|
ISSUES |
GENERAL PLAN 2007 - 2027 |
|
|
Community
Character |
|
|
|
|
|
·
Historical
resources (7.1) □
Historic neighborhoods
protection and preservation □
Identifying resource |
|
|
·
Archaeological
resources (7.2) □
New consultation
requirements with tribes □
Determining sensitivity
of areas |
|
|
·
Aesthetics
(7.3) □
Blocking of views by
taller structures next to shorter existing structures. □
Junkyards. □
Potential conflict with
agricultural orchards changing viewsheds. □
Light and glare (7.3.1) □
Highways (7.3.2) |
|
|
·
Areas
of outstanding scenic, historic and cultural values (7.4) ·
The
potential for the General Plan to provide policy guidelines regarding
site-specific surveys for construction projects which encounter artifacts or
human remains. |
|
|
Quality
Of Life (2.4) |
|
|
·
Development around
established communities would also lessen impact on the quality of life the
county now has. |
|
|
·
County’s vision
of what the future of □
People will not be
boxed up, they will be able to spread out and their social needs will be not
be controlled by others. □
Rural agriculture
feeling. Agricultural
lifestyle. Close to
agriculture. “Back to
roots, etc.” □
Lower population
compared to southern □
Family friendly □
Scenic rural
setting. Rural community. Small
town lifestyle. Be considered a small
community. Still be considered a farming county. □
Sense of place. □
Design
review (2.4.1) |
|
|
Community Form And
Neighborhood Structure |
|
|
·
Growth of
“new” communities in county and how it impacts existing
communities; New tracts and developments, both commercial and residential,
need to have style – flair of design- we do not want to look like every
other place; Build on heritage; Identify unique quality that identifies our
towns |
|
|
·
Maintain rural ambiance
while accommodating more people.
While some growth is needed, it should not be as the expense of one or
our major assets – the creation around us. Maintain a “rural feel” in
our communities while accepting and embracing “smart” growth. ·
Big is not always
better. □
Property owners should
be able to down size in more areas of the county □
|
|
|
Community
Conservation |
|
|
·
Preservation
of agricultural lands (2.1) (2.1) □
Agriculture versus
environmental habitat boundary issues and adequate buffer between them. □
Regulatory agencies and
dairyman (agricultural workers) working together to achieve a common goal
instead of against each other. □
Old
"paper" subdivisions in agricultural areas (2.1.3) □
Variances
for parcel size in agricultural areas (2.1.4) □
Irrigation
Water (2.1.5) |
|
|
·
Urban/agricultural
interface (2.1.1) □
Clearly define urban
areas and adequate buffer zones between agriculture and urban. □
Urban encroachment as
the public not having a general knowledge as to what to expect when moving to
the country. □
Avoid urban
sprawl. Clearly define urban
areas. Housing density issue of
keeping them close so we do not have urban sprawl versus big lots having
“small town” feel. But
do we have room for everyone? ·
Urban
limit lines (2.1.2) □
Urban limit lines and
green lines. Where should it be
placed? Will it be enforced and
followed? □
City/county
land use planning interface (2.2.4) |
|
|
Commercial/Industrial
Connections |
|
|
·
I-5
Corridor (2.4.2) (3.6) ·
Connection between jobs
and housing ·
Transit |
|
|
|
|
|
·
Design
review (2.4.1) □
Transition area □
Commercial and
industrial sites □
New residential
development □
Spatial definition □
Landmarks □
Continuity and
connection □
Landscaping and trees □
Historic preservation □
Street design □
Public art □
Signage |
|
|
·
Land
use designations
(2.2.2) □
“Gradient
planning” where density is planned outward from I-5 and urban cores □
Junkyards encroaching
into public street □
Smaller lot size in
areas like Ord Bend, Bayliss, Glenn, □
Distribution of
residential, commercial and industrial uses and open space (2.2) Ø Land
use needs (2.2.1) Ø Compatibility of land use designations and transportation facilities
(3.9) Ø Fire safety-related land use planning (3.6) Ø Regulations of land uses in stream channels (7.4) Ø Mineral
and energy resource protection |
|
|
·
Land
use needs (2.2.1) □
Lack of a Westside
specific plan for Orland adjacent to I-5 and extending westward. □
Out of town developers
are anxious to put tracts in □
Rapid growth makes it
difficult to absorb new residents while waiting for traffic mitigations,
increased law enforcement, new schools to catch up. At what rate should be grow? □
Zoning
(2.2) |
|
|
·
Property rights □
Interest in protecting
property rights, agricultural land protection, planned development with
zoning issues related to water rights, woodland protection and protecting
citizens’ from government control. □
Land use policies and
use of government powers to secure private lands through redevelopment and/or
eminent domain. □
Geologic
hazards and building codes |
|
|
Noise
(8.0) |
|
|
·
Evaluation
of existing noise conflicts (8.1) ·
Avoidance
of future noise conflicts (8.2) ·
Airport
noise and land use compatibility (8.3) 1. Agricultural/urban
noise conflicts (8.4) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Land Use/Growth Opportunities, Constraints and
Conclusions
|
|
|
Cultural Resources
Opportunities, Constraints and Conclusions
|
|
|
Below are links to the issues identified
for each topic addressed by the Plan: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
