|
Approved 12.4.24
<br />hypothetical future land-use policy alternatives for the county's jurisdiction and assess outcomes. 109
<br />And then share outcomes of alternatives modeling with county leadership and the public to collect 110
<br />feedback for development of the plan. The point at the bottom in blue is important. We expect 111
<br />that what will ultimately be the draft future land-use map will be some combination of these 112
<br />different alternatives. So, the way that outreach is structured, we want to know what people like 113
<br />and dislike about each of the alternatives so that we can develop one draft growth and 114
<br />conservation framework, future land-use map. So, it's not a matter of saying, I like Alternative 2, I 115
<br />like Alternative 4. It's going to be what we like and dislike about each of those alternatives. A little 116
<br />about the process of creating alternatives. We looked at identifying areas where we might want to 117
<br />see change, largely areas near municipalities outside of our water supply watersheds, maybe 118
<br />away from some of our prime agricultural soils, for example. Explore the potential land-use 119
<br />alternatives for those areas, evaluate outcomes of those changes, and then, again, to inform the 120
<br />policies and land-use changes needed to support the desires outcomes. A little redundant here, 121
<br />but maybe this graphic strikes home in a little different way. We're using a computer to model the 122
<br />alternatives and generate outputs. We'll be sharing and collecting information from the public. 123
<br />We use that information to refine the planned goals and policies and then adjust the future land-124
<br />use map. So, a little on the process. Again, receiving initial public inputs on the plan, vision, and 125
<br />goals. We've done that. Looking at existing conditions and planning influences, and that analysis, 126
<br />developing the alternatives, collecting public input, and then ultimately developing the draft plan. 127
<br />The approach to the alternatives is an exploratory process, and the critical community topics, 128
<br />overwhelmingly, that we heard from the public during the first engagement window, all very 129
<br />familiar to the planning board; natural resources and agricultural lands protection, creating more 130
<br />affordable housing, reducing carbon footprint and vehicle miles traveled, and support for public 131
<br />transit, and of course, economic equity and jobs creation. So, a little bit about a “key question”. 132
<br />When people are reviewing the land-use alternatives, we want them to form their opinions and 133
<br />provide input through a similar lens. The purpose of having a key question is to focus effort so all 134
<br />groups involved have a common understanding of purpose and intent. It focuses analysis to 135
<br />ensure that the testing includes a manageable number of variables and results in meaningful 136
<br />outcomes and serves as a beacon during the development of the alternatives, when other 137
<br />questions tend to creep in. I will share the key question that has been developed on the next slide 138
<br />here. So, what went into identifying the key question? What specific question do we want the 139
<br />land-use alternatives to answer? Or put another way: What is the critical land-use planning 140
<br />question that would benefit from alternative analysis and testing with the public? So, this is our 141
<br />key question. The county commissioners received this at their April work session so they've seen 142
<br />it. And the question is: Which aspects of the land-use alternatives best achieve the balance of 143
<br />sustainable development in Orange County? So, when we're asking the public to look at each of 144
<br />these alternatives, we're trying to frame it in a way so that they could provide input, and this is the 145
<br />question we want them to keep in their minds as they do that and look at each of the alternatives. 146
<br />Key influences to consider during the development of the alternatives were the climate action plan 147
<br />and our countywide strategic plan that was fairly recently completed. Also, the findings that are 148
<br />included in the fact book, and of course data. I mentioned our water supply, watersheds earlier, 149
<br />and other data, the prime agricultural soils and so forth. So, these are the four recommended 150
<br />alternatives what we're calling each of them. I'll get into each of those with a separate slide, so I 151
<br />won't read this slide. Alternative 1, that's really the no-change scenario, so it would be largely 152
<br />continuing with the currently adopted future land-use map and our current zoning densities, with 153
<br />just some minor adjustments; those being our current future land-use map is not a parcel-based 154
<br />map. It's really a carryover going all the way back to 1981, and that's why you see, and we've 155
<br />talked about, why the nodes are circles. So, we're looking to convert that map to a parcel-based 156
<br />map. And then there are a few of the categories that are very similar and could be combined. So 157
<br />those are some of the things that Alternative 1 would include, but largely, no change. So 158
<br />Alternative 2 would be to enhance our agricultural and environmental protections, and the policies 159
<br />to be tested for that alternative would be lowering densities to protect priority agricultural, 160
<br />environmental watershed, and rural lands; the assumption that new, affordable, denser housing is 161
<br />accommodated within the municipalities; and potentially that we could eliminate some of the rural 162
<br />community activity nodes that are not currently developed. So, we're using the word policies that 163
|