Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20080610 APPROVED 9/2/2008 Orange County Board of County Commissioners WORK SESSION Tuesday, June 10, 2008 7:30 pm The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session to disc;uss the Comprehensive Plan on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. at the Link Government Services Center in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr., and Alice M. Gordon, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Valerie Foushee and Mike Nelson COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Brian Ferrell COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, Assistant County Managers Willie Best and Gwen Harvey, and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker(All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Jay Bryan and Members Craufurd Goodwin, Renee Price, Michelle Kempinski, and Sandra Johnson-Quinn—these were present but sat in audience. Chair Jacobs asked the Board to add an item to the agenda considering a letter to the legislative delegation in reference to House Bill 2725– UNC Operating/Capilal Funds/Airport Authority. He also asked to add a closed session. Commissioner Gordon asked if she could add an item from the staff to the agenda about Progress Energy's two reactors. All agreed to add these items. 1. Letter to Legislature Chair Jacobs said that this is coming up now because the legislature is moving fast and if the legislature is going to move forward to grant airport authority eminent domain, then the Board would like the legislature to explain Orange County's position to the General Assembly that there should be more discussion before this bill is passed. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to authorize the Chair to send a letter to our legislative delegation to express Orange County's concerns regarding House Bill 2725– UNC Operating/Capital Funds/Airport Authority. Representative Joe Hackney, Speaker of the House Senator Ellie Kinnaird Representative Bill Faison Representative Verla Insko Dear Speaker Hackney, Senator Kinnaird, Representative Faison, and Representative Insko: I write on behalf of the Orange County Board of Commissioners to express Orange County's appreciation for your past and current support and assistance with legislative issues of importance to the Orange County Board of Commissioners. I also write to express Orange County's concerns regarding House Bill 2725 — UNC Operating/Capital Funds/Airport Authority. House Bill 2725 was filed on May 27, 2008 with Representative |Osko as one of the primary sponsors and Representative Faison as oneofthaoo-gpoOsors. Orange County believes this biU, and specifically the portion detailing the creation of an airport authority to site an airport to serve UNC-Chapel Hi||, needs greater discussion and input from all pGrties, including the public, before it moves forward in the General Assembly. We believe that, by granting airport authorities the power of eminent domain combined with the broad powers contained within Articles 1 through 7 of Chapter 63 of the North Carolina General Statutes the bill usurps local authority. We also believe that the bill undermines our Land Use Plan and the very deliberate and inclusive efforts that our local governments and their residents have invested over many years to guide our community's development. Orange County is further concerned that moving forward with this bill constitutes a departure from the "good faith" discussions that we have had in the past with University representatives. While we join with others in expressing great support for UNC-Chapel Hill's Area Health Education Centers (AHEC) program and its nontinugDce, we believe that the need for a more thorough discussion of House Bill 2725 and its implications for all parties are undeniable. The Orange County Board of Commissioners appreciates your help to ensure that this bill is tabled until a full and thorough discussion occurs. Sincerely, Barry Jacobs, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. PmmgmassEnew Commissioner Gordon said that she was reading the newspaper and she saw an article that stated that August 4th was the last date to file notice of intervention concerning the two new reactors that Progress Energy wants to install. Since August 4th is during the Board's break, she Would like the staff to look into exactly what the proposal is and what intervention entails. There is a lot of history on this topic. Chair Jacobs said that there are a lot of Homeland Security concerns as well. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey to authorize staff to look into the proposal of Progress Energy to install two new reactors and also to look into what is involved in filing a notice of intervention. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Comprehensive Plan Update Timetable Comprehensive Planning Supervisor Tom Altieri said that at the May 19th Quarterly Public Hearing on the draft Comprehensive Plan, the Board of County Commissioners asked the Planning Board to develop recommendations on a timetable to complete the Comprehensive Plan Update and include an additional public hearing on the plan in August. He made reference to Attachment 1, which includes revisions for additions to the timetable that the � Planning Board recommended after the June 4 m h meeting. Staff is seeking mu[h� zmtionfrom the County Commissioners to proceed consistent with the timetable. Draft Comprehensive Plan Update Timetable, May - September 2008 Recommended by Planning Board June 4, 2008 June 4th Regular Planning Board Meeting (7:30 PM) — Review and comment on Timetable June 9th BOCC Legal Ad Abstract due for Aug. 25th Public Hearing June 10th BOCC Work Session (Planning Board encouraged to attend) — Review and approve timetable and comment on draft Comprehensive Plan June 10111th Letter from BOCC Chair to Mayors of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Durham, Hillsborough, and Mebane inviting comments on draft Plan June 24th BOCC Legal Ad approval and Clarion Assoc. Contract extension to incorporate final revisions between Sept. 19th Oct. 17th---Oct. 13— Nov. 17th July 9th Regular Planning Board Meeting (6:30-7:30 PM)— Review comments from June 10th BOCC Work Session, Element Lead Advisory Boards (ELAB), and the public and begin developing list of suggested revisions Aug. 1st Deadline for any courtesy review comments (Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Durham, Hillsborough, and Mebane) Aug. 6th Regular Planning Board Meeting (6:30-7:30 PM)—Continue review of comments, including any courtesy review comments received, and continue developing list of suggested revisions Aug. 25th 2nd Public Hearing on Draft Comprehensive Plan (Same Draft presented at May 19th Public Hearing) Aug-.-2-9thlSept. 22nd Draft abstracts due for the Sept. 16thlOct. 7th BOCC Meeting. Sept. 31d* Regular Planning Board Meeting (6:30-7:30 PM)—Complete Continue review of comments and development of, finalize list of suggested revisions, e •" -e" ""e- ' e - Sept. 10th Special Planning Board Meeting (6:30-9:00 PM)—Complete review, finalize list of suggested revisions, and develop recommendation to BOCC Sept 1641Oct. 7th BOCC receives Planning Board's recommendation and list of suggested revisions and adopts Comprehensive Plan to include revisions or amends Sept 19th Oct. 17th Oct. 13th— Nov. 17th Clarion incorporates final revisions and delivers hard copies and • electronic files to the County *Chair Bryan will be unavailable for this meeting due to a prior commitment. The Planning Board has scheduled an additional l meeting on September 3rdto complete the review with a recommendation on September The County Commissioners will receive a recommendation on October 7th With those ch8D0es, it has an impact on when Clarion Associates might have final neviaioOs, and this was shifted back one month. The Planning Board also asked that staff include in the August 25th public hearing agenda materials the following items: 1) an identification of the key differences between the 1981 Land Use Plan and the new draft plan, and identify any conflicting points that there may be along the County's advisory boards; 2) handling of the deadline of any final comments coming from the advisory boards to the Planning Board. An email was sent to the advisory boards with a suggested deadline of July 9 ,, which would give the Planning Board an opportunity to review those comments going into the August public hearin0, but this is open for discussion. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the July gth deadline for comments and said that the Commission for the Environment meeting was last night and she was told that it would not meet in July. She asked if the Commission for the Environment could send in its comments later. She asked that the deadline be extended. Commissioner Gordon asked wh the plan presented on August 25th would be the same draft plan that was presented on May I 9th She said that she appreciates the urgency of this, but she is puzzled that we are asking the advisory boards to hurry up and then not to incorporate the comments. She said that there should be noted changes in the draft comprehensive plan at the August 25th meeting. Chair Jacobs said that the Board should respect that the Planning Board needs information back by August 6th. He said that the advisory boards have had a year to get their proposals together, and the comments can come before or after the public hearing. He does not want the advisory board to go back and redo the comment section, unless there are changes. Commissioner Carey said that this is reasonable. Commissioner Gordon said that there is at least one board that got the presentation but did not get the agenda materials ahead of time; thenahore. no comments were made that same night. She said that August 6th is a more reasonable date than July 9th. Chair Jacobs said that the Planning Board needs time to read the comments before its August 6th meeting. Commissioner Gordon said that she would like to have comments in by the public hearing. She asked to hear from the Planning Board Chair. Tom Altieri said that if the comment period is extended noxv, then the Planning Board will need more time to come back with a recommendation. Regarding the August 25th document being the aome, he said that it was staff's understanding that the purpose of holding an additional public hearing would be to allow the public and the advisory boards additional opportunity to review the large document. If another draft were created, the Planning Board would be in the same predicament of people not having enough time to review it. Planning Board Chair Jay Bryan said that some of the same questions were raised by the Planning Board. He said that the board felt that this timeline was the best it could do under the circumstances and time directed by the Board of County Commissioners. He said that the Planning Board put a 2 1/2 year schedule in front of the Board of County Commissioners and then the Board narrowed it down to two years, ao, in some xxaya, it is really the Board of County Commissioners' schedule. Chair Jacobs asked if the Planning Board would prefer to have time to consider additional comments by its July meeting. Jay Bryan said that, generally, the Planning Board would prefer to have time to consider the additional comments. The sooner the Planning Board has a structure for grappling with the c000enta, the better. He thinks that all advisory boards should be welcome to make comments, by the July meeting or by the public hearing. Chair Jacobs suggested that advisory boards would have to have comments in by m m August 13 forth�0 �Vb� r��dybyth� p�b|i� haaringonth� 25 . Jay Bryan said that some of the advisory boards could have specal meetings in order to meet the deadline. Discussion ensued about the deadline for comments. Commissioner Gordon asked if it is okay to make flexible revision for the advisory boards and Jay Bryan said that it would be tough. Michelle Kempinski said that the Planning Board has already received a lot of comments. Commissioner Gordon asked how Clarion is being paid and what will happen if there is a delay and Clarion is not doing any work, It was answered that Clarion bills by the hour. 2. Draft Comprehensive PUan — BOCCUnput* Chair Jacobs suggested going through the plan chapter by chapter. Commissioner Gordon said that there is so much information in the comprehensive plan and it is hard to figure out what is important and what is secondary. She said that this is going to guide what the County does, and it can be more of a reference document. Commissioner Carey said that he read it as being all important. He made reference to the schedule, and with two Commissioners not here tonight, they will not see this again and make comments until the August 25th meeting. He thinks that it will take more than one meeting to address this. Chair Jacobs suggested that the minutes be verbatim from this point forward. Chair Jacobs: First of all, I want to thank all of the advisory boards, and especially the Planning Board for their hard work. The County Commissioners requested £taying with a schedule, and the Planning Board and staff have kept to it. I also think that we can't • underestimate how much these other advisory boards worked together in trying to be as comprehensive as possible. One thing we might want to think about, toward the end, is using Chapter 2 that summarizes our planning principles, and under each one of these principles, there might need to be a reference to where it is reflected in the Land Use Plan. For example, Chapter 3, Economic Development Element, relates to number 2 and it relates to number 7; but you might have to go through the whole document to see how that relates. Commissioner Gordon: Do you literally mean that chapter on the Land Use Plan, as opposed to all of the other elements? Do you mean where it is reflected tn the Land Use Plan, or do you mean where is it reflected in the Comprehensive Plan document? Chair Jacobs: In the Comprehensive Plan document. Commissioner Carey: This would be a cross-reference from each of the elements in the Comprehensive Plan back to the principles. Chair Jacobs: Yes, I think that would make it a little clearer. One over-arching thing, and I would have waited until we got to Chapter 8, except as we go through it, think a lot of things will relate to Chapter 8, which at this poiOt, seems to be a catchall of Services and Facilities Element. I would like to call it Sustainable Government and start capturing all of the things that have to do with the way in which the government operates. There are a lot of things as we go through this document; that relate to the sustainable use of resources, and how the government operates. I have copies of our Environmental Responsibility goals that we adopted three years ago. I think part of the purpose of the document, the Comprehensive P|an, is that it will outlive all of us. He said the Chair of the Planning Board elaborated on having some kind of community building. That fits under Sustainable Government as one of the elements. I was thinking about how the County campus reflects a lot of the values that would be in a sustainable government; it's compact, it does not bring more traffic to downtown Hillsborough, it has consolidated services, and our buildings are green to the greatest extent possible. Those are the kinds of things, that as you go through the document, chapter after chapter, we have different references for green building standards, or energy efficiency, or public transportation, or taking care of land that we own in a way that's environmentally responsible. All of those things fit under the notion of sustainable government. I bring it up now, not necessarily to have a discussion, but just to bring it to your attention, so as we go through the document, you'll see • all of the elements that relate to it, and I wrote down a few that I think would be perfectly characteristic of what would be an idea of sustainable. Commissioner Gordon: I would say that the whole document is supposed to be sustainable government, if you look at the Plan Overview. So, I wouldn't want to label Chapter 8 Sustainable Government. I want that to be a theme throughout. I realize Services and Facilities is a little bit of a catchall, but it seems to me that what we want in each of these elements is to reference a sustainable government. So I wouldn't call Chapter 8 Sustainable Government, because the,whole thing is supposed to be sustainable government. Discussion ensued about which chapter it was, because Commissioner Carey had this information in Chapter 9. Planning staff member: I believe the difference is that in the original draft, the draft had Chapter 3 as a County Profile Element, and the May 6th draft had pulled the County Profile Element out and put it in the appendices, so that would have shifted down all of the previous chapters. So, what was once 9 would now be 8. Tom Altieri: The CD that was distributed should match the hard copy version. Apparently there is some type of formatting issue. I will look into this. Chair Jacobs: So why don't we refer to the chapters by name and not number. Plan Overview Commissioner Gordon: I'll draw your attention to page 1-2, underlying theme near the bottom is, "the County's vision of becoming a more sustainable community. Section 1.3: Toward a Sustainable Future, provides a summary of ways that the Plan works toward achieving that vision." That is where it should be highlighted and all should be sustainable. Chair Jacobs: I don't disagree. What else do you have in that chapter? Commissioner Gordon: On page 1-11, 1.4.5, Decisions on Implementation: "The Board of County Commissioners will, as needed and appropriate, prepare a work plan for Comprehensive Plan implementation strategies that identifies strategies to be initiated in a given year, the human and financial resources allocated to implementation of the strategies, and the parties responsible for implementing the strategy." Is that in there just so they won't say, "we're not doing that, but the Board of Commissioners is doing that," as opposed to referring any particular task that the Commissioners have. The decisions on implementation will come later, is that all that really is? Because it looks like a work plan sounds like some kind of document that we prepared and here's all the things we do to get this done. Laura Blackmon: I think the Comprehensive Plan is all the things you have mentioned and as we go through each year with the goals and initiatives, and establishing tasks that we can budget from, we would be pulling things from the plan and making decisions on what we're going to fund and provide both the staffing and the funds to do this. Chapter 2: Planning Principles Commissioner Gordon: Number 3 is really two goals. Chair Jacobs: It's certainly verbose. Commissioner Gordon: It was, "Promote both air quality and protection of the development of an effective transportation system," and then we decided that we really ought to encourage energy efficiency, lower energy consumption, and the use of non-polluting and renewable energy resources. We just put it all on that one. I just want to flag it, because I don't really want to open up that we go through and start redoing our goals. The reason that I think about it right now is that I notice that later on there is one element that deals with air quality protection and the development of the transportation system, and I don't even think that it gets at air quality protection. It is not highlighted enough. Certainly, in this day of global climate change and all of the things that we have in terms of energy crisis, certainly encouraging energy efficiency, etc., is important, but also so is promoting air-quality protection and development of an effective transportation system. I think it's so global that I think that, maybe it's not sharpened up enough because it was such a huge goal. I'm not saying change content or anything, but I think that "while" should be deleted and then have another goal after"while." Chair Jacobs: I agree that it's too much but since the Commissioner that suggested that wording is not here, I think we should wait. Commissioners Gordon and Carey agreed. I would also point out that the bottom of the page on the CD says, "Public Hearing Draft 3-5-08" and this says, "Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08." So we may have distributed a two-month old version. Chapter 3: Economic Development Element Chair Jacobs: Since we're doing a background of Orange County's history as an economic entity, I think it's worth mentioning that when Alamance County was created in 1849 and I am guessing Durham County in 1871, those were the parts that had a lot of industry. So, if we're doing a history of Orange County and we're saying, based on the University and agriculture, part of that was because they took with them the vast majority of the manufacturing base of the County. That is not insignificant. Some of this goes all the way back to the Occaneechi Indians. Then in this last paragraph, "Strategic economic development efforts,"there is almost nothing in this whole element about either promoting small business or encouraging existing business. I know it's part of the strategic plan, but there is virtually no mention. So, I think in that last paragraph on page 3-1 is a good place to start. On page 3-6 under Key Issues, it says, "Previous economic development efforts and studies have honed," maybe check the dictionary to make sure this is the correct word. Under these Key Issues, I would suggest, another theme that is not in here at all, that says, "providing improved opportunities for the under-employed and extended opportunities for an aging workforce." It's a big thrust in the Master Aging Plan to provide opportunities for seniors to continue to work. And one of the reasons we wanted the Durham Technical Community College is because we have a lot of under-employed people. We keep talking about low unemployment, but it doesn't have adequate em . We have people working full-time who are on food stamps. So I would suggest that that would be a good place to have that as a key issue. On page 3-10, I found this a little confusing. We talk about the counties in the Research Triangle Region. Is Alamance County in the Research Triangle Region? I don't think Alamance and Person County are in the Research Triangle Region. We ought to say who we are comparing ourselves to and be more explicit than just saying "region," This comes up later with use-value because we say we're 41%, and we don't' compare ourselves to other counties because we're the highest in the region for use-value. So, it gives a little better sense of perspective. Commissioner Gordon: I think it would be worth trying to follow up on that. what is the Research Triangle Region? Certainly, originally it was Durham, Orange, and Wake. And if you look at how the legislature is defining in the transportation bill, they say Durham, Orange, and Wake. And the Triangle is the three m jor Universities—Chapel with UNC, Durham with Duke, and N. C. State with Raleigh. That's what the Research Triangle is, and then there's a Research Triangle Park in the middle. I don't think there's any doubt that it's those three counties. If you want to then say Research Triangle Region, and adjacent because the legislature does that also, and what they allow those counties that are adjacent, if they're over a certain population, then they're allowed to do something else. Chair Jacobs: If we're just saying Research Triangle F{egion, and we're the |oxveet, then we're number 3, if that's how we define it as Wake, Durham, and Orange. We should say what it is. Commissioner Carey: It depends on what our objective is. I think when we're always talking about Research Triangle F`mrk, that's three cnUDties, but if we don't-include Chatham in the region, it's a relentless experience. Chair Jacobs: Then maybe we want to say "In the Region" and leave out Research Triangle, because the chart below it has Alamance, Chatham, and Person, which are not in the Research Triangle Region, but they are our neighbors. Commissioner Carey: They're our neighbors, and if we're talking about economic development terms, they are people that we are competing with for jobs, but they are not in the Research Triangle Region. So what are we asking our staff to do here? Chair Jacobs: I would ask them to take out"Research Triangle" and just say "neighboring counties." Commissioner Carey: I think I agree, and then the very next chart, although it's talking about agricultural comparisons, it has a different rubric as well. It doesn't have Person. Chair Jacobs: I would suggest that for use value that we compare it also. We have a lot of smart landowners, but it also affects our tax base. Commissioner Gordon: Following up on what you said and what to include, on page 3-13, Average Weekly Wages Comparison, it doesn't have Person County. So maybe the question is what's the reason for the counties that are included? Is there some reason that's not available? Chair Jacobs: We asked Tom Altieri to include these counties to keep the charts consistent. OD pages 3-1G and 17' there kS almost nothing about toU[isOl. vvhioh $137OliUioOa year in revenues and $1OnliUioDintaxes. �seernsafeidxs' nificant component of economic development and we might want to pay more attention to tourism. On page 3-19, we're talking about industrial sites, in general, we mention public transportation, but we don't really come back to it in some of these other office facilities or industrial sites. You were listing all of these elements of a good highway with a rail access, but public transportation isn't necessarily realized. For industrial sites, E[}-2.7. If you look at ED-2.6 and ED-2.7. 6 doesn't mention public transportation at all, 7 mentions rail access, water and sewer, and highway, but it doesn't really mention public transit. It seems like we should stipulate this. ED-2.11, "Establish adequate information networks throughout the towns and County" as long- term, but later on in another chapter it's short term. It should be short-term. Instead of getting into whether it's long-term, medium-term, or short-term, I'm open to discussion, but some Planning Board members pointed out to me after the public hearing that they didn't necessarily think this was very useful. If there are words that are conflicting, then someone should check and make sure that they all have the same term. I think that ED-2.11 should be short-term, because having adequate information that works is highly important for economic development. Unless you mean ongoing, in which case, it should be at the top instead of at the bottom. Commissioner Carey: Are you saying these term indications weren't the results of Planning Board discussion, but it was the staff? Jay Bryan: As I recall, we had discussion about whether or not they were useful and also about, as I recall, maybe there could be an appendix where you might have what, at this time, appears to be some ranking. But if you change these then you change the whole document. Renee Price: These aren't considered the fiscal aspects and we don't know when certain objectives can get funded. Tom Altieri: I think some of the thought proces that went into giving some timing component or schedule component to each of the objectives had to do with the advisory boards coming to the Commissioners on an annual basis. If they're asked to review this document each year with the goals and objectives, and then come to you with some ideas on which objective they'd like to pursue for that given year that would give them some direction as to which ones to look at first. There are well over 150 objectives to choose from. Commissioner Carey: The intent was to give the advisory boards an indication of what their work priority should be. Chair Jacobs: Of course, if you're the Economic Development Commission, you have your set of objectives. If there is no position, it may say that it's short term, but if there is no position to accomplish it, then what's the point. In a few years from now, we may decide to go in a different direction. So, I just have a question about institutionalizing this Comprehensive Plan. You're talking about more of how the advisory boards will handle it in the future. They couldn't get this plan with whoever's take this is on the timeframe. Commissioner Carey: It is conceivable that it doesn't have to be in the Comprehensive Plan in order for them to get the message. It could be in the appendices. Chair Jacobs: We could put these terms—medium-term, short-term, ongoing, and long-term— for each advisory board, in the appendix instead of in the plan document. Commissioner Gordon: It seems to me that if you're going to have it, you might as well put it in here. I don't know how you're going to put it in the appendix without duplicating a lot of text. I haven't thought about it to know whether it should be in here or not. Chair Jacobs: If we stop to have a discussion about whether each of these should be medium- term, short-term, or long-term, we'd be here forever. It's fairly arbitrary, and it is going to change, and it doesn't reflect the fiscal realities about a government-minded structure. So I would argue not having it at all, but Tom Altieri was explaining why they put it in to help the advisory boards and the departments. I don't care if it's in this document. Laura Blackmon: Unless you want it each year for each advisory board to look through their objectives in their element. You'd have to do it consistently. Commissioner Carey: We could do it in a way that makes it less confusing as possible. Commissioner Gordon: Tell me again what kind of guidance it gives to the advisory boards. Tom Altieri: Let's just say the plan is adopted this year, and early next year each advisory board will be working on their list of ideas, things they'd like to accomplish over the next year, and they would be bringing that to the County Commissioners to get their marching orders for the year, and this would help focus them into certain areas if there were a timing component to each objective. By definition, an objective needs to be as time specific as possible, understanding that we would not be able to put a date or a year next to each of these objectives, this was a way that we could have some type of timing component in a general way. Michelle Kempinski: I think the original idea was to try and assign a timeframe so that they all don't get forgotten for the next 20 years, but also to help try and establish a prioritization based on the objective itself and the goal it is trying to support rather than taking it out of the context of budget, which is a reality. Chair Jacobs: So is it a time element, or is it high-priority, medium-priority, low-priority? Michelle Kempinski: I think the time element was a factor in establishing priority. Chair Jacobs: What priority is ongoing? Michelle Kempinski: I think that's a term that was used in the original and the last set of draft objectives was identified as ongoing. Chair.Jacobs: Why don't we flag it as something that we have to look at further and if you all could put it into writing on the two sides. Michelle Kempinski: I think the Board decided to leave it out. Chair Jacobs: I think stating the two cases, for and against, would be useful for us and then we could flag it as something that we could make a decision on. Jay Bryan: On the idea of every board reporting to you every year, you could do it at your retreat. Renee Price: It could be part of the implementation section of the Comprehensive Plan altogether; that the methodology for doing this could be put into the implementation so that it doesn't get lost. Chair Jacobs: If you all could put it in writing and then we'll share it with the other Commissioners. On 3-20 and some other pages, ED-3.3, Durham Tech has asked that they be changed to what they're called, which is , Durham Technical Community College. On 3-21 at the very bottom, there are a couple of places like this that are things like tax relief or reduced taxes, and it's just very vague. I'd rather have something specific. Since we're saying, "such as extending use value to smaller parcels that produce sufficient income " That was the recommendation of the Smart Growth Commission, which is that if somebody's growing herbs on an acre, they can't qualify for use value even if they make $5,000 on an acre when they would otherwise qualify. If we're talking about actually saying, "such as", that's something that would be of little use to producers in Orange County and probably in Durham and Chatham as well. Instead of just saying "tax relief', I'd like to give an example. This is on page 3-21, Objective AG-2 (Ongoing). Commissioner Gordon: Let me just take issue with "tax relief." You should call it "tax assistance," and the reason is, if you're a government, and people need tax relief from you, you might want to think about whether you're talking about tax assistance or tax relief. From a government point of view, I think you want to talk about tax assistance. Chair Jacobs: And then on the next page, ED-2.7, on page 3-22, where it lists the elements that should be available in industrial sites and it doesn't mention public transit. And then on Intergovernmental Coordination on 3-23, we totally missed Mebane and the fact that we're working in partnership with Mebane in the Economic Development District. Commissioner Carey: I want to go back to 3-22, WW-5. I thought we had already done that, "Work with municipalities to designate Urbanizing Reserve areas for public water and sewer services when land capacity is needed for higher density development." Commissioner Gordon: What is urbanizing reserve? Commissioner Carey: It's a new term, but I was using it synonymous with transition areas. Chair Jacobs: I know there was an urbanizing reserve area with the Eno EDD. That's the only place I've ever seen it. Craig Benedict: There is an area outside our transition zones that are still within the Water and Sewer Boundary Agreement. So, it's an area that the Water and Sewer Boundary says you can have utilities, that have not yet been designated as these urban transition areas. So what this plan suggests is to just call that a transition reserve, or urban reserve, because there is still that potential for public water and sewer. Chair Jacobs: But to Moses' point, with the Joint Planning Agreement, we've done that already. Craig Benedict: We've married those boundaries with the Joint Planning Agreement. Commissioner Carey: But what if you distinguish what we've designated as transition in the area that's eligible. Commissioner Gordon: Well, I don't think that there is anything in the Joint Planning area, but there might be something in the Hillsborough area. Where is this defined? This is a new term. Tom Altieri: The term here should be transition areas. Commissioner Carey: That would make it clearer to me. Commissioner Gordon: If you do call it transition areas, there may be areas in the Hillsborough area outside the Water and Sewer Boundary. Chair Jacobs: We need to flag this if that is what you want to say. Chapter 4— Housing Element Chair Jacobs: There is no mention in here of the 2001 bond. I think that Orange County may be one of only two counties in the State that proposed an affordable housing bond. There is no mention of the fact that we, although we might eliminate it at some point, kicked off the Urgent Home Repair Program for low-income, primarily seniors, whose houses did not meet building codes. There is no mention of land banking. I think we need to make sure that we mention in here somewhere discussing SAPFO in Mebane. And a general comment about this whole chapter, there are several references, as I said at the public hearing that I thought we should use manufactured houses and mobile homes, but Orange County actually is less restrictive than most counties in allowing manufactured housing, and that's not how it was presented. It was presented as though it's an impediment. I'll point out specific places, but I actually think that it's easier here than it is in a lot of jurisdictions. Craufurd Goodwin: There is a very dated statement on 4-1 that says, "The downturn in the housing markets that began in 2007 nationwide has not had a significant effect on the County's market in terms of property values." I don't know what the evidence is. Chair Jacobs: Why don't we see if that's true, and if it isn't, change the wording. On page 4-5 under Key Facts, aren't there such things as married families without children? They don't seem to exist. If there are households with married adults without children, why don't we mention it. On 4-15, line 35, "the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star and Water Sense standards for use as an intricate"should say "integral." There was also something that Rev. Campbell brought up at a public hearing that is not captured in here, and I haven't spent enough time thinking about it, but the fact that housing has become re-segregated is, I think, an issue. The causes may be more in terms of income, but it's an absolute trend, not only in Orange County, but nationally. Rev. Campbell brought it up as a trend, and if we're talking about housing, I think we ought to at least try and, if that is true, then we should indicate somewhere that it is a coOcern, and if it ig, it would seem that it is something that we would want the Affordable Housing Advisory Board to look at and strategies to address it. On page 4-17, LU-2.1O, we did this in the Efland-Mebane Work Group. This is exactly something that we did, so I would think that we ought to mention it. That's one area where we already approved this almost exactly. And again, the next one, LU-4.1. "Support the use Cf individual mobile homes as a useful housing resource," this is a place where the way it's stated doesn't make it clear that it's already something that we, if not actively encourage, that we do not actively discourage. And then the one after that, LU-4.2, we mention all of the objectives with development of energy efficient buildings and we don't mention anything about water-smart landscaping. And on the one below that, we do have I know at least one development incentive for affordable housing in c|UeteFedeubdivieioDg. So it should say, "by means of improved ved development incentives." I don't think anybody's ever used clusters, or maybe for one or two lots, but it does exist. Commissioner Gordon: If you look on page 4-6, Regional Housing Profile, Orange/Durham/ Wake, Average Regional Housing Sales in O[GDge/Du[ha[n/VVake. I didn't know if we wanted to get all adjacent counties or just those three. It should be consistent within an element, but it may be much harder to get it consistent across all of the elements, but just flag it. It is not unreasonable to do Orange/Durham/Wake. I just bring it up as another question with no answer. Chair Jacobs: Well, while you're doing that, County Housing Profile, we have the housing for Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough, and then total, but we don't have non-urban. Housing is different in cost in the rural part of the County. Commissioner Gordon: Now that's a question with an answer. You really need it. Commissioner Gordon: While we're flipping our paQeg, it did occur to me that two Commissioners are not present tonight, and if we think of anything that we'd like to submit in a timely manner, I take it that timely would be by July A,». preferably. Are the comments by the advisory boards literally supposed to be due July gth7 It was answered that those that could not get them in by July 9 would need to get them in by August 13th. If any of the Commissioners, including the two that are not present, wanted to add something, they should be able to. Chapter 5- Land Use Element Chair Jacobs: Let's start with page 5-6, Regulatory History and Context. On 6-73' it talks about how Orange County was a leader in watershed protection. "Watershed protection measures have been refined and increased since 1981." I would suggest that be included under the 1981 item, because I think we should be including the first watershed protection measures in North Carolina. And then, we missed Cheeks Township as far as zoning authority. And I would even point out that the Joint Planning Agreement was the first of its kind in North Carolina. Commissioner Carey: On the same page, we were the first to implement sedimentation control, in 1987 on page 6-73. Chair Jacobs: On page 5-11 at the bottom, this really doesn't do justice to the Rural Character Study on which we worked four years. I would suggest another line or two that reflects that it was a carefully balanced method to address rural character and use between private property rights and environmental protection. On 5-12, when we talk about working with Hillsborough, and it ends with 2006, but in 2008 we are in another phase of planning, and we might as well go ahead and state that. And I mentioned to staff after the public hearing that I could think of at least two more small area plans on page 5-13. Commissioner Gordon: I have something on 5-12. Continued Intergovernmental Coordination says, "several cross-jurisdictional issues have arisen that will be addressed through the implementation of this plan such as revising the Water and Sewer Boundary Agreement." Have we decided to revise the Water and Sewer Boundary Agreement? Chair Jacobs: I think it should say, "to include new partners." Part of it is to include Mebane and Durham, and part of it may be to change it based on the agreements with Hillsborough, because Hillsborough is going to give us, at least part of the discussion is trading part of Hillsborough's jurisdiction and protected watershed to the County in exchange for us allowing them to put water and sewer in some areas near Hillsborough that are easily served by them. So, it's both that and it's adding, at least in my mind, adding Mebane and Durham, which would be two of the original goals is to get them on board. Craig Benedict: Also, the Hillsborough primary water and s wer service area is larger than Chapel Hill and Carrboro now, and probably the outcome of that would be to reduce that area to a more focused primary area that can be handled by the reservoirs and then have maybe an interest area for Hillsborough, which was decided originally. Commissioner Gordon: Since it's only illustrated, I would say something such as, "adding new partners to the Water and Sewer Boundary Agreement," because I don't think that we envision that we were going to go back and revise the Water and Sewer Boundary Agreement. But I believe that it was envisioned that we would go back and try to get those other partners. Chair Jacobs: Sounds good. Now on the next page, Small Area Planning History and Context, but I don't think I've ever seen us do a Pantry area study, which was done in the early 80's. I think the Pantry being over there by the Northern Center. And then there was a 1990 Efland study. I think if we're listing studies, we should list them. Just because the Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan existing, Planning staff was using that as a reference point, and I don't even remember if anyone has looked at the Pantry one or if it is even relevant, but before we just brush past it, I think we should see what it was. Commissioner Gordon: On 5-16. In looking at the Community Land Use categories and then the Rural Land Use categories, all of it sounds pretty familiar until I get to the Stoney Creek Basin. That's not a land use category, that's a study area. Craig Benedict: It was actually a land use designation that was added to the plan so that a zoning overlay could be put on our zoning map, so that, to this day, there is a zoning overlay with a prerequisite land use basin area. Chair Jacobs: It seems to me that this is obsolete. For one thing, Hillsborough was going to provide water and sewer to it and now it's going outside its service area. Craig Benedict: This covers everything from the Waterstone development all the way out towards the Eno EDD. We can suggest amending the land use map and zoning designations to remove archaic plans. Commissioner Gordon: There was a reason to do the study, but this is not a generalized category like Rural Residential or something like that. Also, I didn't even remember we had an extracted use. I'd like to see that on a map. Is that a land use category, extracted use? Tom Altieri: There are a few land use categories that are included in text that have never been put on a map. Chair Jacobs: So you've flagged Stoney Creek Basin? Tom Altieri: Yes. Commissioner Gordon: I really think that's not a generalized category. If we handle it, we should handle it some other way. And then on the next page, certainly Watershed Critical Area is a generalized term, and then there is the New Hope Creek Corridor Open Space. We definitely have that; it just doesn't seem to be a general category. How is that handled? Tom Altieri: This section should have been taken verbatim out of that 1981 Land Use Plan because those categories were essentially copied and pasted. The direction by the consultant was that we would not change those categories as part of this project. Commissioner Gordon: I certainly want to keep the designation. I will be very clear about that. I'm just not sure the way it should be handled is as a generalized category. Chair Jacobs: I agree. If you look at New Hope Creek Corridor Open Space, it says it was completed in 1991, so it wasn't part of the 1981 plan. So it might be a good place to put it. Dave Stancil: It was incorporated into the land use element in 1991. I think it may in fact be listed as a classification. Commissioner Gordon: It may be we had these kind of specific things, but, I'll reemphasize I'm not saying we should do away with it, I'm just trying to figure out a way to place it. Jay Bryan: It's a combination of a resource protection area and a public interest area. Commissioner Gordon: We don't have to resolve it now. Craig Benedict: Sometimes these small area plans that are done are somehow incorporated into the land use element text. Sometimes they're never brought to a map change. I think both Stoney Creek and New Hope Corridor had a small area plan study, it was incorporated through our regulations into a text, and then in some cases not followed through with any zoning changes, and in some cases followed through with zoning changes. Commissioner Carey: I want to give you the wordsmith for 5-25, and the discussion about demographics. The sentence that says, "It should be noted that minority populations are often undercounted during Census periods," is true. That's okay. But the next one says, "If this is true." I think that ought to be stated more in the affirrnmtive, such as "Since this was the case in the 2000 Census." Chair Jacobs: On 5-30, we had this discussion about the poverty rate once before. I don't remember the answer. I think the answer was this does include students at UNC, and if it does, it's not an accurate number. Commissioner Gordon: They may not have the data without students, but you could find out whether it included students. Laura Blackmon: I think the census data does include students. Chair Jacobs: Then let's just say that. I don't want to presume that it does, but if it does and you can't separate them out, then we should indicate it. In a county where 1/5 of the population is college students, it's not an insignificant number. Craig Benedict: A national study that had the most disparate income levels between the students and the high-income put Orange County as one of the top four in the nation because of the students, and then an area just north of near Whitfield Road showed it really high. Chair Jacobs: On page 5-32, line 4, I think it should say, "There are, however, positive signs of community and private commitments to land and watershed preservation." It's not just the government. Private people actually do protect land. ADdunderT[aDSpDrt@tiVnTrendo. it says, "In 2004, Orange County was declared a 'non-attainment' area." It was part of a non-attainment area, was it not? Commissioner Gordon: Also, for some it is now a maintenance area. Just for the transportation trends, there is some brand new data coming from the Durham-Chapel Hill- C|arrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization, and this could be updated. There is just a lot of information that's been gathered. Karen Lincoln knows where that is. /\ctua||y, all of the information might not be complete until the end of June or beginning of July, but the Long- Range Transportation Plan for 2035 has a lot of data, and I actually think the data you need is probably done. Anyway, if you look in the meeting for tomorrow, the Long-Range Transportation Plan, Item 10, in the agenda abstract you can see there's a table that tells you what's included and that Item 10 tells a lot of information that's available now. Chair Jacobs: Page 5-35, the bullets starting on line 19, the County doesn't need to develop policies to encourage green building practices because we already have them. The County may need to build upon policies to encourage green building practices. We already have them as part of the Environmental Responsibility Goal. And then I would just add, "creating incentives for private developers to use more environmentally friendly construction and demolition techniques." Because we did talk about deconstruction, and I noted a number of places where it fits. • Page 5-37, this first objective under Land Use Goal 2, "Future consideration should be given to designating Rural Buffer areas around other municipalities where such interest exists." I would argue that, whatever the wording is, I think it should be just as Moses said about the census. This should be a more affirmative statement that future consideration is being given to designating areas around Hillsborough and other municipalities where such interest exists. Because we know the interest exists with Hillsborough, we already did one iteration on a plan with Hillsborough. It was clear that there was interest in doing that. This is the place to say that. I think we should be more proactive in asserting that that's something that's of interest to us. And then the next one, LU-2.2, where it lists resources, it should include historic sites and properties and significant natural areas. Page 5-38, LU-2.4, this is actually something that was in Shaping Orange County's Future. We say this in a very negative way. The way that this is written, instead of saying that there are ways in which this might be entertained as a way to improve community character, or to transfer density, or to provide community services, it's all negative. So I would like to just suggest that people revisit it, and either make it more neutral or talk about pros and cons, or make it something other than just negative. We really haven't had this conversation in about ten years. Commissioner Gordon: I'm not sure what you'd do. Chair Jacobs: I'm just flagging it at this point. Then Objective LU-2.6, I would just say, "to protect prime reservoir sites and significant natural areas from adverse development impacts and", you don't need the word "to", "ensure that regulations for these areas are appropriate." And again, the next one, LU-2.7, we don't have to develop green building standards for publicly- owned buildings, we may need to define them. Commissioner Gordon: LU-2.8, "development on lands with non-renewable resources," are you talking about forests? Craig Benedict: Quarries. Chair Jacobs: The next page, LU-3.5 on line 20, I think we want to encourage energy and water efficient industries. On 5-40, line 31, Land Use Goal 5: "Life, health, and property safe from natural hazards." I would argue that you could take out the word "natural." Two examples are an airport is a hazard and hazardous materials are a hazard, and they're not covered anyplace else. Even our Hazard Mitigation Plan actually included an evacuation for Shearon Harris. That's another hazard that's not addressed. Craufurd Goodwin: Can I just go back to LU-2.8, where I hope we didn't change that to extracted use because I think it should also include natural areas, wetlands, wildflowers, endangered species, things which are non-renewable. Commissioner Gordon: Again, I just didn't know what it was. If it was extracted, then we should say that. If it's other things, then maybe we should give examples. Chair Jacobs: Maybe it should be "irreplaceable." In the Economic Development part on 5-41, it's mentioned occasionally the idea that there should be some kind of community services in rural areas. The way the zoning was done for a long time was to separate uses and so there are no commercial uses through huge slots of Orange County. So I would suggest that we should mention in there somewhere about providing community services in appropriate locations in rural areas. It's indirectly referenced. Commissioner Gordon: Aren't those the nodes that are designated? You need to be careful how you phrase that. If you recall, when we located those nodes, there was a lot of controversy and that's why there are not any more nodes than there are. So you have to figure out what we mean by that. Chair Jacobs: On 5-42, Natural and Cultural Systems, Objective AG-I. Although I think I know, say we support the Right to Farm Act, and we don't know what the Right to Farm Act is and then people may think that it is something else. I think we should just say what we mean. And then a little bit lower, /\E'11, this whole notion of LEED ''Go|d", we should just say LEED "Go|d" Vra substantial equivalent, because that may also change and we already have standards that we think are pretty high standards that we developed with Triangle J, and they're not LEED. There's two places in here where it's mentioned. Jay Bryan: That came out of Natural and Cultural Systems and it's a pretty powerful atmteDleDt, and we may want to refer back to them and ask for clarification about what they're intending in terms of this. There's probably a lot more, if I remember, to the Right to Farm Act than that second sentence. Chair Jacobs: Here's another example of ways these timeline things are confusing on the top of page 5-43. "Prohibit development that would cause adverse impacts on highly significant natural areas and wildlife habitat," and it says long-term, which I assume means somewhere down the road. We would have to go through each one of these, and I just question is it worth it and how we could ever agree. I just bring it up as an example. Just |ihe, down farther. PR-5.4 in Parks and Recreation. Are linear parks greenways and wildlife corridors, what is it? Are we avoiding, I notice the word "greenway" never occurs in this document. And wildlife corridors rarely. Are we still afraid to use the word "greenway"? If that's what it is, maybe in parentheses it could say "greenway." On page 5-44, WW-14, it states "designate prime reservoir sites in the County, and protect those sites from adverse development." There's an absolute competing interest in protecting the significant natural areas that might best be designated as reservoirs, so I would just suggest that somehow the conflicting nature of a designated reservoir site is indicated, because if we just leave it as reservoir site, those are always the most significant undisturbed natural gFeas, and in this CoUntx, they're the last few intact biological views. So even though, yes, long-term we want to designate prime reservoir, I think we also want to do that in the context that there is a conflict. Commissioner Gordon: Just in terms of how our comments should be used, I think that we should consider that what we said was flagged and that the Planning Board should look at the attachments. And the other thing is, from the elements that we haven't commented on, I take it that those boards are supposed to just keep going and do what they felt they have been directed to do under the timeline. Chair Jacobs: I think we should be clear that we don't want them to rewrite the whole chapter. Commissioner Gordon: I refer to the Transportation Board where they submitted their items and it was in the appendix. If they want to try and fold that in or somehow try and figure out how that fits, that they should be allowed to do that. Chair Jacobs: Well, at this point, I think they should do just like all the other boards. Commissioner Gordon: They might be able to fit everything that's in the appendix into the format. It's been submitted and the consultant put it in the appendix. The consultant could have handled it differently. It's not that you have to reread it, because it's in the appendix. I think they were going to try and figure out somehow that they can comply, how they can make it work. We shouldn't say they can't rewrite it. They were the board that got the information on the night they were to make comments and so one of the meetings was not productive. They. were actually able to recast it, and then when they did submit their comments, they were . basically rejected and it was put in the appendix. I think we owe it to them to let them try and figure out. They've been told that they're supposed to try to follow the guidelines we put down. That's going to require some rewriting. The Transportation Element is going to require some rewriting even though the Transportation Board hasn't said anything. There's not enough emphasis on things like air quality and other things in there. It's going to need to be rewritten. Tom Altieri: I think that we would certainly welcome specific comments from the OUT Board and how their new format could be incorporated into the format we have now and the format that was presented to the OUT Board in November of last year. Chair Jacobs: So, it will go the Planning Board and the Planning Board will decide. I'm not going to agree for any advisory board to rewrite its chapter. It should go to the Planning Board and the Planning Board can decide how to deal with it. Jay Bryan: We're fine with dealing with that. Tom Altieri: Will the three of you be sending to staff comments as well, in addition to the two Commissioners that were not here tonight, on the remaining sections? Chair Jacobs: I think it's open through the public hearing for anybody to make comments, including the Commissioners. Commissioner Gordon: My interpretation is that the Commissioners are welcome to make comments. What are we going to do about the fact that the other jurisdictions have the wrong CD? Tom Altieri: Let me investigate that first. These were done in separate batches, and I will check to see if the correct version is on that CD. CLOSED SESSION A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey to go into closed session at 10:19 p.m. for the purpose of: to consider the qualifications, competence, character, fitness, conditions of appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee" NCGS § 143-318.11(a)(6). VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey to reconvene into regular session at 10:30 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board