Changing Residential Land Use Regulations to Address High Housing Prices: Evidence From Los Angeles. Issue 2 (3rd April 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gabbe, C. J.
• Is Part Of: Journal of the American Planning Association. Volume 85:Issue 2(2019)
• Page Start: 152
• Page End: 168
• Publication Date: 2019-04-03
• Subjects: land use regulation -- neighborhood planning -- parking -- transit-oriented development -- zoning; Planning -- Periodicals; City planning -- Periodicals; Regional planning -- Periodicals; 711.4097305; 361.60973
• DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2018.1559078
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0194-4363

Abstract

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.