Introduction

This is a "how-to" manual about public participation in land use planning. It tells how to run a successful program for citizen involvement. This manual has two main purposes:
n To help planners and local officials carry out Oregon's Statewide Planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement;
n To explain Goal 1 to nonplanners, especially those who serve on citizen committees in cities and counties throughout Oregon.

How To Put The People In Planning was produced by the state Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee (CIAC):
Ben Boswell, Lostine		Rosa Leonardi, Salem
Robin Fletcher, Pendleton	Bob Moldenhauer, Roseburg
Linda Gray, Hillsboro		Sam Nicholls, Portland
Eleanore Hale, Beaverton	Sally Wells, Chiloquin
Bob King, Turner		Barbara Wiggin, Gresham
Stan LeGore, Eugene

The book's authors are Mitch Rohse, Communications Manager for the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), and Kim Ross, Research Assistant for DLCD.

DLCD has given a copy of this book to each city and county planning department in Oregon. We encourage local planners to give copies of it to members of their citizen committees.

Copies of this handbook are available from DLCD for $15.00 each. That charge includes postage and handling. To order, write or call:
	Department of Land Conservation and Development
	1175 Court Street NE
	Salem, Oregon 97310
	Telephone 503 373-0050

	July 1992

	Thanks

How To Put The People In Planning owes much to the insights and suggestions of the people listed below. They graciously took time from their busy schedules to answer questions, send information, and review draft material. CIAC expresses its grateful appreciation to them and the organizations for which they work.

Jane Ard, Oregon Department of Justice
Nancy Biasi, Portland Office of Neighborhood Associations
Dale Blanton, Department of Land Conservation and Development
Jan Childs, Eugene Planning & Development Department
Connie Clune, Baker County Planning Department

Keith Cubic, Douglas County Planning Department
Kevin Cupples, Coos Bay Planning Department
Dennis Egner, Newberg Community Development Department
Kay Foetisch, Gresham City Manager's Office
Cheryl Goodhue, Douglas County Planning Department

Hanley Jenkins II, Union County Planning Department
Michael Hayakawa, Portland Planning Bureau
Greg Hyde, Springfield Planning Division
Peter Idema, Corvallis Planning Division
Kim Jacobsen, Wasco County Planning & Economic Development

Hillary Kittleson, Eugene Planning & Development Department
Alan Kirk, Salem Community Development Department
Jim Knight, Department of Land Conservation and Development
David Krogh, Milwaukie Community Development Department
Lee Leighton, Tualatin Planning Department

Michael Nagler, Hood River County Planning Department
Diane Stone, Linn County Planning Department
John Stutesman, Roseburg Planning Department
Tom Griffin-Valade, Salem Community Development Department
Kit Whittaker, Clackamas County Commissioners' Office

	_  _  _

	1

	What Is Citizen Involvement?

Oregon's statewide planning program calls for each city and county to develop and maintain a "citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process."

But what is a citizen involvement program? How does it work? What can planners do to help the public get involved? This handbook answers those questions and many others. It starts by answering the most basic question of all.

What is citizen involvement?

"Citizen involvement" means participation in planning by people who are not professional planners or government officials. It is a process through which everyday people take part in developing, administering, and amending local comprehensive plans and land use regulations. It is citizens participating in the planning and decision making that affect their community.

What is a citizen?

Oregon's planning goals define the term "citizen" very broadly. The definition encompasses corporations, government agencies, and interest groups as well as individuals. That's important because today organizations play a big role in land use planning. Twenty years ago, the most common form of citizen involvement was individuals speaking to a city council or writing a letter to a county planning commission. Today, many citizens participate in planning indirectly, by getting involved in an organization that represents their interests.

What is "participation"?

To "participate" is to express one's self at the proper time and in the proper forum. Suppose, for example, that two weeks before the city council is to hear a proposal for rezoning a certain piece of property, a citizen writes a letter to the council saying she supports the proposal. That's participation. She has communicated her opinion to the right people at the right time, so it may affect the decision. If the same citizen states her support in a letter to the local newspaper a month after the hearing, that's not participating, at least in a legal sense: the forum and timing are wrong.

A key part of any citizen involvement program is to inform citizens about how, when, and where they may participate.

For some types of planning decisions, the law limits a citizen's right to participate. It's important for citizens to know about such limitations. Therefore, a key part of any local citizen involvement program is to inform citizens about how, when, and where they may participate.

Why get the public involved in planning?

There are several reasons why citizens should have the opportunity to participate in planning. The most important is simply that our system of government gives citizens the right to have a strong voice in all matters of public policy, including planning. The law requires that citizens get that opportunity.

A second reason is that only citizens can provide the infor-mation needed to develop, maintain, and carry out an effective comprehensive plan. Professional planners and local officials need comments and ideas from those who know the community best: the people who live and work there.

Third, citizen involvement educates the public about planning and land use. It creates an informed community, which in turn leads to better planning.

Fourth, it gives members of the community a sense of owner-ship of the plan. It fosters cooperation among citizens and between them and their government. That leads to fewer conflicts and less litigation.

Finally, citizen involvement is an important means of enforcing our land use laws. Having citizens informed about planning laws and giving them access to the planning process ensures that the laws are applied properly.

What are the
"phases of the planning process"?

"Planning" is more than just writing and adopting a plan. It is a process made up of many steps, including these:
n gathering the technical data and facts needed to make sound policies and decisions;
n evaluating community needs, values, and goals;
n adding new policies to the plan or amending existing ones;
n adding items to the plan's inventory of community resources;
n periodically reviewing and revising the plan;
n applying the plan's policies to specific land use decisions;
n developing, maintaining, and applying the ordinances used to carry out the plan;
n creating a new element of the comprehensive plan, such as a transportation plan.

Oregon's 277 cities and counties all have adopted compre-hensive plans, and the state's Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) has reviewed and approved ("acknowledged") them all. But that doesn't mean that planning in Oregon is done. It is a continuing effort to shape our communities and guide the use of our land. As such, it can never be "done."

The activities that make up this continuing effort are referred to in Goal 1 as "phases of the planning process." Goal 1 requires that citizens be given opportunities to participate in all those phases. Planning doesn't end with the adoption of the comprehensive plan ‑- and neither does citizen involvement.  

Planning doesn't end with the adoption of the plan -- and neither does citizen involvement.

	2

	Goal 1
	And Its Six Components

The basic standard for citizen involvement in Oregon is Statewide Planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement. The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted it on December 27, 1974, and it took effect on January 1, 1975. The complete text of the goal is found in Appendix A.

Goal 1 calls for each city and county in Oregon to "develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." The goal cannot assure that every person who gets involved in planning will get what he or she wants: no policy can promise that. But Goal 1 does promise that every citizen will have an opportunity to participate in planning. Goal 1 can't guarantee the outcome of the game, but it does guarantee that everyone gets a chance to play.

Like all of Oregon's planning goals, Goal 1 is mandatory: its provisions have the force of law. The goal is accompanied by several "guidelines" that are optional. Local governments may follow them, but they are not required to.

Unlike many of Oregon's statewide planning goals, Goal 1 is not supplemented by administrative rules that explain or refine its policies. Provisions relating to citizen involvement, however, are found in several statutes and rules on other topics, such as periodic review and open public meetings. See Chapter 4 for information on them.

What is a "citizen involvement program"?

A citizen involvement program (CIP) is a system for enabling citizens to participate in the local planning process. The CIP may be a separate document, or it may be a chapter in the comprehensive plan. Either way, the CIP is, in a legal sense, part of the local comprehensive plan. Any changes to the CIP constitute a plan amendment, subject to the state and local regulations that govern such amendments.

Every city and county in Oregon has adopted a citizen involvement program. All of those programs were reviewed by the state's Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee (CIAC) and by LCDC as a part of "acknowledgement" ‑- the process for state review and approval of local plans in Oregon. That all took place in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Most cities and counties have not amended their CIPs since they were acknowledged.

In effect, the CIP is a chart that describes the course for citizen involvement in a particular city or county. It serves as a guide not only to local planners and elected officials but also to state agencies. Goal 1 says that state agencies shall "make use of existing local citizen involvement programs established by counties and cities."

What are the components of a CIP?

Goal 1 requires that a citizen involvement program contain six "components." The goal also describes certain steps that must be addressed in each of those components. In effect, Goal 1 is a blueprint that shows how to build a citizen involvement program.

That blueprint is outlined on the next page. Local governments may (and often do) build more elaborate programs than the blueprint calls for. But whether the local program is simple or elaborate, it should include all of the basic elements required by Goal 1.  _

	Goal 1's Blueprint for a CIP

Component 1, Citizen Involvement --
Provide for widespread citizen involvement.
n  Provide for involvement by "a cross-section of affected citizens."
n  Establish and maintain a Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) whose members are selected by an "open, well-publicized public process." See Chapter 3 for details on CCI's.
n Specify a system by which the CCI periodically evaluates "the process being used for citizen involvement."

Component 2, Communication -- Assure effective
two-way communications between local officials and citizens.
n Establish "mechanisms" for maintaining communications between citizens and local officials. Such mechanisms include a wide variety of techniques and processes like newsletters, mailings, legal ads, display ads, postings. See Chapter 5.

Component 3, Citizen Influence -- Provide the opportunity
for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
n Describe the phases of the local planning process.
n Specify how citizens are to be involved in each phase.

Component 4, Technical Information -- Assure that
technical information is available in an understandable form.
n Describe measures for translating technical information into a "simplified, understandable form." 
n Help citizens interpret such information.
n Make technical information used to decide policy matters readily available to citizens "at a local public library or other location open to the public."

Component 5, Feedback Mechanisms --
Assure that citizens get responses from policy makers.
n Describe how citizens who have participated will "receive a response from policy makers."
n Specify that the rationale for policy decisions will be available to the public in "a written record."

Component 6, Financial Support --
Ensure adequate funding for the citizen involvement program.
n Describe the "human, financial and informational resources" to be used for citizen involvement.
n Specify what levels of staffing and funding will be "adequate."
n Show these resources as "an integral component of the planning budget." _

	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 infor-mation 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 commis-sion/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 on the next page.

1. STANDING COMMITTEES
   ORGANIZED BY GEOGRAPHY

Example: A community planning organization for the city's Westside Neighborhood

3. TEMPORARY COMMITTEES
   ORGANIZED BY GEOGRAPHY

Example: An ad hoc committee on revitalizing the declining "Oldtown District"

2. STANDING COMMITTEES
   ORGANIZED BY FUNCTION

Example: A parks committee to advise county commissioners about park acquisitions

4. TEMPORARY COMMITTEES
   ORGANIZED BY FUNCTION

Example: A task force to oversee development of a new wetlands overlay zone
Figure 1  Four main types of local citizen committees

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 on the next page.

Figure 2  An example of a local framework for citizen involvement

What is the state
framework for citizen involvement?

Several state agencies and organizations affect citizen involve-ment 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. See Appendix H.

DLCD: The Department of Land Conservation and Development (LCDC's staff) has three main roles in citizen involvement:
n It reviews proposals to amend acknowledged plans (including CIPs) to see that the proposed changes comply with Goal 1.
n It communicates information to the public, media, and local governments about statewide planning policies and programs.
n It helps local governments run effective citizen involvement programs.

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 the diagram below.

Figure 3  The state framework for citizen involvement

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 com-menting 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 Conser-vation 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.

	4

	Key Statutes and Rules

As described in Chapter 2, Oregon's main standard for citizen involvement programs is Statewide Planning Goal 1. But Goal 1 is not the only state law or rule that affects citizen involvement. Special regulations about notice and other procedures greatly affect public participation in planning. The main areas of special regulations are described below.

It's important to note that these state laws and rules are applied through the local comprehensive plan. Oregon's cities and counties fold the state's regulations into their local plans and implementing ordinances, which then become the controlling documents for all land use actions. A citizen who wants to know what procedures will be used in a specific land use action should consult his community's plan and ordinances, not the state's laws, goals, or rules. State law, for example, requires notice to landowners within 100 feet of the subject property for certain types of cases. But a city could choose to use a 200-foot standard. The city's requirement, not state law, would be the controlling standard in any appeal.

Land Use Decisions

Every day in Oregon, local officials make hundreds of decisions having to do with planning, zoning, and development and division of land. Some of those decisions involve the creation of new policies that have significant effects on an entire community. Others are routine actions with almost no perceptible effects.

Oregon's laws classify these land use actions in a three-part hierarchy:
n land use decisions;
n limited land use decisions;
n administrative actions.

Land use decisions are the actions with the greatest potential to affect a community's land or people. In the words of the Oregon Supreme Court, a land use decision is one that "has a significant impact on present or future land uses" (City of Pendleton v. Kerns, 1982).

Land use decisions are subject to statutes that generally provide for more extensive citizen involvement. That is, the rules establish broader appeal rights, more extensive notice requirements, and greater opportunity for public hearings. The other two types of actions are subject to different rules that allow for less citizen involvement, as described in the two sections that follow.

The distinction between the three types of land use actions is not always apparent. For example, a county's decision to approve a new dwelling in an Exclusive Farm Use Zone is a land use decision. Neighbors must receive notice, they have the right to a public hearing, and they may appeal the decision to LUBA. But a city's decision to issue a building permit for a new house in an R-1 Zone is not a land use decision. It's an administrative action. Neighbors need not be notified, no hearing must be held, and any appeal would go to circuit court.

The formal definition of land use decision is found in ORS 197.015(10), quoted below:

Land use decision:
(a) Includes:
	(A) A final decision or determination made by a local government or special district that concerns the adoption, amendment or application of:
	(i) The goals;
	(ii) A comprehensive plan provision;
	(iii) A land use regulation; or
	(iv) A new land use regulation; or
	(B) A final decision or determination of a state agency other than the commission [LCDC] with respect to which the agency is required to apply the goals; and
(b) Does not include a decision of a local government:
	(A) Which is made under land use standards which do not require interpretation or the exercise of policy or legal judgment;
	(B) Which approves or denies a building permit issued under clear and objective land use standards;
	(C) Which is a limited land use decision; or
	(D) Which determines final engineering design, construction, operation, maintenance, repair or preservation of a transportation facility which is otherwise authorized by and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land use regulations.

That definition has been interpreted broadly by the courts. In other words, some actions that might not seem to fit the above definition have been found to be land use decisions. The actual impact on land use is the crucial factor.

Land use decisions may be either "legislative" or "quasi-judicial." The difference between the two is not always precise. In general, however, legislative land use decisions involve the creation of policies or regulations; quasi-judicial land use decisions involve the application of policies or regulations to a specific situation or piece of land.

Suppose, for example, that a city council adopts policies and regulations to manage development on lands subject to flooding. The council is "legislating" ‑- creating law that affects all or much of the community. That's a legislative decision.

Now suppose the same city's planning commission decides to approve a request for a conditional use permit to build a house in the Flood Management Zone. Here, the city is not creating new law. Rather, it is applying existing law. In judging how the law should be applied in that particular case, the planning commission is making a quasi-judicial land use decision.

The laws that govern procedures for making legislative land use decisions are relatively broad. For example, they give local officials greater latitude to decide who will receive notice about a particular decision.

The laws that apply to quasi-judicial decision making are more detailed. The most important is ORS 197.763. This statute sets forth procedures that city and county officials must use when deciding requests for variances, conditional use permits, and other land use permits. The statute answers four basic questions:
n Who must get notice of the proposed decision?
n What information must be in that notice?
n When must the notice be provided?
n Who may appeal the decision?

You may read the complete text of ORS 197.763 in Appendix B. It details what must be done to inform citizens about each proposed land use decision. In cities, for example, notice must be mailed to all owners of property within 100 feet of land involved in a proposed land use decision; the notice must be mailed at least 20 days before the public hearing.

ORS 197.763 applies to cities and counties alike. But Oregon's laws also contain more specialized laws on permits, hearings, and notices. ORS 215.416 describes certain steps to be followed by counties; ORS 227.175 describes similar procedures for cities. See Appendixes C and D.

The statutes described above establish minimum standards for "due process." They specify what must be done, not necessarily what should be done. Often, local officials need to go beyond the statutory standards to have effective citizen involvement.

The statutory requirements are minimums: they specify the least that may be done, not necessarily what should be done.

Suppose, for example, a developer seeks a conditional use permit to build a health clinic to serve low-income families. ORS 197.763 requires that city officials send notice only to owners of property within 100 feet of the proposed clinic site. Those neighbors are the people most likely to oppose the project. But construction of the clinic may be of great interest to others: local advocates for affordable health care, agencies that assist low-income families, and so on. A good citizen involvement program will go beyond ORS 197.763 and ensure that all interested people and groups hear about such a proposal, not just those who would live next door to it.

Such advice is easy to say but hard to follow, because opting for more citizen participation involves some costs. It takes more money. It takes more staff time. It may seem to increase the risk of conflict (even though it's more likely to reduce conflict in the long run).

Those ever-present costs constitute a strong force working against citizen involvement. That's why it is so important to have a strong CCI and a detailed citizen involvement program. They are the main forces ‑- sometimes the only forces ‑- working to put the people in planning.

Limited Land Use Decisions

This new category of land use actions was created in 1991 by amendments to Oregon's planning statutes. It is defined by ORS 197.015(12) as follows:
	Limited land use decision is a final decision or determination made by a local government pertaining to a site within an urban growth boundary which concerns:
	(a) The approval or denial of a subdivision or partition, as described in ORS chapter 92.
	(b) The approval or denial of an application based on discretionary standards designed to regulate the physical characteristics of a use permitted outright, including but not limited to site review and design review.

Procedural requirements for limited land use decisions are set forth in ORS 197.195. Here's a summary of the main points:
n Property owners within 100 feet of the subject property must receive notice.
n Any recognized neighborhood organization for the area must receive notice.
n Individuals and organizations have a 14‑day period in which to submit comments before the decision is made.
n They must raise issues in writing during the 14‑day comment period or lose their right to appeal.
n The notice must specify the criteria to be applied; the location of the property in question; the date, time, and place for written comments to be received; that copies of evidence can be viewed and copied; the local government's contact person; the process for making the decision.
n Decision makers must explain in writing how the proposal meets or fails to meet applicable standards.
n People who submit comments will get notice of the decision after it is made and an explanation of their appeal rights.

Appeals of limited land use decisions are heard by the Land Use Board of Appeals.

Administrative Actions

Many land use actions are routine administrative matters. They are handled by staff without extensive public notice or review ‑‑ not because citizen involvement is unnecessary, but because the citizens have already spoken.

Suppose, for example, that a city spends one year refining its zoning ordinance. After numerous hearings and much favorable public comment, the city decides to allow "granny flats" outright in the R-1 zone. (A granny flat is a small apartment attached to a single-family dwelling.) A month after the new ordinance is adopted, a homeowner applies for a building permit to modify his house to create a granny flat.

If that proposal satisfies the applicable standards and definition, local officials should approve the permit. To seek further comment from adjoining land owners about the appropriateness of granny flats in the R-1 zone would be wasteful. It also could be considered "anti citizen involvement," for it implies that opposition from one neighbor could override a policy set by the entire community.

As noted above, the differences between land use decisions, limited land use decisions, and administrative actions are not always clear or precise. These three rules of thumb generally apply, however:
n If the proposed action is not a land use decision or limited land use decision, then it's an administrative action.
n Administrative actions are carried out with a minimum of notice and public review; they provide the least opportunity for citizens to be involved in the decision making.
n Appeals of land use decisions and limited land use decisions go to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Appeals of administrative actions go to circuit court.

Periodic Review

State law (ORS 197.628 - .650) calls for local comprehensive plans to be reviewed and updated every four to ten years. That process, known as periodic review, gives local officials both a mandate and an opportunity to renew the public's participation in land use planning.

Oregon's statutes and administrative rules on periodic review were revised in 1991, partly to improve public involvement. Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-25-080 is the key section. It outlines six main steps for citizen involvement in periodic review*:

n Announce the review. Publish at least one notice in a local newspaper; notify people and groups likely to have an interest in periodic review; notify people who requested such notice.

n Review the CIP. Check the community's adopted citizen involvement program to see that it assures an adequate process for citizen involvement in all phases of the periodic review.

n Follow the CIP. Use the citizen involvement program as the blueprint for public participation during periodic review.

n Ask what needs to be done. The law requires each community to draw up a work program specifying what tasks should be accomplished in periodic review. Give the public opportunities to suggest what tasks should be in that work program.

n Ask for comments on what is done. Give citizens opportunities to comment on those tasks as they are carried out.

n Respond. Reply to the public's suggestions about the work program and about individual items on it. The response can be oral (during a hearing, for example) or written.
          
* Some communities may go through periodic review under the pre-1991 rules.

Plan Amendments

In effect, periodic review is a major overhaul of the local plan; plan amendments are repairs and adjustments. Cities and counties throughout Oregon make about 3,500 amendments of their plans and land use ordinances each year. Some of the amendments are minor technical changes that mean little to most citizens. Others are major actions that affect an entire city.

Some plan amendments are quasi-judicial land use decisions and are subject to the very specific laws described above and in Appendix B. But many are legislative decisions: local officials have greater flexibility in deciding how the public is to be involved in such actions.

Oregon's laws do specify certain procedures that local governments must follow when they amend their plans and land use regulations. But those statutes (ORS 197.610‑.625) deal mainly with how the local government is to deal with DLCD. The laws on plan amendments have little to say about public involvement, particularly in legislative plan amendments. The laws specify only that local governments must notify persons who "participated in the proceedings leading to the adoption of the amendment" within five working days after the amendment is adopted. But they don't say how those persons may have heard about the proposal to amend the plan in the first place.

Because of their great range of significance and because state law offers little guidance, legislative plan amendments present local officials with some of their most difficult decisions about citizen involvement. The officials must find a proper balance, choosing citizen involvement measures proportional to the scale of the plan amendment being proposed.

For a minor amendment that will have few on-the-ground effects, a minimal effort is needed: a posted notice, a legal ad, and a single public hearing might suffice. For a complex amendment that would affect an entire neighborhood, flyers, workshops, display ads, and several hearings might be appropriate.

The local Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) can play an important role here, by suggesting an appropriate citizen involvement effort. Without such independent advice, the citizens may tend to be left out.

"What kind of citizen involvement effort should we make in this case?" The CCI is often the best source for answers to questions like that.

The City of Eugene answers the question "How much citizen involvement?" by applying criteria to distinguish "low interest" and "high interest" land use issues. Issues that are likely to be less controversial, affect a smaller area, and take less time are considered "low interest." Issues more likely to be controversial, affect a large area, and take more time are considered "high interest." The city also has developed guidelines for handling each type of issue. For high-interest issues, the guidelines prescribe a more extensive citizen involvement process.

Open Meetings

Oregon is widely acclaimed as a state with open, accessible government. One reason for that is the state's "Open Meetings Law." See Appendix E for the complete text of that law. The main points can be summarized as follows:
n "It is the intent of ORS 192.610 to 192.690 that decisions of governing bodies be arrived at openly."
n The term "governing bodies" includes city councils, boards of commissioners, county courts, city and county planning commissions, and state commissions such as LCDC (but not hearings officers).
n If a quorum of a governing body gets together to make some sort of decision or to "deliberate toward a decision," it's usually considered a public meeting: interested persons and the media should be notified, and they may attend.
n Onsite inspections, attendance at some types of conferences, and executive sessions are exempt from some of the open meeting requirements.

Going Beyond the Law

Some officials use the laws mentioned above as their only standard for citizen involvement. If the laws that apply to a particular case say to notify all property owners within 100 feet of the subject property, then such notice is assumed to be an adequate citizen involvement effort. Assuming that the law provides a perfect standard, however, may be a big mistake.

Consider, for example, two requests for conditional use permits in an Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone: one to build a kennel, the other to establish a regional landfill. In the eyes of the law, both are quasi-judicial land use decisions; both are subject to the same laws regarding notification, hearings, standing, and appeals. The landfill, however, clearly merits a more extensive citizen involvement effort.

The law specifies only what must be done, not necessarily what should be done. Choosing to do the minimum may prove to be costly. In the case of the landfill, for example, an attempt to save a few hundred dollars of postage and staff time by minimizing citizen involvement may result in litigation costing tens of thousands of dollars.

It should be remembered, too, that "the law" includes more than just statutes on notice, hearings, standing, and appeals. It also includes Goal 1, the citizen involvement policies in the local comprehensive plan, and the adopted CIP.

In short, a legalistic view of citizen involvement often is too narrow. Factors other than the law need to be considered, too. For all but the most routine planning actions, the following questions should be asked:
n Will the proposed planning action affect a large land area?
n Will it affect many people?
n Will it involve new issues not addressed by the plan or not familiar to the public?
n Will it establish important new policies or precedents?
n Will it involve issues that are likely to be controversial?

If the answer to some or all of those questions is Yes, a more extensive citizen involvement effort than that required by the law is likely to be needed.  _

A legalistic view of citizen involvement is often too narrow. Factors beyond the minimums set by law need to be considered, too.

	5

	Common
	Issues and Problems

"The city rammed that rezoning through without listening to the citizens!"  "We tried to get citizens involved, but nobody came to the hearings!"  "That citizens' group had no right to oppose my subdivision!"  "The planning commission had their minds made up before anybody began to testify!"

Such complaints are common. Sometimes they are justified, sometimes not. Either way, they offer dramatic evidence that citizen involvement in planning often is controversial. The main issues that underlie such controversy are described in this chapter. Every citizen involvement program is likely to encounter them. Good programs will anticipate them, using approaches such as those suggested below and the tools in Chapter 6.

Funding

Citizen involvement takes money. A city or county cannot run newspaper ads, mail notices, hold public hearings, or put out a newsletter without having some funding.

One funding problem is that some people see the citizen involvement program as a frill. As a result, that program may be the first to get cut when budget problems arise. That is often penny‑wise but pound‑foolish: weakening the citizen involvement program may lead to costly litigation and plan revisions.

Another problem is that local budgets may not earmark funds specifically for citizen involvement. Rather than having a line item in the budget, citizen involvement gets buried in some larger category‑‑"Long‑Range Planning," for example. That makes it impossible to determine whether the funding for citizen involvement is adequate. That also makes it all too easy to siphon funds away from citizen involvement for use in other programs.

SUGGESTIONS: Clearly identify citizen involvement activities in the budget. Specify dollar amounts for the projected costs of mailing notices, printing documents, holding public hearings, distributing a newsletter, and other activities related to citizen involvement.

Staffing

Just as it takes money, it also takes people to run a citizen involvement program: planners to attend meetings, clerical staff to mail notices, and so on. An extensive citizen involvement effort for overhauling the local plan, for example, might generate hundreds of letters. Reviewing and replying to those letters could take hundreds of hours of staff time.

Unfortunately, some planning agencies do not have detailed work programs. And where such work programs do exist, citizen involvement tasks may not be mentioned. Rather, they are hidden in some larger category, such as "Planning Coordination."

This failure to specify citizen involvement in the work program causes three problems. First, citizen involvement work continually gets set aside as staff members work on more clearly defined tasks. Second, managers remain uninformed about the staffing needed for citizen involvement activities. They thus cannot plan for or manage such activities effectively. Third, managers and staff lack measurable standards and objectives. They therefore cannot evaluate their citizen involvement program nor meet its objectives.

SUGGESTIONS: Recognize that citizen involvement requires a significant commitment of agency staff. Develop and maintain a work program for citizen involvement. Such a work program should identify tasks; project person‑hours needed for those tasks; lay out a schedule; and assign to specific staff persons the responsibility for those tasks. Explore alternatives: the use of volunteer groups; hiring of consultants to manage large citizen involvement efforts; soliciting money or labor from businesses and service organizations.

Time

Effective citizen involvement also takes time ‑- sometimes a great deal of it. To hold a single public hearing on a local land use decision, for example, usually requires more than a month. Notice must be mailed at least 20 days before the hearing. Then there is an appeal period of at least 10 days after the hearing before the decision becomes final.

Concern about time is one of the most potent forces working against citizen involvement. Developers want to get their permits fast. Planners want to keep their projects on schedule. Decision makers want to make decisions and get on with other business. Such wants create strong and never‑ending pressures to shorten appeal periods, limit standing, reduce the extent of notification, and so on.

SUGGESTIONS: Allocate adequate time for notice, hearings, appeals, and other citizen involvement activities in the agency work program. Inform permit applicants, citizen groups, managers, and elected officials about state and local time limits and deadlines. Remind managers and decision makers that inadequate citizen involvement is likely to lead to litigation, opposition to or misunderstanding of the plan, and bad planning decisions. Those problems may cost a great deal more time and money than would a strong citizen involvement effort.

Legal Constraints

Many of the same laws that create opportunities for citizen involvement also limit those opportunities. For example, ORS 197.830 allows concerned citizens to appeal local land use decisions to the state's Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). But the same law also sets limits on who can appeal, how much time they have to appeal, and so on. Such laws try to strike a balance between two extremes: a closed planning system that gives citizens little or no access, and a wide-open system that provides unlimited and continuous access.

Both extremes would be unfair and ineffective. The closed system gives citizens no voice in decisions that will affect them, and it leads to short‑sighted planning and decision making. The wide-open system fails to protect the rights of land owners and developers. It leads to paralysis in planning and decision making, as there is always one more hearing, appeal, or citizen to be heard.

In trying to maintain an appropriate balance between the extremes described above, the State of Oregon has adopted laws on hearings, notice, appeals, and other aspects of planning and citizen involvement. The number of those laws and their complexity are greater today than ever before. The citizen who wants access to the planning process in the 1990s faces a more complex set of rules.

Ten years ago, for example, a citizen could appeal a local land use decision to LUBA simply by showing that she would be affected by that decision in some way. Today, that same citizen would have to demonstrate that she participated in the local land use decision. If she did not oppose it locally, she would have no standing to appeal to LUBA. A person unaware of that "raise it or waive it" requirement loses the opportunity to be involved in one important phase of the planning process.

SUGGESTIONS: Inform citizens of their rights and obligations through workshops, flyers, newsletter articles, and other means. Train staff so that they know about these rights and obligations and can communicate them to citizens.

Apathy

Government officials sometimes hold well‑advertised public meetings and send out broad mailings on an important policy issue but then receive little response. Later, they may hear people complain that the officials provided no opportunity for citizen involvement. The officials are likely to reply, with justifiable indignation, "We tried, but nobody showed up!"

It's true that many citizens regard planning as a dull topic. They may not see how an abstract planning policy or issue could affect them. They therefore have little interest in attending a hearing, serving on a committee, or otherwise getting involved ‑‑ until they hear a bulldozer start to work in the vacant lot next door. By then, it may be too late to get involved.

But officials sometimes blame "apathy" for the failures of a citizen involvement program when the real cause is inadequate funding or management of the program. Citizens will not participate in the planning process if they lack access to it.

SUGGESTIONS: Maintain an effective citizen involvement program, one that communicates issues and information clearly to all interested persons and groups. Develop educational programs and workshops to inform citizens about policies and issues. Encourage citizens to get into the planning process early.

Technocracy

Like law or medicine, planning is a complex, technical field. Citizens who venture into it for the first time are likely to be fearful about "technocracy" ‑- government by technicians. The citizens may see their lack of knowledge about planning and the planner's extensive knowledge as a powerful combination of forces working against them. That puts the citizen on the defensive.

By their actions at the permit counter, in public meetings, and elsewhere, planners can ease such fears ‑- or heighten them. Most planners intend to be helpful and want to put the citizen at ease. But sometimes the citizen still feels intimidated. Such intimidation usually grows out of three problems.

The first problem is simply poor communication ‑‑ a failure by the planner to communicate complex ideas and information clearly. The second is paternalism ‑‑ an assumption that the planner knows all the answers. The third is impatience, often brought on by inadequate staffing. Planners who are being deluged by permit applications are less likely to be patient and diplomatic with every citizen who comes to the permit counter.

Planners do not purposely try to communicate badly or to be paternalistic. They don't mean to be impatient. That absence of malice, however, doesn't make the problem of intimidation any less real. 

SUGGESTIONS: Give staff members training in effective oral and written communications. Develop and maintain programs to streamline permit processing. Use role-playing exercises to help staff better understand the lay person's view. Maintain adequate levels of staffing at key points of contact with the public, especially the permit counter. Establish a customer service program in which the citizen is the customer and the service is access to all phases of the planning process.

The Need for Predictability

Planning is a process for making decisions about how a community expects to use its land and resources. Citizen involvement during that process is vital, but such involvement cannot go on forever. At some point, the governing body must make its decisions and carry them out.

The extent to which developers, land owners, utility firms, and other members of the community can rely on a plan's decisions is generally referred to as predictability. Without it, a comprehensive plan has little or no value. But the need for predictability and the need for citizen involvement sometimes clash.

Suppose, for example, that a city is considering rezoning an area from single‑family residential to multifamily residential. City officials work hard to get the public involved. They send out mailings and run newspaper ads to explain how the rezoning will allow apartments in the area. They conduct several workshops and public hearings. They receive a great deal of testimony, most of it favorable, and they proceed to rezone the area.

A year later, a developer proposes a new apartment complex in that area. Several neighbors object, but the city rejects their complaints. City officials tell them, "This area has been zoned for multifamily dwellings; the builder is completely within his rights to build apartments there."

The concerned neighbors might argue that the city is failing to provide for adequate citizen involvement. But the city has already had extensive public participation. Now city officials are simply standing by the decisions that grew out of that earlier involvement.

The need for predictability doesn't mean that a plan can never be changed or that a decision should never be reconsidered. But the whole idea behind planning is to have the community agree on where certain types of land uses and public facilities like streets and sewers should go. Once such agreements have been reached and adopted in the plan, the plan cannot be reopened every time someone objects.

SUGGESTIONS: Emphasize the need for citizen participation early, when the plans and policies are being developed, not after they are being applied. Document the citizen involvement that occurred during the plan's development, so that citizens will know that its policies are based on extensive citizen input.

State and Federal Mandates

Other laws indirectly limit citizen involvement by setting standards or requirements that cannot be changed by local citizen actions. Suppose, for example, that a landowner proposes to rezone his land from Exclusive Farm Use to Heavy Industrial. Even if 100 of his friends come to the hearing and all testify for the rezoning, local officials cannot approve it if it fails to satisfy the state laws that protect farmland.

SUGGESTIONS: Inform citizens about state and federal laws that compel certain policies or actions. Provide information that describes not only the requirements of the law but also its purposes. In other words, explain not only what the law requires but also why the law requires it.

The Overburdened Citizen

Each year, cities and counties in Oregon make 10,000 to 20,000 land use decisions. Neither state nor local officials, however, have the power or resources to review or enforce all of those decisions.

Many cities and counties have few staff for zoning enforcement. Local district attorneys often are reluctant to prosecute land use cases, given the large number of criminal cases they face. The state does not hear about many local decisions: many need not be reported to any state agency. And the state does not have as much power to intervene as many people think. For example, the Department of Land Conservation and Development cannot overturn a local land use decision. DLCD can only appeal such a decision to LUBA, just as a citizen could.

The result of all this is that much of the burden for enforcing Oregon's planning laws falls on the shoulders of everyday citizens. The citizen who objects to a local decision may have no recourse but to file an appeal to LUBA. Such an appeal is likely to take about four months and cost several thousand dollars.

A second and related problem is that local government in general and planning in particular depend on the work of lay citizens in a multitude of committees and groups such as planning commissions. Smaller communities often cannot find enough civic‑minded volunteers to fill all the positions on the planning commission, CCI, parks committee, landmarks committee, and other lay groups. Serving on such committees takes time away from families and jobs. It is often boring or stressful or both, and the "pay" ‑‑ perhaps two bits a mile for travel to meetings and a certificate of appreciation when one leaves the committee ‑‑ is hardly attractive.

SUGGESTIONS: Work to empower Oregon's citizens. Strive to give them easy access to all aspects of planning. Provide information, training, and incentives for them to serve on committees and commissions. The success of planning in Oregon's 277 cities and counties depends on the work of such citizens.  _

	6

	Ways To Put
	The People In Planning

The preceding chapters of this manual answer some basic questions about citizen involvement: Who? What? When? Where? and Why? This chapter deals with How? It outlines almost 100 specific measures for getting the public involved in planning. They are arranged in five categories:
n Planning for effective citizen involvement
n Getting information to the public
n Getting information from the public
n Exchanging ideas and information with the public
n Working with the media.

In effect, this chapter is a cookbook full of recipes for citizen involvement. Its purpose is to present a wide variety of recipes to choose from, not to suggest that each city or county should try all of them. A recipe that would be good for a small city, for example, might not work at all in a metropolitan county.

The measures described in this chapter are not just theories. Almost all of them have been or are being used successfully by communities in Oregon, as you will see from the many examples cited.

A word of caution, however, about those examples: the authors of this handbook have not evaluated all of the 277 local citizen involvement programs in Oregon. Our listing of one community's work therefore does not imply that the example cited is the best or only one of its kind in the state.

Also, the absence of an example with a particular "recipe" doesn't mean that no one in Oregon is using it. In some cases, such an absence just means that many cities and counties are using that recipe, so there's no point in citing only one example. In other cases, the recipe sounded good, but we weren't able to find anyone who had tried it.

If you need greater detail about these measures, check the bibliography in Appendix F. It lists publications and organizations that have more information.

Ways To Plan For Effective Citizen Involvement

The best way to have strong citizen involvement in planning is to have strong planning for citizen involvement. In other words, a successful citizen involvement program must be carefully designed and managed.

Establish objectives. Assign responsibilities. Allocate money and staff. Set a schedule. Monitor performance. These are basic steps to successful management of any program. Yet all too often, these steps are forgotten with citizen involvement. For some reason, citizen involvement frequently is not seen as a program to be actively managed. Rather, it is treated as a passive process, one that will somehow happen automatically if a few notices are mailed and a hearing is held.

But citizen involvement doesn't just happen. The most widespread public participation in planning is found in those communities where citizen involvement is planned and managed carefully and aggressively. Here are some of the techniques those communities are using.

n Manage citizen involvement in the same way as code administration or long-range planning ‑- that is, as a major element of the planning program.
	Examples: Eugene, Gresham, Portland, Salem, Douglas County, Washington County . . . . Many cities and counties in Oregon are doing this.

n Draw up a citizen involvement plan for each major legislative action and for land use decisions that involve important community issues.
	For all major planning actions, the City of Eugene's planning department assigns a project manager. One of the manager's tasks is to create a work program for citizen involvement for that project. That program must be reviewed and approved by Eugene's Citizen Involvement Committee.

n Use the CCI! The Committee for Citizen Involvement can (and usually should):
Ø advise planners and policy makers on how to manage citizen involvement for specific projects
Ø periodically evaluate the citizen involvement program
Ø work with staff to maintain an effective network of citizen advisory committees
Ø act as a mediator to resolve disputes about public participation
Ø act as an ombudsman for citizens concerned about public participation.
	Gresham's CCI does all of the above and more. At a May 1991 brainstorming session, for example, the CCI generated a list of several dozen ideas for more effective citizen involvement.

n Staff the citizen involvement program with a professional coordinator from outside the planning department. This arrangement has several advantages. It frees planning staff from citizen involvement duties that might conflict with or take second place to other planning tasks, such as code enforcement. It allows for broader community involvement: citizen concerns are not limited to land use. And the coordinator can serve as a mediator if the planning department and citizen advisory committees disagree about a land use issue.
	The City of Gresham has a fulltime citizen involvement coordinator based in the city manager's office.

n Contract for citizen involvement services. Like the independent coordinator described above, a contractor can remain neutral during policy conflicts.
	Washington County contracts with the Oregon State University Extension Service to provide support to citizen advisory committees, for land use and other community issues.

n If the planning department runs the citizen involvement program, make sure the responsibility for that is clearly assigned to one or more staff persons. If no one is directly responsible for the CIP, some of that program's tasks are likely to remain undone.

n Develop and use a citizen involvement checklist for the planning staff.
	Eugene's planning department has three "templates" ‑- sets of guidelines for citizen involvement. One is for "low-interest projects." The second is for "high-interest projects." The third deals with projects that involve a combination of public and private funding (a parking structure, for instance).

n Give the planners who deal with the public training in customer relations and communications.

n Give planning staff and members of citizen boards and committees information and training on key topics.
	Twice a year (in March and September) the Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association teaches an all-day class on how to be an effective planning commissioner. At each session, about 60 commissioners from cities and counties throughout Oregon receive training.

n Use role-playing and simulation exercises to help planners, planning commissioners, and other officials to understand the needs and wants of citizens and interest groups.
	Hood River County's planners conduct mock permit applications, to gain a better idea of the view from the other side of the permit counter.

n Maintain a registry of stakeholders, interest groups, and individuals with expertise or interests in important land use topics or areas. Use that registry as a source of contacts when deciding whom to involve in a particular citizen involvement effort. Update the list periodically. 

n Appoint a volunteer "ombudsman" or citizen involvement coordinator. The CCI may fill this role. But in communities where an independent CCI is not available, a lay ombudsman may be able to facilitate public participation in the planning program.

n Evaluate the CIP each year, and report the results to the governing body.
	Lane County brings together its planning commission, board of commissioners, and citizen committee chairs in an annual meeting to discuss and evaluate the county's citizen involvement program. The Clackamas County CCI evaluates public participation in the county each year and issues a formal report to the Board of Commissioners.

n Earmark funding for citizen involvement in the budget. Goal 1 requires this, and for good reason: it helps make people aware that citizen involvement cannot happen without a commitment of resources, and it protects the CIP.
	Clackamas County maintains a Public Affairs Office and staff with their own budget. The county also allocated $6,000 to enhance citizen involvement during the 1991-92 budget year, and it specified that each of the county's 44 community planning organizations would be allocated $200 for "costs of printing, mailing and other special needs that might arise." Roseburg has a line item of $2,500 for neighborhood groups in the city manager's budget; funds for other citizen involvement activities (such as mailing notices) come out of the planning department's budget.

n Seek grants or in-kind services for citizen involvement from government agencies, businesses, service organizations, and philanthropic institutions.
	For its "Your Community 2000" project, the City of Bend raised $32,000 from state, city and county governments, recreation districts, private contributors and school districts. Springfield got a $60,000 federal grant to help the city carry out its "Springfield Tomorrow" project. 

n Develop and maintain an active network of neighborhood organizations. Make sure the committees continue to receive information about permit applications, policy issues, and major projects, such as revisions to the plan or development codes.
	Salem has adopted an ordinance that requires neighborhood associations to be notified about all proposals for quasi-judicial land use decisions and legislative zone changes in their areas. Portland notifies its neighborhood associations about pending land use decisions. Douglas County gives all of its advisory committee members a large packet of information about the county's geography, government, and planning programs. Newberg's planning department sends monthly packets and reports to its citizen advisory committees.

n Provide basic support for citizen advisory committees (including neighborhood groups). Such support usually includes clerical services (photocopying, mailing, and notification), reimbursement for travel costs, and a place for meetings. Although planning staff usually do not attend all meetings of all committees, some staff attendance is essential. Without direction and assistance from staff, committees are likely to wither or to become loose cannons, arguing with local officials over crucial land use issues.

n When seeking members for a key committee such as the CCI, use an open process: publish notices, contact local civic groups, and post announcements. Don't rely on word of mouth or the personal contacts of planners, planning commissioners, or elected officials. Such a casual approach suffers from three drawbacks. First, it often does not generate a sufficient number of candidates. Second, it may cause the makeup of the committees to be too narrow. Finally, it smacks of secrecy and favoritism and may lead to public distrust or criticism of the committee.

n Maintain a list of people who have expressed interest in a particular issue or in serving on a committee. That creates a pool of potential volunteers who can be called when a vacancy on a standing committee needs to be filled or when a new committee needs to be formed.
	Baker County's planning department maintains a list of people who have said they are willing to serve on citizen advisory groups such as the county parks committee.

n Give recognition to citizen volunteers.
	Grants Pass holds an annual awards dinner to honor leaders and activists from its citizen committees.

The best way to have strong citizen involvement in planning is to have strong planning for citizen involvement.

Ways To Get Information To The Public

Perhaps the most common complaint from citizens about government is "Nobody told us!" That may frustrate the weary planner who has just spent several weeks and thousands of dollars running legal ads, sending out notices, and organizing a series of public hearings. In spite of such efforts, however, the citizens' complaint may be well-founded. Few people read legal ads. Property owners often overlook or fail to understand formal notices. And public hearings do not impart much information to the public. It takes more than the traditional notice and hearing procedures to truly inform an entire community about a planning issue. Here some ways to make your message heard more widely.

n Mail notices and information to the people most likely to be affected. State law (ORS 196.763), of course, requires that notices about proposed land use decisions be mailed to owners of property around the site of a land use proposal. Those land owners, however, are not necessarily the only people or groups who will be affected by the proposal. And that law does not apply to legislative actions, which may affect people throughout the community. So start by deciding who is most likely to be affected. Then decide what message should be communicated ‑- a plain English description of how the proposed planning action might affect the community, for example. Then base your mailing on those decisions. Don't overlook the law, but don't use it as the sole standard for your communication effort.

n Post notices about important meetings and proposals in conspicuous places: the library, city hall, courthouse, community centers, and on or near affected properties.

n Prepare notices and information in a language other than English when a land use proposal is likely to affect members of the community for whom English is not their principal language.

n Enhance the readability of documents that will be distributed to the public. Aim for a readability rating of grade level 10 or lower; readability software programs such as RightWriter, Grammatik, or Correct Grammar are available for less than $100. Contract with a writer, editor, or graphics artist to produce documents that invite a reader's attention and communicate more effectively.

n Produce summaries of important documents that are too long or complex to be understood readily by the average citizen.

n Produce plain-English fact sheets or flyers on important issues, and distribute them to citizen committees, interest groups, students, media, and visitors to the planning department.
	Douglas County produced an eight-page flyer on wetlands in May, 1991, and distributed it to interested persons and groups throughout the county. The illustrated flyer uses a question-and-answer format to define wetlands and describe how they are managed.

n Produce flyers or booklets that describe processes and procedures such as hearings and appeals.
	Eugene's Permit and Information Center distributes the following plain-English flyers: "Land Use Decisions," "Eugene Hearings Official," "Eugene Planning Commission," and "Speak Up" (a guide on how to testify at a public hearing).

n Arrange for local plans, zoning ordinances, and other planning documents to be made available to the public in the local library, city hall, courthouse, and schools.
	Before each meeting of its planning commission, the City of Bandon puts a packet of meeting materials in the city library. Anyone can come to the library and see the staff reports and other material that will be considered at the meeting. Washington County provides copies of major planning documents to all libraries in the county's library system.

n Prepare and distribute an annual report that describes the main planning activities and issues of the past year.
	Lane County's Land Management Division prepares an annual report to its planning commission.

n Prepare and distribute a list of publications about planning and important local issues. Make it available to reporters, students, citizen activists, and others who want to learn more about land use and the local planning program.

n Develop and maintain a newsletter.
	Douglas County's planning department produces a quarterly newsletter that goes to all citizen advisory committees and to other interested persons and groups. The Hood River and Washington County planning departments do the same. Clackamas County produces a monthly newsletter from the board of commissioners' office. Many of its articles deal with issues of planning and citizen involvement. 

n Use the newsletters of other groups and agencies as a vehicle for getting information to certain audiences. Contact the newsletter's editor to suggest topics for articles or to arrange for you to submit your own.
	The Department of Land Conservation and Development submitted an article about new forestland rules to Northwest Woodlands magazine. That article reached many woodlot owners who might not have heard about the rules through official notices and mailings.

n Hold a contest. For example, to stimulate the public's interest in urban wildlife habitats and natural areas, city planners could sponsor a photo contest. Photos would show wildlife or natural scenery, and would have to be taken at sites within the city limits during the past year.

n Enclose bulletins or fact sheets on planning with local utility billings or other routine mailings made by the city or county.
	The Corvallis Planning Department used this method to announce that the city's Land Development Code would be updated.

n Organize a speakers bureau ‑- a list of planners, local officials, and other well-informed persons willing to speak before service groups, clubs, and classes.

n Work with local service groups, such as the League of Women Voters, Kiwanis, and Rotary. Arrange speakers for them. Distribute relevant notices and publications to them. Seek their help in communicating with the public about large planning efforts such as periodic review.
	The City of Silverton's Chamber of Commerce sponsored a forum where several hundred citizens prioritized the growing needs of their city.

n Develop a handbook or pamphlet on citizen involvement, to encourage interested citizens to get involved in planning.
	Clackamas County produced a 75-page citizens' guide that explains what the county's citizen involvement program is and how one may participate in it. See Appendix F, "Bibliography." Salem's Department of Community Development in 1988 published a 12-page booklet called "Guide To Working With Neighborhood Associations."

n Write a "white paper" or "backgrounder" to explain the reasons behind a controversial policy proposal. The purpose of such a paper is to answer the question "Why?" ‑- and answer it early. That question eventually may be answered in a staff report or a set of findings. But those documents usually are too late and too legalistic to be useful to the citizen. The white paper helps to shape and inform public opinion about a decision that's going to be made; findings are the defense for a decision already made.

n Set up a citizens' planning information center or display (permanent or temporary) in a public building, shopping mall, or school.

n Set up booths or displays at county fairs, trade fairs, and community festivals.

n Put information on citizen involvement and planning in the material provided by Welcome Wagon, the Chamber of Commerce, and other local service groups.

n Use graphics and audio-visual aids. Television and sophisticated advertising techniques are making the public expect more than typed text. Besides, many planning issues have a strong visual component. Drawings, flip charts, maps, slides, overheads, or video tapes thus may often be more effective than a standard typed report.
	Ashland's planning department produced an illustrated booklet, Site Design and Use Guidelines. The 45-page document uses drawings and diagrams effectively to explain complex material.

n Develop a video tape to show permit applicants and citizens how to testify at a public hearing. Set up a television and video recorder to play that tape on demand at the planning office or in the lobby of the building where the public hearing will be held. (This idea comes from Gresham's CCI.)

n Use "telephone trees" to announce important meetings and to relay other simple information. In such a system, the first person places a call to, say, five people. Those five each call another five people. Only three or four such cycles will quickly reach hundreds of people. The tree needs careful planning, however. Otherwise, its branches turn inward, as people call others who have already been called.

n Use computers at the permit counter to make information readily available to citizens and permit applicants.
	Lane County has terminals at the main counter in the Land Management Division. With help from a staff person, a permit applicant can key in a few commands and moments later get a screen full of information about a particular piece of land ‑- its size, zoning, permit status, number of dwellings, etc.

n Arrange site observations, walking tours, or bus tours of key sites and areas for interested citizens and organizations.
	Eugene has prepared brochures and maps of historical places, so that citizens can take self-guided walking tours of historical districts. The Lane Council of Governments arranged tours for interested persons to see areas proposed for inclusion in a new wetlands conservation plan.

n Have planners or planning officials teach or guest lecture in local schools, community colleges, or universities.
	DLCD's Communications Manager has spoken to a variety of classes, including second- and third-graders, about land use planning. If the material is presented in a simple, graphic way, grade schoolers will understand and be interested in land use issues like urban sprawl and traffic congestion.

n Make and retain a written record not only of findings for quasi-judicial land use decisions (as required by statute) but also for legislative and policy decisions. This enables interested persons to see how and why new regulations or policies were developed.

Ways To Get Information From The Public

If the public's most common complaint is "Nobody told us," then the second most common probably is "You didn't listen." But how can planners and local elected officials listen more effectively? Here are a dozen answers to that question ‑- twelve ways to receive the public's messages more clearly.

n Hold public hearings. Publicize such hearings widely and mail notices to persons and groups who are likely to have an interest in the topic of the meeting. Note that a public hearing is mainly a way to solicit comment from the public. If information needs to be conveyed to the public, or if an exchange of ideas and information between the public and planners is needed, other types of public meetings are more effective ‑- townhall meetings and workshops, for example.

n Make the meeting place accessible. See that all public meetings are held in places that have adequate parking and seating and are accessible to handicapped persons.

n Schedule public meetings so as to avoid conflicting events. Such scheduling should take into account traditional vacation months, local or regional sports events, hunting seasons, and other events that might cause many people to be unable to attend.

n Use a checklist for all public meetings. The list should encompass the multitude of seemingly minor details that, if forgotten, can make a meeting a disaster. Such details include, but are by no means limited to, items such as these: number of chairs, sound system, number and type of microphones, timer, sign‑up sheets, easel and flip charts, handouts, and audio-visual equipment.

n Mail surveys to a cross-section of the community.
	The City of Springfield sent questionnaires to every fourth registered voter in the city as part of its "Springfield Tomorrow" project. The survey asked respondents for their views and priorities on several dozen land use and community planning issues.

n Gather information and views through door-to-door canvassing.
	The City of Milwaukie used several dozen high-school students (led by chair persons of local neighborhood groups) to carry out a "Block Walk." The students went door to door to survey residents about community issues and resources. The project was preceded by extensive press coverage.

n Conduct on-site interviews or door-to-door surveys in areas that will be affected by a development proposal, rezoning, or planning decision. 

n Provide a "public comment" period at every public meeting of the local planning commission or governing body. Its purpose is to give citizens a chance to speak on topics not already specified on the agenda.
	The state's Land Conservation and Development Commission has a public comment period at its regular meetings, usually as the first item on the agenda.

n Conduct "passive surveys" by having questionnaires available in the planning department, public library, city hall, shopping mall, or other public places. Such surveys must be brief, and because their respondents are not selected randomly, the results are not statistically significant. They may, however, provide some useful information and suggestions from the public.

n Invite guest speakers from interest groups or other agencies to make presentations to the planning staff, planning commission, governing body, or citizen advisory committees.
	Wasco County invites officials from state agencies to make presentations about state programs that affect the county. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, for instance, made an hour-long slide presentation on big-game winter range to the Wasco County planning commission.

n At townhall meetings, workshops, and brainstorming sessions, use flip charts to build a record. Have someone summarize key points on the charts. Tape each filled-out page on the wall, so the audience can see their comments and ideas. After the meeting, record the notes on 8½-X-11-inch paper, and distribute them to those who attended the meeting.

n Provide a "clipping service" for planning commissioners, elected officials, and chairs of advisory committees. That is, monitor local and regional newspapers for articles, editorials, and letters to the editor about planning issues and citizen involvement. Clip such pieces out of the newspaper and mail them periodically. This service can be done by local staff or by commercial clipping services.
	The Department of Land Conservation and Development, through its communications manager and field representatives, monitors several dozen newspapers in Oregon. DLCD staff clip the articles and assemble them in a packet, which is mailed once a week to the Land Conservation and Development Commission and key staff.

Ways To Exchange
Ideas And Information With The Public

The most effective communication is more than just sending or receiving messages. It involves an exchange of ideas and information. Such exchanges are essential in our day-to-day relations with friends, spouses, and colleagues. They are, however, difficult to achieve on a community-wide scale. Here are some ways to attack that problem.

n Encourage developers and permit applicants to bring their proposals to neighborhood groups early in the application process. This keeps the citizens informed about issues that may affect their neighborhood, and it enables the developer to respond to citizen concerns early, before much money has been invested in plans, surveys, and permit fees.
	When the Kaiser-Permanente Corporation wanted to build a medical center in south Salem, its executives met with local neighborhood groups and talked to all prospective neighbors. Kaiser-Permanente modified their plans so as to satisfy concerns they heard from the neighbors, and then completed the permit and construction process ‑- without opposition.

n Hold townhall meetings, community forums, or public workshops on important issues and policy proposals. Be aware of the important differences between these types of meetings and a hearing. A hearing is more formal and has a mostly one-way flow of information (from citizens to the hearing officials). The main purpose of a hearing is to reach a decision. In contrast, a townhall, public forum, or workshop is less formal, involves an exchange of ideas and information, and has that exchange (not a decision) as its main purpose.
	The City of Coos Bay followed up a community-wide survey with a townhall meeting in 1990. The meeting was broken into smaller working groups, which were asked to list the top five goals for the city. The groups' lists were quite consistent with each other, and the turnout for the meeting was good ‑- about 200 people, in all.

n Compile a summary of the names and main points of those who participated in public meetings and other activities leading to the development of a new policy. This summary of input will help citizens see how the policy was developed and who contributed to its development. It also may be useful years later if ambiguous wording leads to questions about the intent of the policy.

n When developing new policies, create an ad hoc "task force." The task force usually is made up of people knowledgeable about the pertinent issues and with ties to a wide variety of interests. Task force members thus serve two purposes: they bring information to the process, and they convey information to their network of contacts. A task force also may serve as a neutral party in a controversy if elected officials or planners are perceived to be on one side or the other.
	Union County formed an Aggregate Advisory Committee in 1988 to help county officials develop policies on aggregate extraction. The committee had five members -- an "at large" member, and one from each of the following groups: landowners near aggregate sites; aggregate operators; business interests; environmental interests.

n Maintain a temporary 800 telephone number or a special "hotline" to deal with controversial issues likely to generate a great deal of public comment or inquiry.

n Conduct briefings or roundtable discussions with key community leaders and stakeholders. The purpose of such meetings is twofold: to convey ideas and information to community leaders, and to learn their views and interests.

n Conduct a charrette. A charrette is an intensive meeting of a few key stakeholders or community leaders working to hammer out an agreement. It is an effective way of "getting to yes," but it requires a big investment of time by participants, and it usually does not represent a cross-section of the community.

n Strive to provide "procedural satisfaction" to all parties when making decisions. This term comes from the growing literature on alternative dispute resolution. It means the belief that the decision-making process is fair no matter what its outcome.

n Have the public participate in building a vision of the community's future. Such "visioning" is the subject of the recent Oregon Visions Trilogy, written by several Oregon planners. The manual describes the visioning process and explains how Oregon communities can use it. See Appendix F, "Bibliography."
	The City of Corvallis carried out an extensive visioning process in the late 1980s. Among other things, the city organized workshops, invited a well-known futurist to speak to at a public meeting (attended by some 500 people), and organized a special event called "Children's Visions of the Future." The city also printed and distributed 25,000 copies of a newsprint tabloid containing the Corvallis Vision Statement. The visioning work provided the policy foundation for the city's statutorily required periodic review.

n Follow up: send a summary of new policies and regulations to people and groups who testified or otherwise helped to develop them. This serves two purposes: it conveys information about the new material to key people, and it gives them some sense of ownership in the final product.

n Conduct an open house periodically in the planning department.

n Mail information packets periodically to the chairs of all citizen advisory committees. Such a packet might contain the agendas for coming meetings of boards such as the planning commission, recent applications for development permits, any recent fact sheets or summaries, and clippings of recent planning news.
	Newberg's planning department each month sends its neighborhood committee chairs a report summarizing key planning issues and activities.

n Work with local schools and teachers to get students involved in planning. The students learn about land use planning and government; they may produce useful data; and they make their parents more aware of planning issues.
	A planner in Maine (Marvin Rosenblum) has started a statewide program called Kids Involved Doing Service. The kids do field work and surveys (on land use, soils, water, traffic) on real development proposals and then present their findings to permit applicants, decision makers, and civic groups. Michael Nagler, Hood River County's planning director, participates in the local high school's annual "Professional Day," telling students about planning. Ben Boswell, a high-school teacher in Wallowa County, has his students learn about planning through role-playing exercises: "You're a planning commissioner; a developer has proposed to build a . . . , etc." Teacher Neal Maine (from Seaside) has developed a coastal resource planning curriculum for high-school students. It's designed to bring science and civics together as students work on actual planning issues.

n Introduce commission members and staff at the beginning of every public meeting of a body such as the planning commission. Explain their role and the purpose of the meeting.
	Baker County's planning commission begins each of its meetings by having the chair introduce all commissioners and the planning director.

Ways To Work With The Media

The first rule for working with the media is this: treat them as allies. Chances are, you have a story to tell about some important planning program or issue, and the media can help you tell it.

Suppose, for example, that a county is beginning the periodic review of its comprehensive plan. One way to inform citizens about that is to run a legal notice about the periodic review hearings. But a better way is to work with a local reporter to develop a front-page news article about periodic review. Such an article provides more information and is read by more people, and it's free. Seizing the initiative also has this big advantage: it enables you to get information to the media before any inaccurate or unbalanced coverage occurs.

Remember, if you don't tell your own story, someone else will tell it for you. Here are some ways to see that your story gets told first.

n Issue news releases and public service announcements (PSA's). Even small planning agencies can use this technique. News releases can be written and distributed quickly, and the media will often use them almost word for word ‑- if they contain something newsworthy and are written in the appropriate style. PSA's are news releases for radio stations, written so that they can read on the air in 15 to 30 seconds. For the basics on writing news releases and PSA's, see the Oregon Media Guide listed in the bibliography (Appendix F).

n Designate a staff person to be the planning department's "information officer." Assign to him or her the responsibility for working with the media and for trying to generate informative stories about important planning issues and programs.

n Distribute a "press packet" to local and regional media annually and to new reporters assigned to the local government beat. Such a packet contains basic information about the planning department and the community's planning program. The packet serves two purposes: it reminds the media about your program and its important work, and it provides background information that the media may need when they do a story about your agency.

n Have the planning director or other key officials appear on local radio or television talk shows.
	Michael Nagler, planning director for Hood River County, frequently appears on a Saturday morning radio talk show to discuss current planning issues and respond to calls from the public. Linda Gray, Washington County's citizen involvement coordinator, appeared on Metro Access Cable TV's "Public Affairs Forum" to talk about the county's citizen involvement program.

n Hold a news conference. This may sound intimidating, but it doesn't require a great deal of time or special skills. The main requirement is to have something newsworthy as the subject of the conference. If a television station is to be invited, try to arrange a site for the conference that has some visual interest. To announce the start of a new program for protecting historical places, for example, arrange to have the news conference in a historical building.

n Arrange to have important public meetings televised on the local community access cable television channel.
	CCTV (Channel 34) "cablecasts" the meetings of the Salem city council live and rebroadcasts them on Sundays.

n Use community access cable television to produce special shows about planning issues.
	The City of Portland produced a television show about the Albina Neighborhood Plan, using Portland Cable Access Television.

n Write guest "op/ed" (opinion and editorial) pieces for the local newspaper.
	The Springfield News ran a guest editorial from city officials encouraging citizens to participate in the "Springfield Tomorrow" project.

n Call the editor of the local newspaper and suggest news articles or editorials about important planning issues and activities. Don't assume that the media automatically are fully informed about all planning issues and activities that are important to the community. Without your call, the matter may not be reported, or it may be reported incorrectly.

n Arrange to have meetings and hearings announced in the local calendar of events maintained by most newspapers and radio stations.
	Hillsboro's planning commission meetings are announced in the Hillsboro Argus's community calendar. The Argus publishes its calendar once a week. Information to be published in the calendar must be submitted a week in advance. A typical announcement contains about 30 words. The newspaper does not charge for this service.

n For issues and activities of community-wide importance, use display ads in the local newspaper rather than legal ads. Legal ads are required in some cases, but sometimes the only reason for their use is tradition. Most citizens do not read legal ads, and for good reason: they are printed in small type in an obscure section of the newspaper, and often are written in a legalistic, hard-to-read style. If you really want to reach the public, don't rely on legal ads.
	The City of Coos Bay produces a quarterly newsletter, which is printed and distributed as an insert in the Coos Bay World. Metro (the Portland Metropolitan Service District) routinely publishes its public meeting agendas as display ads in the Oregonian.

n Arrange for notices, flyers, or other information to be delivered as an insert in the local newspaper. This "print and deliver" service is useful for getting information to a certain part of the community. The inserts can be placed in only those newspapers to be delivered in the northwest part of a city, for example. In most cases, such inserts will be cheaper than a display ad.

n Conduct surveys or questionnaires through the local media.
	The City of Springfield used a clip-and-return questionnaire printed in the Springfield News and the Eugene Register Guard to survey citizens as part of the "Springfield Tomorrow" project in 1991.

	_  _  _

There you have it -- almost 100 ways to help bring the citizens of your community into all phases of the planning process. CIAC, DLCD, and the authors of this book wish you success in your efforts to put the people in planning.

	_  _  _