Changing Residential Land Use Regulations to Address High Housing Prices

Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and findings: In the past 3 decades, a series of presidential administrations—and the APA—have recommended that cities update their zoning codes to enable more affordable and market-rate housing development. I identify 5 main categories of policy recommendations they have suggested and then assess Los Angeles’s (CA) zoning changes in these categories between 2000 and 2016. I answer 2 questions: First, what zoning changes did Los Angeles adopt to address housing affordability? Second, how were these changes initiated, and what were their scope and geographic extent? I find that Los Angeles made modest progress in the 5 policy categories. The city left its large-lot, single-family zoning mostly untouched, but it rezoned roughly 1,200 acres citywide to allow at least 50 housing units per acre, reduced parking requirements in some areas, made it easier to build accessory dwelling units, and adopted new incentives for affordable housing. Several policy changes resulted from new state laws, and Los Angeles voters approved new incentives for affordable housing near transit. Homeowner influence likely prevented the municipality from engaging in larger zoning reforms. I do not study the effects of Los Angeles’s regulatory changes on housing production and prices, but such research is an important next step. I also do not assess new regulations that counteracted the impact of the 5 categories of policy recommendations.

Takeaway for practice: This research suggests 2 lessons: 1) Planners should encourage state governments to preempt local zoning when it reduces affordable housing options and there is limited local political will for change, and 2) planners should identify feasible and effective zoning changes that would increase affordable housing given local considerations.

Keywords:

• land use regulation
• neighborhood planning
• parking
• transit-oriented development
• zoning

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to Randall Crane, Michael Lens, Paavo Monkkonen, Marlon Boarnet, and three anonymous reviewers for their constructive and thoughtful feedback. I also appreciate Sandra Rosenbloom’s active and intellectually stimulating engagement during the revision process. All errors are my own.

NOTES

Notes

1 Floor-area ratio is a common measure calculated by dividing building square footage by lot square footage.

2 Carson is quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying, “I want to encourage the development of mixed-income multifamily dwellings all over the place” (Kusisto, 2018). The article also states that Carson “pointed to Los Angeles as an example of how zoning rules stymie housing development. He said a large majority of the city’s parcels of land are eligible only for single-family home development, not larger projects that could house more people and help moderate price growth” (Kusisto, 2018, paras. 8 and 9).

3 The California Environmental Quality Act requires municipalities to conduct some degree of environmental analysis when adopting plans and/or approving projects (Olshansky, 1996). This landmark environmental law has become tightly interlaced with the state’s land use planning system (Fulton & Shigley, 2012; Olshansky, 1996).

4 In 1986, Los Angeles voters approved Proposition U, which limits development in commercial zones in Height District 1 to a floor-area ratio of 1.5 across much of the city (City of Los Angeles, 2013e). Given Proposition U, maximum dwelling unit densities are difficult or impossible to develop on affected parcels, except perhaps in buildings composed of small studio apartments.

5 The city does not have a mandatory inclusionary zoning ordinance (Mukhija, Regus, Slovin, & Das, 2010). There were some mandatory affordable housing provisions in two specific plans, but these were removed because of legal issues (City of Los Angeles, 2013e).

6 A development was eligible for the minimum density bonus of 20%, offstreet parking reductions, and one incentive if it included at least 5% of units for very-low-income households or 10% of units for low-income households.

Additional information

Funding

This research was generously funded by the John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation Haynes Lindley Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy C. Lowell Harriss Dissertation Fellowship, and the UCLA Dissertation Year Fellowship.

Notes on contributors

C. J. Gabbe

C. J. GABBE, AICP ([email protected]), is an assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Studies and Sciences at Santa Clara University.