The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRES-2004-044 Orange Co Planning Dept Response on Proposed Changes to MPO Boundary~--~-~~/ Orange County Planning Department Response on Proposed ~ ~ Changes to MPO Boundary The May 5, 2004 memorandum from Felix Nwoko to TAC members on expansion of the MPO boundary listed the following eight points as justification. Following each point is the Orange County staff response: 1. Entire Orange County is covered in the Triangle Regional Model. Response: We agree that the entire County is covered in the model and think this makes for a better model. The modeling of peripheral areas makes good planning sense since impacts don't generally begin or end at jurisdictional boundaries. However, we don't agree that inclusion in the model equates to inclusion in the urban area.. Much of Orange County is rural and projected to remain rural. The County has a very strong record on rural planning initiatives that is reinforced by our current and upcoming programs. 2. Orange County is affected by urban policies and influence. Response: This is very true. Employment, infrastructure, and housing opportunities (or the lack thereof in the urban areas can have profound impacts on areas in the County's jurisdiction. This is certainly a primary reason for the many joint/cooperative planning initiatives the County has participated in over the last 25 years with the various municipalities. Orange County continues to have a strong commitment to inter- governmental coordination, but doesn't see the issue of urban policies and influence as sufficient justification for including the entire County in the MPO. 3. The ability to coordinate planning for land use, transportation, and air quality would be better served by the proposed inclusion of the entire County. Response: It has not been demonstrated how the planning process would be better served by the inclusion of the entire County in the MPO. The County has for many years been an active participant in all of the planning areas listed and our commitment to intergovernmental planning and coordination remains strong. 4. Federal transportation dollars for the MPO cannot be spent in areas outside the MAB. Orange County is now designated as non-attainment thus eligible for CMAQ funds, however, the fund allocation to the MPO can only be spent within the MAB. Response: How much Federal funding is Orange County likely to receive for areas under. its jurisdiction? Most of the County's jurisdiction within C'aCh?cua~ents and Berlin<_•s:_AdininisU'atortt.ocat SaetinslTemp'.Respnn.<e nn Proposed Change, te'~•iP0 f3ou~xdsuy.fuae. 8 .QO~.doc current MAB boundaries is rural and it is questionable how much degradation of air quality is attributable to activities in these areas. With the exception of the Efland/Cheeks area along US 70, expanding the boundary will take in areas even more rural and less of a contributor to poor air quality. 5. The non-attainment designation areas outside the MPO boundary creates a new level of complexity for transportation and air quality planning. Response: It is our understanding that the non-attainment designation is applied to these areas because the entire county is being classified as such, and not because there are air quality problems emanating from them. This is an area the County needs additional documentation on to better understand the whole issue of non-attainment. We don't feel that current rural development patterns (and the traffic generated by them) are significant contributors to air quality degradation. Likewise, if proposed plan, policy, and ordinance proposals recommended for the rural areas are ultimately adapted, air quality degradation from future rural development will be even less of an issue. 6. The current 2025 LRTP included transportation investments and decisions affecting Orange County area mainly because the MP0 has operated under the assumption that all of Orange County would be included in the planning boundaries of the MPO. Therefore, the TAC has previously reviewed and approved socio-economic data and forecasts for the entire county. Also, revenue forecasts for the 2025 LRTP included- sources throughout the entire county. Response: Where did the assumption originate that all of Orange County would be included in the MPO? There is no record of the County indicating a desire to see its total area included within MPO boundaries and there is no justification based on current or future population densities. The County recognizes that certain portions of its jurisdiction are urbanizing and are affected by the existing urban centers. This has been the basis of our participation in the MPO process. The County has always been straightforward in maintaining the integrity of its rural areas and data supplied for the regional model has reflected what is envisioned for these areas in the future. As noted in the first question, we support inclusion of the rural areas in the model, but don't view this as a basis for inclusion of the entire County within the MAB. 7. If the entire county is not included, the TAC could not make decisions on projects or other issues which would affect areas outside the MAB. Response: There is not convincing evidence that the TAC needs to be involved in decisions on County projects outside the MAB. Orange County is unique among Triangle counties in that it still has large expanses of C"••C1~x:uei~~•nis and S~ttiu;s~Adtuinisti'atortL~tcal S~+Ytin~~'Temp!CZespnn;e on Pre~Ex~sed C"IianRes to A-fP() (3oundary,tui~c K :t)O~.doc agricultural and undeveloped rural land. Past planning efforts have helped keep these areas intact-and future efforts will place greater attention on their protection. In terms of transportation planning, an RPO perspective is more attuned to maintaining the integrity of the rural areas. 8. The MPO planning process is Federally mandated whereas the RPO process is State mandated. Because of this, RPOs have no access to MPO Federal funding. Response: How much Federal funding is Orange County likely to receive? Unless the County is forfeiting large sums by going with the RPO this is likely anon-issue. The County still feels that the interests of its rural areas are best served by the RPO concept. Concluding Comments Orange County thinks it is important that planning designations complement, rather than contradict one another. Through the update of its Comprehensive Plan; Land Use Element, Orange County is attempting to define more clearly, the distinction between urban and rural areas. To reinforce this distinction, the following strategies are proposed: 1. Lower residential densities in the rural areas 2. Urban growth boundaries where infrastructure will be limited 3. Potential density transfer programs for rural areas Expected benefits from these strategies include, but are not limited to: • Reduced development impacts on agriculture • Fewer vehicle miles traveled resulting in improved air quality • Enhanced water quality (surface and groundwater) • Protection of the natural and cultural environment • Rural character preservation If the MPO designates all of Orange County as "urban" while the County designates certain areas as rural -and through its land use plans, policies., and ordinances, clearly demonstrates a commitment to this concept-then it sends a mixed message to farmers, rural property owners, and land developers. As part of the TAC discussions on MPO boundary changes, we recommend that the Orange County Planning Director or his designee, be invited to a TAC meeting to present current thinking on the County's plans for rural areas. C:iDocum~riic and S~rttiu;s:Admir,isll'atorl[.ncal Settim~ 1Temp'Respome <m Proposed Changes to All''f7 [3<}midary t~~~~r g ?.p(;.4.doc