Download PDF
Broker Opinion of Value — Confidential

2126–2136 Branden Street

An R3 Development Site with Conceptual Plans for 39 Units · Echo Park, Los Angeles, CA 90026
Conceptual Units
39
Lot Area
14,928 SF
Concept
4 + 2 Subt.
Existing
6u RSO
Zoning
R3-1VL
Matt Ziegler
Matt Ziegler
Senior Managing Director · The Ziegler Group
Direct(818) 212-2738
LicenseCA 01280909
Glen Scher
Glen Scher
Senior Managing Director Investments
Mobile(818) 212-2808
LicenseCA 01962976
Filip Niculete
Filip Niculete
Senior Managing Director Investments
Mobile(818) 212-2748
LicenseCA 01905352
Prepared for 2126 Brandenstreet LLC · August 2026
Section 01 — Executive Overview

An Echo Park Double Lot With a Conceptual Plan for 39 Units

2126–2136 W Branden Street is two contiguous R3 parcels — 14,928 SF of Echo Park land offered as a raw development site with conceptual plans for 39 residential units. The concept, drawn by Molai Land & Design, uses the California State Density Bonus to reach 39 units — 4 stories of wood-frame residential over 2 levels of subterranean parking. No entitlements or permits convey; the buyer pursues its own approvals, with the design thinking and the density-bonus roadmap already on paper.
39
Conceptual Units
3.56:1
Conceptual FAR
±33,045
Net Residential SF (Concept)
14,928
Lot SF (Two Parcels)
R3-1VL
Zoning

The opportunity. Echo Park is one of Los Angeles' most rent-resilient submarkets — supply-constrained, transit-rich, and consistently leased at a premium to the broader Eastside. 2126–2136 Branden offers a rare double-lot canvas in that submarket: R3-1VL zoning with a clearly marked State Density Bonus path to 39 units. An existing 6-unit RSO building generates interim holding income while a buyer runs its entitlement.

The concept. The conceptual scheme by Molai Land & Design finishes at a true institutional rental size and quality — 39 units averaging ±847 SF across a one-, two-, and three-bedroom mix, over two levels of subterranean parking. Proven newer-construction Echo Park rents within blocks of the site support the rental underwriting behind the concept.

What this document does. It establishes what a completed 39-unit rental building on this site would earn and be worth — from sourced newer-construction rent comparables — itemizes the cost to build it, and prices the land as it sits today on market land metrics and comparable land sales. Every comparable is sourced; every assumption is labeled.

Section 02 — The Conceptual Plan

A Conceptual Scheme for 39 Units

The conceptual scheme is a contemporary, amenitized infill apartment building — white plaster and warm wood cladding, private balconies, a landscaped frontage, and a rooftop deck — the same design language commanding premium rents in newer Echo Park product. It is a concept, not an approval: no entitlements or permits convey with the sale.
2126-2136 Branden Street rendering, dusk street view
2126-2136 Branden Street rendering, front elevation 2126-2136 Branden Street rendering, oblique view
CONCEPTUAL architectural renderings — 2126–2136 W Branden Street, conceptual plan set (Molai Land & Design). Illustrative only; no entitlements or permits convey.

Project Data

Address
2126–2136 W Branden StLos Angeles, CA 90026
Submarket
Echo ParkSilver Lake–Echo Park–Elysian Valley Plan
APNs
5423-005-007 & -008Lots 353 & 354, Edendale Tract
Lot Area
14,927.7 SF±0.343 acre · two contiguous parcels (ZIMAS)
Zoning
R3-1VLEast L.A. Area Planning Commission
Conceptual Units
39 Residentialvia State Density Bonus (to be pursued by buyer)
Entitlement Path
State Density BonusLAMC 12.22.A.37 — density, FAR & height incentives available
Plan Status
Conceptualno entitlements or permits in place or conveyed
Building Form
4 Stories Type V-Aover 2 levels Type I-A subterranean garage (concept)
Height / FAR
67 ft · 3.56:1proposed under density-bonus incentives
Net Residential Area
±33,045 SF±41,098 SF gross building (LABC)
Unit Mix
1, 2 & 3-Bedroom±610–1,195 SF · avg ±847 SF/unit
Parking
51 Stalls2 subterranean levels · AB 2097: none required
EV / Bicycle
13 EV-ready · 5 EVCS35 long-term + 3 short-term bike stalls
Open Space
3,307 SFincl. ±1,357 SF roof deck + private balconies
Affordability
Very-Low-Income Set-Asideincome-restricted units would secure the bonus
Existing Use
6-Unit RSO Buildinginterim income; replaced at construction

Conceptual Unit Schedule — 39 Residential Units

Every unit, by floor, with its plan type and net area — transcribed from the conceptual plan set's per-floor “Area Per Unit” schedules. Four residential floors (2–5) sit above the ground-floor lobby and two subterranean parking levels.

27
One-Bedroom
8
Two-Bedroom
4
Three-Bedroom
±33,045
Net Residential SF
847
Avg SF / Unit
UnitPlan TypeNet SF
2012 Bed / 2 Bath1,195
2021 Bed / 1 Bath782
2032 Bed / 2 Bath1,195
2041 Bed / 1 Bath782
2051 Bed / 1 Bath681
2061 Bed / 1 Bath782
2071 Bed / 1 Bath681
2081 Bed / 1 Bath806
2093 Bed / 2 Bath986
Second Floor · 9 units7,890
UnitPlan TypeNet SF
3011 Bed / 1 Bath610
3022 Bed / 2 Bath1,161
3031 Bed / 1 Bath782
3042 Bed / 2 Bath1,114
3051 Bed / 1 Bath782
3061 Bed / 1 Bath681
3071 Bed / 1 Bath782
3081 Bed / 1 Bath681
3091 Bed / 1 Bath806
3103 Bed / 2 Bath986
Third Floor · 10 units8,385
UnitPlan TypeNet SF
4011 Bed / 1 Bath610
4022 Bed / 2 Bath1,161
4031 Bed / 1 Bath782
4042 Bed / 2 Bath1,114
4051 Bed / 1 Bath782
4061 Bed / 1 Bath681
4071 Bed / 1 Bath782
4081 Bed / 1 Bath681
4091 Bed / 1 Bath806
4103 Bed / 2 Bath986
Fourth Floor · 10 units8,385
UnitPlan TypeNet SF
5011 Bed / 1 Bath610
5022 Bed / 2 Bath1,161
5031 Bed / 1 Bath782
5042 Bed / 2 Bath1,114
5051 Bed / 1 Bath782
5061 Bed / 1 Bath681
5071 Bed / 1 Bath782
5081 Bed / 1 Bath681
5091 Bed / 1 Bath806
5103 Bed / 2 Bath986
Fifth Floor · 10 units8,385

Unit numbers, plan types and net areas per the “Area Per Unit” schedules on the conceptual plan set (sheet T-0). Plan types: 1-Bedroom ±610–806 SF (27 units), 2-Bedroom ±1,114–1,195 SF (8 units), 3-Bedroom 986 SF (4 units). Net residential area totals ±33,045 SF; the affordable / income-restricted units contemplated by the State Density Bonus would be drawn from this unit pool.

What conveys — and what doesn't. The property is offered as raw land. The conceptual plan set — massing, unit schedules, parking layout, and the density-bonus framework that reaches 39 units — conveys as design work product, but no entitlement approvals and no permits convey with the sale. The buyer pursues its own approvals. The mitigant is the path itself: the State Density Bonus is a state-law program with objective, non-discretionary incentives, and the concept is drawn to that framework — a buyer starts from a marked trail, not a blank page.

Source: conceptual plan set for 2126–2136 W Branden St (cover sheet, project data, area & density-bonus calculations, unit schedules) by Molai Land & Design. Areas per ZIMAS and the plan set's area summary. Offering status per Ownership; buyer to confirm all zoning, development standards, density-bonus requirements, and fees in due diligence.

Section 03 — Location

Echo Park — Eastside Demand, Constrained Supply

The site sits in the Glendale Boulevard corridor of Echo Park, minutes from Echo Park Lake, Sunset Boulevard's retail and dining, Dodger Stadium, and the Glendale Blvd / 2 Freeway and 101 connections into Downtown Los Angeles.
Interactive map — 2126–2136 W Branden St, between Glendale Blvd and N Alvarado St, Echo Park 90026.

A renter magnet. Echo Park has spent a decade as one of Los Angeles' most sought-after creative-class neighborhoods. Walkable to Echo Park Lake, the Sunset Blvd corridor, and Historic Filipinotown, it draws a deep, durable pool of tenants — and consistently leases at a premium to the broader Eastside.

Supply is structurally tight. Small lots, hillside topography, and rent-stabilized older stock keep new deliveries scarce. Recent newer-construction projects — Zag, Inspire, OnSunset, Echo 55, 1915 Park and Encore among them — have leased up at strong rents within blocks of the subject, evidence of demand depth rather than oversupply.

Pricing strength. As of mid-2026 Echo Park's median home price sits near $1.30–$1.35 million, and newer-construction rentals within blocks of the subject are achieving roughly $3.65–$6.35 per SF — the rent band that underpins the rental analysis in Section 04.

Sources: Redfin — Echo Park housing market; RentCafe & Zumper Echo Park / Greater Echo Park Elysian rent research. Figures current as of May 2026 and approximate.

Section 04 — The Rental Analysis

What a Completed 39-Unit Building Would Earn

Newer-construction apartment buildings within a few blocks of the subject — all delivered 2021–2025 — establish the rents a completed 39-unit building at 2126–2136 Branden would command. These are the direct rent comparables: same submarket, same vintage of finish, same mid-rise format. This is the finished-product story that makes the land worth chasing.

Rent Comparables by Unit Type — Newer-Construction Echo Park

Property Built Avg SF Asking Rent / mo Rent / SF
Studio
Encore Echo Park · 226 N Lake St2021473$1,795–$1,950$3.96
Inspire Echo Park · 355 Glendale Blvd2024319–469$2,271–$2,860$6.35
Zag Apartments · 1750 Glendale Blvd2022550–604$2,195–$2,495$4.06
1915 Park · 1915 Park Ave2025388–514$2,399–$2,714$5.65
OnSunset · 2225 W Sunset Blvd2025370–518$2,450–$2,760$5.85
One-Bedroom
Encore Echo Park · 226 N Lake St2021668$2,500–$2,600$3.82
Inspire Echo Park · 355 Glendale Blvd2024523–580$2,900–$3,500$5.80
Zag Apartments · 1750 Glendale Blvd2022705$2,950$4.18
1915 Park · 1915 Park Ave2025594–778$3,493–$3,659$5.21
Echo 55 · 1655 N Allesandro St2025±850$2,750–$3,200$3.65
OnSunset · 2225 W Sunset Blvd2025514–1,106$3,275–$4,300$5.15
SUBJECT — 2126-2136 Branden · 27 units2029E737$3,200–$3,400$4.48
Two-Bedroom
Encore Echo Park · 226 N Lake St2021816–1,208≈$3,295≈$3.25
Inspire Echo Park · 355 Glendale Blvd20241,081–1,116$5,254–$5,354$4.83
Zag Apartments · 1750 Glendale Blvd2022977–1,034$3,495–$3,895$3.67
1915 Park · 1915 Park Ave2025964–1,192$4,899–$5,235$4.70
Echo 55 · 1655 N Allesandro St2025±1,050$3,350–$3,950$3.48
OnSunset · 2225 W Sunset Blvd20251,005–1,178$4,100–$5,400$4.35
SUBJECT — 2126-2136 Branden · 8 units2029E1,152$4,800$4.17
Three-Bedroom
Inspire Echo Park · 355 Glendale Blvd20241,089$6,032–$6,182$5.61
SUBJECT — 2126-2136 Branden · 4 units2029E986$6,000$6.09

Sources: Apartments.com, Zumper, RentCafe and building operator/listing pages for Encore Echo Park (226 N Lake St, 2021), Inspire Echo Park (355 Glendale Blvd, 2024), Zag Apartments (1750 Glendale Blvd, 2022), 1915 Park (1915 Park Ave, 2025), Echo 55 (1655 N Allesandro St, 2025) and OnSunset (2225 W Sunset Blvd, 2025). Rents are advertised asking rents current as of May 2026, shown for the representative unit of each type, and exclude lease-up concessions; SF is the representative net size and Rent/SF is rent ÷ SF. Several comps are in active lease-up; Encore two-bedroom figures are approximate. Subject figures are underwriting assumptions — see the note below.

Why the subject underwrites in line with the 2024–2025 vintage comps. The subject is positioned to a blended rent of ±$3,933/mo — ±$4.59/SF (1BR $3,300 avg, ranging $3,200–$3,400 by size · 2BR $4,800 · 3BR $6,000). Those figures hug the rents already achieved today by the newest in-place comps — Inspire (2024), 1915 Park (2025) and OnSunset (2025) — on every unit type. (1) Delivery timing — a buyer entitling and building the concept delivers in roughly three to four years (2029E); the comp rents above are today's dollars, and even modest rent growth over that window carries the market past the subject's level. (2) Location — the Glendale Boulevard–corridor parcel is a stronger location than much of the comp set. The 3BR underwrite at $6,000 sits just below Inspire's current $6,032–$6,182 trade.

Stabilized NOI — 39 Units

  • 24 market 1BR × $3,300/mo avg$79,200
  • 8 market 2BR × $4,800/mo$38,400
  • 4 market 3BR × $6,000/mo$24,000
  • 3 very-low-income units × ±$1,200/mo$3,600
  • Annualized residential rent$1,742,400
  • Parking, storage & other income$30,000
  • Gross Potential Income$1,772,400
  • Less vacancy & collection (5%)($88,620)
  • Effective Gross Income$1,683,780
  • Less operating expenses (±33%, incl. taxes)($560,000)
  • Net Operating Income±$1,125,000

Market rents per the by-type analysis above (blended ±$4.59/SF). Three very-low-income units assumed drawn from the 1BR pool.

Stabilized Value Sensitivity

Exit CapStabilized ValuePer Unit
5.00%$22,500,000$576,900
5.25% (base)$21,430,000$549,500
5.50%$20,455,000$524,500

Stabilized value = NOI ÷ cap rate. Newer Class-A apartment product in supply-constrained Eastside submarkets has traded in a roughly 4.75%–5.50% range; 5.25% is the base case.

Reading the rental analysis. A completed 39-unit building underwrites to a stabilized value of roughly $21.4 million at a 5.25% cap on today's rents — and the rent comparables prove the demand is real and the rents bankable, not aspirational. Against the recommended ±$2.5M land basis plus an estimated ±$18.5M cost to build (Section 06), the untrended yield-on-cost is ±5.4%, rising toward ±5.9% as rents trend across the entitlement-and-construction runway — a positive development spread against a 5.00–5.25% stabilized market cap, with the low land basis carrying the risk. This is the finished-product value that disciplines what the land is worth today.
Section 05 — On-Market Distress in This Pocket

What Developers Can Buy Finished, Right Now

A candid valuation names its competition. Within blocks of the subject, roughly 260 units of newly built product are on the market today in lender-facilitated or forced-seller situations — at $300,000–$364,000 per door, deep discounts to an estimated ±$550,000/unit replacement cost — with another ±137 units likely to follow. Every developer who looks at this land is also being shown these deals, and that reality is priced into the recommended guidance.
Project / Asset Location Units Built Situation Guidance $/Unit vs. Replacement
On Market — Echo Park Portfolio (3 assets · 190 units · one seller)
ZAG Apartments ON MARKET 1750 Glendale Blvd 702022 Canadian developer liquidating to recapitalize a Vancouver condo business; self-managed for two years, creating operational drag. Communicated price-taker targeting ±$350K/door on all three assets. Valued at a 5.50% cap on Year 1 financials. $68,400,000
UW $62.7M		 $360,000
UW $330K		 −36.3%
UW −40.0%
PARK Apartments ON MARKET 200 N Toluca St 602024
VISTA Apartments ON MARKET 215 N Toluca St 602024
On Market — Additional Asset
1350 W Court St ON MARKET 1350 W Court St 702026 Bank short sale — $3.5M of preferred equity and all common equity wiped out; sold to partially repay the senior lender. TCO in ±2 months; a full lease-up deal, valued by solving to a 5.75%–6.00% stabilized cap. No OM released yet. $25,500,000
UW $21.0M		 $364,000
UW $300K		 −33.8%
UW −45.5%
Potentially Coming to Market
Inspire Echo Park EXPECTED 355 Glendale Blvd 902025 Not yet listed; per the marketing broker, both assets are expected to come to market this year if the owner elects to sell — adding ±137 more units of newer product to the pocket's supply of discounted deals. TBD TBD —
Inspire Colton EXPECTED 1363 Colton St 472021

Source: marketing broker's offering summary for the Echo Park Portfolio and related assets, and the portfolio Offering Memorandum — view the Echo Park Portfolio OM (PDF). Replacement cost of ±$550,000/unit per that broker's live GC bid data for comparable podium product. Guidance and underwriting figures are the listing broker's, current as of mid-2026 and subject to change; ZAG and Inspire also appear as rent comparables in Section 04.

What this means for land pricing. When finished, newly built product two to four years old trades at $300K–$364K per door — 34%–45% below what it costs to build today — developers discount what they will pay for dirt, because the build-new math must compete with the buy-distressed math. This backdrop is the single largest drag on land pricing in this pocket right now, and it is a core input to the recommended guidance in Section 06: the subject is priced at ±$64,100 per conceptual unit — a basis that leaves a future developer room to pencil despite the discounted finished product trading around the corner. The other side of the same coin: this distress is cyclical, not structural — the same supply constraint that makes Echo Park hard to build in is what makes these buildings lease — and land bought at the bottom of that cycle is bought right.
Section 06 — Valuation Conclusion

Pricing the Land As It Sits

The property is priced as raw land: what a developer or land buyer pays today for a 14,928 SF R3 double lot with a conceptual 39-unit density-bonus scheme, interim RSO income, and no entitlements in place. The analysis prices the dirt on market land metrics and comparable land sales, then stress-tests the concept with the itemized build cost and a yield-on-cost check.

Land Sale Comparables — Echo Park / Silver Lake

Property Lot SF Status at Sale Sale Date Price $/Lot SF
Closed Land Sale
825–837 Hyperion Ave · Silver Lake 22,570 Entitled & RTI at close · sold to an affordable developer (Silver Lake Flats LP) requiring tax credits · 18-month escrow 6/26/2026 $5,277,000 $234
On Market — Active Land Listings
1415 W Court St · Echo Park / DTLA-adjacent · OM (PDF) 12,040 Vacant land on an alley · zoned CW (R4) · just south of the 101, near Echo Park and DTLA Active $1,900,000 $158
1108 Manzanita St · Sunset Junction · OM (PDF) 7,688 54-unit RTI, 100% affordable housing project · ±$41.6K per door · reduced from $2,995,000 Active $2,250,000 $293
801–807 Waterloo St · Echo Park 12,613 131-unit fully entitled 100% affordable project (ED1 ministerial) · Letter of Compliance in hand · 50% DD plan package & BOE-approved welfare exemption included · ±$23,100 per buildable unit · on market 4+ months Active $3,025,000 $240
SUBJECT — 2126–2136 W Branden St · Echo Park 14,928 Raw land · conceptual plans for 39 units · no entitlements convey Ask $2,500,000 $167

825–837 Hyperion Ave: sale price and ownership per assessor records (buyer Silver Lake Flats LP, 214 Main St #490, El Segundo); closed 6/26/2026 at $5,277,000 on a 22,570 SF site — ±$234/lot SF with entitlements and an RTI permit in hand, to a tax-credit buyer on an 18-month close. Active listings per their brokers' offering materials (OMs linked where available); asking prices as of August 2026 and subject to change. 1415 W Court ($158/lot SF, vacant R4-equivalent) brackets the subject's $167/lot SF ask. 1108 Manzanita — a 54-unit RTI project reduced to $41.6K/door — and 801–807 Waterloo — 131 fully entitled ED1 units asking $240/lot SF after 4+ months on market — show how narrowly the market prices 100%-affordable entitled product with a restricted buyer pool. The subject's ask — a ±29% discount to the closed Hyperion basis and below every entitled listing in the set — is calibrated to its raw, pre-entitlement status.

Map — land sale and on-market comparables relative to 2126-2136 W Branden St
S Subject — 2126–2136 W Branden St  ·  1 825–837 Hyperion Ave (closed 6/26)  ·  2 1415 W Court St  ·  3 1108 Manzanita St  ·  4 801–807 Waterloo St — every comparable sits within roughly two miles of the subject, in the same Echo Park / Silver Lake land market.

Pricing the Land — $2,500,000

  • Lot area (two contiguous R3 parcels)14,928 SF
  • Recommended pricing$2,500,000
  • Per lot SF±$167
  • Per conceptual unit (39)±$64,100
  • Reference — entitled/RTI land (Hyperion)±$234 / lot SF

The ask sits well below the entitled-land benchmark and above plain unimproved R3 dirt (±$110/lot SF ≈ $1.6M here) — the spread reflects the conceptual design package, the drawn density-bonus roadmap to 39 units, and the interim income from the existing 6-unit building.

Sensitivity — $/Lot SF

$/Lot SFImplied PricePer Conceptual Unit
$135 — conservative$2,015,000$51,700
$167 — base$2,500,000$64,100
$185 — upside$2,760,000$70,800

The band runs from plain-dirt-plus pricing at the bottom to a level still ±21% below the entitled Hyperion benchmark at the top. Where the subject clears inside the band turns on how much credit a buyer gives the conceptual package and the density-bonus path — and on the distressed backdrop in Section 05.

Itemized Development Cost — $18.5M All-In (ex-Land)

Industry-range estimate for a 39-unit, 4-story Type V-A residential building over a 2-level subterranean garage in LA — not a contractor bid. Each line should be reconciled to the Ownership's hard-cost budget and any GC pricing in due diligence. Subtotals are bolded.

  • Hard Costs
  • Demolition of existing 6-unit RSO building & site clearing$250,000
  • Excavation & shoring (2-level subterranean garage)$250,000
  • Foundation & subterranean garage shell (51 stalls)$2,900,000
  • Residential building shell & finishes (4-story Type V-A, ±41,098 GSF)$9,200,000
  • Site work, landscape, hardscape & frontage$500,000
  • Rooftop deck, amenities & common areas$250,000
  • FF&E, lobby finishes, signage$200,000
  • Hard Cost Subtotal · ±$330/GSF · ±$347K/unit$13,550,000
  • Soft Costs
  • Architecture, engineering & consultants$300,000
  • Permits, plan check, school & AHB linkage fees$1,150,000
  • Legal, insurance, general requirements$250,000
  • Marketing, sales center / lease-up$200,000
  • Property taxes & utilities during construction$200,000
  • Soft Cost Subtotal · ±15.5% of hard cost$2,100,000
  • Financing & Carry
  • Construction loan interest & fees (±24-month build)$1,880,000
  • Financing Subtotal · ±10% of total$1,880,000
  • Contingency
  • Construction contingency (±7% of hard cost)$950,000
  • Contingency Subtotal$950,000
  • TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST (ex-Land)$18,480,000
  • Per conceptual unit±$474,000
  • Per gross residential SF (41,098)±$450

Hard-cost line items reflect typical LA infill pricing for Type V-A wood-frame residential over a 2-level subterranean garage. The $347K/unit hard-cost figure assumes a buyer with competitive GC pricing and efficient excavation and design costs; each line should be reconciled to actual bids in due diligence. Soft costs, financing, and contingency are sized to industry norms and should be tightened against the Ownership's actual lender term sheet and consultant scopes.

Yield-on-Cost at Different Land Prices

What the finished project returns and earns as the land price moves, holding the ±$18.48M build budget constant. Yield-on-cost uses the ±$1.125M stabilized NOI (untrended, today's rents) and the ±$1.24M trended NOI (rents grown across the runway to 2029E delivery). Net profit and return on cost are measured at stabilization against a trended exit value of ±$23.57M (5.25% cap). Market stabilized caps for newer Eastside product run 5.00%–5.25%.

Land Price $ / Conceptual Unit (Land) All-In Cost (Land + Build) Untrended Yield-on-Cost Trended Yield-on-Cost Net Profit at Stabilization Return on Cost
$2,000,000$51,300$20,480,0005.5%6.0%$3,091,00015.1%
$2,250,000$57,700$20,730,0005.4%6.0%$2,841,00013.7%
$2,500,000 (list)$64,100$20,980,0005.4%5.9%$2,591,00012.4%
$2,750,000$70,500$21,230,0005.3%5.8%$2,341,00011.0%
$3,000,000$76,900$21,480,0005.2%5.8%$2,091,0009.7%

Yield-on-cost = stabilized NOI ÷ (land + ±$18.48M build cost). Untrended on the ±$1.125M NOI from Section 04; trended applies ±10% rent growth across the runway (±$1.24M NOI). Net profit at stabilization = trended stabilized value (±$1.24M NOI ÷ 5.25% cap = ±$23.57M) less all-in cost; return on cost = net profit ÷ all-in cost. On today's untrended rents the project is roughly break-even at list (±$0.45M created value); the margin is built by rent growth across the runway and by the land basis — the land, not the exit, is doing the underwriting work.

Cross-checks. At the recommended figure the land trades at ±$167 per lot SF and ±$64,100 per conceptual unit — a ±29% discount to the entitled, RTI Hyperion land sale and a defensible premium over plain unimproved R3 dirt, with the spread representing the conceptual design package and the marked density-bonus path. It also reconciles against the concept's own economics: land at $2.5M plus the ±$18.5M itemized build cost is an all-in basis of ±$21.0M, an untrended yield-on-cost of ±5.4% on the ±$1.125M stabilized NOI, trending toward ±5.9% across the entitlement-and-construction runway — a workable spread for a build-and-hold developer. And it respects the distressed backdrop of Section 05: the land basis is sized so the build-new math can live alongside $300K–$364K/door finished trades.
Recommended Pricing — R3 Development Site, Conceptual Plans for 39 Units
$2,500,000
±$167 / lot SF  ·  ±$64,100 / conceptual unit
Priced to generate competitive interest from land buyers and density-bonus developers while the conceptual package, the entitled-land benchmark, and interim RSO income support the top of the market in negotiation.

This valuation is an opinion of value, not an appraisal. It is built from the comparable data in Sections 04–06 and the labeled cost assumptions above. Recommended pricing should be finalized with the Ownership after review of current market conditions, the conceptual plan set, and buyer feedback.

Section 07 — TIC Exit Analysis

The TIC Exit — Renovate and Sell the Existing Six Units

A third pathway prices the two existing triplexes as they stand: a buyer renovates the six units and exits them one at a time as Tenancy-in-Common (TIC) interests — the entry-level ownership product that has repriced Echo Park and Silver Lake fourplexes over the past three years. This analysis underwrites all six units delivered vacant, assigns each a renovated exit value from closed TIC sales in the surrounding pocket, and solves backward to what a TIC developer can pay for the two parcels today — under a Base Case held to title square footage, a Best Case at the larger apparent footprint sizes pending verification, and a Best Best Case that layers one new two-story ADU onto each lot.

Base Case — Unit Mix & Exit Values at Title Square Footage

Property / Unit Type SF Used Assumed Renovated TIC Exit $/SF
2126 W Branden St — 1,500 SF per title · three units, underwritten vacant
Unit 11 BR / 1 BA500$450,000$900
Unit 21 BR / 1 BA500$450,000$900
Unit 31 BR / 1 BA500$450,000$900
2126 Subtotal$1,350,000$900
2132 W Branden St — 1,733 SF per title · three units, underwritten vacant
Front unit2 BR / 1 BA733$550,000$750
Back unit 11 BR / 1 BA500$450,000$900
Back unit 21 BR / 1 BA500$450,000$900
2132 Subtotal$1,450,000$837
COMBINED GROSS TIC SELLOUT — 6 units, 3,233 SF per title$2,800,000$866
Square footage must be verified — and it is a really big deal. The unit sizes above are held to the title record (1,500 SF at 2126, 1,733 SF at 2132, 3,233 SF combined) with the 1BRs carried at 500 SF each and the 2BR at 733 SF. The building footprints suggest the units may be materially larger: roughly 864 / 1,060 / 817 SF at 2126, and 1,189 SF (front) with 905 / 609 SF (back) at 2132 — about 5,444 SF combined, nearly 70% more than title. If the footprint sizes verify by measurement, the analysis re-prices to the Best Case below: gross sellout of ±$3.78M and a supportable acquisition of ±$2.26M. Measuring and reconciling the actual unit SF against title should be the first diligence item on this pathway.

Best Case — Unit Mix & Exit Values at Footprint Square Footage (To Be Verified)

Property / Unit Type SF Used Assumed Renovated TIC Exit $/SF
2126 W Branden St — ±2,741 SF per footprint · three units, underwritten vacant
Unit 11 BR / 1 BA864$600,000$694
Unit 21 BR / 1 BA1,060$675,000$637
Unit 31 BR / 1 BA817$575,000$704
2126 Subtotal$1,850,000$675
2132 W Branden St — ±2,703 SF per footprint · three units, underwritten vacant
Front unit2 BR / 1 BA1,189$800,000$673
Back unit 11 BR / 1 BA905$625,000$691
Back unit 21 BR / 1 BA609$500,000$821
2132 Subtotal$1,925,000$712
COMBINED GROSS TIC SELLOUT — 6 units, ±5,444 SF per footprint$3,775,000$693

Best Case exits are anchored to the larger closed units: 3944½ Marathon (821 SF 1BR, $572,887) supports the 817–905 SF 1BRs; 1160 Madison (970 SF, $698,000) and 1151 New Hampshire (1,090 SF, $710,000) bracket the 1,060 SF unit and the 1,189 SF front 2BR, with the Hyperion sales ($789–$857/SF) marking the ceiling. The blended ±$693/SF sits below the comp-set average of ±$728/SF. This scenario is valid only if the footprint square footage verifies.

Best Best Case — Best Case Plus One New Two-Story ADU on Each Lot

Property / Unit Type SF Used Assumed TIC Exit $/SF
New construction — one detached two-story ADU per lot, sold as additional TIC interests
2126 W Branden St — new ADU2 BR / 1 BA · 2-story600$525,000$875
2136 W Branden St — new ADU (rear lot)3 BR / 2 BA · 2-story1,000$725,000$725
Six renovated units — carried at Best Case values$3,775,000$693
COMBINED GROSS TIC SELLOUT — 8 units, ±7,044 SF$5,025,000$713

ADU exits are anchored to the comp set with a new-construction premium over renovated vintage: the 600 SF 2+1 matches 2612 Marathon #1/4 (687 SF renovated, $525,000), and the 1,000 SF 3+2 sits between 1160 Madison / 1151 New Hampshire (970–1,090 SF renovated 2BRs, $698,000–$710,000) and the Hyperion ceiling with an extra bedroom. State ADU law allows detached ADUs on multifamily lots ministerially; the ADUs sell as additional TIC interests within each community. ADU permitting and construction extend the program to ±18 months.

The Three TIC Pathways at a Glance

Base Case · Title SF
$2,800,000
Gross sellout — 6 renovated units · 3,233 SF
  • Five 1BRs at $450,000 and the 733 SF 2BR at $550,000 — below the top of the closed range.
  • Held to the title record; no measurement credit taken.
  • Straight renovate-and-sell program on the existing buildings.
Supportable price$1,610,000
Per unit±$268,000
Program±12 months
Best Case · Footprint SF
$3,775,000
Gross sellout — 6 renovated units · ±5,444 SF
  • Units re-measured to their apparent footprints — nearly 70% more SF than title.
  • Exits of $500,000–$800,000 per unit at a blended ±$693/SF, below the comp average.
  • Verifying the square footage is the first diligence item.
Supportable price$2,260,000
Per unit±$377,000
Program±12 months
Best Best Case · + 2 ADUs
$5,025,000
Gross sellout — 6 renovated units + 2 new ADUs · ±7,044 SF
  • Adds a 1,000 SF two-story 3+2 ADU on 2136 ($725,000) and a 600 SF 2+1 on 2126 ($525,000).
  • Detached ADUs are ministerial on multifamily lots — no discretionary entitlement.
  • Eight sellable TIC interests across the two communities.
Supportable price$2,530,000
Per unit±$316,000
Program±18 months
How to read these. The three cards are one program at three levels of proof, not three separate deals: the Base Case is bankable today on the title record; the Best Case requires only a tape measure and prices the same six units at their apparent true sizes; the Best Best Case adds the ministerial ADU layer — no rezoning, no hearings — and is the scenario where the TIC pathway alone underwrites the full recommended price. Every exit value in all three cards traces to the closed sales below.

Closed TIC Sales — Echo Park / Silver Lake / Virgil Village

Fourteen closed TIC unit sales from August 2025 through July 2026, drawn from TheMLS. Every comp is a renovated unit in a small (2–12 unit) vintage building — the same product a TIC developer would create at Branden Street. The comp set contains closed sales only; no directly comparable renovated TIC inventory was on market in this pocket at the time of writing.

Map Address Pocket Type SF Sold Sold Price $/SF
Silver Lake — Closest Product Match (highlighted here and in green on the map)
3921 N Benton WaySilver Lake2 BR / 2 BA6606/25/26$415,000$629
63200 Larissa DrSilver Lake1 BR / 1 BA5253/20/26$500,000$952
82612 Marathon St #1/4Silver Lake2 BR / 2 BA6875/20/26$525,000$764
82612 Marathon St #1/2Silver Lake2 BR / 2 BA7595/20/26$620,000$817
C852 Hyperion AveSilver Lake2 BR / 1 BA9806/26/26$840,000$857
C854½ Hyperion AveSilver Lake2 BR / 1 BA1,10212/12/25$870,000$789
Broader Pocket — Echo Park / Virgil Village / East Hollywood / Historic Filipinotown / Koreatown
1211 S Berendo St #3Koreatown1 BR / 1 BA7126/22/26$395,000$555
22135 Bellevue Ave #4Echo Park1 BR / 1 BA6407/17/26$440,000$688
43903 Melrose AveVirgil Village1 BR / 1 BA57010/1/25$500,000$877
53203½ W Council StHistoric Filipinotown2 BR / 1.5 BA9607/29/26$515,000$536
71331 Lilac TerEcho Park1 BR / 1 BA6568/13/25$500,000$762
93944½ Marathon StVirgil Village1 BR / 1 BA8219/22/25$572,887$698
A1160 N Madison AveEast Hollywood2 BR / 1 BA9701/9/26$698,000$720
B1151 N New Hampshire AveEast Hollywood2 BR / 2 BA1,0908/15/25$710,000$651

Source: TheMLS closed-sale records (VestaPLUS), pulled August 2026; sold prices and square footage as reported by the listing brokers, not independently verified. Blended comp average ±$728/SF across 11,132 SF; median sale $520,000. The six Silver Lake sales — the closest product match to the subject — blend to ±$800/SF. Small 1BRs (525–656 SF) in Echo Park / Silver Lake cleared $440,000–$500,000; the Base Case carries the subject 1BRs at $450,000 and the 733 SF 2BR at $550,000 — inside, and below the top of, the closed range.

Map — closed TIC sale comparables relative to 2126-2132 W Branden St
S Subject — 2126–2132 W Branden St  ·  green pins — the Silver Lake sales, the closest product match (pin 8 covers both 2612 Marathon sales; pin C covers both Hyperion sales)  ·  navy pins — the broader pocket across Echo Park, Virgil Village, East Hollywood, and Koreatown.

The Comp Set — MLS Photos

921 N Benton Way
3 · 921 N Benton Way · Silver Lake
2 BR · 660 SF · Sold $415,000 (6/26)
3200 Larissa Dr
6 · 3200 Larissa Dr · Silver Lake
1 BR · 525 SF · Sold $500,000 (3/26)
2612 Marathon St #1/4
8 · 2612 Marathon St #1/4 · Silver Lake
2 BR · 687 SF · Sold $525,000 (5/26)
2612 Marathon St #1/2
8 · 2612 Marathon St #1/2 · Silver Lake
2 BR · 759 SF · Sold $620,000 (5/26)
852 Hyperion Ave
C · 852 Hyperion Ave · Silver Lake
2 BR · 980 SF · Sold $840,000 (6/26)
854 1/2 Hyperion Ave
C · 854½ Hyperion Ave · Silver Lake
2 BR · 1,102 SF · Sold $870,000 (12/25)
211 S Berendo St #3
1 · 211 S Berendo St #3 · Koreatown
1 BR · 712 SF · Sold $395,000 (6/26)
2135 Bellevue Ave #4
2 · 2135 Bellevue Ave #4 · Echo Park
1 BR · 640 SF · Sold $440,000 (7/26)
3903 Melrose Ave
4 · 3903 Melrose Ave · Virgil Village
1 BR · 570 SF · Sold $500,000 (10/25)
3203 1/2 W Council St
5 · 3203½ W Council St · Historic Filipinotown
2 BR · 960 SF · Sold $515,000 (7/26)
1331 Lilac Ter
7 · 1331 Lilac Ter · Echo Park
1 BR · 656 SF · Sold $500,000 (8/25)
3944 1/2 Marathon St
9 · 3944½ Marathon St · Virgil Village
1 BR · 821 SF · Sold $572,887 (9/25)
1160 N Madison Ave
A · 1160 N Madison Ave · East Hollywood
2 BR · 970 SF · Sold $698,000 (1/26)
1151 N New Hampshire Ave
B · 1151 N New Hampshire Ave · East Hollywood
2 BR · 1,090 SF · Sold $710,000 (8/25)

Photos: TheMLS listing photography for each closed sale, reproduced from the comp records; some images are digitally staged per the listing remarks.

From Gross Sellout to a Supportable Purchase Price — Three Scenarios

What a TIC developer can pay today, solving backward from each scenario's gross sellout: renovation to the comp-set standard, ADU construction where applicable, TIC formation, selling costs, carry, and a market development margin. The Base Case is underwritten to title square footage; the Best Case and Best Best Case apply only if the larger footprint square footage verifies.

  • Base Case — Title SF (3,233)
  • Gross TIC sellout (6 units, delivered vacant)$2,800,000
  • Renovation to comp standard (6 × $80,000)($480,000)
  • TIC formation, survey & legal($30,000)
  • Selling & closing costs (5% of sellout)($140,000)
  • Financing & carry (±12-month program)($120,000)
  • Developer margin (15% of sellout)($420,000)
  • SUPPORTABLE ACQUISITION — BOTH PARCELS$1,610,000
  • 2126 W Branden St (three 1BRs)±$775,000
  • 2132 W Branden St (2BR + two 1BRs)±$835,000
  • Per unit (blended)±$268,000
  • Best Case — Footprint SF (±5,444, verify)
  • Gross TIC sellout (6 units, delivered vacant)$3,775,000
  • Renovation to comp standard (6 × $100,000)($600,000)
  • TIC formation, survey & legal($30,000)
  • Selling & closing costs (5% of sellout)($189,000)
  • Financing & carry (±12-month program)($130,000)
  • Developer margin (15% of sellout)($566,000)
  • SUPPORTABLE ACQUISITION — BOTH PARCELS$2,260,000
  • 2126 W Branden St (three 1BRs)±$1,105,000
  • 2132 W Branden St (2BR + two 1BRs)±$1,155,000
  • Per unit (blended)±$377,000
  • Best Best Case — + 2 ADUs (verify)
  • Gross TIC sellout (8 units, delivered vacant)$5,025,000
  • Renovation to comp standard (6 × $100,000)($600,000)
  • ADU construction (1,000 SF + 600 SF, 2-story)($650,000)
  • TIC formation, survey & legal (8 interests)($40,000)
  • Selling & closing costs (5% of sellout)($251,000)
  • Financing & carry (±18-month program)($200,000)
  • Developer margin (15% of sellout)($754,000)
  • SUPPORTABLE ACQUISITION — BOTH PARCELS$2,530,000
  • 2126 W Branden St (3 units + 2+1 ADU)±$1,195,000
  • 2132–2136 W Branden St (3 units + 3+2 ADU)±$1,335,000
  • Per unit (blended, 8 units)±$316,000

Allocation is proportional to each property's share of gross sellout. Renovation reflects the full kitchen/bath/systems scope visible in the comp set, stepped up to $100,000/unit in the Best and Best Best Cases for the larger interiors; ADU construction is carried at $400,000 (1,000 SF 3+2) and $250,000 (600 SF 2+1) all-in. TIC exits require no condo conversion or DRE public report, and comp-set financing was offered at 10%–15% down through fractional lenders.

How the TIC exit fits the valuation. The Base Case supports ±$1.6M for the two parcels — a floor value for the standing improvements, not a competitor to the $2,500,000 recommendation, which is carried by the land and the conceptual 39-unit density-bonus path (Sections 05–06). The pathway matters for two reasons. First, it widens the buyer pool: TIC operators underwrite the property with no entitlement risk and a 12-month program, and the comp set shows their exit market is liquid at $440,000–$620,000 per renovated unit in this pocket. Second, the square-footage question is live: if the units measure at their apparent footprints rather than title, the Best Case supports ±$2.26M — at which point the TIC bid begins to compete with the land bid and materially strengthens the Ownership's negotiating floor. And with the ministerial ADU layer, the Best Best Case supports ±$2.53M — the TIC pathway alone underwriting the full $2,500,000 recommendation. Key assumptions to disclose: all six units delivered vacant (the buildings are RSO — the path and cost of vacancy is buyer diligence), renovation at $80,000–$100,000/unit, ADU construction at ±$400/SF, and a 15% developer margin.
Section 08 — Objections & Challenges

The Headwinds — and How This Deal Answers Them

Los Angeles ground-up development carries real cost, capital, and regulatory headwinds in 2026, and a credible valuation names them. Each challenge below is genuine — and each is one a low-basis R3 site with a marked density-bonus path and interim income is positioned to absorb.

1 · Construction Costs

The challenge. LA hard-construction costs are elevated and have been volatile. Type V-A wood-frame over a two-level subterranean concrete garage is a cost-heavy configuration, and a 4-story project carries meaningful steel, concrete, insurance, and labor exposure.

How this deal answers it. Cost is the single biggest swing variable, and this BOV labels it as an assumption to be re-run against the buyer's own GC pricing. Two structural mitigants: the plan is still conceptual, so a buyer can value-engineer before a single sheet is submitted; and under AB 2097 no parking is required — the two subterranean levels in the concept can be shrunk or cut entirely, stripping out the most expensive part of the budget. Pricing is set to leave room for the buyer's hard-cost reality.

2 · Capital & Interest Rates

The challenge. Construction financing is expensive, underwriting is tight, and merchant-build profit margins are compressed versus the last cycle.

How this deal answers it. The site trades at a low absolute basis (±$2.5M), so the capital stack is anchored by a modest land number a buyer can carry without construction debt while entitling. The existing 6-unit building's income offsets part of that carry — and the buyer chooses when to start the capital clock, rather than inheriting someone else's basis and timeline.

3 · The Affordability Covenant

The challenge. The density bonus would be unlocked by a recorded affordability covenant; the income-restricted units rent well below market.

How this deal answers it. The covenant is the very thing that would unlock the 39-unit density — a trade developers make willingly. The restricted units are already netted out of the rental NOI in this BOV; the concept pencils after that haircut, not before it.

4 · RSO Tenants & Demolition

The challenge. Six rent-stabilized units occupy the site today and must be cleared, triggering tenant-relocation cost and process before construction.

How this deal answers it. Relocation is a known, budgetable item and is carried inside the development-cost estimate. Until construction, the existing 6-unit building produces interim holding income that offsets carry through entitlement and financing — a rare offset on a land deal.

5 · No Entitlements Convey

The challenge. This is raw land. The buyer runs its own entitlement — application, fees, affordability covenant, plan check — before a shovel touches dirt, and carries the site through that runway.

How this deal answers it. Stated plainly throughout this BOV. The mitigant is the kind of entitlement: the State Density Bonus is a state-law program with objective, non-discretionary incentives — not a rezone or a variance fight — and the conceptual plan set is already drawn to that framework. Interim RSO income offsets carry while the buyer works the process at its own pace and design.

6 · Market Timing & Absorption

The challenge. A project on this site delivers in roughly three to four years, into a rental market no one can forecast with certainty — and Section 05 shows new product in this pocket trading at deep discounts today.

How this deal answers it. The land basis is the hedge. At ±$64,100 per conceptual unit, the buyer is paying for dirt near the bottom of the cycle — not for someone else's finished-product assumptions. Echo Park is structurally supply-constrained, the newer-construction comps in Section 04 are leasing now, and the current distress is cyclical: the same constraint that makes the pocket hard to build in is what fills its buildings. Underwriting is held at conservative-to-mid assumptions, not peak-of-cycle ones.

Net read. None of these headwinds is unique to 2126–2136 Branden — they apply to every ground-up project in Los Angeles. What is distinctive here is the shape of the risk: the buyer enters at a low, land-only basis, the density-bonus path is objective rather than discretionary, the parking is optional under AB 2097, the conceptual design work is already done, and interim RSO income is in place. The recommended ±$2.5M basis also sits well below the ±$5.15M Measure ULA threshold, so the land transaction itself is not exposed to the City of Los Angeles transfer tax. The challenges are real; the basis is built to absorb them.
Section 09 — Investment Summary

Why 2126–2136 Branden Trades

01
A Marked Trail to 39 Units

The State Density Bonus — a state-law program with objective incentives — carries the site to a conceptual 39 units, and the concept is already drawn to that framework.

02
Low, Defensible Basis

±$167 per lot SF and ±$64,100 per conceptual unit — a ±29% discount to the pocket's entitled-land benchmark, priced for the bottom of the cycle.

03
Design Work Product Conveys

The Molai Land & Design conceptual plan set — massing, unit schedules, parking layout, density-bonus calculations — gives a buyer a running start on its own application.

04
Proven, Bankable Rents

Six newer-construction buildings within blocks — Zag, Encore, Inspire, OnSunset, Echo 55 and 1915 Park — have leased up at strong rents, de-risking the rental underwriting with real market evidence.

05
Priced for the Distress Cycle

The land basis is sized so a future project pencils even against the $300K–$364K/door distressed trades around the corner — a buyer at this number is buying the cycle, not fighting it.

06
Interim Income in Place

An existing 6-unit RSO building generates holding income through entitlement and financing — a rare carry offset on a raw-land deal.

Positioning

2126–2136 Branden is marketed to Los Angeles land buyers and density-bonus developers who want a low-basis Echo Park canvas with the thinking already done. The piece a buyer is acquiring — a 14,928 SF R3 double lot with a conceptual plan for 39 units, interim RSO income, and a marked state-law path to density — is priced for the bottom of the cycle in a structurally supply-constrained submarket. The recommended guidance of $2,500,000 is set to drive competitive tension while leaving the conceptual package and the entitled-land benchmark to be argued for in escrow.