12_4_24 Planning Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 2.5.25 This is much closer than it was the first time around, so this is giving a gauge so by the third 165 community event window, we'll be able to continue closing those gaps and get closer to 166 representation of the community. The other benchmark that I mentioned is increased 167 engagement. The project team selected the climate action plan as a benchmark for comparison 168 because it was completed recently in the community so that had both surveys and some in-person 169 meetings that they completed. So, we're kind of using that as a gauge to see can we surpass 170 that, which we have so far which is great because we've had two community engagement 171 windows and we'll have a third. So, we'll keep increasing that number. We've had 584 complete 172 surveys in total; 420 of those were from the second round of engagement, so setting up our 173 processes from that first round to the second round has resulted in increased engagement which 174 is great. And then we've had 409 in-person attendees, which is an increasing number which is 175 great, too. And so, the third community event window will occur in late spring 2025, so we'll hope 176 to match our numbers from the first and second rounds. We also wanted to note that we received 177 some additional public input, both from organizational representation and some personal letters so 178 these are listed here, and they're included in the summary document that will be posted to the 179 website. Our overall takeaways about meeting our objectives for engagement is that we want to 180 continue to offer multiple ways to participate. We mentioned we had an online survey. There was 181 a short survey and there was a long survey. We found that was important to provide different 182 flexible options for those who have a little bit of time and want to be able to participate and those 183 who have a lot more time and really want to dive into those longer details. Some of what we 184 learned in the first round was applied in the second round, and we had targeted meetings in order 185 to increase and improve the representative engagement, and that was showing some of those 186 charts as well. The goal for the third round is to continue creating partnerships and connections 187 and tailoring outreach so that we make sure that we're hearing from all different members of the 188 community. And No. 3, as I mentioned, we've already hit our benchmark for increasing 189 engagement but will continue to strive to increase that number in that third round. There are other 190 charts and data about who participated but we wanted to spend more time talking with you about 191 outcomes, so that information will be in the summary report on the website. I'm going to pass it 192 over to Lee Ann King to talk about a little refresher and some of the outcomes. 193 194 Leigh Anne King: Good evening. I think we presented to you a little bit about the land-use alternatives that were 195 prepared as part of this effort so I'm not going to get into a whole lot of detail here. This is more of 196 just a refresher so that when we talk about the outcomes from the engagement, you've got a little 197 bit of a reminder about what it is we were actually asking the public to give us feedback on. So, 198 the key question that we were trying to test with the land-use alternatives is in front of you here: 199 Which aspects of the land-use alternatives best achieve the balance of sustainable development 200 in Orange County? And through the first round of public engagement, we came up with these four 201 themes that are really helping to set the stage for what we're trying to accomplish in developing 202 the 2050 land-use plan. You can see cultivates sustainable development is kind of a sweet spot in 203 the middle with the other three themes focusing on protecting critical watershed areas, open 204 spaces and preserving agricultural lands, advancing attainable and equitable housing and upward 205 mobility and supporting climate-responsive transportation systems and economic development 206 initiatives. And so, what we were trying to get people to think about and give us feedback on with 207 the land-use alternatives was that sweet spot of cultivating sustainable development where all 208 those three, the other themes overlap. What is the best balance for achieving that when looking 209 at the details of the land-use alternatives? So, there were four alternatives that were modeled. 210 The first one is the currently adopted future land-use map with some modifications to update 211 based on Hillsborough's most recent comprehensive plan update. We wanted to reflect their 212 current policy and growth area, and then also the growth area for Mebane, which is not a 213 completed plan at this point, but we knew what their study area was based on some of their 214 preliminary information that was shared as part of that process. So, that's really kind of the 215 foundation, the benchmark that we were working off of and looking at the other three land-use 216 alternatives. And again, as Emily was saying, the point here was not to suggest that one of these 217 would be the preferred future land-use map for Orange County but there were ways to test 218 different ideas, particularly those three themes that I was just mentioning and different shapes in 219