Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-21-20 12-7 - Information Item - December 18, 2019 Greene Tract Facilitated Meeting Notes 1 Facilitated Conversation about the Greene Tract Session Notes December 18, 2019 Session Outcomes Continued to move forward on agreements about the plan for the Greene Tract by: 1. Identifying communication ground rules for working together. 2. Clarifying common ground. 3. Articulating sticking points. 4. Unpacking what's getting in the way of coming to resolution. 5. Planning for next steps. Participants Carrboro: Lydia Lavelle, Carrboro Mayor David Andrews, Carrboro Town Manager Trish McGuire, Carrboro Planning Director Nick Herman, Carrboro Attorney Chapel Hill: Pam Hemminger, Chapel Hill Mayor Maurice Jones, Chapel Hill Town Manager Judy Johnson, Chapel Hill Planning Director Ralph Karpinos, Chapel Hill Attorney Orange County: Bonnie Hammersley, Orange County Manager Travis Myren, Deputy Co Manager Penny Rich, Chair of County Commissioners, Orange County Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director John Roberts, Orange County Attorney Facilitation Team Maggie Chotas, Lead Facilitator, Dispute Settlement Center Laura Swartz, Facilitation Support, Dispute Settlement Center 2 Session Notes Welcome & Introductions Maggie Chotas welcomed participants, reviewed the goals for the session and provided context about the meeting notes, which the DSC team will deliver three weeks after the meeting. She explained she was recording the conversation for the purpose of developing accurate notes, which will be more detailed than summary notes but not necessarily verbatim. The notes will be distributed to the group, and if anything is missed, the notes will be revised before a final copy is distributed. Penny Rich thanked everyone for coming, expressing appreciation for the willingness to have this conversation. Ms. Rich explained that the Orange County Commissioners want to move forward with the Greene Tract and the partnership and they are unclear what that partnership looks like moving forward. As such, she described her main goal as establishing the terms of the partnership and how the group works together. Ms. Rich emphasized it is important for all partners to feel like they are a part of every conversation. She said she hoped the outcome of the meeting would include plans for a governance document that allows Orange County to have guidance in conversations, with an understanding of what it means to be a partner and potentially what is means to no longer be partners. Ms. Rich explained Orange County would rather be partners and move forward given that it is in the greater good of the community to develop this land. She is encouraged that the group has chosen to have a facilitated conversation on this topic. Pam Hemminger said she was excited the group came together to pursue an opportunity to clarify its common goals around the Greene Tract. She descripted the group as trying to all come together with a "big elephant" picture and noted there are limitations to that approach. She encouraged the group to focus on small, pragmatic steps and align around goals and principles. Ms. Hemminger also explained her hope that the group can delineate the parts of the tract so that all staff can have clear direction moving forward as this has been an issue in the past. Her Chapel Hill team has been back over the original document and it is confusing and vague. She encouraged everyone to look at the Market Study and the Rogers Road Task Force, Mapping Our Future. Lydia Lavelle, provided context that over the summer when the Council had a meeting about the Greene Tract, it gave the Carrboro and County Boards pause as to how all three, as owners of the property, can move forward together. She noted Ms. Hemminger, Ms. Rich and she had been meeting for over two years to develop a solid plan for how to move forward with property which has been jointly owned for decades. Ms. Lavelle's Board was thrown back when Chapel Hill seemed to change the process with a new timeline and new thinking. Ms. Lavelle said she wants to move forward in a manner that respects the fact that we all own the property jointly, while Greene Tract Facilitated Discussion Minutes, December 2019, Page 2 3 understanding that the property is in Chapel Hill and as the permitting-authority, Chapel Hill does have a different perspective. Ground rules Participants brainstormed communication ground rules for how they wanted to work together during the session. A summary of key points follows: 1. Identify when we are talking personally or from the majority of our Boards. 2. Encourage staff to participate and share, given that they have been valuable context and insight. 3. Clarify facts along the way, and do not get offended if someone tries to correct misstatements. 4. Do not take things personally. 5. Share notes back with our Boards. Participants agreed to abide by the communication ground rules. Confirming and Prioritizing Topics for Discussion The following discussion topics were identified: • Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)/ Government Document • Environmental Impact Study (EIS) • Connectivity Study • Public Engagement Process • Permitting Process Participants were asked to collectively prioritize topics by considering what is most important and most urgent. Ms. Hemminger suggested starting with the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) because it informs other conversation. For Chapel Hill, as regulators and landowners of the Greene Tract, it is important to know "what is what there" and the Environmental Impact Study would inform a lot of the conversation about how to move forward. Mr. Karpinos asked a clarifying question about whether the group was discussing 107 acres or 160 acres of the Tract. Ms. Hemminger replied that the answer to that question does inform the conversation, acknowledging that the lines for the two parcels have not yet been delineated. Ms. Rich responded that she respectfully disagreed and hoped to start with the overall Memorandum of Understanding/Government Document. For her, the primary purpose of the meeting was to establish what partnership looks like overall and everything else can be discussed within that context. She wants clarity on the ground rules or overall relationship. Greene Tract Facilitated Discussion Minutes, December 2019, Page 3 4 Ms. Lavelle offered a third approach of working on both the EIS and the MOU simultaneously. She said it was her understanding that the EIS may take several months given the timing of the seasons. She noted the overall MOU document could also take a long time to develop. She indicated the EIS could be a "hard-stop" for Carrboro, and therefore, focusing on both documents simultaneously would be the best use of time and resources. Ms. Rich emphasized the importance of the MOU/Government Document as a guide to how the group works together on the EIS. She said was not comfortable doing an EIS without going back to her Board and stressed the importance of understanding how to all move forward together. Ms. Lavelle agreed, noting she was comfortable assuming that all three Boards would be involved in the process. Ms. Rich explained that part of the MOU/Government Document will be to specify how the Boards will be involved in the process, including their respective roles. Ms. Lavelle stated she would be interested in staff perspective on this topic, especially given Carrboro's interest of a streamlined process so the group can really talk about things. Ms. Rich added it would be helpful to have a legal perspective as well, given that everyone would have to put money towards an EIS before there is an official MOU. Nick Herman shared the observation there needs to be an understanding of the nature of the relationship between partners. The partners need a clear understanding of the relationship, who is in and who is out and under what terms. In the absence of that understanding, the parties will not know who is going to be making decisions about particular areas. Ms. Rich said she and John Roberts had had a similar conversation prior to this meeting. Ms. Hemminger added that the partners have an MOU the group has operated under for the last eight to nine years. Even though it is not the best document, she said, it has allowed the group to do some projects already, including the water and sewage infrastructure work. Craig Benedict stressed the importance of talking about the context of the roles. With the EIS, are we looking for a regulatory outcome such as what are the minimums required for the Wetland preservation or is there an interest as property-owners that should be considered? When you get into a regulatory framework, you look to the Code, but if there is an interest to go beyond the Code, then that has different implications. Ms. Rich asked John Roberts to speak from the County perspective. Mr. Roberts explained that having a defined MOU/Government Document is more important to him because some County residents will think that one environmental study is not enough and they will pressure Boards and staff to do more. Before an EIS can take place, he said, the group needs parameters for the study Greene Tract Facilitated Discussion Minutes, December 2019, Page 4 5 and an MOU or preliminary agreement about the EIS would be preferable. In response, Ms. Johnson suggested the group could have a preliminary MOU for the EIS, which would be a fairly simple document, while working concurrently on the overall MOU. Ms. Hemminger clarified when talking about the Environmental Study, the group is really discussing an Environmental Impact study. [Up to this point in the conversation, terms had been used interchangeably, though the notes refer to EIS only for the sake of clarity.] Consistent terminology is important for the group moving forward, she said. Chapel Hill always has an outside company conduct these studies so that the town can stress to residents that an impartial professional group conducted the study. Historically, the community is accepting of studies from third-party groups. Ms. McGuire explained the group did not have an MOU in 2011 when the Greene Tract work began, but there was direction from the Boards to eventually create the Historic Rogers Road Task Force. The group then developed a memorandum to frame next steps. First there was one for Mapping Our Future Communities work and then there was one for the sewer project and a different one for obtaining the sewer connections. Ms. McGuire explained the memorandum have been developed along the way and agreed that the EIS agreement does need to be framed in an MOU so all parties can know the details, such as who is approving the RFP, how the RFP is approved, and who is selecting and contracting with the consultants. She suggested that the two documents could be made in parallel, with the details about the EIS being a subset of the overall MOU. Ms. Hemminger recommended building on precedence of the three groups working together as the new agreement is developed for the Greene Tract partnership. Ms. Hemminger shared she loves when the staff are in alignment, working together collaboratively on the details of the project. Ms. Hammersley highlighted the difference between the Greene Tract and the Rogers Road properties, noting members of this group are owners of the Greene Tract whereas they were not owners of Rogers Road. She explained that using a third party is not always viewed as being objective by members of the community. What matters is who is paying the consultant, and we will need to be clear who is doing that. An agreement about everything moving forward is important for perception. The group deals with perception, not necessarily reality. Ms. Lavelle said she liked the idea of having a limited preliminary agreement on the EIS, while starting the conversation about the overall MOU/Governance Document. Ms. Lavelle also shared the importance of specifying what acreage the group is discussing, as Mr. Karpinos brought up earlier. Greene Tract Facilitated Discussion Minutes, December 2019, Page 5 6 Ms. Rich asked the group to consider the outcomes of an MOU for an EIS, as those weren't clear. In response, Ms. Lavelle expressed that speed is the outcome. She doesn't want to wait another year to get something done. Mr. Andrews asked how long the MOU/Governance Document will take, explaining the group needs to set priorities and be able to explain why they are doing the EIS now. If all efforts are placed on developing an MOU, he wondered how much that delay would hurt the EIS. Mr. Roberts thought the EIS could be done administratively, while this group could work on an overall MOU, which could take months to years. Ms. Chotas shared she will document the questions that are coming up for the group in the different topic areas so that the questions can be addressed in next steps.The questions are included in the narrative that follows. For a synthesized table, please see the attachment: Key topics and related questions. Mr. Herman added the parties have different percentage interest in the property itself and one or more parties might pay more for certain things. Three different groups have different constituencies. Topics to consider include: • With a partnership of three people, is it an equal partnership? • What happens with decision making if there is a disagreement? Can two override one? • Do you get a 16%vote or 14%vote if that is your interest in the property? • What if you have a 65% interest? • Who is in? A previous amendment to an MOU says that "parties will bargain in good faith," but the partners need to agree in more specificity as to how decisions will be made relating to the property moving forward. Mr. Benedict also brought up the importance of a timeframe for decisions. It would be helpful to have a concurrent process with an overlapping activity. Mr. Benedict agreed that an MOU for just the EIS could be helpful, but the overall MOU still needs to guide the biggest picture and how the separate elements come together across the finish line. Posing a question to the planners, Ms. Rich asked at what point in development does an EIS typically occur? Ms. Johnson responded that EIS typically come in at the very beginning of development. Greene Tract Facilitated Discussion Minutes, December 2019, Page 6 7 Ms. Rich asked who did the Environmental Scan? Mr. Benedict and others replied that all of the staffs collaborated on the Environmental Scan. Ms. Chotas asked a clarifying question as to whether the Environmental Scan is different than the Environmental Study? Answering for the group, Ms. Johnson explained that yes, the scan is a higher-level "desktop" document, whereas the study is more informed and comprehensive. Ms. McGuire said one argument for establishing the framework for doing the MOU on the EIS first is that the EIS will provide detailed, technical information about the property. It would provide additional information about the site and would be helpful in creating a clear picture of the property for those who will evaluate it for development. The EIS can be a first act before doing the larger study and the EIS can inform the vision and values for developing the property. It can also inform whether the group is a good fit for managing that. There are some environmental conditions of the property are sensitive to the seasons and rainfall in particular. There is an interest in starting the EIS sooner rather than later so that it is conducted in the most thorough and accurate way. Mr. Myren shared his perspective that the group ended their last meeting with the idea of proceeding with the EIS in order to inform the evaluation of development proposals and to decide how the headwater preserves could be reconfigured. Then there would be an RFP for development, which would go through a regular process for evaluating proposals. That would get the local governments out of the role of developers as quickly as possible, and that seems to be where some of the rub is. Mr. Andrews asked how long the EIS would take? Ms. Johnson offered that the EIS would likely take a month or two months. If the MOU takes a year and the EIS takes 1-2 months, will we agree to pause at that point? Ms. Rich raised the point about the importance of aligning policy with outcomes—thinking backwards to move forward. Mr. Benedict offered that the answer may depend on what information comes out. If we have a definitive technical analysis from the Army Corps of Engineers, that could take 3-4 months. Ms. Hemminger added the group can keep meeting on what they know and keep the public informed along the way. It is more helpful if the public can "come along with us." Then we could come back together to put the lines for the headwaters. These other pieces could be worked on while the MOU is coming along and we're checking in. That way, we can move forward and bring the community with us. Greene Tract Facilitated Discussion Minutes, December 2019, Page 7 8 Ms. Rich asked who the term "community" refers to, and in response Ms. Hemminger explained the two different groups: (1) the local citizens first group (the community near the Greene Tract) and (2) All of Orange County residents. To share what we've learned through the EIS about where the school site is, what we're doing with affordable housing and other goals we have identified. We can have a community meeting to share the map and information. We can share information to everyone all at once, and document who is in attendance. Ms. Rich asked if the affordable housing groups can be included in the "community" the group is discussing, adding that that group has felt excluded from this conversation. Ms. Rich acknowledged there are the neighbors, the larger community and the school communities and there is currently no representative from the affordable housing groups. Ms. Rich responded Habitat in particular would like to be more involved moving forward. Ms. Hemminger said that would be great. Ms. Lavelle echoed what Mr. Myren said that the local governments are not developers and they do not want to bump into cross-jurisdictional political issues as they have their own political issues in their own jurisdictions. Given the group has been working on this for decades, perhaps the group should "bite the bullet" and get the EIS done so they can get it ready for someone to bid on it and run with it. It is complicated given that all of us are owners. Mr. Jones expressed it makes a lot of sense to get the MOU done for the EIS given it has to be completed anyway and everyone is in agreement on it. Ms. McGuire indicated that citizen engagement has been something of a stumbling block since the summer, as all three parties had not given staff the same direction. She said she envisions this element of the citizen engagement process would be spelled out in the MOU and groups would not do any further engagement until the MOU is in place. That way, everyone will know what their role is and what the message is and it is very clear. One challenge for Chapel Hill is having to wear both hats as owners and regulators of the property. Developers get to choose what they want to do. In sum, any engagement with the public would need to be clearly spelled out in the MOU. Without these specifications in the MOU, there will be frictions and assumptions from all sides. Ms. Hemminger checked her own assumption and asked the County whether they had an interest in the location of the school, depending on the outcome of the EIS. Ms. Hemminger and Ms. Rich discussed the importance of finding the best location for the school and determining how much land should be set aside for the school property. Ms. Rich noted the group doesn't yet know where this will be needed and is a conversation to be looked at in the future, possibly ten years Greene Tract Facilitated Discussion Minutes, December 2019, Page 8 9 out from now. Ms. Hemminger acknowledged this is one of the challenges, predicting the future. The school district has gone "in and out" of the project, at different points saying they want more or less land for a future school. The two agreed that there needed to be a placeholder for a potential school. Ms. Hemminger said she hoped there would be multiple developers instead of just one, noting more discussion around this will need to happen at a later point. If staff could do the regulating plan and draw the lines for the property, that would be helpful. Ms. Johnson said her group could come up with a master plan for the best place for the school and major elements of the property, with the school district involved. Ms. Hammersley said everyone needs to decide if they are going to be owners or developers of the property and that needs to be specified in the MOU/Governance Document. Ms. Hammersley further noted she does not think staff should conduct the connectivity plan because the same thing will happen as what happened with the Environmental Scan. A developer should do the connectivity plan. Mr. Andrews agreed with Ms. Hammersley, citing the importance of specifying all of this in the MOU. Ms. Johnson asked if the MOU was an appropriate place for the goals and principles for the property? Whether we develop a master plan or not, we will want to explain the goals and principles for the property. It could be a hybrid. Ms. Rich shared that Orange County used a matrix after a recent bond and the matrix did not work in the end because what the County put forward was not what the developers wanted to build. Mr. Jones asked if the developers could not make the projects work financially and Ms. Rich replied yes, that was the problem in addition to the requests from the County. Ms. Rich said she could confirm with her Board, but her thought was that overall none of the members want to be developers of this Greene Tract property. There was general agreement among Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro that none of them want to be developers of this property. Ms. Hemminger said we do put out there what we want— such as drawing in the main roads. Ms. Rich added don't developers know that? We're asking staff to get together to look at things. Mr. Herman asked if there is a consensus among the jurisdictions that the EIS needs to happen. Greene Tract Facilitated Discussion Minutes, December 2019, Page 9 10 If there is consensus, what are the mechanics of coordinating the groups to conduct the study? Should staff be put in charge? Ms. Rich asked again about the intended outcomes of the EIS and the group identified possibilities. Brainstormed Outcomes of the EIS The group brainstormed the following outcomes of the EIS: - Delineation of headwater preserve, wetlands and streams - Firming up the lines - Provide environmental information for future development o To take the cost off of the future developers of the site, especially given the goal of affordable housing - Informs public education process - Informs ownership decisions of the preserved property - Identify the most appropriate location for a school site - Feasible options for connectivity o Mr. Benedict highlighted the connection between the environmental impact study and the connectivity plan, given the interest to connect the 104 acres and determine the best place to cross or go around an environmental area. He expressed concern the EIS does not result in an environmental block that frustrates the goal of connectivity for the property. Relating to the EIS, Ms. Rich challenged the group to specify: (1) who is paying for the study; (2) who is choosing the company; (3) whether it is staff driven; and (4) how does that lead into the overall MOU/governance document. Ms. Chotas summarized the group did have general agreement about the need for the EIS, noting that the group has unresolved questions about the mechanics of that study. She also echoed that the group anticipates that it will take a year or more to develop and finalize the master MOU document. Ms. Rich questioned whether it would really take a year or more to develop the document? It seems more straightforward than that to understand what partnership is. Ms. Hemminger suggested having the attorneys and staff together decide how to move forward on the EIS and next steps for the overall MOU as well. Greene Tract Facilitated Discussion Minutes, December 2019, Page 10 11 Ms. Hemminger suggested tasking staff with developing technical recommendations for the EIS while the attorneys develop legal recommendations. She emphasized using existing frameworks, such as the one for Rogers Road, as a starting place. Next, the group brainstormed how the EIS would be paid for. Ms. Johnson explained that her staff recently determined this for a different project, but Ms. Hammersley noted that project was bonded, under an agreement. Mr. Roberts said the group could start by looking at that interlocal agreement. Identifying next steps Ms. Lavelle said she was perfectly happy with staff developing agreements, as long as everyone is included. She also brought up the Assembly of Governments meeting at the end of January and encouraged everyone to attend and to put this topic at the beginning of the agenda. She asked if the group will meet again before that date. While the group didn't think it was feasible to meet again before then, they identified a series of next steps as follows: Mr. Herman stated that the attorneys could have a draft MOU for the EIS by January 14, 2020, given the Assembly of Governments meeting on January 28, 2020. Carrboro will meet again on January 14, 2020, and Orange County's first meeting back is January 21, 2020. Chapel Hill's meetings will occur January 8, 2020 and January 22, 2020. There was agreement each party would have to present the EIS MOU to their respective Boards before the Assembly of Governments meeting. Ms. Lavelle said she thought the Boards will be supportive of moving forward with the EIS, given the groups are also simultaneously working on the overall MOU document. The group agreed representatives would present a draft of the MOU for the EIS to their respective Boards before the January 28, 2020 Assembly of Governments meeting. Ms. McGuire said the group currently has three different resolutions and there might be the need for a new joint resolution that communicates the current status of moving forward on the EIS and developing the larger MOU. Ms. Hemminger replied that each Board would have to pass those documents individually. Ms. Hemminger noted Chapel Hill's current document specifies that they will have a community meeting about the Greene Tract and she needs a new document stating the groups are working together on a path forward and the community meetings are on hold for now. Greene Tract Facilitated Discussion Minutes, December 2019, Page 11 12 Ms. Rich emphasized the resolutions need to be simple and include the basics. Ms. Hemminger said Chapel Hill will need to find a way to communicate community meetings will occur later in the process. In terms of the meetings of the group in 2020, Ms. Hammersley said the elected officials should decide when and how frequently the group will meet and if it is helpful to have Ms. Chotas facilitate them Mr. Jones recommended the group meet again in early to mid-February after the Assembly of Governments meeting. Ms. Hemminger said she would like to spend time working on goals and principles with the Greene Tract. Mr. Jones noted Ms. Johnson has already started working on an "agreement matrix," specifying the overall goals. Ms. McGuire shared it would be helpful to delineate where there is agreement and where there is disagreement with the development of the property. She also explained that is different than the development of the process. These elements will be specified in the MOUs. Group decisions summary Ms. Chotas summarized decisions made by the group during the session as follows: 1. Moving forward with the EIS, beginning with the agreement for the mechanics of it 2. Moving forward developing the overall MOU/Governance Document to define and clarify the partnership 3. Developing a new joint resolution which would outline the status of the partners in working toward steps 1 & 2 outlined above Summarized next steps Participants clarified the next steps coming out of the session. Topic Action Steps 1. Minutes from the • The DSC team will deliver draft notes to the group by end- meeting of-day January 8, 2020 • Group members will have until January 13, 2020 to provide clarifications • The final draft of the notes will be distributed by January 17 2. Establishing agreement . Nick Herman will take the lead in working with the other for the Environmental attorneys in developing a draft agreement, consulting Greene Tract Facilitated Discussion Minutes, December 2019, Page 12 13 Impact Study with staff as needed • The draft agreement will be sent to the three Boards by January 14, 2020 for their review before the January Assembly of Governments meeting 3. Joint Resolution for the . Ralph Karpinos will take the lead, working with Judy three Boards regarding Johnson and the other attorneys and managers to draft where things are now, the Joint Resolution including: . The Resolution will be shared with the three Boards - The three owners are before the January Assembly of Governments meeting moving forward with establishing MOU - Will be embarking on Environmental Impact Study as soon as details are worked out 4. Partnership MOU • John Roberts will take the lead in working with the other development attorneys to develop a base document for the group to consider for the MOU about the partnership S. Reconvene the group in . The group will come back together in a facilitated early to mid February meeting to check in after the Assembly of Governments meeting Evaluating the session The facilitator asked participants to reflect on what worked well about this session and what they would like to see changed for the next one. What worked well What to change for the next session - Organization - Look at time frames, to move with speed - Arrangements—good size group —sequencing - Right people at the table for each - Maps on the walls—visuals jurisdiction - Coffee and snacks - Ground rules—respectful, listening and responding - Focus on next steps with actionable items - Facilitating conversation Greene Tract Facilitated Discussion Minutes, December 2019, Page 13 14 Facilitated Conversation about the Greene Tract Summary of Key Topics Discussed & Questions Raised December 18, 2019 Topic MOU/Government How long will it take to develop?A year? • Is this an equal partnership? Document What happens if there is a disagreement—is it prorated? Can - Master document, A-Z two parties override one? •- Global agreement about What happens if there is one party with a 65% interest? Who's in? partnership . What will the timeframe for decisions be? • What will public education/engagement pieces look like? • Are partners developers or just owners? • Does this include goals and principles? Agreement for • What are the mechanics of the study? Environmental Impact • Who's paying for it? • Is this staff driven? MMC driven?Attorney driven? Study . Who approves the RFP? • Who selects and contracts with consultants? Narrow agreement just for EIS . Who puts it in motion? Environmental Impact • Why do this now? Study • Can it be handled administratively? • When does it typically occur? • How long does it take? - Technical, detailed . What are the mechanics? information . What are the outcomes? - Bridge to connectivity study . Where will the study focus?Which parcels? - Can inform vision and values for developing property