HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-02-2017 Item 11, Lefler (2)RG4Gd44.i!
COUNCIL MEETING:, r
ITEM NO.: MAY MAY 0 2 2017
SLO CITY CLERK
From: Steve Lefler [
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 7:14 AM
To: Wiseman, Jenny <iwisemane?slocity.org>
Cc: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocitv.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: RE: Re -Zoning comment and sharing ideas
To all,
This white paper came from a recent housing conference I attended. It might be useful in drafting a new housing policy.
Best Regards,
Steven Lefler
Vice President
Modular Lifestyles, Inc./Newport Pacific
Advanced Certified Green Building Professional, Authorized CEC Solar/Wind Retailer/Installer,
HCD: SPI 149542
BRE: 00682698 - GREEN DESIGNA FION
californniar
m advanced homes -
From: Steve Lefler
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 6:42 AM
To: 'Wiseman, Jenny'
Cc: Codron, Michael; emailcouncil@slocity.org
Subject: RE: Re -Zoning comment and sharing ideas
Regarding SLO City Council Meeting on 5/2/17 — Item # 11
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17: ZONING REGULATIONS, ASSOCIATED WITH
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) PROVISIONS WITH A STATUTORY EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW
I wish to speak during the public comment section for that item.
I was a speaker with HCD Director Zack Olmstead at a recent housing held in March 2017. The housing conference was
to introduce City Attorneys to the new ADU law and homelessness solutions. We have built an ADU in Newport Beach,
CA. following their guidelines using factory built technology to meet and exceed the energy efficiency of ADU
construction while making it affordable to the client.
Attachment
Housing Summit Schedule
ADU example
Best Regards,
Steven Lefler
Vice President
Modular Lifestyles, Inc./Newport Pacific
Advanced Certified Green Building Professional, Authorized CEC Solar/Wind Retailer/installer,
HCD: SPI 148542
BRE: 00682698 - GREEN DESIGNATION
Californiaff
advanced homes
From: Wiseman, Jenny [mailtoJwiseman )slodLy. r]
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 9:34 AM
To: Steve Lefler
Cc: Codron, Michael
Subject: RE: Re -Zoning comment and sharing ideas
Yes, see link to the Council report for the ADUs on 5/2, starts on Packet Page 119 (item 11):
httii/Iwww. sloci ty.ol-q/l-iota a/ShowDocument?id=15317
From: Steve Lefler[
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 9:32 AM
To: Wiseman, Jenny <iwiseman@slocity.org>
Cc: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>
Subject: RE: Re -Zoning comment and sharing ideas
Jenny and Michael,
I am glad I could insight, real examples and guidelines to help you make an informed decision. Our factory built industry
has an image and perception problem with California local building and zoning officials however their reasons for its
non-existence to housing element reports should not continue.
I look forward to that ADU meeting on May 2 do you have a link you can provide?
Best Regards,
Steven Lefler
Vice President
Modular Lifestyles, Inc.
Advanced Certified Green Building Professional, Authorized CEC Solar/Wind Retailer/Installer, Dual Licensced DREMCD sales, Realtor, GREEN designation
From: Wiseman, Jenny [mailto jwisemanCaslocity.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 9:27 AM
To: Steve Lefler
Cc: Codron, Michael
Subject: RE: Re -Zoning comment and sharing ideas
Hi Steve,
Thank you for all of this information, very helpful! We are going to look closely at the site and look into the
opportunities to work with you on creating tiny homes on that parcel facing Bridge St.
Will be in touch soon,
Jenny Wiseman
Acting Housing Programs Manager
CM OF
SfIR ECUS OBISPO
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E Wseman(g)slocity.org
T 805.781.7010
slocity.org
From: Steve Lefler [
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 7:32 AM
To: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Gibson, Jessica <JGibson@slocity.org>
Cc: Lichtig, Katie <klichtig@slocity.or>; Goodwin, Heather <hgoodwin@sl_ocity.or >; Christian, Kevin
<kchristian@slocity.o>; Wiseman, Jenny <jwiseman@slocity.org>
Subject: RE: Re -Zoning comment and sharing ideas
Jenny and Michael
Recent article for you to ponder
htt www.constructiondive.com news thinkin -small-how-tin -homes-are-bein -used-to-address-housin -
affordabil14411251
This article ties into concept being entertained using our RFP for the County of Santa Clara.
- Mixed use RV, Bunkhouse, Tiny House and Transitional housing. Landscape consists of only edible for Farmer
market jobs. Its Clubhouse is a City operation for Section 8 vouchers, medical, housing, shared showers, dining
and check in services for beds. Similar to our YMCA build in San Diego, CA. see attachment
If you need more information please let me know.
Best Regards,
Steven Lefler
Vice President
Modular Lifestyles, Inc.
Advanced Certified Green Building Professional, Authorized CEC Solar/Wind Retailer/Installer, Dual Licensced DREHCD sales, Realtor, GREE\ designation
From: Steve Lefler
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 4:07 PM
To: 'Codron, Michael'; Gibson, Jessica (JGibson@slocity.org)
Cc: Lichtig, Katie; Goodwin, Heather; Christian, Kevin; Wiseman, Jenny (jwiseman@slocity.org)
Subject: RE: Re -Zoning comment and sharing ideas
Michael Condon and Jenny Wiseman,
I want to thank you for the opportunity to meet and discuss our Tiny House projects and affordable housing solutions
today.
As promised, Here is my Paso Robles house, PGE timeline and its 2016 - E-6 Time of Usage PGE utility bill.
htt www.buildwith ro ane.com News -and -Incentives Tankless-water-heaters-make-net-zero-achievable
In addition: you asked for the link to PUNTA GORDA (A creative solution for affordable housing) — A Trailer Park
conversion to.a Tiny House Village under construction in Santa Barbara soon to be finished in Jan 2018.
https://www.noozhawk.com/articie/punta gorda rental units Santa barbara housing shortage
Additional Requested_Atta_c_hments:
My ADU 600 square foot house building Newport Beach, CA 2014. A one week build.
RFP HHS 0103 Summary for County of Santa Clara Homeless Tiny House Village
PGE Timeline
My personal E6 — PGE annual bill
I look forward to meeting with you both soon and will plan to attend the ADU zoning meeting May 2 and present my
proven ADU.
Please send link on meeting attendance.
Best Regards,
Modular Lifestyles, Inc.
Advanced Certified Green Building Professional, Authorized CEC Solar/Wind Retailer/Installer, Dual Licensced DRE. ICD sales, Realtor, GREEN designation
Our quest is to build energy efficiency into evea home.
IyMI• LJ i1i+��
From: Codron, Michael [maiito:mcodron@slocity.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 7:15 PM
To: Steve Lefler; Sims, Shannon
Cc: Lichtig, Katie; Goodwin, Heather; Christian, Kevin
Subject: Re: Re -Zoning comment and sharing ideas
Thanks for this input. We'll make sure the city council and Planning Commission recieve it in advance of
tomorrow's meeting.
Get Outlook for Android
From: Steve Lefler <
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 7:08:02 PM
To: Sims, Shannon
Cc: Codron, Michael
Subject: Re -Zoning comment and sharing ideas
Dear Katie Lichtig,
I am writing to you at the request of Mayor Heidi Harmon. I met with Mayor Harmon this afternoon (4/11/2017) to
share opportunities and ideas for Tiny House Villages which I would also like to share with re -zoning committee
members. Mayor Harmon was very interested in my office presentation and suggested I offer you the attached letter
for submission of proven examples where we and others are working to solve affordable housing issues the ever
expanding issue of homelessness.
The manufactured home and modular home industry currently has an image and perception problem that presents a
challenge in offering a feasible and efficient solution to the housing crisis. California has lost over 5000 mobile home
sites since 1995 and now has less than 4% of total housing as HUD code affordable houses. This is due in part to local
zoning and housing regulations where they are NOT a consideration in future housing decisions.. California is currently
ranked 38th in the Nation for the number of remaining HUD Code Houses. (See graph)
My background is in proven factory built energy efficient housing. I am part of www.newportpacific.coin , a company
that owns and manages over 130 communities consisting of Mobile Home Parks and RV resorts One of our award
winning communities in Ventura County (Oak Haven , in Ojai) was built for residents with a minimum age of 62. This
community was built primarily with solar powered manufactured homes. The community boasts a shared greenhouse
for the resident's to enjoy their harvest. (See attachments) I recently presented a plan for a similar community to all
City Attorney's at a housing summit to address the critical need for affordable housing. I presented a concept of a
community consisting of affordable solar manufactured houses which could possibly operate off the grid to save the
operator/owner money. These houses are built in a factory with very little debris on site. These houses and
communities can be built in an efficient, economical, quick and timely manner over traditional housing choices with
little future operating costs for the owner.
Proven Examples:
My modular House in Paso Robles is a 2014 "CA Advanced Home", 2020 compliant, Net Zero Case Study for CPUC and
efficient construction
http://www.buiIdwithpropane.com/News-and-incentives/Tankless-water-heaters-make-net-zero-achievable)
Our Off -The -Grid Tiny and ADU houses
http://modulartifestVies.com/backyard-homes
I have included this link to my DROPBOX for more proven of Tiny House zoning guidelines, concepts and examples for
your review
htt s: www.dra box.com sh uau6k f2a71' 18 AABmww3Fz cTvvXfc-keMFkWa?d1=❑
Please accept my "SLO submission to Re -Zoning" letter attachment in lieu of my inability to attend the zoning meeting
tomorrow Wed. 4/12/2017. 1 appreciate your acceptance in advance.
Best Regards,
Steven Lefler
Vice President
Modular Lifestyles, Inc.
Advanced Certified Green Building Professional, Authorized CEC Solar/Wind Retailer/Installer, Dual Licensced DRE/HCD sales, Realtor. GREEN designation
Our quest is to build energy efficiency into every home.
b califoOAr O s�
advanced glomes
WHAT IS KNOWN
ABOUT THIS TOPIC
Housing in California is
unaffordable to most
households. Limited
construction relative to
robust job growth is one of
the main causes.
WHAT THIS STUDY
ADDS
This study describes how
local opposition to new
housing construction
suppresses new housing
supply, and does so in.an
unequal way across
metropolitan areas. I show
that the concerns associated
with new construction are
widespread, but that our
planning system grants
unequal opportunities to act
on these motivations. I also
highlight the fact that wealthy
neighborhoods have
prevented new development
within their communities,
while benefiting from
metropolitan growth in
general. The study outlines
strong support and general
guidance for increased state
intervention in local planning
decisions, along with
suggestions for specific
changes to California's
planning system.
Understanding and Challenging
Opposition to Housing Construction in
California's Urban Areas
Paavo Monkkonen, Associate Professor; Urban Planning
University of California Los Angeles
Housing affordability is one of the most pressing issues facing
California. In the intense public debate over how to make housing
affordable, the role of new supply is a key point of contention despite
evidence demonstrating that supply constraints—low-density zoning
chief among them—are a core cause of increasing housing costs.
Many California residents resist new housing development, especially
in their own neighborhoods. This white paper provides background on
this opposition and a set of policy recommendations for the state
government to address it. I first describe how limiting new
construction makes all housing less affordable, exacerbates spatial
inequalities, and harms the state's economic productivity and
environment. I then discuss the motivations for opposing more
intensive land use, and clarify the way the role of new housing supply
in shaping rents is misunderstood in public debates. I also list the
various tactics used to block housing projects, demonstrating just
how many veto points present in our current system. I conclude with
several proposals for reform that have potential to reduce the power
of local opposition to new housing construction. The state should take
action by enforcing and enhancing existing laws, pushing local
planning agencies to represent more people more equally, providing
information for public discussion, and developing ways to make
planning decisions at a metropolitan, not neighborhood scale.
IMPLICATIONS FOR This research was supported by a University of California Center
PRACTICE & POLICY Sacramento (UCCS) Housing, Land Use and Development (HLD) Public
This white paper should Lectureship and White Paper Award. An unrestricted gift from the Center for
motivate and guide action on California Real Estate to UCCS supported this award. The author would like
the part of the state to thank UCCS staff; members of the UCCS HLD Selection Committee; and
government to address one
cause of the housing crisis. two anonymous reviewers for their support and guidance.
Understanding and Challenging Opposition
to Housing Construction in California's
Urban Areas
A UCCS White Paper prepared by:
Paavo Monkkonen
UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs
Prepared for:
UC Center Sacramento
Housing, Land Use and Development Public Lectureship and White Paper Award
Release Date:
December 1, 2016
Abstract
Housing affordability is one of the most pressing issues facing California today. In the intense
public debate over how to make housing affordable, the role of new supply is a key point of
contention. This debate continues despite robust empirical evidence demonstrating that supply
constraints—low-density zoning chief among them—are a core cause of increasing housing
costs. Many California residents resist new housing development, especially in their own
neighborhoods. This white paper provides background on the opposition to new housing
construction and a set of policy recommendations for the state government to address this
resistance. I first describe how limiting new construction makes all housing less affordable,
exacerbates spatial inequalities, and harms the state's economic productivity and environment. I
then discuss the varied motivations for opposing more intensive land use, and highlight the way
the complexity of the housing market confuses public debates over this topic. In the fourth
section, I list various tactics used to block housing projects and demonstrate just how many veto
points there are in our current system. I conclude by presenting several proposals for reform that
have potential to reduce the power of local opposition to new housing. The state government
should take action in at least four areas – enforcing and enhancing existing laws, pushing local
planning agencies to represent more people more equally, providing information for public
discussion, and developing ways to make planning decisions at a metropolitan, not neighborhood
scale.
1. Introduction
Housing affordability is one of the most pressing issues facing California's families today.
Renters need to make almost four times the state minimum wage to afford an average rent
(California Housing Partnership Coalition, 2016). The problem is especially acute in the major
metropolitan areas. For example, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area has the highest share of
housing -burdened households in the United States (Kolko, 2016). The California Legislative
Analyst's Office 2015 report on the high cost of housing highlighted the dearth of residential
construction as a primary factor in the high housing costs and rents (Taylor, 2015). This report is
supported by a body of evidence that increasing housing density in high -opportunity
neighborhoods — places near jobs, good schools, and urban amenities — is a crucial way to
improve affordability. President Barack Obama recently brought this issue to national attention,
calling for zoning reform and for greater efforts by state governments to support building
housing in places that have resisted it in the past (The White House, 2016).
Yet supply -focused solutions to the housing crisis are controversial. The opposition is vigorous,
especially in expensive, high -opportunity neighborhoods. Recently, representatives of low-
income neighborhoods have begun to resist projects designed for high-income households and
want only affordable housing' built in their neighborhoods, if any. In some cases, they have
joined traditional slow -growth groups and preservations to oppose increases in density at a larger
scale. These interest groups respond to efforts to build new housing with a multitude of social,
legal and political tactics. As skyrocketing housing costs transform the socioeconomic makeup
of neighborhoods, opponents to increased housing unit density rally around the cry of preserving
neighborhood character, a nebulous term that often masks motives of social exclusion.
Nowadays, the most public opposition to new development is in already dense parts of cities like
Hollywood in Los Angeles or the Mission District of San Francisco. This results from the very
successful historical opposition to development in neighborhoods dominated by zoning for single
family homes (Gabbe, 2016). In Los Angeles, 75% of the residential land area is dedicated to
low-density single family housing, and this land houses only half the population (Los Angeles
Department of City Planning, 2013; US Census, 2014). Neighborhoods zoned for single-family
homes are higher income, have higher homeownership rates, and are much less likely to have
their zoned density increase (Gabbe, 2016), which pushes housing development and conflicts to
other parts of the city.
Since housing affordability in California depends in part on building more new housing more
densely, what can be done to ameliorate the influence of localized opposition to new housing and
increased densities? In this white paper, I provide background on three aspects of this question to
build a case for state policy and broader social movements on this topic.
First, I outline why the opposition to new housing is an important policy concern. Constraining
the supply of housing through low-density zoning makes housing more expensive, and
exacerbates inequality by restricting access to many urban opportunities and amenities to those
' The term affordable housing generally refers to housing that is subsidized (e.g., through Low Income
Housing Tax Credits) and/or housing that is legally restricted to households earning income below some
threshold. Market -rate housing is often used to distinguish non -subsidized or restricted housing.
of greater means. It also stifles regional economic productivity, and has negative environmental
consequences.
In the second section, I assess the causes of local opposition to new housing, and group them into
three categories; concerns over the built environment, concerns over who lives in your
neighborhood, and concerns over the development process. Within each of these categories the
vague term neighborhood character is applied in an inconsistent way, and a misunderstanding of
the way housing markets work confuses debates. This section was developed through review of
research and news reports, minutes from neighborhood council meetings, and interviews with
vocal slow -growth or anti -development activists (for more details on methods, see Appendix A).
The third section of the paper briefly outlines the many ways in which groups block
development. This short section is revealing. It highlights the vast array of veto points that
individuals and groups take advantage of to block development under our current system.
The fourth and final section outlines some new and old ways in which the state can challenge
and reorient resistance to new housing and increased density. First, state policymakers should
enforce and enhance existing laws established to prevent local resistance to new housing. The
central pillars of the state law are the Housing Element and the Regional Housing Needs
Assessments, which at present perform a symbolic function. Cities must be held accountable if
they do not meet their housing production goals and currently they are not. I also identify other
ways to enhance the Housing Element, such as calculating housing needs based on affordability
metrics, vacancy rates, or jobs, rather than population estimates.
Second, the state must take steps to democratize and expand public participation in the planning
process. Our current planning system is structurally biased in favor of wealthy homeowners,
particularly those with the leisure time to attend frequent public hearings and lobby local
politicians. In connection to this goal, the state can continue also provide more and better public
information about these issues, as it has through the Legislative Analyst's office.
Third, I propose that we seek new ways to shift control over land use to the metropolitan and
state level because housing markets operate at the metropolitan scale. Renters in Boyle Heights
are affected by zoning restrictions in Bel Air, but currently have limited input into the regional
forces driving up rents. I identify some "carrots," such as the allocation of infrastructure
investment that the state can employ to incentivize dense development, as well as potential sticks
other than the Housing Element.
Housing affordability is measured by the ratio of incomes to housing costs. This paper focuses
exclusively on housing costs, but I recognize that policies that shape incomes and employment
are equally important. Moreover, this paper focuses specifically on ways to reduce barriers to
new supply in already developed parts of cities, and does not purport to address the housing
affordability challenge in its entirety. Households on the low end of the income spectrum need
more assistance with housing expenditures in the United States. Of the 28 million households
that are eligible for assistance based on low -incomes, only 6 million receive any support.
Moreover, the largest federal housing subsidy, the Mortgage Interest Deduction, is grossly
regressive and does not benefit renters (Schwartz, 2006).
4
2. Background: Why is the opposition to new and affordable housing an important policy
concern?
The opposition to building new housing, and building affordable housing specifically, is an
important policy concern for two major reasons. First, constraining the supply of housing
increases rents. Second, the way in which opposition to new housing occurs in metropolitan
areas exacerbates spatial inequalities, excluding low-income households from places with
economic opportunities and urban amenities. Additionally, restricting the supply of housing in
cities reduces economic productivity and has negative environmental consequences.
In most urban areas of the United States, land accounts for the majority of the cost of a house
(Albouy and Ehrlich, 2016). In the 19th century, David Ricardo (1809) pointed out that the value
of land depended on its fertility and agricultural yield. The primary determinant of the value of
urban land in the 21 St century is not so different: land is valuable in fertile economic regions. As
a result, housing is also often expensive, though a more elastic supply of housing makes it more
affordable (Glaeser et at., 2012), as does allowing more houses per acre to be built.
Academic studies from the 1970s (Ohls et al., 1974) and 1980s (Rose, 1986) find a significant
impact of restrictive zoning on housing prices, and more recent research has tested this
hypothesis in a more sophisticated manner. Saiz (2010), for example, uses the presence of
natural, geographic constraints to urban expansion such as water bodies to assess the effects of
man-made constraints like low-density zoning, and finds the latter to be significant and large.
Within regions, studies of Boston (Glaeser and Ward, 2009), New York (Been et al., 2014),
California (Quigley and Raphael, 2005), and the San Francisco Bay Area (Kok et al., 2016), also
show that regulations such as historic preservation ordinances, low-density zoning, and multiple
independent reviews increase prices.
Low-density zoning and other regulatory constraints exacerbate spatial inequality by pricing
middle- and low-income households out of neighborhoods with high-quality public services like
schools (Rothwell, 2011; Lens and Monkkonen, 2016). The spatial exclusion wrought by
exclusionary land -use controls like low-density zoning exacerbates economic inequality by
reducing social mobility (Furman, 2015). Some neighborhoods enable more social mobility than
others, and research shows that when children move from a low -opportunity neighborhood to a
high -opportunity neighborhood they reap benefits their entire life (Chetty at al., 2014; 2015).
Higher housing prices help homeowners through increased equity, but hurt renters and would-be
homeowners, two groups that tend to have lower incomes than existing homeowners. Rognlie
(2015) argues that the role of housing wealth is fundamental in increasing global inequality, as it
is the biggest source of rising wealth and disproportionately benefits the already wealthy.
Low-density zoning also hurts the regional economy. By limiting population growth, such
zoning restricts the labor pool and pushes people and firms out, thereby reducing the
productivity -enhancing economies of scale generated in urban areas. In California, Toyota's
recent move from Torrance to Texas was at least in part due to high housing costs (Hirsch,
2014). More recently, housing costs are argued to be driving the exodus of tech start-ups from
the Bay Area to cities like Phoenix, Boise, and Salt Lake (Dougherty, 2016).
5
In fact, low-density zoning in productive cities hurts the entire country's economy. Hsieh and
Moretti (2015) identify a dramatic increase in wage dispersion across cities in the United
States from 1964 to 2009, and find that restrictions on movement to highly productive
metropolitan areas have reduced national economic productivity by about ten percent. Bunten
(2016) finds smaller but still substantial gains after accounting for the increased congestion
that could follow from more urban development. Moreover, the gains created in highly
productive sectors accrue to landowners in highly productive metros rather than being used to
build new housing. Preventing newcomers from moving to the San Francisco Bay Area can be
seen as a way for existing landowners to capture the productivity gains of the booming
technology sector (Delong, 2016).
Low-density zoning and other land use regulations can also have negative environmental
consequences (Chapple, 2016). Restricting density forces cities to expand horizontally.
Individuals consume more land than they would otherwise, travel greater distances, and generate
more greenhouse gases (Kahn, 2005; Mangum, 2015).
The importance of supply -oriented solutions to the housing crisis, with major caveats
Because newly built housing is usually more expensive than existing housing, it may seem that
building more new housing cannot make housing more affordable. This is inaccurate. The
process known as filtering means that even expensive new housing units can improve overall
housing affordability at the metropolitan level. As higher -income households move into new
units, they free up existing units, which can then be rented or purchased by households with
lower incomes (Rosenthal, 2014). Moreover, if no new housing stock is available in desirable
locations; high-income residents will renovate and occupy older housing that might otherwise be
inhabited by lower-income residents. The prevention of new construction cannot guarantee that
older housing will remain affordable.
The notion that building high-end housing units will benefit consumers at the moderate and low
end of the housing market may seem counterintuitive, and is frequently dismissed as a form of
debunked trickle-down economics. The filtering process or lack thereof is a crucial element to
stave off increases in housing rents, and does not imply giving tax breaks to the wealthy. In fact,
it seems that upzoning low-density neighborhoods would be against the interests of the wealthy
given their opposition to it. Moreover, housing markets with more responsive supply
mechanisms experience less price growth (Glaeser et al., 2008; Saiz, 2010) and are able to
capture the economic benefits of a booming economy (Saks, 2008; Bunten, 2016). This is not —
as many imply — parallel to the idea that cutting tax rates would stimulate economic growth.
The comparison to the markets for cars is useful (Cortright, 2016). Expensive new cars
eventually become inexpensive old cars, just as today's Class A buildings eventually become
tomorrow's Class B or C buildings. Improving housing affordability by building more homes is
not as straightforward as making cars more affordable by manufacturing more cars, however,
and three important caveats should be acknowledged when considering the role of new supply in
housing markets.
6
First, housing is heterogeneous, durable, and usually fixed in space. New supply can
simultaneously have downward rent impacts at the metropolitan scale while apparently
contributing to higher rents at the neighborhood level. This is especially true because zoning
strictly regulates where different sizes of housing units can and cannot be built, preventing, for
example, small apartments from being built in neighborhoods with large houses.
New stock in one quality segment, such as luxury housing, can take time to filter down-market or
never directly filter down. Yet it will still affect rents in other segments of the market at the
metropolitan scale (Coulson and McMillen, 2007). In the short run, new housing ameliorates the
market pressure on renovated middle- and low-cost housing in neighborhoods and metropolitan
areas, and subsidized housing construction does even more. Zuk and Chapple (2016) find that
increasing the supply of market -rate housing actually reduces displacement, though it does so at
only half the rate as the supply of subsidized housing.
Second, redevelopment changes neighborhoods, and new construction has the potential to
change a place in a way that attracts more people with higher incomes (though it does not always
do this). New housing is generally more expensive than old housing, and increasing housing
supply may involve the destruction or redevelopment of existing buildings that contain housing
units that are affordable because they are old, not because they are subsidized or restricted to
households of a certain income. Relatedly, new construction is argued by some to spur more new
construction, a kind of snowball effect that is concurrent with gentrification. Whether or not this
signaling effect occurs, lower-income neighborhoods are generally less successful at preventing
increases in density, and often their political representatives are often unable to extract as many
concessions from developers as in wealthier neighborhoods.
A final caveat about the emphasis on supply -oriented solutions to the present housing
affordability crisis in California is that it should be seen as a necessary but not sufficient policy
approach. United States housing policy has long acknowledged that housing subsidies are
necessary for low-income households to access safe and decent housing. In practice, however,
high-income homeowners gets disproportionately more subsidies for housing from the federal
government (Fischer and Sard, 2016) — the lost revenue from the Mortgage Interest Deduction
dwarfs all other housing expenditures. Meanwhile, federal resources for low-income rental
housing continue to decline (Schwartz, 2006; Lens and Reina, 2016). The insufficiency of
federal support for low-income housing is especially stark in cities with high housing costs.
These caveats are limitations to a supply -focused strategy for making housing affordable yet do
not obviate the need for such a strategy. At the metropolitan level, increasing housing supply
makes housing more affordable in spite of what some believe. Moreover, blocking development
does not stop neighborhood change as much as some would hope. Rising rents also change
neighborhoods, excluding young families and displacing residents that cannot afford keep up.
Not building housing in some parts of the city pushes the pressure for development, along with
any negative impacts, to neighborhoods with fewer resources to resist. This exacerbates
inequities, as well as increasing traffic congestion and reducing economic productivity.
3. Understanding Opposition to New Housing and Higher Density: Motivations
The motivations for opposing new housing construction are numerous and complex, and cannot
be placed neatly along a left -right spectrum. I summarize the arguments into three kinds of
concerns: concerns about the built environment, concerns about who lives near you, and
concerns about the development process. Within all three categories, the term "neighborhood
character" emerges as an amorphous way of expressing opposition to new housing. Additionally,
a misunderstanding of housing market dynamics also appears to exacerbate these concerns.
Concerns over the built environment and local services
Among concerns about the built environment, traffic and parking are far and away the most
commonly cited concerns. In a study of opposition to affordable housing development in the
San Francisco Bay Area (Pendall, 1999), the vast majority of complaints about proposed projects
were about traffic. Site design leading to problems with congestion and parking are also well
understood by planners as a major concern about new developments. Interviews with
neighborhood groups opposing new housing strongly reinforced this message. A commonly cited
fear about new market -rate housing is that the tenants (i.e. those who can afford new apartments)
tend to own cars at a higher rate than the rest of the population.
Beyond the challenge of traffic and parking, people do not want new developments to strain local
amenities such as parks and schools, to obstruct their views, or cast shade on their homes and
backyards (Rothwell, 2015). In interviews, residents of low-density neighborhoods often
expressed fear that increased density would cause the area to exceed some fundamental carrying
capacity. They expressed worry about the limits of their sewer systems, the power grid, and the
availability of water resources as reasons to oppose new housing.
A smaller segment of built environment opposition is based around architectural concerns. In
interviews, some community members expressed distaste for modernist glass structures and other
current architectural styles. Some neighborhood associations work proactively with developers
on everything from massing (shape and size) and proportions to the location of bedrooms. In the
city of Santa Monica, all buildings other than single family homes must have their design
approved by an architectural review board. Such extensive engagement on the design process
typically extends the development process by several months and can cost hundreds of thousands
of dollars. In interviews, developers and neighborhood associations sometimes agreed that the
process results in a superior finished product 3; but most did not mention the tradeoff in higher
costs.
Pendall's research also identified concerns about property values as a common source of
opposition to new affordable housing. The classic theory of opposition to new housing supply,
referred to as the "homevoter hypothesis" (Fischel, 2001), posits that local politicians limit new
housing supply because homeowners vote more than renters and are highly motivated to
'NB: This study is about affordable housing not all housing.
s Interviews with Patrick Kennedy (Panoramic Interests), Eve Stewart (SAHA), Lee Wallach (Motor Ave
Improvement Association), and Jay Handal (West LA Neighborhood Council).
8
maintain property values. In Los Angeles, homeowners are twice as likely to vote as renters
(Sonenshein et al., 2014).
Environmental concerns about new and higher density housing are also mentioned as a built
environment issue. The preservationist approach to environmentalism is exemplified by groups
like the Sierra Club, who seek to minimize development in order to minimize environmental
damage on a small geographic scale. This is actually counterproductive because high-density
urban areas are the least environmentally harmful habitat for humans (Kahn, 2005). Thus, the
efforts by the Sierra Club and other environmental groups to block the recent "by -right"
legislation of Governor .ferry Brown can be framed in a larger pattern of working against high-
density urban development that actually benefits the global environment (Islas, 2014).
Environmental concerns have also become a common pretext for blocking developments that are
actually opposed for non -environmental reasons. In this regard, the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) has become a crucial tool in efforts to block or reduce the size of
developments. A city planner in Los Angeles points out that most of the 48 CEQA suits
currently underway in Los Angeles are against residential projects. Most CEQA lawsuits are
filed by groups that do not have an environmental mission and are meant to block
environmentally -friendly dense infill development (Hernandez et al., 2015). A review of
neighborhood association materials identifies environmental concerns about new development
that are misinformed at best or disingenuous at worst. One San Francisco organization opposes
Accessory Dwelling Units because backyards are an important form of carbon sequestration6.
Concerns over new and different kinds of people
The central role of racism and exclusion in residential land use regulations has been well-
documented since the advent of modern zoning (Freund, 2007). Buchanan v. Warley (1917)
made residential segregation by race illegal. Yet at all levels of government in the United States,
individuals devised non -statutory legal strategies— such as redlining, racial covenants on deeds,
public housing, urban renewal, and the exclusion of housing types that would be affordable to
low-income households — to segregate the nation's cities by race (Nightingale, 2012).
These strategies were common in communities across California. As urban planner Charles H.
Cheney described the deed restrictions of the Palos Verdes Estates, "The type of protective
restrictions and the high class scheme of layout which we have provided tends to guide and
automatically regulate the class of citizens who are settling here. The restrictions prohibit
occupation of land by Negroes or Asiatics. The minimum cost of house restrictions tends to
group the people of more or less like income together as far as it is reasonable and advisable to
do so" (Fogelson 1967: 324).
4 See June 1, 2016, letter by from Sierra Club, Coalition for Clean Water, Surfrider Foundation, Clean
Water Action California, and California League of Conservation Voters opposing Trailer Bill 707 `By -
Right" Housing Proposal.
s Correspondence with Los Angeles City Planner.
6 For more, see: http://www.westoftwinpeaks.orWdocuments/2013-11-25`/`20-
www.wes ........... ,toftwinpeaks.orWdocuments/2013-I1-25%20-
%20WTPCC%2dPoli.cy%24Statement%o20on%20RH-1%20Subdivision.pdf (last accessed 10/20/2016).
�17
Recently, low-density zoning has been shown to strongly correlate with segregation not only by
race (Rothwell and Massey, 2009), but also by income (Lens and Monkkonen, 2016). Racism
and anti -poor notions continue to intertwine with ideas about "urban areas" and density
(Manville, 2012). By preventing the construction of smaller units, or multifamily housing,
through minimum lot sizes and single family zoning, cities can effectively prevent those without
means from entering. Racism and classism intertwine when people express concerns about
affordable or subsidized housing in coded language. Of the 182 projects studied by Pendall
(1999), protesters voiced explicit objections to affordable housing because of class in only one
case. Yet, housing developers working in the Bay Area suggest that fears of black residents are
framed as "will people from Oakland"—a city with a large black population—"be moving into
this development?'7
Ironically, the desire to exclude wealthy residents has recently emerged as a reason for opposing
new housing in many low-income neighborhoods. Community activists and elected officials
worry about the signaling effects of new construction, as successful market -rate developments
demonstrate the feasibility of further redevelopment in low-income neighborhoods. Community
groups fear that new luxury apartments will create greater clarity on the part of landlords about
the ability to lease units at market rates, which will in turn incentivize evictions and other forms
of tenant harassment. In some cases they also fear the loss of an ethnic enclave; communities that
were created out of necessity because of redlining and housing discrimination have become
communities of choice. Pushing for 100% affordable housing and opposing market -rate housing
is seen as a means of preserving the racial and economic demographic of the neighborhood.
Concerns about the development process
In interviews, several representatives of neighborhood groups expressed that they are not
opposed to increased housing density per se, but have objections to the planning and approval
process for new developments. In sortie cases, these objections are specific to interactions with
particular developers. Residents frequently take umbrage to developers who do not introduce
themselves to the neighborhood before proceeding with entitlement and construction plans. Even
when developers do conduct outreach in a community, residents sometimes complain that they
do so in a perfunctory manner. Sophisticated and experienced developers typically engage in
door -knocking campaigns and other kinds of extensive outreach very early in the process. While
not compromising on new housing units added, this allow neighbors to give input into the layout,
unit mix, massing, materials, and other elements of the building's design.8
Some neighborhood groups also expressed objections to the development process on a citywide
or metropolitan scale. Neighborhood groups in Los Angeles are especially vocal about this
problem. Los Angeles's zoning code was originally written in 1946, and has been inconsistently
amended and modified to reflect the city's evolution into the nation's second-largest
municipality.9 As a result, earning entitlement approvals in Los Angeles is an unwieldy process
that more often than not involves variances. Many neighborhood associations expressed a belief
' Interview with Eve Stewart.
8 Interviews with Eve Stewart, Amy Bayley, Patrick Kennedy.
9 For more, see: http://recode.Wabout (Last accessed 10/2/2016).
10
that the variances are granted on the basis of political connections rather than merit. 10 The
sponsors of the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative claim that concern about the process of
development, rather than development itself was the inspiration for their initiative.
What is neighborhood character?
The concept of neighborhood character is an overarching element of many publically expressed
concerns about new construction. Yet it is a vague term, and groups with widely different
concerns use it to express frustration about change. In order to obtain some empirical evidence
on these concerns, I reviewed the publically available minutes from Los Angeles Neighborhood
Councils meetings in 2015. I focus mostly on those neighborhoods near existing or proposed
metro rail lines and potential for higher -than -average development.
Table 1 below summarizes the reasons for opposition given by board members or resident
stakeholders to proposed multi -unit housing developments in Los Angeles Neighborhood
Councils. The analysis reveals that in wealthier neighborhoods the inconsistency with
"neighborhood character" of proposed development is routinely cited, especially from board
members. A lack of engagement on the part of the developer with the community in articulating
plans is frequently cited as a reason for public complaint, but this often arises from developers'
lack of understanding of residents' concerns about neighborhood character.
Table 1. Opposition to Housing Projects in Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils
Neighborhood Councilll
Reasons for Opposition to Housing Projects
Loss of tax revenue, higher costs associated with
Boyle Heights
density, lack of engagement with the community, too
much density already
Blocked views, health and well-being, neighborhood
Downtown Los Angeles
character, historic preservation, lack of public/green
space, higher rents,
East Hollywood
Lack of engagement with the community
Empowerment Congress Lack of engagement with the community, influx of
North low-income residents
Greater Wilshire Neighborhood character, aesthetics, scale, privacy,
traffic congestion, pedestrian safety
10 Interviews with Jack Humphreville, Jay Handal, and Lee Wallach.
" The following neighborhood councils did not post minutes on their website, did not face opposition to
new housing developments, or did not review new housing developments in 2015: Arroyo Seco, Central
Hollywood, Historic Cultural, Koreatown, MacArthur Park, Palms, South Central, West Adams
11
Neighborhood character, lack of engagement with the
Historic Highland Park community, displacement / gentrification,
environmental impact, too much density
United Neighborhoods Neighborhood character
Westwood Neighborhood character, historic preservation, legal
precedent, environmental impact
Source: Minutes of neighborhood council meetings, available online, see Appendix C for URLs.
Two contemporary cases of ballot -box opposition to new housing construction are helpful to
understanding the range of meanings ascribed to neighborhood character (for more on these two
initiatives, see Appendix B). Although one already failed and the other is not expected to pass,
these demonstrate the public concern about new construction in a very direct manner. The
differences between them are also revealing.
San Francisco's Proposition I, which was voted down in 2015, sought to place a temporary
moratorium on new market -rate development in the Mission district to prevent gentrification and
preserve housing affordability. In contrast, the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative, which will be
put to Los Angeles voters in March 2017, will place a temporary moratorium on developments
that require General Plan amendments or zone or height -district changes --a majority of new
developments because of the overlapping, conflicting, and strict regulations on the books. The
ostensible goal of the initiative is to fix the planning system in Los Angeles, which many agree
needs reform, but the rhetoric and reason for this are the perceived negative impacts of large
projects, framed as luxury mega-projects12.
One of the most frequently cited reasons for opposing new, higher density development is that is
will change the character of the neighborhood. In fact, the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative is
being advocated by the so-called Coalition to Preserve LA. This group takes a more traditional
slow -growth perspective on the idea of neighborhood character, using it to refer primarily to the
built environment. Opposition from low-income neighborhoods is more open about their
concerns about who lives in the neighborhood. Tenant activists have expressed concerns about
new residents with higher incomes will displace existing commercial activities and that these
new residents will push for fee-based funding of parks and other public spaces.
Misunderstanding the way housing markets work
Housing is a uniquely complicated good, performing multiple functions in the United States.
Affordability often comes into conflict with other roles of housing, such as equity building.
Because a home is typically the largest asset a household owns, homeowners are passionately
concerned about the value of their house, willing to devote great efforts to preserve or increase it,
and risk -averse to neighborhood changes even with potential upsides (Fischel, 2001). Those
advocating for housing affordability are thus often working at cross-purposes with existing
12 For more see the website of the initiative's sponsor, the Coalition to Preserve LA:
ham://2 geeservel a. ori/
12
homeowners, who tend to have disproportionate political power (Sonenshein et al., 2014). Thus,
a large segment of voters have no personal interest in increasing affordability, which would only
dilute the value of their largest investment. California's property tax system under Proposition 13
further insulates homeowners from concerns around affordability, since property taxes are locked
in based on a home's value at time of purchase (Taylor, 2016).
The complexity of the housing market confuses debates around affordability, especially vis-a-vis
the impact of new supply on prices. Almost two-thirds of San Franciscans think increasing
housing supply will not improve affordability (Building Industry Association, 2016). Many
community organizations most concerned about affordability are also in favor of tight
restrictions on new development, a seemingly contradictory position. CCHO, a San Francisco
organization representing affordable housing developers, has disseminated literature explicitly
rejecting the notion that increased supply might improve affordability in San Francisco 3.
A final complication is the way in which the spatial fixity of housing leads to conflicts over
redevelopment as urban areas grow. The pressure for redevelopment at higher densities
inevitably builds in older neighborhoods of growing urban areas. Building low-density housing
makes economic sense at a city's edge. In growing urban areas, however, neighborhoods that
were once at the edge of a city become inner -suburbs after a few decades. Their new, more
central position in the metropolitan area means that the fundamental value of the land has
changed. Central land has a shorter commute time relative to the fringe and so is a more
attractive candidate to develop to a higher density. Building more in more central places benefits
metropolitan affordability and the environment. At the same time, however, a constituency of
residents now exists, and they will be inclined to oppose changes for reasons described
previously. This creates a conflict between neighborhood and metropolitan priorities.
4. Understanding Opposition to Housing Construction and Density: How does it work?
In an idealized version of the planning and development process in the United States,
municipalities adopt neighborhood and citywide plans that guide growth, and zoning is used to
implement these plans. In the real world, we have a much more piecemeal system with multiple
veto points and opportunities for community input. Plans are not updated frequently, and we give
formal representation to concerns of community members through multiple channels at many
times throughout the process, years after agreed upon plans are being implemented.
In addition to the planning system itself, our legal and political systems give opportunities for
neighborhood groups and concerned citizens to express their preferences about development, not
to mention the tactics groups use outside of these three formal systems. The following list
highlights the ways in which opponents to new housing construction and density can shape what
can and cannot get built in California's cities.
13 See http://www.sfccho.org_Iwp-contenYuploadsl2016/09/1<'iltering-I~allacy-lnfbpmphie-Final-Web.pdf
(last accessed 10/22/2016).
13
Planning system
1. Communicate concern by commenting in public fora, writing letters, using social media, and
circulating petitions 14
2. Appeal specific projects
3. Design review
4. File historic designation petitions for properties or districts 15
5. In new specific plans, advocate for requirements beyond the baseline zoning standards 16
6. Make methodology For assessing housing needs inadequate 17
7. Influence community planning process
8. Regulatory capture of regional planning agencies such as ABAG
Legal system
1. Sue projects under CEQA
2. Sue plans under CEQA19
3. Threaten to sue, or "Greenmail"20 developers, based on CEQA lawsuits in order to get
payoffs or concessions from developers for non -environmental community benefits
4. Sue for developers not meeting a discretionary condition
5. Sue to invalidate permit or policy 21
Political system
1. Run ballot initiatives to place a moratorium on development 22
2. Lobby City Council members individually (blocking discretionary permits)
3. Recall council members (Westwood case)
4. Run for office and elect anti -development council members
5. Lobby for state laws that affect specific cities rules
14 Pendall (1999) found that of 182 projects studied, 62% saw protest from local residents using these
means. Public comments and letters were the most common, with over 50 of 182 projects inciting them.
Petitions were circulated against 36 of the 182 projects.
1s In Los Angeles, the Westwood HPOZ and the United Neighborhoods character residential district.
16 An extreme example from Vermont/Western requires project containing 40,000 square feet or more of
retail commercial floor to provide free delivery of purchases made at the site to local residents.
17 For example, the RHNA uses 2010 jobs numbers in projections, thus underestimates housing needs
near rapidly growing job centers.
18 For example, encouraging downzoning and discouraging upzoning, and setting conditions on properties
or uses.
19 For example, the Hollywood community plan, mobility element.
20 For example: hti]2://Ia.curbed.com/20i3/l/3/10295162/leaked-settlement-shows-liow-niinbys-
greenmai 1 -developers -1
21 For example, the lawsuit against Accessory Dwelling Unit in the city of Los Angeles
22 Though not a new phenomenon (Orman, 1984), examples of ballot -box planning continue with San
Francsico's Proposition I, the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative in Los Angeles, and Encinitas'
Proposition A, which requires zoning amendments be approved by voters
llttp://www.laweekly.com/news/sliould-we-b_ui Id-more-liousiniz-in-la-7056107
14
6. Lobby against state laws that make it easier to develop housing 23
Other avenues for expressing preferences
I . Influence developers before they submit proposals informally float development concepts
with their council member and the local neighborhood association.
2. Influencing public opinion about development by creating negative labels for certain types of
housing, such as McMansions or "mega developments", by accusing developers and
politicians of corruption, and by building a coalition with shared ideology of crusading
against corruption, destruction, and growth
3. Influence new or potential residents in a neighborhood to deter change. 24
Evidently, there are multiple veto points for any project and those with the motivation, time and
resources, can use many of these strategies to block development completely or at least reduce
the number of housing units being built.
5. What should be done to challenge the opposition to new housing construction?
Housing and land -use policy in the United States and California has long made opposing new
housing construction a rational choice. Many of these policies have such widespread public
support there is little chance for reform in the near term. Nevertheless, they are noted here to
frame the environment that incentivizes opposition to infill development. For example, tax
policies, such as the Mortgage Interest Deduction, promote the use of housing as an investment
and in turn incentivize homeowners to rationally oppose changes that might negatively impact
the value of their homes.
Property taxes shape land use incentives. California's property tax system is regulated by
Proposition 13, under which property values are reassessed when the property changes hands.
For longtime owners, this means assessed values are generally far below the current market
value. Not only does this system shield homeowners from the fiscal consequences of increased
home values, it increases pressure to make strong demands on contributions from new
development. The approval process for new construction has become a central moment for land
value recapture and new construction is asked to shoulder the burden of funding infrastructure,
affordable housing, and other community benefits, while existing structures (and residents) face
no such obligation. This has a restrictive impact on development, making projects with large
profit margins the only ones feasible (Andrews, 1988). The policy is also inequitable.
At the local level, many cities in California have rent control or rent stabilization ordinances in
place. Rent increases under these ordinances are capped or tied to the Consumer Price Index,
which has lagged far below increases in housing prices. As a result, longtime renters are shielded
" For example, http://www.tenantstogether oorglupdates/;oint-3_otter-co_ncern'ing-O/oE2%a80%a98-
right%E2%80%99-development-budget-trailer-707
24 Most recently, activists in Boyle Heights have been pressuring art galleries to leave the neighborhood
using mild tactics of intimidation compared to the aggressive violence used by white neighborhoods
against minorities throughout much of the history of US cities and to this day (Loewen, 2006).
15
from the current market cost of housing. These renter protections can certainly be justified from
a social equity standpoint; however, they may also have the unintended consequence of creating
a constituency that is more concerned with tenant protections than widespread affordability.
Interviews reinforced this notion; renters and their advocates in political office were often more
focused on strengthening tenant protections than increasing the overall supply of housing. 25
Infrastructure finance has also tended to promoted suburban expansion over infill development in
the United States, and California. One example is the state's system of allocating natural
resources. Water rights are governed in a way that that discourages existing cities from
expanding in population size, even when they employ conservationist development standards
(Dremann, 2016). Moreover, Proposition 218, passed in 1996, denies government the ability to
charge more for water and other resources than it costs to acquire and distribute it (Simon, 1998).
This precludes the possibility of tiered pricing and other financial incentives that might
encourage compact development and conservation of resources.
Finally, there are few direct consequences to neighborhoods and cities that simply refuse to
produce new housing. Although the state requires cities to produce housing elements that
demonstrate how they can meet Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA), the law carries
no financial carrots or sticks for actual production of housing. Many residents of wealthy cities,
meanwhile, are unconcerned about the potential loss of Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds or other funding streams tied to affordable housing.
Despite a regulatory framework that encourages opposition to housing in many ways, there are
several promising avenues of reform available to lawmakers. First, I recommend we enforce and
enhance existing housing laws, especially the Housing Element. Second, the process of public
input and project approvals should be modified to reflect input from a wider cross-section of
residents. In some cases, I recommend we consider removing channels of participation if they are
only utilized by those with sufficient resources. Third, government agencies can assist growing
efforts of pro -housing advocates by producing data and literature to inform public debate.
Finally, I encourage the state government to continue and expand efforts to make land use
decisions at a metropolitan, not neighborhood or municipal scale.
Enforce and enhance existing housing laws
California has a statewide framework for housing planning, the Housing Element. The
framework has three steps. First, regional housing needs — units affordable to different income
groups — are estimated based on population projections. Second, Councils of Governments
(COGs) allocate these units to the cities and counties within their purview. Finally, cities are then
required to update their local housing element to reflect these regional needs.
At present, however, this system performs an almost symbolic function. Cities that do not meet
their housing targets face no consequences, whereas cities that meet them reap no rewards
(Lewis, 2003). In fact, local politicians in many cities would likely be punished by voters if they
were to push new housing construction in their jurisdictions. A first step is for the state,
therefore, is to do everything in its power to force cities to permit housing allocated to them
zs Interviews with Hillary Ronen and Isabella Chu.
16
under the Housing Element framework. The state can and should provide "carrots" - such as
infrastructure investment - to incentivize compliance with their Housing Element.
Additionally, various legal "sticks" must be explored to make the Housing Element framework
achieve its goals. Can the state's Attorney General take a more aggressive stance towards
cities based on their responsibilities under the housing element, providing checks to cities
that do not wish to comply?
The Housing Element framework ought also to be reformed and enhanced. Lewis (2003) argues
that the statute is unwieldy because it contains multiple objectives, and uses a process -oriented
approach to prod cities into planning for their share of affordable units with the ultimate goal of
increasing overall housing production. In addition to giving the law some teeth, he recommends
the idea of self -certification (exempting continuously compliant cities from state review), awards
based on production of housing not the element process, the ability of jurisdictions to do joint
housing allocations, and to cooperate in transfers of their housing allocation.
One example of how the planning. process could be usefully reformed as pertains to housing
supply, is to improve the methodology 26 through which planncrs project 'need' in housing needs
assessments of General Plans and Community Plans. At present, the state's Regional Housing
Needs Assessments (RHNA) allocate housing; needs based on population projections from the
Department of Finance and regional population forecasts 27. All projections are somewhat flawed,
but using estimates of population to forecast need for housing is bad practice. Population
estimates are biased downward by housing costs in previous years, because fewer people move
to places where costs are high. If housing is costly in part because not enough is built,
populations will grow by less. Moreover, the inaccuracy of these population projections has been
used as "proof' by anti -development activists that the need for housing is overestimated, when in
fact the opposite is true28.
Two preferable alternatives to the method of estimating regional housing needs have been
proposed. They are preferable because they are more closely tied to goals of housing
affordability, rather than simply accommodating more people. One is to use vacancy rates to set
new housing needs (Phillips, 2016) and the other is some affordability metric like the ratio of
median incomes to median rents.
Other laws exist in California that can challenge the opposition to new housing, such as the
Prohibition of Discrimination against Affordable Housing (Gov. Code Sec. 65008),
California and Federal Fair Housing Laws, and the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov Code Sec.
65920 et seq.) (Rawson, 2006). Many of these same laws might benefit from reformed, but at
very least should be applied in their current state. Recently, the California Housing
Accountability Act, which restricts cities' abilities to downzone projects, was used by pro -
26 At minimum, updated employment numbers should be used in these calculations, as recently numbers
from 2010 were used, vastly underestimating the location of current economic activity.
27 hU-.//w.ww.hcd.ca.gov/housing.policy-level opme:nt/housing;-ele;nendlin Plin_regionai.php
28 Interview with Jack Humphreville, Interview with Miraloma Park Improvement Club
17
development activists to sue the City of Lafayette29, after the city dramatically downscaled
what began as a 315 -unit residential project. Again, the state Attorney General might explore
supporting these kinds of cases.
Make the planning process more inclusive
More inclusive avenues for public participation in the planning process are needed. At present,
many of the ways in which individuals can give feedback to planners are time consuming and
limited to those with high enough incomes to inform themselves, travel to hearings, and wait
hours to speak. One starting point is to collect demographic data about community input. There
is consistent anecdotal evidence suggesting that the process is inherently biased towards
particular groups, no study could be found regarding the race, age, or income of attendees at
public hearings. Such information might bring attention to the need for more democratic avenues
of participation.
One approach to democratization would be for planners to solicit input from a representative
sample of constituents through non-traditional means such as social media or web forums.
Additionally, greater effort should be placed into making discussions and decisions
understandable to lay people and people who speak English as a second language. As was made
clear by the review of minutes from neighborhood councils, simplified language and clear
presentation impacts of decisions are important but often lacking. This imposes substantial
information costs on those that would speak on projects, increasing the bias in participation to
those with the time and resources to interpret proposals.
If soliciting input from a representative sample of citizens is too burdensome for planning
agencies, they should consider cutting off some existing channels of input, or simply reduce the
discretion in the development review process. Cities like Seattle have proposed new and different
ways to alter the input they receive on planning decisions, including disbanding existing
neighborhood councils in order to create communication channels with historically
underrepresented communities (Cohen, 2016). Prohibiting campaign contributions by
developers to local politicians might be a way to curb perceived (or actual) corruption and
outsized influence.
One way to reduce inequality in the review process is by increasing the ways in which projects
can be approved "by -right". California already has one effective form of by -right approval in its
state density bonus law, SB 1818. This law enables by -right approval of density increases for
projects that set aside some units as affordable to low-income households. This law should be
strengthened and expanded. New efforts to create more opportunities for projects to obtain
permits "by -right" should be considered. For example, by -right approval of projects could also
be tied to RHNA housing goals. If a city fails to meet its housing target, this could trigger
automatic by -right approval of projects. Such a program would ensure that cities that use the
discretionary review process in a responsible way are not penalized.
29 For more, see: ltittp://www.bixjyurrials.comlsa:ifi-aricisco/bIoWreal-estate/2016/07/sibarf-liotising-
ject-f aws ui t-1 aftette-yel p4b. htm 1 ?an a=twt
18
Provide public information and non-partisan analysis
Neighborhood opposition to housing may also be challenged through existing democratic means.
In recent years, a number of pro -housing advocacy organizations have emerged throughout the
state to counter neighborhood opposition to new housing. Some of these organizations, such as
Redwood City Forward and Imagine Menlo Park, focus on hyper -local issues. Others, such as
Abundant Housing LA, focus on housing at a metropolitan level. Still others, such as Tech for
Housing, direct their efforts toward members of a particular industry. The majority of these
organizations are only a few years old and have yet to build strong coalitions or achieve
significant legislative victories. Nonetheless, they are growing. In interviews, members of both
so-called "YIMBY" ("yes in my backyard") organizations and traditional neighborhood groups
reinforced the notion that there is a generational divide in attitudes about housing. Older
residents were more concerned with preserving a suburban, car -oriented model of urban
development, whereas younger residents were more concerned about affordability.
Policymakers and government agencies can assist in informing public debates in this area by
producing nonpartisan literature about housing -related issues. For example, many neighborhood
associations expressed fear about the fundamental carrying capacity of urban areas. Agencies can
produce reports regarding the ability of power companies, water agencies, sewage lines, and
other utilities to handle increased density in the urban core. This may help put to rest
misinformation or unwarranted fears about density. California's Legislative Analyst's Office has
released reports that can serve as a model in this regard. Its report about housing affordability in
the state created a significant amount of public discussion on the topic (Taylor, 2015); its recent
report analyzing the impacts of Proposition 13 has similarly energized debates around property
taxes (Taylor, 2016).
Shift the scale of land use decisions to the regional or state level
Most state constitutions place decisions about land use regulation in the hands of
municipalities, which are often numerous in a metropolitan area and can be quite small 30. Yet
the collective benefits of urbanization (and many of the problems in cities) occur at the
metropolitan scale. For example, labor and housing markets operate at the metropolitan
scale. This governance arrangement means that most voters in metropolitan areas are denied
political representation in policy decisions that affect them, and it creates incentives for
every neighborhood and small city to restrict housing supply within their boundaries.
The State of California should move some aspects of land use decisions to higher levels of
government, such as regional planning bodies or the state itself. There is evidence that when
higher levels of government control land use decisions, rules are less exclusionary and reduce
socioeconomic segregation (Lens and Monkkonen, 2016). An extreme example of this is Japan,
where the nationalization of planning appears to have made Tokyo a highly affordable megacity
by enabling housing supply increases commensurate with population growth even at the
neighborhood level (Harding, 2016).
30 Los Angeles County has 88 cities, many of which have a population under 50,000.
19
Increasing the geographic scale of political action on land -use decisions means that all those
affected can be represented. Combined with a more inclusive planning process, it will allow local
housing policy to reflect a region's overall needs rather than the interests of each neighborhood
on its own. As Lewis and Neiman (2002) argue, by taking a more active role in land use
decisions state policymakers can assist local politicians interested in accommodating
development in their jurisdictions. They can alter the political calculus by giving local politicians
someone to blame, someone with a larger constituency not concerned about local development
issues in a different neighborhood. Checks and balances are needed, of course, in the effort to
prevent exclusion (Ritzdorf, 1997) without enabling a tyranny of the majority and abuse of
minority neighborhoods as occurred through much of United States' urban history (Anderson,
1964).
The most straightforward way to do this in California is through existing systems like the
aforementioned Housing Element. Additionally, the state should put greater effort into
promoting more intensive land use near transit under S13375, which is the Sustainable
Community Strategies component of regional transportation plans. The coordination between
transportation investments and land use are especially important in cities like Los Angeles.
Unless land use rules near stations are changed, public funds pouring into a metro system are
partially wasted. New metro stations surrounded by single family homes benefit very few people,
and are ideal places to increase permitted density.
Similarly, the recent state legislative activity around Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) is
welcome. In 2003, AB 1866 allowed homeowners to build ADUs by right, and SB 1069,
passed this year, further streamlines the approval process for such units (Wong, 2016).
Backyard cottages and garage conversions are relatively inexpensive and unobtrusive ways
to add new housing units to low-density neighborhoods. By supporting those that want to add
ADUs in their backyards, they are creating housing, improving affordability, and helping the
environment.
6. Conclusion
Opposition to new housing and increasing densities in urban neighborhoods of California is one
of the state's major policy challenges in the 21St century, because of the negative social,
economic, and environmental of a lack of housing supply near productive employment centers.
This paper provides background on the economics of housing markets, highlighting the strong
empirical evidence that a responsive housing supply does, in fact, improve housing affordability.
I also draw attention to important caveats about the impact of redevelopment on neighborhoods,
and the insufficiency of supply -based housing policies on their own to provide safe and decent
housing for low-income households.
People oppose increases in the intensity of land use in their neighborhood for many reasons.
Categorizing the reasons is useful as it allows us to identify the most salient concerns and think
of strategies to assuage them. Analyzing these motivations also exposes the vague nature of
many of these motivations, such as the idea of preserving neighborhood character. The idea of
neighborhood character is perhaps the most important for reformers to unpack. It means different
20
things to different people, but should not be allowed to prevent development without a clear
definition.
Identifying the various tactics for opposing new housing development is also useful. Simply
listing the opportunities in which individuals and groups have to provide input and potentially
block, or scale back a project is revealing. There are too many, and they structurally favor those
with the resources and incentives.
There are several avenues for reform to improve the way decisions over where and how much
housing is -permitted in California. The state government should begin by enforcing and
enhancing existing laws, especially the Housing Element. Planning agencies need to do more to
represent all of their constituents in a more equal manner, and to do so they might consider
curtailing some of the current fora for participation if they are unequally accessed. Finally, the
state should develop ways to make decisions at a larger geographic scale, in order that the
politics align with the impacts of decisions.
Overcoming the opposition to new housing construction and higher density in California,
without removing community input into development will remain an ongoing challenge for the
foreseeable future. It is a challenge we can no longer ignore.
21
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a University of California Center Sacramento (UCCS) Housing,
Land Use and Development (HLD) Public Lectureship and White Paper Award. An unrestricted
gift from the Center for California Real Estate to UCCS supported this award. The author would
like to thank UCCS staff, members of the UCCS HLD Selection Committee (Jeff Raimundo,
Katie Kolitsos, Scott MacKenzie); and two anonymous reviewers for their support and guidance.
Brian Warwick provided extensive and invaluable assistance in several aspects of this research.
Uday Ram was instrumental in the review of neighborhood council meeting minutes. Comments
and suggestions were also provided by Devin Bunten, Thomas Davidoff, CJ Gabbe, Brian
Hanlon, Michael Lens, Joan Ling, Michael Manville, Paul Ong, Donald Shoup, Mark
Vallianatos, and Jonathan Zasloff. Thanks as well to all the interviewees who took the time to
discuss this topic.
22
References
Albouy, David and Gabriel Ehrlich (2012) "Housing Productivity and the Social Cost of Land -
Use Restrictions." National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 18110.
Anderson, Martin (1964) The Federal bulldozer. A critical analysis of urban renewal, 1949-
1962. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Andrews, Edmund (198 8) The Curse of California's Proposition 13. The New York Times, June
17.
Been, Vicki, Ingrid Gould Ellen, Michael Gedal, Edward Glaeser, and Brian J. McCabe (2014)
"Preserving History or Hindering Growth? The Heterogeneous Effects of Historic Districts on
Local Housing Markets in New York City." National Bureau of Economic Research Working
Paper No. 20446.
Building Industry Association (2016) Building Industry Association Bay Area Poll. Available at:
biabay_area.00rg/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/180825_ Press_ Release_BIA poll_Final.pdf (last
accessed 11/15/2016).
Bunten, Devin (2016) Is the Rent Too High? Aggregate Implications of Local Land -Use
Regulation. UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
California Housing Partnership Coalition (2016) Confronting California's Rent and Povert
Crisis: A Call for State Reinvestment in Affordable Homes. Available at: http:/lchpc.net/wp-
content/uploads120161041State-Ilousing-Need-201 motif (last accessed 11/15/2016).
Carmiel, Oshrat (2016) Luxury Renters in New York Finally Have Leverage to Negotiate.
Bloomberg News, April 27.
Chapple, Karen (2016) "Integrating California's Climate Change and Fiscal Goals: The Known,
the Unknown, and the Possible." Bacon Public Lectureship & White Paper, University of
California Center Sacramento.
Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline, Emmanuel Saez (2014) "Where is the Land of
Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States." National
Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 19843.
Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, and L Katz (2015) "The Effects of Exposure to Better
Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment."
National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 21156.
Cohen, Josh (2016) Celebration and anger as Seattle's neighborhood council system upended.
Crosscut.com News of the Great Valley, July 17.
23
Cortright, Joe. 2016. Urban Myth Busting: New Rental Housing and Median -Income
Households. City Observatory, February 17.
Coulson, N. Edward and Daniel P. McMillen (2007) The Dynamics of Intraurban Quantile
Housing Price Indexes. Urban Studies 44(8): 1517-1537.
DeLong, Bradford (2016) NIMBYism in America: A Back -of -the -Envelope Finger -Exercise
Calculation. Available at: http://www.bradford-delong.com/2016/08/nimbyism-in-america-a-
back-of-the-envelope-finger-exercise-calculation.htmI (last accessed 11/15/2016).
Dougherty, Connor (2016) Bay Area Start -Ups Find Low -Cost Outposts in Arizona. The New
York Times, August 21.
Dremann, Sue (2016). East Palo Alto runs out of water, development on hold. Palo Alto
Online, June 19.
Fischel, William. (2001) The Homevoter Hypothesis: How Home Values Influence Local
Government Taxation, School Finance, and Land -Use Policies. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Fischer, Will and Barbara Sard (2016) Chart Book: Federal Housing Spending Is Poorly
Matched to Need Tilt Toward Well -Off Homeowners Leaves Struggling Low -Income Renters
Without Help. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Fogelson, Robert (1967) The Fragmented Metropolis: Los Angeles, 1850-1930. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Freund, David M. P. (2007) Colored Property: State Policy and White Racial Politics in
Suburban America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Furman, Jason (2015) Barriers to Shared Growth: The Case of Land Use Regulation and
Economic Rents. Presentation at The Urban Institute, November 20.
Gabbe, C. J. (2016). Do land use regulations matter? Why and how? (Doctoral Dissertation).
University of California, Los Angeles.
Glaeser, Edward L., and Joseph Gyourko (2003) The impact of building restrictions on housing
affordability. Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review 9, 21-39.
Glaeser, Edward L., Joseph Gyourko, and Albert Saiz (2008) Housing Supply and Housing
Bubbles. Journal of Urban Economics 64(2): 198-217.
Glaeser, Edward L., and Bruce A. Ward (2009) The causes and consequences of land use
regulation: Evidence from greater Boston. Journal of Urban Economics 65(3): 265-278.
24
Glaeser, Edward L., Joshua D. Gottlieb, and Kristina Tobio (2012) Housing Booms and City
Centers. American Economic Review 102(3): 127-33.
Harding, Robin (2016) Why Tokyo is the land of rising home construction but not prices.
Financial Times, August 3.
Hernandez, Jennifer, David Friedman, and Stephanie DeHerrera (2015) In the Name of the
Environment: Litigation Abuse Under CEQA. Holland and Knight.
Hirsch, Jerry (2014) 3,000 Toyota jobs to move to Texas from Torrance. Los Angeles Times,
April 28.
Hsieh, Chang -Tai and Enrico Moretti (2015) Why Do Cities Matter? Local Growth and
Aggregate Growth NBER Working Paper No. 21154.
Islas, Jason (2014) Did the Sierra Club Just Say NIMBYism is an Environmental Value? Santa
Monica Next, October.
Kahn, Matthew E. (2005) Green Cities: Urban Growth and the Environment. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
Kahn, Matthew E. (2011) Do liberal cities limit new housing development? Evidence from
California. Journal of Urban Economics 69, 223-228.
Kaplowitz, Michael D., Patricia Machemer, and Rick Pruetz (2008 Planners' experiences in
managing growth using transferable development rights (TDR) in the United States. Land Use
Policy, 25(3): 378-387.
Kok, Nils, Paavo Monkkonen and John M. Quigley (2014) Land Use Regulations and the Value
of Land and Housing: An Intra -Metropolitan Analysis. Journal of Urban Economics 81(3): 136-
148.
Lefebvre, Henri (1968) Le Droit a la ville. Paris: Economica.
Lens, Michael C. and Paavo Monkkonen (2016) Do Strict Land Use Regulations Make
Metropolitan Areas More Segregated by Income? Journal of the American Planning
Association 82(1): 6-21.
Lens, Michael C., and Vincent Reina. (2016) "The Impact of Housing Subsidy Expirations on
Neighborhood Opportunity." Housing Policy Debate, in press.
Lewis, Paul G. (2003) Housing Element Law: The Issue of Local Noncompliance. Public Policy
Institute of California Report.
Lewis, Paul and Max Neiman (200 1) Cities Under Pressure: Local Growth Controls and
Residential Development Policy. Public Policy Institute of California Report.
25
Loewen, James (2006) Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension ofAmerican Racism. Touchstone.
Los Angeles Department of City Planning (2013) What's Happening in Planning 2013? City
of Los Angeles.
Mangum, Kyle (2015) The Effects of Housing Policy on Urban Populations and Carbon
Emissions. Mimeo, Department of Economics, Georgia State University.
Manville, Michael (2012) People, Race and Place: American Support for Person- and Place -
based Urban Policy, 1973-2008. Urban Studies 49(14): 3101-3119.
Mcclymont, Katie and Paul O'hare (2008) "We're not NIMBYs!" Contrasting local protest
groups with idealised conceptions of sustainable communities. Local Environment 13(4): 321-
335.
Nightingale, Carl H. (2012) Segregation: A Global History of Divided Cities. University of
Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.
Ohls, J.C., R.C. Weisberg, and M.J. White (1974) The effect of zoning on land value. Journal of
Urban Economics, 428-444.
Orman, L. (1984) Ballot -box planning: The boom in electoral land -use control. Public Affairs
Report: Bulletin of the Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley
25:1-15.
Pendall, Rolf (1999) Opposition to Housing: NIMBY and Beyond. Urban Affairs Review, 35(1):
112-136.
Phillips, Shane (2016) Population Forecasts and Housing Allocations Don't Work: We
Should Replace them with Vacancy Targets. Better Institutions, August 14.
Quigley, John M., and Steven Raphael (2005) Regulation and the high cost of housing in
California. American Economic Review 95, 323-328.
Rascoff, Spencer and Stan Humphries (2016) Brown's affordability fix is fine. But California
needs all the housing it can get including in its suburbs. Los Angeles Times, June 16.
Rawson, Mike (2006) Anti-Nimby Tools. The California Housing Law Project.
Ricardo, David (1809) The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo (Ed. Piero Sraffa)
Volume 3: Pamphlets and Papers.
Ritzdorf, Marsha (1997) Locked Out of Paradise: Contemporary Exclusionary Zoning, the
Supreme Court, and African Americans, 1970 to the Present. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
26
Rognlie, Matthew (2015) Deciphering the fall and rise in the net capital share. Brookings Papers
on Economic Activity.
Rose, L.A. (1986) Urban Land Supply: natural and Contrived Restrictions. Journal of Urban
Economics, 25: 325-345.
Rosenthal, Stuart S. (2014) Are Private Markets and Filtering a Viable Source of Low -Income
Housing? Estimates from a `Repeat Income' Model. American Economic Review 104(2): 687-
706.
Rothwell, Jonathan T. (2011). Racial Enclaves and Density Zoning: The Institutionalized
Segregation of Racial Minorities in the United States. American Law and Economic
Review 13(1): 290-358.
Rothwell, Jonathan T. (2015) Zoning out the Poor: Skywalker Ranch Edition. Brookings
Institution Social Mobility Memos, Wednesday, July 1.
Rothwell, Jonathan T. and Douglas S. Massey (2009) The Effect of Density Zoning on Racial
Segregation in U.S. Urban Areas. Urban Affairs Review 44(6): 779-806.
Saks, Raven (2008) Job creation and housing construction: Constraints on metropolitan area
employment growth. Journal of Urban Economics 64(1): 178-195.
Saiz, Albert (2010) The geographic determinants of housing supply. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 125(3), 1253-1296.
Schively, Carissa (2007) Understanding the NIMBY and LULU Phenomena: Reassessing Our
Knowledge Base and Informing Future Research. Journal of Planning Literature 21(3).
Schleicher, David (2012) City Unplanning. Yale Law Journal 122 (7): 1670-1737.
Schwartz, Alex (2006) Housing Policy in the United States. Routledge.
Schweitzer, Lisa (2016) The communitarian case for zoning that planners do not talk about.
Available at: https:Hlisaschweitzer.com (last accessed 11/15/2016).
Simon, Stacey (1998) A Vote of No Confidence: Proposition 218, Local Government, and
Quality of Life in California. Ecology Law Quarterly 25(3) 520-542.
Sonenshein, Raphael, Gal Culbert, Paul Mitchell, and Robert Brown (2014) Who Votes in Los
Angeles City Elections? The Pat Brown Institute of Public Affairs at California State University,
Los Angeles.
Taylor, Mac (2015). California's High Housing Costs: Causes and Consequences. Sacramento:
Legislative Analyst's Office.
27
Taylor, Mac (2016). Common Claims about Proposition 13. Sacramento: Legislative Analyst's
Office.
US Census bureau (2014) American Fact Finder. Available at:
littps://factFinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/isf/pages/productyiew.xhtm l?src=CF (Last
accessed 8/15/2016)
The White House (2016) Housing Development Toolkit. Washington, D.C.: The White House.
Whittemore, Andrew H. (2012a) Zoning Los Angeles: a brief history of four regimes. Planning
Perspectives, 27(3): 393-415.
Whittemore, Andrew H. (2012b) Requiem for a Growth Machine: Homeowner Preeminence in
1980s Los Angeles. Journal of Planning History 11(2): 124-140.
Wong, Queenie (2016). California eases restrictions on `granny units'. San Jose Mercury News,
September 27.
Zuk, Miriam and Karen Chapple (2016) Housing Production, Filtering and Displacement:
Untangling the Relationships. University of California Institute of Governmental Studies
Research Brief.
28
Appendix A. Methods
This white paper is based on three elements; a review of relevant academic research and news
reports, a review of the minutes from meetings of neighborhood councils in Los Angeles and San
Francisco, and interviews with almost thirty experts and activists in the area.
For the literature review, I searched the standard urban planning and housing policy journals
(Journal of the American Planning Association, Journal of Planning Education and Research,
Housing Policy Debate, and Urban Affairs Review), as well as possibly relevant news sources
and reports by housing and urban research centers.
After locating the available minutes from the many neighborhood councils of Los Angeles (list
with URLs available in Appendix C), I scanned them for mention of objections or concerns
about new housing developments. I focused mostly on those neighborhoods near existing or
proposed metro rail lines and potential for higher -than -average development.
The bulk of the white paper is based on interviews with representatives of different kinds of
groups; neighborhood councils, anti- or slow -growth groups, tenants organizations, pro -growth
groups, and developers. I selected representatives and groups to interview based on their being
vocal about housing development issues in California's cities, chiefly Los Angeles and San
Francisco. I sought to get several voices for different sides of the debate to get at the complexity
of arguments for or against certain kinds of housing development and think I got a wide range of
views.
I focus much of the attention in the white paper on cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles and
the metropolitan areas of which they are the center because these are the largest cities and metros
in the state, and as such, the sites of most urban development controversy.
29
Appendix B. Overview of Two Ballot Initiatives for Moratoria on Development:
Proposition I in San Francisco and the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative in Los Angeles.
Proposition I: The Mission District Housing Moratorium
The Mission District Housing Moratorium was a proposed eighteen -month freeze on market -rate
development in the Mission District of San Francisco. Only one hundred percent affordable
housing development would be permitted during the freeze. The City was to create a
Neighborhood Stabilization Plan regarding housing during the freeze, with a goal of ensuring
that fifty percent of new housing be affordable to low, moderate, and middle-income households,
and that this housing would be made available to existing residents of the neighborhood. The
proposition did not pass, garnering 42.8% support in the November 2015 election.
The moratorium began as a legislative proposal from by County Supervisor David Campos and
four co-sponsors. The initial proposal was for a forty-five day moratorium which could be
extended to approximately two years. The measure did not win the required nine of eleven
supervisor votes. The proposal was revised and put to voters as a ballot measure, Proposition I.
The ballot measure was presented as a ban on luxury apartment development. Supporters, such
as The Committee to Save the Mission who spearheaded the "Vote Yes on Prop I" campaign, the
Tenants and Owners Development Corp (TODCO), Causa Justa/Just Cause, the San Francisco
Labor Council, the local AFL/CIO body, and the San Francisco Examiner argued that new
market -rate housing developments are prohibitively expensive for current residents and would
thus change the character of the neighborhood; new construction has a signaling effect on the
market leading to an increase in the market value of nearby housing and incentivizing evictions
of rent -stabilized tenants; a moratorium would give leverage to the city and affordable housing
developers attempting to purchase some of the few remaining undeveloped parcels in the
neighborhood; and that neighborhood residents deserve a greater voice in the planning process.
Displacement of the Mission District's historically Latino population was a central concern
among proponents of the moratorium.
Opponents of Proposition I, including developers, realtors, Supervisor Scott Weiner, and the San
Francisco Chronicle argued that the true cause of rising housing costs was a regional housing
shortage and the moratorium would exacerbate the problem. Proposition I criticized this
argument as overly simplistic, arguing it did not taking into account the localized effects of new
housing construction. The assertion that new housing would exert downward pressure on
housing costs was dismissed by many supporters as a form of supply-side, trickle-down
economics. While acknowledging that a housing shortage existed, supporters argued that the
problem was so large that any practically feasible amount of new construction would have an
insignificant effect on prices.
The Neighborhood Integrity Initiative in Los Angeles
The Neighborhood Integrity Initiative (NII) is a ballot measure scheduled to go before city of
Los Angeles voters in the March 2017 election. If it passes, the measure would block all
developments that do not conform to existing zoning plans for two years, except 100%
30
affordable developments. The vast majority of housing projects do not conform to existing
zoning thus would be affected.
The pro -NII campaign has organized as The Coalition to Preserve LA. More than 95% of the
coalition's funding has been provided by the AIDS Healthcare Initiative, a nonprofit charity not
traditionally involved with housing issues. Much of the impetus for the proposition appears to
have been a proposed thirty -story development adjacent to the AIDS Healthcare Initiative's
Hollywood office. A handful of prominent citizens and retired elected officials have also voiced
their support for the measure.
The central arguments made by proponents of the initiative are that new market -rate housing will
increase vehicular traffic; new development is causing displacement by redeveloping
moderately -priced dwellings into luxury high-rises; and the current practice of granting frequent
zoning amendments is a corrupted process. Proponents of the initiative have made a number of
additional assertions about the current state of the housing market in Los Angeles, for example,
that there is a glut of new luxury apartments in Los Angeles; existing zoning already allows for
enough new supply to satisfy demand; projected population increases for Los Angeles are
unrealistically high; and that new construction only drives up neighborhood rents.
The initiative is opposed by a broad spectrum of groups, organized as The Coalition to Protect
LA Neighborhoods & Jobs. Affordable housing providers, labor unions, anti -poverty groups, and
business organizations have all voiced their opposition to the measure. The Los Angeles Times
editorial board also opposes the measure. More than 50% of the total funding for the opposition
campaign has come from the developer of the proposed Hollywood site, CH Palladium.
Opponents to the NII argue that Los Angeles does indeed have a severe housing shortage, and
that making development more difficult will further increase housing costs for residents at all
income levels. They also argue that Los Angeles's patchwork system of frequent zoning
amendments is not a symptom of corruption but rather of an outdated general plan that does need
to be updated to reflect Los Angeles's evolution as an urban center. Regarding traffic, they argue
that Los Angeles is in the midst of shifting from a car -centric suburban model to becoming a
more densely -populated walkable city with accessible transit options.
The measure was initially intended to be placed before voters in the November 2016 Presidential
election but was moved to the March 2017 municipal election. Supporters of the proposition said
this was because there were too many issues on the November ballot. Opponents argue that it
was a tacit acknowledgement that the proposition would fail in a high -turnout election in which
greater numbers of renters and low-income voters would be likely to participate. (Off-year
municipal elections typically have much lower turnout, with a voting demographic that skews
older, wealthier, and more conservative.)
Organized labor and affordable housing groups are promoting an alternative ballot measure
known as Build Better LA, also scheduled to go before voters on the November 2016 ballot. This
measure would impose prevailing wage and affordable housing requirements on any projects that
require zoning amendments.
31
4
O O N M O O N O
_L
w
w
ul
rn
c7
c7
�.
o
al0
x
�
>,
Cd
�.
0
x
0
x-
N
w
°
0-o
0
z
0
z
O
a
cr,moo
0
z
�'
O
a
v>
v
iz
U
3
o
w
O
o
C
`�
3�:)>
moi,
r.
z
Cd
bA
C
�
cd
O
C
N
O
C
O
_
to
0
Gn
O
bD
O
C
bA
to
bA
y
C
Q-
p'
O
C
N
.b
'�
N
N
O
O
OI
O
O
O
�
bSb
cd
r.CA
71
�
0
o
cn
cn
Ln>
3
ami
w
to
to
-
o
O O N M O O N O
_L
N
M
w
w
ul
rn
c7
c7
�.
o
al0
x
�
>,
Cd
�.
0
x
0
x-
N
w
°
0-o
0
z
0
z
O
a
cr,moo
0
z
�'
O
a
v>
v
iz
U
3
o
w
cl
to
o
C
`�
3�:)>
moi,
r.
z
Cd
N
M
m
m
O NO = O� , W) w - O dt O
� � N
M M N N
Vl -- 00 --n
.--i 00 V1
a� >, o .� ¢ .� UQUZUU Z
on +, a� °' o p Z �' ami 4- Q G.
OD
0 >
°5-4 Cd
Ln
In
a� a� a� o ani a0i o R4 6 o Cd �
u U U c3 ca Q w wUwv�w3w c7 c7
>
E
E
c
vi
Cd
E
N
E
2
O
�
a�
b�
E0
oto
O
=
O
-6b
N
0
•3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
N
>
Cc
O NO = O� , W) w - O dt O
� � N
M M N N
Vl -- 00 --n
.--i 00 V1
a� >, o .� ¢ .� UQUZUU Z
on +, a� °' o p Z �' ami 4- Q G.
OD
0 >
°5-4 Cd
Ln
In
a� a� a� o ani a0i o R4 6 o Cd �
u U U c3 ca Q w wUwv�w3w c7 c7
vi
a�
Cc
N
>
Cc
:)
C
_
vUi
cz
cP
E
O
O
c?
N
cd
un
O O
E
O
N
E
Nto
N
yam'+
tQ
M
Cd
0
.O
U
pcd
y
N U
N
bA
LD
O
Sb
th
Cd
r-
O
Vol-
>Z
ZZ:
O NO = O� , W) w - O dt O
� � N
M M N N
Vl -- 00 --n
.--i 00 V1
a� >, o .� ¢ .� UQUZUU Z
on +, a� °' o p Z �' ami 4- Q G.
OD
0 >
°5-4 Cd
Ln
In
a� a� a� o ani a0i o R4 6 o Cd �
u U U c3 ca Q w wUwv�w3w c7 c7
cn
M
N �
bA • � t~
"O U + rn v� ' N Cd W
S~
to �' E
n 73
-bb ° p O' S; C '� ^�
^D O 'C c� Gn S~ CA
to 60 to
O N y N M
O U O S~ U N U '15
p O �+ bA c p N
cn N
to
mo. to
N bA UO �bA O
W to
o �.
o
°
o o 0
N 'C
mon an on m� E E E
. . . . . . . .. . . 33. .
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
a. sem. a. a.
N
M
M
N
all
pp" -
N
�
N
<`
N
V-
O
N
zt_"
U
N
N
W
N
kr
U
N
bA
w
o
r
U
zM
_
x
U U >
o
N
cd
x
b
cn
°'
z
O
z;
w
p
�
�,
O
O
v
O
3
C13
Ul
\bA
O
O
w
b�
+C�
N
M
S�
o
CC$
U
C
ti
t
Emu
U
S~
n
O
O
c�
O O
O
t
O
t
O
t
O
O
O
O
sem,
c7c7xxx�c
O
O
O
Q
ww
>wz3zzzzza,aa
..
s�.
..
Q.
..
Q.
..
a.
..
0.
....
0.
Q,
..
ii
..
f-1.
N
M
M
all
pp" -
N
�
N
<`
N
V-
O
zt_"
vj
N
N
N
kr
U
N
bA
w
o
�
cd
zM
x
U U >
o
cd
x
b
cn
°'
z
z;
w
a
w
�,
W°
O
3
C13
Ul
+C�
N
M
N
o
U
C
t
U
S~
n
O
c�
O O
O
t
O
t
O
t
O
O
O
O
sem,
c7c7xxx�c
O
O
O
Q
ww
>wz3zzzzza,aa
—
1.0 (=> V) O� rq N \10 O*l W') O" 01 m O�-zt O ,.:._, O O O O O
M
M
a�
O
N
�
O
M
OU
vi
O0
E
i
ca
�A
OU
E
�
bA
U
O
"
'�
OU
m
M
r�
E
Q�
N
E
U
1-4
cn
�
Cd
s.
Os..
cd
u
O
O
r.
NO
c
'O
O
V
N
E
N
d
s
O
U
=
U
p
N
+;
U
M
cz
Ru
-
O
1
Q,
cd
5,41-1
ai
N
'O
4r
O
p
�
r -n
N\
"cj
U
�'
�+
-
i..
O
m
U
cd
bA
O
U
c
73
�_
,�
m
cd
�"'
rU+
'O
to
V
�
E
O
bA
Q
nth
$-.
7r
b
0
cQ
U
Lon
�tb
O
$.
b
�_
N
Ui
O
0>
bb
O
7-.
u
_�
N
p
3
CQ
>�
3
O�
'�
O
0
0
1.0 (=> V) O� rq N \10 O*l W') O" 01 m O�-zt O ,.:._, O O O O O
N
U '
3 >
o
• N v' Sr N to '= M t
ID
a" a. ao 04 cn CA un V > 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 N 2 3Mun > w w
U)
m
M
M
O
N
�
O
N
kn
0O
_
O�
'�
O
N
U '
3 >
o
• N v' Sr N to '= M t
ID
a" a. ao 04 cn CA un V > 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 N 2 3Mun > w w
U)
m
bJ�
o
°
� �
CO
E
O O O O N O
•-- O O O
N
O O O O O
N O -- N
0 0 0 0 0 0
C
�
� N N N O O
��M�
Q\ O\ O\ 00
C\ 00 00
bJ�
o
°
� �
CO
E
O C �
O
N
O O O O O
N O -- N
0 0 0 0 0 0
C
�
NN N N N
M \p O 00 110
N O\ N -
_N
M \o M Vl 110
N N N\ NC)
N N-- O
O N O O N
OO\ 00 O\ O\ O\
— O\ CO, --
- O\ O\ 00
N
E N
E
N
�
E o
o
O -0o
to u 4-
s
�wc7xUa
$-4
cU >,
o- +, U Q o
Q
o
°
en "tD
�,
i °
ami i
-o o
° ;•�
a�
-o v
i >
U,
=3
CO o
°
Cd
°a4°
o
y
xbQ.4 0
p
tto
U k o
�wUdUUU
O
O O •, •v
U
C cd
to
Cd cr o o
tea, o ti uo
to
E E J O 's. >
¢dddwUQww(-D
o
°
� �
CO
E
O C �
O
N
O O O O O
N O -- N
0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N
-- N O--
NN N N N
M \p O 00 110
N O\ N -
_N
M \o M Vl 110
N N N\ NC)
N N-- O
O N O O N
OO\ 00 O\ O\ O\
— O\ CO, --
- O\ O\ 00
C cd
to
Cd cr o o
tea, o ti uo
to
E E J O 's. >
¢dddwUQww(-D
o
°
� �
CO
E
O C �
O
N
O
0
O
N
O
U
U
OO
Qn
1-4
n �
to
^-
N
E N
E
o C)
cn
�
E o
o
O -0o
to u 4-
s
�wc7xUa
$-4
cU >,
o- +, U Q o
Q
o
°
en "tD
�,
i °
ami i
-o o
° ;•�
a�
o U
�°daw°H�xa°Q
E
xa0U
CO o
C cd
to
Cd cr o o
tea, o ti uo
to
E E J O 's. >
¢dddwUQww(-D
o
°
� �
CO
•O
O C �
O
N
C
0
o
Cd
U
OO
Qn
1-4
n �
to
^-
d
o C)
cn
�
0
owx c3
O -0o
cd a
cnU
�wc7xUa
cU >,
Cd
° U
d °
o
O
o
Cc
�o
o
on�U
a�
o U
921
E
d
CO o
°
Gn
z
o
y
xbQ.4 0
p
tto
bo
Eo
0 c cd
to
0 o C
O
a� 74
OU �
a
�bA �^
4 U
cn �
O ...
0Ux3
COd'�
.u-�
°aa3z
c
O--C7Uv�
F
Uci
smc! O64aa°03
C cd
to
Cd cr o o
tea, o ti uo
to
E E J O 's. >
¢dddwUQww(-D
W
M
o
°
� �
CO
•O
O C �
•�
N
0
o
Cd
1-4
adz°
to
3
0
owx c3
—C)
�wc7xUa
cU >,
Cd
x U
x
�titititi
to
`�
= U
C)
a�
o
921
E
°
=�dv2UUv2aa.0
✓1
Gn
W
M
o
°
o
Cd
to
CL
QL
owx c3
—C)
�wc7xUa
cU >,
d �
x
�titititi
��zaaa
.°w��
W
M
N
M