A research team to which the Housing Solutions Lab at the NYU Furman Center awarded seed funding, led by José W. Meléndez, Ph.D., and Rebecca Lewis, Ph.D., studied 11 small and midsize cities in Oregon charged with reforming their zoning and how their approach to community engagement affected the reforms they adopted. Their report, Learning from Housing Policy Innovation in Small and Midsize Cities, Engaging the Community in Zoning Reform: Lessons from Oregon, profiles the development codes and engagement approaches each city took and highlights key takeaways for local practitioners and state-level policymakers.

The policy intervention that motivated this study was House Bill 2001, an Oregon state law passed in 2019. The law, codified as ORS 197.758, aimed to promote missing middle housing development by requiring cities with a population larger than 10,000 to allow the development of duplexes on lots previously zoned for single-family homes. The law also required cities with a population larger than 25,000 to allow all missing middle housing types—such as townhouses, triplexes, and courtyard clusters—in residential zones. The state required cities to adopt zoning changes meeting this minimum standard by a specified date. Alternatively, if the city did not adopt the minimum standard, the legislation specified that a “model code” would be implemented and preempt local law. 

The new law did not provide guidance on the kinds of public engagement and community involvement cities should employ before making the required zoning reforms. Cities were only required to follow minimum legal requirements for all such reforms, which include Planning Commission or City Council meetings and testimony, and corresponding public notice postings. Any engagement beyond that was up to each individual city. As such, the law created a kind of natural experiment, and cities throughout the state undertook varying amounts and types of public engagement methods.

To understand this variation, the researchers first analyzed the development codes in 11 cities with populations between 50,000 and 500,000 and determined whether the new zoning met the statutory minimum requirements or exceeded them. Then, through web research and public engagement interviews with city planners, they identified the engagement approaches the cities used to involve the community and sought to understand the relationship between this engagement and the code that was adopted.

The researchers found that five cities in their sample exceeded the minimum standards, for example, by allowing missing middle housing on smaller lots than required by state law. They also found significant differences in how cities engaged with the community, ranging from simply inviting testimony at public hearings to more intensive forms of engagement. In the case of Eugene, for example, the city collaborated with a nonprofit called Healthy Democracy to create a review panel. This panel consisted of a diverse group of residents who took part in the decision-making process.

The researchers did not observe a trend in which more community engagement led to more permissive zoning, however. They noted this might be because some cities were already engaged in other planning updates that required public input, and the fact that COVID-19 upended cities’ traditional engagement methods. They also hypothesized that cities may face a lack of capacity and funds for community engagement. Absent these resources, cities may anticipate that the feedback they receive will be biased against zoning change. Ample evidence demonstrates that traditional community engagement methods often serve to amplify the voices of primarily older, white homeowners who speak English as their first language, who are more likely to oppose upzoning.

All the cities involved, regardless of the level or type of public engagement, met or exceeded the statutory minimums. This is a testament to the power and influence that states can have over zoning decisions at local levels. However, the researchers say their findings also suggest that there may be more room for middle housing laws in other states to provide guidelines, funding, and technical assistance to support meaningful community engagement in local zoning reforms.  

For questions about this research, contact José W. Meléndez, Associate Professor of Planning for Engaging Diverse Communities at the University of Oregon’s School of Planning, Public Policy, and Management and affiliated faculty for Indigenous, Race, and Ethnic Studies.

For support on how your city can engage the community to implement zoning reforms, contact the Housing Solutions Lab team at Ask the Lab.