Name of candidate: Ed Harrison
Address: 58 Newton Drive
Contact information: ed.harrison@mindspring.com; 490-1566
1. We talk a lot about growth and where it should occur. Clearly the Town Council can influence the rate of growth through its planning and zoning powers, granted by the NC Legislature.
What are your goals and objectives for growth? Building on a question asked at the Visioning Task Force focus groups, how much growth can Chapel Hill support and still maintain our values, the things that people like about living in Chapel Hill? How would you determine growth rates that are "sustainable"?
My central goal and objective is for growth to meet a common definition of sustainable development: development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Values which I see as important to us include acceptable "levels of service" (LOS) for all modes of transportation. Planners (outside NC) have developed LOS for pedestrian and bicycle transport, I include those as well as for cars - what we always see in development analysis. The non-technical side of this is how a person "feels" moving through our community: is congestion a daily hassle that gets worse all the time? Do you feel it's safe for your young child to cross the major street in your neighborhood? Cumulative impact analysis, using software identified and requested by members of the Northern Area Task Force, would be one quantitative method of determining "sustainable" growth rates.
2. New development occurs on vacant land, or developers buy properties to redevelop for a completely different purpose. Examples of the latter are East 54 and Greenbridge, and proposed projects such as Rams Plaza, University Mall and University Square. Development of any type can bring desired amenities for the Town but can also cause undesirable consequences, such as a changed Town character, environmental damage, the loss of affordable housing, increased traffic, and the migration of small scale retail from present locations.
Given that development and change are inevitable, please suggest ideas about how each of the unwanted consequences could be addressed in future development proposals.
(1) Enact free-standing comprehensive plan provision to be evaluated (and met) for rezonings; this consequence isn't necessarily a negative to some people.
(2) Require a heavier burden of proof on applicants for environmental variances; applicant's failure to make a quantitative justification of why to eliminate steep slopes was a major reason for my vote(s) against Residences at Grove Park.
(3) Prohibit an applicant from eliminating existing affordable housing without directly replacing it in quantity, or by combination of that and payment in lieu. Demolition of affordable rentals was a major reason for my vote against Grove Park.
(4) Require major redevelopment land conversions to demonstrate improved mobility in all modes, by doing before-and-after Level of Service evaluations.
(5) Probably hardest to address, because a governing board has limits to being able to specify uses in an application down to the level of which retailer of what size moves there.
3. Chapel Hill prides itself on an open public process with fair, consistent rules and development review process. Citizen Advisory Boards ensure that citizens are involved in decisions that affect them. A Concept Plan process helps guide developers toward a concept desired by the Town.
Please comment on whether the Town's process is working as it should, and offer specific ways it could be improved. Is the process achieving the results we want?
In general, the Town's process is working reasonably well. The review process can be shortened somewhat by combining presentations to multiple advisory boards but it is better to err on the side of caution by making sure that citizens are given sufficient time to weigh in on decisions that will ultimately affect their lives and those of future generations. Abundant information early on in the process is critical for community evaluation of development proposals.
It can be difficult for all but board members to get electronic versions of materials related to development applications at the advisory board stage of review, when residents (and others) can deal with the boards in a completely open process. (The quasi-judicial nature of the SUP limits free exchange between citizens when the case gets to Council.) We're getting results that could be improved by more information being available to citizens earlier in the process.
4. For the last few years the Council has embraced a policy of encouraging higher densities along major transit corridors through zoning changes based on certain assumptions about transit and population estimates, e.g. a planned hotel on MLK near I-40, and the 54 East project already built at the proposed transit hub. Do you support the policy of putting density on major transit corridors and why? What changes, if any, would you want to make in the policy?
Yes, but only if density is linked in all ways possible to transit service, especially what exists at the time of application. Closely linked with that - and applicable in my view only to downtown - is that density is acceptable within close walking distance of major destinations, notably the UNC campus and downtown retail resources.
Right now this level and location of density is only a policy, with no ordinance in place to implement it in a systematic way. The "purpose statement" for the needed ordinance is found in LUMO at 3.5.4 (p. 27 print). The Transit Oriented Development -Core (TOD-C) zone is described as one that "encourages a mixture of residential, commercial, and employment opportunities within identified light rail station or other high capacity transit areas."
Also, the ordinance enacted to charge applicants proportionately for expansion of transit to serve their projects has never been brought back for final approval.
5. Chapel Hill and UNC signed a Development Agreement in June 2009. NRG worked with the Town of Chapel Hill and UNC to ensure that interests of Chapel Hill neighborhoods were taken into consideration, particularly in transportation planning. Our recommendations and neighborhood concerns are found at http://www.nrg-nc.net.
When the review of the Development Agreement comes up, name three issues that you will consider to determine whether or not the Agreement is a success, and discuss in general terms what you will be looking for as measures of success.
1. The public participation plan to be received by Council next January.
2. The overall transportation picture - including (a) TIA updates; (b) functionality of required concurrent road improvements.
3. The buildout of needed bicycle (on-street), pedestrian and greenway improvements.
re (1). Is participation added in areas where need is shown?
re (2.a). Is the TIA showing the need for the more frequent updates requested by NRG (to which UNC did not agree, as the payor)
re (2.b) After the road improvements for increased motor vehicle capacity, are the streets/intersections still useable - or more useable - by non-motorized travelers? e.g NC 86/Estes Drive.
re (3). Is UNC helping the Town to advocate for state and federal (pass-through) funding for these improvements? From my experience at the TAC Chapel Hill is in fierce competition for these monies, with jurisdictions whose officials often do not understand the pressure on town thoroughfares from UNC-generated traffic.
6. Public participation cuts across all aspects of Town Government. During the Carolina North planning process, many neighbors emphasized the importance of improving public participation. See attached NRG recommendations report. What is your view of public participation in Town Council decisions, and your ideas for updating Town strategies to reflect current]day technologies and media?
For me, maximum public participation in decisions is even more important than the individual issues up for discussion. I learn an immense amount from citizen comment on any issue, and apparently am rare among elected officials in following up with commenters after meetings.
The recent upgrade of the Town website hasn't necessarily improved information access, exchange or management (See (3) response). Re: use of contemporary technologies, excellent ideas presented by NRG include: leveraging social networks and other online resources; exploring alternative times and locations for meetings; exploring online tools that allow some degree of public interaction with the planning projections and assumptions - especially appropriate for our well-educated population. I'd support all of these.
All this could bring about the high level of participation I support.
It's important to keep in mind that the Council has input from a great many sources, and decisions may emerge that may not please everyone.