HomeMy WebLinkAboutLA Thrives & LA ROSAH - Pathway to Parks and Affordable HousingPathway to Parks &
Affordable Housing
Joint Development
photo by Rudy Espinoza
Building Equitable Communities: A Housing and Parks Summit hosted by the
Los Angeles Regional Open Space and Affordable Housing Collaborative in October 2017, Photo by Urban Colors Photography
Part 1: Introduction & Overview
Urban Sustainability, Compact Growth & a Growing Housing Crisis
The Role of Parks and Urban Greening
Displacement, Gentrification, & Green Gentrification
Part 2: Nexus
Part 3: Anti-Displacement, Joint Development & Multi-Benefit Projects
Joint Development Overview
Emerging Joint Development Typologies
Transformative Infrastructure with Housing sites and/or Anti-Displacement Strategy
Neighborhood Transformation Scattered Site Approach
Master Planned Development
Infill development with Housing & Open Space on-site
Infill development, with Housing & Open Space on different, physically connected/
adjacent sites
Part 4: Preliminary Recommendations/Options
Recommendations 1: Create a joint-development framework on agency-acquired
land for Conservation Authorities
Recommendations 2: Create an acquisition funding source within Conservation
Authorities for Developer initiated acquisition
Recommendations 3: Create eligibility and incentives for joint-development in
existing & future funding sources
I
II
III
1
4
8
10
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DEFINITIONS
14 TYPOLOGIES CHART
In
d
e
x
This paper is a joint-publication of LA THRIVES and Los Angeles Regional Open Space and
Affordable Housing (LA ROSAH), with primary research and contributions from the LA ROSAH
Joint-Development Typology Committee.
Principal Authors: Thomas Yee, LA THRIVES | Low Income Investment Fund; Sissy Trinh,
Southeast Asian Community Alliance; Natalie Zappella, Enterprise Community Partners.
LA ROSAH Joint-Development Typology Committee: Robin Mark, Trust for Public Land; Walker
Wells, Global Green USA; Spencer Eldred, Mountains and Recreation Conservation Authority;
Thomas Yee, LA THRIVES | Low Income Investment Fund; Sissy Trinh, Southeast Asian
Community Alliance; Natalie Zappella, Enterprise Community Partners
We also thank the members of LA ROSAH collaborative, listed in page iv of this publication,
who have made significant contributions to the ideas presented. Additionally, we would also
like to acknowledge the LA THRIVES Steering Committee for their review and contributions.
Thanks also to the attendees of a Parks and Housing Summit held the fall of 2017, who reviewed
preliminary draft concepts and provided valuable insights that shaped our thinking.
Enterprise is a proven and powerful nonprofit that improves communities and people’s lives
by making well-designed homes affordable. We bring together the nationwide know-how,
partners, policy leadership and investments to multiply the impact of local affordable housing
development. Over 35 years, Enterprise has created nearly 529,000 homes, invested $36 billion
and touched millions of lives across the country. In Southern California, we have invested more
than $1.2 billion to build and preserve more than 24,000 homes, and working with our partners,
we have created vibrant, equitable and inclusive communities.
The Southeast Asian Community Alliance works to organize low-income youth in Chinatown
and Northeast LA around issues of equitable development to ensure that as public and private
investment come into our communities, low-income residents are able to benefit from, rather
than are pushed out by new development.
LA THRIVES is a collaborative of organizations committed to equitable TOD – transit-oriented
development that prioritizes investments in the production and preservation of affordable
homes, that protects the social fabric of neighborhoods, and that makes it easy for residents to
walk, bike and take transit to shops, schools and services. We are a network of partners working
across Los Angeles County - community based organizations, funders, public agencies and
policy makers to ensure Greater Los Angeles is both sustainable and affordable - a place for
all to thrive. Our work focuses on identifying opportunities for policy and capital innovation,
educating stakeholders, and convening to create change in our land-use and transportation
systems. LA THRIVES is administered through the Low Income Investment Fund.
Primary support for this paper comes from the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation and The California
Endowment.
Ac
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
i
*Organizational affiliations for contributing authors denoted here reflect their participation during the development of this
paper, and may have changed by the time of publication
New solutions for the housing affordability crisis and climate change in California and
Los Angeles interconnect two largely independent fields of practice—the environmental
conservation and urban greening investment system and the low-income housing investment
system.
This paper proposes a framework for advancing the understanding of the nexus between
urban greening and affordable housing for equitable, sustainable growth. In particular, we
propose a set of typologies for understanding opportunities for joint development of affordable
housing and urban greening. Our findings and recommendations are drawn from participant
organizations in the emerging Los Angeles Regional Open Space and Affordable Housing (LA
ROSAH) collaborative.
We have conceptualized 5 distinct typologies of integrated housing and open space scenarios,
whereby public park and conservation agencies can play a similar role to transit agencies in
creating opportunities for joint-development. Such parks and housing integrated projects
can expand the definition of multi-benefit projects and build off of the successful innovations
of California’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) and Transformative
Climate Communities (TCC) programs.
Transformative Infrastructure with Housing sites + Anti-Displacement Strategy
Infrastructure projects have the potential to dramatically impact surrounding
neighborhoods. Responsible, equitable planning should include identification
of affordable housing sites that are integrated with the upgraded infrastructure,
mechanisms for value capture and financing these developments, tenant
protections, and affordable housing preservation strategies.
Neighborhood Transformation Scattered Site Approach
A Scattered Site Approach identifies multiple parcels throughout a district, and
implements shared infrastructure, thematic or programmatic consistency, and
coordinated funding strategies.
Large Master Planned Development Infill Development
Development sites 7 acres or more that are under single ownership are able
to accommodate both homes and publicly accessible open space and/or green
infrastructure.
Ex
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
ii
Infill Development with Housing and Open Space on-site
Urban infill sites under 7 acres can accommodate housing, green infrastructure
and/or open space on a single site. Many urban infill sites available for
development are less than 1 acre. While these developments often include
landscaped areas for the residents, they do not typically have sufficient land area
to include publicly accessible open space.
Infill development, with Housing and Open Space on different sites within
Neighborhood
A joint development approach could combine a housing development with open
space or green infrastructure on adjacent public right-of-ways or smaller infill
sites such as such as alleys, streets or utility corridors, city storage or maintenance
yards, or hard to develop properties.
We further propose a set of preliminary recommendations for Conservation Authorities and/or
Park Agencies that could be pursued in more detail in future studies and analysis.
• Recommendation 1: Create a joint-development framework on agency-acquired land
Agencies could replicate the transit agency joint-development model, and enable long-term
ground leases with housing developers for affordable housing on portions of appropriately
identified sites that could be acquired in the future. Authorities would consider only future
land acquisitions, conforming to the Public Park Preservation Act of 1971 to protect existing
park space.
• Recommendation 2: Create an acquisition funding source for Developer—initiated
acquisition
Identify Conservation Authority/Park Agency funding sources that affordable housing
developers would be eligible to use for acquisition financing of parcels suitable for joint
development. The conservation authority or other park development organization would
partner with the developer to construct park and green infrastructure.
• Recommendation 3: Create eligibility and incentives for joint-development in existing and
future funding sources
Park and open space funding sources, including local, regional and state agencies, could
consider making joint-development of housing and open space explicitly eligible in existing
and future funding sources, either through direct funds or by incentivizing integrated project
applications.
Ex
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
iii
An emerging new collaborative:LA Regional Open Space and Affordable Housing (LA ROSAH)
Concerned about the role that the LA River restoration and other green infrastructure
investments were playing in contributing to the growing affordable housing and
homelessness crisis in Los Angeles, a group of non-profit organizations and public
agencies representing open space conservation, affordable housing, and local
community groups came together in the Spring of 2016 to form the LA Regional Open
Space and Affordable Housing Collaborative (LA ROSAH).
The LA ROSAH vision is for multi-benefit investments that support healthy, sustainable,
and equitable development for all residents in the Los Angeles region. The goal of LA
ROSAH is to explore new strategies to combat the issue of green gentrification, create
a new model of development that would expand low-income communities’ access to
nature while also mitigating their risk for gentrification and displacement and promote
awareness of these opportunities through education and public programming.
LA ROSAH Member Organizations include:
LA
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
a
n
d
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
(
L
A
R
O
S
A
H
)
iv
• Community Nature Connection
• Enterprise Community Partners
• From Lot to Spot
• Global Green USA
• LA THRIVES
• Little Tokyo Service Center
• Los Angeles County Bike Coalition
• Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust
• Leadership for Urban Renewal
• Mujeres de la Tierra
• Mountains Recreation & Conservation Authority
• Natural Resources Defense Council
• Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
• Southeast Asian Community Alliance
• The Trust For Public Land
DISPLACEMENT
Displacement occurs when an individual, household, or business is forced to move from its
residence against their will or preference. Individuals living in poverty or extreme poverty are
often disproportionately targeted and criminalized through displacement despite their having
met all previously-imposed conditions of occupancy, and/or where continued occupancy by
that individual, household, or business is made impossible , unsafe, or unaffordable1.
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
Green infrastructure is a broadly defined term that refers to the use of natural
features, restored or engineered, to provide multiple benefits to communities
including reducing flooding, minimizing urban heat island impacts, and improving
water and air quality. The phrase is generally contrasted with “gray infrastructure,”
which relies on a constructed system of pipes and mechanical devices to capture
and convey storm water runoff.
EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT
Equitable development draws on both environmental justice and smart growth and
generally refers to a range of approaches for creating communities and regions
where residents of all incomes, races, and ethnicities participate in and benefit from
decisions that shape the places where they live.
• Equitable development emphasizes that all residents should be protected from environmental
hazards and enjoy access to environmental, health, economic, and social necessities such as clean
air and water, adequate infrastructure, and job opportunities.
• To achieve this, equitable development approaches usually integrate people-focused strategies
(efforts that support community residents) with place-focused strategies (efforts that stabilize
and improve the neighborhood environment)
• Equitable development typically calls for a regional perspective to reduce health and economic
inequalities among localities and improve outcomes for low-income communities while building
healthy metropolitan regions2.
De
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
s
iv
The Los Angeles County region, like many urban metropolitan regions, is grappling with
a host of interconnected challenges – a severe housing shortage and affordability crisis,
persistent and growing homelessness, persistent and in some cases widening health inequities,
poor air quality, climate change and urban displacement. At the same time, state and local
solutions have emerged to generate public investment that addresses some of these critical
issues. California’s cap and trade program is generating revenues to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and creating novel cross-disciplinary programs like the Affordable Housing
and Sustainable Communities and Transformative Climate Communities programs3. Los Angeles
County voters have approved hundreds of billions for transportation and parks through
county sales and parcel taxes4. Municipalities along the Los Angeles River have proposed
ambitious restoration and revitalization plans along the largely concretized waterway5. City
of Los Angeles voters approved Proposition HHH, the Permanent Supportive Housing Loan
Program to enable development of housing for the formerly homeless. Measure H provides
resources to prevent and combat homelessness in LA County .
This paper proposes a framework for advancing the understanding of the nexus between urban
greening and affordable housing for equitable, sustainable growth. Low-income communities
of color have long suffered lack of investment in both housing and parks, particularly in
South and Southeast Los Angeles and in neighborhoods like Chinatown, Lincoln Heights,
and Frogtown along the Los Angeles River. As the pace of public and private investment
has accelerated, displacement (and in some cases homelessness) of low-income renters has
often followed close behind. In response, public agencies and community organizations have
begun to link housing, open space, health, and economic outcomes through an integrated
approach. In particular, we propose a set of typologies for understanding opportunities for
joint development of affordable housing and urban greening components.
Our findings and recommendations are drawn from participant organizations in the emerging
Los Angeles Regional Open Space and Affordable Housing (LA ROSAH) collaborative and the LA
THRIVES collaborative. We gathered information and input from organizational partners over
the course of 2016 and 2017, through meetings and surveys. In addition, the research team
gathered feedback from a broader set of stakeholders at the Building Equitable Communities:
A Housing & Parks Summit held in October 2017.
P
a
r
t
1
:
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
&
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
1
Housing and Parks Summit, Photo by Urban Colors Photography
• Non-profit Park Developers
• Environmental, Climate
and Environmental Justice Organizations
• Park and Recreation Agencies
• Conservation Authorities
• Affordable Housing Developers
• Community Development Financial
Institutions
• Housing Authorities
and Municipal Housing Agencies
• Housing and Renter Advocates
• Local Planning Departments
• Public Health Agencies
Urban Sustainability and Compact Growth, a Legacy of Segregation, and a Growing Housing Crisis
After decades of disinvestment, urban neighborhoods in Los Angeles, particularly those
connected to high-quality transit such as light rail, rapid bus, and subway, have become
hot spots for real estate investment in the past decade. A strong post-recession economy,
driven by high-income jobs in white collar industries (information and technology sector
and healthcare), and a revitalized interest in Downtown and central city neighborhoods
have attracted higher-income households to Los Angeles6. At the same time, the region
has seen an outflux of lower-income households7, predominantly people of color that
have suffered from decades of public policies and institutional practices that have built
separate and very unequal neighborhoods.
Our goal in writing this paper is to explore a systemic
set of opportunities to connect two largely independent
fields of practice—the environmental conservation and
urban greening investment system with the affordable
housing investment system. We hope that this informs
creation of a joint-development framework and pilots that
demonstrate the value of the integration of affordable
housing with public open space that can be replicated
along the Los Angeles River, the greater Los Angeles
region, and elsewhere.
The intended audience for this paper draws from multiple fields including non-profit
organizations, public agencies, and community development financial institutions from across
these fields. These stakeholders include:
Pa
r
t
1
:
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
&
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
2
Pa
r
t
1
:
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
&
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
3
Displacement of low income residents of color in the urban core has contributed to our
homelessness crisis, criminalization of people in parks and on the streets, and declines in transit
ridership even as local taxpayers have passed two transportation sales tax initiatives in ten years.
Low income residents are far more likely to utilize mass transit—70% of Los Angeles transit riders
earn less than $25,000 per year. However, affordable housing opportunities near transit are scarce,
and often the only options are to live in over-crowded or unaffordable housing near jobs, or face
long commutes and high transportation costs. Skyrocketing residential rents and commercial
lease rates combined with stagnant wage growth have accelerated displacement of low-income
renters and small businesses and stoked concerns of gentrification. Greater numbers of families
and households are facing stark realities. Many are leaving the region and the state altogether,
and many are falling into homelessness.
In this context, a growing movement of residents and advocates are calling for policy and
finance solutions that enable households of all incomes to participate in these livable, compact
neighborhoods through affordable homes, quality jobs, parks and open space, and access to
mobility and transit options. Regional advocates including LA THRIVES, LA ROSAH, the Alliance
for Community Transit-Los Angeles (ACT-LA), and the Coalition for a Just LA have worked with
public agencies to develop new tools for affordable Transit Oriented Development (TOD), a
broader framework for Transit Oriented Communities (TOC), and other related policies:
• The City of LA’s TOC ordinance enables higher densities and reduced parking in exchange
for affordable housing and strong labor standards8.
• Metro has strengthened its role in developing affordable housing, adopting a 35% target
for affordable housing on agency-owned land, a land-discounting policy for those new
housing units, and even investing in a loan program—Metro Affordable Transit Connected
Housing (MATCH)—to support TOD on privately owned land near transit9.
• A linkage fee in the City of Los Angeles will generate between $90 and $130 million for
affordable housing every year and build between 10,000 and 13,000 affordable homes
over the next ten years.
Mariachi Plaza and Boyle Hotel Development in Los Angeles, California, Photo by Enterprise Community Partners
P
ar
t
1
:
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
&
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
4
How can Urban Greening, and Green Infrastructure play a role in Urban Sustainability and Compact Growth within a Legacy of Segregation and a Growing Housing Crisis?
Parks and green space have a rich tradition in American urban planning and landscape
architecture, dating back to the origins of the modern planning profession. Urban green space
has long been thought of as “lungs of the city”, an early concept popularized by Frederick Law
Olmsted. More recently, urban greening occupies a growing spotlight as a source of multiple
benefits to their regions, including positive health, environmental, climate, and economic
impacts to neighborhoods and local communities. Parks can promote health through physical
activity10, provide shade, stormwater management, habitat and reduce the heat-island effect11,
and attract nearby development12.
A recent study by the Trust for Public Land quantified the economic impact of these benefits
in the City of Los Angeles, with the biggest economic impact from enhanced property values13.
This economic impact is often used to make the case for parks, demonstrating lasting economic
benefit from public investment in parks and greening.
The importance of parks and green infrastructure are magnified as cities and urban areas take
on growing leadership to address climate change through compact growth and sustainable
land development. Providing access to parks and nature is a critical planning strategy for
climate change mitigation, adaptation, and resilience—improving the livability of denser, more
compact neighborhoods, and providing green infrastructure and ecosystem services to capture,
treat and retain stormwater and reduce urban heat island effects in a hotter and drier climate.
Greening projects range in size and scale within this spectrum, from pocket parks to green corridors,
but at the largest scale can be catalysts for dramatic transformation of neighborhoods. Regional-
scale linear greening projects such as the Atlanta Beltline and the Chicago 606 span across
multiple neighborhoods, changing regional mobility patterns and inducing private investment.
Neighborhood-scale adaptive reuse projects which recycle infrastructure from obsolescence—the
New York City Highline, or the 11th Street Bridge in Washington DC—have also sparked major
neighborhood change and displacement in nearby low-income communities of color.
In Los Angeles, the highest profile example of this type of green infrastructure planning is
the revitalization of the Los Angeles River. While the entire 51-mile length of the river winds
through a wide variety of neighborhoods and cities, the most intense focus of planning has been
the 11-mile stretch of the Glendale Narrows where public access to the river is highest and a
portion of the concrete lined river remains ‘soft bottom’ due to the high water table in the area.
This stretch of river, boasting mature trees, shrubs, and significant wildlife, is the subject of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ ‘Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration Study’ which examines
alternatives for the purpose of restoring the River while maintaining flood risk management.
• In 2018, members of LA ROSAH have been working with park agencies to incorporate
anti-displacement and equitable parks development policies through green infrastructure
financing mechanisms.
Pa
r
t
1
:
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
&
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
5
The projected cost of Alternative 20, which has been approved by the Los Angeles City Council
and the USACE, is approximately $1.6 Billion.
Displacement, Gentrification, and Green Gentrification
Nationwide, concerns are growing about an accelerating trend of gentrification and associated
displacement in urban neighborhoods. Public usage of these terms have become commonplace,
but inconsistently applied and understood. However, academics have produced a large body
of published literature defining these distinct but related experiences.
Gentrification is understood to have many interrelated causes leading to economic and racial
transformation of low-income neighborhoods. Displacement is an outcome of gentrification
where households or businesses are involuntarily forced to move14. The Prevention Institute
and its Healthy, Equitable and Land Use (HEAL-U) network have developed a framework for
understanding health inequities in the land use system that factor into these neighborhood
changes, and seeing the resulting displacement effects as a public health issue15.
These larger concerns about displacement and gentrification are increasingly associated
- whether real or perceived - with the impacts of urban parks and greening. Much of the
concern is focused in the neighborhood loci of these large-scale transformative green
infrastructure projects in Los Angeles and throughout the Country described above. The
well-documented economic impact of parks, as previously described above in the recent
TPL study, typically regarded as a positive impact, can also be seen through a gentrification
lens as potentially harmful.
Emerging research on such “green gentrification”, or
“environmental gentrification” has begun to find patterns
of displacement and gentrification effects associated
with greening projects across the United States and
internationally in cities such as New York City, Atlanta,
Hangzhou, and Seoul16. New York’s Highline and Atlanta’s
Beltline in particular have been studied extensively for
their displacement of nearby low-income residents17.
Even more recent research is uncovering a “climate gentrification” phenomena as climate
impacts and extreme weather events increase, homes and properties that are in more resilient
or adaptive communities and therefore less susceptible to climate risks can experience more
P
a
r
t
1
:
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
&
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
6
marketability and valuation of property (Jesse M Keenan, 2018). As shown by the research of
Alex Hall, the Center for Climate Science Faculty Director, and his research group at the UCLA
Institute of The Environment and Sustainability, the complex topography in the Los Angeles
region creates very distinct microclimates with varying degrees of climate impacts, that,
given our legacy of segregation and redlining, could have concerning implications for further
gentrification and displacement in the LA region18.
The data trends show that the inland and valley areas, which include some of the more
affluent communities, will experience increased very hot days (>95°F) and wildfires compared
to communities in South LA and the South Bay that benefit from the cooling coastal air and
are far enough away from the ocean to not be at risk for sea level rise. Conversely, beachside
communities will experience increased flood risks and cliff retreat projections 60% over
historical rates from sea level rise.
As seen in the devastating wildfires in Northern, Central and Southern California in 2017,
there was unprecedented destruction of more than 10,800 structures across the state, many of
which were people’s homes. Over time, rebuilding in communities prone to wildfires will likely
diminish, and those residents will move to communities with less fire risk. As extremely hot days
increase, cooler communities will be that much more attractive. As incidents like these continue
to increase and climate impacts become more understood, “climate gentrification” in our region
may very well become a reality. Displacement protections, affordable housing production and
preservation are all essential elements to be integrated in with park developments and green
infrastructure investments now, before it is too late.
Figure 1. Projections of Climate Related Extreme Heat in Southern California (Adapted from UCLA Center for Climate Science19
More Very Hot Days
(>95°F ) Per YearSantaClarita
PorterRanch San Fernando Sunland
Pasadena
El Sereno
DowntownLos Angeles
Hollywood
Studio CityWoodlandHills
60 days >
100 days >2041– 2060
Business As Usual
1981 – 2000
Westwood
Santa Ana
LongBeach
Watts
BaldwinHillsVenice
SantaMonica
Los Angeles County
Pa
r
t
1
:
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
&
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
7
In the Los Angeles region, neighborhood advocates are experiencing gentrification and
displacement first hand at the community level and perceive a connection to transit, parks
and other infrastructure improvements. The Chinatown, Lincoln Heights and Frogtown
neighborhoods have experienced dramatic increases in the values of rental apartments, homes,
and raw land. These neighborhoods are the focus of river restoration plans, and land values
are rising even before any infrastructure projects have even begun. Developers are building
and marketing homes as riverfront properties, while existing renters are experiencing rising
rents and evictions, and often are unable to find affordable new homes within the area. While
the causal linkage between river restoration planning to gentrification and displacement is
hotly debated, the perception alone is raising significant concern.
As organizations work to develop more parks and green spaces, they are concerned with
exacerbating and accelerating these trends and the impacts on existing residents. Based on a
survey of LA ROSAH partners, organizations are working in other areas of the region including
South Los Angeles neighborhoods of Crenshaw and Slauson, University Park, and around
MacArthur Park in central Los Angeles, that are experiencing gentrification and displacement
generally.
Public parks, by definition, exist to provide access to nature and recreational space to the
general public. In practice, low-income households and communities face significant barriers
to accessing parks and open space. Urban neighborhoods often have the least amount of
park space, borne out by data in Los Angeles and nationwide.
In Los Angeles County, there are dramatic disparities in park access across neighborhoods, from
56 acres per 1,000 residents in wealthy suburban communities (San Dimas and Malibu) to less
than 0.5 acres per 1,000 residents in some urban communities including City of Los Angeles
Council Districts 8 and 9, Lennox (unincorporated), and the City of Bell. The communities with
the least park access are correlated to higher levels of economic hardship, higher concentrations
of households of color, as well as significantly worse health outcomes such as childhood obesity,
mortality from cardiovascular disease and diabetes19.
To meet their goals of providing park access to all, park agencies create programs to provide
access to regional parks and wilderness areas to low-income children and households. More
recently, park agencies have begun to focus more attention on creating urban parks in park-poor
areas. The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (SMMC) and the Mountains and Recreation
Conservation Authority (MRCA), a joint powers authority of the SMMC and two park districts,
have created the Urban Parklands program and has been actively acquiring land parcels in
park-poor neighborhoods to create parks such as Marsh Park adjacent to the Los Angeles River,
Vista Hermosa Park in Westlake/Historic Filipinotown, and the Pacoima Wash Natural Park in
the San Fernando Valley.
Los Angeles County Measure A, passed by voters in 2016, in part prioritizes funding resources
based on a Park Needs Assessment that was completed prior to the development of the ballot
initiative. The Park Needs Assessment reflects the reality of disparities in park access and park
quality, and the lack of such facilities in low-income communities of color.
Non-profit park developers place great care and attention on serving low-income households
with high quality parks and urban greening facilities. In Los Angeles County, LA ROSAH
members the Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust, The Trust for Public Land, and From Lot to
Spot are pioneering efforts to use parks projects as vehicles for community organizing. These
organizations base their practice on a foundation of first engaging community residents to
identify community needs that can be addressed through parks. This engagement continues
through design development and construction of parks and green space. Ultimately, local
residents truly are the stewards of these open spaces in the long run and embody the connection
of these to broader goals of improving community health, safety, and economic opportunity.
More specifically, the idea of promoting housing,
particularly affordable housing, integrated with parks
and urban greening, is an extension of this concept of
Pa
r
t
2
:
N
e
x
u
s
8
creating long-term local park stewardship among adjacent
residents, improving community health and supporting
stable neighborhoods. Additionally, developing affordable
housing with urban greening directly addresses the need
for improved park-access for low-income households, as
measured through the County’s needs assessment. The
perceived benefits of integrating housing and parks is
illustrated by several programs in the state of California.
The 1975 Quimby Act recognized the need to develop parks alongside new development
to accommodate an influx of population and the pressure it would place on existing park
resources. The Act requires land set-asides, easements, or fees to be put towards parklands.
Later amendments to the Quimby Act provided more detailed guidance and restrictions to
formulate the direct connection between new development and park need.
The California Housing and Community Development department created the Housing Related
Parks program in 2006 as a part of the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006.
The funding program, which ended in 2016, provided non-competitive grants on a formula
basis to jurisdictions based on the number of building permits for new affordable units, as well
as units preserved, substantially rehabilitated, or converted. Additional funds were awarded
to jurisdictions that commit to funding parks in park deficient communities and disadvantaged
communities (as defined by the program statute).
Pa
r
t
2
:
N
e
x
u
s
9
Equipped with an understanding of the nexus between parks and housing, and aware
of the real and/or perceived phenomenon of “green gentrification”, we are focusing on af-
fordable housing production and preservation as one anti-displacement policy mechanism
that could be tied to park development through a joint development framework.
This should be understood in the context of developing a portfolio of municipal policies
and programs to address urban displacement20. UC Berkeley and UCLA’s collaborative Urban
Displacement Project research team has developed an inventory of 14 policies that cover
affordable housing production and preservation, tenant protections, asset building, and
local economic development. The research team has also found a direct correlation between
producing new affordable housing and easing displacement pressure, at twice the impact of
new market rate housing units21.
Joint Development Overview
We are borrowing the concept of joint-development from the field of transit-oriented development
(TOD). In the TOD context, Reconnecting America defines joint-development as “when a transit
agency partners with another agency or private developer to develop property that is owned by
the transit agency and located near a transit station22.” The Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
further states that such joint development projects, which could include commercial, residential
or mixed-use development, provides mutual benefit and shared cost to all parties involved. The
FTA considers this a form of value capture, as such projects capture some of the economic value
created by an agency’s transit system and uses the funds to help finance expenses23.
We propose that public park and conservation agencies can
play a similar role to transit agencies to develop integrated
projects with park and non-park elements, specifically
affordable housing, but also including commercial and
mixed-use elements. The mutual benefit to the partnering
agencies could include cost-sharing, cultivating long-term
park stewards among on-site residents, and capturing some
of the economic value of new parks.
More broadly, moving beyond joint development as narrowly defined on agency-owned land,
such parks and housing integrated projects can expand the definition of multi-benefit projects.
California’s Climate Investment (CCI) program is one effort pioneering such an approach. The
Pa
r
t
3
:
A
n
t
i
-
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
J
o
i
n
t
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
&
M
u
l
t
i
-
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
10
CCI’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) and Transformative Climate
Communities (TCC) programs provide funding and incentives for projects that integrate multiple
project components such as affordable housing, active transportation and other mobility
infrastructure, as well as urban greening.
Emerging Joint Development Typologies
Pa
r
t
3
:
A
n
t
i
-
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
J
o
i
n
t
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
&
M
u
l
t
i
-
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
11
We propose a framework for the joint-development of open space and affordable housing.
In such developments, housing and park investments are leveraged through a public-private
partnership between park agencies and/or conservation authorities and affordable housing
development partners. To arrive at this framework, we conducted research and reviewed case
studies from the Southern California area and across the United States of multi-benefit projects
incorporating some form of affordable housing production, preservation and/or displacement
protections along with urban greening, parks, or green infrastructure.
We held meetings and also interviewed non-profit park developers and affordable housing
practitioners to understand considerations for development, including size and scale of project,
opportunities for utilizing public land, proximity to other community assets and benefits,
capacity for infrastructure on-site or off-site, site selection and processes, and community
engagement to identify community needs and vision.
Our starting point was to more closely examine the characteristics of the transformative
infrastructure projects for examples of any linkages between housing and anti-displacement
strategies. We then broadened our national search, based on considerations and priorities
described by our partners, to consider additional developments featuring a combination of
aspects of housing construction and park or greening development.
The result of this search uncovered an array of strategies and projects (both completed and
in-development) that, at minimum, simply co-located green space and affordable housing on
adjacent parcels, and at the most aspirational, also demonstrated the potential for projects
that more closely integrate parks and housing.
Lion Creek Crossings Development in Oakland, California, Photo by Alain McLaughin for East Bay Asian Local Development
Corporation
Transformative Infrastructure with Housing sites + Anti-Displacement Strategy
Transformative Infrastructure projects have the potential to
dramatically impact surrounding neighborhoods. Responsible,
equitable planning should include identification of affordable
housing sites that are integrated with the upgraded infrastructure,
mechanisms for value capture and financing these developments,
tenant protections, and affordable housing preservation strategies.
Examples - High Line (New York), The 606 (Chicago), the Revitalization of LA
River (Los Angeles), and the Rail to River Slauson Greenway (Los Angeles).
Neighborhood Transformation Scattered Site Approach
Some communities have adopted neighborhood-scale visions
for revitalization that includes housing, civic spaces, and green
infrastructure. Others are so dense they lack the physical space to
accommodate multiple benefits on one site. Scattered Site Approach
identifies multiple parcels throughout a district, and implements
shared infrastructure, thematic or programmatic consistency, and
coordinated funding strategies.
Examples – Sustainable Little Tokyo (Los Angeles), Watts ReImagined (Los
Angeles), Fitzgerald Revitalization Project (Detroit).
Pa
r
t
3
:
A
n
t
i
-
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
J
o
i
n
t
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
&
M
u
l
t
i
-
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
12
Based on this outreach and research, we then conceptualized 5 distinct typologies of integrated
housing and open space. On October 25-26, 2017 the LA ROSAH collaborative hosted the
Building Equitable Communities: A Housing and Parks Summit, a two-day convening with over
130 participants. Over the two days, we engaged a multi-sector audience in exploring the vision
for integrated, equitable parks and housing development, discussing the system of capital
and policy tools to mitigate green gentrification, and presented the typology framework for
joint-development of parks/open space and affordable housing to gather an assessment of our
typology framework and feedback from the audience. We also shared a noteworthy case study
on the 11th Street Bridge project from Washington, D.C., and closed with interactive discussions
to inform the work and a panel on future innovations.
From this research we have conceptualized 5 distinct typologies of integrated housing and open
space scenarios. In addition to transformative infrastructure projects, we found a cluster of
neighborhood or district scale approaches that involved planning for multiple non-contiguous
sites while maintaining a consistent vision and thematic goals. The primary differentiator
among the remaining 3 project types was the size and scale of development.
Pa
r
t
3
:
A
n
t
i
-
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
J
o
i
n
t
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
&
M
u
l
t
i
-
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
13
Large Master Planned Infill Development
Development sites 7 acres or more that are under single ownership
are able to accommodate both homes and publicly accessible
open space and/or green infrastructure. Projects at this scale in
urbanized areas are likely feasible only if public land is available,
and more specifically, most prevalent in our landscape scan as
public housing redevelopment scenarios. Development could
include other community amenities and may include adaptive reuse
of existing buildings.
Examples – Jordan Downs Revitalization (Los Angeles), Lions Creek Crossing
(Oakland), Mariposa Public Housing (Denver).
Infill Development with Housing and Open Space on-site
Urban infill sites under 7 acres can accommodate housing, green
infrastructure and/or open space on a single site. Many urban infill
sites available for development are less than 1 acre. While these
developments often include landscaped areas for the residents,
they do not typically have sufficient land area to include publicly
accessible open space.
Infill development, with Housing and Open Space on different sites within Neighborhood
A joint development approach could combine a housing
development with open space or green infrastructure on adjacent
public right-of-ways or smaller infill sites such as such as alleys,
streets or utility corridors, city storage or maintenance yards, or
hard to develop properties.
Ty
p
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
C
h
a
r
t
14
*Green infrastructure* is a broadly defined term that refers to the use of natural features, restored or engineered, to provide multiple benefits to communities including reducing flooding, minimizing urban heat island impacts, and improving water and air quality. The phrase is generally contrasted with “gray infrastructure,” which relies on a constructed system of pipes and mechanical devices to capture and convey stormwater runoff. It can generally include but is not limited to urban heat Island reduction measures (such as green roofs, planting shade trees, converting asphalt to permeable or natural materials), storm water management and drought mitigation (such as rain gardens, planters, bioswales, green roofs, etc.) and non-motorized trails that provide safe routes for recreation and travel (green streets and alleys, greenways on streets or utility corridors, active transportation corridors).
Characteristics Infill development with Intergrated Projects On-Site
Parcel Size(s)
Description
Examples
Drivers
Surrounding
Uses
SurroundingInfrastructure
RedevlopmentImpact onexisitingneighborhoodform orcharacter
Infill development with Intergrated Projects on different sites within Neighborhood
Neighborhood TransformationScattered Site Approach Large Master-Planned Infill Redevelopment
Transformative Infrastructurewith Housing + Anti-Displacement Strategies
1 acre maximum(Minimum ½ acre for housing site)
¾ acre minimum for green space
½ acre minimum for housing site7 acres maximum
At least one ½ acre site for
housing development Above 7 acres Varies
Affordable housing (re)development with on-site publicly
accessible open space and/or green infrastructure*.
– Typical infill sites – Set aside for publicly accessible open space
Infill sites that cannot accommodate publicly accessible
open space and affordable housing on one parcel. Joint development could still
incorporate affordable housing development and/or preservation with publicly accessible open
space or green infrastructure* on adjacent public right-of-ways or other infill sites within neighborhood of housing site (1 mile from housing site).
A coordinated plan for the redevelopment of multiple
sites within a neighborhood for affordable housing development and/or preservation and publicly
accessible open space and/or green infrastructure*. Typically a phased redevelopment
strategy led by a community-based corporation.
Redevelopment of a large site with publicly accessible
park, green infrastructure*, and affordable housing co-located on-site. Can include public land,
public housing Redevelopments, or other vacant and/or underutilized private property.
Development can include several community amenities and adaptive reuse of existing structures.
Typically infill development, but may be previously undeveloped land if part of a transformative infrastructure project.
Infrastructure investment with publicly accessible open space
and affordable housing strategy, which could include preservation and rehabilitation of existing
structures, anti-displacement strategies, and new housing construction. Typically the green
infrastructure* and affordable housing are not co-located, but there may include mixed-use elements.
Slauson and Wall, Abode Communities and Trust South LA, Los Angeles
Las Alturas, WORKS proposal for Lincoln Heights Jail, Lincoln
Heights
St. Louis Park, St. Louis Park MN
•
•
•
7th + Witmer, Deep Green Housing, Los Angeles
Whittier + Downey, Meta Housing, Los Angeles County Unincorporated
Alameda Nave Base Site A, Eden Housing, Alameda
•
•
•
Sustainable Little Tokyo, Los Angeles
Watts Re-Imagined, Los
Angeles
Detroit Fitzgerald Project,
Detroit, MI
Wacouta commons Park +
Renaissance Box, St. Paul, MN
•
•
•
•
Lion Creek Crossing, Oakland, CA
Jordan Downs, Los Angeles, CA
Paradise Creek, National City, CA
Mariposa Public Housing, Denver, CO
•
•
•
•
11th Street Bridge, Washington DC
Rail to River, Los Angeles
LA River Master Plan, Los Angeles
•
•
•
Community vision + need Opportunistic based on available sites
•
•
Community vision + need Opportunistic based on available sites
•
•
Community leadership, community plan, Community-based vision for neighborhood/district
Opportunistic based on available sites
•
•
Development Vision
Public Policy Goals
Community vision/needs
•
•
•
Large scale public infrastructure investment
Community vision/needs
•
•
Active, can be single or mixed use•Active, can be single or mixed use•Active, can be single or mixed use•Active, previous use may be obsolete or underutilized•Variable
Active
Previous use may be obsolete or underdeveloped
•
•
•
Exists but may need upgrades or redevelopment to accommodate additional density or changes in use
Exists but may need upgrades or redevelopment to accommodate additional density or changes in use
Exists but may need upgrades or redevelopment to accommodate additional density or changes in use
Likely exists but may need upgrades or redevelopment to accommodate additional density or changes in use
Likely exists but may be in need of upgrades or redevelopment to accommodate new development and/or preserve existing housing stock. In limited cases may be nonexistent or obsolete.
May be catalytic but would not constitute fundamental change of form
May be catalytic but would not constitute fundamental change of form
Transformation is primary goal. Multiple sites contribute to a catalytic impact and are part of a broader plan for land use in a given neighborhood to reach community-driven goals
Transformation is primary goal. Site has dominant impact relative to surrounding parcels.
Transformation with anti-displacement strategy is primary goal. Site has dominant impact relative to surrounding parcels.
Currently there is an absence of systematic finance and policy tools that are support-
ive of a housing and open space approach to joint-development. Instead, existing funding
programs largely focus on either housing or parks solely, without consideration or incentive
to integration. Ultimately, successful application of these types of joint-developments will
require the development of innovative policy, governance, and finance solutions.
Pa
r
t
4
:
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
15
Paradise Creek Development in National City, California, Photo by Community HousingWorks and Related California
We hypothesize that it would be unlikely for any of the five joint-development scenarios to be
realized beyond ad-hoc or one-off projects without systematic policy and financial tools that
establish predictability of funding sources and mitigate real estate risk. While the benefits of
cost-sharing, value capture, and long-term community stewardship are clear, project develop-
ers may still find it to be more efficient and less risky to simply pursue projects independently
rather than in partnership.
In California, the state’s Climate Community Investments (CCI), or Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Fund (GGRF) programs are breaking new ground for incentivizing and mandating integration
of multiple project components including affordable housing, greening, and transportation.
These programs are setting precedents that funding agencies could replicate in the future to
create a more robust ecosystem of public financing for integrated projects.
In response, we propose a set of preliminary recommendations for Conservation Authorities
and/or Park Agencies that could be pursued in more detail in future studies and analysis.
Conservation authorities can play a unique role in their ability to acquire and create public open
space that spans across multiple jurisdictions connecting state, local and municipal government.
RECOMMENDATION 1: Create a joint-development framework on agency-acquired land
Agencies could replicate the transit agency joint-development model, and enable long-term
ground leases with housing developers for affordable housing on portions of appropriately
identified sites that could be acquired in the future. Authorities would consider only
future land acquisitions, conforming to the Public Park Preservation Act of 1971 to
protect existing park space.
RECOMMENDATION 2: Create an acquisition funding source for Developer—initiated acquisition
Identify Conservation Authority/Park Agency funding sources that affordable housing
developers would be eligible to use for acquisition financing of parcels suitable for joint
development. The conservation authority or other park development organization
would partner with the developer to construct park and green infrastructure.
RECOMMENDATION 3: Create eligibility and incentives for joint-development in existing and future funding sources
Park and open space funding sources, including local, regional and state agencies,
could consider making joint-development of housing and open space explicitly eligible
in existing and future funding sources, either through direct funds or by incentivizing
integrated project applications.Pa
r
t
4
:
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
16
Co
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
17
This paper introduces an exciting opportunity to develop tools for an emerging concept
of joint development linking affordable housing and urban greening. The lessons from joint-
development of TOD, a now widely accepted partnership of transit and affordable housing,
offer a tantalizing promise of the power of this concept to help shape the future of urban
regions. In Los Angeles, where voters have approved new permanent park funds through the
2016 Measure A alongside newer statewide funds for parks and green infrastructure such as
the 2018 Proposition 68, there is an opportunity to take such tools to scale across the region.
Nationwide, this approach offers a replicable model for other conservation authorities and
park agencies to explore in other urban communities seeking multi-benefit infrastructure
and affordable housing solutions. These ideas are already inspiring our Los Angeles area
partners to take action, and we hope this will be taken up broadly beyond our region. We
view this as an introductory exploration for what has the potential to become a rich area of
research and practice of community investment.
1. Grier GW & Grier ES. (1978) Urban displacement: A reconnaissance. Memo report prepared for the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
2. United States Environmental Protection Agency https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-growth-and-equitable-development
3. More information on the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program and Transformative Climate Communities
is available online at the Strategic Growth Council website. http://www.sgc.ca.gov/
4. Measure M, approved by Los Angeles County voters in 2016, is a permanent 1% sales tax for transportation. Measure A, approved
by Los Angeles County voters in 2016, is a permanent 1.5 cent per SF property tax for parks.
5. See the Los Angeles River Revitalization Masterplan http://boe.lacity.org/lariverrmp/), and Lower Los Angeles River Revitalization
Master Plan (http://lowerlariver.org/the-plan/
6. source: 2018-2019 Economic Forecast & Industry Outlook, Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, retrieved
online at: https://laedc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/LAEDC-2018-19-Economic-Forecast.pdf
7. “California Migration: A Comparative Analysis”, Next10, retrieved online at: http://next10.org/sites/default/files/California-
Migration-Final2.pdf
8. The City of LA TOC Incentive can be found online at https://planning.lacity.org/ordinances/docs/toc/TOCGuidelines.pdf
9. For more on Metro’s Transit Oriented Communities program, visit: https://www.metro.net/projects/transit-oriented-communities/
10. A 10-year study of over 3,000 children in southern California strongly correlated lower obesity rates for 18-year-olds who grew
up in close proximity to parks or recreational facilities, than those who did not. Wolch J, et al. Childhood obesity and proximity
to urban parks and recreational resources: A longitudinal cohort study. Health and Place 2010;16(3):137-57.
11. From Recreation to Re-Creation: New Directions in Parks and Open Space Planning. Planning Advisory Service Report Number
551. January 2008. American Planning Association
12. “How Cities Use Parks for Economic Development”. 2002. City Parks Forum Briefing Papers Vol. 3. American Planning Association.
13. “The Economic Benefits of the Public Park and Recreation System in the City of Los Angeles, California”. May 2017. The Trust
for Public Land
14. “Gentrification, Displacement and the Role of Public Investment:A Literature Review”. August 2015. Federal Reserve Bank of
San Francisco
15. Aboelata, M.J., Bennett, R., Yañez, E, Bonilla, A., & Akhavan, N. (2017). Healthy Development Without Displacement: Realizing
the Vision of Healthy Communities for All. Oakland, CA: Prevention Institute.
16. See Jennifer Wolch, Jason Byrne, Joshua P Newell ( 2014) Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The
challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape and Urban Planning
17. See Dan Immergluck & Tharunya Balan (2017): Sustainable for whom? Greenurban development, environmental gentrification,
and the Atlanta Beltline. Urban Geography; Rigolon, Alessandro & Nemeth, Jeremy. (2018). “We’re not in the business of housing:”
Environmental gentrification and the nonprofitization of green infrastructure projects. Cities.
18. Climate Change in the Los Angeles Region Research Project at https://www.ioes.ucla.edu/project/climate-change-in-the-los-
angeles-region
19. Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. Parks and Public Health in Los Angeles County: A Cities and Communities
Report; May 2016. Accessed online at: http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/chronic/docs/Parks%20Report%202016-rev_051816.pdf
20. Sun F, D Walton, and A Hall, 2015: A hybrid dynamical-statistical downscaling technique, part II: End-of-century warming
projections predict a new climate state in the Los Angeles region. Journal of Climate, 28(12): 4618-4636. DOI: 10.1175/
JCLI-D-14-00197.1
21. “Housing Production, Filtering and Displacement: Untangling the Relationships”. May 2016. Institute of Governmental Studies,
University of California, Berkeley. Accessed at http://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/images/udp_research_
brief_052316.pdf
22. http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/resource-center/joint-development/
23. https://www.transit.dot.gov/JointDevelopment
Ci
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
18
learn more
(213 ) 787-8230
600 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90017
www.EnterpriseCommunity.org/southerncalifornia
@Enterprise_SCal
(213) 627-2042
600 Wilshire Blvd Suite 890
Los Angeles, CA 90017
www.lathrives.org | www.liifund.org
@LAThrives | @Liifund
(213) 628-8667
970 N. Broadway Ave, Suite 209
Los Angeles, CA 90012
www.seaca-la.org
Instagram: seaca.la
Twitter: seacala
FB: seacala