Compound Vulnerability Index
A six-component comparative index for understanding where documented conditions accumulate around the project’s station areas.
Summary
The Compound Vulnerability Index (CVI) combines six normalized component measures into a station-area score. This page compares the project’s exposure indicators and asks how added capacity, affordability and resident protections interact. The indicators are not observations of development or displacement outcomes.
CVI is a Relational Land analytical layer. It is not an official SCAG classification, a City implementation designation, or a parcel determination.
Los Angeles’s Low-Rise and phased-implementation ordinances are city-specific implementation records. This site does not infer that they prove a citywide production pathway, market-feasibility outcome, or statewide SB 79 status. Limitation. Los Angeles adopted a phased-implementation ordinance, not a TOD Alternative Plan. This local action does not determine parcel eligibility or statewide rule status.Los Angeles City Clerk: Ordinance 188968Document date: 2026-06-30. Last verified: 2026-10-06.Los Angeles City Planning: Senate Bill 79 implementation pageDocument date: not stated. Last verified: 2026-10-06.
- Project layer renter-rate indicator The project has not yet published the station list, ACS tables, aggregation rule, retrieval date, or margin-of-error treatment for a headline statistic.
- Project layer environmental-burden indicator This derived presentation is not an official CalEnviroScreen finding and awaits reproducible station-level documentation.
- Not published demographic aggregate No public aggregate is retained until the input tables, geography, and reproducible calculation are released.
- Not published redistribution-score threshold count The score and threshold are project-derived and do not have a published, versioned calculation release.
Portrait
Comparing Communities Around Transit
The project’s indicators map renter rate, environmental burden, opportunity classification, and other inputs. They do not identify legally required receiving zones or establish a causal pattern.
Research can frame displacement risks associated with transit investment in comparable contexts; this site does not claim line-specific causal effects without a linked study and causal design. Limitation. This source guides interpretation only. It does not establish household insurance, transaction, displacement, or policy outcomes in Los Angeles.Harvard University Press / JSTOR: Kathryn Olivarius, Necropolis: Disease, Power, and Capitalism in the Cotton KingdomDocument date: 2022. Last verified: 2026-10-06.
Historic-resource geography can be mapped, but the project does not infer political organization or a causal explanation from those patterns alone.
Consequence
The site does not identify legally required receiving areas or measure the distribution of actual added capacity. It presents project-defined screening indicators for further evidence review.
Historic-resource geography, renter share, and environmental indicators are distinct observations. This release does not claim that they prove a causal mechanism, a beneficiary distribution, or an implementation outcome.
City feasibility materials can describe their tested assumptions and scenarios; they do not establish all-market outcomes for a geographic category. This site does not use them as a universal viability finding.
- FAR 2.5–4.5 entitlement range (80–160 du/ac by tier and distance) State minimum standards vary by tier, distance, city population, project eligibility, and other rules. This site does not retain unsourced neighborhood-density comparisons.
- Reviewprotection and funding pathwaysIdentify the applicable housing-replacement, relocation, return and recovery programs for the project and jurisdiction; a model score does not establish those rights or resources.
- LA exampleoccupant protectionsCity Planning describes HCA/RPO rights to remain, return and relocation for qualifying occupants. Limitation. The City page is not a statewide rule, a countywide policy, a legal ruling, or proof that a particular household qualifies. No blanket absence or universal promise of return rights is inferred.Los Angeles City Planning: Housing Crisis Act and Resident Protections — Resident Protections and Applicability sectionsDocument date: not stated. Last verified: 2026-10-06.
Capacity with uneven protection
Capacity Standards in High-Exposure Communities
SB 79 minimum standards vary by tier and distance; applicable standards are not a prediction of units built, parcel vacancy, entitlement, or affordability feasibility.
Development, land values, and resident outcomes require evidence beyond the project’s screening layers. This page does not assert those outcomes from zoning capacity alone.
Project-level review should identify the applicable replacement, relocation and return requirements. Los Angeles City Planning’s HCA/RPO guidance is a local implementation record, not a countywide rule or an individual eligibility determination. Limitation. The City page is not a statewide rule, a countywide policy, a legal ruling, or proof that a particular household qualifies. No blanket absence or universal promise of return rights is inferred.Los Angeles City Planning: Housing Crisis Act and Resident Protections — Resident Protections and Applicability sectionsDocument date: not stated. Last verified: 2026-10-06.
Open question
Does more market-rate density near transit help or harm low-income renters in the long run?
The empirical evidence is contested. High-supply advocates argue that filtering eventually reduces rents citywide. Critics point to near-term displacement before long-run equilibrium. SB 79 does not resolve this debate. This site models which communities face the greatest exposure to that unresolved question.
- Pathway affordability provision for projects over 10 units The statute supplies an affordability pathway for qualifying projects. Read the scoped statutory statement. Limitation. Uses Legislature-authored text reproduced by LegiScan, reviewed October 6, 2026. The original state/HCD acquisition-agent file was not recovered. Total units uses the statutory cross-reference to section 65915(o)(9)(A). Paragraph (i)(2) substitutes a higher-percentage or deeper local inclusionary requirement. Paragraph (i)(1)(C) requires affordable cost/rent and 55-year rental or 45-year ownership affordability. This summary does not determine parcel eligibility or certify every later amendment.California Legislature / Legislative Counsel; reproduced by LegiScan: SB 79, Chapter 512, Statutes of 2025 — Legislature-authored text reproduced by LegiScanDocument date: 2025-10-10. Last verified: 2026-10-06.California Legislature / Legislative Counsel; reproduced by LegiScan: SB 722, Chapter 100, Statutes of 2026 — Legislature-authored text reproduced by LegiScanDocument date: 2026-07-16. Last verified: 2026-10-06.
- Not published cost-burden aggregate Suppressed until an ACS table-level, geography-level, and margin-of-error methodology is published.
- Not published income aggregate Suppressed until its source tables, aggregation, and data vintage are documented.
- LIHTC Low-Income Housing Tax Credit SB 79 does not itself award LIHTC. Any statement about application demand requires current Tax Credit Allocation Committee round data.
The incomplete instrument
Density Permission Is Not Affordability
The presence of protections does not resolve the burden question. The statute supplies an affordability pathway for qualifying projects, subject to its conditions and applicable local requirements. Read the scoped statutory statement. Limitation. Uses Legislature-authored text reproduced by LegiScan, reviewed October 6, 2026. The original state/HCD acquisition-agent file was not recovered. Total units uses the statutory cross-reference to section 65915(o)(9)(A). Paragraph (i)(2) substitutes a higher-percentage or deeper local inclusionary requirement. Paragraph (i)(1)(C) requires affordable cost/rent and 55-year rental or 45-year ownership affordability. This summary does not determine parcel eligibility or certify every later amendment.California Legislature / Legislative Counsel; reproduced by LegiScan: SB 79, Chapter 512, Statutes of 2025 — Legislature-authored text reproduced by LegiScanDocument date: 2025-10-10. Last verified: 2026-10-06.California Legislature / Legislative Counsel; reproduced by LegiScan: SB 722, Chapter 100, Statutes of 2026 — Legislature-authored text reproduced by LegiScanDocument date: 2026-07-16. Last verified: 2026-10-06.
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, local inclusionary programs, Community Development Block Grant funds, and project-based Section 8 operate under separate rules. SB 79 does not itself award those resources.
Whether additional protections are sufficient for a particular community is an evaluative question, not an outcome established by this screening model.
| Protection layer | What it covers | What remains unresolved |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline affordability | State statutory affordability pathway for qualifying projects; see How SB 79 Works for the scoped statement and conditions | Does not determine site-specific affordability feasibility or displace other applicable local and state requirements |
| Demolition limits | Protects certain rent- or price-controlled housing from demolition | Does not cover all indirect displacement pathways; does not prevent redevelopment of parking or commercial portions |
| Local RPO / ordinances | City-level tenant protections (rent stabilization, relocation assistance) | Depends on local enforcement and project-specific facts; not created by SB 79 |
| SB 35 / SB 423 standards | Conditions streamlined approval on affordability, labor, and environmental standards | Governs approval pathway only; does not govern every project or land-market effect |
| Alternative Plans | Let cities tailor implementation for historic-resource areas | May shift capacity toward less-protected areas; not a displacement mitigation instrument |
| Phased Implementation Ordinance [LA only] | Los Angeles City-specific phased implementation; consult the ordinance and City materials for scope, timing, and site treatment. | This site has not completed a current parcel-level implementation model and makes no citywide percentage or universal alternative-pathway claim. |
Policy implication
Research question: how might added development capacity distribute opportunities and costs among tenants, future residents, landowners and developers? Answering it requires evidence about actual projects, rents, tenure and household outcomes.
Analytical hypothesis: differences in land values, financing and existing protections may affect who can use new development capacity. The released screening layers do not establish the distribution of benefits.
The policy question is whether the applicable affordability and tenant protections address the needs of people already living near transit, and how their implementation can be evaluated. Analytical scope and data vintages
- CVI Compound Vulnerability Index Six-component project index. The public record does not present a summary mean because earlier published means conflicted.
- 6 components The station table is the published project record for the combined score; it should be read with its source and method notes.
Layers of pressure
Why Compound Vulnerability Matters
The Compound Vulnerability Index (CVI) combines six normalized component measures into one comparative station-area score. The combined score helps readers inspect patterns across the project’s station areas; it does not turn different conditions into a single finding about a neighborhood or household.
No single measure captures the full picture. A station area with moderate renter rates might have severe environmental burden. A community with low poverty might still carry high housing cost burden relative to income. CVI identifies communities where multiple vulnerabilities stack simultaneously, creating compounding risk from any single additional pressure.
The index combines several inputs. Whether housing and environmental pressures interact, rather than merely coexist, requires longitudinal or project-level evidence beyond this composite.
What remains unresolved
CVI identifies communities at elevated exposure. It does not predict developer behavior, rate of change, or resident outcomes. Exposure is elevated based on spatial pattern; outcomes are not yet documented at the parcel level.
The dataset does not encode TOD Alternative Plan review status. Official review status, local implementation records, and parcel eligibility must be checked with the issuing agency; none is established by a CVI score.
Potential policy responses for evaluation include tenant outreach, targeted acquisition or recovery funding, and implementation of applicable return and affordability protections. These are proposals for study; the legacy index is not a validated allocation rule.
See the maps and data sections for the full station-level dataset.