The Fate of the Riverlands
TBD So Far by Stickers and Sticky Notes from ≈0.39% of the Sugar Hill Population.
The City of Sugar Hill conducted its first round of public input meetings regarding the 160-acre Chattahoochee Riverlands property on Tuesday, June 4 and Tuesday, June 11, almost a year and a half after the Development Authority began its Riverlands meetings.
The City relied on its preferred “Open House” format, which was also recently employed for the City’s Downtown Streetscape Improvement Project.
The “Open House” format usually lasts a couple of hours and features displays placed around the room. It divides the audience as people drift in and out over a period of time and gather around the displays in smaller groups when they do arrive. The obvious inefficiency of the setup is that the City and its representatives end up answering the same questions over and over again. On the other hand, it offers the obvious opportunity to answer questions differently for different people, or handle questions with no good answers away from public view.
The City used the Community Room on the first level of City Hall (which is already a bit small) and set everything up so only about half of the room would be used, limiting the number of people who could participate at one time and making the “House” significantly less “Open.”
The first four boards shared some information about the property and the project. The final two boards in the sequence were for the public to submit feedback - by placing color-coded dot stickers in boxes for the different options and sticky notes for comments.
There were no announced rules stipulating who was eligible to submit feedback. Because of that, it’s important that everyone knows exactly who participated.
Members from the Development Authority, who may ultimately have more say-so on the Riverlands than anyone in town except their de facto leader, Council Member Taylor Anderson, were placing stickers on the boards.
Realtor and Sugar Hill Development Authority member Josh Mendoza brought his minor children to place stickers on the boards. They also wrote sticky note suggestions for the boards.
Matthew Holtkamp, who is a Buford resident and Gwinnett County Commissioner for Sugar Hill’s District, placed stickers on the boards.
Some City employees placed stickers on the boards. Some lived within the City Limits. Some were not inside the City Limits, although they do live in the area. Real Deal could not determine whether one of the employees lives within the City Limits or not.
Some people were there who do not live within the City Limits, although they do live directly adjacent to the property.
Willam and Dean Reeves, presumably the same William and Dean Reeves of development firm Reeves + Young, attended the Open House, according to event sign-in sheets obtained by Real Deal Sugar Hill.
City Council Member Gary Pirkle attended the June 4 meeting and placed stickers on the boards. City Council Member Meg Avery attended the June 11 meeting and placed stickers on the boards.
Mayor Brandon Hembree came to the meeting while Avery was there. He took issue with her speaking with Holtkamp and outlining the expenses associated with operating a Nature Center, telling her that was “negative.” He also told her that the meeting was for the public more than the Council Members and that Council Members should be there to “listen.” However, he then proceeded to do a lot of talking to others. Real Deal Sugar Hill is not aware of whether he gave that same lecture to members of the Development Authority. He did not place stickers on the boards.
Some of the names on the sign-in sheets were illegible, and some people who attended the Open Houses did not sign the sheets. According to those sheets, 56 people attended the June 4 Open House and 43 attended the June 11 Open House, not counting the people who were all supposed to be there to answer questions, such as the Development Authority members (some of whom did vote and place comments on the board), and the Planning Department employees, Parks and Rec Director, and City Manager, and Assistant City Manager. Those specific employees were only observed speaking with the public, not voting or placing anything on the boards.
According to World Population Review, the current population of Sugar Hill is 25,692, which means that about 0.39% of the population attended these Open Houses. No one knows exactly how many of them voted, or how many times any of them voted.
Real Deal did not take pictures of all the attendees, or even most of them. I did photograph most of the notable sticker voters mentioned above. A staff member asked me to stop photographing these individuals, calling it “intimidating.”
Two observers from Real Deal Sugar Hill attended both meetings. Both of us placed stickers at the first meeting, my associate also placed sticky notes on the board at the first meeting, and both of us observed during the second. I refrained from placing sticky notes on the board because I’ve already got the biggest Post-It Note in town.
— The Information —
There was no introductory presentation in which common questions were addressed all at once. The Assistant City Manager, Planning Director, and two members of the Planning Department were there to represent the City, as were Development Authority Directors, Chair Denise Hoell, Mark Garnazian, Mark Hagan, and Sheri Emigh (first Open House), and Vice Chair Steve Graessle, Lexie Crowson, Garnazian, and Hagen (second Open House).
The first board shows and provides a limited description of the land holdings.
The second board indicates the areas of the Riverlands that face some sort of regulation or restrictions, probably to assuage public concerns about the development of the property. However, the board does not provide specific details about the regulations and restrictions.
The third and fourth boards detail studies commissioned by the City of Sugar Hill.
The first study mentioned is the City’s “Parks, Recreation, and Greenspace Master Plan.” This study was last seen publicly in October 2022, when CPL, an engineering and planning firm, conducted some roundtables to gather feedback from the community. To date, no results from that Master Plan have been shown to the public and no report has been submitted to the public for final approval.
At the first Open House on Tuesday, June 4, Real Deal Sugar Hill asked two employees (one from the Planning Department and one from Parks and Rec) about why the City has yet to receive a completed study from CPL, and received extremely vague answers from both. Real Deal also inquired how they were mentioning information from the study if the study was not complete. The Planning Department employee indicated that the City has the data, but not the finished report. On Wednesday, June 12, Real Deal Sugar Hill submitted an Open Records Request for “any documents received from CPL from 2022 to the current day as part of their Parks and Rec Master Plan initiative.“ On Friday, June 14, the City responded that the custodian of the records would not be able to deliver those records to the City Clerk until a week later on Friday, June 21.
The second study mentioned is a commercial study performed by KB Advisory Group (formerly Bleakly Group, which performed the housing study in conjunction with the City’s 2020 plan). The City also has not made that study public.
Also, when the City says that just 10% of the land would be commercial, they’re not being entirely honest. In addition to the commercial options discussed on this board, such as retail, hospitality, and office space. they also presented recreation options that people would have to pay to use, making them commercial as well.
— The Public Input —
The final two boards were for the public to submit feedback using stickers. The photos below were taken at the very beginning of the first Open House on Tuesday, June 4, for which Real Deal Sugar Hill had arrived early and was one of the first members of the public in the room. As you can see, someone with earlier access to the room had already sticker-voted. Some of the items are self-explanatory. “Recreation Retail” is a tad vague. Is that something like the longtime and dearly departed “The Dam Store", or an REI? “River Activities” is so vague that its presence seems more like a trap than a true invitation for public input.
Out of the ten (10) options, five (5) are things people would definitely have to pay to do (Recreation Retail, Community Garden, Glamping, Restaurants, and Event Center). People might very likely have to pay to use some of the picnic areas (the City currently charges $75 to use the existing picnic pavilions at Gary Pirkle Park, Ridge Lake Parkand Gold Mine Park). The Botanical Garden and River Activities are possibly also activities people would have to pay to access.
The presence of the “Community Garden” option was a bit interesting given that Sugar Hill already has a community garden where individuals can rent plots. Development Authority Vice Chair Steve Graessle knows this, because he is heavily involved with the existing Sugar Hill Community Garden.
The City also already has event spaces in the E Center and 39th Street Station.
~ June 4, Open House 1 ~
At the conclusion of the first Open House on June 4, the Planning Director ushered everyone out not long after the stated end time of 8 PM. Real Deal Sugar Hill took these photos of the sticker boards on the way out the door. As you can see, respondents heavily favored unpaved paths. Glamping was the least popular option while recreation retail, an event center, and a second community garden were also not popular options.
In the closeups of the sticky notes, you can see that multiple respondents indicated a desire for a dog park, although the City is already doing that for its new Ridge Lake Park. The Bentonville, AK suggestion was mentioned at the last Development Authority meeting, so it may have come from one of the Development Authority Directors.
~ June 11, Open House 2 ~
The City allowed the second Open House on June 11 to continue well past the stated end time. Real Deal Sugar Hill again photographed the sticker boards on the way out the door.
The voters for the second group seem way more in favor of everything.
— A Final Riverlands Master Plan —
The City selected development firm Thomas and Hutton to create the final Riverlands Master Plan, and anticipates that plan will be complete and finalized in September or October of this year.
~ The “Data” ~
Real Deal Sugar Hill asked a Planning Department employee at the June 4 Open House if the City would conduct any kind of an online survey in conjunction with the Riverlands Master Plan project. The employee indicated that the City did not intend to conduct an online survey, because the shot callers at the City think the Parks and Rec Master Plan, the KB Advisory Group Commercial Study, and the “Envision 100” update of the City’s comprehensive land use plan are enough.
The Parks and Rec Master Plan
Again, the Park and Rec Master Plan, last seen in October 2022, has inexplicably not been shared with the public. After all this time, most people in the community probably don’t even remember doing it and what they said. They’re extremely unlikely to remember what they heard other people say. As with these Riverlands Open Houses, there were not that many attendees, especially as a percentage of the overall Sugar Hill population.
The KB Advisory Group Commercial Study
A draft of the KB Advisory Group Commercial Study was completed in May of this year, but it also hasn’t been seen by the public yet. KB Advisory Group (formerly Bleakly Group) has done other studies for the City of Sugar Hill, notably the housing assessment that resulted in a proposed site plan from the City in 2020 that called for 146 acres of new housing for the Riverlands North area.
Real Deal Sugar Hill has a draft copy of the Commercial Study, although emails just obtained in response to an Open Records Request (ORR) suggest an updated draft will be available soon. For some reason, the City’s Planning Director found it necessary to give KB Advisory Group “a heads up” about the ORR.
And yes, it will be published along with commentary. It’s the public’s right to see the document for which they have now paid $22,750 and my right as a resident, taxpayer, and American to comment on it.
For future reference, listening to the public first to learn what they want BEFORE you start working instead of coming to them dead last for validation might alleviate controversy and the City’s obvious apprehension regarding public commentary.
Envision 100
“Envision 100”, the City’s name for its most recent periodic update of the comprehensive land use plan, was mostly about the City as a whole. People were not asked much about the Riverlands specifically, nor do the future plans in the completed report say anything very specific about the Riverlands.
While the City touted the public involvement of its “Envision100” campaign, in reality, it suffered from some of the same issues as the City’s other attempts to involve the public.
First of all, they gave it a name concocted by marketing folks that does nothing to describe or clarify what it actually is. People who work in and around the City all the time know and remember what it is, but the general public, who isn’t involved with City business on a daily or weekly basis, maybe not so much.
Second of all, the City did such a poor job of announcing their “virtual input forum” for Envision 100 that the force of public blowback forced them to extend the time period for the survey.
Third of all, they created a 23-person steering committee significantly composed of people who are friendly to the City and not likely to challenge anything, such as:
two City Council Members (Marc Cohen and Jenn Thatcher)
the Chair and Vice chair of the Sugar Hill Development Authority (Denise Hoell and Steve Graessle)
the Chair of the Sugar Hill Downtown Development Authority (Jack Wolfe)
a member of the Sugar Hill Youth Council
the coordinator of the City’s Suite Spot
two members of City boards (Arts Commission and Historic Preservation Society)
two local realtors who are outspoken and aggressive friends of Taylor Anderson
a member of the community who received $5,840 in a 2020 GoFundMe campaign organized by Sugar Hill City Council Member Marc Cohen, who stated on the GoFundMe page that he is from Buford, GA instead of Sugar Hill, GA
They did a poor job of announcing the first meeting of the steering committee and only announced the subsequent meetings after they were confronted about it.
The one absolutely shining example of public inclusion for Envision 100 was the online survey, the results of which can still be seen on the original survey page Envision 100 Survey.
You can also see all of the responses, including a breakdown of the Top 10 in this article from Real Deal Sugar Hill.
A video of all the responses is also featured on the Real Deal Sugar Hill YouTube page.
.
What did most respondents cite as top concerns for Sugar Hill?
Overdevelopment and the conservation of greenspace.
Real Deal Sugar Hill visited the City of Sugar Hill Planning Department in March 2024 and asked if the City still had use of the software tool used for this survey. A Planning Department employee involved with both Envision 100 and the Riverlands project indicated that she thought they did.
I suggested that the City use it again for the Riverlands project and stated that even if it cost the City some money to reactivate the subscription, it would be money well spent.
~~ Next Steps ~~
At this point, Thomas and Hutton is supposed to use the Open House feedback described and shown above, data from the Parks and Rec Master Plan and the Commercial Study, as well as their own research to create three (3) proposed Master Plans.
Those options will be presented to the public in another series of open house meetings. A date for those meetings has not been set, although according to an employee from the City’s Planning Department, the meetings will most likely be in late July or August.
Real Deal Sugar Hill asked a Planning Department employee via email,
“What if respondents don't like any of the options presented? Is there a "None of the Above" option that sends the City back to the drawing board?”
The response was that,
“The details have not been ironed out, but we will make sure to have representation for the different possible viewpoints.”
We’ll see.
Correction (7/17/2024 11:05 AM): The original version of this story said that Joel Bowman of B+C Studios voted in the June 4 Open House. I later shared a photo of the individual, and a reader informed Real Deal Sugar Hill that the person in the photograph was misidentified. Upon review, I believe the reader is correct. The statement that Joel Bowman voted at the Open House has been removed. I apologize and regret the error.