Planning and Zoning for Growth: A Few Lessons from Los Angeles

Many American cities–like Los Angeles–will need to update their plans and approve zoning changes to achieve broad policy goals of limiting sprawl; increasing walking, biking, and transit ridership; improving access to good schools and jobs; and expanding housing supply. Based on this and related research–and my experience in planning practice–I propose four key principles for planning and regulating urban development:

1. Zoning changes should follow deliberate, inclusive, and transparent planning, rather than ad hoc decision making. If a long-range planning system isn't functioning smoothly, there will be conflicts downstream about zoning and development approvals. This is Los Angeles' situation today; the city is now moving toward updating its 35 community plans.
2. Cities change, and planning processes must be framed around "how to change" rather than "whether to change." Some existing residents express concerns about protecting their access to amenities and "neighborhood character." Again, my research shows that upzoning was particularly unlikely in neighborhoods with high shares of homeowners. Planners can partially mitigate these concerns by linking new development with public improvements, and through clearly written and predictably applied regulations. But, planning for growth requires political leadership, and ultimately will be a compromise for some local stakeholders.
3. Citywide policy changes may be more politically feasible than piecemeal parcel- and neighborhood-scale changes. For example, a city can systematically reduce minimum parking standards near transit stations–rather than selectively in certain station areas–or allow accessory dwelling units without additional parking requirements in all single-family zones. This kind of holistic approach can reduce case-by-case decisions, even if policies are designed to account for some context-related factors.
4. Sometimes state intervention is necessary to break planning and zoning logjams. State governments should intervene when restrictive municipal regulations hinder regional housing and environmental goals, particularly near major transit investments. For instance, California's density bonus incentives allow streamlined approvals, higher densities, and other regulatory relief in exchange for affordable housing provision.