07/25/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Bennett explained the background of the plan. He said the County planning program had begun in 1967 and its work program had been completed e in 1969. He said it had planned for completion of the plan in 1972, but not all planning and zoning had been done yet. He said there had been a turnover of County planning staff and County Commisioners since the work program began but that most of the new commissioners had campaigned on the issue of planning in rural areas. Mr. Bennett said the new commissioners had asked the County planning staff to work with them to come up with an alternative land use plan. He said that since much of the data for the plan had been collected in 1967 and updated later, it was sometimes difficult to compare data. However, he said the County was attempting to update its population data. In addition he said it was trying to get a uniform inventory base for timber resource and farmlands for Lane County which was an LCDC requirement. He said the second part of the plan was to better address things already mentioned in existing plans. For example, he said the 1990 Plan stated the need for land for weekend farmers. He said county subarea plans stated that the majority of those in rural areas should be located in existing incorporated areas. But the majority of rural dwellers lived outside these areas. He said the alternative rural land-use program was trying to find out why this was occurring. Mr. Bennett said the third part of the plan was to take the 13 volumes of subarea plans and consoli- date them into one document which would be easier for the public to read. He said the City has questioned the county.s reference to "marginal resources land" but the county had gathered statistics on the subject. He said 85 percent of this land was commercial forest land and only a small e percentage was publicly owned. He said the County plan was designed to handle the fact that many people want to live in the rural area. He said the County Commissioners would hold a public hearing August 1, 7:30 p.m. in Harris Hall on the plan. Mr. Saul, speaking for the city, pointed out that the Planning Commission had reviewed and concurred with the City staff memorandum to the County Commissioners on the County's proposed alternative rural land-use program. He said the memo indicated principal areas of concern for the City but, since the County.s plan is only in conceptual form, he said it is diffi- cult to evaluate the effects. Among the City's concerns were: first, the development of two to three units per acre in rural development centers, since this would mean the need for urban services. Also, he said this would raise serious equity questions. He pointed out the County staff noted that they have not found State and Federal funds to provide services to rural population areas. He said this meant the County might be commit- ting itself to providing urban services. . Secondly, Mr. Saul pointed out the absence of any attempt to correlate rural developments with location of work sites. He said this might mean rural residents would continue to rely on the cities for employment, which would lead either to transportation problems or commercial and industrial developments throughout the county. Finally, Mr. Saul noted that the County called for its plan to be adopted on a interim basis. Hlf said since it was hard to define the County's program and its effects, it also e seemed difficult to imagine adopting the plan on an interim basis. 7/25/79--4 ~Ol