Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-25-2008- c2ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 25, 2008 Agenda Item No. C.2 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update Phase II DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) YO ATTACHMENT(S): (Draft Comprehensive Plan received with May 19, 2008 Public Hearing materials) INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, 245-2579 1) Courtesy Review letters 2) Element Lead Advisory Board comments 3) Written public comments 5/19/08 - 8/13/08 4) General Characteristics of 1981 Land Use Plan and 2008 Draft Comprehensive Plan PURPOSE: To provide an additional opportunity to receive public comment on the updated Comprehensive Plan in its entirety and receive direction from the Board of Commissioners as to subsequent steps. BACKGROUND: What is the Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Plan is an official public document that will serve to guide development and the preservation of resources within the unincorporated areas of the County. This version of the Plan will focus on pulling together the County's goals and objectives in a variety of substantive areas (Economic Development, Housing, Land Use, Natural and Cultural Systems, Parks and Recreation, Services and Community Facilities, and Transportation). By setting goals and objectives, County officials can use the document to guide future policy decisions. The adopted Plan will also serve as the statutory basis for many of Orange County's land use regulations as well as the application of zoning districts. Process On October 3, 2006, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approved a process for updating the County's Comprehensive Plan in two phases as follows: Phase I, to include the development of Comprehensive Plan goals and County Profile Element; and Phase II, to include the remaining seven (7) Elements of the updated Comprehensive Plan. Phase I was completed by the County in September 2007 and Phase II was initiated immediately thereafter. 2 During October 2007-April 2008, a Planning Consultant, County staff and the following County advisory boards have worked together to develop the draft Comprehensive Plan: Affordable Housing Advisory Board, Agricultural Preservation Board, Commission for the Environment, Economic Development Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, Orange Unified Transportation Board, Planning Board, and Recreation and Parks Advisory Council. Input has been provided by additional County advisory boards as well as the public. The public hearing tonight will be the third that has been held during the Comprehensive Plan update process. The last public hearing was held on May 19, 2008 to introduce and receive public comments on the draft Comprehensive Plan in its entirety. The Board of County Commissioners scheduled this additional public hearing tonight to provide more time for the public to review the document and prepare comments. General Contents The Draft Comprehensive Plan includes the following Elements: • County Profile (Data) • Economic Development • Housing • Land Use • Natural and Cultural Systems • Parks and Recreation • Services (Utilities) and Community Facilities • Transportation Recommendations are also provided in the draft Comprehensive Plan that addresses the administration, implementation, and monitoring of the Plan that will need to take place following its adoption. There are no major changes to existing/current policy directions incorporated into the draft Plan. Furthermore, the draft plan does not include specific implementation recommendations; work on those will start once this Plan with its framework of goals, objectives, and linkages is adopted. This Plan update effort is designed to establish a common data base, to pull together existing ideas and information that heretofore have been scattered among a series of topic- specific plans and documents, and to set the stage for subsequent community discussions about implementation strategies. Public Input and Access to Materials In addition to numerous citizen comprised County advisory board meetings, during Phase II of the update process, the County conducted public input meetings on January 28tH, April 3~d, April Stn and April 23~d. Several public input opportunities were also provided during Phase I. All key documents that have been produced to date have been posted on the County's website. Following is the address to the Comprehensive Plan Update Webpage and a partial listing of documents that can be found there: http://www.co.orange.nc.us/planning/compre_cpupdate.asp • Description of Process for updating the Plan and Timetable • Brochure describing process and meetings • BOCC Guiding Principles for the Plan • County Profile (data) Element • Public Input Meeting Summaries • March 5, 2008 First Draft Comprehensive Plan 3 Public Hearing Draft Comprehensive Plan* (posted May 7, 2008) • 1981 Land Use Plan *For anyone wishing to see the differences between the First Draft Comprehensive Plan (March 5th) and the Public Hearing Draft, a version is provided on the website referenced above that tracks the changes. In addition to posting the Draft Comprehensive Plan online, copies of the Plan have been made available for reference at the County's public libraries and at the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department. Attachments Attachment 1 -Includes Courtesy Review letters from the Town of Chapel Hill and the City of Durham. Formal invitation to provide Courtesy Review was also extended by the County to the Towns of Carrboro and Hillsborough and the City of Mebane. Attachment 2 -Includes proposals received from the Orange Unified Transportation Board (Transportation Element); and the Agricultural Preservation Board, Commission for the Environment, and Historic Preservation Commission (Natural and Cultural Systems Element). Attachment 3 -Includes the written comments received, primarily from the public, from May 19tH through August 13tH Attachment 4 - Provides a general comparison between the public hearing draft Comprehensive Plan and the adopted 1981 Land Use Element. NEXT STEPS: (taken from BOCC approved Timetable) Sept. 3~d Regular Planning Board Meeting (6:30-7:30 PM) -Continue review of comments and development of list of suggested revisions Sept. 10tH Special Planning Board .Meeting (6:30-9:00 PM) -Complete review, finalize list of suggested revisions, and develop recommendation to BOCC Sept. 16tH Status report from staff to BOCC Sept. 22"d Draft abstracts due for the Oct. 7tH BOCC Meeting Oct. 7~' BOCC receives Planning Board's recommendation and list of suggested revisions and adopts Comprehensive Plan to include revisions or amends FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with hearing this item. RECOMMENDATION(S): In accordance with the approved timetable, Administration recommends: 1) Closing the May 19, 2008 Public Hearing on the draft Comprehensive Plan; 2) Holding and closing the August 25, 2008 Public Hearing on the draft Comprehensive Plan; and 3) Referring the draft Plan to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the BOCC October 7, 2008. The Planning Board will provide specific recommendations for changes to the draft Comprehensive Plan that may be required in response to comments heard from the BOCC 4 and/or public. The Planning Board will also consider comments provided as part of the May 19, 2008 Joint Quarterly Public Hearing. Staff Note: Per the adopted Comprehensive Plan Update Process, the BOCC may also refer public hearing items to any of the other lead advisory boards that are involved: Affordable Housing Advisory Board, Agricultural Preservation Board, Commission for the Environment, Economic Development Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, Orange Unii<ed Transportation Board, and Recreation and Parks Advisory Council. S Attachment 1, Courtesy Review letters Town of Chapel Hill Attachment 1 City of Durham ~A June 24, 2008 MAYOR' S OFFICE Town of Chapel Hill 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Chapel Hill, NC 27514 phone (919) 968-2714 fax (919) 969-2063 www. townofchapelhill. org The Honorable Barry Jacobs, Chair Orange County Boazd of Commissioners P O Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Orange County Comprehensive Plan Update RECFiVED JUN 2 6 2008 BY: Deaz Chairmzm-~~ QQr/~/ Thank you for the letter providing a status report on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Update and extending an invitation for the Town to provide courtesy review comments on the draft Plan. The Orange County Planning Department has provided information to our Planning Department and we have been following the process of the Plan Update. It was our understanding, and your letter confirmed, that the Plan Update does not propose any major changes to~ existing/current policy directions and it does not include specific implementation recommendations. In your letter, you provide an opportunity for courtesy comments by August 1. As you aze awaze, our Council has its last business meeting on June 25th and then will not meet again until September. I've requested the Town Manager and staff review the Comprehensive Plan Update and identify any issues on which the Council might wish to provide comments. We would appreciate the opportunity to provide comments in September if necessary. Meanwhile, I'll ask our staff to review the Pian Update and provide us with comments, if any, in September. Thank you again for the opportunity to review the Plan Update. Sincerely, ® ~ E,~ , Kevin C. Foy Mayor ~ ~ C~ / r~~~Z~«~ DURHAM c~tv of Du~w~enn 1 8 6 9 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR QTY OFMEDIgNE 101 CITY HALL PLAZA • DURHAM, NC 2770T 919. 560.4333 • fax 919.560.4801 www.durhamnc.gov July 16, 2008 The Honorable Barry Jacobs, Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners 200 South Cameron Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Comment on Draft Orange County Comprehensive Plan Dear Chairman Jacobs: R.~~~~T~I.~ JUL 2 3 2008 BY: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Orange County Comprehensive Plan. I am pleased that we continue to cooperate on issues and projects that affect both our jurisdictions: I commend you on all of the hard work that you, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, and your staff have put into this planning effort. There are a number of positive statements and policies that I see contained in the Plan, such as the support of increasing mass transit capabilities in our region, fording more ways to partner on open space protection and park development, such as with the New Hope Creek Open Space Plan, and success with our cross jurisdictional planning efforts such as the Eno Economic Development District Plan. There are, however, a few points in the document that I believe need some clarification or correction. In section 3.9, on page 3-23, the Plan refers to the recently adopted Eno Economic Development District. There are two points regarding this sentence that should be addressed: o It is the City of Durham that is involved in this project, not Durham County. o I would like further clarification on what is meant by the term "unified development district". As I am sure you are aware, the Eno Economic Development District Plan calls for eventual public water and sewer provision from the City of Durham in this portion of Orange County. Current City of Durham policy is that in order far the City to extend public utilities, a petition for voluntary annexation into the City must be submitted. If and when the property is annexed, the City obtains full right of regulation regazding development on the land. While the City is fully in favor of working on joint long-range planning efforts with Orange County regarding this area, and has participated so faz in these efforts, the City does plan on Good Things Are Happening in Durham q The Honorable Barry Jacobs July 16, 2008 Page 2 exerting its full authority over any areas it annexes, whether they are in Durham County or Orange County. Objective CR-10, on page 6-53, states that Orange County should "Establish a dialogue with the other jurisdictions in and adjacent to Orange County to address cultural resources without assigned advocates." The Draft Plan could be improved with a full explanation of "assigned advocates". Durham has a joint city-county Historic Preservation Comrnission. Would this commission be our "assigned advocates" regarding cultural resources? And, therefore, would Orange County not desire a dialogue with Durham on cultural resources? On page 8-9, line 25, Durham County is listed as a wastewater provider. Durham County is not a utility provider. This Tabel .should be changed to the City of Durham. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important endeavor by Orange County to shape i future over the next few decades. Sincerely, Willi V `Bil " ell, l~ Attachment 2 Attachment 2, Element Lead Advisory Board comments Orange Unified Transportation Board (Transportation Element) Agricultural Preservation Board, Commission for the Environment, and Historic Preservation Commission (Natural and Cultural Systems Element) ~~ Tom Altieri From: Karen Lincoln Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 11:06 AM To: Tom Altieri Subject: OUTBoard comments regarding the Transportation Element of the Comp Plan Tom, I have attached final comments from the OUTBoard. Proposed language is shown in Iarg@ bold prlllt, proposed deleted lanaguage is shown in st~etl~r~gf~pr-irk ~~ _. Chapter9_OUlBoar dProposedRevis... Karen Lincoln, AICP Transportation Planner Orange County Planning and Inspections Dept. 306-F Revere Road Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278-8181 919-245-2594 919-644-3002 (fax} ktincoln@co.orange.nc.us r3 Chapter 9: Transportation Element k'h c +~hc~pteY 9"~ Trans~arr~ci~~c~~r ~d~n't~nt 2 9.1. PURPOSE 3 This Transportation Element provides guidance and direction regarding future transportation 4 efforts in Orange County. The goals and objectives identified within this element serve as the 5 foundation for establishing future transportation policies and action strategies undertaken by 6 Orange County, its advisory boards, and staff. This specific process for developing a 7 transportation implementation strategy is outlined in Section 1.4: Administration and 8 Implementation Guidelines. 9 9.2. SUMM,4RY 10 Orange County's transportation system is often described as a network. The term network 11 describes a collection of destinations and edges COnnectlOnS. On the ground in a 12 transportation network, the destinations would be areas where people live and destinations 13 people have outside their homes, places like work, shopping centers, parks, government 14 offices, etc. edges Connections are the routes people take to travel between nodes; 15 between home and work, for instance. Destinations and edges COnneCtlOnS together can 16 be viewed as the physical structure of a transportation network. Another term, traffic, is used 17 to name the activity that takes place on the network. 18 Planning for a transportation system requires planning for destinations and edges 19 connections, as well as traffic. All three components are essential for a logical, robust 20 network. 21 22 Orange County's transportation network is comprised of a hierarchy of roads that moves 23 automobiles and provides access to land developments, railroad lines that allow freight and 24 commuter trains to move through the County, bicycle routes that provide access to points of 25 interest and recreational trails, and local sidewalks and pedestrian facilities that foster walking 26 in neighborhoods, downtowns, and at commercial and employment centers. 27 28 While the County, in partnership with the Towns of Hillsborough, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and 29 Mebane, has been. along-standing proponent of a multi-modal transportation system, more 30 can be done to encourage non-automobile forms of transportation. New facilities and 31 improvements are needed to encourage amore efficient and effective transportation system 32 that achieves the County's goals of achieving long-term sustainability and maintaining Orange 33 County's distinctive community character. 34 TRANSPORTATIC?N__PLANNING 35 36 37 38 39 40 , 41 ~ , 42 , 43 44 Qi-avu~Co~y Co--v~v~e~uvi.~vve~'t~lavt. Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-1 " Chapter 9: Transportation Element *., 1 Transportation Planning in Orange County is guided by federal 2 legislation that requires states to carry out a continuing, cooperative, 3 and comprehensive statewide multimoda! transportation planning 4 process that facilitates the safe and efficient management, operation, 5 and development of surface transportation systems that will serve the 6 mobility needs of people and freight (including accessible pedestrian ~ walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) and that fosters s economic growth and development within and between States and 9 urbanized areas, while minimizing transportation-related fuel to consumption and air pollution in all areas of the State, including 11 those areas subject to the metropolitan transportation planning 12 requirements. The "three-C"process (continuing, cooperative, 13 comprehensive) includes the development of a long range statewide 14 transportation plan and statewide transportation improvement 15 program (ST1P). The State Long Range Transportation Plan and 16 Transportation -mprovement Program is developed in cooperation 17 with the Metropolitan Planning Organization designated by federal 1 s legislation for the metropolitan area. The State consults with the local 19 officials of the affected nonmetropolitan area to develop the 20 transportation plan and TIP for nonmetropolitan areas. 21 22 The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Planning 23 Organization (MPO) is the regional organization responsible for 24 transportation planning in the wesfern part of the Research Triangle 2s area, including the eastern, and more urban, portions of Orange 26 County. The DCHC MPO Transportation Advisory Committee, the 27 policy and decision making body of the organization, is made up of 28 elected officials from the local jurisdictions in the Metropolitan Area 29 Boundary, the North Carolina Department of Transportation member 3o representing the area. The Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization 31 (TARPO) coordinates the transportation planning in the rural areas 32 outside the Metropolitan Area Boundary of Orange County and 33 Chatham County and for all of Lee and Moore Counties. The TARPO 34 Rural Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC) is made up of 35 elected officials of the member jurisdictions and the Division 8 North 36 Carolina Board of Transportation member. These are the two 37 organizations through which Orange County coordinates its plans for 3s local transportation projects for implementation through regional 4r~axu~iCQUV-~y Com~r~u;v~%v~~tcfn. Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-Z tS "` Chapter 9: Transportation Element ki 1 programs. Map 9-7 shows the transportation planning jurisdictions in 2 the Research Triangle region. 3 6 8 10 14 16 ,,, 18 20 22 ` ~ : ' 24 Orange Duirharn ~ ...~ 26 28 30 ~' 32 ;, 34 ,. 36 Wake ~' 38 40 ~ - 42 Chatham ~ >. 44 46 48 50 52 :;~ ~. ~, Irtston 54 °L.~e.. ~~ 56 s 58 60 . ~~ 62 64 l~loor~ 66 .- - TriangiaArea RPO 68 ~,<, 70 = ; ~® CaprtalArea MRO 72 74 ~ Durham-Ghaptl iiiil-Cartboro MP4 76 ~ . ,'µn Burlington-Graham bIPO 78 80 '__ ~ blunieipal Boundari>:s 82 84 MAP 9-1: REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 Oa~aa~u~Cauvity CQrn~r~e~~we~~la.r~. Public Hearing Draft 5-6-OS Page 9-3 ~~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11- 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Chapter 9: Transportation Element ~., c ,Map 9-2, below, shows the boundaries of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization within Orange County. Insert map of MPO boundary in Orange County. -- C7a~a Co~t,{,,7~y Co-~n~r~~u:v-.~-ive~ i~T,e+.~v Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-4 1`7 o.... ~.. Chapter 9: Transportation Element .,,, C7-raiC:auvtty C~t^e~+~i~v~i f~la.w Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-5 t~ Chapter 9: Transpartatian Element ~-., 1 The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2 coordinates planning and development of transportation facilities in its jurisdiction through 3 two primary planning mechanisms: Discuss LRTP first, 4 ' Long-Range Transportation Plan. The plan is a guide for major transportation then MTIP 5 investments in the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning 6 Organization area. It is designed to support land use and air quality goals for 7 the urban area, and is prepared in accordance with federal requirements. The 8 plan projects the amount and type of transportation demand over a 20-year 9 minimum period, and is updated every four years to to demonstrate compliance with air quality standards. It 11 identifies priority highway, bus transit, rail transit, bicycle, and pedestrian 12 improvements needed to service future populations, and the projected costs of 13 tnese improvements. The Long Range Transportation Plan is 14 fiscally constrained and identifies viable anticipated 1 s funding sources for projects proposed in the plan. 16 -- , 17 ', 18 19 , 20 21 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program. 22 , 23 , 24 25 26 27 This program is a seven year document that is included in 2s the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program and 29 contains funding and scheduling information for bicycle, 3o pedestrian, highway, rail, public transportation, and 31 enhancement projects. Every two years, the Metropolitan 32 Planning Organization develops a prioritized list of 33 projects to be considered for funding in the biennial 34 update of the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement 3s Program. Projects must come from adopted 36 transportation plans. 37 -- 38 , 39 40 41 , 42 terse-~rrr 43 c~~~cu~e.Ccru.v~ty Ccrrn~v~eh.e~,~-we~P I,avi, Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-6 }q Chapter 9: Transportation Element ~•„ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 •- 8 9 , 10 =- 11 12 }- . 13 14 ; 15 -- 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 The Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) coordinates 23 the transportation planning in the rural areas of Orange County and 24 Chatham County outside the Metropolitan Boundary Area and for all 2s of Lee and Moore Counties. (See Map 9-1.) Triangle J Council of 26 Govet-nments is the administrator and lead planning agency for the 27 TARPO, and coordinates transportation plans and programs and 28 land use policies and programs in the four-county planning area. 29 The general purpose and responsibilities of the Rural Planning 3o Organization are to: 31 32 1. Develop long-range local and regional multi-modal 33 transportation plans in cooperation with the area Metropolitan 34 Planning Organizations (MPOs) and the NCDOT. 35 36 2. Provide a forum for public participation in the rural 37 transportation planning process. 38 39 3. Develop and prioritize suggestions for transportation projects 4o that the RPO believes should be included in the State 41 Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). 42 ©r~aiCau-nty Co•m~v~~u~~i~ve~~law Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-7 a,6 Chapter 9: Transportation Element t•., 1 4. Provide transportation-related information to local governments 2 and other interested organizations. 3 4 5 6 ,• 7 s The Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) is made up of 9 74 citizens and two ex-officio liaisons from the Board of County 1o Commissioners. The OUTBoard provides recommendations to the 11 Board of County Commissioners regarding overall planning and 12 programming of transportation improvements in the County, 13 including: 14 15 Identifying and setting priorities for the County's roadway and transit needs 16 along with associated costs and specific sources of funding; 17 Assisting in development and review of the transportation component of the 1$ comprehensive plan; 19 Providing recommendations to the Board regarding Federal and State 20 legislation affecting transportation in Orange County; and 21 Exploring and make recommendations on innovative techniques and methods 22 to improve the efficiency and capacity of existing and future transportation 23 systems. 24 25 E9~.lfd~l' 26 8~ae~ 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 • 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 , 42 43 44 {~eF aw: Qr~a~~Co~u.v~ty CQrn~ve~e~Pluw Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-8 ~i Chapter 9: Transportation Element k'~~ c 1 COUNT-Y-WIDE ROAD NETWORK 2 Orange County's road network is comprised of a hierarchy of roads 3 including interstates, major US and NC highways, North Carolina 4 Secondary Roads, and local roads that serve different functions in s providing access to other regions and within Orange County. 6 7 Interstate 40 and lnterstafe 85 are part of the Federal Interstate s Highway System and are the major corridors that provide for 9 transport of people and goods through Orange County fo other 1o regions, including employment centers in the Triangle Area (Durham, 11 Research Triangle Park and Raleigh) to the east and the Triad 12 (Greensboro, Winston-Salem and High Point) to the west. 13 14 Major US and NC routes linking Orange County with surrounding 15 areas also provide intro-county access and linkage to the rural areas 16 of the County. US 70 is a major highway that provides east-west 17 access through Orange County, linking the City of Durham in Durham 1 s County, the Town of Hillsborough in Orange County and the Town of 19 Mebane in A/amance County. US 15 and US 501 provide north-south 20 access linking the City of Durham to the Towns of Chapel Hill and 21 Carrboro and the Town of Pittsboro in Chatham County. NC 86 22 provides north-south access through Orange County from Caswell 23 County and links the Towns of Hillsborough and Chapel Hill. NC 57 24 provides north-south access from Person County through Orange 2s County to the Town of Hillsborough. NC 54 provides linkage between 26 Research Triangle Park in Durham and Wake Counties, the Towns of 27 Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and Greensboro in Guilford County. 2s 29 A widespread state-maintained system of Secondary Roads provides 3o access to the major regional corridors from the rural areas of the 31 County. 32 33 Local roads emphasize the land access function, and connect rural 34 residential and commercial development with the Secondary Road 35 System and major US and NC corridors. 36 37 Map 9-3 be/ow illustrates how Orange County road network functions to provide 38 inter-county and intro-county access. Oa~aC~a~,u~y Ccrvvr~a~~h~,k;,v~~la,w Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-9 ~a Chapter 9. Transportation Element .,, 1 2 3 6 s 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 95 97 99 101 ORANGE COUNTY MAJOR ROADS ALTEF; Orange ALTEF ~3 ° Chapter 9: Transportation Element ~'~~ e 1 2 3 Orange County residents have several opfions for using alternative 4 modes of transportation. 6 Three public transportation systems provide bus service in Orange 7 County: 8 9 Triangle Transit " 10 11 T ~------+----^1 A ' ,-+ n„L T T., v ~;+< T.Tr c~.,+o T T„ ~;+., n,~d~~L,o,. L y 12 rcgiOr~-lwis~26rr . TTA .,1 .:.low ~ ol~~r,.,oo~ rL,.,«.ol u;ll_a~~Q 13 u~~g~. -the "TT" provides regional bus service 14 linking the Town of Chapel Hill to Research Triangle Park, 1 s Raleigh-Durham International Airport, Duke University, NC 16 State University, and other key regional locations. TT 17 also contracts with Orange Public Transportation (the 18 "Orange Bus") to provide service between the Towns of 19 Hillsborough and Chapel Hill." In addition, TT has a 20 vanpool program for commuters that have a greater than 21 20-mile round-trip. 22 Chapel Hill Transit -the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and the University 23 of North Carolina-Chapel Hill partner to provide daily fare free bus service to 24 routes in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Services include fixed route bus service, 25 park and ride shuttle service for special events, shared ride feeder service to 26 areas which do not receive regular bus service, and EZ rider service for 27 individuals with mobility limitations. Many of the bus stops are shared with ~ 28 TT, and provide access to the larger regional bus system. 29 • Orange Public Transportation - Orange County provides bus ~erttiee--t$ 30 "' 31 32 service to County residents on the "Orange Bus" 33 including fixed route (in partnership with TT) general 34 public service, door to door pick-up and drop-off service 3s for human service contracting agencies, deviated fixed 36 route service for the general public, and paratransit 37 service for disabled residents. 38 39 Private Sector Transportation Services - Several for profit private 4o sector Transportation Services, services are available to transport Da-aCouvlty Co-m~+~e~evvkivPiPlarv Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-1 X a~ Chapter 9: T"ranspvrt~atfon EIemenl` a„ 1 individuals and groups and maybe more cost effective for some 2 transportation needs than the above named systems. 3 4 s 6 8 9 Orange County residents have opportunities to ride-share through 1o various private transportation providers as well as through Triangle 11 Transit's vanpool program. TT also hosts a website for Share the 12 Ride NC, a statewide ride share matching service for both local and 13 inter-county trips. 14 1s Orange County has an active bicycling community that uses Orange 16 county roads for recreational riding, competitive training, and 17 commuting. Orange County's Bicycle Transportation Plan identifies 1 s major routes for improvements to facilitate bicycle commutes. The 19 Bicycle Transportation Plan is included in the regional DCHC Long 20 Range Transportation Plan. Although there are currently no bicycle 21 lanes on Orange County roads outside municipalities, Orange County 22 has been able to obtain modest improvements for bicycles, such as 23 two-foot paved shoulders on secondary roads, through NCDOT 24 programs for resurfacing roads and spot safety projects. A State 2s Transportation Improvement Program project that will identify popular 26 cycling routes on an Orange County Bike Map is underway, and 27 should be completed by the end of 2008. NCDOT will install numbered 2s bike route signs as part of the overall development of the county bike 29 route system. 30 31 There are no pedestrian trails outside of parks and greenways. 32 However, several plans outline a connected trail system throughout 33 the County through parks and environmentally sensitive areas along 34 floodplains from Chapel Hill Road in Durham. 3s 36 Amtrak passenger service traverses central Orange County through 3~ the Town of Hillsborough, but currently does not stop in Orange 3s County. There is widespread community support for a passenger 39 train stop in Orange County. All local County jurisdictions, in early 40 2008, indicated their support for a train station to be located in Ur~cwu~iCo~,utity Ct~-wt~v'e~uvt.~i~vPiP~t-t't~ Public Hearing Draft 5-6-OS Page 9-12 ~~ ° Chapter 9: TranspoYtation Element ~., 1 Hillsborough and the Town of Hillsborough requested North Carolina 2 Department of Transportation Rail Division, North Carolina Railroad 3 and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation to consider adding 4 a stop in Hillsborough. Officials with the N.C. Department of s Transportation and Amtrak, in July 2008, confirmed that a passenger 6 train stop in Hillsborough is a financially viable endeavor according to ~ a financial impact analysis conducted by Amtrak. s Qrcuu~fe.Cou,v~ty Crrm~rel~cv~:~ve~f''lc~,yt~ Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08' Page 9-13 a~ 1 chapter 9: Transportation Element 4 6 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 102 104 _ - _ Secondary Riority 100.4 mites ''"'' `-" "°' 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 ( ^ l Request®d Ordor ofimpiamentation ,,, ,, c~,P p `~,.~ Qther Routes Proposed Mountains to Sea ~ 7i 1 t r~ormd+o~,s«wcesaw~ ,, v` Mule-U~ Off Road Trail ~ z~ ~ NCDOT M ourMains to Sea an "~ „.* '08 Bicycle Route (Qn-Road) MAP 9-4: PRIORITY BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ROUTES pf~q:HU~iCcTU.vt-ty Cc?v-~v'e.~u.vvN:.v~i f`'I.~xrt~ Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-I4 grange Gaunty Priority Bicycle Transportation Routes d, e,.••~ ~ °•.. ° Chapter 9: Transportation Element ~--, 2 RECENT TRANSPORTATION PLANNING EFFORTS 3 Orange County has undertaken several transportation planning efforts over the last several 4 decades. Summaries of these plans. and reports are provided here. 5 6 ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (F 999) 7 In 1999, Orange County adopted a Bicycle Plan that included recommendations for all of 8 Orange County outside of the municipal extra-territorial planning jurisdictions and the 9 transition areas of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan. The purpose of the plan was to identify 10 key bicycle and pedestrian connections between subdivisions and other developments. A 11 Task Force was appointed and met over a 6-month period to develop the plan. The plan 12 identifies priority and secondary bicycle routes, and sets out goals and objectives for 13 improving bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the County. It goes on to outline two general 14 strategies for improving bicycle facilities and programs: 15 Bicycle facility improvements on roads; and 16 Programs to increase cyclist safety and efficient transportation cycling. 17 18 Detailed implementation strategies are identified for these two general strategies. A timeline 19 and cost estimates were prepared for the development of paved shoulders on identified 20 primary priority bicycle transportation routes. The plan was formally adopted by the Board of 21 County Commissioners in 1999. 22 23 ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE OPTIONS REPORT (200D) 24 Acknowledging that protection of the air quality in Orange County is essential for the well. 25 being of the County's residents, the Board of County Commissioners passed three air quality 26 resolutions in 1999. These resolutions directed County employees to begin an Ozone Air 27 Quality Action Plan, to investigate low emission and fuel-efficient vehicles, and to examine the 28 purchase of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) as an option for County fleet emissions reduction. 29 An Alternative Fuel and Low Emission Vehicles work group was established to lead the 30 investigation of these latter issues and to propose an action plan which includes the potential 31 purchase of a number of alternative fuel vehicles. The report sets out short-term, 32 intermediate term, and long-term goals: 33 34 Short-Term Goal: Research the advantages and disadvantages of the various 35 alternative fuel vehicle options, and use that information to apply for state 36 grants to cover the costs associated with purchasing multiple vehicles in 2001; 37 Intermediate-Term Goal: Explore the possibility of acquiring an alternative fuel 38 bus, continue replacing gasoline vehicles with alternative fuel vehicles, as 39 appropriate, develop the educational component of the County's alternative 40 fuel vehicle program, and coordinate with other jurisdictions through the newly 41 formed Triangle J Clean Cities Program; and 42 Long-Term Goal: Minimize emissions from the County's vehicle fleet and 43 maximize the fleet's fuel efficiency. 44 45 The report provides research on the pros and cons of alternative fuel vehicles and sets out 46 specific strategies for meeting each of the three goals. ~~~aiCD~u•vtty Co~-v~w~e~+~hiwe~Plas~. Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-15 a~ Chapter 9: Transportation Element *•., 2 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE JOINT ORANGE COUNTY-HILLSBOROUGH ECONOMIC 3 DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP (20011 4 An outgrowth of the Orange County Economic Development District workgroup, the Economic 5 Development District Transportation Committee, met in 2001 to discuss concerns about the 6 existing transportation system, particularly in the Economic Development Districts in and 7 around Hillsborough. The committee was comprised of a broad array of interests, including 8 elected officials, planning board members, representatives from the Commission for the 9 Environment, the Chamber of Commerce, the Alliance for Historic Hillsborough, the Economic 10 Development Commission, the Eno River Association, a local developer, a design professional, 11 property owners, and County staff. 12 13 Discussions focused on the potential for the Elizabeth Brady Road extension (or a viable 14 alternative), setting priorities for the 2001 Transportation Improvement Program, and 15 addressing the insufficiencies of the existing transportation system and its ability to service 16 future development in the Economic Development Districts. The group identified a set of 17 shared interests, objectives that new transportation projects should achieve, criteria for 18 evaluating development of new roadways, and specific roadway improvements. The 19 committee recommended to the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Hillsborough 20 Town Board of Commissioners that suggestions regarding the evaluation of the Elizabeth 21 Brady Road extension be provided to NC-Department of Transportation, that a list of 22 transportation improvements be selected for the next round of the Transportation 23 Improvement Program, and that three particular policies be implemented locally: 24 25 Encourage the County to provide park and ride for employees; 26 Consider a policy about road widening similar to Carrboro's (no road widening 2'7 greater than three lanes in town); and 28 Set up a standing joint town/county committee to address transportation 29 issues. 30 31 ACCESS MANAGEMENT AWARENESS PROTECT AND REPORT FOR ORANGE GROVE ROAD (20031 32 In March 2002, the Board of County Commissioners and the Town of Hillsborough established 33 the Orange Grove Road Transportation Task Force as part of its continuing cooperative 34 planning effort. Existing and proposed development activity, as well as existing public 35 facilities, such as schools in this corridor, prompted a review of transportation issues and a 36 discussion regarding the range of transportation planning initiatives that could lead to a multi- 37 modal system along the portions of the Orange Grove Road corridor included in the study. 38 The task force determined that access management (i.e., transportation improvements that 39 manage access to developments while seeking to preserve the flow of traffic on a roadway) 40 was the key to addressing these issues. The report includes analysis of the area, a survey of 41 access management best practices, an analysis of the regulatory framework, and a list of 42 possible tools that could be used to %mplement the 43 i"ecommendat%O/1s. f The report also includes specific transportation goals, objectives, 44 and policies for joint transportation planning 45 6~a~oe-f~ea~. The intent was that these policy frameworks could be applied in other areas of 46 the County. pYa~e~Causnty Co-vn~v'~~t.ev~iwei!'lcxvt~ Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-16 a~ " Chapter 9: Transportation Element M'n c 1 2 EFLAND-MEBANE SMALL AREA PLAN (2006). 3 A small area plan for the Efland-Mebane area of Orange County was developed and adopted in 4 2006. This plan outlines several key strategies for improving the multi-modal transportation 5 system in the area, including: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ^ Further analysis and identification of transportation enhancements to improve congestion and traffic problems along key roadways, particularly focusing on Buckhorn Road; ^ Provision of bus service to the area and apark-and-ride lot; ^ Addition of bicycle lanes along major roadways; ^ Provision of sidewalks in new developments, retrofitting sidewalks in existing developments, and the addition of other pedestrian facilities, like pedestrian bridges, to link key locations; and ^ Development of a streetscape plan to identify locations for street trees, sidewalks, and other street improvements. 17 ORANGE COUNTY MASTER AGING PLAN. 18 In 2007, Orange County adopted the Orange County Master Aging Plan: Building-Aging 19 Friendly Communities in Orange that sets goals and strategies for coordinating delivery of 20 community services to older adults who have different levels of functional capacity throughout 21 their life spans. The plan identifies five new demographic conditions affecting communities 22 across the nation: 23 An explosion in the numbers of older persons. 24 A dramatic increase in longer lives for older persons. 25 An uneven distribution of older persons within the County with different key 26 characteristics, particularly the uneven locational distribution of elderly 27 housing. 28 More residents living more of their advanced years in declining health and 29 limited function. 30 A large and growing number of older persons (retirees and non-retirees) who 31 are a major human resource. 32 33 Four overarching goals provide the County with guidance in planning for our elderly 34 population. Goal C is relevant to the provision of transportation services for the elderly: 35 36 Goal C: Transit/Mobility -Enhance mobility options for all older adults 37 regardless of functionality, through amulti-modal vision that is acceptable, 38 efficient, effective, and affordable. 39 40 Several of the transportation objectives listed in this chapter were derived from the objectives 41 of the Master Aging Plan. Key strategies are outlined in the Master Aging Plan that can inform 42 future efforts for implementation of this element. c9Nam~Couvrty Ccr~v~~we,~la~w Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-I7 Chapter 9: Transportation Element ~... 2 ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 3 The Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) initiated development of a 4 comprehensive transportation plan in 2008 that will set county-wide long-term transportation 5 goals for roads, transit (bus and rail), and pedestrian/bicycle facilities. The intent of the plan 6 is to have a series of maps and specific strategies for implementing the County's vision of an 7 inter-connected and multi-modal transportation network. The OUTBoard has developed a 8 framework for the plan that is provided in Appendix J: Draft Framework for Orange County 9 Comprehensive Transportation Plan. 10 11 This Transportation Element includes an objective to develop and adopt a comprehensive 12 transportation plan within two years of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. 13 14 KEY ISSUES 15 Several key issues have been raised through during past transportation planning efforts that 16 set the stage for developing transportation policies and implementation strategies. These are: 1'7 There is a strong desire to provide more multi-modal opportunities for 18 commuting and. traveling to key points of interest in the County, such as UNC- 19 Chapel Hill's main campus and the future Carolina North campus, the new 20 County campus in downtown Hillsborough, and other destinations. Success of 21 future transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes is largely dependent upon the 22 location, pattern, and density of future developments in the County. Mixed- 23 use, higher density developments are advantageous for promoting use of 24 alternative modes of travel. 25 Reducing carbon emissions and increasing energy efficiency of the 26 County's transportation system is paramount. Guiding principles of this Plan 27 include encouraging energy efficiency and reducing air pollution in the County. 2$ Commuting trends in the County show that more miles are being driven per 29 person over time. Increased use of energy efficient, low-emissions vehicles and 30 the shortening of commutes by locating residential, commercial, and 31 employment developments in closer proximity can help achieve these County 32 goals. 33 Regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations in the Research Triangle region 34 have concluded that providing well-planned and timely major regional transit 35 investments is a very important part of maintaining the Triangle region's 36 current levels of transportation mobility, high quality of life and economic 3'7 prosperity. While plans for federal funding are now on hold, regional partners 3$ are preparing a set of recommended major transit investments to serve the 39 Research Triangle region. As this strategic planning moves forward, the County 40 will need to ensure that new developments are appropriate and will reinforce 41 the use of potential future transit services. 42 Development of the new University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill campus -- 43 Carolina North -- will be a high priority for transportation planning in the 44 coming years. While the campus is located in Chapel Hill and near Interstate- 45 40, it is likely there will be workers commuting from and through other parts of 46 the County to get to this new employment center. This campus is an ideal 4'7 opportunity for using alternative modes of transportation to move workers to Ora~e~Catw~ty CampE~e~+~vve~PZa~w Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-18 3~ ........... Chapter 9: Transportation Element ~.~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 and from work, and to ensure that traffic volumes on existing roads do not exceed capacities. ^ The plan to develop a bypass to relieve traffic trt through H%Usborough'S hlSfOr%C downtown will continue to be an important planning issue for the County and the town. An Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared for the proposed Elizabeth Brady Road Extension. The County's involvement in this project will be critical for ensuring that the final outcome meets the needs and expectations of the County and Hillsborough. ^ The County's aging population is increasing, and with that comes a need to provide additional transportation services for seniors needing access to medical and social services, especially for those that are physically disabled. ^ Many bicycle routes throughout the County are deemed dangerous due to lack of adequate road shoulders, poor visibility, and other issues. Plans for improving these should be done in a comprehensive manner that coordinates the need for bike paths, trails, and other transportation and recreational improvements among the County's jurisdictions to achieve efficient solutions. l l Comment: Page 9-14 Lines 1-27 (.pdf document}. Although it says that charts and graph follow to back up the statements o[t thatpage, most statements are undocumented. S'onte footnotes are needed to supply documentation or a source for the reader to find the documentation. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 9.3. HISTORIC DATA CURRENT DATA EVALUATION OF TRENDS The following data provide background information on the historical and current transportation conditions in Orange County. Additional data on this topic can be found in Appendix A: County Profile (Data) Element. KEY FACTS The following snapshot of Orange County's transportation related statistics can help inform development of future transportation planning strategies. ^ There were 84,983 cars and trucks registered in Orange County in 2005, representing a 33% increase in vehicle- registrations since 1990; ^ On average, the length of travel is increasing in Orange County. In 2000, daily vehicle miles traveled was 28.9. In 2003, per capita daily vehicle miles traveled was 30.2; ^ Future projections estimate that the number of daily vehicle miles traveled for Orange County will increase by 8.3% from 2000 to 2015; ^ In Orange County, the point sources of air emissions. are relatively small compared to other emission sources (i.e., non-point sources, such as automobile exhaust emissions); ^ Sixty percent of the labor force lives and works in Orange County. The remaining 40% commute to other counties for employment.. Likewise, 40°~ of Orange County's labor force commutes in from other counties; Oi~a'~K''Co.Y CQm~re~+~,v~.~-+.v~Plavt~ Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-Z9 3a ° Chapter 9: Transportation .Element ~'q c 1 The average drive time to work for Orange County residents is twenty-two 2 minutes, representing a 19% increase since 1980; 3 The percentage of workers who bike or walk. to work is higher in Orange 4 County than the state, owing largely to the presence of the University of North 5 Carolina-Chapel Hill campus; 6 According to the North Carolina Department of Transportation, 75% of state- ~ maintained roads in Orange County are in the unincorporated areas; and g Based on a 2000 report, Orange County had 215 miles of unpaved roads 9 that were not maintained by the state. This is one of the highest counts in 10 the state. 11 12 More information on these key statistics is provided in the following charts and graphs. 13 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED 14 Automobile use in the County has been increasing since 1990. Figure 9-1 shows that 15 total FIGURE 9-Tz HIST©RIC AND PROJECTED VEHICLE MILES and TRAVELED 1N ORANGE'COUNTY (1990-20T5) per capita vehicle miles Measured Projected Increase 2000- 1990 2000 2003 2007 2015 2015 Rural' Interstate 745,550 1,417,590 1,414,490 1,673,667 2,155,278 52% Arterial 75,700 196,100 192,150 217,288 261,398 33% Collector 569,300 647,630 678,090 757,525 947,433 46% Local 111,300 148,980 167,670 175,512 238,130 60% Total. 1,501,850 2,410,300. 2,452,400 2,823,992 3,602,239 49°10 Urban and small u rban Interstate 21,070 114.,320 109,200 132,904 172,555 51% Freeway 53,660 57,420 61,600 63,559 79,569 39% Arterial 558,040 754,080 445,200 867,498 1,083,826 44% Collector 35,890 41,500 388,590 46,245 57,894 40% Local 57,620 34,080 107,980 37,138 148,104 335% Total 726,280 1,001,400 1,112,570 1,147,344 1,541;948 54% Grand Total 2,228130 - 3;411,7Q0 3,564,970 , 3,971,336 5,144,187 51% Per Capita DVMT 23.7 28.9 30.2 29.9 31.3 8.3% Notes and Sources: ' Road classifications are defined in the appendix. Note: Daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT) represents vehicle use on public roads in Orange County by both residents and non-Orange County residents. Source: NCDOT, as compiled by the Orange County Commission for the Environment, "State of the Environment, 2004" Source: Appendix A: County Profile (Data) Element 52 53 54 55 56 traveled have been consistently increasing in the County over the last decade. 201 5 projections predict that this trend will continue. See Figure 9-1 . c~Y~. cry c~,rei~ver f~~avv Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-2Q ~3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 ~••. Chapter 9: Transportation Element FIGURE 9-2: COMPARISON OF JOURNEYS TO WORK IN ORANGE' COUNTY AND THE STATE OF 'NORTH CAROLINA (1990-2000) ~4~ ~~~ ~~~ ~o=ro 40 0 10°l 0 x . aa~ ; ~ ~IVC t~ierall -199tF E~NC Overall - 20d4 ®i9range Cis. -'f~9 C~t{3range Go. - COa Grove Car- Transit Biks Motes= Worked Alaie pooled (Taxi !walk. cycle at hone Notes and Sources: t~h@r US Census Bureas~ as cacnpiled tay fhe t3range runty Gr>mmissian for the Environment, "Saesae of the Environment, 2004" Source: Appendix A:'County Profile (Data) Element JOURNEY TO WORK The percent of Orange County commuters that drive alone in their cars is less than the state average, and the percent of commuters using alternative forms of transportation is higher in Orange County than in the state. There was a slight increase in single- occupancy vehicles in the County between 1990 and 2000, and the number of persons car-pooling over this period also declined slightly. Transit and bicycle use has been stable in the County. More workers worked from home in 2000 than in 1990, a trend that is likely to continue. See Figure 9-2. Orat~,~cpiCauttity Co--vt~v~e~+uvt~-~e~Pla~ Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-21 3~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Chapter 9: Transportation Element a., FIGURE 9-3: COMPARISON OF AVERAGE COMMUTE TIMES IN THE TRIANGLE REG10N (2000) Source: Appendix A: County_Profile (Data) Element The average commute times in Orange County are on the low end compared with other counties in the Research Triangle region. In 2000, the average commute time for workers in Orange County was 22 minutes. Workers in Wake County commuted on average for 24.7 minutes per day, and workers in Chatham County commuted on average 27.3 minutes per day. Only workers in Alamance and Durham Counties had a shorter commute time than workers in Orange County. See Figure 9-3. p~c,;,vu~,Co~uv~t~ Cavr~--e~~.v~.~ive~Plarv Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-22 ~~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Chapter 9: Transportation ,Element k,~~ ~ 4t~cuu~iCo~u.t~tty CQrvtpre~~iwerP~xvv Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-23 ° Chapter 9: Transpora~ation Elemeni` k„ 1 2 fn 2000, approximately 40% of the County's workforce commuted to work in other counties. 3 Likewise, 40% of the County's workforce commuted in from other areas. Cross-county 4 commute data illustrate where residents of Orange County that worked outside of the County 5 traveled to each day, and where Orange County workers that lived outside the County 6 commuted from. In 2000, a large proportion of these residents were commuting to Durham 7 (16,470), while a smaller proportion was commuting from Durham to Orange County (9,262). 8 In 2000, the commutes between Orange County and Wake were fairly similar. 3,552 persons 9 commuted to Orange from Wake and 4,212 commuted from Orange to Wake. More commuters 10 came from Alamance to Orange (3,589) than from Orange to Alamance (2,038). See Figure 9-4. FIGURE 9-4: COUNTY TO COUNTY COM'MUTES'(2 i t ' ' ~I y~ _-~~. g -, 3;d ~Rn~h ~ '~_ ! h;s rtui i ~, ,~ r -w- ~ ~ ~.:. A .ate - y; i --~e~:: '7;3ra.7~ ^'. b"X11" .a L.KW;l~~. ~u,9 _~..ry YY Ate{ 1~ ~~yyw 1 • t - _ ~tii6U ;~fN _ r*~ Ir-t, Vn 3~c t ,. sr. S:~S ~t v 1 ..w a w~ ..,t~a-z..~ """'""'"1111 i ~r,~ ~~ <a? ~- i_ H~~ ,t.Y.. 5 '.. kF [' Fti!`~f' ....~fa.~. *z~ +r.uu?xr. _ ~w fepllp6Se ,. ;aaxs Y~ir.:n: -:awc ~w{.' ,,.,.,~,~.. ,f ! _! n ' .~;n ta7 ~ tR ;9 r H3 .ct 1?3 J00) Notes and Sources: The width of the line indicates the volume of commuters between counties. Values are provided within the yellow boxes. _ Source: Appendix A: County Profile (Data) Element 4Ya.~u~e.Couvity Carnpre~~,~i~ve-~T.aw Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-24 37 Chapter 9: Transportation Element t.-, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 REGISTERED. VEHICLES._AN,D_ACC_tDENTS The number of registered vehicles in Orange County has kept pace with population increases. In 1980, there were 45,046 vehicles registered in the County. By 2000 that number had increased by more than 33,000 to 78,177 registered vehicles. By 2005, there were 84,983. Registered vehicles increased by 88% between 1980 and 2005. Traffic accidents in the County increased by 69% over this same period, showing that there have been fewer traffic accidents per registered vehicle over time. See Figure 9-5. 11 FIGURE 9-5: REGISTERED VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC ACCfDENTS IN VEHICLE ORANGE COUNTY (1980-2005) AIR Year Auto/ Truck Regs2 Traffic Accidents3 1980 45,046 1,695 1990 63,711 2,018 2000 .78,177 2,715 2001 80,101 2,927 2002 81, 390 2, 874 2003 82,093 3,034 2004 83,886 2,799 2005 84,983 2,875 Notes and Sources: T NC Department of Transportation 2 Actual registrations for automobiles and trucks for the calendar year in which the vehicles were registered. 3 A reportable accident is one that involves a motor vehicle resulting in injury, death, or total property damage of $1,000 or more. Source: Appendix A: County Profile (Data) Element EMISSIONS Inventories of local air emissions show that mobile uses (i.e., automobiles, trucks, other vehicles) were the primary generator of non-point source carbon monoxide (CO) emissions in the County. In 2000, mobile sources (e.g., automobiles, trucks) generated almost 60~ of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, and almost 80% of nitrogen oxides. Non-road emissions (e.g., lawn mowers, outboard engines, and agricultural equipment) were also a significant source of pollutant emissions during this period. Together, these two sources are the primary generators of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide emissions in the County. Projections by the North Carolina Department of Air Quality suggest that total emissions will decrease over time, and that mobile and non-road vehicles will continue to be the primary sources. See Figure 9-6. Ol~a.vtc~. Ccrt.wtty Ccrn~l^e~+~e,~~i~%ve~ ~tan~ Public Hearing Draft 5-8-08 Page 9-2 S 3$ " Chapter 9: Transpvrtativn Element k., 1 3 7 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 84 85 86 87 FIGURE 9-1: ESIMATED AND PROJECTED EMISSIONS BY SOURCE (2000-2017) TonsdDay s~~~ aiei~e~~~ ^ tdon-rte ~ at~te •Ra~c Natas and Sources: von~»cnyru TemiS atxi abbreviatior~ det[net9 ~ the Appendix. NG Departmealt of Aft t]ua~lity, (NGt3AQ), aS ecimp8e+i by file C>r nge Ccwnty ccxnmission fat th2 EnW~oIttTleflt 'State at the pm,~.~,~,p~+ Anna" Source: Appendix A: County Profile (Data) Element The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designated Orange County and other counties in the Research Triangle region as ozone non-attainment areas. This designation means that ozone levels in the area exceeded federal standards over a three-year period, and that regulatory measures have to be taken to reduce these levels and improve air quality. Many car-owners in Orange County have addressed this need to decrease air emissions and reduce the use of non-renewable resources by purchasing alternative fuel vehicles. As of 2003, there were 141 registered hybrid vehicles in Orange County. See Figure 9-7. FIGURE 9-7: REGISTERED HYBRID VEHICLES IN ORANGE COUNTY (2003) Honda Civic 35 Honda Insi ht 14 To ota Prius 92 Total Re istered Hybrid Vehicles 141 Source: Orange County State of the Environment iZeporl; 2004. Ora.vt,~~~Cat,wi,ty L'o--npr~Yt~vt~%ve~~la.YV Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-26 ~r Chapter 9: Transportation Element a~~~ 2 9.4. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 3 Future population increases in Orange County will bring more houses, more jobs, and more 4 commercial opportunities to the County. The County's transportation system, including 5 roads, buses, bike trails, and pedestrian facilities, will need to keep pace with this new 6 development. The system will need to offer more alternative transportation options, use 7 energy resources wisely, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality over time. 8 9 10 ~re-re- 11 12 Along standing position of Orange County has been That new roads 13 and the significant widening of existing roads does little to improve 14 the transportation system. Orange County has traditionally directed 1 s its resources to improve alternatives to the single passenger 16 motorized vehicle as the primary means of transportation. The 17 focus has been on public transportation, improving traffic flow, 18 alleviating congestion at busy intersections, improving safety for 19 cyclists and those who choose to walk. 20 21 Several planning efforts are needed to guide future transportation planning efforts to reach 22 these goals. A summary of these key community transportation planning needs is provided 23 here. 24 25 ^ ' 25 ~,~ef ~e o~E+~-~,=r-~-~cT In June 2004, the U.S. 27 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated 28 Orange County as anon-attainment area for ozone per 29 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Efforts 30 have been undertaken to identify the sources of these pollutants, .including 31 both point sources and non-point sources. Automobile use and non-motorized 32 vehicles such as such as lawnmowers, outboard engines, and agricultural 33 equipment are the primary generators of several air pollutants found in Orange 34 County. To improve the air quality of Orange, these pollutant emissions need 35 to be reduced. The challenge for Orange County is to: 36 1. Reduce the projected increase in vehicle miles 37 traveled. 38 2. Increase mass transit rider ship 39 3. Reduce the use of fossil fuels 40 ^ The County ' needs a comprehensive transportation plan that 41 identifies long-term, coordinated goals for planning the County's 42 transportation System Of roads, bikeways, pedestrian facilities, and Ov~aiCo~uvtty C~r~e~^~:~vve~Plan. Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-27 ~b k~~ c Chapter 3: Transportation Element 1 rail\transit systems that will meet the needs of future populations. Unlike 2 regional transportation plans, a comprehensive transportation plan would 3 identify on maps long-term transportation improvement goals for the County, 4 irrespective of financial constraints. Comprehensive transportation planning 5 should be coordinated with land use planning to ensure that development and 6 transportation systems are planned for in tandem. It should look beyond the 7 County's jurisdiction and include projects being undertaken by the towns that 8 could be integrated into a -wide system, such as bike trails and greenways. The 9 plan could provide direction when updating Regional Transportation 10 Improvement Programs and Long-Range Plans, and streamline transportation I1 planning efforts in the County. The OUTBoard has begun work on this plan, 12 and a draft plan framework can be found in Appendix,/: Draft Framework for 13 Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The 14 comprehensive transportation plan should address 1 s deficiencies in the existing transportation system to 16 provide needed improvements to: 1 ~ 1. Increase safety for cyclists and pedestrians. 1 s 2. Link bicycle lanes. 19 3. Link foot trails. 20 Area specific plans, such as the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan and the Orange 21 Grove Road Access Management Plan, identify specific transportation 22 improvements such as improving access management, increasing walkability, 23 reducing congestion in high volume traffic areas, roadway realignments, 24 provision of a park and ride lot, and other enhancements. A process for 2s integrating implementation strategies from areas specific 26 plans into the County's comprehensive transportation 27 planning process should be developed. 28 - - 29 30 31 The Bicycle 3 Transportation 33 Plan will be updated as part 35 of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Counties have few resources to construct bicycle facilities. Orange County needs strategies to fund implementation of the 1999 Bicycle Transportation Plan. The County should identify funding sources to make improvements to designated bicycle routes and to increase safety for bicyclists throughout the County. OYa~u~Ccruvtty Carnpc~e~!~.t~ive~ t~lcwv Public Hearing Draff 5-6-08 Page 9-28 '~fJ Chapter 9: Transpvrtation Element k'~~ c 1 9.5 GOALS 2 The following transportation goals will guide future policy and implementation strategies for 3 the County. 4 Transportation Overarching Goal: An efficient and balanced ystem that s e~ uS@S multiple motorized and non-motorized ..modes of 6 transportation. 7 Transportation Plan Overarching Qualities: There are 8 qualities and characteristics that can be a guide in planning, 9 designing, and implementing Orange County's transportation 1o system. The following are listed here for emphasis and to avoid 11 repetition in the rest of the document. 12 A. Protects air, water, and soil quality 13 6. Promotes public health and safety 14 C. Encourages economic development- 1 s D.` Provides equal access. to all users 16 E. Highly modally and inter: modally integrated and 17 connected 1 s F. Sustainable and Efficient use of all kinds of resources 19 (i.e. financial and natural) 20 G. Enhances the natural and cultural heritage 21 H. Crea#ive and well-designed infrastructure.,. 22 1. Attractive, friendly,... and easy to understand..{ie. signage, 23 brochures, .web pages. 24 J. Respec s privacy.-and citizen rights 2s Transportation Goal 1: 26 27 2s Integrated land use planning and transportation planning. 29 30 Transportation Goal 2: 31 , 33 34 A comprehensive network of connected transportation 3s corridors (roads, sidewalks, rail, etc.) supporting an 36 mix of traffic. 37 ©YaCouv~ty Cosvcpr~e~~%ve~PlaM. Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-29 ~a o.......... " Chapter 9: Transportation Element k„ 1 Transportation Goal 3: 2 , 3 , 4 . s Efficient and safe traffic movement along Orange County's 6 routes and corridors 7 8 Transportation Goal 4: 9 a comprehensive, creative, 10 and effective transportation planning process. 11 12 9.5. OBJECTIVES 13 The intent of this Plan is that this list of objectives will help guide regular and ongoing 14 decision-making by the County related to transportation initiatives. Each objective has a 15 recommended timeline for completion. (Definitions of timelines provided inSection 1.4: 16 Administration and Implementation Guidelines.) 17 18 Transportation Goal 1. 19 20 Integrated land use planning and transportation planning. 21 Objective T-1.1: (On.ga_ingZ 22 23 • , 24 , 25 26 , 27 ~i-•_../.._ w r o ~ 28 Channel development into #i high density mixed-use 29 development a~-along transit corridors. 30 31 Objective T-1.2: (Onaoin 32 33 , 34 , 3s Develop regulations to guide connectivity within and 36 between #8~ residential development based on 37 neighborhood size 38 39 c7Yav~iCau.v-.ty Com~Yehem~w~Plcxw Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-3C3 ° Chapter 3: Transportation Element .,, 1 Objective T-1.3: (Ongoingl 2 I 3 Identify and map all major destinations in the county, such 4 as schools, parks, businesses, shopping areas, sports s facilities, etc., and determine what improvements need to 6 be made in the transportation amenities such as bike 7 facilities, sidewalks, and transit .stops. Work to get these 8 improvements made in county owned facilities. 9 10 Objective T-1.4: (Mediunn_Term,Z 11 12 13 , 14 f'R~3 15 16 Objective T-1.5: (Medium Term) 17 18 19 20 21 22 , 23 ' 24 25 26 Obiective T-1.7: (Lone Tern) 27 28 29 30 Transportation Goal 2: 31 . 32 A comprehensive network of connected transportation 33 corridors (roads, sidewalks, rail,. etc. supporting an ' 34 mix of raffic. 35 36 Objective T-2.1: (On.gaingZ 37 , 38 39 Identify and map major routes between important 4o destinations. 41 y3 Ora~iCa~uv~,ty Campv~eh~-we~Ptaw Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-3Z .'y"1 o,,. . Chapter 9: Transportation Element ~~., 1 Obiective T-2.2: (Ongoing) 2 3 4 ems: s Identify deficiencies in the connectors. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Improve connectors through existing processes such as 13 TIP process, and Enhancement and Spot Safety programs. 14 15 Objective T-2.4: f9na$itr~ 16 ' 17 18 Develop, in coordination with the Environment and 19 Resource Conservation Department and the Recreation 20 and Parks Department, a Rural Ways program that 21 provides pedestrian access connecting rural areas of 22 Orange County with desirable destinations. 23 24 Objective T-2.5: (Short Term) 25 26 Identify viable routes and funding strategies to increase 27 public transit to areas outside of municipal transit service 28 areas. 29 3o Objective T-2.6: 31 Revive rail transportation in Orange County. 32 33 Transportation Goal 3: 34 35 ' 36 Efficient and safe traffic movement along., Orange County's 37 routes and corridors. 38 Objective T-3.1: (Ongoing) 39 Improve the County's transportation system by first enhancing existing facilities 40 as opposed to developing new facilities. 41 Objective T-3.2: (Short Term1 42 43 c~~a.vu~~iCo~uvity Co-rnpr~Yt~.v~.k%vcr f'~~ Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-32 " Chapter 9: Transportation Element {., 1 2 , 3 , 4 5 6 Increase use of rail, bus, bicycle and walking as 7 transportation modes. 9 Objective T-3.3: (Short Term) 10 , 11 12 13 Reduce rush hour congestion. 14 Objective T-3.4: (Long Term) 15 16 , 17 mT 1 s Increase local production, distribution and use of 19 renewable, sustainable fuels. 20 21 Objective T-3.5: 22 Evaluate and serve special transportation needs of the 23 elderly, the young ~+oon~norc~' the economically 24 disadvantaged and the disabled. 25 26 Objective T-3.6: 27 Increase private transit and public/private transit 2s opportunities. 29 3o Objective T-3.7: 31 Improve county wide access for emergency vehicles. 32 33 Objective T-3.8: 34 Increase safety awareness between car drivers and bicycle 3 5 riders. Lf S ~ra~CaLUn~y Cane°~.v~~iv~~tc~w Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-33 ~~ Chapter 3: Transportation dement 4„ 1 2 Transportation Goal 4: A , 3 comprehensive, creative, and effective transportation planning 4 process. 5 6 7 Objective T-4.1: (Ongoing) 8 9 10 11~; '„z;eT 12 Create and implement an Orange County Comprehensive 13 Transportation Plan. 14 15 Obiective T-4.2: (Onaoina) 16 17 18 Plan and integrate the County's transportation system with 19 other public and private transportation planning agencies 20 and service providers in Orange County. 21 Objective T-4.3 (Lang Term) 22 23 24 Plan and integrate the County's transportation system with 2s regional transportation agencies and transit providers, 26 agencies/transit providers in neighboring counties, the 27 North Carolina Department of Transportation and other 28 state agencies, Amtrak and NC Railroad. 29 c7Ya:~iCauv~.ty Co~vripre~+~;~-vv~i~lctw Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-34 " Chapter 9: Transportation Element 4.`~I c 2 9.6. LINKS TO OTHER ELEMENTS 3 Transportation planning and land use planning are interlinked processes. Like land use 4 planning, natural resource protection, economic development, housing, and other planning 5 efforts reinforce and inform transportation planning efforts. Below is a listing of objectives 6 from other Elements that are linked to transportation planning objectives. 7 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 8 Objective ED-2.3 (Ongoing): 9 Promote public transportation, alternative modes of transportation, and encourage 10 carpooling and park-and-ride participation. 11 LAND USE 12 Objective LU-3.2: (Ongoing) 13 Coordinate land use patterns to facilitate the expanded use of non-auto modes of 14 travel, the increased occupancy of automobiles, and the development and use of 15 an energy-efficient transportation systems. 16 Objective LU-3.10: (Medium Term) 17 Identify prime viewsheds along major transportation corridors and other areas, 18 and amend County land use ordinances to ensure long-term protection of 19 viewsheds. 20 NATURAL AND CULTURAL SYSTEMS 21 Obiective AE-7 (Ongoina): 22 Expand and enhance Orange County's public transportation system. 23 Objective AE-8 (Ongoing): 24 Improve transportation efficiency: promote more public transportation, ride 25 sharing, and alternative transportation such as bicycles and walking. 26 Objective NA-16 (Long Term): 27 Create a system of public and private open space and conservation areas, 28 including parks, nature preserves, and scenic vistas representative of the Orange 29 County landscape. 30 PARKS AND RECREATION 31 Objective PR-5.4: (Short Term) 32 Encourage development of a system of private open space and conservation areas, 33 including nature preserves, parks, linear parks, and scenic vistas compatible with 34 the character of Orange County. 35 SERVICES AND FACILITIES 36 Objective PS-T-2: (Ongoing) 37 Ensure that all state roads in the County receive non-duplicated -names to be 38 posted on signs at intersections and that all houses are numbered in order to 39 improve the responsible time of law enforcement and emergency vehicles. 40 Objective PS-T-S: (Short Terms ~~ or~~co~.ty c~-eh~~iveii''7.a.w Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 9-35 1 Z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Il 12 13 I4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Chapl~er 9. Transpvrta+fian .dement .,., Include in applied site design standards for residential, commercial, and industrial development, appropriate road design standards to ensure adequate law enforcement and emergency vehicle access to the development. 9.7. OTHER KEY DOCUtVIENTS Key documents used to develop this element are included below. (See Section 1.2.5: Where to Look for Related Information if you would like to obtain one of these documents.) ^ 1999 Orange County Bicycle Transportation Plan ^ 2000 Draft Update of the Orange County Transportation Element ^ 2000 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Options Report ^ 2001 Recommendations of the ,Joint Economic Development District Work Group ^ 2006 Efland/Mebane Small Area Plan ^ 2003 Orange Grove Road Access Management Plan ^ Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Program (2007-2013) ^ Draft o f the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Program (2009-2015) ^ Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Program (2007-2013) ^ Draft of the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Program (2009-2015) ^ 2007 Master Aging Plan: Building Aging-Friendly Communities in Orange ^ 2030 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Long Range Transportation Plan (Apri12005) and amendments (May 2007) 9.8. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION Because transportation in Orange County is largely planned at the regional level, intergovernmental coordination is already institutionalized in the planning process. Land planning and development is also coordinated in certain joint planning areas, but not in others. Efforts to increase multi-modal opportunities and improve the efficiency and sustainability of the County's transportation system will need to include representatives of the County, towns, the University of North Carolina-Chape! Hill,. and other key partners. The County needs to work with these entities to share information, leverage financial resources, and set county-wide transportation strategies. ~{ $ . ~--a~c~,-7zy c~~.~~t~, Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page y-36 I Tom Altieri From: Rich Shaw Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 1:36 PM To: Tom Altieri Cc: Christina Moon; David Stancil Subject: Staff revisions (Links between Objectives) e~ f'~] Comp Plan (May 6) ~omp Plan changes edits (Rich ... table - RS A... Tom, I've combed through the Comp Plan (May 5 draft) to make sure that all of the links *to* Natural and Cultural System Element objectives correspond to links *from* the same NCS Element objectives. Most were fine, but I found several inconsistencies, which I've listed on the attached sheets. Attached is a Word document listing the recommended corrections. Also an Excel table with the same list using the format provided by Planning. Let me know if you have any questions. Rich Shaw Land Conservation Manager Orange County .Environment & Resource Conservation Dept. (ERCD) Hillsborough, NC (919) 245-2591 1 ~~ ERCD Staff proposed revisions to May 6 Draft Comp. Plan Rich Shaw, August 5, 2008 The following changes are recommended to correct links between elements: 1. Objective LU-4.3 (Page 5-40) links to Objective NA-9, but instead should link to Objective NA-10 (Page 6-67) [Correct on Page 5-43] 2. Objective LU-4.5 (Page 5-40) links to "Community" Resources Objective CR-3. This link should be re-labeled as Cultural Resources Objective CR-3 3. Objective AE-4 (Page 6-33) should link to Objective T-1.5 (Page 9-22) and vice versa. 4. Objectives CR-3 & CR-4 (Page 6-53) should link to Objective ED 4.1 (Page 3-20) 5. Objective CR-3 (Page 6-53) should link to Objective H-3.6 (Page 4-15) 6. Objective NA-16 (Page 6-68) should link to Objective LU-3.10 (Page 5-39) 7. Correct the Objective NA-17 link to Natural Areas "r°~ °°°^~'r^°~ Objective NA-5 8. Correct the Objective WR-1 link to Natural Areas °°°°°~Objective NA-1 9. Add the following Links to 6.5 (Pages 6-88 to 6-91 ): Objective H-3.6, Objective LU-3.10, Objective PR-1.1, Objective T-1.5 and Objective WW-1 10.Objective PR-4.1 (Page 7-12) links to Objective NA-9, but instead should link to Objective NA-10 (Page 6-67) [Correct on Page 7-14] 11.Objective WW-1 (Page 8-11) should link to Objective WR-2 (Page 6-86) 12. The Links to Objectives NA-4 and NA-16 on Page 8-12 are not consistent with the Links provided on Page 8-43, which lists Objectives NA-5 and NA-7 13. Objective T-1.5 (Page 9-22) should link to Objective AE-4 (Page 6-33) and vice versa. 14. Add the following Link to 9.7 (Page 9-24): Objective AE-4 ~' ORANGE 0O0NTY ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners Planning Board FROM: Environment & Resource Conservation Advisory Boards and staff DATE: August 12, 2008 RE: Revisions to Natural and Cultural Systems Element of Comprehensive Plan This memorandum is designed to accompany the attached table of revisions for the Natural and Cultural Systems Element of the Comprehensive Plan, as discussed by the three lead advisory boards for the Element (the Agricultural Preservation Board, Commission for the Environment and the Historic Preservation Commission). The boards met jointly with Roger Waldon of Clarion in March of 2008 to discuss an initial draft of the element. Based on this discussion, staff and the advisory boards made several revisions to the Element. These revisions focused on three main areas: 1) providing a more substantial and inclusive history of the county in the Summary, 2) reorganizing the Cultural Resources chapter to place information on the National Register in the beginning of the section on programs, and 3) other minor edits, corrections and additions. The draft Natural and Cultural Systems Element (NCSE) submitted to Clarion for the May 19tH hearing reflected these changes, and for the most part the advisory boards have been satisfied with the Element as reworked for the hearing. As often occurs, however, some of the revisions appear to have been °lost in translation" during the exchange with the consultant, probably due to confusion around the ~~track changes" tool used to document changes. All three advisory boards considered the May 19tH draft NCSE at their May and June meetings. The Commission for the Environment suggested minor changes and corrections as shown in the following chart. The Agricultural Preservation Board and Historic Preservation Commission reiterated their approval (by consensus) of the draft that they submitted in April, with a few exceptions. Each board requested a modification to one of its objectives-one in the Agricultural Chapter (as suggested at the Board of Commissioners worksession in June), and one in the Cultural Resources Chapter. These are also shown in the attached table. Finally, when comparing the April draft of the NCSE with the version presented for the May public hearing, ERCD staff noticed a few discrepancies. A couple of maps were missing in the Summary section and the Cultural Resources Chapter reorganization left some missing sections and/or duplications. There were also a few areas where text was rewritten or phrases added. In most cases these changes added to the overall work, but in a few instances the revisions Recommended revisions to the May 19 2008 Natural & Cultura/Systems E/ement Page 1 of Z sa. altered specific wording with which an advisory board had previously grappled. The Agricultural Preservation Board and Historic Preservation Commission ask that the original versions be restored. Please find the attached table showing recommended revisions to the May 19th draft of the Natural and Cultural Systems Element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Please also find other supplemental materials to clarify those changes that may be difficult to understand from the table alone. The Cultural Resources Chapter has the most substantial changes, due to the reorganization suggested at the March joint advisory board meeting. Staff will send the entire Cultural Resources Chapter, with corrections shown with the tracking tool, to Clarion to facilitate the reworking of that portion of the Natural and Cultural Systems Element. Thank you for considering these changes. Please contact ERCD staff if you have questions or need additional information. Attachments: 1) Table outlining revisions to the May 19th draft of the Natural and Cultural Systems Element (NCSE) and appendices 2) Attachments 1-8 Recommended revisions to the May 19 2008 Natural & Cultural Systems E/ement Page 2 ofZ ~ ~~ ~ ~° E ~ ~ ~ ~ U _ ~ .O ~ ~ ~ d ~ O ERCD Advisory Board and Staff Revisions` m m (Longer comments will be included in numbered attachments) w Z 0 ' m n. > ~ a # ~ ~ U C ~ Q o d A ~ C '~ m C• ~, ~ f4 0 .•, d J Chapter 6: Natural & Cultural 5 stems Element Section 6.2 SUMMARY (pages 6-1 to 6-7) 1 6-2 14 Elevations in Oran a Coun ran a from a hi h of 867885 feet at the summit ... The majority of these quality soils extend across the County in a diagonal pattern southwest to northeast as shown in the dark green areas on the General Soils Map (6-2). 2a 6-4 APB 3/26/2008 2b) 6-5 4-102 Replace Map 6-2: Orange County Geology with Orange County Soil Survey. See Attachment #1. APB 3/26/2008 3 6-6 11 Thou h no written record .. . 4 6-6 30 Move arenthesis to read "An titan from Eastern North Carolina and Vir inia and En lish Quakers. Replace omitted phrase, "Orange County escaped the physical destruction of the Civil War but, like so 5 6-7 2 much of the south ex erience substantial financial loss as well as social u heaval." " 6 6-7 4 Re lace or final text -f=a~s-se#ered A ricultural Production suffered from the absence ... ' Replace deleted text: "Many emancipated blacks left rural Orange for opportunities elsewhere but others 6-7 7 sta ed ac uired ro ert and ros ered." HPC 4/1/2008 Map 6.3 omitted. Please insert Cultural Resources Map. See Attachment #2. (Map also included in 7 6-7 27 Profile Element as Ma D-15. HPC 4/1/2008 Section 6.4.1 AGRICULTURE (pages 6-9 to 6-24) Exchange first two sentences to read as follows: "All county residents enioy some gain from local farms. Farmland is an irreplaceable physical, cultural and economic asset. ' 8 6-9 3-4 #a that "# of farms" reads with numbers along right axis. This h rt h d APB 4/16/2008 so a e c Replace Figure 6-1 with attac chart is also included in the Profile Element (64j), please double check that number of farms label is 9) 6-11 visible in both as shown in Attachment #3. Replace first sentence with original text.. . 10 6-11 9-11 A riculture remains a si nificant tom onent of Oran a Coun 's econom APB 4/16/2008 Footnote 19: please double check reference Map 6-4. VAD Map on page 6-15 should be tabled 6-4 as long as Cultural Resources Map is returned to Summary section of NOSE as Map 6-3. Please see note 11) 6-16 7) above. (~ nm. ~ nm. ~ ERCD Advisory Board and Staff Revisions` ~,j `n (,j ~ xk # ~ (Longer comments will be included in numbered attachments) •~, ~ m ~ ~ g •~, O m ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~m ~ O a tim ~ O"'wa a In 2005 the General Assembly amended the-program-Farmland Enabling Act to include an economic 12 6-18 31 devleo ment com onent. The Planning Department, Economic Development Commission, Cooperative Extension Service, Soil and Water Conservation District and the Environment and Resource Conservation Department i~siag- staffs have been working together to examine County 13 6-19 9-13 re ulations re ardin farm related uses that are outdated or unnecessaril onerous.. The County should pursue afarmer-to-farmer transfer program that would exempt the sellef buyer from 14) 6-20 17 the rollback if the property stays in farm use. See Attachment #4 APB 1/16/2008 Need #4 and the associated bullet should be to be linked to Need #3. Renumber remaining bullets 15) 6-22 7-12 accordingly. Revise Agricultural Needs Bullets as shown in Attachment #4. '' 1~is-desifahle The County needs to teach the next generation about farming and encourage some to 16) 6-22 23 pursue farming as an occupation.See Attachment #4 APB 6/18/2008 Objective AG-1 Replace .with, "Recognize and support 17 6-23 21 the ri ht to farm." APB 6/18/2008 Section 6.4.2 AIR & ENERGY (pages 6-25 to 6-34) Insert new sentence following "...the federal standard for ozone." In late 2007 however. the EPA a~ roved a request from the State to redesignate the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area to "attainment" based on a determination that the area had attained the federal ozone standard. Orange County (and the Triangle Area) is now classified as a "maintenance area" and will follow a state plan for maintaining 18 6-26 44 the ozone standard throu h 2017. CFE 8/11/2008 Objective AE-11 (Medium Term): Improve the energy efficiency of buildings through several action steps: 1) upgrade existing buildings, including County and school buildings; 2) educate planning and building inspection officials about the technologies and techniques of energy efficient construction; and 19 6-33 31-37 3 encoura a the use of "LEED Gold" ore uivalent as a standard in new construction. CFE 7/9/2008 Section 6.4.3 CULTURAL & HISTORIC RESOURCES (pages 6-35 to 6-54) 20 6-36 24 Word omitted in subtitle. NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES . HPC 6/23/2008 The National Register Criteria are known by their letters A-D. Change bullets to letters. "The criteria describe how properties are significant for their association with : Al important event• B) persons; C) for 21 6=36 36-39 their im ortance in desi nor construction or D for their otential to rovide information." HPC 4/9/2008 22 6-36 45 Add footnote at the end of ara ra h linkin com lete list of NR criteria to a endix missin HPC 4/9/2008 Footnote 30 "A high-style 1850s house constructed with atwo-story porch may loese significance if it is 23 6-37 u dated ... " This reference for map 6-3 should link to the Cultural Resources Map that was omitted from the Summary Section during the tracking process. The Cultural Resources Map is also included in the 24 6-38 5 Profile Element as Ma D-15. 25) 6-41 86 Delete source reference. ~ a a ERCD Advisory Board and Staff Revisions' ~j v' U ~ *x E ~ Q7 ~ (Longer comments will be included in numbered attachments) .~-~-, p a ~ ' 'Q, O g ' ~ C CD J 7 C m ~ Paragraph starting with, "Cultural resources may be listed in the National Register ... "relocated to 26) 6-42 15-28 another section of Chapter. Delete from this section in its entirety. See Attachment #5. HPC 4/9/2008 Local Landmark and local district property owners (for contributing and non-contributing buildings) 27) 6-42 32 wishing to make changes ...See Attachment #5 HPC 4/9/2008 Space missing between the words Commission and reviews: "the Historic Preservation 28) 6-42 35 Commission_reviews ..."See Attachment #5 " Space missing between the words Commission and remains: "The Historic Preservation 29 6-43 16 Commission remains ..." Add emphasis: The Local Landmark Program and the National Register of Historic Places are two 30) 6-43 19 entirely distinct and separate programs. See Attachment #5. '` Add: Footnote 41: reference at end of note linking ten Secretary of the Interior's Standards for 31) 6-43 Rehabilitation in appendix _ missing. See Attachment #5. HPC 4/9/2008 Please insert line between paragraphs. Last sentence of first paragraph reads, "Today almost 1,600 farms are listed in the program including fifteen from Orange County." Start new paragraph with 32) 6-44 14 "Agriculture and preservation work hand-in-hand ... " See Attachment #6 Portion of sentence omitted. Surveys are conducted by archaeological consultants, who meet federal 33) 6-44 50 standards and typically include: See Attachment #6 HPC 6/25/2008 Include the 3 paragraphs about scenic resources that were previously hidden under Map 6-6. Attachment #6 shows the map and paragraphs in their entirety. (Note that page numbers will shift in 34 6-45/46 final document due to inclusion of this new text. MAP 6-6: ORANGE COUNTY SCENIC ROADS MAP. Adjust map box so that entire legend is visible. 35) 6-45/47 See Attachment #6. 36 6-48 11 The ur ose of the QRT 37 6-48 29 Preservation hiloso hies are continual) evolvin " 38 6-48 46 Clarion added? 39 6-48 Footnote 48: The Town of Hillsborou h recent) ado ted such an ordinance. Delete second half of paragraph beginning with, "Window replacements for example ..." Same 40 6-50 10-16 information included as Footnote 49. Footnote 50, "Historic property owners should take advantage advance-of the information and support . . 41 6-50 HPC 4/9/2008 Likewise there are no restrictions associated with listing a property Bain the National Register unless the 42 6-51 4 owners wish to ursue rehabilitation tax credits. " Objective CR-9 "Explore ways to inform the public about archaeology, how archaeologists to conduct 43 6-53 32 investi ations and what the to do with the findin s. HPC 6/25/2008 Section 6.4.4 NATURAL AREAS, WILDLIFE HABITAT, AND PRIME FORESTS (pages 55 to 68) Add new sentence following, "...county land conservation program in North Carolina." The Lands Leaacy program was the first focus of the new Environment and Resource Conservation Department, a department established in 1998 to make environmental protection a separate function of Orange County 44 6-59 40 overnment. 'Throu h Lands Le ac ..." CFE 8/11/2008 45) 6-62 38-39 Delete last sentence, Replace Map 6-8: Protected Lands in Orange County (2004) with updated map (2008}. See Attachment m ~ o .. ~ ERCD Advisory. Board and Staff. Revisions* U ~ U N # ~ ~* ` ' (Longercomments will be included in numbered attachments} c U m .~ ' E c.> m .~ ' E ~ a~ ~ o~ 0 ~ •cm~ rn 0 ~ 'cm~ +, ro a ~ ~ O~ wa ~ O: wn. Add reference to updated Map 6-8. "Many important natural resource lands remain completely unprotected." Map 6-8 illustrated the locations of protected lands in Orancte County. See Attachment 48 6-66 29-30 Goals in arentheses are misnumbered. Chan e " " to Goals 7 and 8 CFE 8/11/2008 49) 6-66 33 Goal is misnumbered. Natural & Cultural Systems Goal 6 7: A balanced and healthy... CFE 8/11/2008 50) 6-67 25 Goal is misnumbered. Natural & Cultural Systems Goal ~ 8: Networks of protected ... CFE 8/11/2008 Section 6.4.5 WATER RESOURCES (pages 69 to 91) 51 6-69 15 Delete welNevels CFE 7/9/2008 52) 6-70 9-24 Rewrite paragraphs per Attachment #8. CFE 7/9/2008 53 6-73 19 Chan a "su lies' to "resources" CFE 7/9/2008 Reference to Hydrogeologic Map in text. Map has been omitted from Chapter and relocated to appendix. 54 6-74 9 Chan a reference to 'ive. CFE 7/9/2008 55 6-78 2-Jan Lower case for "nitro en" and " hos horus" CFE 7/9/2008 56 6-77 29-33 Text chan ed b Clarion? Not recd nized - confusin CFE 7/9/2008 Graphic is mislabeled. Should be "Figure 6-9: Recharge Rates By Watershed / Subbasin in Orange 57 6-81 Coun CFE 7/9!2008 Objective WR-13 "Use the new Water Supply Study (WR-11) and the State's Neuse River Basin model . 58) 6-87 34 Denotes typos or tracking tool errors. U~ ~~ ERCD Advisory Boards and Staff Revisions to NCSE -Attachment #1 Delete this Map ~ ~`~ t. ' r ~~r Rw~r-~`+Y P' ~ ~ - - ~ ~ „ i oziad ~~i~ r ¢; - i . x ~> w .i<•i.r, r< r_~.nn ,vxJ tA~i4a.Aq}ilhp „ ( _ _ r e 1 -~ -... _ ~~ `~ r,~,in t ~. ~t.x.~kr.:~ xis r~rx+es r~- an ~ .., zx y -:c. ,i .`•~-„p De€~: -t=v .4 acs ed.2FG+~ r,o,i,, -,.:q.r~orad Gahtsw u~d £kKM J..dr. ~ .. (n~eus&tv, tYw~ir r r ' ns to NCSE -Attachment #1 ~~ ERCD Advisory Boards and Staff Revisio Add this Map t [~ ~ ~ r ~~ MAP 6.2: ORANGE COUNTY GENERAL SOILS MAP ~a a ..-. _ ,_.. ._..., 4 Y2 '~ .5d s E h t C~ ~ ERCD Advisory Boards and Staff Revisions to NCSE -Attachment #2 Add Map Cultural Resources ~, (unincorporated portions of Orange County) }` :t, ~, " ; '•.,~ ~~Y~;. / ~ / CabNal Heritage Byway. ~~~,c~ r ~_,,/~~ _~ i ~;i .. : i v K ~i ` ~ ~i... ~ R , \ ~~~, Ray-'Kenbn Narbnal Rep/sr r * 5>"`' '~ 3fudy LAt Htaforle ONt kt ~ t' ~`": W ~ / r ` CedarG urah.Crossr s „~ ~ • . , .~ r ; ~~ ~ r ~ S ... /„' '\ J ~ ~~ ~ i I ~. ~`„'`Fq~ ~' ~ ~ x S< Mery'a Road Natbrir(1 Raglahr ! SS d LI I l . j trtri t H a ~c D filet Y r) *. 4 ~ \• • , ~ ~ / v '~f S .' 1 \ 1 i ,. , s ' S ... ..._. 1 4~ ( / ~..~ . .,,, 1 / ~.% ~ 1 a , ~HIl.l56GR0U6H ,f* ,..-,._ 4: ME#3ANE .. ;~ ; ,,., ~ , ~: S ~ . %: , ., ,fi ~ ~ % ~~ ~ '~ \ "s5 / % " / ~ ~ * "`-'>c , ,., , ~ / A,... ,........~.. ,~5_DUi~ AM ~- _~- ~~ •\ SrwtrWdsh Heritage ~, "~.Y- ,.,, „~ , .. . ~ } 4 ~'i ~ h .~ _._ ~ S?` V ~ ., / 4.P W''~ . T .. t *~; ~ r" ~ u ~_. ...ttc. ~m -__, ~- ~~ ,r,, ~, `~" ~ ~~ ; \ ' r .:. / . sT. ~X'3 Ha}r~a Ns(bnd Ra9lstar Shtly Lfat ~. ~"~~~ 'iQa[ork O/rtrlet "` ~ CHAPEL HILL . ,,_~ 1 " '~ ' ~ :~ `,". CARRBGRO i x t F t;' ~~' ,.i ~,yi footbaN Road ~ Legend orara ny nY North Carolina Scenic Byways Loeel LaMmark & National Register EnMrawaM b Resource cae.MSOnoeo.nmeni _ MunidpalETJs * NatlonalRegister ~aties ~ National Register Historic District ........-. Main roads d Nafiorwl Register Study List na.~Tn. mae me<na include.rdaaelvsl reseumesmme m~mmdp.rn.a orreweorouM. cr.,~ei w, careao «rne.,., - Lalo:s C=:_.l National Register Study List Historic District o<n m.ir.aw tarmvir },riramonr. FIGURE 63: CULTURAL RESOURCES C.O`-' ERCD Advisory Boards and Staff Revisions to NCSE -Attachment # 3 Chart missing title: Acres along the left column and Number of Farms along the right column. FIGURE 6-1: ORANGE COUNTY AGRICULTURE, 1959-2002 160, 000 _ _ _ _-- ~ 1, 600 l 140, 000 ~ ~ 1, 400 120, 000 ~ 1 200 100; 000 ~ 1, 000 H 80, 000 :i 800 V? O 60, 000 ~ 600 40,000 ~ l 400 I ..20,000 -~ ~- 200 ~ ~ - ---- - 0 -~ -_ ; - - - 1959 1964 1969.1974 1.978 1982 1987 1992 1957 2002 - 0 . Land In Farms 145,9 131,5 110,7. 87,81 87,34 90,57 81,10 67,49. 72,67 71,01 -~-# of Fa rm s 1,418' 9 ,115 895 631 564 599 522 433. 577 ' ` 627 .Source: 1959-2002 Census of Agriculture, US Department of Agriculture ~i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ERCD Advisory Boards and Staff Revisions to NCSE -Attachment # 4 6. 4.1.2 ORANGE COUNTY'S AGRICULTURAL NEEDS The introductory section of this chapter identified three components vital to the long-term survival of agriculture in Orange County: 1) keeping productive soils in operation; 2) making farming more profitable; and 3) producing new farmers. The preceding section provided a sample of some of the more popular programs and initiatives already available, or in progress. Since farmers typically prefer voluntary and incentive-based options to regulatory mandates, the role for Orange County government in the future of local agriculture is still being determined. Future efforts to support agriculture and forestry should consider the following needs. 1. Productive soils need to be conserved and protected from development. Agricultural priority areas should be identified, and areas of contiguous prime and active agricultural and forestlands should be protected as "communities." The conservation of "critical mass" bolsters the likelihood of success for farm- oriented communities and enhances the opportunities for inter-farm collaborative marketing. ^ The County needs to continue, and improve existing programs to preserve farmland .through voluntary means such as conservation easements and voluntary agricultural districts. ^ The County should explore ways to make farmland available and affordable for new farmers (young and new to farming.) 2. Additional tax benefits at the County and State level may be needed to help keep farming viable. Some of these benefits may require pursuing special legislation, or statewide legislation. ^ The County should pursue a farmer-to-farmer transfer program that would exempt the -'ter- buver from the rollback if the property stays in farm use. ^ The County should explore property tax deductions on farm buildings and machinery. ^ The County should pursue property tax deductions on land in donated easements and on land enrolled in voluntary agricultural districts. ^ Farmers should also be encouraged to seek out special programs that provide innovative financial and technical assistance for farm buildings such as the Orange County Local Landmark Program' or the National Trust's Barn Again! Program. The County may also wish to follow New York's example and pursue a state rehabilitation tax benefit for barns. ' This program provides a potential property tax deferral for historic structures, including houses and farm structures. ©ra~.~Cott~y Ca-vxpreher-%iyei~~aw Public Hearing Qraft 5-6-08 Page 6-20 c~a ERCD Advisory Boards and Staff Revisions to NCSE -Attachment # 4 1 3. Mechanisms and local government program offerings that address 2 profitability and augment agricultural infrastructure should be 3 pursued adopted, and promoted. 4 Orange County Government should continue to examine and 5 modify regulations that may be unnecessarily onerous. The 6 County may wish to review state regulations as part of this 7 effort and consider requesting special legislation, as 8 appropriate. 9 Orange County should continue to identify suitable locations 10 for agricultural facilities--processing centers, community 11 kitchens, demonstration tracts, community gardens and the 12 like. 13 The county needs a better link between producers and 14 consumers, particularly for potentially large-scale buyers such 15 as restaurants, institutions, and grocery store chains. This is 16 an area where government can help through brokering 17 programs, the dissemination of information, and the creation 18 and management of websites and directories. 19 Local farmers need access to business planning. This type of 20 assistance can also help verify if the crops they are spending 21 the most money on are really bringing in the highest return. 22 The County should also encourage small-scale farmers to 23 pursue more cooperative ventures ,and seek more regional 24 programs to compete with corporate operations. 25 f4 There is a need for more inter- and intra-governmental cooperation ' 26 with regard to agricultural and forestry programs. 27 The County needs to include the municipalities in a 28 countywide vision for agriculture to better accommodate 29 farms located in the towns' extra territorial jurisdictions. 30 County departments should develop more cooperation among 31 each other and among the various agricultural agencies that 32 serve local farmers. Farm programs often remain isolated 33 from county regulatory programs administered through the 34 Planning Department and Environmental Heath. 35 Q.-m--i~~;~~e-'~ tea~rThe county needs to teach the next 36 generation about farming and encourage some to pursue farming 37 as an occupation. 38 All local residents should have an appreciation of the farming 39 community, an understanding of where their food and other 40 agricultural products come from, and the nutritional benefits 41 of eating local foodstuffs. 42 Farm-related education should go beyond the classroom and 43 provide hands-on training. Dv'avu~iCytw~ty Cvm~v~ell~wei~larv Public Hearing Draft 5-6-OS Pie 6-2X Co3 ERCD Advisory Boards and Staff Revisions to NCSE -Attachment # 4 1 ~6 County residents should develop a more holistic view of agriculture 2 and a better understanding of the global implications of their 3 lifestyle decisions, particularly as consumers. 4 In 1929, Governor O. Max Gardner launched the Live-At-Home 5 Program "for its main purpose the encouraging of all of us 6 engaged in farming to grow for ourselves and to supply 7 ourselves with all the food and feed-stuffs and livestock 8 products necessary for family and farm consumption the year 9 round. It would also encourage us to grow enough surplus to 10 supply the small towns and the cities which are our logical 11 markets; and it would encourage the city folks of this state to 12 give a preference to the North Carolina farmer in their 13 purchase of the supplies which he grows."2 Today the 14 Goodness Grows in North Carolina .program promotes this 15 same concept of buying locally grown products. 16 In an effort to address increasing petroleum demands and 17 increasing oil prices, farmers and non-farmers should 18 reconsider their energy usage-building and vehicle needs 19 (cars and farm machinery). Local farmers should also explore 20 the potential for growing crops suitable for the production of 21 alternative fuels. 22 Emergency Relief in North Carolina. A Record of the Development and the Activities of the North Carolina Emergency Relief Administration, 1932-1935. North Carolina Emergency Relief Commission, State Administrator, Mrs. Thomas O'Berry. Edited by J.S. Kirk, Walter A. Cutter and Thomas W. Morse. Raleigh: Edwards and Broughton. OYiCCTLiNL~y Co-n2~Y8~'L2M~b1NUPtctw Public Hearinp Draft 5-6-OS Page 6-22 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Advisory Boards and Staff Revisions to NCSE -Attachment # 5 LOCAL tAAfDMARK PROGRAM Another important component of the Historic Preservation Commission's duties is to recommend properties with special historic or architectural significance for designation in the County's Local Landmark Program.36 Properties may be designated as individual landmarks or as part of districts. The owners of individually designated Local Landmarks are eligible for an annual 50 percent property tax deferral as long as the property's important historic features are maintained.39 As of 2007, four individual Orange County properties have been designated into the Local Landmark Program: Chatwood, Moorefields, the Bingham School inn, and Rigsbee's Rock House. There are currently no local historic districts in the County's jurisdiction. ` -r ` $ ~ '' ~'."..'" '~ .'"°:__ - fi @~ sl o t~~rtEts lirL 8~~re . ~ 19- viu~ Trrn-rrrL: The Local Landmark program is a form of overlay zoning. Significant properties must be located in the County's planning jurisdiction to be eligible for the program.40 Local landmark and district property owners (contributing and non-contributing buildings) wishing to make changes to building exteriors and site features must apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA). Following a quasi judicial process, the Historic Preservation Commission_reviews applications for proposed changes and 38 In 1997, per the recommendation of the HPC, the BOCC adopted a new program called Preserving the Orange Tradition: A Landmark Designation Program for Orange County. s9 The property tax deferral program does not extend to properties in local historic districts. Recapture penalties, three years back taxes, may apply if the owner destroys the property or damages its historic value. 40 All three of the towns in Orange County: Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough have historic districts listed in the National Register. Chapel Hill and Hillsborough have locally designated historic districts. As of January 2008, however, none of the towns have adopted provisions to designate individual landmarks. ~.D~~) C~YaCo~y Co-w+~r~e•w~~la-w Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 6-~42 Co ~ Advisory Boards and Staff Revisions to NCSE -Attachment # 5 1 determines the appropriateness based on design standards."' 2 Minor changes can be approved administratively--without going 3 through the formal COA process. 4 5 The context for Orange County's historic resources is very different 6 than for its urban counterparts. County resources are typically 7 located in rural settings with the main house set away from the 8 public road. Many are historic farmsteads and some are still part 9 of active farms. This situation provides a different set of 10 opportunities and challenges than that of urban preservation 11 programs. Design standards must take into account the distance 12 between the house and the road when considering appropriate 13 changes such as additions. Farmers may remove farm buildings 14 that have outlived their original purpose. Metal replacement 15 buildings may be considered visibly incongruous but may serve the 16 practical use needed to keep the farm profitable. Older homes and 17 associated outbuildings are most likely to survive when in use. 18 The Historic Preservation Commission remains cognizant of the 19 need to balance historic integrity with modern-day functionality. 20 21 The Local Landmark Program and the National Register of Historic 22 Places are two entirely distinct and separate programs. Both offer 23 honorary status to historic properties through a formal designation 24 process. The specific benefits of each program, however, are quite 25 different. The Local Landmark Program is a local program 26 administered by local government; properties are designated by 27 the adoption of an ordinance by the Board of County 28 Commissioners. The National Register of Historic Places is a 29 federal program administered by the National Park Service in 30 partnership with state historic preservation offices (SHPO).°Z 31 32 °' The Local Landmark Program was adopted, in 1997, before the HPC finished developing design standards. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation were adopted for use evaluating COA applications until the new standards based on Orange County's rural architectural legacy are finished and adopted. The ten Standards for Rehabilitation are located in Appendix 42 Local governments do not participate in the administration of the National Register program except to offer recommendations for new listings. Qi~ax~iCo~wvtty Co-~y-,preh.e~a~v~~la,sv Public Hearing Drati 5-6-08 Page 6-~43 ~~ 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 ERCD Advisory Boards and Staff Revisions to NCSE Attachment #6 THE CENTURY FARM PROGRAM The Century Farm program provides yet another honorary program for North Carolina farmers. This special program was initiated in 1970 when the North Carolina State Fair chose to highlight its theme "Salute to Agriculture" by searching for North Carolina families who had maintained active - -- - - -- farms for more than 100 years. Today almost 1,600 farms are listed in the program including fifteen from Orange County. ' Agriculture and preservation work hand-in-hand to preserve and conserve cultural landscapes. Honorary programs such as the Local Landmark Program, the National Register of Historic Places, and the Century Farm Program provide opportunities for recognition, -- ~ -- awareness, and preservation of Orange County's rich agricultural history. Participation can offer financial incentives in the form of rehabilitation tax credits and/or property tax deferments. Preservation programs can dovetail with agricultural programs such as Voluntary Agricultural Districts and agricultural conservation easements to increase awareness for agri-tourism and direct marketing purposes, and to minimize nuisance-related concerns? ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Orange County has sponsored numerous archaeological surveys, particularly in the last five years. Information from these projects is shared with the Office of State Archaeology but is not made public due to salvage concerns. Since the design of Little River Park and Natural Area in 1999, the County has conducted cultural resources surveys as part of the master plan design process for new parks. In October of 2006, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a new policy requiring cultural and archaeological surveys for all. County development projects. Surveys are conducted by archaeological consultants who meet National standards and typically include: background research, systematic surface and subsurface investigation (digging based on 'The Orange County farmers include: Elbert H. Allison; N. K. Andrews; Elizabeth N. Blalock, Thomas N. Blalock, James M. Blalock; J. Fred Bowman, Betty Bowman; Jane M. Branscome, L. M. Merritt, E. Mangum; Flora Dick Dellinger, Edna Dellinger, Cothran Dellinger, Gene Dellinger; Estelle Haley, Frances H. Griffin, Wade E. Griffin; Katherine L. Kirkpatrick; Floyd Fox Miller; A. Gordon Neville; Ralph Neville (Heirs): Anne Neville Williams, Jane Neville Hatley, Bryant Neville, Claude Neville; Shelton L Ray; Richard Roberts, Ollie Roberts; Bryant J. Walker; and L. Phillip Walker. Z See also information on Barn Again! in the Trends Section of this chapter and in the Agricultural Chapter of this Element. O~~a.~Co-uvtty Co-~r~r~ehew~-iv~~]aw Public Hearing Draft 5-6-0$ Page 6- 44 c~~ ERCD Advisory Boards and Staff Revisions to NCSE Attachment #6 1 a grid system), field reconnaissance, and a reporting of the results. 2 Information from these surveys can be used to assist in the siting 3 of future facilities and/or for identifying areas of historic and 4 cultural interest for possible interpretation. 5 6 In addition to archaeological surveys conducted in advance of new 7 County development projects, local residents can also ensure the 8 documentation and preservation of valuable historic and 9 prehistoric archaeological resources. The value of an artifact is in 10 its context (original location), its relationship with other artifacts, 11 its structural elements, or its relationship to natural features. Once 12 removed from their context many artifacts lose their value.3 13 Residents are encouraged to use the Office of State Archaeology 14 (OSA) to determine the appropriate course of action regarding 15 archaeological finds, particularly those that may involve old 16 cemetery sites. The OSA can help residents record, map, and 17 catalog sites, thus preserving valuable locations information on the 18 future. 19 HISTORIC CEMETERIES 20 Historic cemeteries offer an invaluable link to the past. Often, 21 smaller family cemeteries are subject to abandonment and neglect 22 over time, resulting in the loss of valuable genealogical and 23 historical information. Increasing development in the region 24 further jeopardizes these cultural resources. The OSA can provide 25 information on the State Cemetery Survey and the state statutes 26 (N.C.G.S. Chapter 70, Article 3), regarding the handling of human 27 skeletal remains.4 28 SCENIC RESOURCES 29 During the late 1980s to mid 1990s, Orange County Planning staff, 30 working in conjunction with the Planning Board's Transportation 31 Advisory Subcommittee (TAS), researched scenic road programs in 32 other states and localities, and developed a proposal for Orange 33 County. The Scenic, Rustic, and Rural Roads Program separated 34 potential corridors into three categories based on the focus of their 35 designation-natural features, historic or cultural resources, or 36 rural or agricultural context. The group systematically ranked 37 roads based on criteria and produced a Scenic Road Corridors Map, 38 which included segments from fifty (50) local roads. (See Map 6-6: 39 Scenic Roads Map.) While, the initial proposal was voluntary, the 40 map was included in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive s Archaeological research in the late 1970s and early 1980s led to the creation of an "Archaeological Potential Map," which reflected the likelihood of finding resources based on topographic features such as ridges and drainageways. The map lacks the precision to replace site specific-fieldwork for predicting the location of archaeological resources and should only be used as a general guide. " ERCD works with the Durham-Orange Genealogical Society of North Carolina (D-OGS) to inventory cemeteries in Orange County; information on their cemetery census is available online. 4E~a:vu~eiCc~~y Cv-~vt~ire~.~,v~-i~~e~t~7~w Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 6- 45 C.O`6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 ERCD Advisory Boards and Staff Revisions to NCSE Attachment #6 Plan and referenced in the Flexible Development option of the Subdivision Regulations. Views from the identified corridors are considered conservation areas in the Flexible Development standards. The HPC is currently evaluating the corridors shown on the 1981 map to determine which road seaments still merit__ scenic designation The HPC has also been workina to develoa a new heritage/scenic corridor proaram As development continues to occur rural roads and their associated agricultural vistas may become compromised unless additional measures are adopted. The North Carolina Scenic Bvwavs Program offers another farm of recognition to special road ~~~ corridors that contribute to the Ne S~E~~ visual character of a community. Honorary in nature• there is no ~~ V Y AY regulatory component to the 1.~ ~ y program nor anY preemptive development restrictions. Three North Carolina Scenic Bvwavs pass through Orange County-the Colonial Heritage Bvwav the Football Road and the Scots-Welsh Bvwav (See Map 6-3 in the Summary section of this Element.) HIGHWAY MARKER PROGRAM The North Carolina Highway Historical Marker Program was established in 1935, based on the marker program in Virginia established -in 1926. The Department of Cultural Resources' Research Branch and the Department of Transportation's Traffic Engineering Branch, Division of Highways administer the program jointly. Eligibility is subject to specific criteria based on state significance. Unlike the recognition of historic structures or archaeological sites, the markers typically commemorate important individuals who have been dead for twenty-five or more years. Today there are more than 1,400 state markers throughout North Carolina, at least one in every county. Orange County currently has twenty-four markers, including those within the towns of Chapel Hill and Hillsborough.s s The twenty-four North Carolina State Highway Historical Markers located in Orange County include: G-3 Thomas Burke; G-4 William Hooper 1742-1790; G-9 Archibald Debow Murphey; G-10 Francis Nash; G-11 Thomas Ruffin; G-16 Thomas Burke; G-19 Edmund Fanning; F-23 Regulators Hanged; G-26 Thomas H. Benton; G-33 Occaneechi; G-37, G-38, G-39 Bingham School; G-40 William A. Graham; G-48 Paper Mill; G-64 Moses A. Curtis; G-. 66 Hughes Academy; G-84 Old Eno Church and Cemetery; G-88 North Carolina Society of the Cincinnati; G-90 St. Mary's Chapel; G-92 University of N.C. at Chapel Hill; G-100 Harriet M. Berry 1877-1940; G-103 J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton; G-108 James Hogg 1972- 1804; G-1 15 Elizabeth Keckly ca. 1820-1907; G-122 Hart's Mill. O,-a.v>~-~GauvLty Go-m~r~ehen~aN~P~ Public Hearing Draff 5-6-08 Page 6- 46 (p 9 ERCD Advisory Boards and Staff Revisions to NCSE Attachment #6 MAP 6-6: ORANGE COUNTY SCENIC CORRIDORS~r@S MAP O--a~iCcruvt.Cy Go-~ripr~~,v~ ~lr~v Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 6- 47 ~a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ERCD Advisory Boards and Staff Revisions to NCSE -Attachment #7 STATUS OF RARE PLANTS AND ANIMALS The conversion of natural lands to urban or suburban uses results in habitat loss for native plants and animals, and can result in loss of native species. The North Carolina Natural Heritage rare plant and animal species and classifies them as endangered, threatened or species of concern. The status of Orange County's rare plant and animal species is provided in Appendix G. Since 2002 three species (Carolina darter,. sharp-shinned hawk, small whorled pogonia) were changed from the "Current" to the "Historic" category, meaning that they have not been observed in Orange County during the past ZO years. The 2004 update of the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat for Orange County, North Carolina confirmed the' previous documentation of several rare species within the county's natural areas and added one new species, the Carolina Ladle Crayfish. CURRENT ESTIMATES O~ PRC?TECTEC? LAN_Q The County's Environment and Resource Conservation Department (ERCD) maintains a comprehensive database of protected lands throughout the County, including public parkland, nature preserves, and other public and private open space dedicated for conservation. The data includes Conservation easements held by local land trusts, OWASA, Orange County and several other entities. The protected land data and trends are reported in the County's State of the Environment report, which is published by the Commission for the Environment (CfE). The report describes the condition of many important natural resources in the County, including its biological resources. The CfE plays an important role in the protection of those resources by advising the Board of Commissioners on which lands should be protected through the Lands Legacy program and designing future parks in ways that protect sensitive resource areas. In 2004 the State of the Environment reported there were 19,265 acres of protected land in Orange County, and that just over half of that land was considered "permanently" protected.' a~p--6-S ' Permanently protected is defined here as meaning that along-term binding agreement to preserve land was executed. dYa.YL~PiCo~.ty Co~Ye~.vi~dv~t la.vv Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 6-~• `r ~ ERCD Advisory Boards and Staff Revisions to NCSE -Attachment #7 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 102 - -- ~ _ _ --- - _ -- --- '~, -- :' i. r ,~ ,~ - ,~ i ~,` ~+ ~~ `;~ ~ zti ,, . ,~ ,. y 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ i ~ G~ _~~ I ~a ~ ~, 1~ 1 ~.~~ ~ .,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ( ~ J +A ~' _ f~ ~ __ `-~ ~,~~' ., t -, . i ' \ ~ f ~4w~ ` , \.r ~I I ~' ~ ~_ ~ ~~ ~ ~ -- ~ ;' i ~ rt ~ ~ a ~ ~ a i ~% ~ ~ ~ 1~. ," y, ~ ~ _ .. ~"' ~ _ _ _ r •. w sr a!` ~~ _ ~ ~ r ~( ~, ~ ~`.~ ~ ~ r ' ~ ~ ~ ~ Legend ~ i'- •.j ~ 'T-~ x ~~~ r~ ti~ ~ ~~ `~ ~ ~~ i~ i, ~'' %' 1 j ~ ! 4000 0 40008000 Fe t - ' N County Bodntlary ._..------ -. r _ --- --..__ - -- ~' ^~" RirerslSlreamx '""' Orenpe County ~` --- _ .yam Lak¢a ` EnivommeM d Res~auree -- --.__ _... _, ~_ ___ _ . -- ~ Partial? Pro[ectatl Lantls 1 Gonaarv.don Dapanm em ~ Permanen9y Protecietl Lantls B. Yourq 7feg5 t7YCerCO~u,Y1.tY Co-vvtpE''e.~t.c~.vt~~j~it I.a.}ti Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 6-~ ~a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ERCD Adviso Boards and Staff Revisions to NCSE -Attachment #7 I insert Map Legend [~ c:oLravt~ou~aa-r Pennanadk prataded tarxls -- Pmtlatly aacac#ed s ,~. ----- Major st~eama --- Major rc~sda ---: iowis .~. . p ~ t WRs ~,• a ~:~e Lam ~ ~ ~~ aIS AJ j . -7 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 ERCD Advisory Boards and Staff Revisions to NCSE -Attachment #7 Land protection has accelerated over the past few decades. Prior to 1981 there was an estimated 4,400 acres of protected land in Orange County. Another 4,900 acres were protected during the 1980s, and then 7,150 acres in the 1990s). Since 2000 an estimated 5,000 acres have been protected thus far and it appears that figure may reach 8,000 by 2010. By the end of 2007 a total of 22,650 acres (8.8% of the County) were protected through various means, including parks, nature preserves, historic sites, and dedicated private open space. More work is needed to meet the Commission for the Environment's goal of 10% of the County's land area being conserved by the year 2010. Many important natural resource lands remain completely unprotected. Map 6-8 illustrates the location of protected lands in Orange Count The amount of protected land continues to increase in Orange County thanks to the efforts by the local land trusts, OWASA, and other land conservation entities active in this region. Eno River State Park continues to expand, but is still several hundred acres short of completing the park master plan. Although considerable progress has been made to conserve land in Orange County, many highly significant natural heritage areas remain vulnerable to being damaged or destroyed by future development. The State of the Environment (2004) found that about 4,000 acres (40%) of the County's 10,000 acres of documented natural areas remained unprotected. By the end of 2007 the County, through its Lands Legacy program, had protected 2,275 acres, including land for seven new county parks and conservation easements on 1,300 acres of privately owned farms and forestlands. Many of the earlier acquisitions were to satisfy a deficit of parkland in the County. Later efforts focused on an initiative to protect farmland using conservation easements. Over the remainder of this decade the Lands Legacy program is expected to focus more effort on the protection of significant natural areas. One objective is to establish larger areas of natural lands (including prime forests) as nature preserves. This effort was envisioned in the ERCD report that lead to the adoption of Lands Legacy (2000). The concept was also discussed in the Joint Master Recreation & Parks Work Group report (1999). Envisioned is a system of nature preserves jointly owned and managed by different entities, including Orange County. The purpose is to protect critical masses of undeveloped land (including significant natural areas) surrounded by low-density development and working farms and managed forests. Less e'1i~'Co~c.~.ty Co-wipreh.~a-v+~~~'klrxw Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page C-~ ~~ ERCD Advisory Boards and Staff Revisions to NCSE -Attachment #7 1 sensitive areas might include facilities for public access. Other 2 portions would remain wilderness areas that support native 3 wildlife. This concept complements the desired protection of 4 ecologically significant macrosites described earlier and 5 recommended in the Inventory of Natures! Areas and Wildlife 6 Habitats for Orange County, North Carolina (2004). cJ~~q:iCo~u~y Co--r~re~~~ive~~la.w Public Hearing Draft 5-6-0$ Page 6-~ 7~ ERCD Advisory Boards and Staff Revisions to NCSE -Attachment #8 1 Another watershed within the Neuse basin in northeastern Orange 2 County is the Little River Watershed. The Little River features a North 3 Fork and South Fork in Orange County, before the two merge 4 downstream in Durham County. Finally in the Neuse, the headwaters of 5 the Flat River are located in far northeastern Orange County. Both the 6 Little River and Flat River continue east into Durham County into 7 reservoirs before joining the Eno in Falls Lake. These are also water 8 supply watersheds for Durham County. 9 10 Southern and western Orange County lies within the Cape Fear River 11 Basin. The Cape Fear River begins a few mileser~e~ges south of frat~r 12 Jordan Lake, southeast of Orange County, and flows to the Atlantic 13 Ocean south of Wilmington, but its headwaters lie far to the west, north 14 of Greensboro. In this region, the Haw River and other streams feed 15 Jordan Lake a large reservoir located southeast of the County line, -and 16 thence the Cape Fear. 17 18 Many of tThese streams flow west/southwest into the Haw River or 19 south and east into New Ho a Creek River- -the collector stream for 20 the portion of the Cape Fear basin in Orange County. The Haw itself is 21 the southwestern boundary of Orange County, and also has the 22 distinction of being the only river or stream that touches Orange County 23 from an upstream source. Within the Cape Fear Basin in Orange County 24 are severalt~rany watersheds that drain to the Haw: Back Creek and Haw 25 Creek to the northwest and west, and Cane Creek and Collins Creek to 26 the southwest. In the southeastern part of the County. -Morgan 27 Creek flows into Jordan Lake, and New Hope Creek and its tributaries 28 flow east and south to briefly become the New Hope River, just before 29 entering lordan Lake. `- `'-- --~~``-~~`. WWater supply impoundments 30 within the Cape Fear in Orangeth-i~County include Cane Creek Reservoir 31 and University Lake. Portions of western Orange County in the Cape 32 Fear basin drain west into Quaker Creek Reservoir northeast of Mebane. 33 34 Finally, a small portion of northwestern Orange County is part of the 35 Roanoke .River Basin, and the two streams in this area -North Hyco 36 Creek and South Hyco Creek, drain north into Caswell County and the 37 Dan River. The Dan straddles the North Carolina-Virginia border and 38 eventually becomes the Roanoke River, flowing east to Albemarle Sound. 39 40 In all, there are 15 different watersheds in Orange County within these 41 three river basins. (See Map 6-9). 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 ©E~avu~Cauv~:ty Ccn~rel~.w~-iv~Pla.vv Public Hearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 6-'?p ~~ ERCD Advisory Boards and Staff Revisions to NCSE -Attachment #8 3 5 9 11 ,,~, . '~ ~ _, ~t ,~'; 13 ~ ~ ~tZ,c E i~t'sl~~q ~~~,~ S~ . ~ ~ r r ~- r T r ) s ~C ~~ ~,. ~ t,~ '_t i r ~ ,.,~t ~.. 25 T, ~~ rS ~r't~',~~ r' s.71-4~~17 , ~"~r~ y Y 1 ~~. ~ Y •}~Y ir` ~ r r ~r ,c f h~~ Sri ~ r ~N' ~j ~~ ~ t Y } , r ~ ~} .4 ~ TT~~ 1 ~J' 31 ~ a~ t ,1 tf +~, ~,~ ~ ~' ~ tt ~~C ~ ,} ~ ~ ~ rt_; ~!' 710 ~' '~.. ~~ ~' j ~ ! 1 f . ~ f #eCtC~~ ' y 33 ,r~ranr -,~,` ,, ~o ~ = ~ ~--~,~ 35 ~ ~ ~ ~~ r;~ ~. %' ~ c ~ ~ 3, - ~'~ t~,~ 70 ~, e, ~, ,~ { ~ ~ ~:4 39 1, , _~ , ~..,~.. .~ , , , , -- 43 r z lri, ,fit. ~ ~ ~ `~ ?~-N~ wacersneds: 45 ~° `~% ~ 2~ ;r ~ ~~;~ Pratesiad Water SupptY ~ -~- • ,~ -- Yl ' ~ Uaprorectedt+l~atar."-uppty 47 °'~-;d'~ ~ ~~'" ~ ~ _~'~ ~ °t i ~ •~ ~ .~ Critical Area c ~{`t ~ ~'~ t~1 ~~ f" '-~xt ~~~ ~"" River Basin Boundary 49 _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~ n;~~;'~T,,~x Streams 51 ~~ ', ~ ~''•;•^~irr;'~~ MuniCipalJurisdictions ~ r~. ~~'t ~nbei~ Cliap cl Hill ~"rte 53 ~ -~ ~ ~ y~ ~ r ~~ ,~. ky ~~) ti r 1 ~ „~~'1~` y~ v ~ tea,! '~ r ~ J , r r - ~(1~ • ~ ~~ r.~ ~ 1'1y~ ^ ~~ `~~ ~ lde~: 7kiswstaafud 2aca rwrsinas. ~ E:~, ~~~f,,,~,i. ~~ ~ ~... '~'~+ ~ ~ s~fi Rafar'easa Oraxgs Ccuaty7.ahogOrduuxu t..t ~~,r ~~`~ ~, y. F^ v ~ ~.' T,~ !'p ~~ ~.~~ OrrrpCr.q HwnK~n-•M+~unq}.wwr.. 59 ~ ~ ~,' ,,`t ~ y ~, ~ ,,,~.,~~~.. 14rwsiilGantM/~..•udr l6.~ri~,9bi twrn 61 ..-.,a. ~,.~...~., 63 MAP 6-9: ORANGE COUNTY WATERSHEDS. O-~a.Cch..tJvt.ty Co~tnj~re~+~~~~~lcrvv Public Nearing Draft 5-6-08 Page 6-~f ~~ Attachment 3 Attachment 3, Written public comments 5/19/08 - 8/13/08 ~g ~~ PRESENTATION TO ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, MAY 19, 2008 At the previous public hearing on the update to the Comprehensive Plan, 1 requested the Board of Commissioners to explore the idea of establishing another Element in the Comprehensive Plan to address Planning Principle No. 8, Preservation of Community Character . My proposed Element read: Maintenance of Community and Preservation of Community Character This request was forwarded to the Planning Board. In the fall of 2007, the Board formed a subcommittee consisting of members Renee Price, Judith Wegner, Bernadette Pelissier and myself to examine the idea that had been proposed. In March of 2008, the Subcommittee submitted a report to the Planning Board. The. report consisted of a history of community building efforts in the County, including a detailed discussion of the report of Shaping Orange County's Future Task Force, and the subcommittee's recommendations concerning the establishment of a new Element and attending goals and objectives. The Planning Board discussed the report briefly at its monthly meeting in March. There was no consensus or vote on the recommendations although there was some concern expressed about how such an idea might slow down the overall process for updating the Plan. Tonight, on my own, I am asking that instead of establishing a new Element for community building and maintenance, certain Objectives be included in the Land Use Element. These Objectives are attached to your copy of my remarks as Exhibit A. Also is attached a copy of most of the recommendations of the Shaping Orange's Future Task Force regarding Community Building. Goal 6 of the proposed Land Use Element entitled, "Aland use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient and responsive", would be one possible location for some or all of these objectives. I believe there are also other goals under which these objectives may fit. In summary, 1 strongly believe that the ten principles of community building listed in the Task Force's final Report provide the glue and accountability that bind together each of the Comprehensive Plan's Elements and their goals and objectives. The Task Force's overarching goal ofcommunity-building connects the Comprehensive Plan's individual Elements to each other to create interdependency. This goal ,coupled with the attached Objectives, also transcends each Element and serves as a broad- spectrumvision by which the goals and objectives of the Elements, as well as those of the social, economic and environmental sectors of the County, can be better accomplished. Thank you. Jay Bryan ~6 EXHIBIT A OBJECTIVES FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S LAND USE ELEMENT a. Develop a process for using principles of community building (See p. 2, Report, of Shaping Orange County's Future Task Force) as a checklist for evaluating the extent to which long and short term planning and development builds and maintain community in Orange County. b. Establish the use of mediation, conflict resolution, public participation and facilitation practices among Orange County and municipal boards, elected and appointed (p. 25, Report of Shaping Orange County's Future Task Force). c. Establish collaborative initiatives with municipalities within the County to work together on a plan for community building and maintenance and how to implement community-building strategies into their policies and procedures (p. 25, Report of Shaping Orange County's Future Task Force. d. Create acommunity-building roundtable of County citizens to meet periodically and discuss/evaluate the County's progress in building and maintaining community. e. Create ways for fostering collaboration toward community building and maintenance between County government and for-profit and non-profit sector leadership and members. f. Develop opportunities for younger citizens to participate in the community building and maintenance plan for future development of the County and State's leadership. g. Explore the idea of a position of an "extension" agent for community building and maintenance. h. Create a data base of community events and celebrations, both within the county and regionally, that build community and preserve community character. i. Establish an annual day to celebrate the County and its citizens and their efforts and initiatives to build and maintain community. i. Evaluate the recommendations of the Shaping Orange County's Future's Task Force regarding "Put Community Building First" (other than any that akeady stated in Objectives) for implementation. j. Determine where principles of community building should be incorporated into other Elements of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. ~, SECTION III ~~~ `, ~~ z`~~~ ~ ~~ ~~' ~~~ A SUSTAINA.$LE COMMUNITY AND COMMUNITY-BUILDING; THE FRAMEWORK FOR GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO SHAPE ORANGE COUNTY'S FUTURE ~~ ~°~ ~- Introduction The next two sections of this report offer a series of goals with recommendations and action strategies to achieve those goals. The first section focuses on achieving our two overall themes: Sustainability and Community-Building. These themes serve as a framework for all of SOCF's work. The next section (Section IV) is again organized into a series of goals, recommendations and action strategies, but focuses on five topical areas which are important to address: Environment and Land Use,' Economy, Housing, Human Services, and Education. This section begins with an explanation of the two SOCF themes, Sustainability and Community-Building, and then presents goals, recommendations, and action strategies to address these two broad objectives. 18 ~3 Goals and Recommendarions: Sustainabiliry and Community-Building 21 0~ Theme 2: Community Building Though community-building is part and parcel of being a sustainable community, the way we interact with one another to build community is so basic to the outcomes we hope to achieve that it seemed appropriate to adopt the concept as a project cornerstone in its own right. Principles of Community Building Community-building is the means by which past generations in a given locale are bound to new generations, and how the current residents relate to one another. Each generation must establish the ways in which it will. embody respect for, and give specific meaning to, the following general principles* in order that they and their successors may experience and advance the concept of "community": 1. Developing an awareness and understanding of the local traditions, history, heritage and memories; 2. Creating and maintaining a sense of identity and belonging; 3. Honoring a framework of shared values; 4. Establishing and maintaining networks of supportive individuals and a climate of caring, trust, teamwork, and shared responsibility; 5. Establishing and maintaining institutional arrangements that diminish polarization, teach diverse groups to know one another, and encourage coalition- building, dispute-resolution, negotiation, and mediation; 6. Supporting wholeness within diversity while allowing healthy conflict and an atmosphere of open dissent; 7. Establishing and maintaining collaborative ties among leaders of different generations, jurisdictions, communities, economic sectors, and organizations. 8. Supporting strong individual communities that recognize and accept responsibility for the larger community's well-being; 9. Maintaining the existing infrastructure of neighborhood associations, congregations, citizen groups, youth-serving organizations, and professional and volunteer associations; and l O.Fostering a community-wide commitment to the common good. Applying these principles to community issues and decision-making will help people to work together effectively and live in harmony. * Adapted and modified from an influential article written by John Gardner, entitled `Building Community", published in 1996 by Independent Sector, Washington, D.C. 20 ~~ GOAL 1: Put Community Building First Rationale To have a truly sustainable community we must foster multicultural involvement in the local traditions, history, heritage, and memories. We need to fully include all people within the community, minorities, seniors, children and youth, and people with disabilities. Thus, our community's diversity and inclusiveness is the foundation for creating and maintaining a vibrant, healthy community life. We need to strengthen relationships and understanding between Orange County's rural and urban residents, among residents of varying ethnic, racial, and economic backgrounds, and between the University of North Carolina and all of its Orange County neighbors. It is also important to understand that in order for our community to be truly diverse we need to ensure that people who work here can afford to live here. Thus, the availability of affordable housing for low and moderate income households is a critical requirement. To deepen the sense of community in Orange County, the community building principles listed in the previous section must be applied whenever we attempt to understand and make decisions about our area's problems and directions. In particular the local elected boards, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the Orange Water and Sewer Authority each have a responsibility to advance and expand the building of community because. of their obvious and determinative influence in so many of the issues facing Orange County. The pressing problems of each year, or five or ten years, may stay the same or they may change. Certainly, they will increase in number and complexity. What we need, then, as a basis for generating specific solutions to those problems, is a shared sense of community among all of our county's individuals and institutions. We do have much in common here in Orange County: our rich cultural life and history, and our dedication to the community's accomplished artists and artisans. The presence of UNC, as well as many other organizations and institutions provide the community with cultural opportunities, galleries, and performance space. Parks and recreational activities also provide opportunities for Orange County residents to build community through sports and outdoor activities. The county also celebrates its significant cultural history, both historic and prehistoric, and its abundance of historic resources. The county's cultural, recreational, and historic resources must be solidly supported and nurtured by the community, so that each Orange County resident has the opportunity to participate in and enjoy these remarkable assets which enrich all of our lives. Open space, farmland preservation, natural resource protection, and environmental quality are widely shared values in Orange County. All of these provide citizens with many opportunities for meaningful volunteer efforts in their support, for partnerships between the University and the community at-large, for unique identity-enhancing events, and for the highly participatory and effective interjurisdictional collaboration required for their safekeeping. 22 ~~ Community Recommendation 1: Foster community interaction and activity. Action Strategies: A. Increase opportunities for residents from different parts of the county and different backgrounds to work together. The SOCF process has raised ow expectations for what is possible through the collective efforts of a diverse set of citizens. To continue building a sense of community, we must continue to invent and embark upon joint projects that embody such shared values as ow desire to provide basic human services to all of our citizens, to preserve open space and the environment, and to develop our young people to their fullest potential. B. Create multi-use community facilities that would enable a variety of functions such as a school, community center, senior center, senior care facility, adult learning center, teen center, day care facility, medical clinic, branch library, arts space, and outdoor recreation. Locate these centers in town neighborhoods and villages located in town transition areas. C. Promote neighborhood design, for new neighborhoods which encourages social interaction. D. Create more all-county shared events, such as an Orange County Fair, art, drama, and music festivals. Strive to melee events multi-cultural and of interest to all residents of the wanly. E. Improve relationships between the University and Orange County residents. The University is both a means by which some wmmunity-building takes place and an impediment to it. We note with enthusiasm the community building aspects of the UNC athletics program, and our citizens' access to the University's libraries, cultural events, and amenities. We aclrnowtedge with appreciation the University's role in attracting our base of highly educated and active citizens, and the valuable links beyond Orange Couirty generated by the University's cultural and academic programs. While there are many positive links between the University and the larger community, there are also some things that mould be done to improve those connections. The University could: ^ Increase staff assigned to local and wmmunity relations. ^ Elicit citizen and county representation on appropriate UNC committees and boards; • Increase the University's wntributions to local problem solving by encouraging faculty and staff involvement. ^ Hol'd "open houses" on various topics, information sessions, and celebrations. ^ Make a more public statement of the campus resources and activities available to local citizens. ^ Share recreational facilities and services on a planned schedule. F. Publish an Orange County community handbook/calendar for organizations and then activities, community events, cultural and artistic opportunities, etc. A wpy to be available to every family and in the library. Enwurige ZINC to do the same wvering events and campus organizations which provide wmmunity activities (i.e. Think Agusin. the wntinuing education publication which has information on all the not-for-credit learning opportunities the University makes available). Publish this information on the intemet as well. G. Establish partnerships between urban and rural residents through community support for local farming by: ^ having farm tours for school children as well as adults; ^ creating links with organizations that support farming; ^ supporting mazketing and wnsumption of local farm products; and ^ surveying local citizens' needs/desires for faun products. 23 ~~ Inclusion Recommendation 2: Support purposeful inclusion of all people. Action Strategies: A. Support the Human Rights and Relations Commission and its charge to build community • Form abroad-based coalition utilizing existing organizations to develop a plan to foster multiculturalism in the community. ^ Provide adequate staffing for plan development. B. Comply fully with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Create a position for afull-time County Disability Services Coordinator. The goal of creating the position would be to ensure that governments, businesses and individuals act in full compliance with the ADA. The coordinator would initiate and oversee a public awareness campaign, conduct an inventory ofbusinesses and government agencies to determine compliance with ADA regulations, act on discrimination complaints, serve as an advocate for persons with disabilities, and serve as staffto the Orange County Disability Awareness Council. C. Improve services for Latinos/Hispanics and other non-English-speaking populations. ^ Service provision should be integrated and include: • referrals to and information about available services in our community; • translafing and interpreting; • assistance with housing concerns, financial and consumer issues, and emergency assistance. (It is suggested that such services be located at schools since children are already located there. Public safety needs should be addressed as described under Public Safety on page 62, Recommendation 3.) ^ Recruit bi-lingual employees to government positions, and provide Spanish language training to employees. ^ Encourage the UNC School of Education to increase its focus on bi-lingualBSL training and education. ^ Provide English as a Second Language classes (ESL) so that non-English speakers have an opportunity to learn English. (See also Education Goal 1, Recommendation 6, page 69 and Goal 2, Recommendation 2, page 70). D. Encourage diverse citizen participation: ^ Aggressively recruit a diversity of citizens, with an emphasis on recruiting people from under-represented groups, for local boards and volunteer organizations. ^ Send representatives to African American and Latino centers, housing complexes, and churches to foster dialogue. E. Ensure that affordable rental and owner-occupied homes are available for low and moderate income households. See page 58 for details on action strategies to address housing issues. 24 0~ Communication Recommendation 3: Reshape local governance for community-building. A framework that establishes effective communication among public officials will lead to a stronger sense of community among citizens. Public officials can lead by example and by .authority in this important and vital endeavor by adopting community-building principles into ordinance form and putting them into practice as they conduct and consider their business. Establishment of a community building ordinance will ensure that acommunity- building framework will be maintained, even as boards of public officials change with new elections, appointments, or resignations. Action Strategies: A. Have the Board of Orange County Commissioners, the Hillsborough Town Board, the Chapel Hill Town Council, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, and the Boards of Education for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools and Orange County each approve a set of ordinances that would specify how community building would be integrated into their own individual procedures as well as into the processes by which they conduct their collective work across jurisdictions. The Boards as constituted could approve ordinance tanguage as provided to them, such as the following: ^ A general de5nition of what is necessary to insure community building and maintenance. ^ Principles for discussion that would apply to each elected Board, joint board meetings, and the various advisory boards, committees, work groups and task forces that assist the boards with policy and decision making. Examples of such discussion principles could be found in those adopted by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, or in Roger Schwarz's article, "Groundrules for Effective Groups," published by the UNC Institute of Government. ^ Principles and steps for collaborative conflict resolution could be adopted. The steps for such a process might include acknowledgement that there is a conflict and the need to settle it; identification of the affected parties and effective ways for them to participate in face-to-face sharing of information about the dispute; joint brainstorming by all parties as to potential solutions and shared evaluation of the ideas; selection of a plan that all agree upon; setting aside time to implement the plan and evaluate how it is working; and the use of mutually acceptable third party neutrals (mediators and facilitators) who could help parties use the conflict resolution process. ^ Principles for how citizens are to conduct themselves at public hearings. Examples of such principles can be found in those adopted by Carrboro's Board of Aldermen. ^ A deSnition of"consensus" that would permeate the framework B. Support and commit to the participation by appointed and elected officials in programs that reinforce the shared community building framework, explore community building principles, and provide opportunities to develop community building skills. The commitment to such government official education could be made by joint policy enactment, and might include a recommendation that members of advisory boards participate, as well recommending that elected officials take a refresher course at the midpoint of their terms. By making such a commitment, the Commissioners and members of the various town boards would be demonstrating to citizens that they are willing to learn about community building and abide by their own rules. Such modeling by boards and commissions would set an example to motivate citizens to follow the disciplines ofcommunity-building, consensus decision-making, and conflict resolution. The program(s) might cover: • the set of ordinances, rotes, policies and agreements approved.by the local jurisdictions for consensus aad decision making described above; and • the use of effective communication, conflict resolution,. mediation, mceting facilitation and other community-building and community-mairnenance techniques. 25 CHAPEL HILL CARRBORO Chamber o f Commerce May 19, 200& Good evening Commissioners and Planning Board Members, g`~ 104 south estes drive p.o. box 2897 chapel hill, nc 27515-2897 919.967.7075 919.968.6874 fax www. carolinachamber. org My name is Adam Klein, I am the Director of Government Relations and Economic Development at the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce and member of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Coalition. I am here to offer a few brief remarks on the second draft of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the economic development section. In my professional opinion and the opinion of our Coalition members, the economic development section is missing a major strategy namely working with UNC-Chapel Hill to retain many of the businesses created at the University. UNC in many ways is our business incubator. In the words of Chancellor-elect Holden Thorp, UNC's challenges in the coming years will be to "Cure diseases...fmd and invent clean energy...feed seven billion people" to name a few. As UNC strives to tackle these issues, researchers are generating cutting edge products and devices that are spinning off into new businesses. These businesses are based on innovation, pay good wages and have little environmental impact in a nutshell businesses we want in Orange County. Yet, out of 29 UNC businesses spawned since the year 2000, only 3 are located here. The majority go to RTP because they can fmd readily available office and lab space and a welcoming business environment. We can do much better than this and it can start with our Comprehensive Plan. I ask that you consider including a new objective of "working closely with UNC's Office of Technology Development to identify commercial space needs of businesses created by UNC research, promote development of such space within the County, and actively encourage UNC businesses to stay in Orange County after leaving the University." This should be one of our primary strategies for economic development. Lastly, in order for the County's commercial tax base to expand and for more businesses to locate in Orange County, it is paramount that water and sewer be extended to all of the Economic Development Districts. In the current Comprehensive Plan draft, extending water and sewer to these districts is listed as along-term goal. The Coalition strongly urges that this objective be reprioritized as a short-term goal as so much of the other objectives within the Economic Development element hinge on having the necessary infrastructure in place to allow commercial and light industrial development. Please consider these changes as you review and edit the Comprehensive Plan. I thank you for your time and for the opportunity to give comment on this important document. Adam M. Klein Director of Government Relations and Economic Development It's smart business. ~b ~~~ ~~a~ ~i Orange County Comprehensive Plan Update May 19, 2008 Public Hearing Comments, Allan Rosen Members of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Coalition want the updated plan to declare a preference for compact, wallcable, mixed-use, and transit-supportive developments within the county's planning jurisdiction. This development pattern is vital to achieving many key components of sustainability including affordable housing, an increase in the commercial tax base, reduced vehicle miles traveled, and improved prospects for local and regional public transportation. We are pleased that language throughout the plan emphasizes this preference. Overall, the plan is a big step in the right direction, but there is still much room for improvement. In order for compact, mixed- use developments to become the preferred mode of new development, the planning elements of the updated comprehensive plan must complement each other and sensible implementing ordinances need to be adopted. Coalition members prepared comments on the goals and objectives from the first draft for the Land Use, Transportation, Economic Development, and Housing elements. Since the language of the Public Hearing draft is virtually the same, the comments are still current. These recommendations (found on pages 38-47 of the agenda packet) provide examples of how the current goals and objectives can be improved and how the linkages between the elements enhanced. The viability of compact, mixed use developments depends on the availability of public infi-astructure, including water and sewer. Thus, the coalition recommends that the planning document make affirmative and unequivocal commitments to providing the necessary public infrastructure in a timely manner. Work remains to be done in this regard also. I recommend a section of the plan be dedicated exclusively to the goal statements and objectives that address both zoning for compact mixed use developments and planning for the requisite public infrastruchzre. This section should assure the reader that work on these critical objectives is coordinated and finished such that the infi-astructure will begin to come on line within the next 3-5 years, if not sooner. As it stands now, it's not clear when and how this will happen. ~~ Personally, I support the emphasis on compact mixed-use developmems not only because it's a good conservation strategy, but because this is the best strategy for significantly increasing the supply of housing affordable to working and middle class households. To put it another way, if the plan's implementation does not result in an increased supply of less expensive land - on a per lot basis -- for residential development than currently available, then the comprehensive plan update will have little or no impact on reducing the shortage of workforce housing in the county. This points to the main flaw with the plan's housing element. It almost exclusively focuses on issues related to affordable and special needs housing; albeit an area of concern which I fully support. However, the housing element should also address the systemic problems which cause the county's housing market to skew towazds upper-income housing and recommend actions for bringing the market into a more equitable balance. Finally, I encourage the commissioners to ask themselves if they've heard from as many stakeholders as they feel is appropriate far a policy document of this significance before voting on the plan later this summer. I believe the compressed time schedule put a strain on the planning and advisory boards & diminished the opportunity -especially during Phase II -for widespread and continuous community input. As such, I encowage the commissioners to immediately solicit the written comments of each lead advisory board so that their comments can be utilized by the planning board as they continue to refine the plan this summer. Indeed, one or more joint advisory board meetings at this stage would be useful in assessing community support for the proposal, as well. as gathering constructive recommendations for final improvements. May 19, 2008 Public Hearing Comments, Allan Rosen, page 2 F~ Orange County Comprehensive Plan Update May 19, ?008 Public Hearing Continents prepared by Dolly Hunter, Community Action Network The Orange County Comprehensive Plan Coalition has the following comments about the Land Use Element: The wording of Land Use Objective 3.4, which discourages the location of non-farm and intensive residential development within farming areas, could exclusively prevent Rural Node and duster development in all rural areas. We recommend that Rural Node development be allowed in farming areas where appropriate transportation and services can be accessed. Aland use pattern for Rural Nodes should be identified on the Future Land Use Map. To protect farms from complaints and nuisance suits the new neighbors should be given notification of the right to farm. The coalition recommends (see comments dated May 5) several additional Land Use Objectives, including: 1. Amend the regulatory process in order to expedite the review and approval of residential cluster development forms throughout the County, including the Rural BufFer and other areas zoned for low density residence. 2. Expedite the development approval process for projects that commit to providing workforce and special needs housing; far housing in rural nodes; and for cluster developments throughout rural areas. Additional Comments from Dolly Hunter The tables of development activity for major, minor and exempt subdivision data from 1999 to 2007 be -should be included in the County Data Profile. This is absolutely necessary to accurately evaluate development trends. If placed in the Data Profile it can be updated with future years activity data. The tables and analysis of population data should very clearly delineate the population of unincorporated areas from that in incorporated areas of the county. The populations of Chapel Hill and Hillsborough should be removed or delineated to honestly reflect the unincorporated population. This is especially important in population comparisons and projections. Two examples that need accurate accounting are: • The Land Use Map 5.5 which shows the percent of population growth of each Township. The map should show (a) the number of additional people and {b) the change in populating between 1990 and 2000 population per Township; • The overall density of Orange County is 305 persons per square mile if one includes Chapel Hill and Hillsborough. Using data only from the rural part of the county, density is closer to 100 persons per square mile. When comparing Orange County to other counties, the other counties should be identified, rather than not as is currently the case. Most importantly all analysis should be objective and not subjective and speculative. All subjective analysis should be removed from the text because it is in many cases misleading: In conclusion, Orange County has done an excellent job controlling growth and protecting the environment. I hope that now the county will being accommodating and directing growth in a visionary pattern to achieve social, .economic and environmental equity in the future. I~ Comments on Transportation Element Holly 12eid Walkable Hillsborough_Coalition May 19, 2008 My name is Holly Reid and I am a co-founder of the Walkable Hillsborough Coalition, a group of community volunteers who have worked the past seven years to advocate for pedestrian and bike ways for Hillsborough, surrounding communities and Orange County. I have been involved. in the exploring the possibility of reopening a train station in Hillsborough. I am also one of the twenty-nine members of the Special Transit Advisory Commission, whose charge was to recommend a regional transit system for the Triangle region to our joint Metropolitan Planning Organization representatives. Our final report will be presented to the MPO's this Wednesday, May 21, in Raleigh. Over the years and especially through my involvement on the STAC, I have learned that the Triangle area is one of the most sprawled regions in the country and that we expect a million more people to Wake, Durham and Orange Counties in the next 20 years. I have learned that we are off-the-scale auto centric in our country, and that we are realizing the great costs of this choice every day: poor health, poor community connections, dangerous and unattractive alternative modes of getting around, disenfranchised young and old, loss of commerce in our downtowns, and an irresponsible carbon footprint, to name a few. I believe our Unified Transportation Board recognizes these huge community costs. They have listed many of these them as key issues in a future Comprehensive Transportation Plan that is recommended in Objective T-3.2, and they see this plan as addressing strategies for all transportation modes, including bike, pedestrian, rail and all other critical transit facilities. What is absolutely critical to righting our heavily over-weighted single modal car culture is a new multi-modal transportation system that is well emphasized in Goal 3. What needs just as much emphasis in Goal 3 is future development that is compact, walkable and in mixed-use neighborhoods along transit corridors supported by transit. Transit and pedestrian-oriented development is the critical nexus of transportation and land use and it needs to be highly emphasized and cross-referenced frequently in our Comprehensive Plan. In my view and the Coalition's view this needs to be written right into the Overarching Goal as the most important change in transportation and land use, agame-changer for our future. I am also going to emphasize a couple of other objectives that our Coalition recommends to be added to the Comprehensive Plan. We recommend a new Objective T-4.4 to implement the Special Transit Advisory Commission's- recommendations for regional transit (including light rail, passenger/commuter rail, expanded bus and transit-oriented development at a future Orange County train station in Hillsborough). Being very involved in Safe Routes to School initiatives I am also very interested in our Coalition's recommendation to add Objective T-1.8 to coordinate with Orange County schools to provide safe walking and biking routes within 1.5 miles of all schools for children during school hours and residents after hours. Connectivity for ~~ our communities between key public institutions, commercial areas and neighborhoods will bring the vitality and foot traffic back to our community lives that we have lost over years of exclusively accommodating King Car. Our County's Comprehensive Plan is our way to receive gratitude instead of disdain from the next generations for our foresight. Let's make a difference now. Thank you. -/CO From: "ann and john~Gandy" <`.~ - -- " _.:._~_~> To: "RobbinTaylor-Hall" <:_:_ __:,_:~_ _''".:__.~__-~~...:~.> Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 4:46 PM Subject: Re: Land Use Plan Meeting > Robbie: > Please present this to the Commissioners at the > Land Use Plan Meeting. > The late Simpson Efland left six heirs. Siblings > Ann E. Gandy and Mack P. Efland, jr. were his > Administrators. Both have power of attorney to > dispose of the land. > Mack Efland and I hereby request, representing > the heirs, that water critical be removed from > this property and that water and sewer be brought > to land in the Efland Small Area Plan. > It is the intention of the heirs to effect an > orderly disposition of the land holdings. > We have the properties listed with Taylor-Hall > Properties of Hillsborough. Ms. Robbie Taylor-Hall is > our agent, and is authorized to speak to you on > our behalf. > This letter has been approved by Mack Efland. > Thank you for your "consideration. > Ann E. Gandy,PA > Simpson Efland Heirs > May 17, 2008 You Count In Orange County Summary ~ Building ~ Land D Documents ~ Prior Owners D Addresses Create Print Data. Page ,_ Page 1 of 1 ~~ http://gis.co.orange.nc.us/servletJcom.esri.esrimap.Esri.map?ServiceName=YouCountGIS... 5/19/2008 --- fan ~~~ndary ~ Z~n~ng andlM~bane a m all ~r~a _ __ .; '. ~.---__.._... ~f I -.-- __ ._ _. -- . __ . ___ _: _ ..._ . _. _.. z: .. i - :. .. ~•ro - , l t ~ ~ ~ P _... ... ._ ..... _.. __.. .. Sf._. . 5 ~ 4 ~ - . 111 ~_ i,_ ~ ., .. y .. - _ . . ' I ~., - I .. _._ ... - __ . ._ __:, ~.- ~ .. - . - _.___ 9'r AGN RD t' _.~ - - ... --.._ - "NON o ; _ .. -__ ~- __._ Furl ~1 .._ - - _" •' ~ '1 ~~: _- ~y~+ I r I~ ~ p ' I _ • J ' r - z _, : .,. _ ._. l ~ '_` - - _ _ _ ~ _ ~ I -r~ ' ti -• `:_ '- _-_ - '~ ~ -- -- -•- Wit- +; ~ ~. i I gs L,tI ~P l 1,-r~" ~' I l -~'':~l fir'---' -_ ,. r-^- r•' _ - r -• ~' -. 1~ ---~'- i i ~~ 7 l ;"l'' i :F ": ((j ~ ~' .. ~ :~ y`:., ' __ I _.oREba~ ~rzy_'r_ j_-i-' L I .:~ -~ : -. I . - ~- ~'! it°-T --^ri + =r ~'r;r' ;' !~, ,~ ._y.4„~ _ ~;-;, ~ . ----,.r - ~ I ,•,... l..L.~jji ~ 1.4• -.J YI~ -'yl {I I Fri {:t I ~, I i ro ~ ~ I'i , r_~'"~ _ _ ~,J i ~•^ _ -- Ill ~ a` _' `~ J -_ ~~L - ~ i ~ I,~~ I ., ~{ 0 i C I~ j~-tom .~ 4` i I( ~I_ry~_---•--^.; ~~1•- }":ts- ~' ' ~ ~' 1 j I r°TSrI - ~~~~ i. r_ -SUP ,i[:^~`Ug7GW I I-'. I I i-~ __... _ I ... I •\ ---- ...~ S't --tl ~ '. •: ~ c1~'~ ~' I' _- ~ l ;Lkl- ...-`-ti I I .~-~ ~ I J~ ~ `,l ~. - 1 ii l . T ~I ' W ..S• r i '-- ... ~+~.W lTapN Q ~,._. 'w ~ ! .. .. - ; _ ..: ,_ ..._.__ _ _ D. ;, _ 5 .~ I. i ,.. _ .,~ .. ~ ~.+ ._ -• V-._ ...._-. -_ ~ --~. - ~ _ . .. .. ...... -~ -". ~ _ ..- _, ~. ':~ ... -~-R .... _ _^ .. ,`. -. ... _... ._ ..T .. - ~. ~" . ...~ r~ ._ •-. _.. .... -- ~ -.: __ ._. _ .. .. a ~ - ..._ _...... . ..._ _ _ ... __ ...__ -_ _._. . _ .. - ~ L.._ -~: - ... ... ___... - ... 1 ~ LoQsltd POHR2 ; ,; „ ppD; ~ R3 0 Chapel Hi11 Orange County Wanniny end Inapaalonspeparlment ~ ~ 8mdl Area Pun Bounded CC3 It ~ PD•1.79 ® ©p~8 Rt ~ FOllsborouph qS Map Propared by Iv9nam Golaman Jmwry 19, 2005 PDHR4 ~ 0 ti, AR ECS ®I~ ^ PpCOC4 8 PDHR6 ~] PID [[,] R5 [~ Canboro ProJealon: North CerolY+a 91Na Cana (faeq ~ Epp ~ 13 © Mebane Odurrr NorlhArmrianl~i ® BB ~ EI ^ LC1 Q PDED ~ PDHRA ^ Rt ~ D - /'1 OCt NC2 ®PDHR1 ®PDIt 0 R2 L..~ RB ~ purham ~.1~ ' N Page 1 of 1 ~~ Tom Altieri From: Craig Benedict Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:56 AM To': Frank Montes De Oca Cc: Tom Altieri Subject: RE: Comp Plan Comments Thank you. We'll add this to the record on Monday night, May 19th From: Frank Montes De Oca Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 8:17 PM To: Craig Benedict Subject: Comp Plan Comments Craig: Thank you for sending over a copy of the plan for review. I offer the following comments for your consideration. 1. Section 9.4.4 Law Enforcement and Emergency Servicesl911 Communications• the statement should say that we dispatch for three municipal fire departments: Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and Carrboro. 2. The two rescue squads are: Orange County Rescue Squad (Hillsborough) and South Orange Rescue Squad (Carrboro). 3. Section 9.4.4.2 Needs Assessment Eno Volunteer Fire Department has recently constructed a new fire station on St. Mary's Road. Objectives: 1. Design and maintain an updated radio communication system (800 MHz) system to ensure reliable notification and control of emergency assets throughout Orange County. 2. Develop and coordinate an emergency disaster plan and community outreach education program to ensure all citizens are aware of the dangers of natural and manmade emergency events throughout the county and prepare them to minimize danger, injury and loss. These may seem a bit vague, so if you need additional information or clarification, please feel free to contact me. Thanks. frm 5/19/2008 i.o~ Tom Altieri From: Chris Heaney [cdheaney@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 11:36 AM To: CompPlanUpdate Subject: Request to include detailed plans in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan to support the Rogers-Eubanks communities To whom it may concern: I am writing to request that the Orange County Comprehensive Plan include specific plans and recommendations for solutions to the issues raised by the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA) and the Coalition to End Environmental Racism (CEEB). These issues include: 1) Ending the 35 year burden of hosting of solid waste facilities by the Rogers-Eubanks neighborhood; 2) Providing public funding for provision of public, regulated drinking water and sewer service to all households in the Rogers-Eubanks neighborhood and Rogers Road Historic Area; 3) Providing funding for other basic municipal services to residents of the Rogers-Eubanks neighborhood and Rogers Road Historic Area including, but not limited to paved roads, paved sidewalks, stormwater drains, street lights, public bus service (including covered bus stops), emergency protection services (i.e., fire, police protection, ambulatory and rescue squad). Sincerely, Chris Heaney 1000 N. Greensboro St. Carrbor_o, NC 27510 Page 1 of 1 ~Q ~ Tom Altieri From: Barbara Hopkins [tayesue1@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 7:53 AM To: CompPlanUpdate I,Barbara Hopkins,request that. Orange County Comprehensive plan include specific plans and recommendations for solutions to the issues raised by the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA)and the Coalition to End Environmental Racism(CEER).These issues include: l .Ending the 35 year burden of hosting of solid waste facilities by the Rogers-Eubanks neighborhood; 2.Providing funding for provisions of public,regulated drinking water and sewer service to all households in the Rogers-Eubanks neighborhood; 3.Providing funding for other basic municipal services to residents of the Rogers-Eubanks neighborhood including,but not limited to paved roads,paved sidewalks,stormwater drains,street lights,public bus service(including covered bus stops),emergency protection services(fire,police protection and rescue squad). Sincerely, Barbara Hopkins 5/19/2008 boa Tom Altieri From: tmaguire@newspaper.com Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:19 AM To: CompPlanUpdate Subject: Comments I have reviewed the updated version of the Orange County master plan and offer these brief comments in making three recommendations. The first is that I do not believe that transportation other than automobilies ought to be considered "alternative". Rather, I think that all transportation modes ought to be considered on the same basis. An automobile is one, a bus another, trains, feet, bicycles, etc. None is more "equal" than any other. The second is that I believe we should commit ourselves to having as fully functional a sidewalk network in Orange County as we do one for automobiles. In other words, if we are going to consider comprehensive plans for how our automobiles and other vehicles get around the county, we should do the same. for people who choose to walk. The current sidewalk route throughout the county is abysmal and demands and deserve the same level of attention as that given to the road system. The third is that I do not recall seeing in the document a comprehensive discussion of energy production and use in the county. Perhaps I just missed it, but I think any master plan today ought to contain information on energy consumption and on local energy production. Again, I would not use the term "alternative". Solar energy production, for example, deserves to be treated in exactly the same way as any other energy we produce here. Thanks for considering these views. Terry Maguire 143 Graylyn Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27516 919-960-4503 -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com - Microsoft° Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange 1 Page 1 of 1 ~b~ Tom Altieri From: stanleyjones919@bellsouth.net Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 7:17 PM To: CompPlanUpdate Cc: rena_ceer@yahoogroups.com Importance: High From: Neloa Jones (neloajonest~bellsouth.net) Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update To: CompPlanUpdateCcl~co orange nc us Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 I, Neloa B. Jones, request that the Orange County Comprehensive Plan update include specific plans and recommendations for solutions to the issues raised by the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA) and the Coalition to End Environmental Racism (CEER). These issues include 1) ending the 35-year burden of hosting solid waste facilities by the Rogers-Eubanks Roads neighborhoods; 2) and providing funding for infrastructure and basic municipal services including, but not limited to a) public regulated drinking water to all households b) sewer service c) paved roads and sidewalks d) street lights e) fire hydrants f) storm water drains g) public bus service (including covered bus stops) h) emergency protection services (fire, police, and rescue). Sincerely, Neloa B. Jones Resident, Rogers-Eubanks Road Neighborhood 1708 Purefoy Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27516 5/30/2008 Page 1 of 1 ~6~ Tom Altieri From: Camellia Lee [luvearth333@whale-mail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 6:57 PM To: CompPlanUpdate Subject: Orange Comprehensive Plan Dear Comprehensive Plan Coordinators, I implore you to ensure the Orange County Comprehensive Plan include specific plans and recommendations for solutions to the issues raised by the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA) and the Coalition to End Environmental Racism (CEER). The Rogers-Eubanks communities are vital to the development of Orange County and have been forced to live with a landfill that collects the gargage of ALL Orange County residents. ' The community needs remedies for the following issues: 1) Ending the 35 year burden of hosting solid waste facilities by the Rogers-Eubanks neighborhood; 2) Providing funding for provision of safe, public, regulated drinking water and sewer service to all households in the Rogers-Eubanks neighborhood; 3) Providing funding for other basic municipal services to residents of the Rogers-Eubanks neighborhood including, but not limited to, paved roads, paved sidewalks, stormwater drains, street lights, public bus service (including covered bus stops), emergency protection services (i.e., fire, police protection, ambulatory and rescue squad). I'm seventeen years old, and I've spent almost nine of those years loving Chapel Hill for its "words-in- action" atmosphere. Here, we don't just talk environmental responsibility, we have free buses. Here, we don't just talk tolerance, we elect LGBT leaders. I'm ready to see us turn our words into action, so I can say to myself of my new home: "Here, we don't just talk justice, we right old wrongs and ensure justice for all our neighbors, even when it's tough." Sincerely, Camellia Lee 205 Black Tie Lane Chapel Hill, NC 27514 htt~://toolbar.Care2.com Make your computer carbon-neutral (free). http://www.Care2.com Green Living, Human Rights and more - 8 million members! 5/30/2008 Page 1 of 1 l o~ Tom Altieri From: john Chapman [john.k.chapman@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:53 PM To: CompPlanUpdate Cc: rena_ceer@yahoogroups.com Subject: Environmental Justice Dear Comprehensive Plan Coordinators, I urge you to make sure that the Orange County Comprehensive Plan include specific plans and recommendations for solutions to the issues raised by the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA) and the Coalition to End Environmental Racism (CEER). The Rogers-Eubanks communities are vital to the development of Orange County and have been forced to live with a landfill that collects the gargage of ALL Orange County residents. The community needs remedies for the following issues: 1) Ending the 35 year burden of hosting solid waste facilities by the Rogers-Eubanks neighborhood; 2) Providing funding for provision of safe, public, regulated drinking water and sewer service to all households in the Rogers-Eubanks neighborhood; 3) Providing funding for other basic municipal services to residents of the Rogers-Eubanks neighborhood including, but not limited to, paved roads, paved sidewalks, stormwater drains, street lights, public bus service (including covered bus stops), emergency protection services (i.e., fire, police protection, ambulatory and rescue squad). As a longtime resident of Chapel Hill, a social justice advocate, a member of Chapel Hill's Sustainability Committee, and the chair of the NAACP's Historical Commission, it is important to me that the needs and concerns of this community are incorporated into a plan that is truly comprehensive. Orange County's attempts to create a comnprehensive plan should not exclude any community, but should treat all communities equally to ensure "justice for all." Sincerely, Dr. John K. (Yonni) Chapman 5/30/2008 ~~ Tom Altieri From: hmsafron@email.unc.edu Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 11:30 AM To: CompPlanUpdate Subject: Orange County Comprehensive Plan Hello, I don't know if it's too late, but I would like to-also contribute my brief thoughts on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Unfortunately I was unable to attend the meeting last night. Regardless, here are my comments: I, Helena Safron, request that the Orange County Comprehensive Plan include specific plans and recommendations for solutions to the issues raised by the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA) and the Coalition to End Environmental Racism (LEER). These issues include: 1) Ending the 35 year burden of hosting of solid waste facilities by the Rogers-Eubanks neighborhood; 2) Providing funding for provision of public, regulated drinking water and sewer service to all households in the Rogers-Eubanks neighborhood; 3) Providing funding for other basic municipal services to residents of the Rogers-Eubanks neighborhood including, but not limited to paved roads, paved sidewalks, stormwater drains, street lights, public bus service (including covered bus stops), emergency protection services (i.e., fire, police protection, ambulatory and rescue squad). Sincerely, Helena Safron UNC-Chapel Hill Graduate Student M.A. Folklore Curriculum 1 Page 1 of 1 ~d~ Tom Altieri From: Tracy Kuhlman [tckuhlman@nc.rr.com] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 6:32 PM To: CompPlanUpdate Subject: OCCP and the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood To Tom Altieri and others whom it may concern: I am writing to request that Orange County's Comprehensive Plan take into account the needs of the Rogers- Eubanks neighborhood. These needs have been clearly defined by the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA) and its supporters in the Coalition to End Environmental Racism (CEER). They include the need to end the operation of all solid waste facilities in the historic Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood; the need for funding to provide safe drinking water and sewer service to the neighborhood; and the need to provide other municipal services as stipulated by the Rogers Road Enhancement Task Force (the task force that was created by Orange County to asess these needs). The Rogers-Eubanks neighborhood has lived with Orange County's garbage for over 35 years; now is the time for the county to say "Thank you" and invest in this important neighborhood's well-being. Sincerely, Tracy Kuhlman 1009 Tallyho Trail Chapel Hill, NC 27516 5/30/2008 ~b~ . Tom Altieri From: Dara D. Mendez [ddhall@email.unc.edu] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 4:39 PM To: CompPlanUpdate Subject: The Orange County Comprehensive Plan ~.. ,~ ATT2294141. htm (14 KB) Dear Comprehensive Plan Coordinators, I, Dara Mendez, request that the Orange County Comprehensive Plan include specific plans and recommendations for solutions to the issues raised by the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA) and the Coalition to End Environmental Racism (CEER). The Rogers- Eubanks communities are vital to the development of Orange County and have been forced to live with a landfill that collects the gargage of ALL Orange County residents. The community would like remedies for the following issues: 1) Ending the 35 year burden of hosting of solid waste facilities by the Rogers-Eubanks neighborhood; 2) Providing funding for provision of safe, public, regulated drinking water and sewer service to all households in the Rogers-Eubanks neighborhood; 3) Providing funding for other basic municipal services to residents of the Rogers-Eubanks neighborhood including, but not limited to paved roads, paved sidewalks, stormwater drains, street lights, public bus service (including covered bus stops), emergency protection services (i.e., fire, police protection, ambulatory and rescue squad). As a resident of Chapel Hill as well as a public health activist, it is important that the needs and concerns of this community are implemented into a plan that should be comprehensive. In Orange County's attempts to create a comnprehensive plan, this plan should not exclude any community but should treat all communities equally. Sincerely, Dara Mendez Dara D. Mendez, MPH Doctoral Candidate NRSA Predoctoral Fellow Department of Maternal and Child Health UNC School of Public Health ddhallc~email.unc.edu 2000 Baity Hill Drive Apt 210 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 1 l a~ Tom Altieri From: Joan Jobsis ~jobsis@nc.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 12:32 PM To: CompPlanUpdate Cc: MarcScagnelli Subject: Removal of 7-Mile Creek Restrictions To: Orange County Planning Board Attn: Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor. As I understand it, the restrictions on land use in the 7-Mile Creek area in the current Comprehensive Plan are out-dated and no longer useful since a reservoir is no longer planned for that area. I also understand that the proposed Comprehensive Plan acknowledges this and proposes that the 7-Mile Creek land use restrictions be eliminated. I SUPPORT THE REMOVAL OF THESE LAND USE RESTRICTIONS. In addition I would like to request a specific timetable and responsible County agent to ensure the implementation of this proposed removal of land use restrictions in the 7-Mile Creek area (so that this proposal is carried out in a timely manner & is not lost in potential red tape). Thank you for your consideration. Joan Jobsis 1834 Bushy Cook Road Efland NC 27243 1 Page 1 of 1 ~\~ Tom Altieri From: Janet Schoendorf [Janet@schoe.com] Sent:' Sunday, June 01, 2008.4:34 PM To: CompPlanUpdate Subject: One small comment Dear Members of the Orange County Department of Planning and Inspections, Please refer to the p.32 of the Services and Facilities Elementof the Comprehensive Plan, Objective PS-T-6 which talks about limiting the number of future wireless telecommunication facilities by identifying preferred locations. I am opposed to the dea of limiting cell phone towers, because no one, but customers of Alltet, receives adequate reception on his/her cell phone in Chapel Hill. This has essentially created a monopoly for Alltel, which dreadful for the customer. It is also aproblem-for visitors to the area who use other cell phone companies. Really, it seems backward to be in a place like Orange County, with so much other high tech activity going on, and then not to be able to receive a decent signal on one's cell phone. It is very frustrating, and not very good for business or consumers. In addition, I don't think cell phone towers are more offensive in appearance than any other utility pole, so if we had more than we needed, it would be preferable to an insufficient number. Perhaps some compromise could be reached? Maybe Orange County could request that all cell phone companies that wanted to do business in Orange County put in a specified amount of money into a cell phone tower pool. This pool of money could then be used to build cell towers that all companies would share. Orange County wireless experts could specify where these towers should be built for maximum coverage with a minimum of towers. Companies, new to the area, could be added on for a fee. Please modify the plan to insure that Orange County has sufficient towers to provide adequate wireless coverage, no matter what cell phone company one uses. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Janet Schoendorf ~i~i~nnR Page 1 of 4 1t1 Tom Altieri From: Janet Schoendorf [Janet@schoe.com] Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 2:03 AM To: CompPlanUpdate Subject: Comments on the Comprehensive Plan Janet Schoendorf 1925 Fountain Ridge Rd. Chapel Hill, NC 27517 May 31, 2008 Dear Members of the Orange County Planning Board, and Board of County Commissioners, I attended the public hearing concerning the Orange County Comprehensive Plan at the Orange County Courthouse in Hillsborough on Monday, May 19, and have reviewed the Comprehensive Plan on your website to the best of my ability. I think the overall plan with its focus on sustainable growth and economic development in conjunction with the preservation of rural land use, and natural areas is excellent. After some reflection, I would like to make four points about achieving those goals. Point 1-- Emphasize the retrofitting of existing developments and neighborhoods into sustainable, walkable communities by increasing density, installing bike paths, and sidewalks throughout, and changing zoning to mixed-use, so people actually have places to which they would want to walk. Mixed use developments, like Southern Village, and Meadowmont are very popular with the public. Why do we have to tear up virgin land to have this kind of development? We should encourage businesses to flourish in all neighborhoods, not just in these upscale new ones. I would love to see a coffee shop/restaurant/bookstore, banking facilities, a general store, doctors', dental offices, day care, school, park with outdoor swimming pool, library/reading room etc. reside in my neighborhood. If we want to decrease automobile use, we must have places within each neighborhood that people need to walk to .like the places listed above. Research indicates that children learn best in smaller schools. I would love to see small schools spring up in all neighborhoods. Let's bring back the neighborhood school (existing houses, ideally ones that are already for sale, could be converted into schools- probably at very reasonable costs), because it is not only good for children and their families, but among other benefits., it supports several of the County commissioners' planning principles (energy efficiency, sustainability, preservation of community 6/6/2008 Page 2 of 4 >>a character, etc.). Kids in the neighborhood could walk to their neighborhood school, eliminating the need for school buses. Besides saving school districts transportation costs, this one act would address several other important concerns ns well: reducing obesity in children (by getting kids to walk), reduction in our dependence on foreign oil, and the reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases. I would definitely like to see the establishment of small neighborhood schools encouraged in the CP. Of course, this would require intergovernmental cooperation (school board, city council, county commissioners), something again supported by the county commissioners. I am aware that in many cases, this would racially and culturally segregate schools, because neighborhoods in which people live continue to be racially and culturally segregated. However, I contend that schools are not the place to artificially force integration.. Instead, incentives need to be put in place to encourage neighborhoods to voluntarily integrate themselves; and then, in turn neighborhood schools will naturally become integrated. Mixed-use zoning and perhaps tax incentives might hasten the resolution of this problem. I also recognize that mixed use zoning in existing neighborhoods, and small schools within each neighborhood are not in the public consciousness yet; however, with the continued rise in gas prices, I believe people will start to find this idea more and more appealing, and then with proper marketing, I think the public could really come around. The public needs to be made aware that in many different places around the world, businesses, public buildings, and residences have coexisted for a long time in very charming ways. They are very lovely, delightful places to live. Finally, to encourage water conservation in existing neighborhoods, incentives (perhaps tax credits) should be given to property owners who recycle water by installing rain catchment devices, and cisterns. Point number two: Improve the safety of our roadways by adding adequate lighting and shoulders to existing roads. The Comprehensive Plnn talks about the changing demographics in the county, how the number of elderly will continue to increase over the years in Orange County, and that the county will need to plan accordingly. As one ages, one needs more light to see well at night. Therefore it is necessary that Orange County improve the lighting on our roadways. Presently, the lighting on our roads is either grossly inadequate or non-existent all together. In addition, many of our roadways are very unsafe because of a lack of shoulders. I feel very unsafe driving at night in Orange County, and most other places in North Carolina. With respect to future road construction, the Plan should stress that roads be constructed in a way that minimizes fuel usage, as well as fosters safety. To this end, 6/6/2008 Page 3 of 4 113 grid like road construction should be encouraged in the plan. This is the safest, most efficient way to move traffic along roadways. The plan should also specify where major roads should be constructed in the future, similar to what is done in Midwest where major roads were built a mile apart on a grid before any building developments were ever put in. Point three: Increase home safety. Incentives should be put in place to encourage people to minimize the use of wood in the construction of homes and other buildings. Outside of adornments like molding, I believe wood should even be prohibited in the construction of apartment complexes, office buildings, motel/hotels, and other multi-unit structures, mostly because of the danger of fire. Countries in which wood is not used for construction have almost no building fires. And then, termites are another problem with wood. It is bad for the environment to be dousing one's property with dangerous chemicals to kill termites. Both fire and the use of dangerous chemicals to kill termites could be avoided with non-wood building materials. We have lots of red clay in North Carolina that could be turned into sturdy, insect resistant, inflammable bricks. Incentives should be in place to increase their usage. Point four: With respect to fostering economic development in a sustainable way in Orange County, I see the need for athree-pronged approach. A. Encourage close collaboration with UNC researchers to develop new products, technologies, and services that can be "greenly," and cleanly developed and produced in Orange County. B. Since North Carolina is a state which denies workers the right to unionize and thereby protect themselves from the abuses of employers, it is incumbent on state and county governments to do that for them. The comprehensive plan should advocate for livable wages, and the 40 hour work week for all employees. This would be one way of addressing the need for affordable housing, and the elimination of poverty. C. Improve education to meet the needs and talents of all children. I think we know how to educate academic, college bound kinds of students; but we still have a way to go if we want to develop swell-trained, competent cadre of trades people. In order to do that, we need to show respect and appreciation for students who are more inclined toward vocational competencies, rather than academic skills. We must show our respect by offering top notch training and apprenticeship programs in a variety of vocational careers at the beginning of a student's high school career. Students who opt for a vocational track should have the option of participating in any vocational program within the county, either at a high school, or a community college, if a comparable program is not offered at 6/6/2008 Page 4 of 4 I~ the high school in their district. No student should be made to feel that s/he has to acquire an academic degree in order to be a successful, contributing member of society. We need to be sure that we embrace and foster a variety of human competencies and that we pay all of them well for a job well done. This leads us on to examine what is happening in the lower grades. Educators in this county, state, and nation have all been struggling with No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. However with a little scrutiny, I think one will come to realize that the children without mentally or physically handicapping conditions who have been left behind (non-proficient children, as determined by End of Grade Tests) in Orange County, as in other places, almost without exception, come from families who have been left behind. Either they are from families that do not have literate cultural traditions, or they do not have job skills. Some come from families in which substance abuse or other socinY issues are a problem. Others come from families in which English is not spoken in the home. Instead of laying all of the burden of educating these children at the doorstep of the school, de facto, in the laps of teachers, it is imperative that the challenging issues facing these non-proficient children and their families be addressed by the whole community, not just the schools, in order for real success to be made educationally with the children, .i.e., "failing children," as defined by End of Grade Tests come from "failing" families. What can we do in Orange County to make sure that no family fails? When we can answer that question and act upon it, we will have, with few exceptions, no non- proficient children. I thank you for your consideration of my ideas. Sincerely, Janet Schoendorf 6/6/2008 Page 1 of 4 (IS Tom Altieri From: James Carnahan ~carnahan@mindspring.com] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 8:52 AM To: barryj@earthlink.net; Valerie Foushee; mcarey5@nc.rr.com; gordonam@mindspring.com; mikenelsonnc@aol.com; jaybryan7@msn.com Cc: Tom Altieri; Donna Baker Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update [also attaching Word file of this letter] Dear Orange County Board of Commissioners, As you know, The Village Project is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting walkable communities in Orange County. As such, we have taken a great interest in the update of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Because we see the importance of this process, in 2007 we convened a diverse coalition of stakeholders to help engage the community and to provide input on the Plan, the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Coalition ("Coalition"). The Coalition submitted input on the draft Comprehensive Plan on January 28, 2008 and May 5, 2008. The Coalition believes that incorporating this input into the Comprehensive Plan would greatly help it establish a sustainable path into the future for Orange County. The Village Project encourages the County to consider these comments carefully; they are the result of an intensive dialog held over many months among community leaders from all sectors on future growth in Orange County. The Village Project submits herein additional comments on its own behalf regarding the May 2008 draft of the Comprehensive Plan for consideration by the Orange County Planning Board and Board of Commissioners. The following comments thematically summarize our findings from a detailed review of the May draft Plan, which we will submit separately at a later date. We are also including in the accompanying attachment proposed edits & revisions to Chapter 1, section 3, "Toward a Sustainable Future." 1) Sustainability and Global Climate Change. Chapter 1, section 1.3 represents a good start at articulating a shared vision for the county's sustainability and provides the basis for a set of "sustainability principles" intended to serve as overarching goals for the County. To be truly "comprehensive" the plan must define and utilize sustainability in the broadest context: environmental health, economic vitality, and social equity. Our quality of life is impacted by global events, and our daily decisions and activities have global impacts. Global warming is an epochal challenge, now widely acknowledged as caused and exacerbated by human behavior, including choices we make in Orange County. Global warming has the potential to alter the planet and way of life we now enjoy beyond recognition, with possibly catastrophic results. We have a shared responsibility to future generations to take steps to reduce our per-capita contributions to climate change by living as efficiently as possible. Acknowledgement of this responsibility and of the global context should be explicit throughout the plan and should play a foundational role in the Plan's Goals and Objectives. We feel that, if the County is seriously committed to sustainability, the Plan should go further in this respect. 2) Localizing Economic Development. Economic activity over the last 50 years has been conducted as if resources were inexhaustible and the fabric of the planet was indestructible. Because it does not 6/6/2008 Page 2 of 4 III account for its longer term and wider impacts ("externalities"), such "business as usual" is nova sustainable path. Orange County can do much better for its citizens and the environment. The Comprehensive Plan should seek and embrace economic activities and patterns that promote sustainability both locally and globally. Such an economy would be substantially locally owned, and would export as much as it imports or more. Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan should bring about a "local living economy" that uses sustainable practices to produce knowledge, goods and services, and offers predominantly high-quality employment opportunities. This vision includes -and will resemble -the County's laudable support of our local agricultural systems. 3) Investing in Public Infrastructure. Public infrastructure, particularly water and wastewater services, is necessary for the compact, mixed-use, economically vibrant, and transit-supportive communities that, in our considered judgment, are the best form of development for Orange County. The Comprehensive Plan should explicitly state the County's intent to immediately begin to provide the infrastructure and management mechanisms to enable compact and sustainable land use patterns (a.k.a. "smart growth.") and to ensure that areas identified as suitable for growth (such as Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) "receiving areas") are developed sustainably. 4) Zoning for Mixed-Used Districts. Compact mixed-use developments will require new zoning designations; currently, there are no true mixed-use zoning districts in the County. Within these zones a minimum residential density of 8 to 1 S dwelling units per acre is necessary to support bus service; 20 to 30 units to the acre are needed to support rail transit. The new zoning districts must effectively "upzone" areas most suitably located for intensive development and should enable uses that are mixed vertically as well as horizontally. Ideally, such zoning changes will be undertaken as pazt of a larger TDR program, so that upzoning and downzoning do not create inequities among affected landowners. These new zones must be available for application in areas where the County decides to provide new infrastructure to enable compact development to take place. 5) Inclusionary Zoning in Mixed-Use Districts. The goal of increased housing opportunities for our workforce, for lower-income residents, and for special needs households should be addressed by an objective to implement inclusionary zoning requirements in growth areas with three criteria: price (rent or purchase cost), square footage, and number of bedrooms. Limiting size and requiring minimum densities in growth areas encourages multi-family structures that use. land, water, and energy faz more efficiently than single-family detached dwelling units. Moreover, such patterns are an important and increasingly demanded form of human settlement because they provide the social benefits of living among a diverse population and increased amenities due to .economies of scale. 6) Adaptability as a Key Component of "Community Character." Historically, human settlements evolved at crossroads and other transportation nodes. They were compact, mixed-use, and had local identity. It is therefore ironic to us that the concept of "community character" is sometimes wielded to perpetuate homogenous, low-density, suburban development patterns that isolate neighbors and fragment our rural lands. Such developments do not adequately preserve habitats or viewsheds, and they add significantly to per-capita resource consumption and pollution generation. To be consistent with historical precedent, Orange County should allow more intense development at rural crossroads. Ideally, our economic development efforts would produce local businesses such as mazkets that generate local income, sales taxes, and jobs and also reduce transportation emissions. The most important historical characteristic to observe in such areas is the HUMAN SCALE. Green building and a diversity of uses may call for additional flexibility and community involvement in how we conceive of appropriate design. The Village Project offers its assistance to the County in this regazd. The County may ultimately wish to follow other innovative communities in adopting form-based codes and having designers participate in the development review process. 6/6/2008 Page 3 of 4 l 1`t 'n Requiring Energy-Efficient, High-Performance Buildings. The Comprehensive Plan must ensure that new construction and renovations result in energy-efficient, high-performance buildings. Abundant resources are available that would provide starting points and guidance for the County in this effort. Orange County should lead the state, as it has in the past with other critical environmental issues, in modeling codes and ordinances that will reduce the impacts of new growth and per-capita resource needs when it is most efficient to do so: at the time of construction or rehabilitation. The housing, commercial, industrial, and institutional development envisioned by the Plan will be around long into the future. Let's make it worth keeping and maintaining. On a procedural note, we encourage the Board of Commissioners to ask each Element-lead advisory board to submit comments by July 9 to the Planning Board for their consideration as they continue to refine the Comprehensive Plan this summer. Regarding stakeholder participation generally, we also request that the County advise the people and organizations who have generously volunteered their time to understand the Plan and the planning process how their comments have been and will be taken into account in the final drafts of the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent implementation planning phases. In conclusion, we return to the topic of sustainability. One fmal comment on the Plan illustrates a tension we have long noted in the County and would like to see resolved through the Comprehensive Plan: The term "carrying capacity" is a useful concept in population ecology, but in a planning document at the County scale, "carrying capacity" is a dubious and misleading notion. In order to analyze "carrying capacity," the analyst must define the boundaries of the system. For animals, this involves looking at foraging, habitat, migration patterns, etc. The concept of carrying capacity is highly problematic when applied to HUMAN populations. Human populations and developed nations in particular 1) exploit the resources of the ENTIRE planet, and 2) affect the ENTIRE planet with their waste (pollution). Until this is no longer the case, using the concept of carrying capacity -particularly for relatively small areas such as a county - to "analyze" the number of humans an area can support is arbitrary and erroneous. The most prudent course of action is to use the resources we have as efficiently as possible. As residents of one of the wealthiest nations in the world, we have not met this challenge adequately. If Orange County were to maximize the efficiency with which it uses its resources and to find ways to recycle our waste, additional population could easily be accommodated in the county without additional environmental impacts. It simply depends on the choices we make. As a society, we are trying to bring about a major shift in how we live. Unfortunately, we are late. It is incumbent. upon all of us, and governments in particular, to do everything in our power as humans to live in ways that tread very lightly on our beleaguered planet. There is much work to do, but we see the potential of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan to make a positive difference for people and for the environment. Sincerely, James Carnahan, Chairman, 6/6/2008 Page 4 of 4 ~~~ on behalf of the Board of Directors of The Village Project, Inc. June 4, 2008 6/6/2008 ~~~ the ~ ~~ Creating Village ;:# Watkabte PrU~eCt ~ ~ ~;•~: Communities June 4, 2008 Dear Orange County Board of Commissioners, As you know, The Village Project is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting walkable communities in Orange County. As such, we have taken a great interest in the update of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Because we see the importance of this process, in 2007 we convened a diverse coalition of stakeholders to help engage the community and to provide input on the Plan, the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Coalition ("Coalit ion"). The Coalition submitted input on the draft Comprehensive Plan on January 28, 2008 and May 5, 2008. The Coalition believes that incorporating this input into the Comprehensive Plan would greatly help it establish a sustainable path into the future for Orange County. The Village Project encourages the County to consider these comments carefuIly; they are the result of an intensive dialog held over many months among community leaders from all sectors on future growth in Orange County. The Village Project submits herein additional comments on its own behalf regarding the May 2008 draft of the Comprehensive Plan for consideration by the Orange County Planning Board and Board of Commissioners. The following comments thematically summarize our findings from a detailed review of the May draft Plan, which we will submit separately at a later date. We are also including in the accompanying attachment proposed edits & revisions to Chapter 1, section 3, "Toward a Sustainable Future." 1) Sustainability and Global Climate Change. Chapter 1, section 1.3 represents a good start at articulating a shared vision for the county's sustainabil ity and provides the basis for a set of "sustainab ility principles" intended to serve as overarching goals for the County. To be truly "comprehensive" the plan must define and utilize susta inability in the broadest context: environmental health, economic vitality, and social equity. Our quality of life is impacted by global events, and our daily decisions and activities have global impacts. Global warming is an epochal challenge, now widely acknowledged as caused and exacerbated by human behavior, including choices we make in Orange County. Global warming has the potential to alter the planet and way of life we now enjoy beyond recognition, with possibly catastrophic results. We have a shared responsibility to future generations to take steps to reduce our per-capita contributions to climate change by living as efficiently as possible. Acknowledgement of this responsibility and of the global context should be explicit throughout the plan and should play a foundational role in the Plan's Goals and Objectives. We feel that, if the County is seriously committed to sustainability, the Plan should go further in this respect. The Village Project • PO Box 685 • Carrbaro NC 27510 • 919-942-6114 • wwwthevillageproject.com ~ as 2) Localizing Economic Development. Economic activity over the last 50 years has been conducted as if resources were inexhaustible and the fabric of the planet was indestructible. Because it does not account for its longer term and wider impacts ("externalities"), such "business as usual'.' i.s not a sustainable path. Orange County can do much better for its citizens and the environment. The Comprehensive Plan should seek and embrace economic activities and patterns that promote sustainability both locally and globally. Such an economy would be substantially locally owned, and would export as much as it imports or more. Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan should bring about a "lo cal living economy" that uses sustainable practices to produce knowledge, goods and services, and offers predominantly high-quality employment opportunities. This vision includes -and will resemble -the County's laudable support of our local agri cultural systems. 3) Investing in Public Infrastructure. Public infrastructure, particularly water and wastewater services, is necessary for the compact, mixed-use, economically vibrant, and transit- supportive communities that, in our considered judgment, are the best form of development for Orange County. The Comprehensive Plan should explicitly state the County's intent to immediately begin to provide the infrastructure and management mechanisms to enable compact and sustainable land use patterns (a.k.a. "smart growth.") and to ensure that areas identified as suitable for growth (such as Transfer of Development Rights ('TDR) "receiving areas") are developed sustainably. 4) Zoning for Mixed-Used Districts. Compact mixed-use developments will require new zoning designations; currently, there are no true mixed-use zoning districts in the County. Within these zones a minimum residential density of 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre is necessary to support bus service; 20 to 30 units to the acre are needed to support rail transit. The new zoning districts must effectively "upzone" areas most suitably located for intensive development and should enable uses that are mixed vertically as well as horizontally. Ideally, such zoning changes will be undertaken as part of a larger TDR program, so that upzoning and downzoning do not create inequities among affected landowners. These new zones must be available for application in areas where the County decides to provide new infrastructure to enable compact development to take place. 5) Inclusionary Zoning in Mixed-Use Districts. The goal of increased housing opportunities for our workforce, for lower-income residents, and for special needs households should be addressed by an objective to implement inclusionary zoning requirements in growth areas with three criteria: price (rent or purchase cost), square footage, and number of bedrooms. Limiting size and requiring minimum densities ingrowth areas encourages multi-family structures that use land, water, and energy far more efficiently than single-family detached dwelling units. Moreover, such patterns are an important and increasingly demanded form of human settlement because they provide the social benefits of living among a diverse population and increased amenities due to economies of scale. 6) Adaptability as a Key Component of "Com munity Character." Historically, human settlements evolved at crossroads and other transportation nodes. They were compact, mixed- The Village Project • PO Box 68S • Carrboro NC 27510 • 919-942-6114 • wwwthevillageproject.com 2 ~a~ use, and had local identity. It is therefore ironic to us that the concept of "community character" is sometimes wielded to perpetuate homogenous, low-density, suburban development patterns that isolate neighbors and fragment our rural lands. Such developments do not adequately preserve habitats or viewsheds, and they add significantly to per-capita resource consumption and pollution generation. To be consistent with historical precedent, Orange County should allow more intense development at rural crossroads. Ideally, our economic development efforts would produce local businesses such as markets that generate local income, sales taxes, and jobs and also reduce transportation emissions. The most important historical characteristic to observe in such areas is the HUMAN SCALE. Green building and a diversity of uses may call for additional flexibility and community involvement in how we conceive of appropriate design. The Village Project offers its assistance to the County in this regard. The County may ultimately wish to follow other innovative communities in adopting form-based codes and having designers participate in the development review process. 7) Requiring Energy-Efficient, High-Performance Buildings. The Comprehensive Plan must ensure that new construction and renovations result in energy-efficient, high-performance buildings. Abundant resources are available that would provide starting points and guidance for the County in this effort. Orange County should lead the state, as it has in the past with other critical environmental issues, in modeling codes and ordinances that will reduce the impacts of new growth and per-capita. resource needs when it is most efficient to do so: at the time of construction or rehabilitation. The housing, commercial, industrial, and institutional development envisioned by the Plan will be around long into the future. Let's make it worth keeping and maintaining. On a procedural note, we encourage the Board of Commissioners to ask each Element-lead advisory board to submit comments by July 9 to the Planning Board for their consideration as they continue to refine the Comprehensive Plan this summer. Regarding stakeholder participation generally, we also request that the County advise the people and organizations who have generously volunteered their time to understand the Plan and the planning process how their comments have been and will be taken into account in the final drafts of the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent implementation planning phases. In conclusion, we return to the topic of sustainability. One final comment on the Plan illustrates a tension we have long noted in the County and would like to see resolved through the Comprehensive Plan: The term "carrying capacity" is a use ful concept in population ecology, but in a planning document at the County scale, "c arrying capacity" is a dubious and misleading notion. In order to analyze "carryi ng capacity; 'the analyst must define the boundaries of the system. For animals, this involves looking at foraging, habitat, migration patterns, etc. The Village Project • PO Box 685 • Carrboro NC 27510 • 919-942-6114 • w~vw.thevillageproject.com 3 ~aa The concept of carrying capacity is highly problematic when applied to HUMAN populations. Human populations and developed nations in particular 1) exploit the resources of the ENTIRE planet, and 2) affect the ENITIZE planet with their waste (pollution). Until this is no longer the case, using the concept of carrying capacity -particularly for relatively small areas such as a county - to "analyze" the number of humans an area can support is arbitrary and erroneous. The most prudent course of action is to use the resources we have as efficiently as possible. As residents of one of the wealthiest nations in the world, we have not met this challenge adequately. If Orange County were to maximize the efficiency with which it uses its resources and to find ways to recycle our waste, additional population could easily be accommodated in the county without additional environmental impacts. It simply depends on the choices we make. As a society, we are trying to bring about a major shift in how we live. Unfortunately, we are late. It is incumbent upon all of us, and governments in particular, to do everything in our power as humans to live in ways that tread very lightly on our beleaguered planet. There is much work to do, but we see the potential of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan to make a positive difference for people and for the environment. Sincerely, J a v~.es ca rwa h a w James Carnahan, Chairman, on behalf of the Board of Directors of The Village Project, Inc. The Village Project • PO Box 68S • Carrboro NC 27510 • 9I9-942-6114 • wwwthevillageproject.cozn 4 ~ a~ The ~'i(lage Project Comments on the Ora~~ge Co~~€~ty Comprehensive flan Ul~clate Draft 2 Orange County Comprehensive Plan DRAFT 5-6-08 1.3. TOWARD A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE An emerging point of consensus in Orange County is that we need to act in a manner that will achieve a quality of life that is sustainable into the future. Objectives include environmental conservation, energy efficiency, affordable housing, social equity, a thriving economy, regional agricultural production and the availability of transit- oriented, walkable, mixed-use communities. Orange County residents understand the linkages that support a sustainable future. Examples abound: To help preserve rural character, shop at a farmers market to help keep local farms in production. To help pay for schools and services, encourage growth of the non-residential tax base by locating residences close to business and retail centers. Reduce growth in carbon emissions by achieving compact development patterns. Village Project Suggested Revisions to Section 1.3: (new text italicized & bolded) 1.3. TOWARD A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE An emerging ~ consensus in Orange County is ~e the need to act in a manner that will achieve a quality of life that is sustainable ' Local and global natural resources are finite. Local activities have global consequences that must factor into. our decision-making. Limited oil reserves and the onset of global warming compel us to embrace economic models, development patterns, transportation systems, and public investments that will result in steadily decreasing COz emissions. E~l~jee~i~es Our principle tenets including environmental conservation, energy efficiency, affordable housing, social equity, a thriving economy, regional agricultural production and the availability oftransit-ready, walkable, mixed-use communities must be tailored to enhance current prosperity and well being without reducing choices for future generations. [This sentence panders to the reader and is actually false. The linkages are complex and poorly understood. Even issues as simple as litter or as pervasive as stormwater runoff are poorly understood.) Page 1 June 6, 2008 ,a~ `l'he ~ illage Prcjeet Comm~;nts on the (range t:c~u~~ty Con~prehe~~sive Plan Update Draft 2 We need to use the resources that are available to us today in a manner that protects them for future generations. Following is a summary of the key ideas presented in this Comprehensive Plan that relate directly to the goal of achieving a sustainable future. Refer to each of these Plan Elements for more details. 1.3.1. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT --- -~ . Following is a summary of the key ideas presented in this Comprehensive Plan that relate directly to the goal of achieving a sustainable future. 1.3.1 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Economic development, above all, must address the challenges of global warming and the rapidly diminishing availability of fossil fuels by initiating the transition to a "Post-carbon Economy" in which local COa emissions are reduced to levels that will support climate stability. Long-term economic vitality is best created by developing productive capacity from within. These efforts should result in an effective infrastructure for developing and supporting local enterprise and entrepreneurial efforts, including apprenticeship programs, entrepreneurship training, community-developed finance and investment organizations, and Local Living Economy support networks. Research shows local enterprises create a higher multiplier effect, generate more local revenues, cost less in terms of governmental services and incentives, reduce carbon emissions, and provide stable employment with better wages and benefits. All of these are lost when development offices recruit large-scale, non-local, non- integrated, and cost-externalizing companies that undermine local enterprise initiatives. Considering current social, economic and Page 2 June 6, 2008 1 ~~ "1'he Village 1'rc~}c:ct Comments an the Orange (:o~x.nty Con~prehe~~sive flan L:Ipdate Draft 2 The County has established Economic Development Districts wherein public investment will be focused to stimulate and accommodate development in strategic locations that can be served by transportation systems and public infrastructure, and be convenient to housing opportunities. The County's Economic Development Commission works with local, regional and state governments and agencies to attract and promote the types of businesses suited to Orange County. Focus on these efforts is recruiting appropriate businesses that will provide jobs to local residents and provide a more balanced tax revenue structure that relies less on the generation of private property taxes. The County and Economic Development Commission have identified Action Steps in the report: "Investing in Innovation: Orange County Economic Development Commission Five-Year Strategic Plan." To meet the demand for locally grown products, the County is working with Alamance, Chatham, and Durham Counties environmental realities, local development efforts should emphasize: 1) green-collar jobs and businesses including green refits and upgrades, renewable energy capacity and distribution, green building, and innovative water capture and reuse; and 2) brain-based, information age, and knowledge ecology jobs that include all forms ofhigh-value, innovative enterprises ranging from high-tech innovators such as Red Hat to community-serving investment services such as Self-Help. The County has established Economic Development Districts wherein public investment will be focused to stimulate and accommodate development in strategic locations that can be served by transportation systems and public infrastructure, and be conveniently integrated with housing and efficiently concentrated local services. The County Economic Development Commission currently works with local, regional and state governments and agencies to recruit the types of businesses she that help fulfill Orange County goals. Focus on these efforts is recruiting appropriate businesses that will provide jobs to local residents and provide a more balanced tax revenue structure that relies less on the generation of private property taxes. The County's Economic Development Commission has identified Action Steps in the report: "Investing in Innovation: Orange County Economic Development Commission Five-Year Strategic Plan." To meet the demand for locally grown products, the County is working with Alamance, Chatham, and Durham counties to establish avalue-added food processing center, where farmers and ewer-s related Page 3 June 6, 2008 i ~~ ':I:'he ~Titlage Prc~jeet Comments on the Ora~~€;e Cot~nt~~ C:omprehet~.si~le Plan til~date Draft 2 to establish avalue-added food processing center, where farmers and others could make value-added products, such as jams, pickles, or tamales. 1.3.2. HOUSING producers can make value-added products, such as jams, pickles, or tamales. Other significant initiatives include farmer incubation projects; land-trust and land- care development projects; farmer training and networking events, community awareness and education events; a "sustainable living" educational center; and developing local farmer cooperatives capable of purchasing vital processing facilities (of their own choice) such as those needed for chicken and meat processing and produce cleaning and packaging. 1.3.2 HUMANDEVELOPMENT No plan for the future can be complete without provisions for long-term social and economic vitality. High-value local enterprise and committed, critical-thinking citizens are best developed in educational settings that emphasize meaningful, hands- on, problem solving experiences and creative, cooperative learning. The best schools also implement model communities and economies, which help students build confidence and know-how while learning about all the practical aspects of life, from balancing a checkbook and working with others to starting a business and negotiating contracts. Empowering, cooperative education builds community ties along with know-how. 1.3.3. HOUSING Housing that is affordable across the full price spectrum is indispensable to a diverse society and a healthy economy. The County must provide both incentives and regulations to ensure that people who work in Orange County can find truly affordable housing located within walking or biking Page 4 June 6, 2008 ~a7 ":['e Village 1'rc~ject CommVnts on the Ora~~ge (.:ot~~~ty~ Con~prehensi~re flan t_!pdate Draft 2 The County supports an array of affordable and workforce housing initiatives, designed to support non-profit organizations, make use of state and federal funds, and provide housing opportunities for County residents. By providing additional affordable housing initiatives within the County, opportunities for living and working in proximity increase. The County is actively pursuing options to provide residential opportunities for homeless individuals and families, contributing to the area's strong emphasis on social equity. 1.3.3. LAND USE Mixed-use districts are being actively encouraged, and locations for new mixed-use centers are being identified, providing live- distance, or accessible by transit, from the places they work, shop, learn and play. Housing options should be dense enough to support public transportation. The County supports an array of affordable, a~ workforce housing initiatives; designed to support non-profit organizations, make use of state and federal funds, and provide housing opportunities for County residents and workers. By providing additional affordable housing initiatives within the County, opportunities for living and working in proximity increase. The County is actively pursuing options to provide residential opportunities for homeless individuals and families, contributing to the area's strong emphasis on social equity. 1.3.4. LAND USE Land use is instrumental in the reduction of carbon emissions. Transportation energy is greatly reduced by aggregating facilities so that people can walk or bike or take public transit to most if not all daily activities. Vertical development forms reduce the footprint of the built environment, conserving energy and mitigating impacts on natural systems. "Green" building standards can further Izelp to conserve energy and resources. [Repositioned paragraph from bottom of section to here) Siting "Growth Opportunity Areas" near transit corridors and along major thoroughfares will encourage more public transportation use by County residents and workers. Actively encouraging mixed-use districts and identifying mixed-use centers that provide live-work-shop opportunities will Page 5 June 6, 2008 ,ag The Village Proj~:ct Comments on the Orange Coiu~ty ~:omprehensive Plan Update Draft 2 work-shop opportunities that minimize travel needs. The County is exploring a Strategic Growth and Resource Conservation program that will help to focus new development in areas that can best accommodate it, in proximity to jobs, housing, transportation, and services near transit corridors. Simultaneously this program will also help to preserve/conserve rural and agricultural land with compensation provisions for rural property. owners. The County's development of an interconnected system of pedestrian and bicycle trails will both provide recreation opportunities and also hold promise for increasing mobility choices available to Orange County residents. Identification of growth opportunity areas near transit corridors and along major thoroughfares encourages more public transportation use by County residents. 1.3.4. NATURAL AND CULTURAL SYSTEMS As of 2007, over 22,000 acres of land in the County has been protected through various land conservation programs. These efforts support the goals of sustaining a balanced and healthy diversity of native plant and animal populations, providing a network of protection natural, cultural, and agricultural lands, and achieving and adequate level of protection for important natural areas, prime forests, and wildlife habitat. Ideas for expanding conservation efforts include improved monitoring of critical natural lands and expanding the County's inventory of critical lands to include new areas not before assessed. Preservation of working farms, forestry, and minimize travel needs. The County is exploring a Strategic Growth and Resource Conservation program that will help to focus new development in areas that can best accommodate it, in proximity to jobs, housing, transportation, and services near transit corridors. Simultaneously this program will also help to preserve/conserve rural and agricultural land with compensation provisions for rural property owners. The County's development of an interconnected system of pedestrian and bicycle trails will both provide recreation opportunities and also hold promise for increasing mobility choices available to Orange County residents. [Repositioned paragraph from here to top of section] 1.3.5. NATURAL AND CULTURAL SYSTEMS As of 2007, over 22,000 acres of land in the County has been protected through various land conservation programs. These efforts support the goals of sustaining a balanced and healthy diversity of native plant and animal populations, providing a network of protection natural, cultural, and agricultural lands, and achieving and adequate level of protection for important natural areas, prime forests, and wildlife habitat. Ideas for expanding conservation efforts include improved monitoring of critical natural lands and expanding the County's inventory of critical lands to include new areas not before assessed. Preservation of working farms, forestry, and Page 6 June 6, 2008 ~ a~ ":f'he Village Project Comments on the Ora~~ge C`:ou~~ty C:on~prehe~~sive flan Lrl~date Draft 2 ancillary agricultural businesses is supported by the County. Farmland preservation districts, agricultural preservation through private conservation easements, and the use value taxation model are working to protect farmland and the farming industry in Orange County. More can be done, and County regulations are being reviewed to identify impediments to farming practices. The potential for the Strategic Growth and Rural Conservation program and enhanced farmland preservation districts could provide additional opportunities for farmland protection. Developing a local food system that links local producers and consumers is of high importance. The number of farmers markets operating in the County has increased in recent years, exemplifying their success. Agri-tourism and farming events have also proven popular. One idea to expand on the success of our local agricultural industry is to identify suitable locations for agricultural facilities, such as processing centers, community kitchens, demonstration tracts, community gardens, and the like that can bring together producers and consumers and educate the next generation of farmers. Orange. County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro initiated a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Reduction Action Plan project in 2006. More can be done to improve air quality and reduce the use ofnon-renewable fuels over the planning horizon. Ideas include the promotion of private and public use of alternative fuel sources and power generation options, such as harnessing and using landfill gas, and participating in green energy production programs. Our historical character has been protected through the efforts of national and local level preservation programs. Cultural landscapes, historic structures, and even scenic roadways ancillary agricultural businesses is supported by the County. Farmland preservation districts, agricultural preservation through private conservation easements, and the use value taxation model are working to protect farmland and the farming industry in Orange County. More can be done, and County regulations are being reviewed to identify impediments to farnung practices. The potential for the Strategic Growth and Rural Conservation program and enhanced farmland preservation districts could provide additional opportunities for farmland protection. Developing a local food system that links local producers and consumers is of high importance. The number of farmers markets operating in the County has increased in recent years, exemplifying their success. Agri-tourism and farming events have also proven popular. One idea to expand on the success of our local agricultural industry is to identify suitable locations for agricultural facilities, such as processing centers, community kitchens, demonstration tracts, community gardens, and the like that can bring together producers and consumers and educate the next generation of farmers. Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro initiated a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Reduction Action Plan project in 2006. More can be done to improve air quality and reduce the use ofnon-renewable fuels over the planning horizon. Ideas include the promotion of private and public use of alternative fuel sources and power generation options, such as harnessing and using landfill gas, and participating in green energy production programs. Our historical character has been protected through the efforts of national and local level preservation programs. Cultural landscapes, historic structures, and even scenic roadways Page 7 June 6, 2008 ~ 3t~ "l'he Vitlage Project Comments on the Ora~~ge Co~rt~ty Coniprehe~~sive Plan Update Draft 2 can be protected through existing preservation programs. Advancement of preservation goals could include funding assistance to landowners needing additional resources to maintain historic properties. 1.3.5. SERVICES AND FACILITIES Water conservation efforts have been a critical piece in managing water supplies through recent droughts. County level coordination is needed to manage water resources that will serve future populations. Placing public. water and sewer facilities near areas targeted for dense development can reinforce a more sustainable land use pattern. Erosion control and stormwater management efforts in the County are paramount for protecting natural areas from the adverse effects of development. These efforts can be expanded by improving surface water mapping and collecting additional water quality data to inform development management efforts. The County has set an ambitious waste reduction goal of 61%1. Orange County has surpassed state mandates for waste reduction in 1996 and 2001. Continued efforts to identify waste reduction opportunities is supported by the County. The identification of a future waste transfer site and landfill location are critical needs that will be addressed over the planning horizon. Page 8 can be protected through existing preservation programs. Advancement of preservation goals could include funding assistance to landowners needing additional resources to maintain historic properties. 1.3.6. SERVICES AND FACILITIES Water conservation efforts have been a critical piece in managing water supplies through recent droughts. County level coordination is needed to manage water resources that will serve future populations. Placing public water and sewer facilities near areas targeted for dense development can reinforce a more sustainable land use pattern. [There are numerous ways to increase the number of people that can be served by a given amount of fresh water. For example, the county needs to explore ways to provide water and wastewater service to the mixed- use nodes where centralized water and sewer are not appropriate. Currently, county residents use water quite inefficiently.) Erosion control and stormwater management efforts in the County are paramount for protecting natural areas from the adverse effects of development. These efforts can be expanded by improving surface water mapping and collecting additional water quality data to inform development management efforts. The County has set an ambitious waste reduction goal of 61%1. Orange County has surpassed state mandates for waste reduction in 1996 and 2001. Continued efforts to identify waste reduction opportunities are supported by the County. The identification of a future waste transfer site and landfill location is a critical needs that will be addressed over the planning horizon. June 6, 2008 ~~I .I'he ~%illage Project Corrtments on the Ora~~ge Cot~~~t~' Comprehe~~sive Plan t~ll~date Draft 2 1.3.6. RECREATION AND PARKS By investigating new forms of recreation to meet new demands (seniors, changing demands for youth), the County is pro- actively planning for the range o~ needs and demands that will accompany residential growth. By planning for Joint use of facilities by multiple users and jurisdictions (e.g., the two school systems and recreation departments), the County is encouraging efficient use of land and wise use of public fmancial resources. 1.3.7. TRANSPORTATION The County is actively encouraging alternative modes of transportation and ride- sharing, expanding possibilities for mobility by means other than single-occupant automobiles. Examples of alternative modes of transportation include, but are not limited to: • Interconnected pedestrian and bicycle trails; • Transit lanes along major thoroughfares; and • Considering the development of park-and-ride lots that would encourage use of public transportation to travel to and from Page 9 1.3.7. RECREATION AND PARKS By investigating new forms of recreation to meet new demands (seniors, changing demands for youth), the County is pro- actively planning for the range of needs and demands that will accompany residential growth. By planning for joint use of facilities by multiple users and jurisdictions (e.g., the two school systems and recreation departments), the. County is encouraging efficient use of land and wise use of public fmancial resources. 1.3.8. TRANSPORTATION [The discussion of sustainability in transportation options is inadequate so long as density is left out of the equation. At minimum, state what professional consensus is about the minimum housing and other densities necessary to support public transportation.) The reduction of carbon emissions is an inescapable imperative and the County must actively encourage the transition from automobile dependence to alternative modes of transportation and ride-sharing; . Examples of alternative modes of transportation include, but are not limited to: Interconnected pedestrian and bicycle trails; Dedicated transit lanes along major thoroughfares making public transportation an expeditious and attractive option; and Development of park-and-ride lots that ~ encourage the use of public transportation to travel to and from June 6, 2008 ~3a "I:'he ~~iliage Pro~j4ct Comments on the Orange Cou~~ty Comprehensive Plan Lrpdatc Draft 2 work. Increasing public transit by expanding public and special transportation services for seniors, and individuals with disabilities, increases choice and opportunity. Increasing bus service, designating public transportation nodes throughout the County with facilities to accommodate pedestrians, park and ride lots, and bicycle racks all contribute to mobility options. These initiatives reinforce each other. Taken together,-they. form a platform of sustainable practices upon which current and future generations of Orange County residents can build productive lives. work. Particular attention must be given to increasing choice and opportunity for seniors and individuals with disabilities by expanding public and special transportation services. Additionally, increasing bus service, designating public transportation nodes throughout the County with facilities to accommodate pedestrians, creating park and ride lots, and providing bicycle racks all contribute to increasing mobility options. These initiatives reinforce each other. Taken together, they form a platform of sustainable practices upon which current and future generations of Orange County residents can build productive lives. Page 10 June 6, 2008 Page 1 of 1 ~) 33 Tom Altieri From: Tom Grizzle [griz@mindspring.com] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 12:32 PM To: CompPlanUpdate Subject: Comments on Orange County Plan To whom it may concern, I was born in Chapel Hill in 1958 and have lived here for most of my life. I currently reside in Chapel Hill where I own and operate a small business (Toxicology Services, Inc.) as a toxicology consultant. My main concerns for the future growth and development of Orange county are general, and relate to an ever increasing minimization of the consumption of energy (both direct and indirect) and activities that consume energy. This is because... 1) I believe that "Peak Oil" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak oil) is upon us and there will only be higher and higher oil prices and so conservation/minimization and changing to another energy source for essential activities has to be the umbrella under which EVERYTHING is considered, and .:. 2) Global climate change, brought about by human activities like burning hydrocarbons, will gradually transform Orange County into a different place, probably a hotter and dryer place, but that's not yet known. These two events are utterly transformative and, like it or not, MUST be fully and completely taken into account when ALL future growth and development are considered. The current paradigm for growth and development no longer applies. We not only need to think outside the box, we have to recycle said box! This 20 year plan is already obsolete. Great emphasis needs to be placed on things like (not a comprehensive listing)... • obtaining food locally and supporting those engaged in this. activity (the 18-wheelers will stop magically appearing to resupply Harris Teeter) • creating and encouraging local sources of essential goods • converting power sources for essential services to "off the grid" and non-C02 emitting (OWASA, for example) making everything bicycle friendly, including building out planned greenways and dramatically expanding current and new greenways as bike and foot paths Either we consider and aggressively respond to these issues now, while there is still a limited window of time to react, or actions/reactions will be forced upon us at much greater societal and financial costs. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Tom Grizzle 919.967.5199 7/11/2008 Page 1 of 1 ~ 3`I Tom Altieri From: Eileen Camp [Eileen.Camp@Quintiles.comJ Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 6:17 AM To: CompPlanUpdate Cc: Anne J. Peoples Subject: comments from the community Hello and thank you for the opportunity to make comments about the Orange County growth plan. I realize that the county needs a broad tax base and that businesses provide that. I travel across the country and there are so many Big Box stores that it's tough to tell which state I'm in -Phoenix? Jersey? Florida? -because they are all starting to look the same. I love local business and support that as often as possible; for example, I shop at the Farmer's Market and Weaver St. Market. I would hate to see Hillsborough/Orange County start looking like everywhere else - with a Barnes and Nobles and a Target at every corner. Please try to help us grow without losing our identity. I will try and make the meeting on August 25th. Thank you! Eileen Camp 328 Mitchell St. Hillsborough NC 27278 919 732-3337 ********************** IMPORTANT--PLEASE READ ************************ This electronic message, including its attachments, is COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL and may contain PROPRIETARY or LEGALLY PRIVILEGED information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message or any of the information included in it is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this message and its attachments, along with any copies thereof. If this electronic message contains a zipped attachment and you do not have a decompression tool, you may download unZIP (free of 'cost) from: http://www.mk-net-work.com/us/uz/unzip.htm. Alternatively; you may request that the attachment be resent in an uncompressed format. Thank you. ************************************************************************ 7/11 /2008 ~S/ c7~' Tom Altieri From: drnancygtaylor@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 8:02 AM To: CompPlanUpdate Subject: Correction: Health & Safety From: Dr. Nancy Taylor Phone Number: (919) 732-1426 Message: What is blatantly missing from what I read on the web site and in some of the Summary notes is a committee to address public health and safety issues. My passion and attention is on the health and safety of children in this community. Specifically we need cross walks on Churton and a CAC. I am planning an event August 9th for Child Health and Safety. I am interested in opening up these two issues up as a public forum. CROSSWALKS: Since Route 86 is a state route, this becomes a state level issue and a MAJOR problem for us locally. Recently in a local newspaper was a front page story. about the very high number of pedestrian deaths in Orange County! CAC: The other issue for the community is the urgent need for a CAC (Child Advocacy Center). A CAC protects our community from crime, supports children and families who have been the victims of sexual assault on children and alters the prosecution rate from about 12 % to 94% because these cases are managed by a team of multi-disciplinary professionals (New model versus independent agencies (old model, the old model allows too many issues to be "ignored". In North Carolina we have several counties that have CACs in place. One of the requirements to receive state funding is that a CAC operate successfully for two years. This is in cooperation with the National CAC, our local law enforcement, the Orange County Rape Crisis Center, medical professionals, DSS and a few other agencies. Dr. Nancy Taylor (919) 732-1426 1 Page 1 of 2 13~ Tom Altieri From: Adam Klein [aklein@carolinachamber.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 10:26 AM To: CompPlanUpdate Cc: Aaron Nelson; Anita Badrock; bbunch@williamhbunchcpa.com; kschwart@email.unc.edu Subject: Remarks on Comprehensive Plan Members of the Planning Board and County Staff, I want to begin by thanking you for all of your hard work on the County Comprehensive Plan. As a member of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Coalition, I am aware of what a massive undertaking a Comprehensive Plan update is. I want to reiterate a few of my comments made during the May 19 public hearing regarding the Economic Development section of the plan.. In my professional opinion and the opinion of our Coalition members, the economic development section is missing a major strategy-namely working with UNC-Chapel Hill to retain many of the businesses created at the ; University, UNC in many ways is our business incubator. In the words of Chancellor-elect Holden Thorp, UNC's challenges in the coming years will be to "Cure diseases...find and invent clean energy... feed seven billion people" to name a few. As UNC strives to tackle these issues, researchers are generating incredible ideas and devices that are spinning off into new businesses. These are businesses that revolve around innovation, pay good wages and have little environmental impact-in a nutshell businesses we want in Orange County. Yet, with over 29 UNC businesses spawned since the year 2000, only 3 are located here. The majority go to RTP because they can find readily available office and lab space and a welcoming business environment. We can do much better than this and it can start with our Comprehensive Plan. I ask that you consider including a new objective of "working closely with UNC's Office of Technology Development to identify commercial space needs of businesses created by UNC research, promote development of such space within the County, and actively encourage UNC businesses to stay in Orange County after leaving the University." This should be one of our primary strategies for economic development. The second remark I want to reiterate is the importance of extending water and sewer to all of the Economic Development Districts. Currently, this is listed under Objective ED 2.10 and is a long term goal. The Coalition and Chamber believe strongly that this should be a short term goal. Orange County has the second highest property tax rate in the state along with declining sales tax revenues. We must do a better job of expanding our commercial tax base and that will occur most efficiently when water and sewer services are extended to these districts. My final remark is on behalf of the Chamber and not the Coalition. I would ask that you add another ED Objective within Goal 2 that reads : "Develop an incentive policy to use in targeting companies and enterprises that will build upon and expand core assets and diversify the County's economic base. Incentives should be tied to number and type of jobs created." Incentives often receive a bad name and sometimes rightfully so, especially when they are cash handouts that are haphazard and poorly conceived. However, in Orange County, our incentive policy can be strategic and well thought out, helping to overcome barriers to business location in our community. Such incentive packages could be aimed at reducing the cost of lab and office space, which as I mentioned above, is a major competitive disadvantage for Orange County. If we want to be serious about growing our commercial tax base the above objectives will be important pieces. I ask that you include them in your revisions to the plan. Thank you for your time and consideration. 7/11/2008 Page Z of 2 ~~7 Respectfully, Adam Klein Adam M. Klein, MRP Vice President, Economic Development and Government Relations Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce 104 South Estes Drive PO Box 2897 Chapel Hill, NC 27515 919-967-7075 x. 30 tvww. carolinachamber. orb ~,-~y t'fense cvnsicter the ertnironrnent 5efore prirrtirg this email 7/11/2008 Page 1 of 2 ~3~. Tom Altieri From: Robin Nucilli [rnucilli~chccs.k12.nc.usJ Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 10:54 AM To: CompPlanUpdate Cc: Stephanie P. Knott Subject: Edits to the Comprehensive Report to the Community Below are the requested edits from the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. We originally sent them to Adam Klein, but as you can read from his response, any edits should have been sent to this a-mail address. If you cannot find the edits which Mrs. Knott refers to on page 221 or have any other questions, please let me know and I will see what I can do for you, as Mrs. Knott is currently out of the district and unable to reply immediately to e-mails/phone calls. Thank you. Robin Nucilli Publications Assistant Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools 967-8211 X214 -- Original Message -- Robin, My name is Adam Klein, I received the email below from Stephanie at the beginning of the week and wanted to follow up with you all. The Chamber is actually not involved in the revisions of Comprehensive Plan, the County Planning Board is overseeing those and would be best to communicate your concerns to. Today is the final day to submit comments to the Board. You can email them at this address: CompPlanUpdate(g~co.oran e.ne.us. The email Stephanie sent me below would suffice for sending written comments. One last question, I couldn't find page 221 in the document. I just want to make sure the planning board can locate the exact paragraph you refer ta. Best, Adam Adam M. Klein Vice President, Economic Development and Government Relations Chapel Hill-Cazrboro Chamber of Commerce 104 South Estes Drive PO 13ox 2897 Chapel Hill, NC 27575 919-9G7-7075 a. 30 g~vw.caroGnachamber.ore r„-~j !'!case const,fer Arc nrirordrrnrt 6rfore prinlirrg this euai! 7/11/2008 Page 2 of 2 3°~ Adam, Dr. Pedersen asked me to review the sections of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan that relate to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools and to communicate any revisions to you. First, it looks like much of the information on p.221 related to the district came from an outdated section of our website. I have attached the revision to that page to provide you with a more current snapshot of our pertormance. In the last paragraph on p. 221, you cite our strategic plan. We have a new one that covers 2008-2013. That seems more relevant to this future-looking document. The new mission statement reads: "Empower all students to acquire the knowledge, skills and insights necessary to live rewarding, productive lives, prepared to contribute positively to the global community." If you'd like to reference the new plan in any other way, here's a link to it: htta://www2.chccs.kl2 nc.us/education/sctemo/8f706c3db56d39f2ba65bd1d5281b72f/1213726486/2008 2013 CHCCS Strategic Plan pdf. I'd also review the language in that paragraph so that the transition from strategic plan to capital improvement plan is clear. Much of what is in the capital improvement plan seems to be attributed to the strategic plan, for example. Hope that helps, Stephanie Stephanie Knott Assistant to the Superintendent for Community Relations Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Lincoln Center 750 S. Merritt Mill Road Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Phone: (919) 967-8211, ext. 227 Fax: (919) 933-4560 E-Mail: sknottCa?chccs.k12.nc.us All email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law, which may result in monitoring and disclosure to third parties, including law enforcement. 7/11/2008 Page 1 of 1 1'~ ~ Tom Altieri From: Neil G. Pedersen [NPedersen@chccs.k12.nc.us] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 10:22 AM To: CompPlanUpdate Subject: Fwd: Feedback on Orange County Comprehensive Plan Dr. Pedersen asked me to review the sections of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan that relate to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools and to communicate any revisions to you. First, it looks like much of the information on p.221 related to the district came from an outdated section of our website. I have attached the revision to that page to provide you with a more current snapshot of our performance. In the last paragraph on p. 221, you cite our strategic plan. We have a new one that covers 2008-2013. That seems more relevant to this future-looking document. The new mission statement reads: "Empower all students to acquire the knowledge, skills and insights necessary to live rewarding, productive lives, prepared to contribute positively to the global community." If you'd like to reference the new plan in any other way, here's a link to it: http~//www2 chccs k12 nc us/education/sctemp/8f706c3db56d39f2ba65bd1 d5281 b72f/1213726486/2008 2013 I'd also review the language in that paragraph so that the transition from strategic plan to capital improvement plan is clear. Much of what is in the capital improvement plan seems to be attributed to the strategic plan, for example. Stephanie Knott Assistant to the Superintendent for Community Relations Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Lincoln Center 750 S. Merritt Mill Road Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Phone: (919) 967-8211, ext. 227 Fax: (919) 933-4560 E-Mail: sknott chccs.k12.nc.us All email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law, which may result in monitoring and disclosure to third parties, including law enforcement. 7/11/2008 i ~a The Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) is one of two public school systems in Orange County, NC. Established in 1909, CHCCS is located near the flagship campus of the University of North Carolina (LJNC) and the world renowned Research Triangle Park (RTP). As a result of the district's proximity to higher education and research facilities, our community boasts one of the highest educated populations in America. The district operates three high schools, four middle schools, ten elementary schools, a school for young people being treated at UNC Hospital and an alternative program for high school students. These schools serve more than 11,000 students. CHCCS is particularly proud of the academic accomplishments of its students and the strong credentials of its teaching faculty. CHCCS has the state's highest districtwide SAT score at 1,185, or 1,757 when the writing component is included. The state average is 1,004, and the national average is 1,017. This high average was attained while more than 96 percent of the district's eligible students took the test. More than 1,200 of our high school students are enrolled in challenging Advanced Placement (AP) courses. This participation has earned two of the district's high schools (the third opened in 2007 and wasn't eligble) ranking in Newsweek magazine's list of top high schools. In 2007, East Chapel Hill High ranked 149, and Chapel Hill High ranked 243. Nearly 92 percent of last year's graduating senior class went on to two- or four-year institutions of higher learning. Thirty-four students in the current graduating class were named National Merit Finalists, while 15 of them received National Merit Scholarships. CHCCS has North Carolina's highest four-year cohort graduation rate at 87.3%. CHCCS has the state's lowest dropout rate at 1.12 percent. The district was recognized by the North Carolina State Board of Education for its 28% improvement over the previous year. Thirty-one percent of the district's students are identified as gifted. More than 93 percent of students in grades 3-8 are proficient on state-mandated End-of--Grade tests in reading, while more than 83 percent of them are proficient on the End-of--Grade tests in mathematics. At the high school level, 87 percent of students are proficient on state- mandated End-of-Course tests. For the 2006-2007 school year, CHCCS had one of the state's highest per pupil expenditures at $9,779. Nearly 200 CHCCS educators hold the prestigious certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). Forty-two percent of teachers hold a master's or doctorate degree. The CHCCS teacher turnover rate is 8.5 percent, half of the state average of 17 percent. CHCCS employs 1,870 staff members, of whom 1,150 are teachers or administrators. ### rya Tom Altieri From: James Carnahan [jarnahan@mindspring.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 8:31 AM To: barryj@earthlink.net; Valerie Foushee; mcarey5@nc.rr.com; gordonam@mindspring.com; mikenelsonnc@aol.com; jaybryan7@msn.com; raiprice@earthlink.net Cc: Tom Altieri; Donna Baker Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update ViIIBge Proj CPU Village Project Village Proj CPU Line item com... comments on CP... section 1.3 5... Dear orange County Board of Commissioners, In addition to the general comments we submitted June 6 (also attached), The Village Project submits herein additional "line-item" comments on the May 2008 draft of the Comprehensive Plan for consideration by the Orange County Planning Board, Board of Commissioners, and staff. We ask that all of these comments entered into the public record of input on the Comp Plan Update. Sincerely, James Carnahan, Chairman, on behalf of the Board of Directors of The Village Project, Inc. June 4, 2008 1 1~3 .~ the ~,, ~ . .:~~ ~t ~:. ~ ~ ~~': ~ Creating Villa e g ~- ~~ . ;Y' _ : ^ ~ ~~ ~~ wathab~e ~ PrO~~Ct -wSL ~ `~ . ~~ Communities ~ , ~~~ Comments on the May 6, 2008 version of the Updated ®range County Comprehensive Plan Listed in order by Element and page number Prepared by The Village Project, Inc. Global Comments In general, it is often not clear when the Plan is talking about Orange County as a whole or just unincorporated Orange County. We have highlighted a few of the more confusing instances below, but this is a persistent clarity issue in the Plan. It is a particular problem for tables and figures throughout. Chapter 3: Economic Development Element p.3-1, Section 3.2 (Summary, Background) It would be worth discussing at a broad level here any spatial mismatch between workers and their jobs. For example, do residents of unincorporated Orange County work in unincorporated Orange County, OC municipalities, and/or outside Orange County? In what proportions? How many people generally are coming into the county to work? p.3-2, 3.2 (Summary, Key Facts) Include the following from Appendix A, p.6-2 (Economic Highlights section): • In 2000, 60,860 Orange County residents were employed. Of those, 42.4% commuted to another county for work. • In 2000, 24,096 commuters worked in Orange County, representing 40% of the county's workforce. Include as well data about the types of jobs & median wages found in each cohort and any data on the specific destinations, locality-wise, that are available. p.3-3, line 27 (Summary, Key Facts) This bullet is slightly misleading: not all agricultural land is taxed under a discount. It is our understanding that a property must be registered under the Present Use-Value Taxation Program to receive this benefit (but this should be verified). p.3-5, Section 3.2 (Summary, Establishment of Economic Development Districts) Including residential development in EDDs is critical to a sustainable local economy in which many if not most employees can walk or bike to work, shopping, recreation, etc. Commercial and industrial developments are not necessarily incompatible with residential uses. The Village Project • PO Box 685 • Carrboro NC 27510 • 919-942-6114 • wwwthevillageproject.com y'~ p.3-6, Section 3.2 (Summary, Map 3-1) To better support coordinated planning let this map also show Urban Transition Areas that are contiguous with the EDDs. This will greatly help visualizing & implementing the desire expressed in Objective ED- 2.2: "Encourage mixed use projects that support walkable communities," expressing emerging land use philosophy that would place jobs in closer proximity to housing (to the extent possible). p.3-7, Gne 1 (Summary, Key Issues) Revise the third bullet as follows: "^ Ensuring that land, housing, and public services are in place to support desired economic development." p.3-7 (Summary, Key Issues) This section should include the need to address the fact that 40% of Orange County residents are commuting out of the County to work, and that 40% of Orange County jobs are held by employees commuting in from other counties. p.3-7, Section 3.3 (Historic Data, Current Data, Evaluation of Trends, Employment Trends By Industry) Include here data about how many of the jobs at our top employers, UNC-CH, UNC Hospitals, and Chapel Hill-Carrboro Public Schools are held by Orange County residents p.3-16, Section 3.4 (Needs Assessment) It is important here to state the need to transition to an economy that is predominately locally owned and focused on producing for our use and export more technology, services and things we need for our daily lives, and maintaining a healthy balance of goods produced for export and goods imported for sale. In addition to our ongoing effort to support local agriculture and secure a local food supply, there is growing support among residents for enabling a "Local Living Economy" that prioritizes local ownership of businesses. This section should also discuss addressing the growing need to support a "green economy" and discourage undesirable and unsustainable business and manufacturing practices both within our borders and beyond. This includes supporting local businesses that respect environmental constraints and reduce or eliminate C02 emissions, and avoiding the importation of goods whose production involves environmental degradation and/or global climate impacts. Chapter 4: Housing Element p.4-1, lines 15-17 (Summary) "Ensuring that all households are provided safe, adequate, and affordable housing that is proximate to needed services is an important issue that will need consideration and action over the planning horizon." Which households are being referred to here, existing residents or new residents? It seems clear that the County cannot provide housing to all households who would like to move here. It's hard to imagine what this statement could mean in practice. Also, insert the word "coordinated" before "action" to imply collaboration with OC municipalities (stated later but can be implied here). p.4-1, lines 44-45 (Summary) . "New housing should be located proximate to needed services, shopping, and employment centers to ensure long-term sustainability of the housing stock." The Village Project • PO Box 685 • Carrboro NC 27510 • 919-942-6114 • wwwthevillageproject.com 2 1 ~ ~~ How do these location factors influence "long-term sustainability of the housing stock"? p.4-2 thru 4-4 (Recent Housing Studies) Clarify for each study whether it included municipalities or was just of unincorporated Orange. p.4-6, line 24 "In 2000, the majority of homes..." "Homes" connotes single-family dwelling units. Would either of the terms "dwelling units" or "housing units" be more appropriate? p.4-10, Figure 4-5 Can figures for unincorporated Orange County also be presented? p.4-1 D, Figure 4-6 Clarify that figures are for County as whole, including municipalities p.4- l2, -ines 39-42 "Appropriate areas for future development to provide new housing that are proximate to schools, employment centers, and needed commercial and social services, will need to be identified;..." This is an interesting statement considering the fact that most of the services mentioned are located in OC municipalities, some of which are surrounded by an urban growth boundary. It would be better if the County were planning for all of these things in conjunction with one another, rather than sequentially or in a reactionary fashion, as this language implies (i.e., wherever the services happen to be, that's where we'll put the housing). It's on the right track, but this doesn't yet sound like a coordinated, integrated approach to ensuring that growth is smart and well managed. p.4- l 3, lines 24-25 Edit the bullet as shown: "Land use planning efforts need to provide opportunities and incentives for the joint location of housing and employment centers" p.4-14, Objective H-1.5 Edit the bullet as shown: "Ensure that a variety of housing types can be developed throughout the County in a sustainable manner that locates housing near and within employment centers and commercial centers..." p.4-15, Objective H-3.6 "Work within the Orange County government system to identify and resolve existing policies which may be at odds with historic preservation goals,..." Recast: "Work within the Orange County government system to identify and resolve existing policies which may be at odds with goals related to preservation of historic structures and community character, .. . 5: Land Use Element p.5-1 (Orange Covnty Board of Commissioners Planning Principles) Principle #5, "Preservation of Rural Land Use Pattern" should not be applied to 100% of the county, particularly those areas that no longer have a true historic rural land use pattern. The Village Project • PO Box fi85 • Carrbaro NC 27510 • 919-942-61 I4 • wwwthevillageproject.com ~ ~I Cn p.5-2, lines 51 thrv 61 (Planning within Orange County) The fact that OC has sole planning jurisdiction in unincorporated areas is stated twice. p.5-4, Map 5-2 (Joint Land Use Planning Areas) The urban services area is shown as a DASHED line on the map, while the legend shows the boundary as a solid line. p:5-8, lines 28-29 (Shaping Orange County's Future) "...progress has been made toward realizing these goals" This is a subjective statement and evidence should be provided for the claim. p.5-9 (fhe Need to Update fhe Comprehensive Plan) The list of bullets needs more explanation/introduction. Then, each bullet should first state the need that was identified through the evaluation, followed by a statement of how that issue is addressed in the current CPU. p.5-9, lines 68-71 (The Need to Update the Comprehensive Plan) "The guidelines for Plan review and evaluation that were contained within the 1981 Plan were not followed. Guidelines for Plan evaluation and update are included in the updated 2030 Plan in Section 1.5: Monitoring and Evaluation Procedures." This information is inappropriately placed, based on the introductory material that precedes the bullets, which indicates that the bullets are about substantive findings of the evaluation, whereas this is more of an overarching finding. The bullets are all supposedly to specify how the actual CP update met the needs/concerns ("areas") identified in the evaluation. p.5-10, line 18 (The Need to Update the Comprehensive Plan) "More emphasis is needed on Objectives and Policies that further address the following 1981 Plan Goals..." Objectives and Policies of what document? Is this a finding of the evaluation or a general conclusion? If the latter, this bullet does not belong in this list, as it is an overarching conclusion that probably did not directly result from the substantive evaluation. p.5-10, line 35 (The Need to Update the Comprehensive P-an) State how the sustainability indicators will be lined to the metrics developed for plan evaluation. The evaluations should be viewed as measuring outputs {plan evaluation) and outcomes (attainment of . sustainability indicators). Plan monitoring and evaluation in general merit a more organized and specific treatment. Such a section would provide an opportunity to summarize prior assessments as well. p.5-12, line 3I (Orange County Strategic Growth and...) What were the relevant findings of the Phase I and II of the TDR study? Can they at least be summarized? p.5-12, line 41 ("encouraging appropriate development in transition areas") "Transition areas" is a term used to denote suburbanizing areas around the fringes of core urbanized areas. In a word, it is usually sprawl, since such transition areas are very rarely walkable or transit- oriented and have high housing costs. This phrase should be recast as "encourage development in appropriate locations" p.5-14, Section 5.3, line 32 (The Future Land Use Plan) "The Map also provides the development community and staff with clear guidance to the locations in the County where re-zonings may be appropriate and where they are not. The Village Project • PO Box 685 • Carrboro NC 27510 • 919-942-6114 • wwwthevillageproject.com 4 1'4'7 How does the map provide guidance on which areas are appropriate for rezoning? .How can a map provide guidance on something it does not represent? Please explain more thoroughly and clearly and ensure map is consistent with text. p.5- i 4 thru 5- l 7 (The Future Land Use Plan) . This section should state that there are no true mixed-use land use categories and whether this is something that the County will address. p.5-15, -ine 1 (fhe Future Land Use P-an) Developed Land Use Categories -Proposed Urban Activity Node. Please state why there no proposed activity nodes in Hillsborough, Mebane, or Orange County. p.5- I6 (The Future Land Use Plan) Under Rural Land Use Categories add the following: "Rural Village Node Land located around designated road intersections available for compact, walkable, mixed commercial & residential development served by small-scale community water & wastewater technology that meets adopted guidelines for oversight & maintenance." p.5-21, -ine 3 (The Future land Use Plan) Please state what spurred the creation of EDDs. p.5-21, Section 5.4 (Historic Data, Current Data, Evaluation of Trends) Include the following from Appendix A in this section: "Sixty percent of the labor force lives and works in Orange County. The remaining 40% commute to other counties for employment. Likewise, 40% of Orange County's labor force commutes in from other counties." Include as well data about the types of jobs & median wages found in each cohort -the group commuting in and the one commuting out. We need more detailed information in order to be able to address issues associated with this condition, including: 1) the carbon emissions and air quality associated with high vehicle miles traveled; 2) the need for recruitment of jobs for which our residents are qualified; 3) the need to provide housing affordable for the full spectrum ofwages-being paid for various kinds of jobs in the County. p.5-22, Section 5.4, lines 9-11 (Historic Data...) Clarify that "growth" in the context of the townships refers to POPULATION growth. Please also state rate of land conversion (growth in developed acreage) in as much detail (e.g., township level) as possible, separating out data for unincorporated areas whenever possible. p.5-27, lines 21-25 (Population Projections) The last bullet should be phrased more clearly to make the point it seems to be getting at: The incorporated areas are growing in population at a faster rate than the unincorporated areas. In general, this entire section needs to better differentiate between data presented for Orange County INCLUDING its municipalities vs for just unincorporated Orange County. p.5-29, Figure 3-5 (Median Housing 1/alve Trends) This chart should show an additional set of bars for unincorporated Orange County The Village Project • PO Box 6$5 • Carrboro NC 27510 • 919-942-61 I4 • wwwthevillageproject.com 5 ~~~ p.5-29 (Housing Trends) Overall: clarify whether/which data are for unincorporated vs all of Orange County p.5-32, lines 43-44 (Development Constraints) "Natural development constraints that would once prohibit development from occurring can now be overcome through new building materials and engineering designs. In response..." The fact that these constraints can be overcome does not affect the wisdom of building in areas with natural constraints (presumably you are talking about areas with steep slopes, poorly draining soils?? Hard to know...) For example; better onsite wastewater systems technologies may enable development to take place on lands with natural constraints. These poor soils may be highly erosive as well and therefore highly susceptible to producing sedimentation during the construction phase and after. Also, we disagree that the County's adoption of the programs mentioned was "in response" to these changing technologies. The county has simply been more proactive than other counties in overseeing the development it has been faced with and especially in focusing its enforcement efforts in areas that have natural constraints and are more susceptible to damage. The County has been less proactive about restricting development from encroaching upon sensitive areas at the landscape scale (as documented in the earlier section Environmental Trends on the losses of sensitive lands and habitats) in the first place. While Orange County is certainly at the forefront in environmental protection efforts in the state, a great deal more needs to be done if we are to provide for current and future growth without further compromising environmental quality and affordability. p.5-35, line 11 (Orange County Land Use Needs) Add "walkable" to the list of characteristics of sustainable land use: "These zoning changes should reflect the objectives that promote sustainability including walkable mixed-use development patterns, transportation linkages, economic development, and diversity in housing opportunities." p.5-36, Objective LU 1-3 The suitability of the overall site for the uses and intensity proposed need to be evaluated as well. This criterion can result in more appropriate development in the short term and will inform future land-use planning efforts as well. That is, if a lot of developments are being proposed in an area the reviews show are problematic, zoning changes or TDRs should be examined for that area. This "checklist" should go beyond on-site considerations, e.g., to consider what schools, transportation, supporting commercial activity, etc are nearby to support the development. p.5-37, Objective LU2-3 Require higher density and all nonresidential developments to do stormwater BMPs or equivalent protective measures REGARDLESS of where in the county they are located. (EDDs are not Transition Areas.) p.5-38, Objective LU2-4 The evaluation is described as PREVENTING NEGATIVE types of development, but certain kinds of development in crossroad nodes maybe beneficial, and opportunities to realize such types of development should be identified and implemented. For example, locally owned markets selling basic goods in such areas could generate income and jobs and reduce VMT for area residents. Because of their inherent accessibility and higher traffic, the potential for such areas to help balance the county tax base should not be overlooked. The Village Project • PO Box 685 • Carrhoro NC 27510 • 419-942-6114 • w~vwthevillageproject.com 6 1 "~ `"'' p.5-38, Objective LU2-8 Please provide some examples of nonrenewable resources that should be covered by the performance standards. We would argue that the performance standards should be developed for development, period, regardless of whether "nonrenewable resources" are involved. p.5-38, Objective LU2-9 Possible yields in terms of water quantity should be evaluated for ground and surface water. "Carrying capacity" is a very subjective concept and can be affected by a number of factors, such as household size, per-capita usage, irrigation practices, and conservation programs. Carrying capacity far too often assumes a static per-capita level of use that greatly exceeds what humans actually need to survive. If "carrying capacity" is included in the analysis, it should be as a suite of possible outcomes: how many people can be supported under various scenarios. p.5-38, Objective LU2-10 There are several problematic elements. in LU2-10. New development and redevelopment, especially "green" development and smart growth, may look slightly different and be somewhat denser than historic land uses. The Objective could be interpreted as supporting opposition to such new development and redevelopment that would be a net positive for the County. The environmental impacts of a development need to carry significant weight in the decision making process. There are numerous ways to minimize such impacts; however, some of them may be perceived as conflicting with historic vernacular and character, such as increased densities and greater mixing of uses than the County has historically experienced. We wholeheartedly support such a shift, and offer our services to help communities work toward new developments and redevelopments that respect community character but are walkable, transit supportive, and energy efficient. Also, "community aesthetics" and "the visual... environment" are synonymous. Please edit Objective as shown: Develop design standards or guidelines that address scale, density, and aesthetic considerations for residential, mixed-use, industrial, and commercial land uses to promote community aesthetics, energy efficiency, walkability and accessibility and the protection of the mod-natural and cultural environments of the County. (See also Housing Objective H-3.1.) p.5-38, Objective LU3-1 Is development not going to take place AT ALL in locations where necessary facilities do not exist? Please cross-reference an objective that sets forth how new public investments will be targeted. p.5-39, Objective LU 3-4 Please state how "farming areas" will be defined p.5-39, Objective LU3-7 Such "nonresidential" clustered nodes should be mixed use, i.e., include residential development (cross- reference Objective LU3-9) p.5-40, Objective LU4-1 Add "and multifamily dwellings," which achieve a similar objective, to wit: "Support the use of individual mobile homes and multifamily dwellings as a useful housing resource in the County by increasing the opportunities where these units can locate by-right." p. 5-40, Objective LU4-4 Insert "quality, energy-efficient" before "affordable," to wit: The Village Project ~ PO Box 685 • Carrboro NC 27510 • 919-942-6114 • wwwthevillageproject.com 7 ,~. "Encourage the provision of a range of quality, energy-efficient. affordable and suitable low and moderate income housing by..." p. 5-40, Objective LU6-1 Active citizen engagement maybe difficult to bring about if there is little confidence that the input will be heeded. Provide mechanisms to ensure that public input will be incorporated into the planning processes it is solicited for, or, at minimum, that it is made clear how the input was considered and what aspects were incorporated. Call for standards to be established on how long before public hearings documents under consideration must be made available for public review. Establish a Task Force to evaluate how the County could better inform, involve, and engage citizenry, and implement its recommendations. Chapter 6 Natural and Cultural Systems Element Overall Despite the initial statement that these elements are put in a single chapter to facilitate their collective understanding and cross-pollination, the only notable result seems to be a very long chapter. We do not see cross-pollination among the elements or multi-objective solutions. p.6-51 (Infernal Policy Conflicts) The discussion of how new development may conflict with existing structures and preservation at historic crossroads in terms of scale and vernacular should mention these concerns as considerations and state how they might be overcome, e.g., by the implementation of form-based codes or review by a professional urban designer or advisory board p. 6-62, lines 3-6 "The conversion of natural lands to urban or suburban uses results in habitat loss for native plants and animals, and can result in loss of native species." What about rural. residential development? Its effects on habitats and species should be specified, since it is such a dominant zoning designation in the County. p.6-64 (Land Protection Efforts) So, land acquisitions have focused on agricultural lands and lands for public parks, but~what about the need for better connectivity between them, for both human and non-human mobility? Land protection efforts should include greenways and wildlife corridors. p.6-64, -ine 50 (Land Protection Efforts) Preserves should most certainly NOT be "surrounded by low-density development" (also in NA-11). They should be contiguous foremost with ONE ANOTHER. When not contiguous, they should be connected by greenways and wildlife corridors, and located adjacent to areas developed in a smart growth fashion where they can be utilized as recreation areas by residents. Low~lensity development is far from the most suitable choice for locating near preserved areas. p.b-65 (A Monitoring Program for Orange...) The need for field work and cost constraints are noted, but couldn't some of this be done by volunteers and supervised/data compiled by staff? p.b-67, Objective NA-9 This objective should be stated as flexible/optional for development taking place within an EDD, TDR receiving area, or that is infill, in order to allow for greater densities in areas deemed suitable for growth The Village Project • PO Box 685 • Carrboro NC 27510 • 919-942-6114 • wwwthevillageproject.com ~~~ p.b-b8, Obfective NA-16: This has much more to do with protecting the viability of working lands than the environment. This objective belongs with agricultural objectives, not NA objectives. p.b-b9 (River Basins) "The Neuse River begins east of Orange County, emerging from Falls Lake in Durham and Orange counties" should read "emerging from Falls Lake in Wake County" as the river is the subject of the sentence, not the lake p.b-72 (Watersheds) Is it worth noting that all Neuse watersheds ultimately flow into Falls Lake, which serves hundreds of thousands of Wake County residents? p.b-77, line 5 (Historic and Current Data -Surface Water) "Minimum lot size limits help achieve the goal of limiting human impacts and is a broad tool that is widely in use." This tool is increasingly being recognized as outdated and ineffective because it means that per-capita impervious cover is HIGHER. Smart Growth is now much more widely recognized in watershed circles as the best "land use" measure for watershed protection. The EPA has even issued a report "Protecting Water Quality with Smart Growth" documenting how low-density development is inferior to compact, mixed-use, smart-growth type development for water quality. p.b-77, line 6 (Historic and Current Data -Surface Water) This sentence needs to be recast: "Accompanying limits on the amount of land that can be impervious cover to water infiltration helps maintain infiltration of precipitation into the soil and reduce sheet flow surface runoff into streams and encourage infiltration into the soil." p.b-77, lines 5-27 (Historic and Current Data -Surface Water) The first three paragraphs on this page are not about data or trends; the County's approach to watershed protection should be dealt with in a separate section. p.b-77, lines IS- l8 (Historic and Current Data -Surface Water) It is erroneous to say that "in most cases, stream buffers are X". The stream buffer is only applied to NEW development DURING the development process, so what you're talking about here is a requirement placed on development proposals. Unless County has not undertaken a study to determine how wide stream buffers actually ARE, this statement is without factual basis. p.b-77, line 24 (Historic and Current Data -Surface Wafer) Where the term "100-year" flood is being abandoned in favor of the "1% annual chance flood" please include the former term in parentheses as an explanatory term (e.g., `also known as the "100-year flood"') p.b-77, lines 20-27 (Historic and Current Data -Surface Wafer) Paragraph on floodplains seems too basic. There are data and trends to report on flooding, are there not? p.b-77, line 43 (Surface Water Quantify) This section is erroneously titled. This section is about "Surface Drinking Water Supplies," unless you expand the topic to include quantities outside of drinking water supply reservoirs, e.g., stream base flows and peak flows The Village Project • P© Box 685 • Carrboro NC 27510 • 919-942-6I 14 • wwwthevillageproject.com 9 ~~~a p.b-78, line 12 (Surface Water Quality) First chapter under "Surface Water Quality" should talk more generally about the sources of impacts/stressors before diving into the impacts of sediment. Stressors aze generally human activities, particularly agriculture, forestry, and urban and suburban land uses and their associated impervious cover. This is very important background for this topic and should be given due attention. p.6-78, -ine 12 (Surface Water Quality) Where are efforts/measures/existing programs to address water quality discussed? p.b-82 thru 6-85 (Water Resources Trends -the Synthesis...) This chapter has a lot of information in it that seems like more like background than trends. p.b-83, line 26 (Water Resources Trends -the Synthesis...), Bullet #1 "The County has little to no potential for new surface water supplies. This is placing additional pressure on water conservation as a means of meeting increasing demand." The part about this condition "placing additional pressure on water conservation" needs to be recast. Americans use far too much water per capita. Reducing per-capita demand is a positive thing and long overdue. Better to have the second sentence instead say "This means that conservation is more important than ever, and will continue to be key to providing residents with potable water long into the future." p.b-83, line 32 (Water Resources Trends -the Synthesis...), Bullet #2 Nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations are important considerations for land use planning, conservation efforts, and other planning-related activities. In terms of water quality, they are constituents and pollutants. p.b-83, line 36 (Water Resources Trends -the Synthesis...), Bullet #3 What exactly is changing? How? p.b-83 thru 6-85 (Water Resources Trends -the Synthesis...) Where is this laundry list of "trends" going? These items need context and some sort of narrative. p.6-84, line 43 (Water Resources Trends -the Synthesis...), Bullet # 17 We believe the DWQ study you mention is pursuant to the Falls NMS, which will impact land uses and point sources. There is another Neuse study getting underway, a hydrologic model, which is being conducted by the Div. of Water Resources, which may provide better data that might be used to update future allocations. If these two studies are both discussed, they should be listed separately to reduce confusion. p.b-86, line 1-8, Section 6.4.5.2 (Orange County Water Resource Needs), Bullet #5 The so-called "nonstructural" approach (an overly broad term used here to refer to low-density zoning) should be compared against other alternative means of managing growth in terms of protecting Orange County's watersheds, and possibly other considerations (such as wildlife habitat). For example, what if the subdivisions have been constructed using conservation subdivision design principles, or low-impact development design principles, or been mixed-use developments located near existing activity nodes? p.6-87, Objective WR-6 Please add the language underlined to this objective: "Promote land use patterns that preserve the natural hydrologic system and, in conjunction with innovative and ongoing conservation practices, maintain a sustainable "carrying capacity" balance for the future between ground water and surface water resources." The Village Project • PO Box 685 • Carrboro NC 27514 • 919-942-6114 • wwwthevillageproject.com 10 ~s3 Chapter 8: Services and Facilities Element p. 8-14, Section 8.4.2 (Erosion Control and stormwater Management) In the last paragraph the text conflates requirements of Neuse Rules vs requirements of Orange County. These are different sets of requirements. Orange County implements Neuse Buffer and Stormwater Rules in all areas of County in the Neuse River Basin. Orange County implements additional controls in water supply watersheds by virtue of local ordinances. (The Cane Creek and University Lake watersheds are not even in the Neuse Basin.) This paragraph needs significant revision in order to be factually correct and clear to the reader. p.8-17: Objective EC-4 "Use low-impact stormwater design principles when developing new or retrofitting existing drainage systems that do not functionally approximate the natural drainage pattern." What does it mean to "functionally approximate the natural drainage pattern"? There are a large number of functions provided by natural drainage patterns. Moreover, the use oflow-impact stormwater design principles should be implemented everywhere, regardless of whether the new or retrofitted development attempts to replicate or even preserve the natural drainage pattern -LID can be applied in all cases, at least partially. Lastly, since this objective relates to land use and sustainability, it should be cross- referenced in Chapter 1's section on Sustainability linkages and in Element 5: Land Use. Ditto for Objective EC-10. Chapter 9 Transportation Element p.9-21, Section 9.6, Objective T-1.1 "Coordinate land use planning and transportation planning to facilitate the increased occupancy of automobiles, the expanded use of public transit, walking, and biking as primary modes of travel, and the overall development and use of a more energy-efficient transportation system." Let this objective speak more directly about the importance of land use that supports "...the expanded use of public transit, walking, and biking as primary modes of travel," and promote the specific minimum residential densities that are necessary to support walkable, transit-oriented land use. Appendix A. County Profile (Data) Element p. A 1, Second to last line Section A. Purpose "subsequent" 7 elements should now be referred to as "previous" 7 elements. p.B 1-1 (Orange County Location) List counties included in Triangle area and justify/explain definition of Triangle as these counties and municipalities. Is this definition applicable throughout ALL of the subsequent statistics and comparisons cited? p. B 1-2, Second paragraph, ORANGE COUNTY DESCRIPTION Hillsborough also has a rural buffer, although only Carrboro and Chapel Hill are mentioned as having one. p.B3-3, Table 63a (Orange County Family Household Size by Township, 2000) In addition to showing data on housing aggregated for the County as a whole, show data on housing for unincorporated areas separately. p. B2-7, Table B2i, Municipal Population Density and Percents: Comparisons, 2005 The Village Project • PO Box 685 • Carrboro NC 2751©• 919-942-6114 • wwwthevillageproject.com 11 1 ~"i There is some discrepancies between the tables and graphs. For example, in table B2i, Johnston and Lee counties are left out while they are shown in table B2g. p. B2-7, Figure B2j, Municipal Density Percentages, 2005 The title is confusing since the chart does not have anything to do with density. Instead of "Municipal Density Percentages," it should say "Municipal Land Area Percentages". p. B3-1, Hovsing Section 83.2, 2^d Bullet HIGHLIGHTS Clarify what the 9-fold increase in housing costs is compared to: the entire US or state of NC? p. 83-2, Housing Section B3.2, 2^d to last bullet HIGHLIGHTS Clarify what type of housing the "average rents" apply to. From looking at the charts later on, this statement refers to apartments, although it is not clear the size of the apartments (bedrooms baths). p. B3-2, Table 63a, Orange Covnty Housing Profile, 2000 This chart shows the median contract rent although the summary for the section mentions the average contract rent. Can these be made more consistent? p. B3-10, Table Bap, Orange Covnhr Availability of Three Bedroom Apartments by Median Income It would be useful if this chart included another row that showed what the affordable level for each income group would be. Chart B3m for the single family housing indicates what the affordable price is and a similar value would be useful for the 3-bedroom apartments. p.B4-3, Table Bob (Regional Income Comparisons, 1970-2000) Since the comparison to be made in this table is how Orange County compares to other counties in the region, counties should be listed horizontally, with items being compared underneath. Basically, transpose the table. p.BS-2, Section 5.2 (Environmental Highlights) The following claim is made here: • During this same time period (1970-2004), major reductions in pollutant loadings took place. 'This claim is unsubstantiated by a reference and needs more context. It is likely, for example, that the reductions mentioned were PER CAPITA, not gross reductions. p.86-2, Section B6.2 (Transportation Highlights) The following, reported here in the Transportation section, should also be reported in Section B4.2, Economic Highlights and section B5.5, Environmental Highlights: . In 2000, 60,860 Orange County residents were employed. Of those, 42.4% commuted to another county for work. . In 2000, 24,096 commuters worked in Orange County, representing 40% of the county's workforce. This information has significant economic and environmental impact as well as relevance to the county's transportation situation. We strongly recommend that data about the types of jobs & median wages found in each cohort -the group commuting in and the one commuting out should be included as well in the appendices. We need more detailed information in order to be able to address issues associated with this condition including: 1) the carbon emissions and air quality associated with high vehicle miles traveled; The Village Project • PO Box b85 • Carrboro NC 27510 • 919-942-6114 • www thevillageproject.com 12 ~~ 2) the need for recruitment of jobs for which our residents are qualified; 3) the need to provide housing affordable for the full spectrum of wages being paid for various kinds of jobs in the County. p.B6-2, Section 6.2 (Transportation Highlights) The following is reported from Table B6a: The number of daily vehicle miles traveled (DMVT) for Orange County is predicted to increase by 8.3% from 2000 to 2015 (projected). Please state whether this is per-capita DVMT increase; include as well in Transportation Highlights the gross total DVMT projected increase from 2000 to 2015 of 51% (this is a significantly large number); and add a chart showing corresponding COZ and other greenhouse gas emissions from DVMT across these time frames. p. B6-8, Table Bbk Commuting Trends Into Orange County by County of Workers' Residence and Table B61 Commuting Trends Out of Orange County by County of Employment These charts are confusing. What do the rows "All others" and "Total incoming" represent? p. C2-1, Age Cohort Projections Section C2.1, 2^d Bullet HIGHLIGHTS For the statement that 20% of the county's total population is under 18 years of age be compared to the entire state or the county as a whole? It is not clear whether this is a large, small or average percentage. p. D-1, Section D: Maps Orange Covnly, North Carolina The Durham population is not shown on this chart. The map should clearly indicate in which township the Durham population is located. The Village Project • PO Box 685 • Carrboro NC 27510 • 919-942-6114 • www.thevillageproject.com 13 ~~ "1'he pillage 1'roj~ct Comments on the E:~ra.t~gc C`ot~.~lty C`on~prehensi~~e flan tJl~date l~rafrt 2 Orange County Comprehensive Plan DRAFT 5-6-08 1.3. TOWARD A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE An emerging point of consensus in Orange County is that we need to act in a manner that will achieve a quality of life that is sustainable into the future. Objectives include environmental conservation, energy efficiency, affordable housing, social equity, a thriving economy, regional agricultural production and the availability oftransit- oriented, walkable, mixed-use communities. Orange County residents understand the linkages that support a sustainable future. Examples abound: To help preserve rural character, shop at a farmers market to help keep local farms in production. To help pay for schools and services, encourage growth of the non-residential tax base by locating residences close to business and retail centers. Reduce growth in carbon emissions by achieving compact development patterns. Village Project Suggested Revisions to Section 1.3: (new text italicized & bolded) 1.3. TOWARD A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE An emerging ~€ consensus in Orange County is a the need to act in a manner that will achieve a quality of life that is sustainable ' Local and global natural resources are finite. Local activities have global consequences that must factor into our decision-making. Limited oil reserves and the onset of global warming compel us to embrace economic models, development patterns, transportation systems, and public investments that will result in steadily decreasing COs emissions. eves Our principle tenets including environmental conservation, energy efficiency, affordable housing, social equity, a thriving economy, regional agricultural production and the availability oftransit-ready, walkable, mixed-use communities must be tailored to enhance current prosperity and well being without reducing choices for future generations. [This sentence panders to the reader and is actually false. The linkages are complex and poorly understood. Even issues as simple as litter or as pervasive as stormwater runoff are poorly understood.] E~&F&E~°r,~a-~rvp is*c-~~=ci~-iirniicc~iv Page 1 July 11, 2008 "l~h, V ilIage 1'rc~jLct C'amn~ents on the f3ra~7ge C:oe~t~ty C:on~prehct3si~•e Plan L?l~datc l:~raft 2 We need to use the resources that are available to us today in a manner that protects them for future generations. Following is a summary of the key ideas presented in this Comprehensive Plan that relate directly to the goal of achieving a sustainable future. Refer to each of these Plan Elements for more details. 1.3.1. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT °~^„°. Following is a summary of the key ideas presented in this Comprehensive Plan that relate directly to the goal of achieving a sustainable future. D ~ + 1. ~ +l. Dl T. 1 + 4' ~e~s: 1.3.1 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Economic development, above all, must address the challenges of global warming and the rapidly diminishing availability of fossil fuels by initiating the transition to a "Post-carbon Economy" in which local COz emissions are reduced to levels that will support climate stability. Long-term economic vitality is best created by developing productive capacity from within. These efforts should result in an effective infrastructure for developing and supporting local enterprise and entrepreneurial efforts, including apprenticeship programs, entrepreneurship training, community-developed finance and investment organizations, and Local Living Economy support networks. Research shows local enterprises create a higher multiplier effect, generate more local revenues, cost less in terms of governmental services and incentives, reduce carbon emissions, and provide stable employment with better wages and benefits. All of these are lost when development offices recruit large-scale, non-local, non- integrated, and cost-externalizing companies that undermine local enterprise initiatives. Considering current social, economic and 1~~ Page 2 July 11, 2008 1 ~/~ .1'he, ~'iliage Praject C'omrri;nts on the (.?ra~~gc t..:ot~nty C:on~prehe~~ive Plan t.ll~clate I.~raft 2 The County has established Economic Development Districts wherein public investment will be focused to stimulate and accommodate development in strategic locations that can be served by transportation systems and public infrastructure, and be convenient to housing opportunities. The County's Economic Development Commission works with local, regional and state governments and agencies to attract and promote the types of businesses suited to Orange County. Focus on these efforts is recruiting appropriate businesses that will provide jobs to local residents and provide a more balanced tax revenue structure that relies less on the generation of private property taxes. The County and Economic Development Commission have identified Action Steps in the report: "Investing in Innovation: Orange County Economic Development Commission Five-Year Strategic Plan." To meet the demand for locally grown products, the County is working with Alamance, Chatham, and Durham Counties environmental realities, local development efforts should emphasize: 1) green-collar jobs and businesses including green refits and upgrades, renewable energy capacity and distribution, green building, and innovative water capture and reuse; and 2) brain-based, information age, and knowledge ecology jobs that include all forms ofhigh-value, innovative enterprises ranging from high-tech innovators such as Red Hat to community-serving investment services such as Self-Help. The County has established Economic Development Districts wherein public investment will be focused to stimulate and accommodate development in strategic locations that can be served by transportation systems and public infrastructure, and be conveniently integrated with housing and efficiently concentrated local services. The County Economic Development Commission currently works with local, regional and state governments and agencies to recruit the types of businesses s~e~e that help fulfill Orange County goals. Focus on these efforts is recruiting appropriate businesses that will provide jobs to local residents and provide a more balanced tax revenue structure that relies less on the generation of private property taxes. The County's Economic Development Commission has identified Action Steps in the report: "Investing in Innovation: Orange County Economic Development Commission Five-Year Strategic Plan." To meet the demand for locally grown products, the County is working with Alamance, Chatham, and Durham counties to establish avalue-added food processing center, where farmers and e~e~s related Page 3 July 11, 2008 ~5~ .('he ~%illagu 1'r~ject C"omments on tl~c Ora~~lc: C:of~~lty` C.on~prehe«sive flan Ll~ciate I3raft 2 to establish avalue-added food processing center, where farmers and others could make value-added products, such as jams, pickles, or tamales. 1.3.2. HOUSING producers can make value-added products, such as jams, pickles, or tamales. Other significant initiatives include farmer incubation projects; land-trust and land- care development projects; farmer training and networking events, community awareness and education events; a "sustainable living" educational center; and developing local farmer cooperatives capable of purchasing vital processing facilities (of their own choice) such as those needed for chicken and meat processing and produce cleaning and packaging. 1.3.2 HUMANDEVELOPMENT No plan for the future can be complete without provisions for long-term social and economic vitality. High-value local enterprise and committed, critical-thinking citizens are best developed in educational settings that emphasize meaningful, hands- on, problem-solving experiences and creative, cooperative learning. The best schools also implement model communities and economies, which help students build confidence and know-how while learning about all the practical aspects of life, from balancing a checkbook and working with others to starting a business and negotiating contracts. Empowering, cooperative education builds community ties along with know-how. 1.3.3. HOUSING Housing that is affordable across the full price spectrum is indispensable to a diverse society and a healthy economy. The County must provide both incentives and regulations to ensure that people who work in Orange County can find truly affordable housing located within walking or biking Page 4 July 11, 2008 ~ ~~ "['he pillage Project Comments on the C)ra~~~;e C.;oc~~~t>•` £.;on~prehe«sive flan 1.:!l~date Draft 2 The County supports an array of affordable and workforce housing initiatives, designed to support non-profit organizations, make use of state and federal funds, and provide housing opportunities for County residents. By providing additional affordable housing initiatives within the County, opportunities for living and working in proximity increase. The County is actively pursuing options to provide residential opportunities for homeless individuals and families, contributing to the area's strong emphasis on social equity. 1.3.3. LAND USE Mixed-use districts are being actively encouraged, and locations for new mixed-use centers are being identified, providing live- distance, or accessible by transit, from the places they work, shop, learn and play. Housing options should be dense enough to support public transportation. The County supports an array of affordable, ~ workforce housing initiatives; designed to support non-profit organizations, make use of state and federal funds, and provide housing opportunities for County residents and workers. By providing additional affordable housing initiatives within the County, opportunities for living and working in proximity increase. The County is actively pursuing options to provide residential opportunities for homeless individuals and families, contributing to the area's strong emphasis on social equity. 1.3.4. LAND USE Land use is instrumental in the reduction of carbon emissions. Transportation energy is greatly reduced by aggregating facilities so that people can walk or bike or take public transit to most if not all daily activities. Vertical development forms reduce the footprint of the built environment, conserving energy and mitigating impacts on natural systems. "Green" building standards can further help to conserve energy and resources. [Repositioned paragraph from bottom of section to here] Siting "Growth Opportunity Areas" near transit corridors and along major thoroughfares will encourage more public transportation use by County residents and workers. Actively encouraging mixed-use districts and identifying mixed-use centers that provide live-work-shop opportunities will Page 5 July 11, 2008 LO "l`hc Village Prc~jeet C omments on the Oratlge C:oc~«ty Con}pr~;he:~~siE~e flan l..il~clate: L~ral`t 2 work-shop opportunities that minimize travel needs. The County is exploring a Strategic Growth and Resource Conservation program that will help to focus new development in areas that can best accommodate it, in proximity to jobs, housing, transportation, and services near transit corridors. Simultaneously this program will also help to preserve/conserve rural and agricultural land with compensation provisions for rural property owners. The County's development of an interconnected system of pedestrian and bicycle trails will both provide recreation opportunities and also hold promise for increasing mobility choices available to Orange County residents. Identification of growth opportunity areas near transit corridors and along major thoroughfares encourages more public transportation use by County residents. 1.3.4. NATURAL AND CULTURAL SYSTEMS As of 2007, over 22,000 acres of land in the County has been protected through various land conservation programs. These efforts support the goals of sustaining a balanced and healthy diversity of native plant and animal populations, providing a network of protection natural, cultural, and agricultural lands, and achieving and adequate level of protection for important natural areas, prime forests, and wildlife habitat. Ideas for expanding conservation efforts include improved monitoring of critical natural lands and expanding the County's inventory of critical lands to include new areas not before assessed. Preservation of working farms, forestry, and minimize travel needs. The County is exploring a Strategic Growth and Resource Conservation program that will help to focus new development in areas that can best accommodate it, in proximity to jobs, housing, transportation, and services near transit corridors. Simultaneously this program will also help to preserve/conserve rural and agricultural land with compensation provisions for rural property owners. The County's development of an interconnected system of pedestrian and bicycle trails will both provide recreation opportunities and also hold promise for increasing mobility choices available to Orange County residents. (Repositioned paragraph from here to top of section) 1.3.5. NATURAL AND CULTURAL SYSTEMS As of 2007, over 22,000 acres of land in the County has been protected through various land conservation programs. These efforts support the goals of sustaining a balanced and healthy diversity of native plant and animal populations, providing a network of protection natural, cultural, and agricultural lands, and achieving and adequate level of protection for important natural areas, prime forests, and wildlife habitat. Ideas for expanding conservation efforts include improved monitoring of critical natural lands and expanding the County's inventory of critical lands to include new areas not before assessed. Preservation of working farms, forestry, and Page 6 July 11, 2008 1~a "['he '~~ illagc 1'rc~ject Comments on the tJrange County ~.;on~prehct~sive flan Ll~adate Draft 2 ancillary agricultural businesses is supported by the County. Farmland preservation districts, agricultural preservation through private conservation easements, and the use value taxation model are working to protect farmland and the farming industry in Orange County. More can be done, and County regulations are being reviewed to identify impediments to farming practices. The potential for the Strategic Growth and Rural Conservation program and enhanced farmland preservation districts could provide additional opportunities for farmland protection. ancillary agricultural businesses is supported by the, County. Farmland preservation districts, agricultural preservation through private conservation easements, and the use value taxation model are working to protect farmland and the farming industry in Orange County. More can be done, and County regulations are being reviewed to identify impediments to farming practices. The potential for the Strategic Growth and Rural Conservation program and enhanced farmland preservation districts could provide additional opportunities for farmland protection. Developing a local food system that links local producers and consumers is of high importance. The number of farmers markets operating in the County has increased in recent years, exemplifying their success. Agri-tourism and farming events have also proven popular. One idea to expand on the success of our local agricultural industry is to identify suitable locations for agricultural facilities, such as processing centers, community kitchens, demonstration tracts, community gardens, and the like that can bring together producers and consumers and educate the next generation of farmers. Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro initiated a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Reduction Action Plan project in 2006. More can be done to improve air quality and reduce the use ofnon-renewable fuels over the planning horizon. Ideas include the promotion of private and public use of alternative fuel sources and power generation options, such as harnessing and using landfill gas, and participating in green energy production programs. Our historical character has been protected through the efforts of national and local level preservation programs. Cultural landscapes, historic structures, and- even scenic roadways Page 7 Developing a local food system that links local producers and consumers is of high importance. The number of farmers markets operating in the County has increased in recent years, exemplifying their success. Agri-tourism and farming events have also proven popular. One idea to expand on the success of our local agricultural industry is to identify suitable locations for agricultural facilities, such as processing centers, . community kitchens, demonstration tracts, community gardens, and the like that can bring together producers and consumers and educate the next generation of farmers. Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro initiated a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Reduction Action Plan project in 2006. More can be done to improve air quality and reduce the use ofnon-renewable fuels over the planning horizon. Ideas include the promotion of private and public use of alternative fuel sources and power generation options, such as harnessing and using landfill gas, and participating in green energy production programs. Our historical character has been protected through the efforts of national and local level preservation programs. Cultural landscapes, historic structures, and even scenic roadways July 11, 2008 j Zo ~ "1"he Viila~;e Project Comments on the (~ra~~ge C:ozint~' C;on~prehe~~sive flan 1_)l~date: i~raft 2 can be protected through existing preservation programs. Advancement of preservation goals could include funding assistance to landowners needing additional resources to maintain historic properties. 1.3.5. SERVICES AND FACILITIES Water conservation efforts have been a critical piece in managing water supplies through recent droughts. County level coordination is needed to manage water resources. that will serve future populations. Placing public water and sewer facilities near areas targeted for dense development can reinforce a more sustainable land use pattern. Erosion control and stormwater management efforts in the County are paramount for protecting natural areas from the adverse effects.. of development.. These efforts can be expanded by improving surface water mapping and collecting additional water quality data to inform development management efforts. The County has set an ambitious waste reduction goal of 61%1. Orange County has surpassed state mandates for waste reduction in 1996 and 2001. Continued efforts to identify waste reduction opportunities is supported by the County. The identification of a future waste transfer site and landfill location are critical needs that will be addressed over the planning horizon. can be protected through existing preservation programs. Advancement of preservation goals could include funding assistance to landowners needing additional resources to maintain historic properties. 1.3.6. SERVICES AND FACILITIES Water conservation efforts have been a critical piece in managing water supplies through recent droughts. County level coordination is needed to manage water resources that will serve future populations. Placing public water and sewer facilities near areas targeted for dense development can reinforce a more sustainable land use pattern. [There are numerous ways to increase the number of people that can be served by a given amount of fresh water. For example, the county needs to explore ways to provide water and wastewater service to the mixed- use nodes where centralized water and sewer are not appropriate. Currently, county residents use water quite inefficiently.) Erosion control and stormwater management efforts in the County are paramount for protecting natural areas from the adverse effects of development. These efforts can be expanded by improving surface water mapping and collecting additional water quality data to inform development management efforts. The County has set an ambitious waste reduction goal of 61%1. Orange County has surpassed state mandates for waste reduction in 1996 and 2001. Continued efforts to identify waste reduction opportunities are supported by the County. The identification of a future waste transfer site and landfill location is a critical needs that will be addressed over the planning horizon. Page 8 July 11, 2008 ~.o ~ "1`he ~~illage Project Comments on the f~r~7ge C;o~rnty Comprehc~~si~~e 1'Ian t..ll~dale I~-~aft 2 1.3.6. RECREATION AND PARKS By investigating new forms of recreation to meet new demands (seniors, changing demands for youth), the County is pro- actively planning for the range of needs and demands that will accompany residential growth. By planning for Joint use of facilities by multiple users and jurisdictions (e.g., the two school systems and recreation departments), the County is encouraging efficient use of land and wise use of public financial resources. 1.3.7. TRANSPORTATION The County is actively encouraging alternative modes of transportation and ride- sharing, expanding possibilities for mobility by means other than single-occupant automobiles. Examples of alternative modes of transportation include, but are not limited to: Interconnected pedestrian and bicycle trails; • Transit lanes along major thoroughfares; and • Considering the development of park-and-ride lots that would encourage use of public transportation to travel to and from 1.3.7. RECREATION AND PARKS By investigating new forms of recreation to meet new demands (seniors, changing demands for youth), the County is pro- activelyplanning for the range of needs and demands that will accompany residential growth. By planning for joint use of facilities by multiple users and jurisdictions (e.g., the two school systems and recreation departments), the County is encouraging efficient use of land and wise use of public financial resources. 1.3.8. TRANSPORTATION The discussion of sustainability in transportation options is inadequate so long as density is left out of the equation. At minimum, state what professional consensus is about the minimum housing and other densities necessary to support public transportation.) The reduction of carbon emissions is an inescapable imperative and the County must actively encourage the transition from automobile dependence to alternative modes of transportation and ride-sharing; ~iilles. Examples of altemative modes of transportation include, but are not limited to: • Interconnected pedestrian and bicycle trails; • Dedicated transit lanes along major. thoroughfares making public transportation an expeditious and attractive option; and • Development of park-and-ride lots that ~ encourage the use of public transportation to travel to and from Page 9 July 11, 2008 i 1 Cos "i'he pillage Project C`omtnents on the Ora~~ge Cou~~.ty (:,omprehc~nsive flan t..Ipdate Draft 2 work. Increasing public transit by expanding public and special transportation services for seniors, and individuals with disabilities, increases choice and opportunity. Increasing bus service, .designating public transportation nodes throughout the County with facilities to accommodate pedestrians, park and ride lots, and bicycle racks all contribute to mobility options. These initiatives reinforce each other. Taken together, they form a platform of sustainable practices upon which current and future generations of Orange County residents can build productive lives. work. Particular attention must be given to increasing choice and opportunity for seniors and individuals with disabilities by expanding public and special transportation services. Additionally, increasing bus service, designating public transportation nodes throughout the County with facilities to accommodate pedestrians, creating park and ride lots, and providing bicycle racks all contribute to increasing mobility options. These initiatives reinforce each other. Taken together, they form a platform of sustainable practices upon which current and future generations of Orange County residents can build productive lives. Page 10 July 11, 2008 ~ l.o~.o ~~ L~- ~~a Page 1 of 2 lo`l Tom Altieri From: James Carnahan ~carnahan@mindspring.coml Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:51 AM To: Tom Altieri Cc: Donna Baker Subject: Comp Plan comments for PB Aug 6 mtg The Village Project has continued to follow the Comprehensive Plan Update process. Upon reviewing the agenda of the Planning Board's July 9 meeting, and notes from that meeting, we became aware of some proposed changes to the text of the Comprehensive Plan Update and would like to make the following comments. We request that these comments be included in the public record of the Comprehensive Plan Update. 1) In Chapter 1, "Towards a Sustainable Future," changes have been proposed to the original May 6 language in section 1.3.3 that read: "Identification of growth opportunity areas near transit comdors and along major thoroughfares encourages more public transportation use by County residents." The proposed change reads as follows, including removal of the term "Growth Opportunity Areas:" "Higher residential densities near transit corridors and along major thoroughfares may encourage more public transportation use by County residents." This is a significant change that misses an important point about what comprises "sustainable" development patterns. Higher residential densities alone do not necessarily lead to walkble, transit- supportive development. To ensure walkability and effectively reduce COz emissions and other environmental impacts -and to create neighborhoods with a strong sense of place and community - higher residential density must be accompanied by: * mixed use, including neighborhood shopping and a full range of employment opportunities; * streetscapes and urban characteristics that retain human scale and create solid, affirmative ambience for pedestrians and bicyclists; * public transit in operation or in planning for operation within 2-3 year term; * narrow, lower-speed street grids, designed after turn of the century streetcar neighborhoods, not modern suburban parkways." For further elaboration please refer to the attached file, Smart Growth -- As Seen From the Air by John W. Holtzclaw, former Chair of the National Sierra Club Transportation Committee, that explores the relationship between urban characteristics and reduction of vehicle miles traveled. We support use of a term such as "growth opportunity areas" that is accompanied by a clear definition that would prescribe a fully walkable, energy reducing & open space conserving development outcome. 2) This revised language in ED Objective 2.6 was proposed at the July 9 Planning Borad meeting: 8/6/2008 Page 2 of 2 ~ c~8' "Objective ED-2.6: Encourage and accommodate office facilities to be developed in areas that are desirable and attractive to major corporate users and that have access to public transportation networks and possibly rail transit." We recommend that this Objective be revised to more actively prescribe where and how office development takes place. The current language about public transportation & rail transit is too passive. Mixed use development that includes office (and retail & residential components) must be located where public transit including rail are hkely to become available if not already in place, and must be fashioned in the most compact form in order to maximize pedestrian connectivity between the transit and the destinations. 3) We emphasize again the importance of having a very well defined set of "sustainability principles" at the top of the Comp Plan, preferably included in Chapter 2 with the Commissioner's Principles, or that the Commissioners Principles be revised to have a stronger focus on sustainability. We refer you to pp. 63-72 of the Planning Board's July 9, 2008 Agenda Item Abstract; the right hand column presents the Village Project's suggested revisions to Section 1.3, "Towards a Sustainable Future." We believe it is particularly important at this time that our definition of sustainability refer specifically to "peak oil" and global warming, epochal larger-context issues that play significant roles in our quality of life and that are affected and exacerbated by choices we make locally. James Carnahan for The Village Project August 6, 2008 R/fi/2nnR i ~~ Smart Growth -- As Seen From the Air Convenient Neighborhood, Skip the Car John W. Holtzclaw Consultant, Natural Resources Defense Council; and Chair, Sierra Club Transportation Com. 1508 Taylor, San Francisco CA 94133 (Presented at the Air & Waste Management Association's 93rd Annual Meeting & Exhibition, 23 June 2000, Salt Lake City, UT) ABSTRACT The design. of our urban areas and their transportation systems strongly influences emissions of urban air pollutants. Smart Growth can increase neighborhood convenience, consequently reducing driving to one-fourth or less, by: • increasing neighborhood density to raise the number of nearby destinations, • including markets, restaurants and other commerce and services in residential neighborhoods (mixed-use), • locating neighborhoods close to job centers, • providing safe, attractive and convenient pedestrian and bicycle conditions, • limiting parking, and • providing frequent, convenient, affordable and safe public transit. Such neighborhoods encourage walking, bicycling and use of transit for most trips. Equations developed from research using all these variables except parking in the Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco regions predicts 79 to 96% of the variance in auto ownership and 80 to 94% of the variance in driving (vehicle miles traveled -- VMT) for neighborhoods within those regions. Residential density is the most effective urban variable in predicting auto ownership and driving. The next most effective variable is the amount of nearby public transit. Finally comes pedestrian and bicycle friendliness, including the fineness of the street grid, provision of public sidewalks and weather protection, location of buildings close to the sidewalk rather than behind parking lots, and traffic safety. Center proximity slightly improved the prediction of VMT in the San Francisco area, the only area where data. was available. We had no measure of the amount of private and public parking by neighborhood. The success of these neighborhoods in attracting and retaining residents also depends upon: • nearby parks, creeks, recreation areas, and other open spaces and wildlife habitat, • amactive, quality architecture of the neighborhood and buildings, • quality construction, built to last much longer than housing or shopping centers located in sprawl. INTRODUCTION Motor Vehicle Pollution Motor vehicles are the single largest source of urban air pollution and a major source of water pollution. In the San Francisco Bay Area, for instance, on-road vehicles emit 49% of the reactive i ~~ organic gases', 52% of the nitrogen oxides' and 69% of carbon monoxide Z. In Los Angeles, motor vehicles and their fuels account for about 90% of the cancer risk3. These toxins, along with dumped motor oils, wash into our streams and. bays, becoming major water pollutants. Nevertheless, U.S. vehicle miles traveled (VMT) grew at well over 3 percent per year during the 1980s, and is forecast to increase another 25 percent per capita between 1990 and 2010.4' S What drove this growth and what can be done to rein it in? These questions have stimulated vigorous discussions in the transportation community. Research on How Urban Design Impacts VMT How does sprawl drive up VMT? Low density areas are designed to force residents to drive for most trips. Their zoning requires front and side yard setbacks, wide streets and two or more off- street parking places, reducing densities and separating destinations. Many suburbs prohibit sidewalks and convenient nearby markets, restaurants and other commerce. These government mandates force destinations farther apart, lengthening trips to where non-automotive modes become less viable. Contrast this with traditional cities which grew up around pedestrians, allowing residents to walk, bicycle or take transit to jobs, corner markets and other nearby commerce. They have relatively high densities: ranging from row houses on narrow lots through 3 to 4 story walk-ups to high-rise elevator apartments, condos and co-ops--at 20 to 200 households/residential acre. They are proximate to major job and shopping centers, but have their own local shopping and services, and sidewalks and other amenities to encourage walking. They have excellent access to transit. They were so complete that many residents seldom left them. These areas are now the central and adjacent areas of our older cities and some of the older suburbs. Smart growth replicates traditional city form. But can we measure the reductions in driving sufficient to provide reproducible emission credits to smart growth? Some progress is evident. In a survey of 32 major cities around the world, Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy found that the residents of American cities consumed nearly twice as much gasoline per capita as Australians, nearly four times as much as the more compact European cities and ten times that of three compact westernized Asian cities, Hong Kong, Singapore and Tokyo.s However, they lacked measurements of VMT, or data for neighborhoods rather than whole metropolitan areas, split into central cities and suburbs. Their data suggest that driving is reduced 30 percent every time density doubles. If so, sprawling suburban areas would benefit from modest increases in density. A few 3 to 5 story limited-parking condos or apartment houses replacing parking lots or other underused land along major streets could double their density, cutting household mileage 30 percent. If this relationship, a reduction in driving of 30% every time density doubles, holds up to the density of Manhattan, its families would drive only 8%, or 1/12, as much as nearby suburbanites. Travel surveys, where household residents log each trip, give more direct estimates of VMT. Newman and Kenworthy reported results of a travel survey of United Kingdom cities, which 2 ~~i give a 25 percent reduction in per capita VMT as density is doubled.s Similarly, a travel survey in the Greater Toronto Area suggested that doubling density results in a decrease in per capita VMT of about 25 percent.' A comparison of cities in Washington state found housing density, population density, jobs-housing balance and retail-housing balance to co-vary and to be associated with reduced driving.g But the cost of such surveys limits them to too few households to provide a statistical analysis of all the important variables at neighborhood level. The above studies were for much larger areas than neighborhoods, limiting their ability to measure the effects of neighborhood characteristics like density, transit service and pedestrian and bicycle friendliness. A 1990 study of five communities, ranging from traditional to suburban, in the San Francisco region used actual odometer readings.9 The study found that high residential density, nearby shopping, good transit and a good walking environment go together, while low density zones lacked all these. The co-variance of these variables increases the difficulty of disentangling their effects, but does allow density to capture much of the effects of the others. The residents of higher density communities drove 20 to 30 percent per household less every time neighborhood density doubled. Nob Hill, at 32 times higher household density as San Ramon, had 1/4 its household auto ownership and VMT. However, the limited number of .communities studied prevented disentangling the effects of residential density, nearby shopping, transit and the walking environment. Using a household travel survey in the Seattle area, Frank and Pivo found that employment density, population density, land-use mix and jobs-housing balance are associated with less auto use.'° These relationships held up even when household demographics, car ownership and transit are controlled. A study of 27 neighborhoods in San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego and Sacramento, using odometer readings, found that doubling residential density cut auto ownership 16%, while doubling public transit service reduced VMT an additional 5%." With density as a surrogate for all the variables, doubling residential density cut VMT 20%. Kara Kockelman, in a study of over 1000 travel analysis zones and 1,200 census tracts in the San Francisco Bay Area, found that the following influence household VMT: household size, auto ownership, income, weighted jobs within 30 minutes, dissimilarity of the zone's major land use from its neighbors, and the balance of land uses within each zone within a half mile.12 Robert Dunphy and Kimberly Fisher calculated the average VMT from the 1990 National Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS) for households whose ZIP codes had the same population density.13 For the five density ranges above 4000 persons/square mile (about 5 households/residential acre), their Table 4 shows a decrease of 38% in daily driving as density doubles. These studies have shown a strong relationship between urban form and driving. Of course it makes intuitive sense that people living in neighborhoods originally built for the convenience of residents without private automobiles would have lower auto ownership and driving. But which 3 ~~7a of the mix of variables that comprise these neighborhoods are the most crucial? If we can identify which of the variables. is most effective, and measure their effects, then architects and developers can incorporate them into smart growth, and air quality analysts can credit such design with emissions reductions. Our location efficiency study explores the hypothesis that the .average household's auto ownership and driving decrease measurably as likely trip destinations become more convenient, especially by non-automotive modes. Further, it tests the assumptions that residential density, center proximity, local shopping, public transit accessibility and the pedestrian and bicycle friendliness of the neighborhood are good measures of that convenience. Which variables do we test? • Density - a measure of the number of nearby destinations. Residential density, the number of households per residential acre, seems to be the best measure, probably because it focuses on the developed area and is not diluted by farmland or parks within the zone but outside the everyday neighborhood. But other measures of density are also tested. • Center proximity - a measure of the neighborhood's access to concentrations of jobs and shopping. • Local shopping - a measure of the amount of restaurants, markets, retail stores, insurance agents, and of course video rental stores, nearby. ~ . • Public transit -important as an alternative to driving. • Pedestrian and bicycle friendliness -how attractive are areas to these alternatives to driving. We would also have liked to test the impacts of parking supply, but were barred by the lack of detailed zonal data on parking. Traditional dense areas have narrow streets and limited parking. In addition, the land required by on-site parking itself reduces the density. In the Bay Area, a 3-story apartment house's density could range from 28 units/acre to 64 due only to differences in parking requirements of existing zoning laws.14 Consequently, to some extent density captures parking tightness. This study also sought to quantify the statistical relationship of such locational variables to auto ownership and driving to facilitate the Location Efficient Mortgagec"' (LEM). The LEM allows a household to buy a more expensive home in a location efficient area by committing its auto savings to repaying the mortgage, interest, taxes and insurance. I reported preliminary results of this study in the 1997 AWMA meetings.'s THIS LOCATION EFFICIENCY STUDY This study, sponsored by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) in Chicago, and the Surface Transportation Policy Project in Washington, DC, includes every neighborhood in the San Francisco, LA and Chicago areas. The zones analyzed are the Chicago Area Transportation Study's 316 Dram-Empal zones covering the Chicago metropolitan area, the Southern California Association of Governments' 1700 Travel Analysis Zones covering the Los Angeles metropolitan area and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's 1099 Travel Analysis Zones in the San Francisco metropolitan area. 4 l~3 Zones comprised primarily or wholly of parks, military bases, prisons, airports or industrial facilities are outside the scope of this analysis and were eliminated from the data base. The Variables The dependent variables are vehicles available per household and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Average vehicle availability for each zone is from the 1990 U.S. Census. VMT per vehicle is derived from odometer readings recorded when owners take their vehicles in for emission systems inspections (smog checks) in California and Illinois. Average VMT per household is calculated as the VMT per vehicle times the number of vehicles per household for each zone. The dependent variables were tested against a wide range of potential explanatory variables, including the most important socio-economic factors of household income and household size. Locational variables tested were: density, transit service and access to jobs by transit, availability of local shopping, pedestrian and bicycle friendliness, and proximity to jobs. The density measures tested were households/residential acre, population/acre and population/residential acre. Households/residential acre (I-Ih/ItA) had the strongest correlation to vehicle ownership, while households/total acre (Hh/TA) had the strongest correlation to VMT/vehicle. Total acreage includes residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, parks and open space, and any other categories reported. The data were compiled from the census and regional planning organizations. Household and per capita income ($/Hh, $/P) and household size (P/Hh) were derived from 1990 census data. The measure of transit accessibility is zonal transit density (Tr) , which is the daily average number of buses or trains per hour times the fraction of the zone within 1/4 mi of each bus stop (or 1/ami of each rail or ferry stop or station) , summed for all transit routes in or near the zone. There is some double counting where stops are less than 1/4 mile apart, but correcting for this would not substantially alter the order of the TAZs nor the relative differences between zones. Therefore this measure provides a robust assessment of transit service. An alternative measure, the zonal transit density times the number of jobs reached within 30 minutes by transit (Tr,~ , provided no better correlation with auto ownership or driving than the zonal transit density alone. So the simpler zonal transit density is reported. Routes, schedules and stop locations are from the transit agencies or the metropolitan planning organizations, who also calculated the number of jobs accessible by transit. The measure of center proximity (CP) is the number of jobs within a 30 minute drive, calculated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the San Francisco region. An alternative measure is the number of jobs within a 15 minute drive divided by the number of jobs within a 30 minute drive (E15/E30). This provides a measure of the relative availability of jobs locally. Including CP in the VMT/vehicle analysis provided a marginally higher RZ, but was available only in San Francisco and therefore not included in the general analysis. E15/E30 did not improve RZ as much as CP did. Local shopping (Sh) is the number of service and retail jobs per developed area within the zone, from the U.S. Census. Zones with centroids less than 1/4 mi apart were combined for this calculation. Local shopping is strongly correlated with density and transit, and did not add to the RZ after they were taken into account. The measure of pedestrian bicycle friendliness (Ped) is the number of census blocks per hectare (scale of the street grid) , plus an adder based upon the mean year the housing was built, both from the U.S. Census, with bonuses for traffic calming, good pedestrian conditions, bike lanes, paths, and bike parking, whether as part of the initial design or added later. Had direct measurements of the continuity, width and quality of sidewalks, nearness of buildings to the sidewalk, and traffic safety been available, we would have preferred using them to using the mean year the housing was built. A fine street grid shortens routes and offers more alternatives, and the frequent intersections slow traffic.' The measure works because older neighborhoods tend to have a fine street grid, sidewalks, narrow streets, slower traffic and buildings closer to the sidewalk. We also tested socioeconomic variables available at the zonal level: average household size, average household income and average per capita income. These were derived from the U.S. Census. However, we were not able to explore any independent impact of neighborhood parking supply or cost. Analysis of vehicles available and driving The correlation of each individual independent variable (locational and socio-economic) with auto ownership and VMT was tested. in the San Francisco area, for instance, Hh/RA explained 63% of the variance in Veh/Hh, followed by transit job access at 55%, Hh/TA at 52%, transit service at 49%, income/household at 43%, shopping at 35% and household size at 28%. In each of the three metropolitan areas, Hh/RA explained the most variance in Veh/Hh and VMT/Hh, see Figure 1. These correlations show a very strong relationship of residential density to auto ownership and driving in all three regions studied, even before evaluating the other variables--income, household size, transit service, pedestrian bicycle friendliness, etc. When tested against each other; density, transit, local shopping, center proximity and pedestrian/bicycle friendliness prove to be highly correlated. While this makes it harder to pick apart the separate influences, it means that density to some extent captures the effects of local shopping, transit and pedestrian and bicycle friendliness. As much as possible, we based the forms of our fits on simple modeling of the physical situations. For instance, since doubling density doubles the number of nearby destinations, and doubling transit service doubles the number of destinations you can easily reach, it is reasonable to expect that for both each doubling would decrease auto ownership and VMT by a similar percentage--a log-log or power fit. However, there are limitations on how many cars a household can own, and how many miles even the most auto-entranced folk can drive; therefore we modified the power fit form to be bounded as the density goes to zero. Similarly, since more people in the household increase the number of drivers and people to be driven around, we expected a linear relationship of household size with autos and VMT. However, we had less reason to anticipate a particular mathematical form (linear, power, bounded power, root, polynomial, exponential, etc.) for the relationship between income or pedestrian/bicycle friendliness and auto ownership or VMT. So we tested various mathematically simple forms that had appropriate behavior over the ranges of 1~~ 6 I?5~ the independent variables. We derived the forms of the equations using the San Francisco data . and then used these forms to derive the equations for the other two regions. Using the data available in all three geographical regions and the same equation forms, the variables which consistently explain the most variance in vehicles/household (Veh/Hh) are net residential density (Hh/RA), per capita income ($/P), household size (P/IT) and transit accessibility (Tr), see Table 1. For vehicle miles traveled/vehicle (VMTNeh) the best variables are total residential density (Hh/TA), P/H, pedestrian bicycle friendliness (Ped) and $/P. These are the equations which when applied in the same form in all three regions give the highest RZ. In both the Veh/I~ and VMT/Veh models, density is raised to a negative power, so doubling density causes a fixed decrease in Veh or VMT. In the Veh/HIi model, transit service is raised to a negative power, so doubling Tr causes a fixed decrease in Veh. Household size acts as expected, each additional person adds a fixed increase in Veh or VMT. Improvements in pedestrian and bicycle friendliness reduce VMT/Veh, but with the square root of Ped. The impact of per capita income is a little less straight-forward. It increases with ownership by declining increments as income increases. But VMT/Veh decreases as income increases. The result is that up to an annual income of $25,000 to 30,000, VMT/Hh increases with income as expected, but levels off and falls slightly at higher incomes up to $100,000 per person. The best San Francisco model for VMT/Veh using variables available in all three regions is the same as in Table 1, but with a function for Zonal Transit Density in place of that for Households/Total Acre. Tr gives an RZ of 44.1%, which is slightly better than the 43.8% in the above table. But in the other two regions, Tr in place of H/RA reduced the RZ to 40.0% for Chicago and 37.6% for LA, substantially poorer than the Hh/Tot Acre fit. So the recommended equations use Hh/Tot Acre. In all three cities, the RZ for VMT/Veh is much lower than the RZ for Veh/Hh, indicating that neighborhood conditions more strongly impact the decisions on how many vehicles to have available than they do each decision to use the vehicles on hand. However, since Veh/Hh varies much more from zone to zone (1 s.d. equals ±25% for San Francisco) than does VMT/Hh (±9%), Veh/HIi is more important, and the RZ for the resulting VMT/Hh is almost the same as for Veh/Hh. Data for center proximity was only available for the San Francisco region, so none of the fits in Table 1 are based on it. The Veh/Hh fit in Table 3 is already highly significant, and center 7 i~c~ Figure 1. The reduction in vehicle miles traveled per household as residential density increases. Driving vs Residential Density 35000 30000 s 25000 g 20000 ~ ~ , SF `~ --LA ~ 15000 ~ ~~;~,~ - - -Chicago Q 10000 \`~+. ~,`~ 5000 ~~'`~'Y'titi'""..~..,.~..~-~_-~__-- =~ -.r.......... 0 0 50 100 150 200 Households/Residential Acre proximity added no significance. However, for vehicle use, center proximity added about 5% to the total variation explained, giving a total RZ of 53.9% for the San Francisco region. This suggests that the impacts of CP, while not measured in Chicago and Los Angeles, should be further explored. The equations in Table 2 provide a high explanation of variation. Figure 2 shows the impact of residential density and transit on VMT/Hh using the equation for the San Francisco area. This shows that a household with regional average income and family size living in a 2 Hh/RA neighborhood with zero transit service, for instance, would average over 23,000 miles annually. Raising the density to 150 Hh/RA would reduce the mileage to 10,300. But it also shows that more modest increases in density reduce driving. It also shows that at each level of transit service increases of density reduce driving. Similarly, it shows that an increase in Tr to 300 would reduce annual driving to under 15,400. And it shows that more modest increases in transit service reduce driving. At the highest density and transit service in this example, annual mileage is 3,700. Extending These Analyses These equations allow the use of available neighborhood locational and demographic Table 1 The best equations (1 - 9) to predict Veh/Hh, VMTNeh and VMT/fIlr in all three regions. g,: ~~ Chicago Yeh H Hh -1.9029.955+~ -o.n9~ ~ 1 1. 915 _(°.000142 P) ~ -e C1 P1 o o6as +0.4893HJ~Tr+2.960-• 96.3% -116200.1662 + 1-0 osa7 ~ I r I 1 + 0.00653 H 1 I~1 1 - 0.0249 Ped ~- 0.0818 p - 22136 I 46.8% Veh J l J J VMT Veh VMT _ Hh Hh Veh ° •5 /° Los Angeles . Yeh _ H -1.7326.155+ -o.o9zs ~ 1 s °.8:,e -(o.ooolslP) -e I 1 p 0 i86s +0.7936 ~~Tr+30.796- • 78.6% ~ Hh H Vy ~ =11620.3432+ ~1-0.0681 ~1+0.01555 ~1 ~1- 0.1078 Ped-0.04095 p -22136 42.0°~0 J J VMT Yeh VMT _ _ Hh Hh X Veh ° .o% San Francisco Yeh - H -03471 4.722(22.520 + ~ 1.2]66 _0.000112 P) 1- e P 0 2336 ~~Tr + 60.312- Cl + 1.0519 9~.2% ~ Hh H -103860.5041+ 1-00419 ~ I ( I1+0.02759 1 I~1 r 1 -0.0704 Ped-0.017431 p-221361 43•g% Veh l \ J \ J VMT Yeh VMT _ Hh Hh x Veh ° 87.1 /° * H/R.A is Households/Residential Acres, H/TA is Households/Tota] Acre, $/P is Income/Capita, P/H is Persons/Hh, Tr is Zonal Transit Density and Ped is PedBicycle Friendliness. characteristics to predict average auto ownership and mileage by neighborhood in three of major U.S. regions. Extending the analyses to other metropolitan areas is a first step. Extending the analysis from vehicles and VMT to vehicle trips and vehicle starts would increase its applicability to air quality analysis. Expanding the analysis from just the characteristics of residential neighborhoods to the concentration or dispersal of jobs or commerce would extend its utility to air quality analysis. ` This study was made in order to quantify the transportation savings of average families living in convenient location efficient neighborhoods, allowing them to qualify for Location Efficient MortgagesSM. LEMs allow families to apply these transportation savings to qualifying for a higher Figure 2. How residential density and transit impact VMT/Hh using the San Francisco area equation. 9 I~g mortgage. Location Efficiency analysis is already being extended to allow LEMs in Seattle, Washington and Portland, Oregon. In neither of these are mileage readings for vehicles available. The dominance of Veh/Hh in the calculations of VMT/Hh facilitated these extensions. Veh/Hh, available from the U.S. Census in all cities, along with densities, income, household size, transit service and pedestrian and bicycle friendliness, allow the Veh/HIi equation to be calibrated. Average VMT/Veh is calculated by state departments of transportation based upon fuel use, screenline monitoring and other gross measures. This allows the VMTNeh equation to be calibrated to the regional average VMT/Veh. Extending the analysis to other important dependent variables -.vehicle trips and vehicle starts - would require localized measures of these. The closest available measures are household travel surveys, but as with VMT analysis these contain insufficient data. For instance, in the San Francisco region there average less than ten households per zone. The scarce data problem is aggravated by the lack of any households in many zones, especially the denser zones, which are scarcer to begin with. Since fewer trips commence in denser zones, and are consequently less critical to transportation planning, planners have tended to slight them. But aggregating zones by residential density provides more respectable household numbers, allowing derivation of a gross relationship of trips to VMT by residential density. This relationship could be used to extend the predictions of VMT/Hh to trips/household. Similarly, the time between trips, if reported in the household travel survey, could be used to extend the predictions to cold starts. Similarly, the impacts on trips and VMT of job and commerce concentrations could be estimated by use of household travel surveys. Jobs and local shopping employees are known by zone. Grouping the zones by local shopping density or job ranges would allow shopping trips 10 ~~ August 11, 2008 To: Orange County Planning Board Attn: Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor Orange County Planning and Inspections Department 306-F Revere Rd., PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 From: Ken Terlep 4601 Eno Cemetery Road Cedar Grove, NC 27231 Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update: Request that Information Pertaining to Lake Orange is documented in Table 6-5 Dear Mr. Altieri: I am writing to request changes to Table 6-5 in the Comprehensive Plan scheduled to go to Public Hearing on 8/25/08. Specifically, I ask that the following_information be added to the table: • The 20 Year Safe Yield for Lake Orange should be shown as 1.0 MGD • The storage amount (useable for Lake Orange is 409 MG Additionally, the footnote 59 should be removed as it }s not accurate. Lake Orange is currently a source of raw water for multiple users and not just the Town of Hillsborough. Lake Orange must be recognized as an important and independent source of raw water for multiple users in the county and its capability /limitations documented. It is understood that the Town of Hillsborough is the greatest user of water from Lake Orange but allocations are currently in place for significant withdrawals by Orange-Alamance Water System as well as by Piedmont Minerals. The current O-A withdrawals are smaller than its allocation and the Piedmont Mineral withdrawals are very much less than its allocation. Basis for Request: I have spent considerable time over the last few weeks investigating the WFER design and analysis including the accepted 20 Year Net Safe Yield of 1.8 million gallons per day. I used the same methodology and common or extrapolated assumptions to calculate the 20 Year Net Safe Yield for Lake Orange which is assessed to be 1.0 Million gallons per day. I have presented the methodology, assumptions and results to Mr. Paul Thames and Mr. Kevin Lindley of Orange i ~o County Engineering and also to Mr. Kenny Keel, the Town's Utility Director and Engineer. All three individuals are licensed Professional Engineers in North Carolina and are well informed with respect to the issue. All three individuals have told me that the value for Lake Orange's Net Safe Yield of 1.0 MG per day appears appropriate to them given their understanding of Lake Orange's characteristics (including reduction of effective watershed during periods of no or low precipitation), aswell asthe assumptions and methodology that i used, which were also used for the WFER by the Wooten Company of Raleigh, NC. That company was contracted by the Town of Hillsborough to design and analyze the WFER. Please feel free to contact me at 919-732-9744 if you or one of your staff would like to discuss this further or go through the analysis detail. Sincerely, en Terlep ~~~ Tom Altieri From: lynette_hartsell@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:50 PM To: CompPlanUpdate; lynette_hartsell@yahoo.com Subject: Comprehensive Plan From: Lynette Hartsell Phone Number: 919-563-3796 Message: August 11, 2006 To: Orange County Commissioners Re: Adoption of 2030 Comprehensive Plan For the past 6 weeks, I have spoken with a number of individuals who are employees of the County, City and State governments in regard to issues at Lake Orange. While each person with whom I spoke was generous with her/his time and provided me with documents upon request, none mention that this document, 2030 Comprehensive Plan, was posted on the intereet. It was by chance that I and my neighbors discovered the Plan several days ago and realized that this 300+ page document was to be discussed and adopted at the next County Commissioners meeting. It is hoped that this letter will become part of the minutes of that meeting and that no vote will be taken on the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan until such time as the residents at Lake Orange have had an opportunity to properly examine the document and have other such consultants as is feasible to examine the document and advise us as to our rights. The Plan contains some useful information. However ,the glaring characteristic at first glance is the sheer size of the document which insures that no average citizen could endure the reading much less attain full comprehension of the meaning and impact upon themselves, their families or the greater community. Numerous pages contain lofty goals with which no reasonable person could apparently disagree. However, embedded in this seemingly harmless document, which purports to aim towards a future "sustainable community," lurks the gravest attempt of a government entity to simply "take property and rights away from its current citizens" through the continued implementation of the Neuse River Basin Rules The stated goal of the adoption of the "Plan" is to use the document to make "policy" decisions that provide for a coordinated approach for future growth. The adoption of the "Plan" provides a "statutory basis" for many of Orange County's land use regulations as well as the application of zoning districts. As stated in the Overview, this document sets the course of action to guide development in the county for the next 20 years. If in fact the "county" and its "residents" are likely to realize desired outcomes, it would seem reasonable that we the "residents" should be fully informed of not only the proposed Plan but more urgently, the consequences of the acceptance of such a "Plan" that hands over property and rights to the county employees for their determination of action on private property. The acknowledgment that the County is exercising its "police power" to "define, regulate, prohibit, or abate acts, omissions, or conditions detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of its citizens" per N.C. General Statue 153-121 through the adoption of a "Comprehensive Plan" which would strengthen the role of zoning within the county is stated with little attention to the significance of such a statement . The appearance of involving the public is masked by the fact that no landowner at Lake Orange was aware of this "Plan" although significant personal rights are affected. I submit that the "appearance of Notice" is not equal to actual notice to those parties whose rights are affected and more specifically to those parties whose property is being confiscated by the government without payment. The fact that the. County acknowledges the use of "police power" is evidence that this process is less than voluntary and that the County anticipates the use of "force" through the enforcement of this "regulation". While no gun is held to our head for compliance with the Plan, clearly force is being used for submission to the State interest, which is to solve a problem that does not currently exist. What are the specific "acts, omissions, or conditions detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of its citizens". What are these "acts" that require "police action"? While the good citizens of Orange County desire a government to govern, no one wants the government to exercise its police rights upon mere landowners that tramples the basic rights of its citizens for the sake of pursing a goal of a county government that fails tc meet the statutory test. This is demonstrated in the innocuous statements in the Plan of Enforcement of the Neuse River Basin Rules, the powers of Erosion Control, Zoning and Planning. All statements seem at first blush to be harmless, but are they? ~aS The enforcement of the "buffer zones" in the Neuse River Basin Agreement are nothing short of "eminent domain" without compensation and they are cloaked as the only environmentally sound approach to solving a possible "future problem". If citizens simply submit to the Plan, we hand over to the various departments in the county government unbridle authority to "police" our property and dictate to us, the owners, who have paid a premium price for this property, the use or non-use of our property. This taking without compensation is shameful. The devaluation of private property, that is heavily taxed by the government, in the pursuit of a lofty "solution" to a future problem that may or may not occur, is troubling. The citizens who currently reside in the county, pay taxes and vote, may in fact prefer that the County take a stand against the State and stand up to protect our rights and the ownership and use of our land, rather than advocate for future residents who interests ar e certai my at best speculative. There are numerous statements within the Plan that are simply inaccurate and misrepresent the current status of water usage of Lake Orange and the impact of the proposed regulations upon the citizens in Orange County who are property owners around Lake Orange, those citizens who use the lake and those citizens who obtain water from Lake Orange. Further, the precedent set by allowing county employees to simply police private property owners is a slippery slope that could have disastrous consequences for the county:• Finally, when Lake Orange was conceived and the private property owners "donated" the land under the lake to the county, the primary purpose of Lake Orange was to provide recreation for its citizens and to serve as an emergency source of water. What was intended as a partnership of-Lake Orange Inc., private property owners and the county has eroded over the years as the county has bargained away the rights of the property owners at Lake Orange without consulting or obtaining agreement from Lake Orange property owners as to the relinquishment of those rights. The property owners at Lake Orange are fully supportive of a sound county-wide environmental plan that protects water quality as well as habitat of fowl, fish and fauna that not only will allow for the development of a sustainable community in the future, but that respects the current sustainable community. Additionally, the property owners at Lake Orange desire to be cooperative with the County governing bodies. However, has the County determined that the land owners around Lake Orange voluntarily agree to relinquish property rights to the boundary of the lake. Do we consent to the proposed Erosion Control authority or the Planning and Zoning assessments of setbacks and buffers. Laurie and I refute the legality of the application of the Neuse River Basin Rules as applied, if at all, to our property in the ways articulated in the plan. Further, it is clear that such a Plan is in fact an unlawful taking of private property without just cause and clearly without compensation. We suggest that the County Commissioners change the paradigm of "policing" and "controlling" its citizens to one of a synergistic relationship whereby the citizens that are already present in the county, already pay taxes and already vote on issues related to the county work, with each other to achieve realistic goals that benefit those of us who are already present in the county, not those who may or may not become residents of this county. We recommend the appointment of a task force, committee or other entity to work out a joint resolution with all of the landowners at Lake Orange and the vast number of other residents in Orange County whose property will be affected by the adoption of this or any other Plan. Such a process would ensure that each and every property owner has "actual notice" of the proceedings; fully understands the loss of value loss of rights, loss of uses of their property; agrees to relinquish their rights and use; and that each and every property owner a ffected by the Plan agrees to the implementation of any Plan adopted by the County. If there is to be an ongoing transparent process of development within the County, we submit that the following should be considered and implemented as a process: Full disclosure should be made by the County and Cities of the following: 1. Publish a complete list of "affected properties" in the entire county, should there be an attempt to fully enforce the Neuse River Basin Rules. ( Old and New Versions) 2. Publish the total estimated cost to the county for the purchase of the properties, conservation easements and possible protracted litigation. 3. Publish the estimated affect on the individual property as to devaluation resulting from the implementation of the proposed Comprehensive Plan. 4. Publish the estimated affect on the tax base in Orange County as a result of the devaluation of property affected by the implementation of this Plan. 5. Publish any documentation related to the investigation and determination of whether or not less drastic alternatives to the Neuse River Basin Rules are available . 6. Publish any and all raw data used by the Commission, any County employee and any data considered by those assimilating the Neuse River Basin Rules. 7. Provide each citizen who is directly affected by the implementation of this plan with 2 1~3 a hard copy of the plan at no cost. 8. Schedule further and full hearings to allow a full discussion and full disclosure of the Plan. 9. Publish a statement from the Commission stating the reasons why this or any other Plan should not be subject to a countywide referendum. 10. Additionally, the County should include in any Plan the repair the weir at Lake Orange and installation of updated instrumentation that allows for greater precision in the release of water and thus, greater conservation of water that is intended as an "Emergency Water Source". County officials should explain to the citizens why the offer of $25,000 for the repair of the gauge from the town of Hillsborough has never been accepted, and why the County has refused budgeting for the repair and implementation of modern equipment. 11. The County should include in any Plan information regarding inspection and repair the dam at Lake Orange to ensure the safety of residents down stream and to ensure the continued impoundment of water necessary to preserve recreation rights, the continued release of water and an Emergency Source of Water. 12. Finally, any Plan adopted by the County should have as its paramount goal the protection and enhancement of the rights and privileges of its citizens who currently reside in the county, as well as responsible stewardship and protection of the environment, while simultaneously developing a plan for future growth that engages its citizens in a process of proactive participation and synergistic partnership. That is a goal citizens may be willing to agree to without the need for policing through the enactment of additional regulations. It is only through the real process of involving those you govern, that government can be truly effective. M. Lynette Hartsell Laurie J. Fuchs 1010 Lakeview Dr. Cedar Grove, NC 7329 Apple Mill Rd. Efland, NC 3 ~~ 1 Tom Altieri From: shipley@embargmail.com Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:39 PM To: CompPlanUpdate; shipley@embargmail.com Subject: Delay Comprehensive Plan Vote From: Robert H Shipley Phone Number: 9196446522 Message: The vote on this 313 page Plan should be delayed. It has many potential effects over many years on the quality and availability of water yet very few citizens have heard about it. It appears to universally side with the State against the people of Orange County concerning enforcement of the Neuse River Basin rules. Nowhere does the document even mention "property rights" The Plan doesn't consider or even mention Lake Orange. There's no requirement for such a Comprehensive Plan under NC law -- the vote on this should be delayed so more citizens can have input. 1 -g5 Tom Altieri From: mda180@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 1:00 PM To: CompPlanUpdate; mda180@aol.com Subject: Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan From: Stephen G. Richardson & Jennifer P. McCue Phone Number: 919-643-2811 Message: Regarding Proposed Adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Just recently and very much by chance I learned of the existence of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan through a neighbor. We know for certain of exactly two people who so far have managed to read this murky turgid and cumbersome 313 page draft from beginning to end, one of us included. The draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan and its implications clearly are not understood by residents and property owners of Orange County. If they were, more than the handful would have participated in a previous hearing that reportedly took place. We would have. Formal requirements for public notice may or may not have been observed, but the utter lack of public awareness that this Plan even exists, much less is said to be nearing a final vote suggests to me that transparent process and visible public notice has been missing, however well-intentioned the effort. This opacity seems incongruous in terms of recent Orange County history, however. Here we have a sweeping umbrella Plan serving as the template for all future planning activity by the County (or for the Neuse River Rules by the County on behalf of the State), for the next two decades, but the Plan and its contents are so obscure that virtually nobody has heard of it. Yet in the very same timeframe, the County used more than $100K of tax dollars for consulting fees, and distributing a flyer to every voter in Orange County to hawk the benefits of a highly unpopular proposed land transfer tax. What's more, the County spent these taxpayer funds on publicity even after polls showed the tax referendum had absolutely no chance of being approved (and, of course, despite the costly flyers it was defeated 2:1). If Orange County can spare the funds to publicize a foredoomed tax referendum, where are the flyers and consulting fees for publicizing the draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan which in Chapter 1 solemnly invokes police powers for its enforcement? Why is such a sweeping policy document flying largely under the radar? Is it perhaps in part because in the entire document covering the breadth and sweep of County land use and other planning for the next two decades, the term "property rights" does not appear even once? While inconvenient for comprehensive planning purposes, the vast majority of land within Orange County belongs neither to the State of North Carolina or the County government. The land belongs to individual property owners. This land and the property rights associated with its use are not those of the State or the County to dispose of, and in no event can be taken without just compensation. To my knowledge none of the property owners affected by the Comprehensive Plan has been notified how their rights and interests may be adversely affected either directly by the County, or by virtue of the County agreeing without residents and property owners' consent to act on behalf of the State. We haven't been. We would request the County Commission take the following actions with respect to the draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan to remedy the fatal defects in the current draft: 1. Particularly in light of recent changes in the Commission's membership composition, place the current draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan on hold until an open and highly visible 1 i~~ , process for review and informed discussion can be .implemented and undertaken. 2. Require the County identify and notify each property owner who might be affected by implementation of the proposed plan, and in what way their property and property rights might be impacted. 3. Create and include in a new Revised 2030 Comprehensive Plan, mechanisms for property owner appeals, compensation and other recourse for elements included in the plan. 4. Provide every voter in Orange County a written copy of the plan upon request, and automatically provide written copies to all potentially affected property owners. 5. Place the final version of the Revised 2030 Comprehensive Plan following revisions, public hearings and review, on the Orange County Ballot as a referendum. Sincerely, Stephen G. Richardson Jennifer P. McCue 4402 Arrowhead Trail Hillsborough, NC 27278 2 0~ MEMO To: Orange County Commissioners, County Manager CC: Jay Bryan, Chair, Orange County Planning Board Tom Altieri, Orange County Comprehensive Planning Supervisor From: Orange County Comprehensive Plan Coalition Date: August 13, 2008 Re: Planning Board's Process for Review of Comprehensive Pian Public Comments The Orange County Comprehensive Plan Coalition has closely followed the Comprehensive Plan Update initiative. Our members have attended public input sessions, advisory and planning board meetings, and public hearings. We have also submitted written comments including specific alternative language for many of the goals and objectives. The Coalition believes that all public comments should be reviewed and discussed by the Planning Board during their meetings. Because time is of the essence, we commend staff for preparing a Table of Proposed Revisions (TPRj, which includes the public comments. This table will be very helpful in facilitating the Planning Board's review in a timely manner. However, it came to our attention at the August 6 Planning Board meeting that not all the public comments are being included in the TPR. Instead only those comments deemed as "not too controversial or are not significant changes to the meaning of the objective" are included. In contrast, the Coalition strongly recommends that all public comments received to date -and for as long as the Public Hearing is open - be included in the TPR. The Planning Board should solely be responsible for selecting which public comments to incorporate into their recommendations rather than for Planning Department personnel to filter the comments that will be considered. Such filtering could all too easily be mistaken as staff censorship and/or usurpation of the Planning Board's role. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. We look forward to reviewing the Planning Board's recommendations in advance of the scheduled vote in October. Orange County Comprehensive Plan Coalition Member Organizations Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, Community Action Network, EmPOWERment, Inc., ~~~, Foundation for a Sustainable Community, The Greater Chapel Hill Association of REALTORS, Homebuilders' Association of Durham, Orange and Chatham Counties, Inter-Faith Council on Social Service, The Village Project, Walkable Hillsborough `~ Attachment 4 Attachment 4, General characteristics of 1981 Land Use Plan and 2008 Draft Comprehensive Plan ~~ ~~ a~ 1~ ~ `'1 \ Attachment 4 General Characteristics of 1981 Land Use Plan and 2008 Draft Comprehensive Plan Characteristics 1981 Land Use Plan 2008 Draft Comprehensive Plan Function: Policy guide and foundation Policy guide and foundation for for zonin zonin Lead County Planning & Inspections Multiple departments including Department(s): Planning & Inspections; Environment and Resource Conservation; Economic Development; Housing and Community Development; and Parks and Recreation Chapters: 4 primary chapters: 9 primary chapters (County Profile Introduction; Element in Appendices): County-Wide Profile; Plan Overview; Land Use Plan; BOCC Planning Principles; Implementation and Economic Development Element; Evaluation; Housing Element; Land Use Element; Natural & Cultural Systems Element; Parks & Recreation Element; Services & Facilities Element; and Trans ortation Element Guiding Statements: Goals and Policies New BOCC Guiding Principals, Goals and Objectives and 1981 Policies are retained Identifies Linkages No Yes, identifies each Element's Among Guiding links to other Plan Elements Statements: Land Use Plan Map: Yes Yes. No changes to Map as part of 2008 Comprehensive Plan U date. Land Use Plan 23 categories defined 23 categories defined. No Categories: changes to categories as part of 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update. Land Use Plan Through Future Land Use Through Future Land Use Categories Linkage to Map/Plan and Land Use Map/Plan and Land Use Zoning: Categories -Zoning District Categories -Zoning District Matrix Matrix f,