Final Draft of the Chapel Hill 2020 Plan

The final draft of the Chapel Hill 2020 comprehensive plan and its reports is being posted to the Chapel Hill 2020 webpage.

The plan, reports, and staff and manager memos will be included in the Council’s meeting materials for June 25, 2012.The June 25 draft includes the updates seen in the working version posted on June 15  (here).

If you were able to attend the public information meeting last night, you heard a preview of the changes.  A detailed description of how the draft has evolved is included in the staff memo to Council.

Thank you to everyone who has helped create the Chapel Hill 2020 comprehensive plan!

2 thoughts on “Final Draft of the Chapel Hill 2020 Plan

  1. Linda James says:

    While I appreciate that a survey was conducted by the UNC-Chapel Hill School of Government to gather feedback, I found the questions in the short, 3-minute survey focused mainly on communication issues. Questions were not designed to address either issues of process nor satisfaction with the resulting plan. Open comments were not solicited except for feedback on specific topics. Thus, the results from this survey will most likely be artificially positive.

    A survey designed to dig deeper would most likely paint a less rosy but more informative picture:

    Was enough time given to actual working sessions?
    Were raw comments consolidated in a meaningful way?
    Was consensus reached on the mission statement?
    Were conflicting views, goals and visions highlighted and addressed?
    Was the process data-driven? Were measurable measures of success determined?

    Did the parallel process of addressing land use development issues in the downtown and town corridors make sense prior to the development of the vision, mission and thematic goals?

    For these land use activities, all the same questions apply:
    Was enough time given to actual working sessions?
    Were raw comments consolidated in a meaningful way?
    Was consensus reached?
    Were conflicting views, goals and visions highlighted and addressed?
    Was the process data-driven?

    Were these two distinct activities integrated in a meaningful, logical way?
    For example, how are the environmental goals addressed in each of these growth areas? Those of the Town/Gown theme, etc.?

    Does the resulting 2020 plan reflect the view of the community and comments and desires of its citizens? Does it’s mission statement?
    Do the 5 big ideas adequately capture the key themes and their goals?

    Do citizens feel that the yearlong process enabled a better plan? Or do they feel frustrated that their efforts were not adequately utilized and brought to fruition?

    The answers to these questions and others would yield a better perspective on participants’ view of the process and its resulting document.

    Linda James

  2. Joe Buonfiglio says:

    As the June 25 deadline for completion and possible adoption of Chapel Hill’s new comprehensive plan draws near, kudos and congratulatory pats on the back abound. Unfortunately, I am not able to join in the current Chapel Hill 2020 lovefest. While there are many positive points that can be made, the final product is certainly not shaping up to be anything we should celebrate.
    CH2020 co-chairs George Cianciolo and Rosemary Waldorf have touted this process of creating a new plan as “our people’s vision” with “a wide-open opportunity to break with the old ways of doing business.” Additionally, at the May 21 Chapel Hill Town Council meeting, there were but a few exceptions to the parade of valentines for the 2020 leadership and town staff.
    There is no doubt that a great deal of time and effort on the part of a lot of people went into this thing. I certainly applaud the months of arduous work and self-sacrifice by all of those involved. However, let me suggest an alternative, far less rosy perspective of the 2020 process and its resulting document.
    First of all, there is the lingering and consistently circumvented complaint that the process was unnecessarily rushed, and it shows. In textbook adherence to the old “haste makes waste” adage, the resulting 2020 document is painted with too broad a brush and backed by little proven, defensible, hard data. While home to lovely thoughts and wishes, mostly useless generalities reside within its pages. So while developers will be thrilled by this new vision and the abandonment of the “old ways of doing business,” as the 2020 co-chairs happily announced, the fact is that a commitment to protecting the wants and needs of neighborhoods clearly stated in the soon-to-be retired comprehensive plan are blatantly lacking in the new one. If defending the character and concerns of neighborhoods is added to the final product, I’m quite confident it will be done so in a way that will water down a Chapel Hill neighborhood’s ability to point to this document in any attempt at self-preservation.
    Besides the unreasonably accelerated tempo of the process, I (and many others) had the distinct feeling that we were being herded to an almost predetermined outcome. We can talk of preserving Chapel Hill’s small-town qualities – we can even put it down on paper – but make sure it is done in a way that won’t have any real impact on our new savior, high-density mixed-use commercial development. The new mantra: Bigger is the new better.
    A good example of this is the much-hyped “15-501 South Discussion Group” process that basically outlines the vision (read: fate) for the Obey Creek tract across from Southern Village in the town’s southern area. This vicinity is currently zoned single-family-home residential and has long been considered an environmental offset to high-density Southern Village. However, to look at the new comprehensive plan after the “discussion group” was done with it, you’d assume “the people” wanted to change this and build the heck out of it.
    This outcome, as with the rest of the whole 2020 process, is highly suspect at best.
    In the May 21 meeting, Chapel Hill Town Council member Lee Storrow questioned assistant planning director Mary Jane Nirdlinger about the level of development contained within the map derived from the conclusions of the 15-501 South discussion group, stating, “because I know some folks had some concerns about making a jump from what had been really a longstanding policy discussion about what zoning was going to look like in the southern part of town – and I’m not saying this is bad; I’m not saying this is good – but I do think it looks really different than what that southern-area taskforce did, which was a really long community conversation to get to that point.”
    Nirdlinger responded, “The discussion group produced those recommendations. They had a couple of collaborative evenings where folks who attended the meetings, but weren’t with the discussion group, worked with the discussion-group members. There was information the first night about vision. The second night, more specifically about the areas on the plan. And then consensus from the discussion group is what you see in the document today.”
    I wish Mr. Storrow had pursued his astute concerns further, because Nirdlinger’s answer is misleading. It gives the impression that the many citizens in attendance – mostly from the neighborhoods actually surrounding the controversial Obey Creek property that is currently being targeted for a massive retail-and-residential complex – came to “consensus” with the “discussion group” committee to jointly make the pro-development recommendation now embraced by the new comprehensive plan. As a citizen-stakeholder who attended those meetings, I can tell you that this is a load of garbage bordering on outright propaganda.
    The significant number of neighborhood residents working in several different, autonomous groups each independently reported wanting a much lower-density, substantially less-commercial-to-no-commercial development vision for the Obey Creek tract.
    It was the handpicked, not-nominated-by-the-people “discussion-group” committee –including not just a developer, but the Obey Creek developer – who came to “consensus” for the amplified level of development.
    I feel this is indicative of the Chapel Hill 2020 process overall. Let the people have a voice; but if that voice in any way works against the pro-development agenda, find a way to tweak it to a more developer-friendly outcome.
    This is hardly “the people’s vision.” It is a weak document by design, so as not to impede on the desires of those who want to build our way to prosperity at the expense of neighborhoods. It has no concrete guidelines; this translates to no governor on development. When it comes to protecting our neighborhoods from unreasonable or unwanted development projects, the bottom line is that the current comprehensive plan is far superior to this meaningless mess coming down the pike courtesy of the CH2020 process.
    As Chapel Hill Planning Board member Amy Ryan said to the town council at its May 21 meeting, “The result is the document you have before you: a general, placeless, often contradictory wish-list that could be cherry-picked to justify plans that have little to do with what the citizens want for our town.”
    Link to op-ed column in The Carrboro Citizen:

Let us know what you think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s