Fayetteville Street Planning Group

The list of plans is now so long in the Fayetteville Street corridor that it takes more than two hands to count them all.The situationresembles the proverbial elephant in the livingroom with plans taking up most of the room.What's more, the government's approach fragmented the planning process into interest-driven pieces rather than adoptingtheneighborhood-friendly approach proposed in the Fayetteville Street Historic Neighborhood Master Plan.

FYI, the Fayetteville Street Plan was a community-driven plan submittedto city officials in August of 2005 for review and adoption -- just as other plans have been such as the Ninth Street Plan and the Downtown Master Plan Update. In 2005, the only official plan that had been approved wasthe Fayetteville Street Local Historic District Plan, which was driven by stakeholders in the Fayetteville Street corridor.

It is perplexing that so many plans havesteamed ahead (with funding, too) since the Fayetteville Street Plan's initial presentation to city officials in 2005 -- yet the original plan submitted by folks in the Fayetteville Street corridor has been ignored and left to gather dust for over 4 years now. Hmmmmm.

In addition to the sheer number of plans, thetiming and location ofplans proposedfor the Fayetteville Street corridor hasagain fueledsuspicion that the Hayti area is once again the target of massive developmentchanges found no where else in the City of Durham.

Where else in Durham do you haveseven (7) approved plans in addition tofive (5) proposed plans -- for a total oftwelve (12) plans? The answer is ---nowhere. The plans are listed below that we know about so far.

Existing (Approved)Plans:

• NCC 1964 Redevelopment Plan
• Fayetteville Street Local Historic District Plan
• RKG Economic Assessment Study
• NCCU Master Plan
• Corridor of Gateways Plan
• Downtown Rezoning
• Safe Route to Schools Plan (Fayetteville Street Road Diet)

Proposed Plans:

• Fayetteville Street Neighborhood Master Plan
• Neighborhood Commercial Streetscape Plan
• Southside/Rolling Hills Plan (see map below)
• Fayetteville Street/University Land Use Plan
• Stokesdale National Historic District

• Why have only African American neighborhoods been "targeted" for redevelopment?
• Why have only African American neighborhoods been "targeted" for aggressive code enforcement and blight designations?
• Why have the majority of attendees at the Southside/Rolling Hills meetings beencity staff,city-hiredconsultants or others who liveoutside this community?
• Why have impactstudiesnot beenshared with the publicfor such a large-scale redevelopment ---particularly sincethe city has ownedRolling Hills for almost a decade?
• Why was the consultant allowed to remain a participant given that they did not fulfillits initial financialobligation under the agreement with the city?
• What is the financial structure of the Southside/Rolling Hills deal with the city?

With all the talk about thefailure of the national and state economies toproduce jobseven after the infusion of stimulus money, a serious discussion about unemployment solutions for adultfolksin Durham's neighborhoodshas been largely missing from media reports.Although theHolton School opened recentlly, itonlyserves people up to the age of 21 who are eligible to attend Durham Public Schools and presents no opportunities for the hard-coreor thelong-term unemployed to gain employment. See the stats from the 2000 census on inner city unemployment below.

Source: Dataplace

What's more,the ever-present accoladesabout our city's economic strength in national polls tends to obscure this persistent and serious problem.So whereis the local plan (one that's not dependent on stimulus money) to stem unemployment that's double-digit inneighborhoods around downtown?

The Wizard of Id cartoon aboveseems todescribe the Durham solution for double-digit neighborhood unemployment. And given the potential displacement of residents fromthe growinglist ofredevelopment projects,it appears that moving the problemis tops on the listof solutions.

At the same time, another Wizard of Id cartoon might just offer a solution to the seemingly intractable inner-cityunemployment picture. In the cartoon below, one of the businesses stillhiring is a neighborhood business. In fact, the owner says he's doing "great!" when Sir Rodney asked him how's business.If we look beyond the humor of Sir Rodney's question "Are you hiring?", we can see that the confident business man has a good location (attracting Sir Rodney as he passes by), his product is reasonably priced ($ 1.00) andhe's upbeat and personable to boot. Put all these ingredients together and you have the recipe for a successful business.

If we apply this not-so-subtle humor to Durham, it would appear that creating a better business environment for local business people would go a long way toward easing our unemployment woes. At a city council meeting last month , Kevin Dick, Director of Durhams Economic Development Department, stated that Durham County had approximately 11,000 unemployed and Durham City had about 9, 100. Given that neighborhood businesses tend to hire neighborhood people, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that if even some of Durham's existing6000+ businesses hired just one person, our unemployment problem would improve tremendously.

Empowering local business people to hire more local residents is not a far-fetched proposition. The chances thatneighborhood residentswould be hired by local restaurants, beauty salons, retailers and flower shops are far greater than their chances of being hired by IBM or other national employers. What's more locals living near neighborhood business districts can walk or bus to work.

The message is that government should focus on providing the environment conducive to helping local businesses provide more jobs --particularly those businesses that areconcentrated in neighborhood business districts. How can local government do this? Government can improve the infrastructure in our neighborhoods to provide a safe, clean and attractive venue to enhance the aging but functional infrastructure that's already there. Two public investments come to mind and they arecommunity policing for neighborhood business corridors and adjacent residential areas andstreetscape improvements for visual and transportation upgrades.

OK, so whats Michael Corleone's picturedoing in this article? It'shereto make a point.

Rememberthe scenein the first Godfather movie when Michael Corleone was driving in the streets of Havanna on the eve of Castros revolution? Sensing an upheaval of the economic system that would guarantee his family more fortune, he rejected an investment in Cuba at that time. Corleone was not willing to risk his family's investment capital in an unstable environmentwhere economic and legaloutcomes would behard to predict. So he wisely (in this context)declined to invest in Cuba and pursued a more predictable market in the soon-to-be-booming southwestcity ofLas Vegas.

From the underworld to other business worlds,businessturns on confidence (the stock market for example) created by the perceivedreduction in risk and the projected prospect of gain.So far from being a government handout, public investments have historically spurred private investment once the perceived investment risk has been reduced -- and the projected gain quantified.

Private investment in inner city neighborhoods is scarce because of the perceived higher risk and lower gain. Publicinvestment is supposed to help level the playing field by enhancing whatever assets exist in these local markets (and they are many and several) and reducing the perceived risk. But public investmentthat would helpinner-city neighborhood business districts has beenabsent for decades allowing the slow deterioration of assets to erode, guess what, confidence in these neighborhoods.

Besides restoring funds to neglected neighborhood business districts,a public investment in infrastructure would go a long way towardstimulating confidence in making thoseprivate investments that would ultimately provide jobs for local residents and benefit existing stakeholders in these neighborhoods.

• Areas previously agreed upon for discussion were excluded at today's session including the redevelopment areas in Rolling Hills, Heritage Square and the former Fayetteville Street Apartments. Also excluded were neighborhoods to the south of Nelson Street which comprised a significant portion of the plannning area outlined in the Fayetteville Street Master Plan.
• One participant, who also sat on the advisory committee for the land use review, reminded city staffers that today's geographic boundarieswere different than those last communicated in the advisory committee meeting and represented a material change to previously-agreed-upon areas for public discussion.
• No handouts were providedto accompany the power point presentation
• No explanatory or background materials were providedto enable participants to understand the context in which their recommendations would be received. With no presentation of other plans being considered for this area by city officials, participants felt they would be at a disadvantage in making any judgments about land use and zoning. It was particularly troubling that staff came unprepared to address the questions that participants had about other plans thatthe cityhad prior knowledge of -- but failed to bring to the meeting.
• The fragmented review of the Fayetteville Street Master Plan versus a full review of other plans such as Ninth Street was a concern.Staff's response was that the city council refused to adopt the Fayetteville Street Plan.
• The city's asking neighborhood stakeholders to repeat a process already completed during the creation of the Fayetteville Street Plan suggested that the city would only consider a plan if it originated at the city (the not-created-here syndrome).
• The meeting should be recorded for an accurate transcription of citizens' comments
• And finally, all of the aforementioned issues only magnified the distrust that neighborhood stakeholders felt about the City of Durham when it came to Fayetteville Street, previous urban renewal actions and recent rezonings.

• Maintain and develop the area as single-family residential
• For new development opportunities, rehab existing homes first before adding any new home construction to the area
• NCCU to align its enrollment goals with its on-campus capacity for student housing and parking to avoid taking nearby residential properties
• Preserve historic homes and structures on Fayetteville Street in the local historic district
• Enhance public service structures such as Stanford Warren Library

Concerned citizens reiterated the need for a 4-way electrictraffic signalat the intersection of Riddle Road (Secondary Road SR 1171)and South Alston Avenue (Secondary Road SR 1945)at the June 2009 budget hearing. There is a 4-way stop now at this intersection.

Citizens from the immediate community and local churches again put forth a request that has been presented to the city council since 2002. You can hear what items citizens asked to be funded by clicking on the link below to the June 1, 2009 budget public hearing. The public hearing was Agenda Item is #34.

http://durham.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=264

If you live, drive or walkthrough this area, you've probably approached the intersection pictured above either with a fair amount of dread or an added portion of vigilance.Drivers seems not to know when to stop or go -- and hesitation here could be fatal. The potential foraccidents is especially high during the morning and evening rush hours when people are in a hurry to get where they're going. This is a favorite route to RTP. Perhaps this arrangement was adequate in the past when traffic volumes were lower but the area is growing and traffic has increased over the past decade.

South Alston Avenue and Riddle Road areboth state roads much like Fayetteville Street. It is a heavily-traveled north-south corridor containing a mixture of commercial and residential buildings. It is one of several routes to the Research Triangle Park and RDU International Airport as well as a local connector street to neighborhoods in the area such as Collier Estates andUnity Village.

In addition to the link to the public hearing, please view the link below for the June 15, 2009 city council meeting where this item was discussed in the context of projects to be funded by the stimulus money. The requested traffic signal was not funded and the discussion was merely that -- a discussion. No action was taken by the council-- just the usual bantering to defeat whatever action was requested.This ensuing councilquestion-and-answer session with staff (guaranteed tojustify council's decision not to take a particular action)is a favorite council action to banish whatever the item is to the backwater of the public's memory and hopefully forever, from the council's agenda. The link is below and the Agenda Item is #39:

http://durham.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=271

However, comments made by Public Works Director Katie Kalb did not square up with information obtained from NCDOT. Katie Kalb, stating that traffic counts had decreased at this intersection,said "And in fact the traffic counts have actually gone down over the last ten years ...at this particular intersection".

Traffic counts obtained from NCDOT's traffic count department showed that traffic at this intersectiondid decrease from 2003 - 2005 in 3 of the 4 quadrants but increased from 2005 - 2007. The traffic maps provided by NCDOT for 2003,2005and 2007 can be seen by linking on the appropriate year's map.

What's more, an approved site plan for the Washington Terrace retail development just south of the NC 55 - Riddle Road intersection projected an increase of 9,027 daily site trips due to traffic impacts from this development in theTraffic Impactanalysis (TIA).Of those trips, the traffic load distribution showed that 10% of the additional traffic (902 site trips) wouldincrease on Riddle Road from theeast and that 5% of the additional traffic (451 sitetrips) would increase on Riddle Road from thewest to that development.

The TIA alsoprojected a 3% annual increase in regular traffic (not attributable to any particular new development) on Riddle Road from 2007 which was the year the site plan was approved.

With NCDOT traffic countsincreasing in theofficial maps,it's puzzling why the public works director stated thattraffic has decreased at this intersection.It's also puzzling how traffic would be forecast todecrease in the future given the traffic impacts from theapproved Washington Terrace development along with the increase in local traffic along Riddle Road itself.

Is the City a streetscape cheapskate?

If you've viewed theapproved budget and CIP (Capital Improvement Program) for next year FY 2009-2010, you'd probably say "no". And if you listened to city manager Tom Bonfield's comments to streetscape advisory members at theAugust 6, 2009work session after the budget, you'd also probably say "no". Although the city has requested federal stimulus money for streetscape improvements in the five neighborhood corridors, neighborhood advocates are concerned no local funding sources have been identified to position the project for implementation should the stimulus money be allocated.

No funds were approved to proceed with the design or construction of the neighborhood commercial streetscape project in the FY 2009-2010 budget or CIP. Although aJune 2, 2009Herald-Sun article quoted Bonfield as sayingthat there was a $ 6.8 million line item for the streetscape,a review of the approved budget found that the line item he referred to was listed under "Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization" and associated with an unidentified funding source for 2010-2011 and 2011-2012.

What's perplexing is that the streetscape funding was not found in the Public Works budget which is the department that handles large public domain construction projects. And what's even more perplexing is why a public works project like a streetscape would be listed under Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, whose project description on page 4 of the introduction states that projects funded by housing bonds are included in this category and produce program revenues for the city. A public works project like a streetscape would not produce program revenue and it was surprising to see it listed under this category.

Members of the Streetscape Advisory Committee were disappointed that no cityfunding source was identified for the project. Even more disappointing was the disclosure that the remaining $ 1.7 million from the 2005 neighborhood bond was not earmarked for the design of the construction drawings for the project -- which would position the project for federal stimulus funding. When members of the streetscape advisory committee stated that their understanding was that the $ 1.7 million was earmarked for the preparation of design drawings, Bonfield replied "...not necessarily".

Although the streetscape project was included in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)as #13 out of 21 projects, the delayed approval of the STIPhas placed the streetscape project in limbo from that funding source as well.

What's in your wallet?

No -- this is not the question from Capitol One about which credit card you use. Thisis the question that Fayetteville Street corridor citizens are asking about what's inthe upcoming budget for our neighborhoods.

But before the final budget is passed, a series of events will occur leading up to its adoption for fiscal year (FY) 2009-2010. The city's construction program for physical improvements is known as the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and it will be evaluated at the same time as the departmental budgets.

City manager Tom Bonfield will present the first pass of the budget and the CIP to council membersat the May 18, 2009 city council meeting. From that time on, departmental staff will make budget and CIPpresentations to council members (public can attend). Citizen comments will be heard at the June 1, 2009 public hearing on the budget. After citizen comments have been heard, the budget and the CIP will head into the final stretch for approval on June 15, 2009.

Fayetteville Street stakeholders have started to compile a list ofpriorities that we'd like to see funded for FY 2009-2010. Some of these issues have been presented to the city council for almost a decade and it will be interesting to see which council members support our neighborhood initiatives by funding these priorities. Stay tuned as we track how our city council membersvote on issues of importance to our neighborhoods --their votesbeing the only tangible evidence of their support.

City announcesFayetteville Street Corridor plan update

UCP members met with city planner Aaron Cain at its monthly meeting on May 11, 2009to hear about the city's plan to update land use and zoning plans for neighborhoods in the Fayetteville Street corridor.

Although the boundaries of the city's effort paralleled thosein the community-driven Fayetteville Street Plan, members were quick tonote the inconsistency in the city's not adopting theFayetteville Street Plan when it wasfirst presented to the city council for review in 2005. Members also questioned the intent and timing of the city'splan update since a community vision already exists in the Fayetteville Street Plan -- complete with land use and zoning recommendations.

Members felt the Fayetteville Street Plan should be reviewed andadopted rather than the city's embarking on a completely new process. "Why reinvent the wheel?" one member asked.

The Fayetteville Street Plan was presented on the heels of the approval of the city/county 2030 Comprehensive Plan which was adopted in February 2005.It would have been the first small area plan approved if the city had included itin the work plan of the JCCPC (Joint City County Planning Committee), which oversees the work of the planning department.

Instead, the Fayetteville Street Plan languished while the city staff advanced and approved other plans, such as the Ninth Street Plan and worked with private developers on plans for Southside and Rolling Hills. The NCCU master plan was also created and approvedin the four years after the Fayetteville Street Plan was first presented to the city. The sale of Fayetteville Street Apartments to Campus Apartments in Philadelphia by Durham Housing Authority was also another major land transfer in the area. All total, there are at least 8 known plans in the works for the Fayetteville Street corridor !!!

The map below shows all the known plans being advanced by others for the Fayetteville Street corridor -- all drawn after Fayetteville Street stakeholders submitted their plan to the city council and with some in direct opposition to the community's vision. Clearly there is no other area of Durham city or county with so many plans on top of plans on top of plans -- and with so much planned displacement of residents. See "How many plans are too many" for the initial discussion of this item on the What's Up page for 2008.

One of the more troubling plans still on the books is the 1964 North Carolina College (NCC) Redevelopment Plan which is a state-enabled redevelopment plan. This designation gives the City of Durham the right of eminent domain in the area around now North Carolina Central University. Group members suspect that the existence of this plan and its lack of a sunset clause (a clause indicating when a plan ends) has caused problems with NCCU's expansion and with the establishment of future plans for the area-- and that thismay beone of the drivers ofthe city's sudden interest in updating land plans south of NC 147.

Group members asked if the city attorney had rendered a legal opinion about how to remove the NCC 1964 Redevelopment Plan. Cainfirststated that the city attorney was of the opinion that they would seek the signatures of all property owners of record but later stated that he was not sure if all owners or just 50% would suffice legally. He also indicated that there might be some other options at the state legislative level at a previous meeting of the Old Hillside Neighborhood Association.

Group members also asked how conflicts among residents would be resolved on land use and zoning issues. Cain stated that a negotiated concensus would be sought first and if that failed the city council would decide. Some group members expressed concern that the city council often voted against neighborhood interests and their votemight offerlittle comfort in the event of an impasse. The Heritage Square vote was one example of where the city council approved a rezoning over the objections of over 100 local stakeholders. The vote to rezone the Massey family land for a new Lowe's on Fayetteville Road was another example of where the city council approved a rezoning over the objections of neighborhood residents.

Members made several suggestions to Aaron Cain concerning the plan update:

• Adopt the Fayetteville Street Plan as a small area plan or neighborhood plan
• Maintain existing neighborhoods as residential areas
• Preserve the history of the local area and enforce Fayetteville Street local historic district requirements
• Protect small business interests throughout the Fayetteville Street Corridor since Fayetteville Street contains the largest concentration of African American businesses in the city and county
• Limit the amount of commercial development and encroachment into neighborhoods
• Maintain and migrate toward low density development
• Rename the proposed plan the Fayetteville Street Corridor Plan since NCCU already has its own master plan. Afterall, the Ninth Street Plan is not called the Ninth Street-Duke University Plan.

UCPshares concernswith council members

On April 13, 2009 Fayetteville Street Group members joined other members of Unity in the Community for Progress (UCP) at the UCP's April meeting where Durham City Council members and Durham Police Chief Lopezhad beeninvited to attend. The meeting's purpose was to determinewhich community needs would befundedin the upcoming city FY 2009-2010 budget, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and federal stimulus package.

Three city council members attended -- Mayor Bill Bell, councilman Farad Ali andcouncilman Mike Woodard. District 4 Capt.RickPendergrass and Lt. ConradSmith attended from the police department.

Four questions were posed to city council members to frame the discussion on neighborhood issues followed by an question-and-answer session:

• Some say that Durham is an economic engine that has been funding growth in other counties since over 50% of Durham's jobs are held by people living outside the county. How do we get more Durham workers in the system to contribute to the tax base and eliminate high unemploymnent in neighborhoods?
• The City issued an Request for Proposal (RFP) for $ 50,000 for neighborhood economic development. Will this be a continuing effort and how much is budgeted for this item for next fiscal year?
• How does the Jordan Lake watershed issue affect our ability to get drinking water during the next drought?
• When will an unpaved road section between Wabash Street and Plum Street be paved?

The key issues weighing heavily on the minds of UCP members were crime, jobs and plans. Public safety was by far the most frequently cited issue. Citizen after citizen who spoke at the meeting urged police officers to get out of their cars and walk the beats as well as drive through neighborhood streets more often. Citizens also stated that changing the perception and the reality of crime would be anecessary preliminaryactionif thestreetscape and other infrastructure improvements were to get the investment returns desired by the city and by residents. Another public safety issue cited was the disparity in allocation of resources between the downtown police district and neighborhood districts.

Group members were dismayed to learn that funding for the streetscape did not make the cut for federal stimulus money -- although itsfundinghad been recommended by Mayor Bell at the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) meetingwhich is chaired by Mike Woodard. It was explained that only shovel-ready projects were being considered for the federal money and the streetscape is not yet shovel-ready.

When Bell statedthat stimulus projects had a two year implementation window, it was suggested that work begin immediatelyon completing the final engineering and construction drawings for the streetscape so that it would fit into the two year window. Also, the statementthat the streetscape would require stateright-of-way acquisition wasnot correct-- thus providing an even stronger rationale for getting the project ready for implementation in this budget cycle.

Group membersreiterated their interest tocity council members about positioning the streetscape for stimulus and localfunding because this project was viewedas a solution to many of the problems posed. It was pointed out that the streetscape would:

• Improve the Fayetteville Street corridor's appearance which would deter crime and boost local businesses (which could hire more local people)
• Provide immediate construction jobs in the construction of the streetscape improvements (new sidewalks, curbs, gutters, landscaping) -- trades where many African Americans can already be found
• Help implement recommendations from the Fayetteville St. Neighborhood Master Plan and ultimately adopt it as a neighborhood (or small area) plan

Other group members expressed concern about Durham's high tax rate given that Durhamhad the largest percentage of commercial property initstax base of North Carolina's four largest counties in 2006. Given this fact, it appears that our taxes should be going down-- not up.Using the rationale of increasing the commercial tax base as a reason for city/county development, redevelopment, rezoning and incentive policies appears to be flawed -- when(we repeat again) Durham already has the highest percentage of commercial property of NC's four largestcounties.

This then begs the question about why Durham, with an already sizeable share of commercial property in its tax base, still has:

• Higher taxes compared to other municipalities and counties?
• Higher poverty given some of the highest wages in the state?
• Increasingunemployment in neighborhoods around downtownfrom 1990 - 2000 before the current economic downturn?

NCCUMasterPlanHurtsCommunity Elders

• $ 3,013,500 Angier-Driver 1230 LF
• $ 5,120,000 Fayetteville Street 1600 LF
• $ 2,398,000 East Main Street 1100 LF
• $ 2,744,000 North Mangum 1120LF
• $ 2,486,400 West Chapel Hill Street960LF

• Concern about the future use of Whitted School by the community to house a skills center to reduce double-digit unemployment
• Concern about neighborhoods close to downtown being gentrified and residents and businesses being displaced
• Concern about a closed planning process for Southside and Rolling Hills that included very few neighborhood residents or business people
• Need for entry-level jobs near existing neighborhoods rather than moving people out
• Need for more community police walking and on bicycles
• Need for police to patrol neighborhoods streets off Fayetteville Street such as Price St., Dunbar St. and Dupree St.
• Reduce spending on discretionary projects like trails which are only usable in daylight as opposed to core services which are usable 24/7
• Need for traffic signal at Nelson Street and Fayetteville Street
• Redirect money from housing code inspection to repair/rehab for seniors

Neighbors of NCCUfirst expressed concern about potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhoodswhen the master plan was first presented to the publicin late January 2008. Neighbors and communitygroupsaround the schoolcomplied with Chancellor Nelms' request that the community put its concerns in writing to him before meeting with him. As a point of information, the meeting Chancellor Nelms promised to set up to discuss the points of concern never happened.

These concernswere presented in a 9-page letter to Chancellor Nelms 10 days after his request for written comments on the plan.Community concerns have beenexpressed to univerity officials in a series of letterssince February 0f 2008 --but no written response on impacts has everbeen received over the past year.

Even the disclosure that over 2000 people, many of them elderly,would be displaced from their homes in the plan's full configuation failed to get a response from university or UNC officials.

The university's continuedfailure toprovide written responsesto requests about impacts led the school's neighbors toask forspecific proof thatNCCU has complied with North Carolina state environmental law and with UNC policyby assessing the impacts that UCP members asked about a year ago. The state environmental law,called the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (NCEPA) is also known as the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).

NCEPA is also known as North Carolina General Statute 113A 1-13 and is usually abbreviated asGS 113A1-13. This law waspasssed to protect the state's human and natural resources from negative impacts resulting from anyproposed project that satisfies the3 criteria stated in the law. The NCCU master plan and the proposeddemolition of the Rivera House satisfy these3 criteria, which are:

1. An action by a state agency (issuing permits);
2. An expenditure of public money or private use of public land; and
3. A potential detrimental environmental effect upon natural resources, public health and safety, natural beauty, or historical or cultural elements of the State's common heritage. [NC General Statute 113A, sections 1 to 13].

In addition to defining the criteria for projects subject toNCEPA,NCEPA also mandates that every state agencydevelop a compliance process that tells its administrators how to comply with the law. Therefore, thereareversions of NCEPA forvarious state agencies spelling out which activities trigger NCEPA compliance (major) and which activities are exempt from the law (minor).Some of thestate agencies involved with oversight for NCEPA include the Department of Administration and the Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (DENR).

UNC policy1300.3(R) defines compliance for all 16 constituent state schools to ensure uniformity of interpretation of the law as well as its implementation throughout the UNC system. This policy is quite clear and specific that master plans fall in the "major" category that require environmental oversight.

It appears that both NC state law and UNC policy are consistent indefining master plans as activitiestriggering potential major impacts. The same law and policy also apply to the demolition of structures with historic significance over 50 years old -- i.e. the Edwards-Rivera House.

The issues of neighborhood preservationand historic preservationwere so importantthat many neighborhoodsnearNCCUhave gone a step further and have now asked the university for documents showing its compliance with state law and UNC policy.

It is both regrettable and troubling that the university has chosen to erect a "wall ofsilence" around the university and to ignore the community's repeated requests for required environmental impact information about its mater plan and demolition of the historically significant Edwards-Rivera House.

Letters toNCCU Chancellor Charlie Nelmsand UNC PresidentErskine Bowleswere emailed and mailed by first class letter on February 6, 2009 requesting this information under the North Carolina Public Records Act. Copies of the letters to Chancellor Nelms and President Bowles were also sent to state and federal elected officials, NCCU Board of Trustees,UNC Board of Governors andthe NC Council of State.

The neighborhoodsaround NCCUand throughout the city have expressed uncommon concern about the university's master planand awaita response to this public information request.

Master Plan DejaVu

When passing through the Fayetteville Street-Lawson Street intersection, the controvery involving that location is not apparent. And that controvery isthe Fayetteville Street community's ongoing struggle with NCCUabout the pace and direction of campus growth along withits impact on the surrounding historic neighborhoods.

The community'sconcern aboutNCCU's master plan is not new -- and neither is the concern about the Fayetteville Street-Lawson Street intersection where the Edwards-Rivera House is located. This is an important intersection for boththe university and the community for many reasons. This intersectionis acentury-old traffic interchange point for both entities, an intersection with historic assets in a local historic district and a gateway for the university. It is also part of a traffic system on Fayetteville Road thatgoes past Southpoint Mall and almost to Chatham County.It is no wonder then that this intersection has become something of aflashpoint for the town-gown relationship between the surrounding community and NCCU.

In 2006 Fayetteville Street Planning Groupmembers andother community members and neighborhood groups opposed a proposed roundabout at this same location. Events involving the roundabout bear a striking resemblance to events involving the 2007 master plan updateand theEdwards-Rivera House.

The proposed roundabout surfacedas part ofa rezoning for the BRITE Center inthe spring of2006 and was roundly opposed by Fayetteville Street advocates. The group was not opposed to the BRITE Center but had concerns about safety, transportation and business impacts on businesses and neighborhoods throughout the corridor.

The Durham city council delayed voting on the rezoning until school representatives met with community stakeholders and to resolve community issues. The roundabout was removed from the rezoning request at the university's request and several improvements were added to address community concernsincluding awrought-iron fence and anenhanced vegetative buffer at the rearof the BRITE Center adjacent to the Old Hillside neighborhood.

But even before the roundabout issue surfaced, community members had signaled their interest in being involved in any campus plans that might affect the surrounding community. In a November 17, 2005 meeting,Fayetteville Street Group members expressed an interest in any campus master plan updates from then-chancellor James Ammons. In a January 30, 2006 meeting, university officials told the Fayetteville Street Group that the 2002 Master Plan was not up to date and that the university had recently issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a new campus master plan.

The Fayetteville Street Groupthen shared a copy of its master planwith the universityonFebruary 24, 2006indicating that "The prevailing theme of the Fayetteville Street Plan was one of preservation -- of historic neighborhoods, structures, traffic patterns and most of all, our human capital ... that have sustained this community for the past century".Fayetteville Street Group members hoped that the Fayetteville Street Plan indicated the community's level of concern to university officials about the future of this historic corridor and the communitys desire to participate in the futuredevelopment of the corridor. The Fayetteville Street Group also provided a copy of the plan to Chancellor Nelms upon his arrival on August 28, 2007.

Although the Fayetteville Street Group proposed years ago that university and community members work together toidentify and resolve potential conflicts in their respective plans in a proactive manner, the events did not unfold in that manner under Ammons' leadership. And regrettablyevents have not happened in the spirit of cooperationunder Nelms' leadership either --as evidenced bythe NC Public Records Act request dated February 6, 2009.

Fayetteville Street Streetscape Final Design & Cost Unveiled

On January 26, 2009 Fayetteville Street stakeholders viewed the final design for the proposed streetscape running from NC 147 to Cornwallis Road and heard that the total cost for the entire project was projected at about $ 55 million. The tab for the Fayetteville Street corridor, the longest corridorby far among the neighborhoods,was about$ 33 million. The Fayetteville Street corridor is represented in yellow in the map below.

Prior to this meeting, on January 14, 2009 a representative from the Fayetteville Street Group attended the public hearing for the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan and asked the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) for state assistance in funding the $55 million streetscape project -- citing the need to reverse double-digit unemployment andstimulate business development throughout the corridors.

The TAC is chaired by city councilman Mike Woodard and he, along with Bill Bell, Diane Cattoti, Becky Heron and Ellen Reckhow represented Durham on that committee. When the figure of $ 55 millionwas mentioned, Bell commented that he was not aware that the Streetscape Advisory Committee had reached a consensus.

The Fayetteville Street Group member, who is also on the streetscape committee, stated that the consultant had just presented the cost figures at the previous night's meeting and this was why hemight not be aware of the cost just yet. Bell then asked Mark Ahrendsen of the city's transportation department to investigate the possibility of including the streetscape project if other projects were not going to move forward.