|
9
<br /> DRAFT
<br /> 109 hypothetical future land-use policy alternatives for the county's jurisdiction and assess outcomes.
<br /> 110 And then share outcomes of alternatives modeling with county leadership and the public to collect
<br /> 111 feedback for development of the plan. The point at the bottom in blue is important. We expect
<br /> 112 that what will ultimately be the draft future land-use map will be some combination of these
<br /> 113 different alternatives. So,the way that outreach is structured,we want to know what people like
<br /> 114 and dislike about each of the alternatives so that we can develop one draft growth and
<br /> 115 conservation framework,future land-use map. So, it's not a matter of saying, I like Alternative 2, 1
<br /> 116 like Alternative 4. It's going to be what we like and dislike about each of those alternatives. A little
<br /> 117 about the process of creating alternatives. We looked at identifying areas where we might want to
<br /> 118 see change, largely areas near municipalities outside of our water supply watersheds, maybe
<br /> 119 away from some of our prime agricultural soils,for example. Explore the potential land-use
<br /> 120 alternatives for those areas, evaluate outcomes of those changes, and then, again, to inform the
<br /> 121 policies and land-use changes needed to support the desires outcomes. A little redundant here,
<br /> 122 but maybe this graphic strikes home in a little different way. We're using a computer to model the
<br /> 123 alternatives and generate outputs. We'll be sharing and collecting information from the public.
<br /> 124 We use that information to refine the planned goals and policies and then adjust the future land-
<br /> 125 use map. So, a little on the process. Again, receiving initial public inputs on the plan,vision, and
<br /> 126 goals. We've done that. Looking at existing conditions and planning influences,and that analysis,
<br /> 127 developing the alternatives, collecting public input, and then ultimately developing the draft plan.
<br /> 128 The approach to the alternatives is an exploratory process, and the critical community topics,
<br /> 129 overwhelmingly, that we heard from the public during the first engagement window, all very
<br /> 130 familiar to the planning board; natural resources and agricultural lands protection, creating more
<br /> 131 affordable housing, reducing carbon footprint and vehicle miles traveled, and support for public
<br /> 132 transit,and of course, economic equity and jobs creation. So, a little bit about a"key question".
<br /> 133 When people are reviewing the land-use alternatives,we want them to form their opinions and
<br /> 134 provide input through a similar lens. The purpose of having a key question is to focus effort so all
<br /> 135 groups involved have a common understanding of purpose and intent. It focuses analysis to
<br /> 136 ensure that the testing includes a manageable number of variables and results in meaningful
<br /> 137 outcomes and serves as a beacon during the development of the alternatives,when other
<br /> 138 questions tend to creep in. I will share the key question that has been developed on the next slide
<br /> 139 here. So,what went into identifying the key question? What specific question do we want the
<br /> 140 land-use alternatives to answer? Or put another way: What is the critical land-use planning
<br /> 141 question that would benefit from alternative analysis and testing with the public? So,this is our
<br /> 142 key question. The county commissioners received this at their April work session so they've seen
<br /> 143 it. And the question is: Which aspects of the land-use alternatives best achieve the balance of
<br /> 144 sustainable development in Orange County? So,when we're asking the public to look at each of
<br /> 145 these alternatives,we're trying to frame it in a way so that they could provide input, and this is the
<br /> 146 question we want them to keep in their minds as they do that and look at each of the alternatives.
<br /> 147 Key influences to consider during the development of the alternatives were the climate action plan
<br /> 148 and our countywide strategic plan that was fairly recently completed. Also,the findings that are
<br /> 149 included in the fact book, and of course data. I mentioned our water supply,watersheds earlier,
<br /> 150 and other data,the prime agricultural soils and so forth. So,these are the four recommended
<br /> 151 alternatives what we're calling each of them. I'll get into each of those with a separate slide, so 1
<br /> 152 won't read this slide. Alternative 1, that's really the no-change scenario,so it would be largely
<br /> 153 continuing with the currently adopted future land-use map and our current zoning densities,with
<br /> 154 just some minor adjustments;those being our current future land-use map is not a parcel-based
<br /> 155 map. It's really a carryover going all the way back to 1981, and that's why you see,and we've
<br /> 156 talked about,why the nodes are circles. So,we're looking to convert that map to a parcel-based
<br /> 157 map. And then there are a few of the categories that are very similar and could be combined. So
<br /> 158 those are some of the things that Alternative 1 would include, but largely, no change. So
<br /> 159 Alternative 2 would be to enhance our agricultural and environmental protections, and the policies
<br /> 160 to be tested for that alternative would be lowering densities to protect priority agricultural,
<br /> 161 environmental watershed, and rural lands;the assumption that new, affordable, denser housing is
<br /> 162 accommodated within the municipalities; and potentially that we could eliminate some of the rural
<br /> 163 community activity nodes that are not currently developed. So,we're using the word policies that
<br />
|