed housing with
appropriate density that preserves or strengthens
commercial clusters, connects to the L TN, and improves the pedestrian environment can address the substantive
concerns underlying that resistance rather than simply
overriding them. Place-based design is a strategy for
building community acceptance that makes housing
delivery possible in politically challenging contexts.
For SBCCOG’s sustainable housing goals, place quality
and design are therefore not secondary concerns to
46 27
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
be addressed through design review; they are core
factors in whether housing conversion achieves the
transportation and sustainability outcomes that move
the needle on creating better quality housing for South Bay communities.
Evidence from Developer Engagement
While developer interviews conducted with both
affordable housing and market-rate housing developers
mentioned that in most South Bay contexts parking is still a desirable component of housing, they also confirmed
that walkability and amenity access make sites and
locations more attractive for housing development, with the potential for increased rents.
Recommendations
• In vest in neighborhood-serving businesses as a
housing support strategy.
The health of commercial
clusters adjacent to and within housing sites is an
economic development problem that cities are better
positioned to address through proactive investment
rather than through development conditions. When
cities invest in keeping neighborhood-serving
businesses viable, they maintain the walkable
destination density that supports both housing
demand and the trip capture and VMT reduction
goals prioritized by SBCCOG. Several existing tools at
the County and city level make this actionable.
The LA County Department of Economic Opportunity
administers several programs directly relevant to
South Bay commercial corridors:
•
The
RENOVATE Façade Improvement Program
,
delivered through the Los Angeles County
Development Authority (LACDA), provides grants
and technical assistance to improve building
exteriors along designated commercial corridors
— the Sherman Way corridor in Reseda has seen
more than $1.3 million invested in 2025 alone
under this model.
•
The
Commercial Acquisition Fund
, currently
in its second cycle at $2.6 million, enables
qualified nonprofits to acquire commercial
properties and lease them to small businesses
and nonprofits at below-market rents for 55-year
terms — a powerful anti-displacement tool for
neighborhood-serving tenants in corridors where
housing-driven land appreciation is accelerating.
•
The S
mall Business Mobility Fund
provides
launch grants of up to $10,000 for new brick-
and-mortar retail businesses, directly supporting
the kind of small-format storefront activity that
makes corridors walkable.
Cities and SBCCOG can work proactively with the
Los Angeles County Department of Economic
Opportunity (DEO) to direct these existing programs
toward South Bay commercial corridors that are
identified as high-opportunity housing zones so
that commercial cluster investment and housing
opportunity planning are coordinated.
Beyond County programs, cities themselves can use
Business Improvement Districts (BIDs), commercial
vacancy monitoring, and economic development
outreach to retain and recruit neighborhood-serving
businesses in priority corridors. Torrance’s efforts
towards a Downtown BID alongside its Downtown
Torrance Revitalization Plan point to a local
precedent — corridor-level investment coordination
that strengthens the commercial environment
alongside housing planning. Cities should consider
establishing or expanding similar district structures
along the commercial/ mixed-use corridors
identified in this study’s site inventory as housing
opportunity zones. SBCCOG can play a coordination
role in helping member cities identify, access, and
direct County, State, and federal commercial corridor
investment resources, to translate the subregional
housing opportunity into an economic development
investment agenda that is coordinated with new
housing production.
•
In
vest in walkability and the public realm to invite
more housing development
. Improvements to
sidewalks, street trees, lighting, crosswalks, and
public gathering spaces along commercial corridors
directly increase the attractiveness of adjacent
sites. These investments should be prioritized along
corridors identified as high-opportunity housing
zones and coordinated with L TN implementation.
•
Use high-quality design to build community
acceptance, not jus
t comply with standards.
Design standards for commercial corridor housing
should focus on elements that contribute to place
quality over time — active ground floors, human-
scaled facades, street-level transparency, pedestrian
connections etc. Projects that enhance the public
realm build the community track record that makes
future nearby housing more politically viable.
47 28
South Bay Cities Restock
3.5 Regulatory Certainty and
Process Speed are Critical to
Unlocking Redevelopment
Finding
Even in strong markets, uncertainty about project
approvals, unclear development standards, and long
review timelines can prevent viable projects from moving forward. Developer interviews repeatedly flagged this
regulatory uncertainty as a significant barrier, not just cost but also willingness for a developer to commit to
a redevelopment project. When entitlement outcomes
are unpredictable, marginally feasible projects can
become unviable, because the time and cost of securing
approvals erodes the financial cushion that makes a
project work. This is especially true for commercial infill sites that already carry complexity from existing uses, tenants, or site conditions.
Conversely, cities that provide clear, objective standards, streamlined review processes, and ministerial approval
pathways can see faster project starts and stronger
pipeline development. Regulatory clarity is a form of risk reduction that can make borderline projects feasible
without any direct financial subsidy. In the context of RHNA compliance, sites that are zoned for residential
but face high entitlement risk are less reliable pipeline contributors than sites with clear, by-right approval
pathways.
Evidence from Developer Engagement
Developer interviews conducted as part of this study
identified entitlement unpredictability as one of the top barriers to project initiation in the South Bay, alongside construction costs and parking requirements. Several
developers noted that cities with Objective Design
Standards and simple ministerial approval processes
for density bonus projects were meaningfully more
attractive as development locations. The additional
months or years required to navigate discretionary
review in cities without clear standards were cited as
deal-breakers for projects on thin margins.
Some developers also noted that they were more
interested in sites that had been selected and/or
acquired by cities to accelerate for housing development through RFPs for housing or other partnership
opportunities. They found that cities willing to take
a proactive role in site assembly, early outreach, or
predevelopment engagement could materially accelerate
project timelines to make complex infill sites more
feasible to redevelop. At the same time, developers also cited the challenges of regulatory requirements for
specific infill sites such as monitoring requirements from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) for
contaminated sites which are becoming increasingly
onerous for developers to satisfy.
Recommendations
• Adopt objectiv e design and development
standards for commercial corridor housing.
Establish clear, measurable standards covering
building massing, setbacks, ground-floor uses,
parking, and landscaping that allow staff-level or
ministerial approval rather than discretionary review.
Calibrate these standards to the typologies identified
in Finding 3.3 as financially feasible in each market
context and revisit as market fundamentals shift.
•
Es
tablish clear by-right pathways using
available state streamlining tools.
Utilize available
streamlining provisions, including AB 2011 (affordable
and mixed-income housing on commercial land), SB
330 (Housing Crisis Act protections), and applicable
CEQA infill exemptions, to minimize the entitlement
burden for housing on previously developed
commercial land. Most commercial redevelopment
sites have limited environmental sensitivity and
should not face the same review burden as greenfield
development.
•
Adopt and publish tar
get processing timelines
for housing applications and staff accordingly.
Unpredictable timelines are themselves a feasibility
risk — developers build financing, carry costs and
schedule uncertainty into their underwriting, and
indeterminate review timelines can tip marginal
projects into infeasibility. State law already
establishes mandatory minimum timelines that cities
must meet, and South Bay cities should understand
both their obligations and the opportunity to
exceed them. For instance, the City of San Diego’s
“Affordable Housing Permit Now” program,
established by Executive Order in 2023, assigns a
dedicated Development Project Manager to each
48 29
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
qualifying affordable housing application — a single
point of contact who monitors status, coordinates
across reviewing departments, and resolves conflicts
before they become delays.
•
T
ake a more active role in site assembly and
project initiation on Tier 2 sites.
On complex
infill sites, particularly those with multiple tenants, fragmented ownership, or challenging conditions,
cities can accelerate delivery by engaging proactively
with property owners, facilitating land disposition,
or partnering in predevelopment activities. Several
of the study’s most promising sites face ownership
or tenancy conditions that could unlock private
investment with engagement support from the city.
Several mechanisms have demonstrated
effectiveness in the California context. The most
direct is the RFP model used by cities that control or
acquire strategic commercial sites and issue formal
solicitations to development teams. South Bay cities
with publicly owned commercial or surface parking
parcels in priority corridors can conduct an inventory
of city-owned land suitable for housing, declaring
eligible parcels as surplus, and issuing competitive
RFPs to development teams aligned with the city’s
housing and sustainability goals. However, Surplus
Land Act (SLA) requirements for the inclusion of set
percentages of low income units on land previously
owned by public entities can actually be a barrier to
residential production in many markets.
For privately owned Tier 2 sites, the more relevant
model is proactive owner engagement, with city
Economic Development or Planning staff reaching
out directly to property owners of priority sites to
understand their timeline, disposition interest, and
constraints before a developer makes contact. This is
standard practice in economic development contexts
(cities routinely recruit businesses to commercial
districts through direct outreach). The Los Angeles
County Commercial Acquisition Fund (CAF), which
provides capital to enable nonprofit acquisition of
commercial properties and lease them at below-
market rates, offers a mechanism for sites where
ownership is willing to transact but conventional
development economics cannot support market-
rate acquisition costs. Cities can facilitate access
to this program by introducing property owners to
eligible nonprofit acquirers, positioning the CAF as an alternative disposition pathway rather than requiring
a full market-rate sale.
SCAG’s Housing Infill on Public and Private Lands
(HIPP) program, funded through its Partnership for
Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH) initiative
with $8 million awarded in 2023, provides direct
precedent for what subregional coordination of this
work looks like: the City of Los Angeles received $2.9
million for a program specifically focused on scaling
up housing development on city-owned land, while
other SCAG jurisdictions received funds for corridor-
wide infill housing initiatives. SBCCOG should
explore whether a similar coordinated application,
positioning the South Bay’s underutilized commercial
corridor inventory as a subregional housing
opportunity pipeline, could unlock PATH, REAP , or
similar competitive funding for predevelopment
and site facilitation work across multiple member
cities simultaneously, reducing per-city costs and
demonstrating the subregional coordination value
that SBCCOG is uniquely positioned to provide.
Increase in permits issued for affordable units
in San Diego in 2023, after adoption of the
Affordable Housing Now permit program.
Source: https:/ /www.axios.com/local/san-diego/2024/05/08/ affordable-housing-construction-development-boom-future- drop-off
49 30
South Bay Cities Restock
3.6 Affordable Housing
Requires Land Strategies,
Subsidy, and Public-Private
Partnerships
Finding
Market-rate development alone will not produce
significant levels of affordable housing on commercial
sites. While higher-value markets may support some
income-restricted units within market-rate projects,
particularly where State density bonuses provide
meaningful additional yield, most affordable housing
production will require subsidies through land and
financing partnerships to close feasibility gaps. This is especially true for housing affordable to lower-income
households at or below 60% Area Median Income
(AMI), where the gap between achievable rents and
development costs is too large to be bridged by market
mechanisms.
This finding clarifies that affordable housing and market- rate housing require different development strategies,
different site selection criteria, and different public tools. Cities that conflate the two risk both underfunding affordable housing production and over-counting
affordable potential from market-rate sites in their
Housing Elements.
Examples from Pro Forma Studies
Pro forma analysis confirmed that Residual Land Values
(RL V) — even in the study’s strongest South Bay areas
— are insufficient to support deep below-market rents
at without subsidy. Kosmont’s summary of the initial
results noted that capacity to support significant ratios of income-restricted units continues to be limited
without the use of external funding sources. The Gable
House Apartments at 22501 Hawthorne Blvd, one of the
South Bay’s strongest market-rate projects, includes
just 17 affordable units out of 218, fulfilling the minimum inclusionary requirement but illustrating the ceiling on what the market can deliver on its own. Senior housing
was a partial exception, consistently outperforming
market-rate multifamily apartments at similar densities due to favorable financing and lower parking needs.
Affordable Housing Tools and
Opportunities
• Mea sure A and the South Bay Regional Housing
Trust.
Los Angeles County voters approved Measure
A in November 2024, a half-cent sales tax generating
over $1 billion annually for homelessness services
and affordable housing. SBCCOG is explicitly
identified as an eligible jurisdiction in the LACAHSA
expenditure framework, meaning South Bay cities
have a direct pathway to Measure A funds for
affordable housing production. The newly formed
(April 2026) South Bay Regional Housing Trust gives
the subregion a dedicated vehicle to pool, attract,
and deploy these and other funds.
•
Wes
t Carson Villas as a proof of concept.
PATH
Ventures’ recently opened West Carson Villas —
111 units of affordable housing near the Torrance
/ unincorporated LA County border — was
made possible by a $20 million award from the
California Department of Housing and Community
Development ( HCD) Multifamily Housing Program
(MHP), layered with Low Income Housing T ax Credit
(LIHTC) financing and other sources. This project
demonstrates both the model (public subsidy +
mission-driven developer + publicly supported site)
and the specific funding stacks that are available for
the South Bay context.
•
Car
son’s inclusionary in-lieu fee program.
Carson
has an existing inclusionary housing and in-lieu
fee program that allows developers to pay fees
instead of building affordable units on-site, with
those funds used for affordable housing production
elsewhere in the city. Cities that do not yet have such programs should consider adopting them, as in-lieu
fees can provide a consistent local funding stream
that can be leveraged against state and federal
sources. However if in-lieu fees are not priced in
consideration of fluctuating market capacity, they
can also serve as a barrier to residential production.
•
Distinguish affordable and market-rate sites
in Housing Element planning.
When identifying
RHNA opportunity sites, clearly separate sites
where market-rate development is realistic from
sites where affordable housing will require public
intervention. Over-counting affordable potential
from market-rate sites risks non-compliance at
50 31
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
lower income levels — particularly for very low- and
extremely low-income categories.
•
Support and recruit mis
sion-driven affordable
developers to the South Bay.
Affordable housing
development requires specialized expertise
in tax credit finance, regulatory compliance,
and community engagement. Cities and
SBCCOG should actively support Community
Development Corporations (CDC) and nonprofit
developers operating in the subregion — through
predevelopment support, site introductions, and
entitlement processes tailored to nonprofit timelines
and funding cycles. West Carson Villas demonstrates
that this model can work in the South Bay context.
West Carson Villas 100% affordable housing project, Torrance, CA. Completed 2024.
The Cordary Avenue Affordable Housing project is a planned 100% affordable and supportive housing project in Hawthorne that recently received a $6 million loan from the South Bay Regional Housing Trust. 51 32
South Bay Cities Restock
Appendix
52 33
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Sites Inventory Tool Methodology
4 4.1 Sites Inventory Tool
Objective
• Identify underutilized commercial sites acros s
SBCCOG member cities that hold strong potential for
infill housing development, in alignment with local
zoning and market feasibility.
•
Prioritize sites tha
t advance SBCCOG’s sustainability
goals, including sustainable mobility, neighborhood
vitality around key destinations, and equitable
development outcomes for the South Bay region.
•
De
velop
a user-friendly, GIS-based site inventor
y
as a resource for South Bay cities, to support local
planning, housing element updates, and proactive
housing production strategies.
4.2 Methodology
The identification of sites follows a multi-step process where each commercially zoned site has a variety of
attributes that are assigned a specific score. These
attributes are then grouped into composite scores and
weighted according to their significance. By aggregating these weighted composite scores, we establish an overall ranking for development potential. As a final measure,
sites with high overall scores undergo ground-truthing
to verify current conditions, with a focus on ensuring
representation across all SBCCOG partner cities.
Step 1: Identify Underutilized Commercial
Sites
The first step focuses on identifying properties
designated for commercial use that are currently
developed at densities or intensities below their
potential, or that present redevelopment opportunities
due to economic or physical conditions.
For this study, “underutilized commercial properties” are defined as parcels that:
•
Are designa
ted for commercial use, using SCAG’s
land use categories and/or the LA County Assessor’s
classifications; and
•
Are designa
ted for industrial use (Ex: Warehouses),
using SCAG’s land use categories and/or the LA
County Assessor’s classifications; and
•
Exhibit one or more char
acteristics of
underutilization based on physical development
potential or economic viability indicators.
A. Physical Underutilization
These are properties where the current physical buildout is significantly below what is allowed by zoning or what is feasible for urbanized settings.
B. Economic Underutilization
These are properties where market signals indicate weak economic performance relative to land value, suggesting potential for more productive use.
Notes from REAP 1.0 Housing Roadmap
1. No minimum site size filter will be applied, in order to capture a r
ange of infill opportunities including
small-lot and missing middle housing typologies
and for-sale opportunities that may be more market
feasible.
2. Prioritiza
tion criteria could further emphasize
aspects like sites with large vacant areas or surface
parking that may be easier to infill based on results
from previous studies.
Note -
The sites inventory was created through a GIS
analysis implemented as a parcel-based screening
and scoring process that combines assessor data,
parcel geometry, business-location patterns,
regional planning overlays, infrastructure and access
overlays, environmental and equity overlays, and
redevelopment indicators.
53 34
South Bay Cities Restock
Note -
The GIS Implementation Methodology involved 5 key
stages -
1. Build a parcel-le
vel assessor geodatabase.
2. Commercial P
arcel Selection: Clip and classify
parcels for the SBCCOG study area, then isolate
commercial parcels.
3. SBCCOG Busines
s Mix: Use DataAxle business
points to identify land-use mix centers at
quarter-mile and half-mile scales.
4. Analysis: Mer
ge adjacent commercial parcels,
calculate redevelopment indicators, apply
spatial overlays, and produce final scores.
5. In
ventory Site Selection: Qualitative evaluation
of sites to create the site inventory.
Step 2: Identify Sites Most Suitable for
Housing
The second step reiines the list of underutilized sites by applying suitability filters based on sustainable housing potential, neighborhood vitality, and equity outcomes.
A. Sustainable Housing Potential
Focus on sites aligned with broader sustainable
development patterns, smart growth strategies, and
supportive mobility infrastructure.
B. Complete Neighborhood/ Corridor Revitalization
Potential
Focus on proximity to thriving mixed-use environments,
strong commercial ecosystems, and digital connectivity.
C. Equitable Housing
This layer ensures housing production supports equity
and inclusivity goals for disadvantaged communities.
Attribute Filter Criteria Scoring
Improvement to Land Value Ratio
(IM)
At the date of record after 2010, low value of
improvements relative to value of land (0.35 will
be used as the cut off)
Year >= 2010 & IM < 0.35 = 1
Year < 2010 & IM <0.35 = 0.5
Year >= 2010 & IM >0.35 = 0
Year < 2010 & IM >0.35 = 0
Commercial Vacancy Presence of high-level commercial vacancy indicators (Businesses closing data, volume
of sales data etc.), used primarily as a
prioritization metric rather than a pass/fail
Note: Dataset does not place
businesses within properties
and is not recommended for
use. Vacancy verified through
groundtruthing of shortlisted
sites.
Table 1B - Economic Underutilization
Attribute Filter Criteria Scoring
Low Development Intensity Low Floor Area Ratio (FAR at or below 0.25 and 0.5).
Includes vacant or minimally developed parcels, surface parking dominant sites, and single-story buildings on
large sites
<0.5 = 1
>0.5 = 0
Aging Structures Building Age, especially buildings 60 years or older that may need significant upgrades
>60 = 1
>30 & <60 = .5
<30 = 0
Table 1A - Physical Underutilization
54 35
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Criteria Data Source / Filter Scoring
Land Use Mix Identification of diverse land use clusters, through analysis of NAICS codes and parcel land use within 0.25–0.5 miles.
Within = 1
Outside = 0
Proximity to Major Employment
Nodes or Destinations
Parcels within 0.5 miles of key employment nodes or regional commercial hubs, as well as community amenities such as:
parks, schools, grocery stores, recreation, (from SBCCOG L TN or SCAG datasets).
Within = 1
Outside = 0
Broadband Network Access Parcels adjacent to or intersecting with SBCCOG Broadband Network corridors, ensuring digital infrastructure readiness.
Within = 1
Outside = 0
Criteria Data Source / Filter Scoring
SCAG Priority Growth Areas Parcels within or adjacent to High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs), Transit Priority Areas (TPAs), or Neighborhood Mobility Areas (NMAs) as designated by SCAG
Within = 1
Outside = 0
Neighborhood Mobility Areas
(walkability)
Parcels located within high street intersection density zones indicating walkable, connected networks (SCAG Helpr Tool).
Within = 1
Outside = 0
SBCCOG Local Travel Network
(L TN)
Parcels within 0.25 miles of L TN corridors supporting zero- emission, local mobility options.
Within = 1
Outside = 0
Outside Hazard Areas Exclusion or deprioritization of parcels within fire severity zones, liquefaction areas, or landslide- prone zones (SCAG Helpr Tool, CalFire datasets).
Within = 0
Outside = 1
Criteria Data Source / Filter Scoring
SCAG Priority Growth Areas Parcels within or adjacent to High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs), Transit Priority Areas (TPAs), or Neighborhood Mobility Areas (NMAs) as designated by SCAG
Within = 1
Outside = 0
Neighborhood Mobility Areas
(walkability)
Parcels located within high street intersection density zones indicating walkable, connected networks (SCAG Helpr Tool).
Within = 1
Outside = 0
SBCCOG Local Travel Network
(L TN)
Parcels within 0.25 miles of L TN corridors supporting zero- emission, local mobility options.
Within = 1
Outside = 0
Outside Hazard Areas Exclusion or deprioritization of parcels within fire severity zones, liquefaction areas, or landslide- prone zones (SCAG Helpr Tool, CalFire datasets).
Within = 0
Outside = 1
Table 2B - Complete Neighborhood Potential
Table 2C - Equitable Housing
Table 2A - Sustainable Housing Potential
55 36
South Bay Cities Restock
Overlay Analysis Map : 2A - Liquefaction Zones
56 37
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Overlay Analysis Map : 2A - SBCCOG Local Travel Network (L TN) 57 38
South Bay Cities Restock
Overlay Analysis Map : 2B - South Bay Broadband Network 58 39
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Overlay Analysis Map : 2B - Land Use Mix
59 40
South Bay Cities Restock
Overlay Analysis Map : 2B - Major Employment Nodes
60 41
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Overlay Analysis Map : 2C - Environmental Justice Areas 61 42
South Bay Cities Restock
Overlay Analysis Map : 2C - SB 535 Areas
62 43
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Overlay Analysis Map : 2C - TCAC High Resource Areas
63 44
South Bay Cities Restock
Step 3: Composite and Overall Scores
The attributes in the previous steps are weighted and
added to a series of composite scores and an overall
score.
Step 4: Selecting Sites for the Inventory
The final step refines the sites from the spatial analysis by highlighting those within the higher range of the
overall development potential score. This selection
process involves a qualitative evaluation of the scores through satellite and street view imagery to ground-
truth current conditions. 80 candidate sites distributed across all SBCCOG partner cities are included in the final inventory.
Primary Attribute Composite Score Scoring Weight
Low development intensity 3
Aging Structures 3
Improvement-to-land value ratio 3
Priority Attributes Score Scoring Weight
SCAG Priority Growth Areas 1
Neighborhood Mobility Areas
(walkability)
1 Outside Hazard Areas 1.5
Land Use Mix 2
Proximity to Major Employment
Nodes or Destinations
2 Other Attributes Score Scoring Weight
Environmental Justice Areas 1
SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities 1
TCAC/HCD High Resource Areas 1
SBCCOG Local Travel Network (L TN) 1
Broadband Network Access 1.5
Overall Score Scoring Weight
Primary Attribute Composite Score 1
Priority Attribute Score 1
Other Attribute Score 1
Filtering Map : Groundtruthing of selected sites from
analysis
64 45
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Inventory Map : Final 80 sites inventory
65 46
South Bay Cities Restock
4.3 Data Sources and Literature References
Data Sources
• SC AG Land Use Classification
•
SC
AG Annual Land Use Data Dictionary
•
SC
AG 2020 Annual Land Use Dataset (updated April 2024)
•
LACOUNTY Land Use Cla
ssification (Includes classification on number of stories) •
LACOUNTY GIS Countywide Building Outlines (2020
)
•
Impro
vement and Land Value Ratios: LA County Assessor Valuation Data •
Building A
ge: LA County Assessor Property Records
•
Commercial
Vacancy: Yelp, CoStar
•
SBCCOG Local Tr
avel Network: SBCCOG Dataset
•
Walk
ability / Street Network Density: SCAG Helpr Tool
•
Des
tinations (Parks, Schools, Employment): SBCCOG L TN
•
SC
AG Priority Growth Areas (HQTAs, NMAs, TPAs)
•
Busines
s Activity & Employment Nodes: Business license data, NAICS codes •
Broadband Network: SBCCOG Broadband Da
taset
•
En
vironmental Justice / Disadvantaged Areas: SCAG Helpr Tool (EJ/ DAC) •
High Resource
/ Opportunity Areas: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Mapping
•
Ha
zard Zones (Fire, Liquefaction, Landslide): SCAG Helpr Tool, CalFire datasets
Literature References
• Repurposing Commercial Real Estate to Support Housing, https:/ /file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/154071. pdf
•
https:/
/ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Residential- Redevelopment-of-Commercially- Zoned-Land-in-California-December-2020.pdf
•
https:/
/lusk.usc.edu/news/costar-apartments-store-developers-eye-underutilized-retail- centers-multifamily- conversions
•
https:/
/www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1333-1.html
•
REAP
2.0 Infill Guidance and Definition
•
ICSC Shopping Center Cla
ssification
66 Development Test Fits &
Pro Forma Analysis
5 Site 1 & 2
Site 3 & 4
Site 5 & 6
Site 7
Site 8
Site 9
Site 10
Site 11
Site 12
Site 13
CITY OF CARSON
CITY OF HAWTHORNE
CITY OF TORRANCE
CITY OF INGLEWOOD
CITY OF GARDENA
CITY OF LAWNDALE
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
CITY OF WILMINGTON
CITY OF LOMITA
LA COUNTY
67 48
South Bay Cities Restock
Site #1 : 24209 Avalon Blvd.
City of Carson
Site #1 (24209 Avalon Boulevard) is a 1.60 acre lot
located along Avalon Boulevard and surrounded by
single-family neighborhoods to the north and west,
with a railway corridor to the south.
The site presents an opportunity to introduce a
new housing at a scale that is compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood. The development
approach explores multiple design concepts, including
for-sale town homes and five-story apartment options
that use building scale and site design to create
a smooth transition to nearby homes and provide
outdoor spaces for residents.
Site
68 49
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Hypothetical Redevelopment Scenario
15 2/3-Story Towhome Units with
Ground Level Parking
Community Backyard
Lease - Not Considered Viable
Sale - Likely Viable
KEY
1 1
2 2
• Infill Project on Commercial Corridor
•
Appropria
te Neighborhood Scale
•
Backyard Open Space f
or residents
69 50
South Bay Cities Restock
Other Hypothetical Redevelopment Scenario
The five-story apartment concept transitions
to a three-story scale adjacent to single-family
homes. In this option, the average unit size
is reduced to 730 SF (from 850 SF in other
scenarios), increasing unit yield and improving
land efficiency. The scenario was determined
to be likely viable, generating sufficient residual
land value (RL V).
The five-story apartment concept concentrates
development along Avalon Blvd. while using
surface parking along the site edge to create
separation from adjacent residential uses. By
retaining existing surface parking, the scenario
avoids the added cost burden of structured
parking and improves overall feasibility. The
scenario was determined to be likely viable,
generating sufficient residual land value (RL V).
The five-story senior housing concept
concentrates development along Avalon Blvd.
It applies a reduced parking ratio of 1:4 through
surface parking. The lower parking demand
associated with senior housing increases
land efficiency and avoids the additional cost
burden of structured parking. The scenario
was determined to be likely viable, generating
sufficient residual land value (RL V).
Flats 5 Stories (38 units, 65 du/ac)
Senior Housing (57 units, 97 du/ac)
Flats 3-5 Stories (35 units, 60 du/ac)
Lease - Likely Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
Lease - Likely Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
Lease - Likely Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
35 Residential Flats
12 Surface Parking Stalls
22 Parking Stalls Retained
38 Residential Flats
12 Surface Parking Stalls
22 Parking Stalls Retained
57 Senior Units
22 Surface Parking Stalls
Open Space
1 1
1 1
2 2
2 2
3 3
3 3
1 1
2 2
3 3
70 51
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
71 52
South Bay Cities Restock
Site #2 : 20700 Avalon Blvd
City of Carson
Site #2 (20700 Avalon Boulevard) is a 4.16-acre site
located along Del Amo Blvd, near Carson Mall. The site
benefits from proximity to a major retail destination, as well as existing on-site commercial uses.
The development scenarios leverage these
adjacencies to explore high-density housing
strategies. One option considers retaining the existing Bank of America building. Another tests a more urban,
village-like configuration supported by reduced or
eliminated parking, enabled by the site’s walkable
access to Carson Mall. Additional typologies, including micro-units, are also evaluated to increase unit yield
and diversify the housing mix.
All scenarios are designed to remain adaptable to the
potential future redevelopment of surrounding surface
parking areas.
Site
72 53
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Hypothetical Redevelopment Scenario
262 Residential Flats
Lease - Likely Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
KEY
1 1
2 2
3 4
54 3
4 5
262 Structured Garage Spaces
Existing Bank of America Retained
Open Space
35 Parking Spaces Retained
• Walking dis tance from large scale retail
destination
•
Adaptiv
e retail reuse of existing bank building
•
Density and site layout
considering future
redevelopment of adjacent parking lots
73 54
South Bay Cities Restock
3 3
4 5
Other Hypothetical Redevelopment Scenario
Village Scale Apartments (182 units, 44 du/ac)
Alternative Village Scale (195 units, 47 du/ac)
Wrap and Micro Units (380 units, 91 du/ac)
Lease - Likely Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
Lease - Potentially Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
Lease - Potentially Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
262 Residential Flats
262 Structured Garage Spaces
Open Space
118 Residential Micro Units
120 Parking Spaces (Stacked)
182 Residential Flats
Open Space
48 Surface Parking Stalls
195 Residential Flats
40 Surface Parking Stalls
1 1
1 2
2 2
3 3
4 5
2 2
2 2
1 1
1 The wrap-style apartment concept with micro-
units increases unit yield and improves land
efficiency through smaller unit sizes. The
scenario was determined to be likely viable,
generating sufficient residual land value (RL V).
The village-like apartment concept organizes
development around a pedestrian-oriented
layout with no on-site parking. The scenario
relies on proximity to surrounding retail
destinations and a reduced parking approach to
maximize site capacity and increase unit yield.
The scenario was determined to be potentially
viable.
The alternative village-like apartment concept
maintains a pedestrian-oriented layout with
no on-site parking while testing a revised
site configuration. The approach increases
development capacity through a parking-free
model with some surface parking, improving
land efficiency and increased development
capacity. The scenario was determined to be
potentially viable
74 55
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
75 56
South Bay Cities Restock
Site #3 : 645 N Hawthorne Boulevard
City of Hawthorne
Site #3 (645 N Hawthorne Boulevard) is a 1.60-acre site located along Hawthorne Boulevard. The site benefits
from an adjacent grocery store and proximity to
additional retail destinations along the corridor.
The development scenarios explore a range of housing
typologies, from low-intensity town homes to wrap
configurations. All options incorporate setbacks to
address transitions to surrounding properties. The
site also considers a 30-foot-wide thoroughfare
connecting Hawthorne Boulevard to the neighborhood
street network, improving local connectivity and
walkability.
Site
76 57
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Hypothetical Redevelopment Scenario
Lease - Not Considered Viable
Sale - Likely Viable
KEY
1 1
2 2
3 3
24 3-Story Townhomes
8 2-Story Townhomes
30’ Wide Thoroughfare
• Pro ximity to neighborhood-serving grocery and
retail destination
•
Adjacent and Connected to Local Tr
avel Network
•
Appropria
te scale for neighborhood
77 58
South Bay Cities Restock
Other Hypothetical Redevelopment Scenario
3/4-Story Apartments (62 units, 39 du/ac)
Wrap Building (99 units, 62 du/ac)
Lease - Potentially Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
Lease - Potentially Viable
Sale - Potentially Viable
62 Residential Flats
Courtyard Open Space
30’ Wide Thoroughfare
50 T uck-under Garage Spaces
12 Surface Parking Spaces
99 Residential Flats
Courtyard Open Space
30’ Wide Thoroughfare
120 Structured Garage Spaces
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 The four-story apartment concept introduces
a residential typology (units with tuck-under
parking) that responds to neighborhoods 2-3
story development along Grevillea Avenue. The
scenario was determined to be potentially viable.
The wrap-style apartment concept increases
density and unit yield but relies on structured
parking, which significantly increases
development costs and reduces feasibility. The
scenario was determined to be not considered
viable.
3 3
4 4
5 2
2 1
1 78
59 Sustainable Pathways to Housing
79 60
South Bay Cities Restock
Site #4 : 11706 Prairie Avenue
City of Hawthorne
Site #4 (11706 Prairie Avenue) is a 0.69-acre site
located along Prairie Avenue. The site has limited
access to retail destinations and surrounding
neighborhood-serving amenities.
The development scenarios explore a range of housing
typologies, from for-sale townhomes to higher-
intensity podium configurations. Prairie Avenue is
a 100-foot-wide vehicular corridor with high traffic
volumes. All scenarios incorporate a minimum 10-foot
setback to address adjacency conditions along the
corridor.
Site
80 61
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Hypothetical Redevelopment Scenario
20 2/3-Story Townhome Units with Ground Level
Garages
Lease - Not Considered Viable
Sale - Likely Viable
KEY
1 1
• Site Intensifica tion
•
Adjacent to Local Tr
avel Network (L TN)
81 62
South Bay Cities Restock
Other Hypothetical Redevelopment Scenario
3-Story Apartments (34 units, 49 du/ac)
Podium Building (93 Units, 135 du/ac)
3-Story Apartments (24 Units, 35 du/ac)
Lease - Not Considered Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
Lease - Potentially Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
Lease - Potentially Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
24 Residential Flats
24 T uck-under + Surface Parking
20’ Wide Alley
93 Residential Flats
88 Structured Parking (Subterranean)
34 Residential Flats
34 T uck-under Parking Space
20’ Wide Alley
Courtyard Open Space
1 1
1 2
2 2
3 3
4 The three-story apartment concept introduces a
low-intensity residential typology that does not
achieve sufficient threshold density to support
strong financial performance. The scenario was
determined to be not considered viable.
The three-story apartment concept maintains
a low-rise residential typology with modest
increases in unit yield. While feasibility improves
relative to lower-intensity configurations, overall
performance remains constrained by limited
density and site conditions. The scenario was
determined to be potentially viable
The podium apartment concept introduces
the most intensive development option,
increasing unit yield through vertical stacking.
While construction costs are higher, the site
can absorb the increased cost burden due to
improved density. The scenario was determined
to be potentially viable.
3 34
4 2
2 2
1 1
1 82
63 Sustainable Pathways to Housing
83 64
South Bay Cities Restock
Site #5 : 20912-21188 Hawthorne Blvd
City of Torrance
Site #5 (20912–21188 Hawthorne Boulevard) is a 5.08-
acre site located along Hawthorne Boulevard. The
site represents a typical strip mall condition found
throughout the South Bay and benefits from proximity
to retail destinations along the corridor.
The development scenarios explore two
redevelopment approaches. One option maintains a
70-foot-deep setback along Hawthorne Boulevard,
retaining retail uses within the frontage while locating housing behind. The second option reduces the
setback to 20 feet and introduces a housing-only
configuration. The reduced setback increases unit
yield and generates sufficient residual land value to
support approximately 24 affordable units (about 7.5%
of total units).
Site
84 65
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Hypothetical Redevelopment Scenario
Lease - Likely Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
KEY
1 1
2 2
• Housing along commercial corridor
•
Pro
ximity to retail destinations
•
Adjacent and connected to Local Tr
avel Network
•
Opportunity to include a
ffordable units
4 2
3 2
3 4
Existing Retail Retained
241 Residential Flats
250 Structured Garage Spaces
New Retail
85 66
South Bay Cities Restock
Other Hypothetical Redevelopment Scenario
Housing With Existing Retail (317 units, 62 du/ac)
Lease - Likely Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
Existing Retail Retained
317 Residential Flats
320 Structured Garage Spaces
Courtyard Open Space
1 2
3 4
The wrap apartment concept introduces a
higher-intensity residential typology that
increases unit yield. Strong market conditions
support higher achievable rents, generating
sufficient residual land value (RL V) to include
approximately 24 affordable units. The scenario
was determined to be likely viable.3
4 4
2 2
1 86
67 Sustainable Pathways to Housing
87 68
South Bay Cities Restock
Site #6 : 2500-2700 Redondo Beach Blvd
City of Torrance
Site #6 (2500–2700 Redondo Beach Boulevard)
is a 14.33-acre site located along Redondo Beach
Boulevard. The site currently functions as a large
surface lot used as an open-air market and was
historically developed as a drive-in theater. An existing drive-in screen remains on the site.
The development scenario proposes comprehensive
redevelopment of the approximately 15-acre site
through a mix of housing typologies, ranging from for-
sale townhomes to rental apartment models. The plan
retains and celebrates the existing drive-in screen
as part of a public park and neighborhood-serving
retail destination while avoiding large-format retail
uses due to nearby existing retail concentrations. The
large site area, flexible development program, and
mix of housing types support overall feasibility. The
scenario developed was determined to be likely viable,
generating sufficient residual land value (RL V).
Site
88 69
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Hypothetical Redevelopment Scenario
Lease - Likely Viable
Sale - Likely Viable
KEY
1 1
7 2
• Lar ge Surface lot redevelopment
•
Pro
ximity to neighborhood grocery stores and
retail shops
8 5
6 3
3 4
5 2
2 4
6 6
6 7
240 Structured Garage Spaces
74 3-Story Townhome Unit
with T uck-under Parking
Retail
190 Residential Flats
225 Structured Garage Spaces
208 Residential Flats
257 Residential Flats
8 Existing Roadium Building
Retained
89 70
South Bay Cities Restock
Site #7: 11387 Crenshaw Blvd
City of Inglewood
Site
Site #7 (11387 Crenshaw Boulevard) is a 5.80-acre site
located at the intersection of Imperial Highway and
Crenshaw Boulevard. The site currently contains a
Burlington store, CVS, T-Mobile, Nail and Spa Salon,
and a large surface parking lot.
The development scenarios explore two general
redevelopment approaches. One option retains the
existing Burlington store and introduces housing
within the surface parking area. The displaced parking
for existing retail store is accommodated in new
development through podium parking configuration.
The second option considers comprehensive
redevelopment of the entire site.
90 71
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Hypothetical Redevelopment Scenario
Lease - Not Considered Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
KEY
1 4
4 2
3 3
4 1
2 3
4 279 Podium Parking Spaces (Residential + Retail)
166 Residential Flats
Surface Parking Retained
Existing Retail Retained
•
Pro
ximity to Large Retail Destination and Grocery
Outlet
•
Adjacent and Connected to Local Tr
avel Network
•
V
ariety of Housing Typologies
•
Mix
ed-Use Development Opportunity
91 72
South Bay Cities Restock
Other Hypothetical Redevelopment Scenario
Comprehensive Redevelopment (417 Units, 72 du/ac)
Housing with Retail Frontage (151 Units, 33 du/ac)
Lease - Not Considered Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
Lease - Not Considered Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 This scenario introduces housing on portions of
the existing surface parking lot while retaining
retail frontage along Crenshaw Boulevard and
Imperial Highway, with for-sale townhomes on
the remaining site. The scenario was determined
to be not considered viable.
The comprehensive redevelopment scenario
introduces a wrap apartment typology together
with for-sale townhomes across the site. Lemoli
Avenue is extended through the site to connect
the adjacent single-family neighborhood to
Imperial Highway. The scenario was determined
to be not considered viable.
3 4
4 4
2 2
3 3
3 5
51 1
Existing Retail Retained
Mixed-Use Development (102 Residential Units)
49 3-story Townhomes
Open Space
125 Surface Parking
42 3-story Townhomes
375 Residential Units
Open Space
453 Structured Garage Spaces
92 73
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
93 74
South Bay Cities Restock
Site #8: 1215 W 132nd St
City of Gardena
Site #8 (1215 W 132nd Street) is a 2.0-acre site located along Budlong Avenue at the edge of a single-family
neighborhood in Gardena. The site is currently
developed with industrial uses.
The development scenarios explore the transition
from an industrial site to a residential neighborhood
through three approaches with increasing intensity.
The scenarios range from for-sale townhomes to
medium-intensity housing and a higher-density wrap
apartment typology. All options create separation from
adjacent industrial uses to the north and west while
incorporating community open space.
Site
94 75
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Hypothetical Redevelopment Scenario
Lease - Not Considered Viable
Sale - Likely Viable
KEY
1 2
Open Space
39 Townhome Units with T uck-under Parking
12 • Model f or Conversion of Industrial Sites to
Residential
•
Adjacent and Connected to Local Tr
avel Network
•
Density a
t Appropriate Neighborhood Scale
95 76
South Bay Cities Restock
Other Hypothetical Redevelopment Scenario
Wrap Building (141 Units, 71 du/ac)
3/4-Story Apartments (90 Units, 45 du/ac)
Lease - Potentially Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
Lease - Not Considered Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
The three/four-story apartment concept
maintains a modest scale compatible with
adjacent single-family homes. The scenario was
determined to be potentially viable.
The wrap apartment concept introduces a
higher-intensity development pattern with four-
story blocks throughout the site. While unit yield
increases, overall feasibility remains constrained
by market conditions and construction costs.
The scenario was determined to be not
considered viable.
4 2
3 1
1 2
3 4
90 Residential Flats
90 Surface + T uck-Under Parking
Open Space
30’ deep Setback (Response to existing single-
141 Residential Flats
90 Surface + T uck-Under Parking
24’ Wide Alley
177 Structured Garage Spaces
family home along Budlong Avenue)
96 77
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
97 78
South Bay Cities Restock
Site #9: 14809 Hawthorne Blvd
City of Lawndale
Site #9 (14809 Hawthorn Boulevard) is a 0.4-acre
site located along Hawthorne Boulevard. The site is
in proximity to retail destinations and is currently
developed with a motel and surface parking.
The development scenarios explore two
redevelopment approaches. One option retains the
existing motel building and adapts it for residential
use, while the second considers comprehensive
redevelopment of the site.Site
98 79
Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Hypothetical Redevelopment Scenario
32 Senior Units
Lease - Likely Viable
Sale - Likely Viable
KEY
1 1 2
2 3
3 16 Surface Parking Retained
Motel to Units Conversion (12 Units)
•
Motel to Housing Con
version
• Small Infill Project on Commercial Corridor
•
Corridor Intensifica
tion
99 80
South Bay Cities Restock
Other Hypothetical Redevelopment Scenario
This scenario adapts the existing motel
building for residential use while developing the
remainder of the site with for-sale townhomes.
Limited market support constrained overall
feasibility. The scenario was determined to be
not considered viable.
The podium apartment concept introduces a
high-intensity residential typology fronting
Hawthorne Boulevard. Higher construction
costs, combined with market conditions,
constrained overall feasibility. The scenario was
determined to be not considered viable.
The for-sale townhome concept introduces a
lower-intensity residential typology across the
site. Limited market support constrained overall
feasibility. The scenario was determined to be
not considered viable.
Podium Building (32 Units, 80 du/ac)
Townhomes (10 Units, 25 du/ac)
Townhomes with Adaptive Reuse of Motel (15 Units, 38 du/ac) Lease - Not Considered Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
Lease - Not Considered Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
Lease - Not Considered Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
1 1
1 2
2 2
1 1
1 2
2 2
32 Residential Flats
32 Podium Parking Spaces
10 3-Story Townhome Units with T uck-under
Parking
24’ Wide Driveway
12 Residential Units (Adaptive Reuse of
Existing Motel Building
5 3-Story Townhome Units with T uck-under
Parking
100
81 Sustainable Pathways to Housing
101
82 South Bay Cities Restock
Site #10: 1819 E Mariposa Avenue
City of El Segundo
Site #10 (1819 E Mariposa Avenue) is a 1.80-acre
site located along Sepulveda Boulevard. The site is
currently used as surface parking for the adjacent
Fairfield Hotel located south of Mariposa Avenue.
The development scenarios explore housing
typologies with increasing levels of intensity. The
options range from lower-intensity development with
tuck-under parking, to podium and wrap apartment
configurations. Across all scenarios, displaced hotel
parking is accommodated through alternative parking
strategies.
Site
102
83 Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Hypothetical Redevelopment Scenario
150 Residential Flats
Open Space
357 Structured Garage Spaces for
Residences and Hotel
Lease - Likely Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
KEY
1 1
2 2
3 3
• Lar ge Surface Lot Redevelopment
•
Corridor Intensifica
tion
•
Pro
ximity to Retail Destination to Grocery Store
•
Public Tr
ansport Option to LAX
103
84 South Bay Cities Restock
Other Hypothetical Redevelopment Scenario
The three-story apartment concept introduces
relatively a lower-intensity residential typology
that does not achieve sufficient density to
support financial feasibility. The reliance
on stack parking for hotel further increases
project cost and limits overall performance. The
scenario was determined to be not considered
viable.
The podium apartment concept introduces a
high-intensity residential typology to increase
unit yield. However, the density achieved is
insufficient to offset higher construction costs
associated with podium development. The
scenario was determined to be not considered
viable.
1 1
2 2
3 3
3 4
68 Residential Flats
Open Space
68 Surface + T uck-under Parking Spaces
144 Stacked Parking Stalls (For Hotel)
104 Residential Flats
Open Space
272 Podium Parking Spaces (For Residential
and Hotel)
Podium Building (104 Units, 58 du/ac)
4-story Apartments (68 Units, 38 du/ac)
Lease - Not Considered Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
Lease - Not Considered Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
1 4
2 1 2
3 104
85 Sustainable Pathways to Housing
105
86 South Bay Cities Restock
Site #11: 1022 Eubank Ave
City of Wilmington
Site
Site #11 (1022 Eubank Avenue) is a 3-acre site located
adjacent to single-family neighborhoods and
industrial uses. A railway line runs along the eastern
edge of the site. The site currently contains industrial uses, including an existing building with notable
architectural features.
The development scenarios explore two
redevelopment approaches. One option retains the
existing building and integrates new housing, while
the second considers comprehensive redevelopment
of the site. The scenarios test increasing levels of
residential intensity, ranging from lower-intensity
for-sale townhomes to higher-density wrap
apartment configurations. Across all options, careful
consideration is given to the transition between new
residential development and adjacent industrial uses.
106
87 Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Hypothetical Redevelopment Scenario
43 3-Story Townhomes with T uck-under Parking
Lease - Not Considered Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
KEY
1 2
3 4
1 3
2 4
Open Space
Existing Building Retained for Housing (5 Units)
24’ Wide Driveway
•
Indus
trial Site Redevelopment
• Adaptiv e Reuse for Housing
•
Adjacent and Connected to Local Tr
avel Network
107
88 South Bay Cities Restock
Other Hypothetical Redevelopment Scenario
Wrap Typology (224 Units, 75 du/ac)
Wrap Typology with Retaining Existing Building (121 Units, 40 du/ac) Lease - Not Considered Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
Lease - Not Considered Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
The four-story wrap apartment concept retains
the existing building as a community amenity
while introducing higher-density residential
development. Market conditions and the cost
implications of the typology constrain overall
feasibility. The scenario was determined to be
not considered viable.
The comprehensive redevelopment scenario
introduces a four-story wrap apartment
typology across the site. While increasing
residential capacity, market conditions and
typology-related costs limit overall development
feasibility. The scenario was determined to be
not considered viable.
1 1
1 2
3 4
1 2
2 2
3 3
3 4
4 5
5 4 Community (Existing Building Adapted)
Open Space
121 Residential Flats
297 Structured Garage Parking
35 Surface Parking Spaces
224 Residential Flats
Open Space
237 Structured Garage Parking
24’ Wide Driveway
108
89 Sustainable Pathways to Housing
109
90 South Bay Cities Restock
Site #12: 2347 Pacific Coast Highway
City of Lomita
Site
Site #12 (2347 Pacific Coast Highway) is a 1.70-acre
site located along Pacific Coast Highway. The site
currently contains six cottage homes with shared open
space for residents, along with several existing retail shops supported by surface parking.
The development scenarios explore two
redevelopment approaches. One option retains
the existing cottage homes and retail uses while
introducing additional housing density. The second
option considers comprehensive redevelopment of the
site.
110
91 Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Hypothetical Redevelopment Scenario
143 Residential Flats
Lease - Likely Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
KEY
1 2
1 2
177 Structured Garage Spaces
•
Exis
ting Retail Preservation and Housing
Integration
•
Corridor Intensifica
tion
•
Pro
ximity to Neighborhood Park
111
92 South Bay Cities Restock
Other Hypothetical Redevelopment Scenario
Podium Apartments with Retail Retained (89 Units, 52 du/ac) Development with Retained Townhomes and Retail (11 Units, 16 du/ac) Lease - Not Considered Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
Lease - Not Considered Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
This scenario retains the existing cottage homes
and retail uses while introducing additional
housing. The limited development area does not
achieve sufficient density to support financial
feasibility under current market conditions. The
scenario was determined to be not considered
viable.
The podium apartment concept retains existing
retail building, while introducing residential
development. Higher construction costs
associated with the typology, combined with
market conditions, constrain overall feasibility.
The scenario was determined to be not
considered viable.
1 1
1 1
1 2
2 2
2 3
3 3
3 4
4 4
4 4
5 5
12 3-Story Townhomes with T uck-under Parking
Open Space
6 Existing Townhomes Retained
Existing Retail Retained
32 Surface Parking Stalls Retained
89 Residential Flats
90 Podium Parking
Existing Retail Retained
32 Surface Parking Stalls Retained
112
93 Sustainable Pathways to Housing
113
94 South Bay Cities Restock
Site #13: 25841 Normandie Ave
LA County
Site
Site #13 (25841 Normandie Avenue) is a 9.50-acre
site located along Normandie Avenue. The site
currently contains a Kaiser Urgent Care facility with
supporting medical uses on one half of the site, while
the remaining area functions as a surface parking lot
serving the medical facility.
The development scenarios explore two approaches
for introducing housing on site. In both scenarios,
the existing surface parking area is developed for
housing. One option minimizes structured parking
by incorporating a mix of surface and tuck-under
parking, while the second provides structured
parking to support higher-intensity development. In
both scenarios, displaced medical facility parking is
accommodated through structured parking.
114
95 Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Hypothetical Redevelopment Scenario
Lease - Not Considered Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
KEY
1 1
1 2
2 4
3 1
2 693 Structured Parking Stalls (Hospital)
224 Residential Flats
3 4
262 Surface + T uck-under Parking Spaces
Existing Urgent Care and Medical Uses
•
Medical Adjacent Housing
• Lar ge Surface Lot Redevelopment
•
Pro
ximity to Transit Options
115
96 South Bay Cities Restock
Other Hypothetical Redevelopment Scenario
Wrap Typology (536 Units, 117 du/ac)
Lease - Not Considered Viable
Sale - Not Considered Viable
The wrap apartment concept increases unit yield
through a higher-density residential typology.
However, providing separate structured parking
for the medical facility and housing increases
project costs, constraining feasibility under
current market conditions. The scenario was
determined to be not considered viable.
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
4 5
5 6
6 536 Residential Flats
Open Space
Paseo
Existing Urgent Care and Medical Uses
573 Structured Parking Stalls (Residential)
693 Structured Parking Stalls (Hospital)
116
97 Sustainable Pathways to Housing
Glossary of Terms
6 Housing Policy & Compliance
AB 2011 / SB 330 / CEQA: State laws referenced here.
AB 2011 allows streamlined housing on commercial land;
SB 330 limits cities’ ability to slow or downzone housing; CEQA is the state environmental-review law (with infill exemptions that can speed approvals).
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU):
A smaller secondary
home on the same lot as a house (e.g., “granny flat,”
garage conversion).
Area Median Income (AMI):
The midpoint household
income for the region, used to set affordable-housing
income limits (e.g., “60% AMI”).
Density bonus:
A State of California program letting
developers build more units than zoning allows in
exchange for including affordable units.
Entitlement / entitlement risk:
Entitlements are
the approvals a project needs before construction;
entitlement risk is the uncertainty over whether and how quickly they’ll be granted.
Housing Element:
The state-required chapter of a city’s
General Plan showing how it will meet its RHNA, including a list of sites where housing can realistically be built.
Inclusionary housing & in-lieu fees: A requirement that a share of new units be affordable; developers may
sometimes pay an in-lieu fee instead, funding affordable housing elsewhere.
Market-rate / income-restricted / mixed-income:
Market-rate units rent or sell at whatever the market
supports; income-restricted (affordable) units are legally capped for lower-income households; mixed-income
projects combine both.
Ministerial (“by-right”) vs. discretionary review:
Ministerial approval is granted automatically when
a project meets clear objective standards (fast,
predictable); discretionary review is case-by-case, with hearings, more risk, and more delay.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA):
The
number of new housing units the state requires each city to plan for over an ~8-year cycle, broken out by income level.
RHNA cycle (6th / 7th Cycle):
The recurring planning
periods for which RHNA is assigned. Unmet need from
one cycle carries forward into the next.
Surplus Land Act (SLA):
State law governing how public
agencies sell or lease unused land, generally requiring affordable-housing set-asides.
Sites, Market, & Feasibility
Activity center: Concentrations of shops, services, and jobs clustered together.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR):
Building floor area divided by lot
size; a low FAR signals an under-built site.
Improvement-to-land value ratio:
The value of
buildings (“improvements”) relative to the land; a low
ratio suggests the structures add little value and the site is ripe for redevelopment.
Outparcel / pad site:
A small, separately developable
parcel at the edge of a larger shopping center, often a parking area or freestanding building.
Power center:
A large shopping center anchored by
several big-box retailers with extensive surface parking. 117
98 South Bay Cities Restock
Pro forma analysis: A financial model estimating a
project’s costs, revenues, and returns to test whether it is financially feasible i.e. if it “pencils out.”
Residual Land Value (RLV):
What a developer could
afford to pay for the land after covering construction
costs and required profit. A negative RL V means the
project isn’t financially viable.
Submarket:
A smaller slice of the regional real estate
market with its own rent and price levels.
Test fit:
A conceptual site plan showing how much
housing of a given type could physically fit on a specific parcel.
Underutilized commercial site:
A commercially (and in
some cases industrially) zoned property used well below its potential — for example, a low building-to-land ratio, dominated by surface parking, aging structures, or low
building value relative to land. These are this study’s primary redevelopment candidates (criteria detailed in
Section 5).
Building Types &
Construction
Construction Type III / Type V: Building-code
categories. Type V is wood-frame (lower cost/height);
Type III allows somewhat taller wood-frame, often over a podium. Cost rises with height and structure.
Housing typology:
The form a building takes —
townhomes, walk-up apartments, wrap, podium, etc.
Missing middle housing:
Smaller-scale multi-unit
housing (duplexes, fourplexes, small apartment buildings) that sits between single houses and large complexes.
Surface / tuck-under / structured parking:
Surface
= open lots (cheapest); tuck-under = parking tucked
beneath the building; structured = garages/podiums
(most expensive)).
Wrap & podium construction:
Higher-density
apartment forms built around or on top of a parking
structure; generally more expensive because of the
structured parking.
Mobility and Sustainability
Business density: The concentration of small
businesses within walking distance which SBCCOG
research links to more local trips staying in the
neighborhood (trip capture).
Complete neighborhood / neighborhood center:
An
area where daily needs are reachable on a short walk;
a neighborhood center anchors it, sometimes with a
shared public facility (high-speed internet, technology, training).
Local Travel Network (L TN):
SBCCOG’s planned network
of low-stress local streets designed for short trips by walking, biking, e-bikes, scooters, and NEVs.
Mobility hub:
A point where travel modes connect,
linking local micromobility to regional transit and cars for longer trips.
Neighborhood Electric
Vehicle (NEV): A small, low-
speed electric vehicle suited to short local trips.
Origins and destinations:
“Origins” are where trips start;
“destinations” are where people are going (often shops, jobs, services). Bringing the two closer shortens trips.
Sustainable South Bay Strategy (2009):
SBCCOG’s
foundational plan establishing the subregion’s proximity- based approach to sustainable growth.
Sustainable suburban model:
SBCCOG’s approach
of shortening daily trips by clustering housing near
destinations, rather than relying on big-city, transit- oriented density.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM):
Strategies that reduce demand for car trips. Examples
include shared parking between uses, unbundling the
118
99 Sustainable Pathways to Housing
cost of parking from housing, providing free transit
passes, etc.
VMT & GHG Emissions:
Vehicle Miles Traveled and
Greenhouse Gas emissions. They both decrease when
trips get shorter or shift to zero-emission modes.
Zero-emission (ZE) micromobility:
Small, low-speed,
non-polluting travel modes such as walking, bikes/e-
bikes, scooters, and NEVs.
Designations
HQTA / TPA / NMA: SCAG designations — High Quality
Transit Areas and Transit Priority Areas (near frequent transit), and Neighborhood Mobility Areas (walkable,
connected street grids).
SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities (DAC):
State-
designated communities burdened by pollution and
socioeconomic factors, prioritized for investment.
TCAC/HCD High Resource Areas:
State-mapped
areas with strong access to opportunity (schools, jobs, environment).
Funding & Agencies
Commercial Acquisition Fund (CAF): An LA County fund
letting nonprofits buy commercial properties and lease
them affordably.
Community Development Corporation (CDC):
A
nonprofit that develops affordable housing and
community projects.
DTSC:
California’s Department of Toxic Substances
Control, which oversees cleanup and monitoring on
contaminated sites.
LACAHSA & Measure A:
The LA County Affordable
Housing Solutions Agency and the 2024 half-cent
sales tax (Measure A) funding affordable housing and
homelessness services; SBCCOG is an eligible recipient.
LIHTC: Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
— the primary
federal financing source for affordable housing.
Multifamily Housing Program (MHP):
A California
Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) affordable-housing funding source.
PATH / HIPP:
SCAG’s Partnership for Advancing
Technology in Housing and its Housing Infill on Public
and Private Lands program — competitive infill-housing
funding.
REAP (1.0 / 2.0)
: SCAG’s Regional Early Action Planning
grants funding local housing-planning work; this study is funded by REAP 2.0 and builds on a REAP 1.0 study.
South Bay Regional Housing Trust:
a joint powers
authority created and launched in April 2026, to fund the planning, development, and preservation of affordable
and supportive housing across 11 South Bay cities.
119
120