Chapter 3
The Framework
for Citizen Involvement


Goal 1 calls for citizen involvement programs, but who is to design such programs and carry them out? The answer to that is a combination of local and state committees, commissions, and agencies. The most important is the local committee for citizen involvement, or "CCI."

What is a CCI?

Ultimately, the responsibility for any citizen involvement program lies with the local governing body (the city council, board of county commissioners, or county court). The governing body, however, usually delegates that responsibility to several organizations: the local planning department, the planning commission, a variety of committees -- and the advisory group known as the Committee for Citizen Involvement.

Goal 1 requires each city and county to maintain a CCI. In a world full of committees, you may wonder why Goal 1 calls for yet another. The answer lies in the fact that all of the organizations mentioned above except the CCI have multiple responsibilities. Some of those responsibilities detract from and even conflict with citizen involvement. Having a CCI -- a committee with citizen involvement as its only responsibility -- ensures that citizens are not forgotten in the planning process.

The CCI plays a vital role in citizen involvement. It's a watchdog and an advocate for public participation in planning.

The CCI is a watchdog and an advocate for citizen involvement. Goal 1 states the CCI's duty: to help the governing body develop, implement, and evaluate the local citizen involvement program. A good example of how one of those tasks (evaluation) is performed comes from Clackamas County. There, the CCI evaluates the county's citizen involvement program each year and presents a report to the county board of commissioners. That report gives county officials the information needed to refine the program and resolve any problems that may be occurring.

The CCI usually is (and should be) a separate, independent committee. In some small cities and counties, however, local officials have been unable to find enough people to serve on all the committees and boards necessary to conduct community affairs. Some communities therefore have had the planning commission take over the responsibilities of the CCI. A few others have had the governing body become the CCI. Still others have used a hybrid organization: the planning commission plus one or more lay advisers serves as the CCI.

An independent CCI is clearly the best choice to ensure widespread public involvement. The hybrid planning commission/CCI is an acceptable but less desirable choice. Finally, having the governing body or the planning commission act as the CCI is the least desirable option. It's likely to work against citizen involvement and should be done only as a last resort.

The makeup of the CCI is specified in the citizen involvement program acknowledged by LCDC. Changes to that program constitute a plan amendment, which must be reviewed by the Department of Land Conservation and Development.

Who carries out the CIP?

Usually, the local planning staff is responsible for carrying out the CIP. The planners manage the citizen involvement budget, staff the program, and decide which citizen involvement tools to use in a particular situation. Some larger cities and counties have a special office or section for citizen involvement. The City of Gresham, for example, has a citizen involvement coordinator who is supervised by the city manager.

Most cities and counties also have a network of citizen groups to help run the CIP. Though they have many names, these groups generally are referred to as citizen advisory committees (CAC's).

A citizen advisory committee may be organized either on the basis of geography (city neighborhoods, for example) or of function (such as transportation). And CAC's may be permanent ("standing committees") or temporary. Thus, there are four basic types of CAC's, as shown in
Figure 1.

Figure 1: Four main types of local citizen committees
1. Standing Committees
Organized by Geography
Example: A community planning organization for the city's Westside Neighborhood		2. Standing Committees
Organized by Function
Example: A parks committee to advise county commissioners about park acquisitions
3. Temporary Committees
Organized by Geography
Example: An ad hoc committee on revitalizing the declining "Oldtown District"		 4. Temporary Committees
Organized by Function
Example: A task force to oversee development of a new wetlands overlay zone

Of the four main types of CAC, the most common is the standing neighborhood committee. Such neighborhood groups are known by many different local names and abbreviations, such as "CPO" ("Community Planning Organization").

What's the difference between a CCI and a CAC?

Though their names sound alike, a Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) and a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) are quite different. A CCI deals mainly with one aspect of planning -- citizen involvement -- while CACs deal with a variety of planning and land use issues. Each community has only one CCI, but it may have many CACs. Finally, Goal 1 requires cities and counties to have CCIs, but it doesn't require them to have CACs. (ORS 197.160, however, strongly implies that CACs are required.)

Oregon's laws recently were amended to give a stronger role to citizen advisory committees. ORS 197.763(2)(b) now requires that notice about quasi-judicial land use decisions must be provided to "any neighborhood or community organization recognized by the governing body and whose boundaries include the site." "The site" means the property that is the subject of the decision. For more information on quasi-judicial decisions, see Land Use Decisions in Chapter 4.

How are other local governments involved?

Oregon's planning laws require that local plans be coordinated with each other. That requirement has important implications for a community's citizen involvement program. It means that neighboring cities, counties, and special districts are, in effect, citizens. They need to be kept informed about local planning activities, and they need to have an opportunity to participate in them.

Example: If a proposal to amend a city's transportation plan might have significant effects on nearby cities, counties, and special districts, all of them should be notified about it. All of them should have an opportunity to comment on the proposal.

What is the local framework for citizen involvement?

The local organizations described above form a framework for citizen involvement. That framework will vary from one community to another. For example, CACs might report to the planning commission in one city and to the city council in another. Despite such differences, however, most local citizen involvement frameworks are similar to that shown in Figure 2.


What is the stateframework for citizen involvement?

Several state agencies and organizations affect citizen involvement in Oregon. They set policy, review plans, decide appeals, or provide technical assistance, as described below. Together, these agencies form a state framework for citizen involvement that complements the local one.

LCDC: The state's Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) oversees the statewide planning program, including Goal 1. LCDC makes broad policy decisions and sets the general course for citizen involvement. Like cities and counties, LCDC has formally adopted a citizen involvement program.

DLCD: The Department of Land Conservation and Development (LCDC's staff) has three main roles in citizen involvement:

CIAC: The Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee advises LCDC about public involvement in planning. The committee may have up to 12 members; there must be at least two from each of Oregon's five congressional districts. Its members are appointed by LCDC.

CIAC was established by Senate Bill 100 in 1973 to promote "public participation in the adoption and amendment of the goals and guidelines." It continues to have an important role today: assuring "widespread citizen involvement in all phases of the planning process" (ORS 197.160). This handbook, for example, is part of CIAC's continuing effort to promote citizen involvement and inform citizens about their opportunities to participate in planning.

LOAC: The Local Officials Advisory Committee, a group of ten elected officials from cities and counties in Oregon, advises LCDC about local planning issues. LOAC enhances citizen involvement by making LCDC more aware of local issues and concerns in planning.

LUBA: The Land Use Board of Appeals is a three-member state panel that reviews and decides appeals of land use decisions. In effect, it's a specialized "court" that hears only land use cases. It may not seem that such a panel would have much to do with citizen involvement. Appeals to LUBA, however, constitute an important vehicle for citizen involvement in planning.

LUBA's importance to citizen involvement stems from the design of Oregon's statewide planning program. That program relies on citizen appeals as its main enforcement mechanism. Contrary to what many people believe, DLCD does not monitor all of the thousands of local land use decisions made each year in Oregon. And DLCD has no authority to overturn most local land use decisions. An appeal to LUBA therefore is often the only recourse for a citizen concerned about a local decision that seems to violate the acknowledged local plan or the statewide planning goals.

The relationship among these land use agencies -- the state framework for citizen involvement -- is shown in Figure 3.

Are Other Agencies Involved?

Other state agencies play an important part in land use planning in Oregon. About two dozen (the departments of Forestry and of Transportation, for example) have programs that affect land use. Such agencies often participate in local planning by commenting on land use decisions and working with local officials to see that the local plan addresses state interests. In effect, the state agencies participate in the local planning process much as any citizen would.

Citizens and local officials, however, also have opportunities to shape the state programs. The main opportunity already occurred in the 1980s, during "certification review." State law (ORS 197.180) calls for state programs that affect land use to be "in compliance" with the statewide planning goals and "compatible" with acknowledged local plans. Agencies with programs that affect land use had to develop coordination plans and submit them to LCDC, which reviewed and certified them. During such review, citizens (including local planners and elected officials) could comment on how a state program affected their community. The Department of Land Conservation and Development provided widespread public notice about these reviews and encouraged comments from interested persons and groups.

The effort to get local, state, and federal agency plans and programs synchronized and working together is known as coordination. It is an important part of Oregon's planning program. Local citizen involvement programs should recognize that importance by treating state and federal agencies as citizens. The CIP should contain provisions for notifying the appropriate agencies and for enabling them to participate in planning activities likely to affect them.

Klamath County's CIP, for example, contains a six-page "Agency Notification Checklist." It lists names and addresses of some 120 local, state, and federal agencies and utilities and special districts. Among them are entries for 28 state agencies and regional offices that might affect or be affected by land use planning in the county.

The CIP should contain provisions for notifying key state agencies and for helping them participate in the planning activities likely to affect them.

What part do interest groups play?

The state and local governmental organizations described above make up a large part of the framework for citizen involvement. There's another element, however, that accounts for much of the citizen involvement in Oregon: an extensive array of active, effective interest groups.

The list of groups that participate in matters related to planning in Oregon is long. It includes the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, the League of Women Voters, 1000 Friends of Oregon, Oregonians in Action, the Oregon Manufactured Housing Dealers Association, the Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition, and dozens of other state or regional groups. It also includes numerous community groups, which are active in local planning matters.

Interest groups have played a vital role in planning in Oregon, and their importance is growing. Part of the reason for that, unfortunately, is that many citizens find it too difficult to participate in planning as individuals. Lacking sufficient time, money, or expertise to participate on their own, citizens join or support an interest group to work on their behalf. An effective CIP encourages such representation.

Suppose, for example, that someone applies for a permit to demolish an old house that is on the plan's inventory of historical resources. State and local laws may require only that notice be sent to the adjacent property owners. But those property owners are not necessarily the people in the community who are most interested in historical preservation. A good local CIP would provide for notice to all local groups with such an interest.

The CIP needs to recognize the growing importance of interest groups and provide for their participation in planning.

On to Chapter 4
Back to Chapter 2
Back to Home Page